At first they made Dzerzhinski statue fall, now we'e got Leninofall in Ukraine. What we do?

https://youtu.be/5iT3jxiWeXE

Earlier there was some hardlining against nationalism, which struck me later when I realized that nationalists have refined the dialects of criticism to a level of sophistication which ought to scare the dogshit right out of any third-world theorist's mouth.

The only reason nationalism would be hardlined against is to corrupt the first world enough with third-worldwrs

But since the nationalists have a more effective dialectic, it's all gonna go to shit.

Lmfao

@OF-8 Is this how you spend your time, manufacturing make-believe strawmen to strike down? Go back to playing with your toys.

I spend my time in many different dimensions. This is but one of my playthings.

Is this how seriously you take yourself? Go back to seriousing with your play set ideology

Political theory is serious business.

"This is but one of my playthings."

'stop taking yourself so seriously'

get yourself a cognitive dissonance where u can be a self absorbed prick while also telling others to stop taking themselves so seriously

Basically yeah. That's one of the features of material dialectics isn't it?

Am I misunderstanding something here?

What is the feature of diamat you are referring to?

>where u can be a self absorbed prick while also telling others to stop taking themselves so seriously

I am not aware of that feature. Please cite it for us.

Anywhere in the scrollback fam. Pick a winning post.

Please cite it for us.

Is that a thing that is normal to do or because you feel I may not be taking any of this seriously

Where you have to cite chapter and verse of some "source" rather than just be creative and shitpost.

Because if it is a normal thing to do, I don't need to cite it, you should already know.

Observation and quotation are gonna be different things, are you allowed to think this?

What did you mean by 'nationalists have refined the dialects of criticism to a level of sophistication', for example. It reads vague and unintelligible.

Either you do this on purpose or you do not care. Which is why I was rude to you.

If you want a discussion, you have to be clear in your point of view, and at least charitable to hear the view of the opposite.

If that is too 'serious' for you, what can I tell you.

I want to move on from this.

...

Don't engage if you would rather not, cognitive autonomy is pretty serious business.

Nationalists, in their forums have been able to criticize their own ideas with sharper tools than global socialists.

Good advice.

Socialist ideas, once let out into the world smell rather stale and soviet.

The difference here is that superior critical dialogue.

What is wrong with Soviet?

Soviet scent is distasteful to those not used to it.

You've become blind to the stink of soviet think

That's a rhetorical statement. How is it distasteful?

Political systems are made of rhetoric, comrade