Okay, then returning, vulgar empiricism is inferior to dialectical materialism because the dialectical materialist understands how change occurs and develops, while vulgar materialists fail to. I gave an example of how at a macro level this manifests in either focusing on reformism or revolution and development.

Why don’t you propose an example of how you would use the scientific method in practice to test for a better system, and we will see if you make metaphysical errors in your approach. After all, my point is that philosophy is simply how we view the world, and we all have a given philosophy, even if we don’t acknowledge it, and it determines how we interpret the objective reality of the world.

I’m not talking about political philosophy, but how we actually interpret empirically tested data. I never made the claims you believe me to be making.

I gave you an example already, one deeply relevant to our conversation considering it centers social science. The liberals that believe they can simply keep trying different reforms and testing them empirically are right along with you, but this ignores the gradual changes in how wealth is distributed and capital is concentrated.

Again, you’re pretending I’m arguing against science. I’m not arguing against science, I am arguing against vulgar empiricist forms of science, and not dialectical materialist forms of science. I explained the limitations of refusing to acknowledge that science is interpreted by humans, therefore philosophy impacts the way we read results.

Fair enough. Mechanistic materialism does not understand change or development properly. When taken as a social science, this manifedtd in the form of liberalism. Trying to reform and fix a system that cannot be fixed, because it is necessarily trending in a definite direction, towards centralization and monopoly. Trying to means-test welfare fixes does not address the concrete problems with imperialism and late-stage capitalism.

The dialectical materialist approach can more accurately identify how we got here, where we are heading, and how we can best steer this in our own interests. Socialism becomes not just an answer because someone designed it, as the Utopians tried, but because it is the logical next step in production, moving from market-based distribution to planned economy.

You’re still not getting it, both are “scientific approaches.” What you are describing as science is merely science with a mechanistic materialist outlook, one that relies on vulgar empiricism and removes the room for logical analysis of what has been empirically studied. Your philosophy underlining your science is better than religious science, but inferior to dialectical materialist science. It’s all science, yours is just incomplete for the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses of it.

You’re abstracting the problem of denying the influence of how we view the world on how we view results of science, which is ironically enough a metaphysical error. It’s of course better to be actively ending starvation, but that wasn’t the question. The way we interpret facts determines how we go about ending starvation. Of course reality doesn’t care about what we think of it, but the way we interact back with reality certainly does!

As for the question, you dodged it. The answer is that the development of history is a result in shifting material conditions, which changes how we think and reshape the world. Like it or not, religion was in fact early science. Science itself is not a philosophy, it’s how we understand the world. What you are grasping at is a vulgar materialist conception of science at best, but this misses how change and development actually occur, and results in errors by abstraction.

This is the reason world outlook is important, you’re assuming you already have the correct world outlook while refusing to grapple with the fact that you have one. It’s Schrödinger’s philosophy.

Science is not a philosophical framework, and you’re now describing a moralistic reasoning for it, not a world outlook. Philosophy changes how we view the origin and causes of starvation, lack of access to basic necessities, and more. The philosophy you seem to be pushing is a vulgar approach to empiricism, rather than a more accurate dialectical materialist philosophy.

Here’s an example. Do you believe historical change is primarily driven by a development of ideas, or material conditions?

That’s not a philosophical framework, it’s a moral stance. Philosophy is about how we interpret the world. This is why you ironically are retreating into abstraction while accusing me of doing so, when I’ve done no such thing. I’m not arguing faith over facts, I’m arguing that the way we interpret facts is based on our world outlook. By denying world outlooks exist, you let your subconscious world outlook determine it for you.

I’m not arguing against science, I’m arguing against the idea that we can perform science without an underlying philosophical outlook.

Those are all parts of Marxism-Leninism, and the basis of Marxism-Leninism is dialectical materialism. Here’s Lenin outlining the basics of Marxism in The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism:

The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defense of bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.

Later on, he describes the philosophical section:

The philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughout the modern history of Europe, and especially at the end of the eighteenth century in France, where a resolute struggle was conducted against every kind of medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas, materialism has proved to be the only philosophy that is consistent, true to all the teachings of natural science and hostile to superstition, cant and so forth. The enemies of democracy have, therefore, always exerted all their efforts to “refute,” undermine and defame materialism, and have advocated various forms of philosophical idealism, which always, in one way or another, amounts to the defense or support of religion.

Marx and Engels defended philosophical materialism in the most determined manner and repeatedly explained how profoundly erroneous is every deviation from this basis. Their views are most clearly and fully expounded in the works of Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and Anti-Dühring, which, like the Communist Manifesto, are handbooks for every class-conscious worker.

But Marx did not stop at eighteenth-century materialism: he developed philosophy to a higher level, he enriched it with the achievements of German classical philosophy, especially of Hegel’s system, which in its turn had led to the materialism of Feuerbach. The main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of the human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter. The latest discoveries of natural science—radium, electrons, the transmutation of elements—have been a remarkable confirmation of Marx’s dialectical materialism despite the teachings of the bourgeois philosophers with their “new” reversions to old and decadent idealism.

