Most of the article is pretty levelheaded, but this got a chuckle out of me:
The Communist Party of Peru did not “boil children alive”. I have seen nothing like this written anywhere. They did, apparently, use scalding water as a method of execution, along with stones and machetes. They did, also, engage in the act of killing infants, elderly people, and pregnant women at the village of Lucanamarca in 1983.
Technically they didn’t boil babies, they just sometimes executed people with scalded water, and some of the people they executed were babies.
Bonus from the comments:
5 second skimming and i already can’t:
On one hand, using word for word one of the worst chud arguments, on the other inventing something like this: “Bourgeois (And Dogmato-Revisionist)”
deleted by creator
I mean, it is literally the only thing most MLMs believe distinguish them from MLs. They would be MLs except for all the terrible things we did, but all the terrible things can be explained by revisionism, and they would do everything we did without the bad things because they are “anti-revisionist”. All the bad things they’ll do will only be done to the reactionaries and the MLs, because it’s “anti-revisionist” to do so.
Essentially, it’s a transplantation of the moral binary, which ironically makes it revisionism.
Marx wanted to revise parts of Capital Volume 1, he’s a revisionist (!!!)
I think its some kind of drinking game.
My liver hurts on mere thought.
“dogmato-revisionist” sounds like an oxymoron to me
Not really, for example: maoists. They at the same time managed to wage decades long armed conflicts because dogmatically following Mao and at the same time completely miss the real meaning of his theory.
It’s just a shitty sounding term and it’s annoying because how not self aware they are.
it does make some kind of sense when you put it like that