/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10816535
no

>>10816544
Based on what? The only "argument" ever launched at DiaMat is Karl Popper saying its unfalsifiable, which is an absurd argument for a start and its wrong anyway because DiaMat is falsifiable.

Diamat is a scientific outlook, not a science itself.
Here's an example:
The Copenhagen Interpretation says that wave function collapse is the result of some abstract "observation."
Diamat says that it is the result of some underlying material process whose contradictions haven't yet been teased out.
Neither is an actual theory of physics, but an explanation of the theory and evidence. The Copenhagen Interpretation is idealist, not materialist. So, it is an unscientific outlook. The idealist outlook is actually holding science back in most fields, and has done so for much of human history.

Check out Cockshott's videos about materialism:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQ/videos

Also read Theses on Feuerbach, Materialism and Empirio-criticism, Dialectics of Nature, and On Contradiction.

>>10816585
I'm not saying that diamat *is* physics. I'm saying that its a scientific outlook. For example, evolution can be explained as a serious of contradictions. Probably the best example of diamat in evolution is organism that change very little (not saying they change at all, just not massively) when they're very successful This means they're not in contradiction (mutual exclusivity) with the environment so there's no need for them change. Whereas organism that in contradiction with the environment have to change rapidly or go extinct.

>>10816535
pseudoscience and ideology pretending to be scientific

>>10816623
Care to explain why?

>>10816623
That was easy to spot.
Another butthurt Republican/Tory voter.

Science in Marx's days and in his language doesn't mean natural science or some other social science field with physics envy

It's about as useful as Freud in this day and age. Concepts like surplus value have been thoroughly debunked. Answer me this, what's the "means of production" in a call centre?

>>10816585
That's not scientific thinking. That's the assertion that materialism is scientific. Also not sure how your argument about "just a way of thinking" makes sense when they apparently have actual effects on the science itself according to you.

Also, always love how Marxists can't make an argument without giving a reading list.

>>10816585
>Tacitly approving of hidden variables
Special relativity would like a word with you.

>>10817382
Freud was wrong and his methods were idealist though.

>surplus value have been thoroughly debunked
Its never been debunked. Bourgeoisie economists just *assert* subjectivism is true, they've never actually "debunked" surplus labour value.

>what's the "means of production" in a call centre?
The capital. The phones, computers, the land the building is on, the servers, the headsets, the keyboards... in short, the capital.

>>10817397

>>10817417
Calling Dialectical Materialism a science is a deliberate attempt to borrow the credibility of the natural sciences to give credulous people the impression that your approach has some sort of methodological advantage or greater objectivity over other schools. This is simply not true. Marxian economics is in fact behind in many of the more important developments on economics, it's behind in game theory, mathematical model building, and just about every modern predictive mechanism that's been adopted preferring to remain in the Hegelian past. More to the point it's not an objective search for truth and barely pretends to be, it's an advocation for a new form of economic paradigm on moral grounds, Marx and everyone since has not simply reasoned that the Marxian resolution IS how things are to be, they have suggested that this is how they OUGHT to be, as a result of starting off on the wrong footing Marxians habitually reason from oughts to what they think "is".

>>10817417
Oh boy if only the workers could seize.. The telephones, they would be totally liberated and not working for the man.

Copenhagen proves the bedrock of reality is idealist all along and Marxists can't cope

>>10817429
Hold your horses. Copenhagen doesn't prove shit. Other interpretations haven't been experimentally, or logically ruled out as yet. Though for instance Roger Penrose has provided an experiment to falsify objective reduction interpretations.

>>10817432
The double slit theory proves that reality is subjective at the base level. Your Marxism is even less falsifiable. Also all axioms eventually crumble into an illogical mess when you zoom in far enough, this has been proven by the limitations of set theory

>>10817434
I'm not a Marxist, not the same guy, but you're just wrong here. If you use your google-fu you can learn in an instant that there are several interpretations that're potentially viable at present that haven't been experimentally ruled out.

I suspect that they WILL be ruled out and I'm in the Copenhagen camp, leaning towards Von Neumann's approach but we don't know for a fact that interpretation is correct.

>>10817425
Marxism is a science because it uses the scientific method.

>Marxian economics is in fact behind in many of the more important developments on economics,
No it isn't.

>it's behind in game theory, mathematical model building
No it isn't. And game theory is stupid when applied to markets because its not just one small group of individuals acting, its a mass system.

>every modern predictive mechanism
Capitalist economics can't predict anything. Or rather it can, but it literally can't stop them because of anarchy in production.

> it's an advocation for a new form of economic paradigm on moral grounds
No it isn't. Marxism functions absolutely fine without morality. In fact, one of the arguments levied against subjectivist economics is that it wouldn't function in a world of p-zombies because it assumes consciousness is primary over matter. Marxism would. Leaving out morality, the contradictions of capitalism, the things that cause it to constantly enter crises, would still exist. But even so, there is a moral dimension to science.

>Marx and everyone since has not simply reasoned that the Marxian resolution IS how things are to be, they have suggested that this is how they OUGHT to be
No they don't, this is the most topsy-turvy bullshit ever. Subjectivist economists do this, not marxists. Capitalism *relies* on the idea that the working classes OUGHT not to violate the capitalist private property because "its violent": in reality, there's no IS reason they shouldn't.

>>10817429
>Oh boy if only the workers could seize.. The telephones, they would be totally liberated and not working for the man.
Shittiest argument ever when you expand that to the land, natural resources, all the machinery the capitalist class have and everything they own that produces things.

>>10817448
Ok so the workers are going to seize the call centre and then what? Run a business that's obsolete in a Marxist post capitalist fantasy world? Turn it into a squatter camp like Venezuela?

>>10817447
>Marxism is a science because it uses the scientific method.
No it doesn't, it uses Hegelian dialectics and materialist assumptions. It doesn't even try to be one of the philosophies scientists have used historically such as empiricism, positivism, falsificationism or modern mixed methods. It's just a relic.
>No it isn't.
Not an argument
>No it isn't. And game theory is stupid when applied to markets because its not just one small group of individuals acting, its a mass system.
How does it feel to have a sub-90 IQ?
>Capitalist economics can't predict anything.
You admit yourself in the next second it can. Economic modeling has gotten systematically better at predicting and explaining complex economic behaviour, made all the more difficult because unlike many sciences economics doesn't benefit from a control group of any kind.
>Or rather it can, but it literally can't stop them because of anarchy in production.
Your approach is distinctly inferior in prediction and has been slow to adapt to new developments, we have no reason to believe you assertion that it will be better at preventing issues it can't even predict. This is snake oil.
>No it isn't.
Except that it is and we both know it is and attempting to bullshit here is a joke.
>levied against subjectivist economics is that it wouldn't function in a world of p-zombies because it assumes consciousness is primary over matter
I bet you thought that this was a meaningful statement. It means absolutely nothing. No interpretation of quantum mechanics disputes the existence of consensus reality.
>he contradictions of capitalism, the things that cause it to constantly enter crises, would still exist
Except none of the predictions or crises arise when you predict them, and none for the reasons that you predict them.
>No they don't,
Yes they do, and you are a fucking fool.

You sound like you're 15 or something, because I have no fucking clue how you've managed to convince yourself that QM is related to econ.

