/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12150214
I was asking which philosophy of history you would propose we go with for our analysis anon, not preferred system.
Capitalism is definitely the best we've had by-and-large, but if you don't think the USSR aproved the effectiveness of socialism I think you should educate yourself. The USSR went from the most backward country in Europe to the global #2 and first nation in space over mere decades. Read the first couple chapters of Revolution Betrayed by Trotsky, he gives a rundown of the numbers. Don't get me wrong, the USSR was awful in its own regard, but surely you can abstract the power of socialism, especially when implemented with different starting conditions, yes?
Even though the experiments of history were doomed to fall to bureaucracy by their starting conditions they still won in terms of scientific progression and quality of life despite being huge underdogs. That's gotta say something.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/
It's also worth noting that security you have in capitalism is crumbling rapidly due to its own intrinsic contradictions.

>>10869460

>>10854708
>has no understanding of economics
I can already tell you're a burger. When the "third world" is fucked, your economic imperialism goes to. Your economy is already in decline. Your trade partners in the developed world will be hit by this too and it will only compound the collapse of your economy. You'll get a massive influx of immigrants which you brought among yourselves by decades of careless imperialism.
It won't be comfy for you kek

Why should I not do an Honors' in CompSci and go onto research if I'm passionate and interested? Why do people talk about the field like it is a meme?

>>10720267
Are you retarded? At least a system in which 60% of people are pursuing arts doesn't waste people's intrinsic abilities and motivation on shitty consumerism which provably hurts both innovation and productivity, not to mention human happiness. If 40% of the population are actually doing something useful opposed to the majority of the population being stuck in actually useless corporate jobs anyone who cares about scientific progress would be happy.
>cant succeed
Anyone who cares about science, regardless of political affiliation, would agree that success has nothing to do with wealth but rather contribution. Aside from that capitalism is setup so the majority of people can't succeed anyway -- that's basic economics. Most workers are succeeding in contribution, however, capitalism directly impedes people's abilities to be rewarded for it in the same way it impedes innovation and progress. Pic related. Go back to /pol/, retard.