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? michael-laugh
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.
michael-laugh 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
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
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.
That’s not true, and it shows that you obviously haven’t investigated those revolutions or the theory behind them.
The entire populace would need to see the world differently than they do now.
Yes. This issue is dealt with through communist theory. A revolution is a process. It doesn’t end at a “change of regime.”
Its true that class and money are not immediately abolished, because they can’t be immediately abolished. The abolition of class and momey is a theoretical endpoint of a long period of transition because
The entire populace would need to see the world differently than they do now.
More or less as you put it.
You are saying that because the process isn’t automatic, and people now do not already see the world that way, that the process should never begin
You should investigate the actual revolutions you’re talking about, and read some of the basic theories behind them. If you are still against them, then at lesst you will actually know what you’re talking about, and your critiques would be worth hearing