>>10817459
Why asking things like its some "gotcha" when you've clearly never read a single word marx has ever wrote? No they won't "run a business". There's a revolution in which a communist vanguard party overthrows and then expropriates the bourgeoisie, and then a socialist society is built. And I don't know why smug capitalists act like this isn't possible and is just a pipe dream, its happened multiple times and is going to happen again.

>>10817466
>it uses Hegelian dialectics
It doesn't. This is something people think and I don't know why. Marxism is opposite of hegelianism, as marx said "it keeps the rational kernel", but its not hegelian dialectics. Hegelian dialectics is very different from dialectical materialism.

>. It doesn't even try to be one of the philosophies scientists have used historically such as empiricism, positivism, falsificationism or modern mixed methods
Hmmm, yes it does. Marxism uses it all the time and is constantly being updated, while capitalist economics hasn't grown since adam smith, who by the way, marx's work builds from.

>Not an argument
It is if you don't provide one in the first place.

>How does it feel to have a sub-90 IQ?
How does it feel to be peak dunning-kruger?

>You admit yourself in the next second it can
It can't if you take the idealist way of thinking they advocate. But obviously capitalists do need to actually get things done, so they basically use marxism but it call it different things. For example, they know that capitalism leads to a crises in production and its guaranteed to keep happening because the system is fundamentally broken, but instead they call it a "cycle" or "contraction".

>Economic modeling has gotten systematically better at predicting and explaining complex economic behaviour
It hasn't. I mean, globalism only became a big talking point among capitalists in the 90's: Lenin was already talking about it in "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" 100 years ago.

(cont)

>>10817478
>>10817466
>Your approach is distinctly inferior in prediction and has been slow to adapt to new developments
Incorrect. Marxism has developed drastically and usually pre-empts things years in advance. Its constantly developing.

>that it will be better at preventing issues it can't even predict
What like recessions, something the USSR, even during the great depression, never had? Or Cuba, which has never had a recession?

>quantum mechanics
? I think you're getting me mixed up with the other guy.

>Except none of the predictions or crises arise when you predict them
Erm yes. Stalin flipping predicted the current post-soviet rise in neo-liberal and reactionary capitalism nearly 70 years ago.

>Yes they do
No they don't.

>you've managed to convince yourself that QM is related to econ.
I'm not the quantum mechanics guy but it is, unless you believe humans can will things into existence with their minds. Engle's fsecond fucking law very likely relates to quantum mechanics, even though he was dead a decade before it was even a glitter in anyone's eye.

>2) The law of the passage of quantitative
changes into qualitative changes.
Does that sound like anything? Maybe, lots of little things exhibiting different behavior when they are in a mass?

>>10817478
>It doesn't. This is something people think and I don't know why
It does. Marx pilfered dialectics and added a materialist assumption. It's literally Hegel 2 electric boogaloo.
>Hmmm, yes it does
No, no it doesn't.
>while capitalist economics hasn't grown since adam smith
Do you have any idea what a fucking fool you sound like making claims like this?
>It is if you don't provide one in the first place.
Except it's a stone cold fact that Marxian economics isn't behind mathematical modelling which had its start proper with Keynes, and it's a stone cold fact that game-theoretic understandings of economics began with Von Neumann, a rabid anti-communist (And smartest man to ever live lmao)
>How does it feel to be peak dunning-kruger?
You tell me.
>It can't if you take the idealist way of thinking they advocate.
It absolutely can. Idealism has nothing whatsoever to do with the predictive capacity of a mathematical model. What you're claiming isn't simply wrong, it's got nothing to do with anything, it is not even wrong.
>but instead they call it a "cycle" or "contraction".
"but instead they have a much better developed and complex understanding that confuses my brain because I struggle with Math, it upsets me"
>It hasn't
It objectively has. Economic modelling based on game theory has developed to explain a wide variety of theoretical and practical pheomena, Nash Equilibria, work under John Horton Conway. Description of liquidity traps etc etc.

You are a fucking fool.

>>10817478
The point about the call centre is that labor doesn't work like your ideal 1920s village where the means of production are tractors and factories and busses. Capitalism has refined labour and often case we approach pure information as the product that exchanges value. Abolishing private property would immediately collapse us back to the 1920s because the business models thatt have been refined in the information age would be undermined.

>>10817490
>Incorrect. Marxism has developed drastically and usually pre-empts things years in advance. Its constantly developing.
Except it doesn't, hasn't, and isn't. The major prediction of Marxism, an enormous collapse based on contradiction which results in a synthesis, the socialist and eventually communist state, has never come true. The joke is that the prediction isn't even detailed enough to be actually meaningful so people like you can eternally stretch the goalposts.
>What like recessions, something the USSR, even during the great depression, never had? Or Cuba, which has never had a recession?
Neither have they ever had the explosive growth or living standards of the USA or capitalist west. Proportionately their supposedly impressive GDP growth isn't even as impressive as Italy's over the same period IIRC.
>? I think you're getting me mixed up with the other guy.
You made a ridiculous claim about P-zombies having anything at all to with economics. It's another not even wrong claim.
>Erm yes. Stalin flipping predicted the current post-soviet rise in neo-liberal and reactionary capitalism nearly 70 years ago.
>Stalin predicted
Discarded.
>No they don't
Yes they, and you, do. Even in your own claim that Marxism functions without morality you literally could not help yourself, you slipped the claim that "science has a moral dimension" in, because the thinking is by now habitual. You absolute joke.
>I'm not the quantum mechanics guy but it is,
I'm very glad that you've decided to open up your opinions on Quantum Mechanics also, because it allows anyone and everyone to see how ridiculous you are.
>Does that sound like anything?
It sounds like you're a fucking idiot.

>>10817493
>Marx pilfered dialectics
How on earth are you calling the exact opposite of something the same thing?

>No, no it doesn't.
You can't just keep responding to an argument with "no it doesn't".

>Do you have any idea what a fucking fool you sound like making claims like this?
It hasn't. Capitalism itself has, but idiot capitalists are still running around saying "read adam smith!" and using his arguments, like marx even disagreed with adam smith. Adam smith was the one who came up with the labour theory of value in the first place. Or even worse, something very popular today, is Mises, who is considered a moron even among capitalist economists.

>Except it's a stone cold fact that Marxian economics isn't behind mathematical modelling
Marx *was* one of the first economists to use mathematical modelling, have you ever read Das Capital? He uses maths in it all the time. The soviets used mathematical modelling, you know, considering they had to plan the economy. Allende (though not a communist) used central planning with computers during the trucker's strike and it worked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

>game-theoretic understandings of economics
Yeah and its useless, because game theory is based on rational choice, whereas the market isn't. On an individual scale sure, but markets aren't individual, they're up of millions of people.

>Idealism has nothing whatsoever to do with the predictive capacity of a mathematical model
Yes it does. If you are running a business on the assumption that value is subjective, you can't run it because you can't decide what price you're going to sell things for.

>"but instead they have a much better developed and complex understanding
"Dude sometimes the market collapses for no reason LMAO its just natural don't worry about it" isn't a better model.

