Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist, we can reject dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee -2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Calling something by the wrong "name" is not exactly criticism.

So he's just upset at the name, not the implied criticism behind it?

is a matter of observation.

Ahh, so because you said so. Got it

Quite a stretch of the word quote

Literally is a quote from Wikipedia, yes.

Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist we can reject only dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis

And what is that rational bias of defending his views other than Russia supposedly standing up to western imperialism by doing western styled imperialism?

[–] wellfill@lemmy.ml 3 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

I dont think that he is particularly upset.

No see if one was to compare his advice take the one to the us planners that they should provide for example loans to the soviets it was completely rejected, as the us chauvinistically did not want to help.

Quote of whom?

First where does security concern equal "standing up to something". Secondly what exactly do you mean by the concept of rational bias?

edit: do you know that some bolsheviks pragmatically supported capitalist policies as means to help the national economy and as transitional to communism. Your argument crumbles even in this respect.