Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Araysar_sl said:
So a book by Karl Marx Or Mao on Communism doesnt Define or millions of Communists?
Click to expand...
No, and I think you'll find that that's a strawman, a pretty drawn out one, too.

I believe I said that Mao and Pol Pot and Lenin and other MAJOR world communist figures were defined by their stated beliefs and actions, as well as the movements they led and that these actions led to lots of bloodshed that modern Marxists white wash away in their attempts to insulate their political ideology from reproach.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
He clings very close to the postivistic, scientistic model towards the study of everything, which leads him down the road of heavy reductionism. It's pretty common, especially in the hard sciences, to misapply that paradigm. As I showed in the other thread regarding critical theory, it can sometimes lead to false conclusions, especially in social science.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
85,096
172,320
Mao's book on communism then doesnt define communism?

Marx's book on Marxism doesnt define Marxism?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Dumar_sl said:
He clings very close to the postivistic, scientistic model towards the study of everything, which leads him down the road of heavy reductionism. It's pretty common, especially in the hard sciences, to misapply that paradigm. As I showed in the other thread regarding critical theory, it can sometimes lead to false conclusions, especially in social science.
Click to expand...
Translation: He relies on observable, quantifiable evidence, rather than letting me rhetoricize him into a coma with nonsense subjective opinions from biased sources.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Araysar_sl said:
Mao's book on communism then doesnt define communism?

Marx's book on Marxism doesnt define Marxism?
Click to expand...
More strawmen.

People's actions and statements in life define them, and if they pull heavily from Marx, thent they themselves CHOSE to define themselves within that paradigm, particularly when they go on to found entire billion person nations based on those principles.

Don't switch sides and join the ranks of the intellectually dishonest bro. You're above that.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Also, Dumar, its hilarious that you would assert that positivism and hard quantifiable fact are dangerous in the social sciences, while you've struggled for 30 pages now to make your ideology literally unfalsifiable through outright denialism of facts counter to your world view.

THATS the real danger in the social sciences. That everywhere you'll look, you'll see only a reflection of what you want to see.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
Struggled, hardly. I pointed out to you numerous times communism as defined by Marx, and how that definition was in no way even close to being realized through Maoist policy. Please continue.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Dumar_sl said:
Struggled, hardly. I pointed out to you numerous times communism as defined by Marx, and how that definition was in no way even close to being realized through Maoist policy. Please continue.
Click to expand...
You cite two quotes by Marx while claiming all rights to define marxism as you see fit to insulate your ideology from reproach, then ignore vast sums of evidence to the contrary. You struggle with every post to justify why we should not include the actions of the major communist figures of world history in our understanding of socialism, while simultaneously you will happily lay all the blame for all those actions on the feet of people you despise.

Your double standards and malicious incapacity for self reflection are duly noted.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
85,096
172,320
hodj_sl said:
More strawmen.

People's actions and statements in life define them, and if they pull heavily from Marx, thent they themselves CHOSE to define themselves within that paradigm, particularly when they go on to found entire billion person nations based on those principles.

Don't switch sides and join the ranks of the intellectually dishonest bro. You're above that.
Click to expand...
Bro, you're the one being intellectually dishonest now.

So things that writers (philosophers, scientists, historians) write about do not define the things they write about???

So Aristotle did not define earliest forms of formal logic when he wrote about them?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Araysar_sl said:
Bro, you're the one being intellectually dishonest now.

So things that writers (philosophers, scientists, historians) write about do not define the things they write about???

So Aristotle did not define earliest forms of formal logic when he wrote about them?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not. This line:

So things that writers (philosophers, scientists, historians) write about do not define the things they write about???
Click to expand...
Is a strawman.

My statement was that Mao's actions, the groups he organized and movements he led and his constant operation from a Marxist paradigm defined him as a marxist.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
85,096
172,320
Then why did you bother citing pages upon pages from their books as proofs of anything?
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
85,096
172,320
So Mao's public speech is a legitimate proof of something but his writings arent?

Bro, you're twisting yourself into pretzels just to justify hating on someone's book about Kentucky.

Its obvious to everyone but you. And its very sad.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Anyway, the point is pretty simple:

People have the right to be taken at face value. Dumar and Mikhail's argument is that Mao wasn't a Marxist because the troubled periods in Chinese history under his leadership show that he wasn't operating from a Marxist framework.

To take that argument at face value, we have to throw out all the times that he was explicitly operating from that framework and just pretend they don't exist.

Mikhail and Dumar's argument is that they hold the right to determine what Mao's political ideology and economic philosophy was, not Mao.

Which is about as absurdly arrogant and condescending a box of horseshit ever sold.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Araysar_sl said:
So Mao's public speech is a legitimate proof of something but his writings arent?

Bro, you're twisting yourself into pretzels just to justify hating on someone's book about Kentucky.

Its obvious to everyone but you. And its very sad.
Click to expand...
His entire character must be taken into evidence. The argument you're trying to make is against a strawman position I never made. In fact a position you made up just above.

Sorry bro.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
hodj_sl said:
You cite two quotes by Marx while claiming all rights to define marxism as you see fit to insulate your ideology from reproach, then ignore vast sums of evidence to the contrary. You struggle with every post to justify why we should not include the actions of the major communist figures of world history in our understanding of socialism, while simultaneously you will happily lay all the blame for all those actions on the feet of people you despise.

Your double standards and malicious incapacity for self reflection are duly noted.
Click to expand...
Again, I myself have never defined anything. Marx's entire body of work is centered upon labor. The protest is one ofsocial relations tied together by labor and the commodities it produces under capitalism. That's the point. That's what communism is to change, to transform society into a free association of individuals. Maoist policy changed none of these social relations, as there was forced labor and labor camps full of millions of people. Instead of using capital in the form of a wage, if you weren't happy with this exploitation, you were brutalized and terrorized.

The State as an entity onto itself benefited from Mao's societal organization (and by proxy his party) under his so-called communism, not the people, not the individuals and their labor. Like I have shown, what Marx called an abstract capitalist in a form of organization that is similar in structure to capitalism but state-sponsored.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Araysar_sl said:
Including his writings?
Click to expand...
Again, I never said that Mao's writings defined every communist in history. I said it showed that Mao himself is and was a Communist, and that it is flat out fallacious for Mikhail and Dumar to sit here and proclaim that literally every. major. communist figure in history wasn't really communist, in fact were capitalist.

To illustrate the point again, if they were making that argument about Adolf Hitler, no one would take them seriously. That Hitler wasn't really a fascist, he was really a communist. You know, the argument that certain people who have a fascination with H2O2 has made multiple times over and been laughed off the forms for? Yeah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.