(cont)

>>10817520
>How on earth are you calling the exact opposite of something the same thing?
>Doing the same thing under different assumptions is now the opposite of something
Guess using Newton's equations without assuming universal time is the OPPOSITE of Newtonian mechanics? Low IQ.
>You can't just keep responding to an argument with "no it doesn't".
Arguments as absymal of yours are not entitled to detailed dismissal, only contempt.
>It hasn't. Capitalism itself has
>It hasn't, but it has
It has, you're just a fucking idiot.
>Marx *was* one of the first economists to use mathematical modelling, have you ever read Das Capital? He uses maths in it all the time.
>Rigorous mathematical modelling is equivalent to pontification
Idiot.
>The soviets used mathematical modelling
They were adapting the methods of others to suit their own purposes. Late adopters.
>Yeah and its useless
Except, it isn't, and you are a brainlet.
>Yes it does
No, it doesn't, and you fundamentally have no clue what the fucking words you're using even mean. You're conflating subjective judgement of worth with consciousness and it's role in quantum mechanics. They are completely unrelated, you are not even wrong.
>"Dude sometimes the market collapses for no reason LMAO its just natural don't worry about it" isn't a better model.
But that's not what any model says, and you're exposing your ignorance. The longer I keep you talking, the more obvious it becomes to me and anybody reading how hopelessly out of your depth you are.

Why are marxists so fucking verbose?
It isn't a science btw, it doesn't make testable predictions about reality.

>>10817531
they tend to be philosophy majors who tend to have high verbal iq. artless but still capable of complex verbal convolutions

>>10817535
I think you hit the nail right on the head. Fags like these have no concept of simplicty or the economy of words.

>>10817520
>>10817493
>liquidity traps
Marx already talked about this. Its not new. The fact that capitalists stop investing money and stop loaning it during a financial crises isn't some revelation. And what's hilarious is that neo-classical economists refuse to accept the idea today. I agree it exists, so would marx, but neo-classic economists don't because they're greedy fuckers who want to deny that rabid consumerism, risky lending and general overproduction cause economic crises.

>Except it doesn't, hasn't, and isn't
Do you know how many fucking strains of marxism there are that are constantly being developed and put to the test?


>an enormous collapse based on contradiction which results in a synthesis, the socialist and eventually communist state, has never come true
Its come true at least 10 times, I mean look at fucking WW1 and Russia. It even came true in marx's time with the Paris Commune. And communism isn't a "synthesis", its a negation of the negation. And before you ask, yes, they are different. A synthesis has aspects of the two opposing sides, a negation of the negation is something entirely new that negates the opposing sides altogether.

>Neither have they ever had the explosive growth or living standards of the USA or capitalist west.
Yeah they did, they had better living standards, unless you are counting living standards as high luxury items. Well what's a luxury item if most people can't afford or struggle to pay for the basic means of living.

>supposedly impressive GDP
I'm not claiming they impressive GDP. GDP is a measure of trde within an economy: for market economies, its vital that it remains high and always rising. The USSR wasn't a market economy, so GDP didn't really matter and was always going to be lower than a capitalist economies.

(cont)

>>10817535
Verbosity /= high verbal intelligence. People with high verbal intelligence (e.g. Hemingway) prefer economy of expression, people with imposter syndrome who want to be seen to have high IQ are verbose.

>>10817543
>>10817543
>Marx already talked about this.
>Marx opined on something once so that's equivalent to precise mathematical modelling of phenomena
No. But you already know this.
>Do you know how many fucking strains of marxism there are that are constantly being developed and put to the test?
Believe me I'm painfully aware of the large amount of money and time being wasted on useless research.
>Its come true at least 10 times
Absolute kek "Hurr it came true about 10 times and now all those economies have collapsed or are in the middle of collapse and it's not the global revolution that Marx envision but hurr"
>Yeah they did, they had better living standards,
Except, no.
>I'm not claiming they impressive GDP. GDP
They had no meaningful impressive economic metrics, go on.

Tiamat is a science ?

>>10817543
>>10817501
(cont)

>>You made a ridiculous claim about P-zombies having anything at all to with economics
Well yeah it does. Subjectivist economics falls apart when you consider p-zombies because they claim that value is purely subjective and based on what a person is willing to trade something for. P-zombies don't have a consciousness or opinion on the value of things, so subjective economics falls apart, whereas marxism doesn't. Its the equivalent of claiming that if humans didn't exist, the laws of physics wouldn't exist.

>Discarded.
Why, because its true.

>your own claim that Marxism functions without morality
Which it does.

>you slipped the claim that "science has a moral dimension"
Because it does? There's such a thing as ethics in science.

>it allows anyone and everyone to see how ridiculous you are.
What that Engle's second law of dialectical materialism predicts the separation of quantum and classical behavior? Oh what a fool I am!

>Doing the same thing under different assumptions
Yeah it is if you change the assumption.

>Guess using Newton's equations without assuming universal time is the OPPOSITE of Newtonian mechanics?
What? I don't get this, that's what I'm trying to say. Marx's dialectics isn't hegel's dialectics because they have different assumptions and laws.

>Arguments as absymal of yours are not entitled to detailed dismissal
lol

>It has, you're just a fucking idiot.
You're an idiot with no reading comprehension.

>Rigorous mathematical modelling is equivalent to pontification
Nice goalpost change.

>They were adapting the methods of others
No they weren't. Capitalist methods wouldn't even work anyway because the soviet system wasn't capitalist, it was socialist.

>Except, it isn't
Except it is because game theory generally deals with individuals while the financial market is big enough that individual choice gets cancelled out into more general laws.
(cont)

>>10817529
>>10817561
(cont)
>you're conflating subjective judgement of worth with consciousness and it's role in quantum mechanics.
Because they are related. You just don't understand the argument because you're arrogant and assume you're always right.

>But that's not what any model says
It is what it says. It says that boom-bust cycles are ultimately just natural and inevitable, when they aren't.

>>10817531
>prediction: revolution would happen in the most industrialized countries first because they have the most prolaterians
TRUE. Happened in marx's lifetime with the paris commune, very very nearly happened at the end of WW1, Germany did have a revolution.

>the tendancy of rate of profit to fall
TRUE: rate of profit has been steadily falling as automation has increased with only periodic spikes only to fall again.

Anything else?

>>10817561
>Well yeah it does
No it doesn't. But don't let that stop you talking nonsense. I suspect that you developed this insight yourself and it's your pet theory. It's ridiculous, of course.
>Why, because its true.
Because it's laughable, so is he, so are you.
>Which it does.
Not even the point.
>Because it does? There's such a thing as ethics in science.
Not the point. You're too stupid to even get the point, even when I explained it to you at the beginning of the conversation. If you were a student I'd give you the dunce cap.
>What that Engle's second law of dialectical materialism predicts the separation of quantum and classical behavior? Oh what a fool I am!
Yep, what a fool you are.
>Yeah it is if you change the assumption.
No.
>What? I don't get this,
Story of your life. If you don't get what I'm saying you never will, even though it's pathetically simple.
>lol
Yes, you are a joke, so laughing is a good idea.
>You're an idiot with no reading comprehension.
"What? I don't get this" - Man with no sense of irony just moments before his hypocrisy.
>Nice goalpost change.
Except, no.
>No they weren't.
Yeah, they were.
>Capitalist methods wouldn't even work anyway
Dirty capitalist mathematics...
>Except it is because game theory generally deals with individuals while the financial market is big enough that individual choice gets cancelled out into more general laws.
You realise, of course, that you have a brainlet-tier understanding of game-theory?

>>10817563
>Because they are related.
Not in any meaningful or relevant way.
>because you're arrogant and assume you're always right.
It only seems that way to you because you're always wrong.
>It is what it says. It says that boom-bust cycles are ultimately just natural and inevitable, when they aren't.
Natural/inevitable /= inexplicable, which is what you claimed before, because you are literally retarded.

