I'm not disagreeing with you here on whether or not the USSR is good or bad, that's not my point.
My point is that if both person A and person B want worker ownership and person C wants a dictatorship of Capitalism, then person A and B should ally, even if temporarily.
Person B is also a fascist, and should be let nowhere near power because they will purge person A the first second they can.
Even if they want 94% of the same things?
We aren't talking about MAGA Communists or PatSocs.
Let's say you and I align politically 99%. Our only point of contention is that I want to kill or jail you specifically. Are you going to ally with me and hope I change my mind later?
This is exaggerated to make a point, not a direct analogy.
What are the foundations of wanting to kill or jail me? Seems important, no?
You're saying if I have a good reason, you're OK with it?
Not necessarily, I'm saying your hypothetical lacks necessary information.
Presently, you've framed it in an Idealist manner, not a Materialist one. People's views aren't selected by a Random Number Generator in real life, they are the consequence of their Material Conditions. Matter creates thought, ideas do not create matter.
Looking at our hypothetical, you have a Leftist with the currently unexplained ideal that I personally should die for no reason. This doesn't make any practical sense, so we cannot apply this theory to practice.
In the case of this entire meme, there exists a divide, generally, between Marxists and Anarchists. Using your example of a Stalin defender, which situation is more realistic?
A: A Leftist believes everything the US state department has levied against Stalin is true, he killed 200 million people and murdered puppies, and believes that this is good, actually, and we should do more of it?
B: A Leftist believes nothing the US state department has said is true, and believes Stalin to be the second coming of Jesus Christ and Marx himself, and believes this to be a good thing?
Neither are realistic, but A makes far less internal sense, and cannot be reasoned with, as mass cruelty is the point. Person B, however, could be misled and instead worked with. Person B has good intentions with a faulty understanding, person A has bad intentions with a faulty understanding.
Do you see my point? Without knowing the origin of views, how can we hope to address them and how to deal with them?
You left out C.
Ostensible leftist that knows what horrific things Stalin did, but thinks they weren't that bad or even good, somehow. It's even more detached from reality than example A. Spend some time on lemmygrad and you'll see what I'm talking about.
That didn't really answer my question, did it? Do you agree that the why of views matters in many ways more than the views themselves when it comes to seeing if someone can be swayed or not?
So you're saying if you think you can change my mind, you would ally with me? Or would you try to change my mind first?
If we both share the common goal of dismantling Capitalism in the short term, and your intentions come from a place that can be reasoned with, I would ally with you, rather than endanger the leftist movement overall and risk fascism.
I'm glad we reached an understanding here. Where leftists/progressives differ from your viewpoint is that we generally believe tankies cannot be allied with prior to changing their views. Authoritarian governments taking power just about always purge political dissidents. Since progressives are anti-authoritarian, that means them. Allying with authoritarians and hoping to convince them to not be authoritarian before taking power is a losing prospect.
Again, spend some time on lemmygrad and maybe give some gentle pushback on their beliefs and see what happens.
I am a Leftist, lol. Leftists do not, as a whole, differ from my viewpoint.
So you're basically saying that independent thought is a myth. What heinous material conditions forced you to come up with THAT turd? 🤦
I am not. I am saying that people are products of their environment. Someone raised with no concept of "Jupiter" wouldn't think about Jupiter.
^ It's like my best friend from High School who disowned me. We were always on opposite ends of the political spectrum but always met in the middle at "everything is fucked and rigged." Of COURSE he was a capitalist conservative, his Dad owned a successful construction company, but we still saw the same flaws in the system and respected/saw what the other was saying on whatever issue we discussed.
I won't say he didn't work hard or anything, he did go to college (paid for though, of course) and work a real job in his business/bookkeeping field for a while. But sure enough after a few years with his family resources and connections he started a real estate business and now I'm a filthy commie even for just utilizing VA health care (which isn't a "freebie," but a part of the agreement when you join.)
My point is, we were able to find middle ground and agree on certain things, until his privileged position allowed him to "win." Then, all of a sudden, the system is perfect and I'm just a loser who wants winners to pay for losers and if I want healthcare (or whatever) I should just get off my ass and "win." Of course the system seems flawless and superior when you have all the material conditions to just waltz in with no struggle or strife.
((Lesser point, we were friends for like 20 years from age 14-15 and I still miss my friend))
actually, "Jupiter" would not exist as a concept if not for someone raised without it inventing it in the first place.
People are influenced by their environment for sure, but not only is the environment influenced by the people too, there are also myriad other determining factors at play.
Yes, so people's environment shapes their ideas. Brains do not secrete thought like Bile.
People's environment can INFLUENCE their ideas, sure, but it doesn't DICTATE them regardless of all other factors.
And fyi sometimes Brians DO secrete, but they'll thank you not to draw attention to their embarrassing medical issue.
