Yes

now that explains antifa

<:Dude:459545653031469068>

Honestly Lenin called the NEP that, but the NEP ended and socialism was implemented, or the transition at least

what do you think of ancom catalonian movement that was crushed by franco ?

```Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?```
Engles BTFO the narchos

You are constructivist?

I think they despite being anarchists had to be authoritarian and were, which was good and I wish we could have seen it last longer, see how it panned out

But perhaps it was because anarchists aren't authoritarian enough they were crushed

@Enigmatic★Chromatic The NEP had the same intention as Mussolini's free market phase

it was never meant to be permanent

Alright?

The end goal of fascism is still Capitalism in all the ways that matter, commodity production and all that

@Draco And yes, largely I am a constructivist

But why? Constructivism is demonstrably false.

Oof

History disagrees

Everyone believes their opponent's position is demonstrably false

*who's trying for senior citizen here hmmm*

This is true

It is not a question of history. It is a question of biology

I had a conversation about this earlier

Marxists make it about history to perform a class analysis.

Actually

No

The claim of constructivism is about inheritance of social traits

Constructivism is just about the adaptability of human nature

What has history to do with it?

This can he explained by biology

Neural plasticity for one

It's also evolutionarily advantageous for humans to have some degree of malleability in order to survive better

Well we can see how many characteristics of human nature have changed based in the conditions people were subjected to

Now, like Marx I think there is a core human nature and that the specifics of this are molded by society. I'm not entirely constructivist

But human nature was in slave based societies like Greece to be different from ours or that of Feudal societies

Honestly, it is just a word game sociologists play. If you really define Constructivism as adaptability to surroundings, then essentialists do not disagree. You present a dichotomy with essentialism and then give a lighter definition.

Essentialists do not say that humans are not affected by sorroundings

The whole idea of Plato's The Republic was that they are

Yes, but you also claim there is an essential being

Yes, and essential being is not full of all properties of humanity

Some metaphysical component to a given thing that makes it that thing

It is mere minimum that makes you a human