"Marxists are clueless" (Funk N. Furter)

[Steve Ballmer]

Trotsky was a genius, but you are not. A1 is not equal to A1, A1 is A1, but only for an instant in time. A1 is not A1 a split second later. A bag of sugar is constantly changing, every second. It is not even equal to itself. You are not equal to yourself, and you certainly aren't equal to Trotsky.

We originally began this tangent when I said "I still believe that A is A". You then told me that I was wrong, and cited Trotsky's article The ABCs of Materialist Dialectic, in which Trotsky says "A is not equal to A". Now that you've admitted that A is in fact A, you are left with two options:

1. either you admit that Trotsky is full of shit, or
2. you admit that your post was intentionally off-topic.

The debate will continue once you concede this point.

[Steve Ballmer]

Strange how you change your whole argument from socialism/Marxism being proved to be a failure to never having being tested. Neither are true. The ideas of Marxism have been put to the test a million times. Socialism has never existed.
The ideas of socialism include Marxism plus other strands.

You're right, WW2 was a test. The Jews were just collateral damage in a giant enterprise to scientifically prove Marxism.

[Steve Ballmer]

the science of revolution

And how many peer-reviewed scientific studies have been carried in the field of revolution?

[Steve Ballmer]

WW2 proved Trotsky's predictions correct, plus those of Marxism in general.

So the argument has now become:

WW2 -> A=!A

[Steve Ballmer]

In case you conveniently missed it:

Trotsky was a genius, but you are not. A1 is not equal to A1, A1 is A1, but only for an instant in time. A1 is not A1 a split second later. A bag of sugar is constantly changing, every second. It is not even equal to itself. You are not equal to yourself, and you certainly aren't equal to Trotsky.

We originally began this tangent when I said "I still believe that A is A". You then told me that I was wrong, and cited Trotsky's article The ABCs of Materialist Dialectic, in which Trotsky says "A is not equal to A". Now that you've admitted that A is in fact A, you are left with two options:

1. either you admit that Trotsky is full of shit, or
2. you admit that your post was intentionally off-topic.

The debate will continue once you concede this point.

[Steve Ballmer]

[andydes]

You two "debate" like politicians.

This whole thread has been about picking holes in each others wording, and trying to come up with the best soundbytes.

Shame on you both.

[Steve Ballmer]

[Steve Ballmer]

According to the poll, there is now a consensus that A does in fact equal A, yet it would seem that not all As are equal—some would appear to be more equal than others.

Perhaps this explains why so many Marxists are also feminists.

[docprosper]

You two "debate" like politicians.

This whole thread has been about picking holes in each others wording, and trying to come up with the best soundbytes.

Shame on you both.

I'm just waiting for them to make out...

[Steve Ballmer]

As I thought. You have absolutely no idea why the revolution happened in Russia. No idea why the Bolsheviks launched an insurrection. So you cannot comment on whether it was 'reckless' or not.

First I should inform you that there were two revolutions. The first was in Feb 1917. Lenin and Trotsky were not in the country (they were in exile); the Bolsheviks were very small and had no plans for revolution. Actually there was an earlier one in 1905 as well.

The February revolution began when women workers went on strike on Women's Day, demanding bread. It ended with the Tsar abdicating, and a Provisional Government appointed itself. The Provisional Government did very little and was not supported by the workers and peasants. Also the Prov Gov had no intention of pulling Russia out of WW1 in which millions of Russians had already died.

Throughout the summer there was dual power. The Petrograd Soviet and the Provisional Government. The Petrograd workers and soldiers increasingly supported the Soviet. Lenin and Trotsky had returned from Exile. Both believed the time would come when the Soviet had to exert power over the Prov Gov.

The Petrograd Soviet represented the workers and soldiers of Petrograd, which was the capital city at the time. As far back as March the Petrograd Soviet issued instructions to only obey the orders of the Prov Gov so long as they did not clash with the Soviet. Thus they tolerated dual Power on their terms. A dual power situation cannot last forever and support for the Bolsheviks grew.

Kerensky took over the Prov Gov and was determined to keep Russia in WW1. General Kornilov marched on Petrograd, initially supported by Kerensky. But Kerensky backed away and Kornilove kept on marching. Kerensky feared a coup and turned to the Petrograd Soviet for help. Bolsheviks and others persuaded the army to turn back. This shambles dealt a big blow to Kerensky and gave more support to the revolutionaries. The government was also being pressures to continue the war by the Allied countries.

Trotsky was made chairman of the Petrograd Soviet and he persuaded the soldiers to support the soviet rather then their commanders, when the shit hit the fan.

Thus a peaceful (more or less) coup was possible in October. Lenin's top priority was to sign a peace deal to end Russia's involvement in WW1, and he bent over backwards to get the Germans to sign.

So, the revolution happened because World War places the greatest strain on the most backward countries, and so this strain caused the chain to snap in Russia in the form of social revolution. The soldiers had been deserting during the summer. The revolution was Russia's only way out of the war.

This is just a quick starter aimed at people with a reading age of 6 months. It does not cover everything.

So you're saying that they had to have a revolution to exit the war, not to attempt socialism. Now I don't think anyone here, apart from maybe Crofter, would argue that ending wars is a bad thing, but that doesn't in any way justify trying to prop up a system that, according to you, was predicted to fail. Not all revolutions have to be socialist you know.

So like I said. Reckless. Thank you for confirming this.

[Steve Ballmer]

Still unanswered:

Trotsky was a genius, but you are not. A1 is not equal to A1, A1 is A1, but only for an instant in time. A1 is not A1 a split second later. A bag of sugar is constantly changing, every second. It is not even equal to itself. You are not equal to yourself, and you certainly aren't equal to Trotsky.

We originally began this tangent when I said "I still believe that A is A". You then told me that I was wrong, and cited Trotsky's article The ABCs of Materialist Dialectic, in which Trotsky says "A is not equal to A". Now that you've admitted that A is in fact A, you are left with two options:

1. either you admit that Trotsky is full of shit, or
2. you admit that your post was intentionally off-topic.

The debate will continue once you concede this point.

[Steve Ballmer]

[Machinesworking]

You two "debate" like politicians.

This whole thread has been about picking holes in each others wording, and trying to come up with the best soundbytes.

Shame on you both.

[regretfullySaid]

I voted for Tinky Winky goddamnit, not "A"