Ledlecreeper27 added an ideological dispute message box; but there's no actual discussion on the controversies section.
We should review the recent changes to see if we keep them since GopnikAward just added them after arguing with Luna Oi on Twitter. There are also legitimate criticisms of the Chinese invasion of Vietnam.
We should review the recent changes to see if we keep them since GopnikAward just added them after arguing with Luna Oi on Twitter.
Where did GopnikAward argue with Luna Oi? Show me evidence because I haven't seen them do so.
Also, why should that potential event support the removal of the changes? Most of the added claims, aside from the unsourced "claiming critics are ultra left", do have evidence (in this case, through Luna Oi's twitter) account. Why should we remove that text?
There are also legitimate criticisms of the Chinese invasion of Vietnam.
How is this relevant to the Luna Oi page? GopnikAward did not add any mention of the Chinese invasion of Vietnam.
@Amicchan It was not an argument, it was Luna Oi calling me a western ultra. https://twitter.com/LunaOi_VN/status/1614236313246474240
Ohh, that's what it's about. You support the Kampuchea just because they support communism; so you think that Vietnam ruined Kampuchean cambodia.
She indeed called you an ultraleftist, but that's in response to you denouncing the Vietnamese liberation of Cambodia, which supports the existence of the Kampuchea (hence the attack-defense contradiction). Now I see where she is coming from.
I had a feeling you supported the Kampuchea from the way you written about the Vietnamese liberation of Cambodia.
and that's why I wanted evidence. I would have missed out on that nuance otherwise.
I have removed and edit some claims in the Controversy sections, because the sources did not support the arguments that were made.
1. Anti-Stalin rhetoric: entirely removed because it is only anti-Stalin rhetoric if it is false. It can be reincluded (it's never lost, it's still in the page history) but we would have to find counter-arguments. More details:
a. "Luna Oi claims that Joseph Stalin never synthesised Marxism-Leninism": this is not what the linked tweet says.
b. "and that Marxism-Leninism existed within Ho Chi Minh as well": she said Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam started developing their own ideologies in 1917 and did not get MLism "100%" from Stalin. I'm not sure what this claim on the article is supposed to mean or prove though.
2. Anarchist rhetoric: renamed heading as "Anarchist positions". Removed this:
c. "Luna Oi claims that the division between anarchism and Marxism is miscommunication, and claims that it is there to divide the left.": what she claims is that this is how she "feels" based on how Marx and Engels talked to Bukanin, she doesn't seem to be saying it's a universal truth or anything. For that claim we could also point to the context at the time (which Luna might well be taking into account too), and quote Stalin's Anarchism or Socialism
d. I kept the second claim ("Luna Oi claimed that what she really wanted was anarchism"), but removed that "flat hierarchies will fix everything" because again she did not say that. I also clarified it a bit.
3. Vietnamese Nationalism: kept it as is, though I'm not sure it should be called nationalism (as in my opinion it seems to imply nationalism in the liberal sense, being dogmatist and superior in one's nationality), but I don't have other ideas.
4. Lack of ability to take in criticism: there is no source for this claim and it's really more of a character flaw. One way this claim could be made is in regards to self-crit, but even then I'm not really sure how we would prove it productively and definitely. Section entirely removed.
Please consider these edits official and only bring back claims from the previous version if they can actually be sourced and do not misrepresent Luna's positions.
There are no older topics