Marx deepened and developed philosophical materialism to the full, and extended the cognition of nature to include the cognition of human society. His historical materialism was a great achievement in scientific thinking. The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on history and politics were replaced by a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops—how capitalism, for instance, grows out of feudalism.

Just as man’s knowledge reflects nature (i.e., developing matter), which exists independently of him, so man’s social knowledge (i.e., his various views and doctrines—philosophical, religious, political and so forth) reflects the economic system of society. Political institutions are a superstructure on the economic foundation. We see, for example, that the various political forms of the modern European states serve to strengthen the domination of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat.

Marx’s philosophy is a consummate philosophical materialism which has provided mankind, and especially the working class, with powerful instruments of knowledge.

It’s incredibly difficult to summarize an entire ideology in a short definition, especially one made by non-MLs.

I suppose, if you want to frame the working classes protecting and upholding socialism to be “terrorism,” then I think this is a good use of terrorism. I would say that using such a loaded term as “terrorism” is clearly a subjectivist argument and not a practical one, though, as the goal is to rhetorically tie it with senseless and unnecessary measures.

As for Cuban prisoners, no, they aren’t all imperialists. Many are landlords, many are former slavers, and many are workers that have genuinely committed violent crimes or otherwise attacked their fellow Cubans. As we all know, the embargo has been incredibly brutal, and crime rates are most closely linked to economic desparation, made even worse by the current oil blockade. The good news is that these prisons are actually very humane compared to capitalist prisons, and are focused on reform over punishment:

When we drove up to the facility, I kept looking for what I was used to here: high stone walls, lots of barbed wire, guard towers, guards with assault weapons. And I didn’t see any of that. We pulled up to a building that looked similar to a large elementary school, and when we entered the building, there was no metal detector, which was something else I wasn’t used to. And no one was checking my bag to look for weapons or contraband, and there was no sign-in book; none of the things that I was used to experiencing when I entered a prison in the United States.

And then our guide announced that we would have, say, maybe two or three hours at the facility, and we could take a tour with him but we were not restricted to staying on the guided tour. So I wandered off with a couple of other people from the Guild, and we just went around the prison and sat in people’s rooms on their bunk beds and talked with them and literally went wherever we wanted, and that was totally different from any experience that I have had in the United States. Even as the executive director of the Correctional Association now, with legislative authority to monitor prison conditions and go inside the facilities in New York, we don’t take unguided tours of any facility. It’s very scripted where we go, and we are always accompanied by prison staff for the entire visit.

The following year, I went to a women’s prison in Cuba, and they put on a cabaret. I remember sitting in this huge auditorium with hundreds of people, and there were prison staff, people from the community, and people who were incarcerated all on the stage performing together in costumes. Nobody was in a uniform except the superintendent of the facility.

So what got my brain racing was that those two experiences—the physical layout of the prisons, the fact nobody was in uniform, the intersection between the people from the community, the staff, and the people who are doing time—spoke to what I ultimately learned was a completely different view about people who have been convicted of crimes. You don’t have this demonization and stereotyping that we have here, where incarcerated people are so ostracized they’re like the untouchables.

The entire article this came from is fantastic at explaining the Cuban perspective on incarceration. Even if you would take an abolitionist stance, it’s certainly more progressive than the vast majority of prisons. This is the kind of human-centric policy a government run by and for the people, genuinely, can implement, and they are gradually improving all the time.

Regarding the bit where I tagged you, you don’t really need to respond. You certainly could have, if you wanted, or you could do so here. It was more to point out the dishonesty of MeanwhileOnGrad and the people who regularly stalk accounts and post there. I’m not really expecting a response from you regarding how I personally view the usage of the word tankie, nor are you obligated to give me one.

I don’t see where I did that.

Body shaming isn’t cool.

Good on Cuba. Solidarity with the Cuban revolution and the Cuban people against the imperialists.

You’re genuinely equating the working classes running and controlling a socialist state with the brutal terrorism of groups like ICE? What would Cuba do without police and a military, especially with the US Empire on its doorstep? I can agree that as a state, it’s a monopoly of violence, but this monopoly of violence is used against landlords, capitalists, fascists, and the imperialists right on their doorstep. Meanwhile, the working classes get excellent healthcare, run administration, and help provide medical care abroad.

There’s tons of emulation handhelds produced in the PRC. The android-based ones tend to have nicer ARM chips and decent screens, and Valve is working on ARM support for SteamOS. This gets you a less powerful but more efficient SteamOS handheld, which allows you to play tons of pirated games or emulated games. You can also stick with android and use native emulation software, including windows emulation for PC games.

Steam Deck is too expensive now, IMO, to recommend over these devices.

I’d argue SWCCfaNE is closer to classical Marxist economics than the Gang of Four era. Marketization of underdeveloped industries helps socialize production, which can be kept in check through proletarian state ownership of the commanding heights of industry, finance, etc. This accelerates the transition between capitalism and communism, towards collectivized production and distribution.

In our hearts…

That’s a valid way of viewing him. He’s absolutely a vital figure, and probably the one I recommend the most for liberals due to his unique skills as an orator and in conveying Marxist ideas. My point was more that I don’t see him as I see Losurdo, for example, nor one of the actual revolutionaries in AES countries (who are less purely scholars and more theoreticians and practicians).