Biden’s numbers among young voters have slid during his presidency from the high margins that helped him beat Trump. Several former supporters explain why.
No, I'm saying that it hasn't happened yet because humans as a whole aren't ready for it.
Which is what you're wrong about, because there are nations right now engaged in revolution. The largest nation in earth is currently involved in the most successful revolutionary project yet, which began back in 1949.
You're not wrong that the revolutionary potential in the imperial core is low for a number of factors. But that's not the world.
You also said
each time it has been attempted it wasn't really a communist revolution
Which is not true and was more what i was talking about.
I already knew you were saying that. You're wrong. If you want to talk about communism, you should investigate it first because you don't know what you're talking about
Nah. This is a circle jerk. I say a thing and then the reactionaries descend to tell me that I’m wrong. Yet nobody has anything to offer beyond “you’re stupid”.
I'll rephrase: each time it has been attempted it wasn't really a banning, but rather a group responsible for userbase change using the term as they appoint a new banned user.
Oh, you must have missed my comment then. Here you go:
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum
If they just wanted power, they could have easily joined the very powerful repressive governments that ruled at the time. Castro could have signed on with Batista's regime. Mao could have joined the ruling KMT. Instead, they risked their lives doing the much harder and more dangerous work of going against the US empire and it's puppet states.
theres no personal attack in anything i said. You just don't know what you're talking about in terms of any of thise revolutions. Seems like you don't even know what the internets favorite logic nerd term means either
That’s the part that makes it personal. Notable that you’ve still offered nothing in the way of your perceived correction. It stops at “you’re wrong” as if that were how conversations operate. If you believe I’m wrong, why not try to convince me?
That's not a personal attack. A personal attack would be saying your a dumb reddit-brained smuglord. And an ad hominem would be saying you're wrong because youre a dumb reddit-brained smuglord.
I didnt stop at saying your wrong. I said you should investigate the people and revolutions you're talking about, because if you did investigate you would know you're wrong. That's why i said you don't know what you're talking about, because no one could have actually read about the 1917 revolution, the Chinese Revolution, or the Cuban revolution and think that they are not communist revolutions, or just "dressed up in the clothes of communism"
If you believe I’m wrong, why not try to convince me?
If you believe you're right, why aren't you trying to convincing me?
You're the one who made an assertion that is obvioulsy untrue to anyone who knows about those subjects. You made these obviously false assertions without any evidence whatsoever, but somehow the burden of proof for what you said is on me.
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung
OPPOSE BOOK WORSHIP
May 1930
I. NO INVESTIGATION, NO RIGHT TO SPEAK
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum
If they just wanted power, they could have easily joined the very powerful repressive governments that ruled at the time. Castro could have signed on with Batista's regime. Mao could have joined the ruling KMT. Instead, they risked their lives doing the much harder and more dangerous work of going against the US empire and it's puppet states.
Which is what you're wrong about, because there are nations right now engaged in revolution. The largest nation in earth is currently involved in the most successful revolutionary project yet, which began back in 1949.
You're not wrong that the revolutionary potential in the imperial core is low for a number of factors. But that's not the world.
You also said
Which is not true and was more what i was talking about.
Removed by mod
I already knew you were saying that. You're wrong. If you want to talk about communism, you should investigate it first because you don't know what you're talking about
Removed by mod
No investigation, no right to speak. Do some self-crit + reading or shut the fuck up.
Nah. This is a circle jerk. I say a thing and then the reactionaries descend to tell me that I’m wrong. Yet nobody has anything to offer beyond “you’re stupid”.
A group of better educated people are telling me I’m wrong, clearly they are just reactionaries.
What a beautiful mind you possess.
>I'll rephrase: each time it has been attempted it wasn't really a communist revolution, but rather a group responsible for regime change using the term as they appoint a new elite.
I'll rephrase: each time it has been attempted it wasn't really a banning, but rather a group responsible for userbase change using the term as they appoint a new banned user.
[wheeze]
What are you doing to educate me? What have I learned here other than that a difference in thought offends you?
I’m not trying to, the only thing that can make a person learn is if they actually want to. No point in leading a horse to water.
In the mean time I’ll have some fun.
Oh, you must have missed my comment then. Here you go:
If they just wanted power, they could have easily joined the very powerful repressive governments that ruled at the time. Castro could have signed on with Batista's regime. Mao could have joined the ruling KMT. Instead, they risked their lives doing the much harder and more dangerous work of going against the US empire and it's puppet states.
Its interesting how they always seem to miss a comment that is providing what they claim to want. Hmmmmmm
“You just don’t know what you’re talking about…”
That’s the part that makes it personal. Notable that you’ve still offered nothing in the way of your perceived correction. It stops at “you’re wrong” as if that were how conversations operate. If you believe I’m wrong, why not try to convince me?
That's not a personal attack. A personal attack would be saying your a dumb reddit-brained smuglord. And an ad hominem would be saying you're wrong because youre a dumb reddit-brained smuglord.
I didnt stop at saying your wrong. I said you should investigate the people and revolutions you're talking about, because if you did investigate you would know you're wrong. That's why i said you don't know what you're talking about, because no one could have actually read about the 1917 revolution, the Chinese Revolution, or the Cuban revolution and think that they are not communist revolutions, or just "dressed up in the clothes of communism"
If you believe you're right, why aren't you trying to convincing me?
You're the one who made an assertion that is obvioulsy untrue to anyone who knows about those subjects. You made these obviously false assertions without any evidence whatsoever, but somehow the burden of proof for what you said is on me.
Shapiro voice: You replied with a picture. That's not how conversations work. If you believe you are right, why not try to convince me instead?
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung OPPOSE BOOK WORSHIP
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm
If they just wanted power, they could have easily joined the very powerful repressive governments that ruled at the time. Castro could have signed on with Batista's regime. Mao could have joined the ruling KMT. Instead, they risked their lives doing the much harder and more dangerous work of going against the US empire and it's puppet states.
Mao literally wearing the "Mao Suit" everywhere, just like a Communist Poser.