Yes it clearly did. When you respond to something, and just ignore the point, that kidna defeats the purpose of the response. What is this “your crowd”? I dont know what that is, lets define what you mean by that.
Ok honestly didnt expect you read marx, it typically serves as filter, and from your response i assumed it impossible. Are you much into econ? Bcs some parts of capital arent too simple. Do you like structuralism?
Regarding the point about russia. Well the point about what happens could be relevant. Thats why your claim about ussr was so derailed. Who said ussr? There are many communists whod argue for it, and many whod argue for some other form. Its exactly a strawman to pick a battle, which was nowhere in the original claim. Proximity from previous context doesnt change this, he said communists, you assumed soviets.
Yes it clearly did. When you respond to something, and just ignore the point, that kidna defeats the purpose of the response. What is this “your crowd”? I dont know what that is, lets define what you mean by that.
Ok honestly didnt expect you read marx, it typically serves as filter, and from your response i assumed it impossible. Are you much into econ? Bcs some parts of capital arent too simple. Do you like structuralism?
Regarding the point about russia. Well the point about what happens could be relevant. Thats why your claim about ussr was so derailed. Who said ussr? There are many communists whod argue for it, and many whod argue for some other form. Its exactly a strawman to pick a battle, which was nowhere in the original claim. Proximity from previous context doesnt change this, he said communists, you assumed soviets.