I think I’m decently effective. I’ve managed to convince people both in real conversations and online. I’d like to see what you mean by me being condescending, because if that’s true I would like to correct that.
I never said condescending. You did make tacit implication the my accusation to you applied to other people and one could see that as almost an insult.
I think unfortunately you’re super genuine and actually excited about educating people but unfortunately that means in order to have any argument you take huge cake slices of textbook and regurgitate the same 6 paragraphs for every point. Great for a lecture, but I would believe a nonzero number of these converts are trying to move on with their day.
For what it’s worth, I do agree. I used to actually post walls of text, now I keep it curt and to the point. Sometimes those points need a bit of development to not completely slide off of people, but it’s a balancing act I try to get better at.
All good. I’d rather the sharing of ideas take place than not but this still isn’t an ‘every idea is valid’ situation. If I’m going to keep running into you I want to hear a point, not endless reasons why I should look at your point.
Right and I do ask for context when it’s needed, but I would recommend not presuming the context for your case. That’s like badgering yourself as the witness before the cross examination even starts.
Experience shows that without context, points fail to land. That’s one of the primary differences between dialectical materialism and metaphysical materialism. If you don’t have context for what those are, for example, they will just sound like buzzwords.
Yeah and if you force context where it’s not needed you’re actually just piling more buzzwords to back up your buzzwords. If yoy actually want a dialect it requires a second party, and you have to meet that party where they are if you have any chance of trying to connect with them in the first place.
He’s not. He’s a bad faith propagandist and an accelerationist. He almost exclusively criticizes the democrats without really touching the republicans and actively discourages people from voting for democrats even when they’re the only viable option to prevent republicans from being in power. He works for maga.
No? This is a conspiracy theory. I have said accelerationism is incorrect, and I’ll clarify that I mean both the actual accelerationist take, which is trying to consolidate capital as quickly as possible, and the liberal understanding of accelerationism, which is actively making things worse for people, are wrong. Support for the Republicans is out of the question, which is why I don’t bother touching it much. 99% of people on this federated website understand that Republicans are reactionary garbage, but a good chunk still have flawed ideas about the role of the Democrats.
The only viable option to fight fascism is to struggle directly against the system that enables it, because fascism isn’t simply a preference of this or that party, but a response to a decayed material base.
Oh yeah, I’m well aware. But I just get a real sense of despair if I start treating everyone as one dimensional charicatures of whatever they appear to be portraying themselves as. The moment they said the accelerationist vote was for Democrats I knew I was never going to take them seriously, but it is a lot of fun catching them in double speak and weirs logic they try to pull.
Do you think the Democrats are less effective managers of capitalism, or do you think accelerationism is deliberately making things worse? The former is pretty inarguable, the latter is a widespread misconception on a flawed ideology to begin with. There’s no doublespeak on my part, but it’s nice to at least know you were bad-faith from the beginning.
I think you’re purposefully misreading the intent and your supposed outcomes in order to manufacture an argument that you can both claim is technically correct while also using it as a defeter to anyone trying to make economic arguments.
Because if good managing in capitalism will ruin capitalism then what the fuck is the Iran War doing? Do you even watch the news?
In Marxist analysis, as capitalism goes on, capital accumulates, centralizes, and coalesces. The rate of profit also has a tendency to fall as time goes on, and automation and productivity raise the organic composition of capital. This has a socializing impact on how production and distribution is organized, while leaving appropriation of the surplus in fewer and fewer hands. This leads to crisis. Accelerating the growth of capital therefore makes this crisis happen sooner.
The reason this is a terrible strategy is because the collapse of capitalism does not guarantee socialism. For that, you need a revolutionary party that can educate and guide the whole of the working class towards revolution, otherwise it just collapses into barbarism. Climate change cannot wait for capitalism to collapse on its own either. As the better stewards of accumulation, the DNC provides a more stable base for capitalism to progress smoothly and hit crisis faster.
See there we go, a biting comeback and you’re still pleasant and polite about it.
I don’t fully get your angle but we can make you an effective interlocutor one of these days.
