Vanguardism proving its practicality by being tested in real life and verified by existing practice is a practical argument.
Even if that was the case: it still didn’t connect with the statement I made. And you formulated it in a moralistic manner.
My views are more stable and consistent now, because of all of the buildup to forming them today.
Maybe. I don’t know you. I only know your comments on lemmy. And those point me to the conclusion that you don’t want to challenge your beliefs. You can claim otherwise till the cows go home. That’s the conclusions my observations point to.
Again, I’ll reiterate, I’m just more disappointed that it seemed you never even gave me a chance
I’ve given you ample. But the you post non-sequiturs about how great vanguardism is when I told you that Marxism doesn’t require vanguardism. That’s not something a thorough sceptic would do.
I framed it in a practical manner, the fact that vanguards have succeeded in their goals is evidence that they work. The fact that this is also morally good isn’t the basis of my argument for utilizing proven successful methods, but instead is the proof of their validity. I’ve given examples of how I’ve changed directly, but you can even scroll my oldest comments to see how I’ve changed my views, I even used to advocate for voting for Biden as “harm reduction” before I was convinced otherwise.
You can continue to claim that I’m inflexible based on your personal interactions with me, but I think it’s more evidence that you haven’t succeeded in changing my views where others have. After all, you don’t know me, I know myself better. I also explained why I defended vanguardism, it’s both to convince any onlookers of the validity of the strategy while also giving opportunity to change my own views (even if unlikely on this point).
Again, hopefully we can get off on the next convo on a better foot. If I was incapable of changing my views, then I’d still be a liberal like I was over a decade ago. I only came to Marxism-Leninism fully in the last several years, which coincides to reading far more theory than I previously had. In my personal experience with you, you’ve been incredibly stubborn and inflexible as well, but I at least don’t pretend that that forms a comprehensive view of you, and thus continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I framed it in a practical manner, the fact that vanguards have succeeded in their goals is evidence that they work.
I still stand with the statement that the argument is moralistic, but I disagree to disagree. It was still a non-sequitur, though. Youdidn’t address that part.
I know you have trouble grasping the concept of authority. That’s like… your whole deal. Just imagine being a Marxist without all the vanguard party and replacing the bourgeoisie with a class of bureaucrats bullshit.
The first part is an attack on me directly, the second is stating that vanguards “replace the bourgeoisie with a class of beauroctats” and that it’s “bullshit.” The first part is wrong, the second is easily seen as a value judgement on vanguards as a whole. I don’t think it’s a non-sequitor to address this point, even in the limited fashion that I did, which is more support for my point that you’re more interested in rhetorical wins than an actual convo.
The “bullshit” part was a personal judgement and not vital to the point I was making. The “class of bureaucrats” bit wasn’t refuted by you (except some form of “nuh-uh” right now) and also not really the point (it was rather a description of how I see the results of vanguardism). The main point was that Marxism doesn’t require Vanguardism, expanded with personal evaluation because I have emotional stakes in the matter and I am not an automaton. Answering “vanguards were actually good, tho” to that point was the non-sequitur bit.
So you’re just easily distractable if a personal evaluation is sprinkled in. That’s not really worthy to be condemned, but doesn’t exactly help a discussion.
It was partially refuted, in that even if you considered there to have been a class of beaurocrata (I don’t), that vanguard systems still achieved immense practical results for the working class. I could have gone more in-depth, but that wasn"t the focus of the comment, same with my point on Engels and you ignoring the main point to focus on when I said it was odd to frame their relationship in a sexual manner.
Marxism doesn’t require vanguardism, sure, but the fact is that it’s the most successful form thus far. You seem to call it “authoritarian” Marxism, which is just generally silly and a misanalysis of authority that goes against Marxist analysis of authority in general.
I’ll accept being easily distractable, I do have ADHD.
sbut the fact is that it’s the most successful form thus far.
Your whole point rests on this (debatable) point. But it still doesn’t really connect o the point I made.
which is just generally silly and a misanalysis of authority that goes against Marxist analysis of authority in general.
“Your analysis doesn’t adhere to my model of analysis, which is why it’s silly” is such a tankie take. And it doesn’t help you case that you’re supposedly (still) able to change your view. If you only accept other models of analysis based on how well they fit into your already held beliefs and not on how much their logic is coherent, you’ll never evolve your worldview beyond your already held beliefs.
It’s a good thing I don’t only accept models of analysis based on how well they fit into my already held beliefs, and instead by how coherent the logic is. That’s why I said calling Marxism-Leninism “authoritarian Marxism” is silly, because the logic isn’t coherent.
I really don’t think your method of argument based on inserting your own presumptions of my thought process, ie that I only accept things based on how they fit into my current understanding, is particularly effective. I already gave several examples of where I’ve changed my views, you’ve given no evidence of me being suddenly incapable of changing them beyond me not agreeing with you.
That’s why I said calling Marxism-Leninism “authoritarian Marxism” is silly, because the logic isn’t coherent.
