Yes, that’s the issue.

you, once again, are a liberal

This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”

In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported – what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.

That group was annihilated.

—Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method

i have never seen anyone be able to respond to this passage (or the book as a whole). of course, you will probably just call me a cultist for using all evidence available to me that reform is not possible. I personally would not like for me and my friends to be annihilated, thank you very much! and if you actually are a liberal sealioning and thinks capitalism is actually cool I’d like you to explain how we will deal with climate change!

That’s on you for assuming that just because you don’t like an argument it must be those smug libs.

uh no it wasn’t because “I didn’t like your argument” it’s because liberals constantly use the “we are the only nuanced thinkers in the world ” argument. Once again, it is reasonable to assume other people’s positions based off of things you’ve seen them say, every single person on the planet does this.

Black and white thinking pops up again …

…

It’s another cult-like behavior that is rampant with tankies …

I called myself a “tankie” because I wanted to get it over with, but you clearly agree that I am what you would consider to be a “tankie”. why use that label if you think it’s bad to assume people’s positions on things?

I call out silliness when I see it, but most lib stuff that I come across is of the bland, inoffensive variety

have you EVER been anywhere on the internet at all? I constantly see “black and white” thinking from liberals all over the internet. is it not black and white thinking to immediately accuse something of being “see see pee propaganda” when they see a post about something about china on reddit? did you see any of the threads about the DPRK’s olympics teams? etc.

Yes, that’s the issue.

Where along the Marxist theory of the State with respect to Revolution do you begin to disagree? Fundamentally? Is it with certain aspects?