>>10816535
>1)
So what is the law?
>2)
So what is the law?
>3)
So what is the law?

>>10816535
>Marxists
Stop reddit there. >>>/tumblr/ & >>>/buzzfeed/ are that way

>>10817546
they outscore everyone on the written/verbal sections of the SAT and GRE they’re definitely a high verbal iq population. Hemingway would not be my example of an author with genius verbal either.

>>10817554
>>Marx opined on something once
Its not even marx, adam smith talked about this shit. Its been known since classical economics.

>Believe me I'm painfully aware of the large amount of money and time being wasted on useless research.
What like the "research" done by The Heritage Foundation?

>t came true about 10 times and now all those economies have collapsed
No socialist economy has ever collapsed.

>Except, no.
Except yes. The USSR eliminated poverty altogether.

>They had no meaningful impressive economic metrics
Yes they did. They literally went from an agrarian society with literal serfs to a modern industrial society in 10 years. Had the revolution in China not occurred and socialism not been implemented, they'd be India tier.

>No it doesn't
Yes it does. Fucking think. If subjective economists are claiming value is subjective, then how the fuck is a society of p-zombies, which can't have any more meaningful interactions than a rock can, supposed to have an economy?

>Because it's laughable
Because its true.

>Not even the point.
Yes it is, since you claimed marxism was based on morality.

>Yep, what a fool you are.
You're the fool.

>No.
Yes.

>If you don't get what I'm saying you never will
I don't get what you're saying because you weren't even disagreeing with me.

The rest of what you said is just basically "No". Can't argue if you don't put forward an argument.

>Not in any meaningful or relevant way.
Yes they are.

>Natural/inevitable /= inexplicable
Except they don't explain it, they just its natural and leave it at that but can't explain why the USSR never went into recession.

>>10817578
>So what is the law?
1) That two things that are mutually exclusive depend on each other to exist but at the same time clash with each other.

2) Quantitative change leads to qualitative change. A build up of heat in a material for example causes it to change state at a certain threshold and take on properties it didn't have before.

(cont)

>>10817593
I wasn't talking about philosophy majors, I was talking about verbose people. Philosophy majors tend to get less verbose the more they get introduced to formal logic.
>Hemingway would not be my example of an author with genius verbal either.
I too, dismiss the intelligence of nobel laureates whose iceberg idea of writing constitutes one of the most influential approaches in the last century.

>>10817612
>That two things that are mutually exclusive depend on each other to exist but at the same time clash with each other.
That's literally just another way of saying "two things are mutually exclusive"
>Quantitative change leads to qualitative change.
Daaaaaamn brilliant, who would have thought.
Fucking pseud.

>>10817612
>>10817578
3) A bit difficult to explain to someone unfamiliar with dialectics. Essentially, the "thesis" creates its own anti-thesis i.e it contains its own downfall.

>>10817618
>That's literally just another way of saying "two things are mutually exclusive"
Well yeah, that's what a contradiction is. Contradiction in marxism doesn't mean you say the sky is blue and I say its red, a contradiction is two things that are mutually exclusive.

>Daaaaaamn brilliant, who would have thought.
Well if you don't disagree then what's the problem?

>>10817612
>Its not even marx, adam smith talked about this shit. Its been known since classical economics.
Literally stuck in the pre-modern period lmao.
>What like the "research" done by The Heritage Foundation?
False dichotomy, low IQ
>No socialist economy has ever collapsed.
Is your last braincell on loan to someone else at the moment or something?
>Except yes. The USSR eliminated poverty altogether.
You are so credulous you will swallow literal propaganda. Amazing if unsurprising.
>Yes they did.
Except no they didn't, and as I said, similarly impaired countries achieved as much growth or more proportionately over the same period. It's just ignored by idiots like you to maintain the illusion that the USSR experienced exceptional growth.
>Yes it does.
No it doesn't. I outright refuse to even talk about your idiotic point of view on p-zombies. Your opinion on this is sub-Tooker tier wrong.
>Because its true.
In your imagination, maybe.
>Yes it is, since you claimed marxism was based on morality.
No "More to the point it's not an objective search for truth and barely pretends to be, it's an advocation for a new form of economic paradigm on moral grounds" is what I said. Which is true. It is NOT an objective search for truth, Marxists DO advocate for change on moral grounds. My point, which has evaded you, is that because Marxism contains moral content the habit will be to twist facts to suit theories. It is distinct from say, physics, because physicists are not advancing Relativity on moral grounds, they are advancing it soley on the grounds that it describes reality well. The inclusion of a moral dimension results in habitual errors in reasoning.
>You're the fool.
"I know you are but what am I?"
>No
Shifting one assumption doesn't change that you're using the same dialectic methodology. Materialist and idealistic dialectics are both dialectics.

>>10817629
Both of these points are so fucking trivial that I can't believe people write 1000 page tomes about this.

>>10817629
By the way, defining what a contradiction/exclusion is is not a law.

>>10817612
>I don't get what you're saying because you weren't even disagreeing with me.
You don't get what I'm saying because you're a fucking idiot and you should stop pretending you understand concepts that're obviously beyond you and go back to being a shelf-stacker or something better suited to your sub 90 IQ.
>Yes they are.
No, they literally aren't and you're a massive pseud for literally confusing definitions and thinking that it's profound.
>Except they don't explain it, they just its natural and leave it at that
You literally just don't read the literature, they DO explain it.
>but can't explain why the USSR never went into recession.
Firstly, you've swallowed literal propoganda. But pathetic growth, horrible living standards, and pathetic opportunities for personal advancement are not anybody's vision for a superior civilization. Boom and bust market movements are literally preferable to a persistently bad economy.

>>10817637
OK, I'm going to skip everything where you don't make an argument back.

>similarly impaired countries achieved as much growth or more proportionately over the same period
GDP is not growth. Its a measure of the amount of financial transactions in a country within a given year. And obviously Italy and the USSR aren't comparable because the USSR was an agrarian society while Italy wasn't, and the USSR became a super-power while Italy didn't.

>it's an advocation for a new form of economic paradigm on moral grounds
Yeah but its not. Refer to Engels's laws, derived from observation of nature. The proletariat and the bourgeoisie will clash whether morality is considered or not because they are in contradiction.

>Shifting one assumption doesn't change that you're using the same dialectic methodology
Well yeah it does if they rest on completely different outlooks. Dialectics is a form of logic. Hegel's was idealist, marx's is materialist, therefore they are fundamentally different.

>>10817639
So you agree with dialectical materialism then.

>defining what a contradiction/exclusion is is not a law.
That's not what it does. It is saying contradiction is fundamental in the development of nature.

>>10817644
>You don't get what I'm saying because you're a fucking idiot
You're an idiot since you're using an argument I agree with as an argument against me.

>No
Yes.

>they DO explain it.
No they don't. Keynes literally thinks boom bust cycles are natural, for various reasons. Then how come the USSR didn't have them? He doesn't have an answer. Liquidity traps can't even happen in a socialist economy because there's no commercial banking.

>Firstly, you've swallowed literal propoganda
No I haven't. The USSR literally never went into recession.

>But pathetic growth, horrible living standards, and pathetic opportunities
Now who's falling into propaganda. Literally none of that is true.

>>10817397
>That's not scientific thinking. That's the assertion that materialism is scientific.
It is. Science is innately and naively materialistic, it takes a lot of idealist brainwashing in schools to make scientists believe in idealist nonsense.

