I’m up to 2x on anything that isn’t already pretty fast to begin with. 1x is exclusively for music content.

How would you define dialectics?

Seemed more like the problem was the gaslighting than the documentation.

I think there’s a difference between bad and wrong. Wrong documentation is incorrect. Bad documentation isn’t really incorrect, it’s just poorly executedb and mostly unhelpful.

You’re the one who asked to open a gate to the fifth dimension, you can’t then get upset that you broke 3+1 dimensional physics

Totally inaccurate, that guy is wearing a uniform.

There’s a sticking point that no one’s been able to explain to me:

If you’re in the minority, revolution is against the democratic will of the people.

If you’re in the majority, you have the votes to actually accomplish something with reform. It’s not like we live in a monarchy, reform is possible under our system.

If reform isn’t working to bring about your goals, either your goals aren’t popular enough, or they are popular but the people lack the will and organization to vote for them.

If the people lack the will and organization to vote effectively, they certainly lack the will and organization to topple the government.

My area of expertise is managing complex systems and change implementation. I sincerely don’t understand how revolution is supposed to work where reform doesn’t. No one has been able to give me an answer that doesn’t bill down to idealistic hope. How is this revolution supposed to be implemented, and why can’t we build the foundation for revolution while simultaneously using the tools we have for reform? Wouldn’t widespread support for reform be the best possible proof of consensus?

No, it broadens and deepens understanding

How exactly do you come to that conclusion?

Edit: “Thing bad” doesn’t broaden or deepen anything. “Thing has specific shortcomings which aren’t present in specific alternative to thing” is a useful criticism. Criticism without alternatives is just called complaining.

I’m confused, isn’t criticism without alternatives itself useless and pointless?

Though, it has nothing against rhe numbers stacked under communist rule.

Let’s see the numbers side by side then, since you’re so confident

Firstly, I know you’re not going to justify genocide by saying the survivors of that genocide get to have casinos. That’s so outrageously, ghoulishly evil that you can’t possibly have meant that and I must have misunderstood.

Secondly, where do you get the idea that capitalism started in America in 1860?

Thirdly, you ignored everything else I asked you to add up. You made no mention of slavery, or the Global South.

Fourthly, what’s fundamentally different between the colonial exploitations of mercantilism and private exploitations of capitalism?

I call your arithmetical integrity, or more laughably your ability, into question.

Pretty sure I explicitly struck out all references to communism so I don’t know what you’re talking about. My comment was about the fanciful idealism required to justify capitalism. Show me one instance of capitalism implemented in democracy (which didn’t devolve into cronyism).

Add up chattel slavery, Trail of Tears, proxy wars, not-so-proxy wars, the general condition of the M-I-C you’ve mentioned, the general plight of the Global South, etc etc etc, and get back to me. I’m not sure the advantage is so definitive as you assert. “Externalities”, the economists call them.

I guess I just really don’t understand the draw. CommunismCapitalism is a nice thought, until actual people are involved. People are corruptible, which is why communismcapitalism is seen as utopian. It’s an ideal that only works under perfect circumstances.