• Emopunker@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    That was awfully fast reading for something I just posted a few minutes ago. Pretty sure you only skimmed over it instead of actually reading it. Otherwise you’d actually talk about the stuff written in it.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Their first part is about Khrushchev’s revisionist stance that class struggle was over in the USSR, but they leap from ideological impurity to the false belief that the bourgeoisie controlled the USSR, when it lacked a domestic bourgeoisie. They then conflate disparity with bourgeois control, despite the fact that it was not meaningfully higher:

      Then they point to having a large millitary to defend against the US Empire as evidence of imperialist intent, and point to trade as “imperialism.” They then go on to use logical gymnastics to explain why socialists should support the US Empire over the USSR. You’re upholding ultraleftists lacking in genuine materialist analysis and utterly confused about class struggle, who support Pol Pot’s Cambodia against Vietnam and the US over the USSR, purely because you think it will help your point.