>Also not sure how your argument about "just a way of thinking" makes sense when they apparently have actual effects on the science itself according to you.
Idealism has a praxis, it doesn't mean it's scientific. Feudal religion had a major influence on science, holding it back in many cases. There were material reasons why the ideology of that era had to suppress heresy, but it doesn't mean they were "correct" reasons.

>Also, always love how Marxists can't make an argument without giving a reading list.
Read a book.

>>10817382
>Concepts like surplus value have been thoroughly debunked
No they haven't. They are actually proven.

>Answer me this, what's the "means of production" in a call centre?
Good question! Many Marxists are bad at this topic. First of all, an industry does not have to be a productive sector (macro perspective) to have MOP. For instance, the military sector just destroys value, yet there are MOP involved in productive acts in the sector. So even if a call center is not productive from the macro POV, there are obviously MOP in it, such as the building, phones, lights, etc.
Second, the act of bringing the commodity to the point of sale is a productive act. Consider transport. It straddles the line between "service" (for passengers) and production (for shipping). Transport is needed at each stage of production, including bringing the product to store shelves. Traditionally, marketing is considered unproductive. However, it too straddles the line. For instance, if packaged goods had no labels and graphics on them, people would have a very difficult time shopping, and as a result, the commodity wouldn't make it to the point of sale. Therefore some marketing is definitely essential to production.

>>10817698
Continued:
(some marketing is definitely essential to production)... But taking it a step further, we know that in advertising as in all aspects of production, producers compete to make their process as efficient as possible. So now let's say one company starts putting really appealing graphics on their goods instead of basic labels. This company will become much more efficient at moving their product. It is in effect a kind of transport that moves the product through people's minds (which are material phenomena). Then the competitors will follow suit, and it becomes necessary to have marketing to sell anything at all.
So your call center is not obviously unproductive either.

>>10817696
>GDP is not growth. Its a measure of the amount of financial transactions in a country within a given year.
Dismiss every meaningful metric. It's fine.
>And obviously Italy and the USSR aren't comparable because the USSR was an agrarian society while Italy wasn't
Nice lie bro.
>USSR became a super-power while Italy didn't.
I wonder why a vast empire, despite being proportionately feeble, might be more powerful than a single European nation. Totally escapes me, that's a real riddle that one.
>Yeah but its not
It is, Communist Manifesto is essentially agitprop. Anyone claiming that Marx, Engels, and the early socialists weren't involved in advocacy is just lying.
>derived from observation of nature
LOL. I wonder if that sounded vaguely scientific in your little head when you wrote it.
>Well yeah it does
Nope, it doesn't.
>Dialectics is a form of logic. Hegel's was idealist, marx's is materialist, therefore they are fundamentally different.
The fact that it's a dialectic (A form of logic invented by Hegel) hasn't changed. Fundamentally, it is the same, the application is different, and you remain a fucking imbecile.
>You're an idiot since you're using an argument I agree with as an argument against me.
You think this because you have an exceptionally feeble mind.
>Yes
Pathetic.
>No they don't. Keynes literally thinks boom bust cycles are natural, for various reasons.
>For various reasons
That part is called an explanation.
>Then how come the USSR didn't have them?
Because the economy was comically bent on its own collapse. But then again, you've swallowed propoganda.
>Now who's falling into propaganda. Literally none of that is true.
Literally all of it is true. On every meaningful metric it fell behind the Western World, and then it rotted from the inside and collapsed under its own weight, thereupon opportunistic agents of the state cannabilized the institutions and became oligarchs.

Y'all need to take the Shaikh pill. Watch Shaikh's lectures and read his book:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=DD0B27231F6E7CABEF184B616A59DAFE
He is a STEMlord who formalizes and empirically tests classical vs. neo-classical theory point by point. Marxist economics is EMPIRICALLY PROVEN.

>>10817721
>Bachelors and PhD in Economics
>STEMlord
Into the trash it goes.

>>10817727
Nope, he was an engineering major:
Author Statement - Anwar Shaikh
Origins and Early Influences
>I was born in 1945 in Karachi, Pakistan, two years before the partition of India. My early years were spent in Karachi, but after my father joined the Pakistani Foreign Service in 1948, I also lived in Ankara, Washington, DC, New York, Lagos, Kuala Lumpur, and Kuwait. I received a BSE from Princeton University in 1965, worked for two years in Kuwait (as an engineer and as a teacher of social science and physics), and returned to the United States to study at Columbia University, from which I received my PhD in economics in 1973. In 1972 I joined the Economics Department at the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research, where I am presently employed.

>>10817733
>Engineering
I can barely contain my laughter.

>>10817434
>/Sci/

>>10817714
Its not dismissal. GDP is equal to inflation + velocity of money. Velocity of money is how often the currency is changing hands: if its not changing hands i.e there's a "liquidity trap" as Keynes calls it, then there's a recession because GDP isn't going up. The USSR didn't really give a fuck about this because it was a planned economy and didn't have money as a commodity.

>Nice lie bro.
Truth.

>I wonder why a vast empire, despite being proportionately feeble
Yeah but it wasn't proportionally feeble. And land area has nothing to do with how "powerful" a nation is. Britain is still one of the most powerful nations in the world and its tiny compared to China and the USA.

>Communist Manifesto is essentially agitprop
Yes, because the Communist MANIFESTO was a political manifesto for the International Workingmen's Association, its not marx's primary work on capitalism, which is Das Kapital. This is something non-marxists commonly get wrong.

>I wonder if that sounded vaguely scientific in your little head when you wrote it.
Well it is. No-one here has disputed any of the laws.

>Nope, it doesn't.
Does.

>The fact that it's a dialectic (A form of logic invented by Hegel) hasn't changed
Well yeah it has because its materialist! Hegel's dialectics completely contradict Darwinian evolution while marx's don't.

>You think this because you have an exceptionally feeble mind.
Yeah sure.

>Pathetic.
No.

>That part is called an explanation.
Yes, because of things like liquidity trap, but that is mistaking effect for cause.

>Because the economy was comically bent on its own collapse
Wrong

>Literally all of it is true
No it isn't. There is literally nothing to back this up other than cold war propaganda.

>>10817735
You seem awfully scared of reading his book and looking at the actual theory and evidence. I guess only brainlet Engineers care about that shit huh?

This board is really fucking shitty lately.

I read das Kapital and some Lenin's and Stalin's works and appreciate the Marxist political economy, but I still don't get how diamat is required / can help advance science. In particular, I don't get the point of those guys here who talked about QM and diamat.

Copenhagen interpretation does not mean consciousness somehow "creates" reality. It's simply a postulate on jump dynamics of a quantum state. In fact, projective measurement is practically never the case, it's idealization. What actually happens is continuous measurement described by a continuous stochastic process.
Any quantum system can be described by a system of SDEs. Other by reduced path integrals, which is equivalent.

What's the point to involve any philosophy here? I think it doesn't make sense to talk about some "pure" abstract "matter" as much as it doesn't make sense to argue about what reality is. Rather, it makes sense, and I believe that's what modern science and, in particular, Platonist mathematics say, to talk about HOW to (mathematically) model/describe the reality whatever it is.

I don't see an essential contradiction to diamat though. I just think that the question of what objective reality is is irrelevant.
I doesn't mean, of course, that consciousness can somehow change the laws of nature.

