You’re citing my text but cutting off just before the point I was trying to make. I think be would still side with the people who claim to follow his ideology (yes, piss poor efforts objectively speaking but that’s irrelevant to him because he would prefer them over the folks entrenched in capitalism on the other side).
Ideologs are a dangerous breed because they are surprisingly flexible under realpolitik conditions when the alternative is having to admit defeat. Or in Marx’s case admitting that his ideas didn’t work or the fact that they didn’t work as intended cost the lives of millions. Surely he wouldn’t like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China and well apoortioned crticism thereof (or of the GDR or wherever) would have eventually spent his good will capital (pun intended) with the local leadership and he would end up in a gulag or erased from history. Karl-Marx-Stadt would have been renamed sooner.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 hours ago
Yes, because my point is that your point doesn't make sense.
Why...? That's not how leftwing politics worked, ever, and it's not like there has ever been a shortage of leftwing criticism of Leninism and Stalinism.
Yeah that's my point: They're not his ideas; they're their ideas. Lenin for example, aside from being an authoritarian dickhead, was an intellectual juggernaut and a lot of his ideas would be baked into the foundation of the Soviet Union. There's simply nothing to support what you're saying.
FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 18 minutes ago
That’s a remarkable statement in the context of a hypothetical, counterfactual scenario where we are attempting to interpret the possible thinking of a long deceased man displaced in time for the benefit of said scenario.
You may disagree with me. You haven’t changed my mind either. So let’s leave it at that.