Cowbee [he/him]

I thought you said “Adios?”

I proved it by illustrating your portrayal of history as important people doing important things, then I contextualized why they happened. Asking you why you believe events happen isn’t “moving the goal posts,” it’s the entire point of this conversation. If you truly reject Great Man Theory, then give an explanation for why Reagan was elected that rejects Great Man Theory.

I outright proved it, lol.

Adios.

I am not proven wrong, the frame of your analysis necessitated the rest of the theory.

Why do you believe Reagan was elected?

Almost as if it’s important to get out and vote in every election.

Ronald Reagan sabotaged Jimmy Carter’s Iran policy and squeaked in with the help of spoiler John Anderson.

To which I pointed out how this was Great Man Theory by saying:

No, I fundamentally disagree with your entire view of historical development, ie the why behind everything.

History is a progression of material conditions, not people and ideas, not Great Individuals making Big Moves. Social Democracy came at a time when the Soviet Union was rising, and Capitalists within America feared similar uprisings in America, compounded by the Great Depression. Concessions were allowed in that context, temporarily.

Neoliberalism came later, after WWII, during the height of the Cold War. It was a way to further seek profits in the Global South.

Fascism is rising now because Capitalism is undoubtedly in decline, and is decaying further.

Material Conditions drive the ideas that drive the masses that drive what’s salient, not random Great People doing everything.

That’s it. The 90% tax rate wasn’t because of Eisenhower, but because of America emerging as the dominant superpower after WWII. What changes people can and do make depends on the context of their current conditions and what brought them there. Reagan wasn’t a random wreckingball, he personally pulled the trigger but he couldn’t have done so at any other point of time because Capitalism was doing much better under Eisenhower, and had naturally decayed.

There.

What did happen, was I was pointing out how you follow Great Man Theory even if unintentionally

So, you know a lot about history, but were amazed to find out about the 90% tax rates?

No. You said we could have 90% tax rates tomorrow if we voted for it, I asked when that was on the ballot. You then went on and spoke about Eisenhower, a long dead President. This is more Great Man Theory, ie you believe the 90% tax rate was because of Eisenhower, and not because the greater political context at the time required concessions. Eisenhower was president right after WWII, where the US was becoming a superpower. If Eisenhower was President today, he would not make a 90% tax rate.

What you can vote for is limited by the context of the political environment, not random heroes influencing history.

I suggest you forget about unprovable theories and concentrate on the facts that did occur.

Again, what on Earth are you talking about? If I throw a rock right now, do you think it will never land? Events have context, they are not random, chaotic people making big moves.

I’m disengaging, you clearly aren’t operating in any kind of good faith.

That isn’t what happened at all, by the way.

1. I said history is the course of physical reality, not Maeve, Maeve merely added on because you weren’t making any sense

2. Humans and their actions are a part of physical reality, I did not at any point say otherwise

3. I was not making history into god, nor saying it was an “inevitable process.”

What did happen, was I was pointing out how you follow Great Man Theory even if unintentionally, which I firmly reject as idealist, and instead was trying to explain Historical Materialism. You then went off on a million tangents and never grasped what I was saying, making it useless to continue.

100%, I’m trying to get them to come to that conclusion on “their own.”

American liberals are so exhausting in their selective application of definitions.

Would make things a lot easier, lol

What on Earth could you have possibly meant? When could we have voted for a 90% tax rate?

Secondly, are you actually denying that history is a physical process? Like, if I throw a ball at someone, they will then be hit by that ball shortly after, right? Then they are hurt, and may retaliate, right? History is a series of reactions, not random special heroes and heroines being born.

I have never tried to change the discussion, you’re resorting to weird debatelord logic and aren’t worth engaging with anymore. Have a good one.

You probably love to rail at Obamacare and point out that it was originally created by Mitt Romney.

Maybe the ACA wasn’t perfect, but 40 million people have some health insurance who wouldn’t have had it without Obama and the Dems.

I have never railed at Obamacare, nor do I point out that it was created by Romney. You spent the next several comments working off of that same false assumption.

History isn’t people? History is nothing but people.

History is the process of Material Reality moving through time. The events of history are guided by the past, they aren’t random, chaotic events. In your analysis, Social Democracy came because FDR came, in my analysis, Social Democracy came because America was recovering from the Great Depression and the Ruling Class was terrified of a US Revolution, coming hot off the heels of the October Revolution.

We had the New Deal in place, and Reagan came along and stripped away things like banking regulations.

Why was Reagan elected in the first place? Why did he have the ideas he had, and why did people vote for them?

We could have a 90% tax rate tomorrow if people voted for it.

Where’s the ballot measure for that?

You’re still attacking a strawman, lmao. Again, touch grass.

What on Earth is this strawman tangent? Touch grass.

No, I fundamentally disagree with your entire view of historical development, ie the why behind everything.

History is a progression of material conditions, not people and ideas, not Great Individuals making Big Moves. Social Democracy came at a time when the Soviet Union was rising, and Capitalists within America feared similar uprisings in America, compounded by the Great Depression. Concessions were allowed in that context, temporarily.

Neoliberalism came later, after WWII, during the height of the Cold War. It was a way to further seek profits in the Global South.

Fascism is rising now because Capitalism is undoubtedly in decline, and is decaying further.

Material Conditions drive the ideas that drive the masses that drive what’s salient, not random Great People doing everything.

That’s a neat way to say “being too lazy to actually make a difference, but I don’t want to feel bad about it”.

I don’t believe the way forward is by passing laws in a system that cannot be reformed into a good one, so it doesn’t make sense to judge my praxis by passing laws within said system.

I’ll just add that if you aren’t interested in passing laws you should vote for Harris if only to annoy the Right.

I think this right here illustrates your political views perfectly, “owning the chuds” is more important than actually working towards progress.

Why would passing laws be my concern? The answer is 0.

FDR was okay, then his safety nets were stripped away. They were only ever temporary concessions because Capitalists were always the ones in control, and they still are. In this manner, it was eventually no motion.

Gotcha, I’ll keep organizing outside the useless electoral system.

FDR was a Social Democrat, not a Socialist.

If my relatively tame comments defending the basics of Marxism get me banned, then they will be doing me a favor.