Of course it is coherent from an anarchist model of authority: It’s a marxist ideology, based on the monopolisation of power in the party. Where is the logical incoherence? It’s only “silly” once you apply a definition that’s not part of the anarchist model. If you call that logically incoherent, you’ve got to point out how the anarchist model is internally inconsistent (i.e. not by relying on a marxist definition).
you’ve given no evidence of me being suddenly incapable of changing them
Lol. As if that’s something I’d be able to prove. I’ve given ample examples of why I believe that is the case.
Even if that was the case: it still didn’t connect with the statement I made. And you formulated it in a moralistic manner.
Maybe. I don’t know you. I only know your comments on lemmy. And those point me to the conclusion that you don’t want to challenge your beliefs. You can claim otherwise till the cows go home. That’s the conclusions my observations point to.
I’ve given you ample. But the you post non-sequiturs about how great vanguardism is when I told you that Marxism doesn’t require vanguardism. That’s not something a thorough sceptic would do.
I framed it in a practical manner, the fact that vanguards have succeeded in their goals is evidence that they work. The fact that this is also morally good isn’t the basis of my argument for utilizing proven successful methods, but instead is the proof of their validity. I’ve given examples of how I’ve changed directly, but you can even scroll my oldest comments to see how I’ve changed my views, I even used to advocate for voting for Biden as “harm reduction” before I was convinced otherwise.
You can continue to claim that I’m inflexible based on your personal interactions with me, but I think it’s more evidence that you haven’t succeeded in changing my views where others have. After all, you don’t know me, I know myself better. I also explained why I defended vanguardism, it’s both to convince any onlookers of the validity of the strategy while also giving opportunity to change my own views (even if unlikely on this point).
Again, hopefully we can get off on the next convo on a better foot. If I was incapable of changing my views, then I’d still be a liberal like I was over a decade ago. I only came to Marxism-Leninism fully in the last several years, which coincides to reading far more theory than I previously had. In my personal experience with you, you’ve been incredibly stubborn and inflexible as well, but I at least don’t pretend that that forms a comprehensive view of you, and thus continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I still stand with the statement that the argument is moralistic, but I disagree to disagree. It was still a non-sequitur, though. Youdidn’t address that part.
You stated this:
The first part is an attack on me directly, the second is stating that vanguards “replace the bourgeoisie with a class of beauroctats” and that it’s “bullshit.” The first part is wrong, the second is easily seen as a value judgement on vanguards as a whole. I don’t think it’s a non-sequitor to address this point, even in the limited fashion that I did, which is more support for my point that you’re more interested in rhetorical wins than an actual convo.
Take care.
The “bullshit” part was a personal judgement and not vital to the point I was making. The “class of bureaucrats” bit wasn’t refuted by you (except some form of “nuh-uh” right now) and also not really the point (it was rather a description of how I see the results of vanguardism). The main point was that Marxism doesn’t require Vanguardism, expanded with personal evaluation because I have emotional stakes in the matter and I am not an automaton. Answering “vanguards were actually good, tho” to that point was the non-sequitur bit.
So you’re just easily distractable if a personal evaluation is sprinkled in. That’s not really worthy to be condemned, but doesn’t exactly help a discussion.
It was partially refuted, in that even if you considered there to have been a class of beaurocrata (I don’t), that vanguard systems still achieved immense practical results for the working class. I could have gone more in-depth, but that wasn"t the focus of the comment, same with my point on Engels and you ignoring the main point to focus on when I said it was odd to frame their relationship in a sexual manner.
Marxism doesn’t require vanguardism, sure, but the fact is that it’s the most successful form thus far. You seem to call it “authoritarian” Marxism, which is just generally silly and a misanalysis of authority that goes against Marxist analysis of authority in general.
I’ll accept being easily distractable, I do have ADHD.
Your whole point rests on this (debatable) point. But it still doesn’t really connect o the point I made.
“Your analysis doesn’t adhere to my model of analysis, which is why it’s silly” is such a tankie take. And it doesn’t help you case that you’re supposedly (still) able to change your view. If you only accept other models of analysis based on how well they fit into your already held beliefs and not on how much their logic is coherent, you’ll never evolve your worldview beyond your already held beliefs.
It’s a good thing I don’t only accept models of analysis based on how well they fit into my already held beliefs, and instead by how coherent the logic is. That’s why I said calling Marxism-Leninism “authoritarian Marxism” is silly, because the logic isn’t coherent.
I really don’t think your method of argument based on inserting your own presumptions of my thought process, ie that I only accept things based on how they fit into my current understanding, is particularly effective. I already gave several examples of where I’ve changed my views, you’ve given no evidence of me being suddenly incapable of changing them beyond me not agreeing with you.
Of course it is coherent from an anarchist model of authority: It’s a marxist ideology, based on the monopolisation of power in the party. Where is the logical incoherence? It’s only “silly” once you apply a definition that’s not part of the anarchist model. If you call that logically incoherent, you’ve got to point out how the anarchist model is internally inconsistent (i.e. not by relying on a marxist definition).
Lol. As if that’s something I’d be able to prove. I’ve given ample examples of why I believe that is the case.