← Back to context

Comment by robertlagrant

7 months ago

Sorry I think you've made a lot of this up. Where did I say I was ignorant of something, and where did I say anything about a faux pas?

Here is what you said:

"Anyone who talks about class traitors, or almost any sort of traitor, outside of a real war, is deeply misguided on this point."

This is where you appear to imply you're ignorant of class traitorship. If you truly knew what it was - which you claim elsewhere to know - then you would know it doesn't require a war. Class traitors are non-capitalists who collaborate with capitalists against workers. They can do that during peace.

Now forgive me if the following explanation is unnecessary:

When someone uses a term in a misguided way we can say they made a faux pas. When you claim the author is misguided for talking about class traitors outside of war, you're implying they have made a faux pas.

But the author is making no mistake. Class traitors exist in peace time as well, as I mentioned.

So if you know what a class traitor is, then admit the author is not misguided. If you can't make that admission, you have misunderstood the nature of class traitorship.

  • > Class traitors are non-capitalists who collaborate with capitalists against workers. They can do that during peace.

    I think this is deeply misguided.

    • Oh. You're arguing against the usefulness of the Marxist concept, and your objection has perhaps nothing to do with war traitors.

      Do you disagree with communist theory in general?

      4 replies →