Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)OU
Posts
21
Comments
1,856
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • It seems like Marxism isn’t a science so much as a philosophy about sciences.

    Conversely Marxism applied to politics is an attempt to apply that model as rigorously as possible given the constraints the people doing the method are under.

  • Marxism and MLism as an ideology is fundamentally about studying the relationships between things through: looking at past history and current conditions, hypothesizing, and testing that hypothesis.

  • basic physical quantities like length and charge

    You know that those are also social abstractions of complicated phenomenon too right? Or did you not read about what a social construct was because sociology is a soft science for girls? /s

    Also have you ever opened up Capital or Imperialism and looked at how many basic quantities they use when constructing their analysis?

  • But sociology describes ideas, not material properties

    This is a fundamentally idealist way of viewing sociology, although most sociology you're exposed to is idealist in nature.

    Anyway, my point was that neither a system of government/economy nor pushing ideas are ways of describing the world.

    ??? What does that have to do with Marxism? I think the disconnect here is that you do not understand what Marxism is, you have only had second and third hand exposure to it.

  • Marxism, in the common understanding is a scientific theory of social reality

    You're talking about "the common understanding" which is ironic in the context of this discussion.

    The fact that it is an economic reductionist theory of social reality does not mean it is physics.

    I would agree with you if I shared your shallow understanding of the subject. Have you read anything rigorous about dialectic materialism or historical materialism?

    Also do you think social reality isn't a material reality? That is a rather odd position to have?

  • "Science describes some material reality" "science describes some reality"

    You put dialectical materialism in the latter category?

    Also scientific testing+Marxism and bullshit idealist debates are not in any way similar in methodology

  • People who this is targeted at and don't get it when you explain it.

    Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?

    It won't do!

    It won't do!

    You must investigate!

    You must not talk nonsense!

  • It’s focused after they realize what is effective.

    No, it wasn't. Have you read any of the first hand accounts of the BPP?

    But at this point I feel like you intentionally missing the point.

    The point of movements is to accomplish things. Solarpunk isn't a movement if there is no theory of change.

  • Effective political action is focused and intentional. The BPP had a plan. There is no central solarpunk organ for democratic decision making, there is no party program. They have nothing that would make them an effective org.

  • owning a house and having people pay you money so they can live there is criminal”

    The system that makes housing operate that way is criminal. Housing should not be a commodity

    but if you go straight to some sort of off-the-wall ideology and you’re very loud about it without discussing the nuances

    Honestly in most discussions I find the communists to be the more nuanced of the bunch.

  • Generally the comments I get are when I put in effort to my appearance. Putting together a nice outfit, accessorizing, doing something with my hair, putting on a good perfume for the vibe, that sort of thing.

    It gives me confidence and a mixture of that + demonstrating thought/intentionality is what I think is what is hot to folks. At least that is my perspective on it when admiring other femmes. I feel like it is something anyone can do in their own way?

    I get that men might be afraid of like, being called gay for putting effort into their appearance, but honestly just not having a thin skin is an attractive feature in someone.