Why people that cite orwell usually the people that don't understand Orwell ?

Why people that cite orwell usually the people that don't understand Orwell ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qyFMKiHFZXg.
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Same reasons tankies cite Marx without understanding Marx

Because they're stupid. Animal Farm is about a revolution gone wrong or an argument against a vanguard , not to make the point all revolutions will go wrong.

RUDE

Because whole Orwell wrote some great stuff most people's experience with him is 1984 and Animal Farm, which aren't good for one, and two it's required reading in school so they read the spark notes at most

Because they read it once in high school and just quote it from memory years later.

He rite doe: youtube.com/watch?v=qyFMKiHFZXg.

Also tankie general failing to see Lenin's conscious and implicit deviation from taking direct steps towards post-capitalism with indirect steps through capitalism as proof that Lenin supports the notion of central planning of exchange as post-capitalist.

In this they literally fail to understand both of the individuals in their namesake ("Marxism"-"Leninism") and the title of opportunist fits them if we respect their intelligence or fucking mongoloid if we assume that they're complete slaves to delusion and demagoguery.

In school they had us read Harrison bergeron and they told us it was set in communism

MLs are the natural result of Leninism though.

Ancoms really are fucking retards

triggered tankie detected

>not knowing about Amadeo Bordiga Thought

Perhaps we can say that the natural result of what Leninism did enabled ML (someone cue that Zizek talk in which he says that Stalin completely goes against Lenin with non-constructive ideas like """""socialism""" in one country", but that it is Leninist policy that festered the ground for immanent figures like Stalin to take over should things go wrong in the democratic centralist process, at once solidifying also the myth that the USSR would have gone the right way if only Lenin had lived on a little longer and had made a pact with Trotsky or appointed the new Plekhanovians or Kautskyists).

Sargon doesn't read books he reads the back of books and then makes a five hour video about it.

The USSR was isolated to a gigantic, peripheral peasant shithole. It was inevitable that it degenerated that way, not out of Chomskyte bullshit over "Leninist organization".

...

pretty sure sargon just reads wiki articles

Because the American ruling class benefits from the illusion that the American revolution is the first and last revolution to succeed.

Because in order to cite an allegorical story with farm animals in a debate on political theory, you have to be daft enough not to understand Orwell. Like, if you're remotely capable of close reading and connecting content and context, you won't mistake Animal Farm for rigorous theory.

This


Kautskyists were pretty shit, but the Stalinist "socialism in one country" is a revisionist deviation all its own.
We can only speculate as to what would or would not have happened had Trotsky taken the reins, though. It may have all gone well, as Stalin presided over policy failures as well as pure historical circumstance. A leader that understands permanent revolution is certainly an asset, seeing as opportunities which present themselves must also be pursued. Russian handling of the Hitler regime, at the very least, would've been radically different.
What I mean is the claim "the fall of the Soviet Union was inevitable from about '25 on" is pure conjecture.


And journal articles, but he actually spends more time smugly reading text chunks aloud in his videos than he does reading them off camera.

Holy Christ the replies to this tweet are just painful, I feel bad for the guy running the account trying to give satisfactory definitions of socialism on a platform that has a character limit.

Hahahaha