We'll that and thinking that blindly saying that china and the ussr are good while also being unscientific in your analysis doesn't make you a lenninst. it makes you the walking stereo type of a 'ML' people refer to when they call lenninists tankies. This is a great discredit to the entire ideological framework of dialectic materialism and historic materialism.
Yes they are good. But why stress that they aren't perfect? This is an unscientific benchmark to bring into the conversation, and part of the greater issues at play.
A solid answer. But why even raise the concept of perfection to begin with - instead of emphasizing the good they've done navigating contradiction and maintaining their exsitance as a socialist state. To initially phrase that as being 'imperfect' seems to me to bring the readers attention to comparing socialist states against the utopian ideal, instead of promoting it's material strengths.
deleted by creator
We'll that and thinking that blindly saying that china and the ussr are good while also being unscientific in your analysis doesn't make you a lenninst. it makes you the walking stereo type of a 'ML' people refer to when they call lenninists tankies. This is a great discredit to the entire ideological framework of dialectic materialism and historic materialism.
deleted by creator
Yes they are good. But why stress that they aren't perfect? This is an unscientific benchmark to bring into the conversation, and part of the greater issues at play.
deleted by creator
A solid answer. But why even raise the concept of perfection to begin with - instead of emphasizing the good they've done navigating contradiction and maintaining their exsitance as a socialist state. To initially phrase that as being 'imperfect' seems to me to bring the readers attention to comparing socialist states against the utopian ideal, instead of promoting it's material strengths.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Must be fun not to have to take things seriously.