>>10817738
>Truth.
In your own mind.
>The USSR didn't really give a fuck about this because it was a planned economy and didn't have money as a commodity.
So we can dismiss any meaningful and tangible measurement of growth. Nice one mate.
>Yeah but it wasn't proportionally feeble
But, it was.
>And land area has nothing to do with how "powerful" a nation is. Britain is still one of the most powerful nations in the world and its tiny compared to China and the USA.
You absolutely 100% and completely know how hilariously false that comparison is. Comparing a previous industrial imperial power against especially China is ridiculous.
>Yes, because the Communist MANIFESTO was a political manifesto for the International Workingmen's Association
And thus my claim that Marxism has a moral dimension (ought) is validated. It isn't remotely dispassionate lmao.
>Well it is. No-one here has disputed any of the laws.
In your imagination it is.
>Does.
Idiot
>Well yeah it has because its materialist! Hegel's dialectics completely contradict Darwinian evolution while marx's don't.
Doesn't change the fact that they are dialectics. You can change what they're used for, but that doesn't change what they are.
>Yeah sure.
Glad we agree on that, it's crucial.
>No.
Yes, yes, YES.
>Yes, because of things like liquidity trap, but that is mistaking effect for cause.
>Yes
Keynes, and other economists besides, DO explain economic behaviour.
>Wrong
You wish.
>No it isn't. There is literally nothing to back this up other than cold war propaganda.
You can check the majority of their own statistics from the archives. The state of post-Soviet countries. The USSR was a rotting corpse.

>>10817742
>Scared
Projection.

>>10817768
>I just thing the question of what objective reality is is irrelevant
You are of course completely correct. This guy is just a complete imbecile.

>>10817417
>Freud was wrong and his methods were idealist though.
no it wasn't.
it was materialistic.
it was based on your physical experiences. he just related everything you've materially experienced to the Oedipus complex.
it's also unfalsifiable.

> they've never actually "debunked" surplus labour value.
Yes they have. if you actually look at economic history, what marx presents doesn't make sense.

>The phones, computers, the land the building is on, the servers, the headsets, the keyboards... in short, the capital.
econ has progressed much further than just physical capital. in fact physical capital means very little, and the history behind the rebuilding of europe after WWII shows this. human capital is significantly more important.

>>10817782
What guy? If you talk about the guy who is defending Marxist political economy, then no, he isn't. You, if you are the one who argues with him, sound silly. He makes solid arguments.

The war against Marxism is part of a larger conspiracy to suppress education. Intellectual property law is a demon.

>>10816535
>Is Dialectical Materialism (formerly Historical Materialism) a science?

NO.

>>10817791
He stated that Engels anticipated QM and that p-zombies are somehow related in any way to economics. He's a crayon-chomper. Besides which, the debate isn't really about whether or not Marx is ultimately correct, I hold an opinion but ultimately I'm not sure, it was (initially) at least on whether or not diamat was actually a science, well, maybe it's a social science at a stretch, economics is after all a social science in and of itself, but it's certainly not approaching the status of a natural science that it's pretending to, and it's not methodologically more scientific than, say, Keynesianism. But it devolved into bizarre claims about an alleged relationship to quantum mechanics.

>>10816535
>dialectical materialism
>>>/x/

>>10817768
Well, leaving aside quantum mechanics, DiaMat is the backbone of marxism, and is very helpful to materialist outlooks, including science, in general; diamat is intricately linked with Darwinian evolution in particular.

Without diamat, marxism doesn't necessarily fall apart. After all, socialism predates marx in the form of utopian socialism. But diamat is integral to marxism and understanding *why* and how classes conflict what happens in society. Its also the marxist approach, for example, New Democracy uses diamat. In New Democracy, you go out, gather what the people want, their thoughts and feelings and their policies. These will be in chaotic and higgeldy piggeldy, since obviously people are diverse in what they want and need. Then you go back, go over the raw material gather, and synthesize it into a formal, workable plan. This is the negation of the negation, perhaps the most famous example being the bolshevik policy "Peace, Land and Bread".

>>10817768
>but I still don't get how diamat is required / can help advance science
Diamat, by and large, isn't going to help out much in the laboratory. It can help inasmuch as any philosophy can, by broadening your mind. If you're a scientist without philosophy, you are pretty pathetic. But plenty of good science can be done by scientists who believe things that are even in complete contradiction to the findings of their own research.
Diamat is extremely useful in any field that involves "soft science," because it absolutely shreds apart pervasive and incorrect ideological assumptions (idealist ones). These fields range from human evolution, to archaeology, to linguistics (which Chomsky ruined with anti-Marxism). And of course political economy.
The use of Diamat from the Marxist POV is both in destroying the old ideologies, and informing Marxist social praxis. It provides a general framework, transposed from the philosophical stance of "hard science," that Marxist revolutionaries can use to determine whether they are organizing and acting in the correct way.

>>10817775
>So we can dismiss any meaningful and tangible measurement of growth. Nice one mate
He told you what it measures son, if gdp as a construct is a proxy for economic good, explain san francisco

>>10817831
>Explain San Francisco
You mean an extremely wealthy place in the first world where the standard of living is absurdly high on average?

>>10817840
You mispoke and said "standard of living" when you meant rental costs

>>10817845
There are significant numbers of wealthy people there who can afford it, though, and people come from all over the world to visit and live. There's no denying there's huge wealth inequality, but the average person living in the USSR would have killed for a shot at living in modern day Frisco.

>>10817849
>cope

>>10817855
Pathetic. People pump rent because it's hot real estate. People want to be there, they want to be near the perceived opportunities.

>>10817571
Marxists truly are just socialist Seventh Day Adventists

>>10817775
>So we can dismiss any meaningful and tangible measurement of growth
No? GDP is a useful measure for capitalist economies but socialist ones don't function the same.

>But, it was.
It wasn't.

>Comparing a previous industrial imperial power against especially China is ridiculous.
Well that doesn't contradict what I said. Britain became powerful because of imperialism, and it still is because of imperialism.

>And thus my claim that Marxism has a moral dimension (ought) is validated
No it isn't. Its about as much validated as saying because the Republicans are capitalist and have a moral dimension capitalism is invalid. Or an even better example, its like saying that because people protest against climate change on moral grounds, climate change is therefore bunk as a science because its has a moral dimension.

>You can change what they're used for
Yeah but its not changed what they're used for, the whole outlook is turned upside down.

>DO explain economic behaviour.
No they don't. They describe it.

>You can check the majority of their own statistics from the archives
OK. Well, go on then?

>>10816535
>Jay Gould

The guy who faked the data to fit his ideology.

>>10817860
>seventh day adventists
I don't remember the second coming ever happening. Whereas revolution and the establishment of a socialist society literally happened in marx's lifetime.

>>10817612
>USSR eliminated poverty
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha

>>10817816
There is nothing wrong with most materialist ontologies. However, dialectical materialism is a false ontology.

>>10817868
Yes it did.

>>10817857
>perceived
200% cope

>>10816585
>The Copenhagen Interpretation is idealist, not materialist. So, it is an unscientific outlook. The idealist outlook is actually holding science back in most fields, and has done so for much of human history.

Here you are absolutely correct. But just because idealism is wrong it does not follow that dialectical materialism is correct.

>>10817868
you have to understand, to a commie, all you gotta do is change a few definition of words, and all the world's problems will be solved.

>Half the population is uneducated
>Okay, just widen the definition of universities to community colleges
Oh hey! Look at that! We have university-level education! Our level of education just increased!

