My only claim is that you are a lib, you provided first post full of purely liberal stereotypes (and not provided any evidence that communism is indeed stagnation, lest’s start from that instead) at least 5 proofs yourself which i listed, and even explained the one which is not immediately obvious.
You want further evidence ok, but that would require of you to read pretty much and at least try to shed your liberalism:
Not at all, I’m just trying to get to understand communism better without interacting with extremely biased and very agenda oriented sources like Lenin or Mao. And prolewiki barely had any sources on most of their pages and when they did they often had encyclopedias. I hate the ivory tower but I really try to get good sources. Right now I’m basically becoming a socialist because it appeals to me, I’m working class and growing up liberals were very hostile to me while I hated the right. So I’ve gradually become a centrist that gravitates towards libertarian socialism with a slight amount of liberalism and conservatism just because I think being three dimensional in thought is a positive. I dislike anarchism though and I’m starting to look more towards Fabianism.
I’m just trying to get to understand communism better without interacting with extremely biased and very agenda oriented sources like Lenin or Mao
Then you fail because you are trying to understand communism without reading communists! This is not the ivory tower, it is total basics. At least read Marx and Engels, though those are pretty hard right of the bat, Lenin and Mao are explaining things neatly, not to mention they have fresher looks on things like Marx did not elaborate on neither imperialism nor contradictions because imperialism did not exist in his time yet (he did predicted it will happen but had no observations so as scientist he would not write tomes about that, while Lenin seen its development first hand), and the Mao’s idea of contradictions is basically just dialectical materialism explained for practical use by people who are not academic philosphers. I read everything on that list and much more and it’s good course on understanding basics (basics!) of socialism - note that “Capital” is not even on the list, though at least first book absolutely should be as the finale.
I think being three dimensional in thought is a positive.
In though as in learning things is, but not in accepting what you learn is nonsense.
Fabianism
Fabianism was one of the most reactionary trends of socialdemocracy, they were the first to betray working class to serve capitalists.
i mostly mean that im okay with holding more than one sides views, ill happily hold communist, socialist, and capitalist views at once while holding spiritual and aspiritual beliefs. it might be eclectic but it makes the most sense to me. and im not so evangelical in disregarding capitalism or communism entirely, so a hybrid of socialism and capitalism or socialism and communism seem equally merited to me, but again thats just opinion and we are both biased in that.
deleted by creator
My only claim is that you are a lib, you provided first post full of purely liberal stereotypes (and not provided any evidence that communism is indeed stagnation, lest’s start from that instead) at least 5 proofs yourself which i listed, and even explained the one which is not immediately obvious.
You want further evidence ok, but that would require of you to read pretty much and at least try to shed your liberalism:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1up4ijhG8AH6Cb1Icn6dDcKnpd7SnMOlX9yJZJ_rwkQA/edit
Also there is a neat wiki for extremely short explanations.
And this youtube channel did a lot of dispelling liberal stereotypes such as “communism is stagnation”.
Have fun.
Seeing you answer me every time you probably are. Seriously and honestly, go read what i linked you.
deleted by creator
You mean, the ones that would confirm your worldview?
Not at all, I’m just trying to get to understand communism better without interacting with extremely biased and very agenda oriented sources like Lenin or Mao. And prolewiki barely had any sources on most of their pages and when they did they often had encyclopedias. I hate the ivory tower but I really try to get good sources. Right now I’m basically becoming a socialist because it appeals to me, I’m working class and growing up liberals were very hostile to me while I hated the right. So I’ve gradually become a centrist that gravitates towards libertarian socialism with a slight amount of liberalism and conservatism just because I think being three dimensional in thought is a positive. I dislike anarchism though and I’m starting to look more towards Fabianism.
Then you fail because you are trying to understand communism without reading communists! This is not the ivory tower, it is total basics. At least read Marx and Engels, though those are pretty hard right of the bat, Lenin and Mao are explaining things neatly, not to mention they have fresher looks on things like Marx did not elaborate on neither imperialism nor contradictions because imperialism did not exist in his time yet (he did predicted it will happen but had no observations so as scientist he would not write tomes about that, while Lenin seen its development first hand), and the Mao’s idea of contradictions is basically just dialectical materialism explained for practical use by people who are not academic philosphers. I read everything on that list and much more and it’s good course on understanding basics (basics!) of socialism - note that “Capital” is not even on the list, though at least first book absolutely should be as the finale.
In though as in learning things is, but not in accepting what you learn is nonsense.
Fabianism was one of the most reactionary trends of socialdemocracy, they were the first to betray working class to serve capitalists.
i mostly mean that im okay with holding more than one sides views, ill happily hold communist, socialist, and capitalist views at once while holding spiritual and aspiritual beliefs. it might be eclectic but it makes the most sense to me. and im not so evangelical in disregarding capitalism or communism entirely, so a hybrid of socialism and capitalism or socialism and communism seem equally merited to me, but again thats just opinion and we are both biased in that.