Lolwut? What questions? I mean, you think you've demolished me because I couldn't get yourquestions in that rant you had where all you did was repeat the smae thing fucking ober and over, you have yet to answer why stalin ommitted the negation of the negation. And lol your so good at debates. Make a thread so ismail can help you out more publicly? I mean, help me revleft I have no idea how to debate third worldists! That point about the neg of the neg being published elsewhere as evidencee for stalin accepting it makes as much sense for showing khruschev as a leninist because he published lenins work in the world too. Did that go ovedr your npigshit brain too? You have yet to provide any proof other than a 1931 text.
The word limit for these wall posts is 1000 characters, so if I want to say more than that, there is no other choice than to post multiple times. If you wanted to start a thread, I would post in it. I love exposing your idiocy to audiences. Also, you have answered none of my questions. I know it hurts your feelings when I demolish you, but there's no other choice if you wish to learn.
Lol questionable. I sure am popular with you. Too bad all these posts are just long rants all on the same thing, and many of my points went right over your head. My argument is stalin dropped the negation of the negation, my evidence is he never talked about it. If someone talks of biology and never brings up lamark, it is safe to say they have dropped that. Your claim is that stalin upheld the negation of the negation. I have yet to see evidence for this. Also, drop the jackass act. Your too stupid for it.
You know what else is humorous? Your claim is that even if I could provide the source for the 1944 translation, it still wouldn't matter because it was a 1938 work. Yet, the specific reason the work was translated was so it could be sent abroad for English-speaking CPs to learn from. So, somehow, the CPSU decided to send erroneous information to the CPs it was associated with. The CPSU was even so meticulous about up-to-date information that it used to send pages for people who owned the Great Soviet Encyclopedia for them to glue inside the book and replace information that had changed or become outdated. So you're asking me to believe that the CPSU committed the massive blunder of teaching the negation concept to people when it didn't even believe it itself anymore. Stupidity.
This argument is essentially pointless. Your theory is that the Soviet state abandoned the negation concept, but when I presented you with contradictory proof, you claimed it didn't matter. So in other words, you'll accept no piece of contrary evidence, and you'll endlessly cling to this argument. I have a feeling that even if I did produce a work by Stalin supporting the negation concept, you'd still find a reason to dismiss it. I love how Hoxhaists are called the dogmatic ones, but you've repeatedly shown that you are completely and totally ignorant of anything involving the USSR, yet you mindlessly denounce it. Probably because your dislike of Stalin is based on emotion rather than reason.
1. If Stalin omitted the negation of the negation, why can you not find a single shred of evidence for it? If there existed some documented evidence of this discussion, that maybe people who criticized Stalin such as the Maoists, the Soviet revisionists, Trotskyists, or any anti-Stalin group would have brought it up. Instead, you seem to be the only one with this idea, aside from Althusser who also cites no evidence. 2. If Stalin disapproved of the concept, why did he not criticze the Leningrad Institute for teaching it to Soviet citizens and communists abroad? "Economic Problems of the USSR" began as a critique of an economics textbook, so it obviously wouldn't be out-of-character for Stalin to say something about it. As I've said, your entire argument is built upon absence of evidence. It doesn't surprise me that you would have such faulty logic, since it's essentially the same logic that religious people employ to defend the existence of God, what with you being religious and all.
I can't give you the source for the 1944 translation right now because I'm at work. I will give it to you tomorrow. Yes, the Soviet revisionists continued to publish Lenin and Marx post-Stalin. Ismail and I own some of those books. Your entire argument is based upon the absence of evidence fallacy. Because X has no basis, it can neither be proven nor disproven; therefore, you are erroneously concluding that it must be true, since it can't be disproven, when the logical conclusion would be to conclude that since it cannot be proven, that X is either incorrect or must be conceded until further evidence is gathered. It is merely a way of shifting the burden of proof onto me. Therefore, since I have countered every point you've risen, the burden of proof is no longer mine, and I will in fact ask you some questions about your inane hypothesis that I expect you to answer.
I have yet to see any proof for that work being published in its entirety past 1938. I also want evidence for that work being published in 19444, but regardless, an english translation of a 1931/7 book doesn't mean anything. Ffs, didn't the post stalin stalinists publish das kapital and lenin? You have no proof for any of these things because stalin omitted thyem in order to justify the state. As to your last point, your returning to your idiocy (did you ever leave it?) Bgecause I fail to see where I have said that.
I don't know, but for the record, Marx and Lenin sparsely mentioned the concept in their writings either. It was more of Engels' baby. That said, absence of evidence does not equal evidence. The Soviet Union still taught the negation of the negation to its own citizens and to communists abroad as late as 1944, and we have no reason to believe they stopped. Once again, I find it hard to believe that Stalin carried out some revolution against the concept, and not a single person besides Althusser knew about it. I also find it humorous that the negation of the negation is apparently the one critical detail that the Soviets needed to get rid of in order to become an evil empire or whatever, as if the entirety of Marxist thought is predicated on it.
And like I said when I get back to my pc I will further researcg this to check out the validity of your claims. If writing on the neg of the neg was so redundant, why did stalin write on dialectics at all? Why did he write on the dialectics but not include the negation of the negation. Answer this question.
