The proof was referring to trying to apply same means of revolution to a different system. Revolution agains preindustrialized feudalism doesnt prove the methods success agains developed capitalism.
The history of capitalism was not attacked by me though, i pointed out hoe insane drawing equality between the hierarchies and organization of production between feudalism and caputalism is.
yes and again capitalisn is not feudalism.
I agree the nature tells us lots of different things. And when one starts to pick seemingly related concepts he will find whatever he wants. Did you know that fascist believe that they are just intepreting biology? Same with colonialists. Thats why they are not a serious argument. Unless we talk of something innate to humans that would prevent certain specific behavior.
Yeah no. Basic logic here. When was the other famine there? After tsar before stalin? Any proof? There have been years with bad yields, but because the feudal system was still not completely destroyed, it was quite adapted to the conditions. This one is on the collectivization. Yeah i know about the aid. Im not implying thay they wanted people to starve. im showing how efficient central planning can be. I also found taugers work and debate. The aid is pragmatic, and is unrelated to the point of efficiency of central planing vs decentralized system. Im not just talking about ukraine, also volga region for example.
The proof was referring to trying to apply same means of revolution to a different system. Revolution agains preindustrialized feudalism doesnt prove the methods success agains developed capitalism.
Yet, you’re unable to put in concrete terms how these differences matter in terms of organizing a revolution. You’re just making hand wavy statements that lack substance here.
I agree the nature tells us lots of different things. And when one starts to pick seemingly related concepts he will find whatever he wants. Did you know that fascist believe that they are just intepreting biology? Same with colonialists. Thats why they are not a serious argument. Unless we talk of something innate to humans that would prevent certain specific behavior.
This addresses nothing of what I actually said.
Yeah no. Basic logic here. When was the other famine there? After tsar before stalin? Any proof?
Yeah there’s plenty of proof, and maybe go spend a bit of time learning about the subject instead of wasting other people’s time with inane claims. This whole discussion started with me pointing out that you’re speaking out of ignorance here, and everything you’ve said in this thread has further reinforced that fact. You keep acting like things you’re attempting to debate are just abstract ideas while there is very clear history and facts at play here.
In any case, it’s pretty clear that this discussion isn’t going anywhere. We’re obviously not going to agree on anything or convince each other of anything. So, I’m going to stop here and let you have the last word.
The burden of proof lies with the claim. Why would a movement work if presented with different material conditions? If we depart on the claim that bolsheviks faced different material conditions than movements today and back then in germany for example, which is what i think, then we disagree on premise.
it addresses the comparison to brain, which in any sense of an argument is very weak.
“go find the proof” is not an argument. The famines of tsar were not repeated by bolshevik policies until stalin took over. Theres my proof.
we agreed on many matters. We deviated from the topic which i would sum up as: you do not see mensheviks as marxists because they wanted bourgeois revolution before a socialist one. I have no issue with that, since i see it as making them even more marxist.
The proof was referring to trying to apply same means of revolution to a different system. Revolution agains preindustrialized feudalism doesnt prove the methods success agains developed capitalism.
The history of capitalism was not attacked by me though, i pointed out hoe insane drawing equality between the hierarchies and organization of production between feudalism and caputalism is.
yes and again capitalisn is not feudalism.
I agree the nature tells us lots of different things. And when one starts to pick seemingly related concepts he will find whatever he wants. Did you know that fascist believe that they are just intepreting biology? Same with colonialists. Thats why they are not a serious argument. Unless we talk of something innate to humans that would prevent certain specific behavior.
Yeah no. Basic logic here. When was the other famine there? After tsar before stalin? Any proof? There have been years with bad yields, but because the feudal system was still not completely destroyed, it was quite adapted to the conditions. This one is on the collectivization. Yeah i know about the aid. Im not implying thay they wanted people to starve. im showing how efficient central planning can be. I also found taugers work and debate. The aid is pragmatic, and is unrelated to the point of efficiency of central planing vs decentralized system. Im not just talking about ukraine, also volga region for example.
Yet, you’re unable to put in concrete terms how these differences matter in terms of organizing a revolution. You’re just making hand wavy statements that lack substance here.
This addresses nothing of what I actually said.
Yeah there’s plenty of proof, and maybe go spend a bit of time learning about the subject instead of wasting other people’s time with inane claims. This whole discussion started with me pointing out that you’re speaking out of ignorance here, and everything you’ve said in this thread has further reinforced that fact. You keep acting like things you’re attempting to debate are just abstract ideas while there is very clear history and facts at play here.
In any case, it’s pretty clear that this discussion isn’t going anywhere. We’re obviously not going to agree on anything or convince each other of anything. So, I’m going to stop here and let you have the last word.
The burden of proof lies with the claim. Why would a movement work if presented with different material conditions? If we depart on the claim that bolsheviks faced different material conditions than movements today and back then in germany for example, which is what i think, then we disagree on premise.
it addresses the comparison to brain, which in any sense of an argument is very weak.
“go find the proof” is not an argument. The famines of tsar were not repeated by bolshevik policies until stalin took over. Theres my proof.
we agreed on many matters. We deviated from the topic which i would sum up as: you do not see mensheviks as marxists because they wanted bourgeois revolution before a socialist one. I have no issue with that, since i see it as making them even more marxist.