I said: he doesnt have to be wealthy to be a socialist. So you replied: why should the revolutionaries starve? As if those are the only two options. I never said anyone has no be poor to be part of the revolution. That’s your interpretation. Not sure that the reading material has to do with your flawed logic…
Because you can’t distinguish between the false dichotomy you created intentionally in order to avoid the real question. It’s a nice strategy, but it got stale a long time ago. No one said socialists have to be poor. Literally, no one.
There is no dichotomy you’re just dumb and losing
I said: he doesnt have to be wealthy to be a socialist. So you replied: why should the revolutionaries starve? As if those are the only two options. I never said anyone has no be poor to be part of the revolution. That’s your interpretation. Not sure that the reading material has to do with your flawed logic…
Anything’s possible when you make shit up kiddo
Not much of a response to what I wrote, but ok…
It is the response you have earned
Because you can’t distinguish between the false dichotomy you created intentionally in order to avoid the real question. It’s a nice strategy, but it got stale a long time ago. No one said socialists have to be poor. Literally, no one.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up
Did anyone say socialists have to be poor? Did I say that?
“I’m not saying socialists have to be poor I’m just criticizing this specific person for not being poor enough for my entirely arbitrary standards”
Lol try harder halfwit