>>10817863
>No? GDP is a useful measure for capitalist economies but socialist ones don't function the same.
And of course, this conveniently means that you can avoid comparison with countries which had better proportional GDP growth over the same period.
>It wasn't.
It literally was.
>Well that doesn't contradict what I said. Britain became powerful because of imperialism, and it still is because of imperialism.
It contradicts what you said, but more to the point, it's absurd for you to have said it. You made a false comparison that even in a Marxist context is known to be false. It's wrong to both me and you, but for different reasons.
>No it isn't
But it is.
>Republicans are capitalist and have a moral dimension capitalism is invalid.
This has nothing to do with validity. It is INDEED true that economic claims made by capitalists are not strictly scientific either. Neither system can pretend to the objectivity of the natural sciences.
>Yeah but its not changed what they're used for, the whole outlook is turned upside down.
But it is exactly changing what they're used for. The method remains the same. Plenty of people have used Newton's deterministic physics to (probably correctly) suggest that there is no need for a God, when Newton himself believed the opposite. The tool, the method, Newtonian mechanics, remains the same, the USE is what changes.
>No they don't. They describe it.
100% semantics.
>OK. Well, go on then?
Go do it yourself lmao.

>>10817880
This worked for the soviet union's literacy campaigns

>>10817873
There are opportunities, not everyone can actually access them, hence perceived. But people pay money to have a chance at success in places like Frisco, and Hollywood, and California. People from all over the world take that massive risk, some living out of cars until they make it. Denying that it's an attractive place to live is delusional.

>>10817815
Still, what is the commonly accepted opinion in diamat on matter and QM? I have hard time defining some "abstract, pure" matter. At some point, it stops making sense to talk about material bodies, then about particles etc. For instance, there are no particles in QFT if you describe by, say, master equations. Otherwise, you may, say, use path integrals, which is mathematical equivalent, but may be roughly interpreted as something describing particles with definite trajectories/momenta (which is actually not necessary, it's a mathematical trick to compute the integral).

At some point, I mean, it stops making sense of talking about any "matter" so to speak. This "something", at the very bottom level, can be described mathematically by things, which seemingly ("materialistically") are completely different -- like path integrals or master equations.
Yet, they are mathematically equivalent.
You can go deeper and consider another models, like pilot wave model, where particles do exist with definite trajectories, or LQG with it's space-time discrete graph or strings and so on and on...

It all sort of forces one to assume that the objective reality is the mathematical reality and not the matter. The matter seems to be a derived entity.
The analogy of this argumentation might be a computer game where what seems like a "matter" is actually algorithms and code, whereas those algorithms and code may vary and lead to the same "matter".

>>10817857
Plus the shit local politics that makes developing low cost housing impossible, because muh gentrification

>>10817895
>some living out of cars until they make it.
400% cope

>>10817867
You gave one example that lasted five seconds and one that "almost happened"

>>10817912
What's cope about people willingly selling houses and taking out massive loans to live where they want to live? That's not a criticism of the city, they wanted to live their so bad they were willing to throw everything away to be there.

>The Copenhagen Interpretation is idealist, not materialist

It's a mathematical statement about the jump dynamics of the quantum state in the moment of interaction.
Everything gets more mathematically elegant, when we consider continuous measurement.

The only thing, which is ugly, is that most of the distributions involved have infinite supports which may lead to ridiculous phenomena (Boltzmann brain etc.).

>>10817922
>taking out massive loans to live where they want to live? That's not a criticism of the city, they wanted to live their so bad they were willing to throw everything away to be there.
800% cope nice try streetshitter

>>10817931
Your reasoning is kind of retarded. It's like bitching that your girl would rather be Chad's whore for one night than your wife. Chad isn't flawed because he's preferable, you're flawed.

>>10817897
>what is the commonly accepted opinion in diamat on matter and QM
Outside marxism, there isn't one. DiaMat was the official science of the USSR and it didn't seem to hinder them. Karl Popper is the only notable person to launch an attack against it, and all he could come up with is that its not falsifiable, which isn't strictly a criteria for science or logic, and its wrong anyway. Mostly scientists in the west just ignore it because its controversial. Jay Gould used it in punctuated equilibrium and had to endure years of being accused of being a "pinko" despite the fact he wasn't even a marxist.

>At some point, it stops making sense to talk about material bodies
Well sure, but materialism isn't the idea of intangible things. Materialism is the outlook that there is something predates us, and that reality is something we arise from, rather than consciousness being primary. It doesn't necessary mean everything is particles or "matter" (in the energy sense).

It doesn't mean mathmatics is reality, since that's platonism, something marxism rejects because its metaphysics. In diamat, matter is not derived: everything is derived from matter. Its a pretty difficult and long subject to go into on an imageboard. If you want to know more, I'd suggest reading Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" >https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
Its particularly good since it makes extensive use of primary sources and Stalin's writing style is very straightforward and simple to understand.

>>10817897
Lenin discusses this question at length in Materialism And Empirio-criticism. It's not about pinning a specific everlasting and final abstraction on matter, in fact that would go against dialectics (which holds that matter is "inexhaustible" and a kind of fractal of contradictions). I think the core of it is "Matter determines consciousness," and that matter is a reality outside of our imaginations. Marx's breakthrough was taking this a step further and recognizing that, since consciousness itself is a material phenomenon, it influences the material reality *in accordance with the laws of material reality*. This is the key to the Marxist conception of the Base and Superstructure in society.

I think you are getting into the weeds of trying to relate a familiar and practical high-level abstraction ("Can I touch it? Can I weigh it? Smell it? etc) to an extremely precise abstraction that we can't relate to in normal life. Why is it that particles and atoms are the kind of barrier, beyond which matter "dissolves" as a concept? A few centuries ago, people would be arguing that your atomism is a refutation of material reality too. Here I think it's good to refer to another key point of diamat, "Quantitative change leads to qualitative change." If we can accept that our practical and familiar qualities are the aggregate of high quantities of less familiar qualities (IE, sticks and stones are the aggregate of atoms), then from a scientific POV, there is no reason to suddenly depart from this extremely consistent pattern (that you can just keep breaking things down over and over again while still having a largely consistent view of the whole). Atoms are aggregates of even subtler quantities. So what? Idealists have had this problem over and over again. Every new discovery is the "end of reality" for them. But materialists, both naive and philosophical, can still see the aggregate and the PRACTICAL features of the material world around them.

>>10817915
It lasted two months. But it did happen. Sure it was put down by the French Army, but that's why Lenin developed the concept of a vanguard party later. The Paris Commune was an earlier, if not more naive (because it was the first time it had ever happened), version of what was to come.

>>10817952
>what was to come
But hasn't come.

>>10817937
Thanks for the recommendation.

I still think "mathematics is reality" does not necessarily contradict the thesis that something predates us. Because it might well happen to be that mathematics are discovered and so predate consciousness.

Probably, it's a discussion which is a bit off. I believe diamat does not say what reality is, but rather, that, whatever it might be, consciousness is a derived entity. For instance, Tegmark describes consciousness as a state of matter

>>10817936
>>>>>imply gdp is a proxy for economic good
>>>>sanfran as concrete counter example
>>>San fran is great people throw away their lives and become homeless streetshitters to live there
>>this is cope posting mate
>your logic is retarded
R u ok retard?

>>10817972
But they do so voluntarily, they throw away their lives to do it. Many of them previously had happy, comfortable middle class lives, but that wasn't enough for them. They would rather make it big than remain mediocre. For many people, opportunity is more attractive than certainty.

