… about which in Post #9 I said…
I am done with you.
If you think I care one whit about whether you are “done with me”, or anything else about how you wish to arbitrarily limit discussion in this thread for that matter, then you haven’t been paying attention. Nonetheless, feel free to refuse to reply to me; I will take that as the concession of my correctness that such behavior usually implies. After all, it’s what you just did - you’re only focussing on the first ten words of my post to avoid having to admit that the rest of that post blows your position to tiny shreds, taking the post that you selected as representative of Lenin’s correctness and state of being ‘on point’, and demonstrating that it is tremendously off point. Which by extension based on your selection of it as representative, demonstrates fairly solidly that either the entire document is off point (that is, ‘dated communist screed’), or if it’s not, then it proves indubatibly that you wouldn’t know the good parts of it if there were any, because if they existed you sure didn’t select them.
Which is to say, with your help, I have actually proved that there is no point in reading the document in a discussion with you - either it’s crap, or you wouldn’t know if it weren’t and thus couldn’t discuss it anyway. QED, as it were.
Oh by the way, adhay, I just came back and reread your arbitrary powerless mandate, and realized that I didn’t even disobey it! Post #9 said that if I should find something specific in your cite I’d like to dispute, I should let you know. And this is the specific post I was disputing:
So, the thing I was disputing was something specific from Imperialism - you said so yourself. So by your own words you have no cause for complaint.
Even when quoting your own posts, reading comprehension matters - though errors on that front are not nearly as bad for your position as your misinterpretations of Lenin. It would be one thing if Lenin actually was the tits, and had presciently predicted all of modern society and economics 94 years in advance, and we were all disregarding him solely for his poor interpersonal habits. But the situation is that Lenin was just asserting imagined worst cases about capitalism in order to promote his preferred alternative communism, and any forecasting ability you see is in your eyes only, fueled by and based on biased misreadings of the text itself.