I'm not disagreeing with you here on whether or not the USSR is good or bad, that's not my point.
My point is that if both person A and person B want worker ownership and person C wants a dictatorship of Capitalism, then person A and B should ally, even if temporarily.
Person B is also a fascist, and should be let nowhere near power because they will purge person A the first second they can.
Even if they want 94% of the same things?
We aren't talking about MAGA Communists or PatSocs.
Let's say you and I align politically 99%. Our only point of contention is that I want to kill or jail you specifically. Are you going to ally with me and hope I change my mind later?
This is exaggerated to make a point, not a direct analogy.
What are the foundations of wanting to kill or jail me? Seems important, no?
You're saying if I have a good reason, you're OK with it?
Not necessarily, I'm saying your hypothetical lacks necessary information.
Presently, you've framed it in an Idealist manner, not a Materialist one. People's views aren't selected by a Random Number Generator in real life, they are the consequence of their Material Conditions. Matter creates thought, ideas do not create matter.
Looking at our hypothetical, you have a Leftist with the currently unexplained ideal that I personally should die for no reason. This doesn't make any practical sense, so we cannot apply this theory to practice.
In the case of this entire meme, there exists a divide, generally, between Marxists and Anarchists. Using your example of a Stalin defender, which situation is more realistic?
A: A Leftist believes everything the US state department has levied against Stalin is true, he killed 200 million people and murdered puppies, and believes that this is good, actually, and we should do more of it?
B: A Leftist believes nothing the US state department has said is true, and believes Stalin to be the second coming of Jesus Christ and Marx himself, and believes this to be a good thing?
Neither are realistic, but A makes far less internal sense, and cannot be reasoned with, as mass cruelty is the point. Person B, however, could be misled and instead worked with. Person B has good intentions with a faulty understanding, person A has bad intentions with a faulty understanding.
Do you see my point? Without knowing the origin of views, how can we hope to address them and how to deal with them?
You left out C.
Ostensible leftist that knows what horrific things Stalin did, but thinks they weren't that bad or even good, somehow. It's even more detached from reality than example A. Spend some time on lemmygrad and you'll see what I'm talking about.
That didn't really answer my question, did it? Do you agree that the why of views matters in many ways more than the views themselves when it comes to seeing if someone can be swayed or not?
So you're saying if you think you can change my mind, you would ally with me? Or would you try to change my mind first?
If we both share the common goal of dismantling Capitalism in the short term, and your intentions come from a place that can be reasoned with, I would ally with you, rather than endanger the leftist movement overall and risk fascism.
I'm glad we reached an understanding here. Where leftists/progressives differ from your viewpoint is that we generally believe tankies cannot be allied with prior to changing their views. Authoritarian governments taking power just about always purge political dissidents. Since progressives are anti-authoritarian, that means them. Allying with authoritarians and hoping to convince them to not be authoritarian before taking power is a losing prospect.
Again, spend some time on lemmygrad and maybe give some gentle pushback on their beliefs and see what happens.
I am a Leftist, lol. Leftists do not, as a whole, differ from my viewpoint.
So you're basically saying that independent thought is a myth. What heinous material conditions forced you to come up with THAT turd? 🤦
I am not. I am saying that people are products of their environment. Someone raised with no concept of "Jupiter" wouldn't think about Jupiter.
^ It's like my best friend from High School who disowned me. We were always on opposite ends of the political spectrum but always met in the middle at "everything is fucked and rigged." Of COURSE he was a capitalist conservative, his Dad owned a successful construction company, but we still saw the same flaws in the system and respected/saw what the other was saying on whatever issue we discussed.
I won't say he didn't work hard or anything, he did go to college (paid for though, of course) and work a real job in his business/bookkeeping field for a while. But sure enough after a few years with his family resources and connections he started a real estate business and now I'm a filthy commie even for just utilizing VA health care (which isn't a "freebie," but a part of the agreement when you join.)
My point is, we were able to find middle ground and agree on certain things, until his privileged position allowed him to "win." Then, all of a sudden, the system is perfect and I'm just a loser who wants winners to pay for losers and if I want healthcare (or whatever) I should just get off my ass and "win." Of course the system seems flawless and superior when you have all the material conditions to just waltz in with no struggle or strife.
((Lesser point, we were friends for like 20 years from age 14-15 and I still miss my friend))
actually, "Jupiter" would not exist as a concept if not for someone raised without it inventing it in the first place.
People are influenced by their environment for sure, but not only is the environment influenced by the people too, there are also myriad other determining factors at play.
Yes, so people's environment shapes their ideas. Brains do not secrete thought like Bile.
People's environment can INFLUENCE their ideas, sure, but it doesn't DICTATE them regardless of all other factors.
And fyi sometimes Brians DO secrete, but they'll thank you not to draw attention to their embarrassing medical issue.
Where do ideas come from?