>>10817959
Well it did in the form of the Russian revolution, the Korean revolution, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, Burkina Faso, China, the list goes on.

>>10817965
>I still think "mathematics is reality" does not necessarily contradict the thesis that something predates us
Well, maybe. I mean Stalin took that position as well, he said there wasn't "two" logics, with diamat contradicting traditional mathematics, but only one. I haven't made my mind either.

>>10817981
And streetshitting and other things associated with homelessness and mass migration are fertile grounds for epidemics where illness and disease are major economic costs
Son, maybe I haven't been precise enough in my terminology because I'm shitposting on an anime forum
When dealing with soft fields, in science you create measures called proxies to quantify constructed abstractions such as economic good
When the proxy measures agree on a construct, this abstraction has scientific validity
Follow?

>>10818026
>And streetshitting and other things associated with homelessness and mass migration are fertile grounds for epidemics where illness and disease are major economic costs
True, but it's offset by the massive economy.

But here's the thing, you're essentially suggesting cities like San Fransisco with large GDP aren't by and large good for their residents, I think that you can add it all together, and ultimately you'll still come up with an extremely above average quality of living. It's evidently desirable enough for people to leave places where they have good standards of living to experience what they anticipate to be temporary setbacks in order to achieve their goals.

>>10818060
>It's evidently desirable enough for people to leave places where they have good standards of living to experience what they anticipate to be temporary setbacks in order to achieve their goals.
The scientific evidence strongly suggests that people are irrational, stupid and tend to overestimate their abilities especially when they're stupid
Go ebolachan, you can make it to sanfran

>>10818081
But they wouldn't do that if opportunities weren't so abundant for people that're skilled, smart, and lucky enough. I mean if you want to argue that eventually a place can become so singularly desirable that it's a hazard to people in the same way a flame is a hazard to a moth I won't disagree with you.

>>10817987
Ah, so those murderous regimes WERE real socialism afterall!

>>10818092
Did you know that until very recently, in the historical, sense cities were population sinks where the population was maintained and grown from immigration from the countryside?
What changed was advances in sanitation

>>10818106
They weren't murderous.

>>10816585
so marxists pick QM interpretations based on what they think jives with marxism? what a bunch of retards lmao

>one day the worker's revolution will happen I SWEAR
it's a death cult

>>10817698
Idealism is true and you can't do anything about it

>>10819678
Already did happen more than 10 times and is going to happen again.

>>10819691
Idealism is 100% false. Humans cannot "make" things happen just they think it.

>>10819648
>pick

>>10820261
>Already did happen more than 10 times and is going to happen again.
And yet global socialism is not any closer as capitalism continues to mutate in ways Marx didnt imagine.

>>10817429
>Oh boy if only the workers could seize.. The telephones, they would be totally liberated and not working for the man.
Yes, if they could seize the telephones the building and the systems that operate it they could run the industry without a useless capitalist exploiting them.

Bear in mind, managers, planners and executives are still workers, even tough higher paid ones.

>>10816695
This is an example of a bot trying to sew discord.
Quiet, bot.

>>10817816
>which Chomsky ruined with anti-Marxism
Was actually interested but you completely lost me here. What's your argument other than "it's anti-marxist"? Because that just sounds lile dogmatic adherence to a philosophical outlook and Chomsky abaolutely revolutionized linguistics from the pathetic, stagnant state it was in before him

>>10823440
Chomsky thinks that language was literally just a random mutation from a cosmic beam. And that social organization among apes had nothing to do with it. Also thinks that every single possible word somehow exists in everyone's brains and is pre-defined.
http://www.chrisknight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Knight-on-Chomsky-2010.pdf
http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/sites/default/files/pdf/class_text_070.pdf

>>10816535
>Has it ever been refuted?
Has it ever been validated?
I could make a compute shit out trillions of random conjectures, and unless they are validated to some extent, there is no reason anyone should waste their time refuting them, and attempting to convince them that they should (outside of providing some validation) would amount to nothing more than a stalling strategy.

>>10816695
>Republican
>Tory
>Muh parties
Did you know that the democratic party in the united states was responsible for the institution of slavery and the KKK was it's paramilitary arm?

>>10826954
Not the Poster, you replied to, but have you not heard of the "Southern Strategy"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/apr/10/candace-owens/candace-owens-pants-fire-statement-southern-strate/

>>10825405
Man, this is a very ignorant reading of Chomsky, and I suspect you've actually never read him but you just read what Chris Knight says about him because you only seek marxists.
Knight's criticism of Chomsky is the classic criticism of cognitive perspectives by anthropologists, which I very well know because I am one. It is also a very failed criticism that doesn't understand basic epistemology and how a theory works, which is a problem in anthropology where so many researchers still think that if a theory does not explain the entirety of human behavior then it's bad, but at the same time not such theory exists in anthropology because such a thing is impossible. Of course Chomsky doesn't speak about the emergence of language in a social context: his theory is about the computational aspects of language, which are huge and pretty central to language as a human faculty. He has always been interested in low-level aspects of language and thought, and the computational perspective has proven to be the best at modelling and comparing language syntax worldwide. You always get these criticisms, be it from butthurt postmodernists who cry at the thought of human nature or butthurt marxists that don't like that a theory of innate language characteristics, which in NO WAY would be in essential contradiction with theories that would want to explain the variable aspects of language, has been so succesful. I have never seen or read Chomsky contradict the idea that language evolved in tandem with human sociality. If he never spoke of this directly it's because his theory is talking about something else. It's not about meaning. It's about structure and computational efficiency when communicating a message.
I respect Knight as a researcher but his criticism of Chomsky is very flawed. It is quite obvious when he criticises Chomsky's politics as a sort of way to criticise his theory, a classic move in so much criticism in social science which also renders it useless. (Cont)

>>10816535
Kill yourself.
>>>/x/

>>10828577
(Cont) It is basically a weak appeal to emotion, decrying the inadequateness of a theory because it is claimed that it has a political agenda. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a theory works.
There are many theories looking at other aspects of language that work perfectly well with Generative Grammar. Cognitive linguistics is full of them and they have a lot to do with social interaction and meaning, for example Conceptual Metaphor. GG is not the be-all and end-all of language structure theories. But it is still the best and most austere that explains language structure accross cultures worldwide, and attempts to disprove it as of yet have not been succesful.
I'm still interested in what you're saying about DiaMat because I also think it can be a useful general perspective in many cases and it blends well with evolutionary theory, and that Shaikh guy you posted is definitely interesting. But I don't think you're approaching this the right way. A field is not ruined because of "anti-marxism". A marxist perspective will be useful to look at certain things and not so useful for others. Being a theoretical dogmatist is a disservice to your mind anon.

>>10816535
So basically to sum things up: "it's not all in my head"
Holy shit, I didn't realize commies were this retarded they needed someone to hold them by the hand and tell them this.

>mostly just ignored
Rightfully so. I'm not gonna read a novel on how the sky is blue as opposed to red either.

>>10828497

Dude you're replying to a bot, or at least to someone who replies to bots.

>>10826949
>Has it ever been validated?

You can read Shaikh's book that was posted at >>10817721

Or Cockshott's lectures https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q

>>10828644

Yet liberals insist that prices are subjective and economies impossible to compute.

>>10829852
>economies impossible to compute
People usually don't think about things in terms of energy input to a system