: "What you champion is some kind of 'super party' which you consider necessary to get those (by implication hapless) proletariats' act together. Not only is it not necessary its also liable to be false leader-following reminiscent of Hitler's 'for the poeple' strategy. "
However one reads the above one cannot read it as some personal attack, unless one does so in order to avoid the true meaning.
The comparison between *anyone* who believes that capitalisms replacement requires a party as vanguard to lead the masses, and that of Hitlers party which also nominally led the masses to revolutionary change is valid as a debating point.
Emotional outbursts don't cut it. pretending it is a 'smear' does not evade the point being made.
If any posters wish to criticise the comparison of the principle of 'party as vangaurd' with similar efforts in human history please do so - I would like to know what would make 'party as vanguard' different in principle dependant upon the persuasion of said party.
: McSpotlight: Please take this to email or drop it; this is personal stuff and doesn't belong on McSpotlight. I think we've established beyond all doubt that neither of you are going to cede the last word this side of Armageddon...
This isn't about getting the final insult in, at least not from me, I am establishing a point of comparison which can be debated against - but not with personal attacks as noted.