lbfgs

@lbfgs@programming.dev

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  The dictatorship of Fabius in 217BC saved Rome’s ass after the defeats in 218BC, I will give you that.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  indicating you believe that Marxism does call for a DotP

  Obviously? Here it is, right from the horse’s mouth:

  What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Production), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,[1] (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society .

  And of course so was Lenin, decrying “Bernsteinism”:

  Denied was the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarisation, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions; the very concept, “ultimate aim”, was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in principle between liberalism and socialism. Denied was the theory of the class struggle, on the alleged grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society governed according to the will of the majority, etc.

  I don’t even get ypur objection here. Are you implying Marx did not call for DOTP or are you claiming I didn’t say Marx did not call for DOTP? My point was that both call for DOTP but Lenin’s version of it was the only one that was realized, that it turned out to be rather brutal, and that tankies (like you just did!) don’t even distance themselves from it but embrace it. Which was the entire point in the OP.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Marxism is not the same as Marxism-Leninism. Marx might have had Paris commune as his idea of dictatorship of the proletariat, though it was all theoretical. Lenin’s take was the first implementation of the idea which was way more hardline (Red Terror) as seen in incidents like the purge of the Left SRs.

  Whether Lenin’s actions were justified it’s a different matter (and tankies will certainly say they were) but ironically Tankies typically won’t dispute that Lenin wasn’t dictatorial. Rather, often they will point to talking points taken out of What is to be done? to justify why those actions were needed (i.e. the official CPSU party line).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨.ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Marxist-Leninist ideology explicitly calls for the dictatorship of the proletariat. I wouldn’t want it either, but this is basically like going to a religious forum and advocating atheism (i.e. pointless).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Spooooookyyyyy Scaaaaaaaarrryyyy⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Heh, lot of good that did you in the USSR/Mao era China

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Keir Starmer faces ‘judgment day’ as Mandelson vetting debacle grows⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s a lie.

  Tory shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy said on Friday that he had been aware of such an incident when he was chief of staff to Prime Minister Theresa May. “When I was in No 10, somebody failed developed vetting before their proposed appointment to a sensitive post. We were told immediately, and were advised — correctly — that this person could not be appointed. Who gave that advice? Sue Gray — later Starmer’s chief of staff,” Timothy said on X.

  Allies of Olly Robbins defend handling of Mandelson vetting - ft.com/…/58c01bc9-12bf-440c-9a91-01c130a6a9c1?sha… via @FT

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨WHERE THE FUCK IS THE CURSOR?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Traders love doing this

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Contain them⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  There is only one third person singular pronoun (“O”) used for people (regardless of gender) and objects alike.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Contain them⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Turkish has no gender specific pronouns so this is every Turkish speaker I guess