I think I’m decently effective. I’ve managed to convince people both in real conversations and online. I’d like to see what you mean by me being condescending, because if that’s true I would like to correct that.
I never said condescending. You did make tacit implication the my accusation to you applied to other people and one could see that as almost an insult.
I think unfortunately you’re super genuine and actually excited about educating people but unfortunately that means in order to have any argument you take huge cake slices of textbook and regurgitate the same 6 paragraphs for every point. Great for a lecture, but I would believe a nonzero number of these converts are trying to move on with their day.
For what it’s worth, I do agree. I used to actually post walls of text, now I keep it curt and to the point. Sometimes those points need a bit of development to not completely slide off of people, but it’s a balancing act I try to get better at.
All good. I’d rather the sharing of ideas take place than not but this still isn’t an ‘every idea is valid’ situation. If I’m going to keep running into you I want to hear a point, not endless reasons why I should look at your point.
I do try to be direct and to the point, as I said. Sometimes context is not just helpful, but critical, which is usually where length comes in.
Right and I do ask for context when it’s needed, but I would recommend not presuming the context for your case. That’s like badgering yourself as the witness before the cross examination even starts.
Experience shows that without context, points fail to land. That’s one of the primary differences between dialectical materialism and metaphysical materialism. If you don’t have context for what those are, for example, they will just sound like buzzwords.
Yeah and if you force context where it’s not needed you’re actually just piling more buzzwords to back up your buzzwords. If yoy actually want a dialect it requires a second party, and you have to meet that party where they are if you have any chance of trying to connect with them in the first place.
He’s not. He’s a bad faith propagandist and an accelerationist. He almost exclusively criticizes the democrats without really touching the republicans and actively discourages people from voting for democrats even when they’re the only viable option to prevent republicans from being in power. He works for maga.
No? This is a conspiracy theory. I have said accelerationism is incorrect, and I’ll clarify that I mean both the actual accelerationist take, which is trying to consolidate capital as quickly as possible, and the liberal understanding of accelerationism, which is actively making things worse for people, are wrong. Support for the Republicans is out of the question, which is why I don’t bother touching it much. 99% of people on this federated website understand that Republicans are reactionary garbage, but a good chunk still have flawed ideas about the role of the Democrats.
The only viable option to fight fascism is to struggle directly against the system that enables it, because fascism isn’t simply a preference of this or that party, but a response to a decayed material base.
Oh yeah, I’m well aware. But I just get a real sense of despair if I start treating everyone as one dimensional charicatures of whatever they appear to be portraying themselves as. The moment they said the accelerationist vote was for Democrats I knew I was never going to take them seriously, but it is a lot of fun catching them in double speak and weirs logic they try to pull.
Do you think the Democrats are less effective managers of capitalism, or do you think accelerationism is deliberately making things worse? The former is pretty inarguable, the latter is a widespread misconception on a flawed ideology to begin with. There’s no doublespeak on my part, but it’s nice to at least know you were bad-faith from the beginning.
I think you’re purposefully misreading the intent and your supposed outcomes in order to manufacture an argument that you can both claim is technically correct while also using it as a defeter to anyone trying to make economic arguments.
Because if good managing in capitalism will ruin capitalism then what the fuck is the Iran War doing? Do you even watch the news?
In Marxist analysis, as capitalism goes on, capital accumulates, centralizes, and coalesces. The rate of profit also has a tendency to fall as time goes on, and automation and productivity raise the organic composition of capital. This has a socializing impact on how production and distribution is organized, while leaving appropriation of the surplus in fewer and fewer hands. This leads to crisis. Accelerating the growth of capital therefore makes this crisis happen sooner.
The reason this is a terrible strategy is because the collapse of capitalism does not guarantee socialism. For that, you need a revolutionary party that can educate and guide the whole of the working class towards revolution, otherwise it just collapses into barbarism. Climate change cannot wait for capitalism to collapse on its own either. As the better stewards of accumulation, the DNC provides a more stable base for capitalism to progress smoothly and hit crisis faster.
Removed by mod