I asked you to stay on topic. You failed to do so. You also failed to show that by the given definition of authoritarianism, the bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian. So, your initial claim that calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” was “sily” still stands unsubstantiated.
I don’t really care about addressing each and every one of your derailments of the argument, ad-hominem attacks and appealing to your (supposedly rational) “knowledge” about “both sides”. All of that doesn’t hold any water when coming back to the thesis at the start:
Is calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian marxists” logically consistent within an anarchist model of authority? And you already agreed (implicitly, but still).
I don’t have the time, nor the interest, nor enough resources available to convince you that stanning and/or imitating the bolsheviks isn’t the best idea. So I’d rather not get dragged into discussions about so-called “‘left’ anti-communism”.
I stayed on topic the whole time, addressing each of your points directly and thoroughly. If that constitutes “derailing,” as you said, then that’s further evidence that you aren’t interested in a conversation at all. By your definition of “authoritarian,” all Marxists would be, so if anything calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” is redundant.
You continue to claim there are non-authoritarian Marxists, but haven’t shown how they are meaningfully different from the bolsheviks outside of the bolsheviks having actually succeeded in establishing socialism for a period longer than a couple years. Whether or not you feel dragged into it, addressing how you align perfectly with “left” anti-communists is important, as it highlights why you seem to only uphold the unsuccessful Marxists (who actually agreed with the bolsheviks, for the most part, such as Allende).
I asked you to stay on topic. You failed to do so. You also failed to show that by the given definition of authoritarianism, the bolsheviks weren’t authoritarian. So, your initial claim that calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” was “sily” still stands unsubstantiated.
I don’t really care about addressing each and every one of your derailments of the argument, ad-hominem attacks and appealing to your (supposedly rational) “knowledge” about “both sides”. All of that doesn’t hold any water when coming back to the thesis at the start:
Is calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian marxists” logically consistent within an anarchist model of authority? And you already agreed (implicitly, but still).
I don’t have the time, nor the interest, nor enough resources available to convince you that stanning and/or imitating the bolsheviks isn’t the best idea. So I’d rather not get dragged into discussions about so-called “‘left’ anti-communism”.
I stayed on topic the whole time, addressing each of your points directly and thoroughly. If that constitutes “derailing,” as you said, then that’s further evidence that you aren’t interested in a conversation at all. By your definition of “authoritarian,” all Marxists would be, so if anything calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” is redundant.
You continue to claim there are non-authoritarian Marxists, but haven’t shown how they are meaningfully different from the bolsheviks outside of the bolsheviks having actually succeeded in establishing socialism for a period longer than a couple years. Whether or not you feel dragged into it, addressing how you align perfectly with “left” anti-communists is important, as it highlights why you seem to only uphold the unsuccessful Marxists (who actually agreed with the bolsheviks, for the most part, such as Allende).