I stayed on topic the whole time, addressing each of your points directly and thoroughly. If that constitutes “derailing,” as you said, then that’s further evidence that you aren’t interested in a conversation at all. By your definition of “authoritarian,” all Marxists would be, so if anything calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” is redundant.
You continue to claim there are non-authoritarian Marxists, but haven’t shown how they are meaningfully different from the bolsheviks outside of the bolsheviks having actually succeeded in establishing socialism for a period longer than a couple years. Whether or not you feel dragged into it, addressing how you align perfectly with “left” anti-communists is important, as it highlights why you seem to only uphold the unsuccessful Marxists (who actually agreed with the bolsheviks, for the most part, such as Allende).
I stayed on topic the whole time, addressing each of your points directly and thoroughly. If that constitutes “derailing,” as you said, then that’s further evidence that you aren’t interested in a conversation at all. By your definition of “authoritarian,” all Marxists would be, so if anything calling the bolsheviks “authoritarian Marxists” is redundant.
You continue to claim there are non-authoritarian Marxists, but haven’t shown how they are meaningfully different from the bolsheviks outside of the bolsheviks having actually succeeded in establishing socialism for a period longer than a couple years. Whether or not you feel dragged into it, addressing how you align perfectly with “left” anti-communists is important, as it highlights why you seem to only uphold the unsuccessful Marxists (who actually agreed with the bolsheviks, for the most part, such as Allende).