hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
You mean like claiming that Chairman Mao wasn't a Communist over and over without any justification besides "Because I said so" right?
Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread
- Thread starter Araysar
- Start date
- Status
He does misrepresent others often by transforming statements into vague generality, then addressing that generality. A reference or quote of Marx turns into getting labeled a radical communist. Notice he's never addressed my quotes directly, just labeled as radical and religious.
If he would spent all but a few weeks listening to Harvey, he might learn a thing or three, or thirty.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Flowchart for this conversation:
Is Mikhail Losing the Debate? Yes or No?
Yes?
Then the debate is specious, spurious, DISHONEST, why the enemy will say ANYTHING to get their way. I'm so offended that someone would use FACTS to refute me, instead of just resorting to calling everyone stupid and idiots and telling them the conversation is "too deep" for them.
I mean, its not like denying CHAIRMAN MAO was a COMMUNIST isn't being TOTALLY HONEST in every way, amirite?
Why is it that every communist on the internet makes this same horrible argument, every time? That they can't be held accountable for past failures, those weren't "real" attempts anyway!
It just reeks of intellectual spinelessness. Weak kneed passive aggressive apologetics for crimes as bad and worse than what the Fascists did. The very people Communists today claim they stand the hardest against, the very same people they were ALLIED WITH through half of World War 2.
Its like they don't want people to associate them with their past actions. Hmmm. I wonder why that would be?
Is Mikhail Losing the Debate? Yes or No?
Yes?
Then the debate is specious, spurious, DISHONEST, why the enemy will say ANYTHING to get their way. I'm so offended that someone would use FACTS to refute me, instead of just resorting to calling everyone stupid and idiots and telling them the conversation is "too deep" for them.
I mean, its not like denying CHAIRMAN MAO was a COMMUNIST isn't being TOTALLY HONEST in every way, amirite?
Why is it that every communist on the internet makes this same horrible argument, every time? That they can't be held accountable for past failures, those weren't "real" attempts anyway!
It just reeks of intellectual spinelessness. Weak kneed passive aggressive apologetics for crimes as bad and worse than what the Fascists did. The very people Communists today claim they stand the hardest against, the very same people they were ALLIED WITH through half of World War 2.
Its like they don't want people to associate them with their past actions. Hmmm. I wonder why that would be?
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Uh, no, you don't just "reference Marx"
You quote him. Chapter and verse.
There is a difference. IF anything, the problem is you can't see starting every conversation and trying to find a way to weedle in a Marx quote into every conversation, and using it as authoritative, as if just the fact that Marx said it and you can quote it makes it true, is the issue. I'm just exposing your tactics for what they are: Thin appeals to authority basically.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
I dunno.
It happens a lot in internet debates.
Its a really stale argument. I mean literally it would hold absolutely zero, no weight or water whatsoever, if Dumar and Mikhail had like Adolf and Goering photos and were making these same claims about Fascism, they would literally be laughed off the board with those tactics of holocaust denialism. Oh Hitler wasn't even really FASCIST. He was COMMUNIST. That's an argument regularly made by the right, right?
And its just a laughable bunch of baloney, right?
It's not whatsoever. If you're talking about any of the topics we've been discussing here and elsewhere on the forum, his quotes have monumental value - he's one of the founders of sociology as a discipline. Talking about communist here for example, it kinda makes sense to reference him.
But like I said it doesn't matter: you like to dumb-down the argument to generalities, easier to argue because you don't know this stuff in detail, which is fine, many don't. But label the situation as it is, not me the zealot.
But like I said it doesn't matter: you like to dumb-down the argument to generalities, easier to argue because you don't know this stuff in detail, which is fine, many don't. But label the situation as it is, not me the zealot.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Horrible images from the Halloween Maureen Ponderosa Wedding Massacre episode bro.
Horrible horrible images.
It depends on how you define communist. You can label Obama a communist. You can label me a communist. Mao labeled himself a communist. What does the label mean compared to the idea behind it? If you're view of the idea is one as defined by Marx, then no, Mao is not communist. If you define it some other way, then he could be.
No offense bro but I really seriously don't give a shit about your incredulity.
Well no matter what happens, we better not have a discussion about what the proper way to define it is and just go with whatever is the shortest path to calling calling all socialists literally pol pot.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Not as the end all be all authority on the matters, its not. If you were to say "Marx says this and I agree with this because of this and that" that's a lot different than "Marx said this and you should read it until you TRULY COMPREHEND IT THE WAY I DO!!!!"
Which is what you do.
But that's neither here nor there, because Mikhail said for the purposes of this conversation you can't cite Marx because he doesn't count.
The only dumbing down ANYONE else reading this thread sees, Araysar, myself, ANYONE, is you guys trying to write off entire sections of history as not relevant because you said so.
Really, you're just making baseless assertions to assuage your own ego at this point. Criticisms like "you're just arguing generalities" are unjustifiable attempts to slander because you're mad. So enjoy that. I know I am.
Loser Araysar
Log Wizard
- 85,089
- 172,300
Dumar,
You're just repeating the No True Scotsman fallacy. Mao and the Great leap Forward were clearly a large scale collectivization effort that underpinned the establishment of a Communist society.
You claim that it wasn't a true communist society and that's fine. But that's also the real point. Your optimal communist society can't exist of the inherent flaws in that philosophy. The outcome of a communist transformation looking like USSR, North Korea or China isn't an aberration, its the inevitable outcome.
They're not baseless at all. How many posts have I made, in earnest, only to be replied to as 'didn't read, or more radical communist nonsense'. There were many.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Why does communism deserve the extra attention to these details that you wouldn't give someone making the same arguments you're making here, except for Hitler?
Why is communism special? Why are you appealing, once again, to the special pleading fallacy to defend communism?
Communism means what it means: You subscribe to an ideology founded by a variety of thinkers, foremost accepted amongst them Marx and Engels, which subscribes to a belief system that capitalism is inherently exploitative, that redistribution of the means of production is a valuable tenant to strive for in society.
This isn't complicated. You guys want to make it complicated, because you are trying to innoculate communism from criticism, much like ANY DOGMATIC ZEALOT attempts to INNOCULATE their dogma from criticism.
There are entire branches of theology dedicated to trying to logically defend the Bible's claims as true. Doesn't make them true. Doesn't mean that we can't boil the whole book down as "a bunch of helpful moral tales written by sheep herders" and it be a valid criticism.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Exactly. They want to claim that these large scale attempts to collectivize and literally make Marx's theories come true aren't really communism because they failed.
Its the type of intellectual dishonesty that really rabid religious people engage in when confronted with facts about things like evolution that are inconvenient to their world view.
These guys are literally Communist Lumies. That's what they are.
It's not a fallacy when the "scotsman" is from new zealand. You can use the word "clearly" all you want but you're closing your eyes to the fact that all of the capital relations those so-called collectivization efforts seek to end are still there because, again, nationalization is not socialization.
Loser Araysar
Log Wizard
- 85,089
- 172,300
We dont sit here and argue that the exploitative aspects of capitalism are not really representative of capitalism and that TRUE CAPITALISM is an amazing self regulated ecosystem with no waste and no excesses and no exploitation. We all know that's bullshit. We take the good with the bad, and the good happens to significantly outweigh the bad.
But Communism is somehow allowed to be immune from that kind of critical analysis. This fantastic society has to exist in a perfect vacuum, under perfect conditions, etc.
Its comical.
But Communism is somehow allowed to be immune from that kind of critical analysis. This fantastic society has to exist in a perfect vacuum, under perfect conditions, etc.
Its comical.
- Status