Horsehoe theory is misguided itself, it was pitched purely to distance liberalism from fascism when historically they are linked, and to demonize those who support collectivization over privatization. Read Blackshirts and Reds.

For almost all of human history, the current center of the the western Overton window would have been considered far, far left. Does that mean that monarchism and feudalism is the true center, and liberalism is actually the same as being to the far right of monarchism?

The antidote to infighting in my experience is organizing in ideologically diverse spaces. I've organized with liberals and all types of different leftists. It has left me with the perspective that all these people are good people that just want better for the world. It's hard to get angry at them once you know them. Per usual the solution is to touch grass.

I didn't deny any genocide. And if you knew me better, you would understand how stupid this statement is.

I said your statement that liberal democracies have killed more people than regimes that are seen to be associated with communism is false.

To be frank with you, I think you are projecting an image of an enemy on me.

I do not like oligarchs, especially American ones because of their impact and their tendecy towards degeneracy.

I already told you I found standard US copytext around alleged differences between socialism and capitalism to be comically dumb. It's one of the reasons why my default mode of thinking is to assume that the content of common American socio-economic arguement is gibberish (unless proven otherwise).

I think Marx is prophetic and I believe his ideas will actually be realized in the future (maybe not in our lifetimes). In contrast the theological thought leaders of US-stope oligarchy (Friedman and other "economists") will go down in history as liars and criminal enablers; evil people.

That being said, communism as perceived by wider society is a dead end.

What we need is a new movement that reflects the dialectical materialism of the information age and offers a different mode of economic relationships to the oligarch regimes and the type of relationships that people associate with the word "communism".

I think we agree on a lot more things than you think, with the exception of "communism" as a brand, as opposed to it's end goals.

I didn’t deny any genocide.

I quoted you directly

But yes, I'm going to continue to take a page from your book. To everything you say: This is false.

You do you. I still believe we are actually on the same side.

I made a good faith effort to try and explain my views and show that even if you disagree, there is a measure of nuance in what I am saying. I will note that good faith effort doesn't mean I was agree with falsehoods.

I will just add that your abrasiveness and lack of desire to build bridges won't lead to anything good. Mark my words.

The issue is that you're a minority in your camp. Broadly speaking, the left sees compromise as weakness, neutrality as cowardice, working with opposition towards a common cause as treachery. These are all symptoms of purity testing, and it's the reason why the left in so many places is completely paralyzed.

Such an american comment. So indoctrinated into the two-party system that it's impossible to even imagine anything else.

Have you heard of the concept of coalitions?

How do you know that isn't confirmation bias? We have no idea how many leftists there are that see purity testers and decide to not engage.

Literally only tankies are stupid enough to believe old Soviet Propaganda about how Holodomer was not a genocide. when it clearly was.

A professor in college once said something that stayed with me. He said that "bad ideologies will always find ways to self implode".

This stuck with me because it's true. Good ideologies tend to be pragmatic and flexible, and so they're able to adapt and evolve. However, bad ideologies tend to be more rigid and focus mostly on theories and ideals, and therefore they're unable to adapt or evolve. Far left ideologies firmly fall in the latter category which is why they are where they are.

It's a similar to MAGA in a way. MAGA's biggest problem, as an ideology, is that it revolves around blind loyalty to a single idiot and therefore the entire movement starts and stops with his whims, no matter how contradictory, damaging, or nonsensical. You could say it's confirmation bias that I have this opinion, but I think given recent events, this opinion does have a basis of fact to it. The same applies to the left when it comes to purity testing. It's really not hard to see how prominent purity testing is in leftist discourse.

I do it all the time.

I literally never see it, but I do often see you saying things that are explicitly incompatible with anarchism.

Who’s shitty hot takes are regularly posted on and laughed at in many communities

"We make fun of you in our secret tree house that you aren't allowed in" is not the sick burn you think.

I could give you 10 to 13 calling them out.

And for every one tepid, qualified criticism of the democrats you offer, I could you give 20 of you viciously tearing into the left for not supporting the democrats enough.

However terminally online little trolls like yourself aren’t interested in facts or reality. And your disapproval is a badge of honor.

Oh my god, go back to Reddit you insufferable dweeb. You're really doing the "facts and logic" bullshit?

Well you can either look at the now public soviet archives to see what the government was saying to themselves, you know primary sources, and plenty of historians who cite those or you can accept what anti-communists with no primary sources and a weird tendency to rehabilitate nazi-collaborators say.

It’s really not hard to see how prominent purity testing is in leftist discourse.

That's not what I'm asking, I'm saying you can't judge now many people are not engaging in purity testing.

You could say it’s confirmation bias that I have this opinion, but I think given recent events, this opinion does have a basis of fact to it

That's exactly what confirmation bias is. "All the toupees I see are bad, therefore, all toupees are bad." Confirmation bias with a basis of fact to it, still completely ignoring the toupees you don't notice.

That’s not what I’m asking, I’m saying you can’t judge now many people are not engaging in purity testing.

That's a moot point. First of all, I'm not casting judgement, I'm simply pointing out the state of leftist unity. You can't deny that purity testing is a huge element in leftist discourse, and if you are going to anyway then you're simply not being honest. It doesn't matter how self identifying leftists do or don't purity test, the point is that enough do where it's a cornerstone of leftist culture.

That’s exactly what confirmation bias is. “All the toupees I see are bad, therefore, all toupees are bad.” Confirmation bias with a basis of fact to it, still completely ignoring the toupees you don’t notice.

That's not what confirmation bias is. Confirmation bias is when you actively seek out information that support your preexisting beliefs. My opinion is not confirmation bias, but a simple observation.

First of all, I’m not casting judgement

boy you really aren't understanding what I'm saying if you think that's how I was using "judge"