“Communism bad”

“Why?”

200 year old tropes so ancient they were debunked by Marx himself

Of course, you go through the motions of explaining the most basic political concepts that could be grasped by skimming the cliff notes for literally any Marxist works

“Friedrich Engels? Is he like the president of Germany or something?”

It’s like a kindergartener trying to teach you calculus.

  • Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Reminds me of a debate I had.

    Poster said "Marxists lack nuance".

    I asked which one of these works lacked nuance in his opinion: The German Ideology? The Grundrisse? Anti-Dühring? Or maybe slightly more recent stuff like Gramsci's Prison Notebooks?

    The reply: "Marxists don't understand human nature: it's about the stronger monkey having things."

    The irony didn't even hit him. He was dead seriously try to sell me this "human natooor is strong dogs fuck" as a social theory.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      it's about the stronger monkey having things

      Non-zero chance of cryptofascist monkey cartoon NFT purchases from that Social Darwinist edgelord.

    • Sephitard9001 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      That's when you take out your pocket knife and tell him that, because you came to this discussion prepared, you own him and everything he used to own because he's a weaker monkey. And then you demand he takes you to your new house.

    • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s always like this. They refuse to engage with the works themselves, because all they can muster is vague allusions to “human nature” and “debunked”

      • Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        And I didn't even really tried to debate them, I just wanted them to admit they haven't read anything. Because why are they lying when we both know they have not?!

    • Gosplan14_the_Third [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I love how their assumption "human nature is homo homini lupus" lies with the underlying assumption of "so we have to let people be bad and not do anything to reign in these tendencies for a better life."

      It even contradicts liberal theory, such as the social contract. "Oh humans are bad, so to try and create a state where it rules over society and keeps peace won't succeed. It's against human nature and they'll rebel"