Ok, in that case bolsheviks were just overt capitalists. On serious side, Lenin was a right deviation from marxist movement. Some of his texts like state and revolution are indeed marxist. Mensheviks were the ones who historically organized the soviets and were more prominent and useful to the movement in the beginnigng. On the other hand when bolsheviks took over they immediately weakened the soviet commities and tried to institute more centrally controlled hierarchy.
Now I dont want to be dismissive of bolsheviks, their rightist approach to socialism set an ideological precedent. I just prefer different branch of socialism, the more marxist one.
If you state absurdities then don’t expect people to engage with that nonsense seriously. What you’re doing is just trolling which wastes everyone’s time. If you don’t want to have a serious discussion then move along.
At least learn what ad hominem means if you’re going to keep using it to try and make yourself sound smart. Ad hominem would be me dismissing your argument by attacking your personality. I’m dismissing your argument because the argument itself is nonsensical drivel as I’ve explain in detail in another reply in this thread.
It generally means an attack on the speaker, instead of showing fallacy in the argument. As you may have noticed I made no claim of ad hominem in the other reply chain. Just here.
Ok, in that case bolsheviks were just overt capitalists. On serious side, Lenin was a right deviation from marxist movement. Some of his texts like state and revolution are indeed marxist. Mensheviks were the ones who historically organized the soviets and were more prominent and useful to the movement in the beginnigng. On the other hand when bolsheviks took over they immediately weakened the soviet commities and tried to institute more centrally controlled hierarchy. Now I dont want to be dismissive of bolsheviks, their rightist approach to socialism set an ideological precedent. I just prefer different branch of socialism, the more marxist one.
Your word salad exposes the fact that you have absolutely no clue regarding the subject you’re attempting to debate.
Ok, I havent considered that argument. How to even respond to such ad hominem?
If you state absurdities then don’t expect people to engage with that nonsense seriously. What you’re doing is just trolling which wastes everyone’s time. If you don’t want to have a serious discussion then move along.
Ad hominem is not absurd?
At least learn what ad hominem means if you’re going to keep using it to try and make yourself sound smart. Ad hominem would be me dismissing your argument by attacking your personality. I’m dismissing your argument because the argument itself is nonsensical drivel as I’ve explain in detail in another reply in this thread.
It generally means an attack on the speaker, instead of showing fallacy in the argument. As you may have noticed I made no claim of ad hominem in the other reply chain. Just here.
What it actually means is to attempt to discredit the argument by attacking the speaker instead of the argument.