News

your (not entirely hidden) socialistic propaganda style of writing

I'm not trying to hide anything here. My username is a reference to Lenin, whom I referenced in the comment, doesn't get much more explicit than that :)

your desire to drop the old-school battlecries without a directed objective

Firstly, I'm not the one who brought up the dispossessed masses, that was another commenter. Secondly, it's not without a directed objective. The argument is clear: "the fault of climate change is not of the individuals who use AC, but of the system as a whole, and since the system is controlled by the ruling class, the ruling class is to blame". It explicits this victim-blaming mindset where the general populace is blamed for climate change and pollution, when they're not the ones choosing in which system they live. And I say this as someone who doens't own a car out of principle, so criticism to the system is compatible with individual action and compatible with understanding that the blame is not of the individual workers.

The general problem I have (which is empirical and not substantiated here) is that Lenin himself, while likely incredibly intelligent, was not, by trade and thus biggest chunk of his time, a mathematician, or an economist, so while he can read the papers, having a fully informed opinion on the matter is a dubious idea.

I don't accept this criticism. First of all he was a lawyer, so he definitely had education in economics. Secondly, I don't believe that formal education in an institution is the only possible way to attain knowledge in a field. I say this as someone doing a PhD in a STEM field, knowing many people around me who have formally attained the same education level as I have and know jackshit, and others who with the same formal degrees as I do, are insanely more knowledgeable. Hell, Marx himself, who wrote one of the most influential and important works on economics of history, formally studied law and philosophy, not economics. How is this not proof enough?

Reasons why I am so jaded and critical is that many fields these days (especially lacking rigorous peer review) fall victim to innability to discern fact from fiction. Specifically for philosophy, feels like the field has diverged from mathematics and physics in an ununderstandable way, where philosophy tries to be a voice of reason in humanity’s subjective reality of society while ignoring mathematics and pure formal logic. To me this is insane. Especially for a field that was once exactly that: mathematics, physics and trying to understand the natural world. In general, the field has been critiqued for empirically arguing that its education is actually formative for logical thinking

All of this criticism of philosophy is valid, but again, socialism and Marxism aren't philosophical ideas. They're philosophical when it comes to the morality, sure, in the sense that I do believe that they're morally superior to other systems, and that much is subjective. But the historical, economical, and political study of socialism and Marxism can be scientific. That doesn't mean that every single book or article or essay on socialism is scientific, but that it can be approached as a science. Economic planning, the analysis of media, the economic analysis of capitalism and imperialism, all of those are very scientific, and the fact that you haven't encountered scientific literature on them has more to do with your surrounding conditions or ideas than with the nature of the study debate of socialism. Especially nowadays, when there have been socialist attempts such as China, Vietnam, the USSR and the whole soviet block, Cuba... It's very possible to do material, economical, historical and political analysis of socialism, and it's routinely done, both from a subjective point of view and a scientific one.

The reasons I am jaded at dated books, is because the way of thinking can be so different, even in physics, many papers from early 20th century have god in the picture or see the human as some kind of special consciousness in the picture of the universe.

Being critical is good. Criticising them without making an attempt to read them based on preconceived notions isn't. You talk about the scientific method which is great for me, since I work in that field. To me, the most important part of the scientific method are predictive capabilities. Without proving predictive capabilities, there can be no science. And when you read Lenin's work "Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism", and it can successfully make predictions about the economy that are valid more than 100 years ago, such as the tendency towards monopoly of capitalism (as we can see with Nestlè, Amazon or Google), or later stages of capitalism shifting from the export of manufactured goods to other countries to the export of capital to other countries (look at how much capital entered China since the 80s from capitalist countries), I'm as amazed as I am when Einstein's theory of general relativity is yet again confirmed 100 years after its writing when SUPERLIGO is capable of detecting the gravitational waves of a collision of black holes. Especially because he was running against many economists of back in the day who were already claiming that the best way to solve monopoly was through progressive regulations... and look where that's led us.

Regarding your discussion of how the USSR managed to defeat nazism, yes, lots of people died, but what can be expected? The USSR had 20 years to industrialize against the 150 years of Germany, of course their army wasn't as capable or developed as the German one. This whole "meat grinder" vision of USSR in WW2 stems from Nazi propaganda, in which the Nazis were justifying losing against the "Slavic Untermenschen" because of the infinite "hordes of Asians" that they were throwing at them, and talking of the brave fight of the Soviets against Nazism as a "meat grinder" is very insulting towards the population of those countries. Belarus lost 25% of its population during WW2, and reducing their contribution to the war to "a meat grinder" is horrendous IMO.

it was a feudal state throwing meat at the problem (or rather opportunity). Among other atrocities such as forced famine Holodomor.

You don't understand what "feudal" means. Feudal isn't a synonym of agricultural or poor, feudal refers to a particular system of social relations, where serfs are bound to work the land of their lords without a wage on exchange, but instead receiving military protection on exchange for a compulsory requisition of the goods produced by the land, paid in kind. Again, when you use those terms in this fashion, you're proving that you haven't studied the true meaning of what you're talking about.

Regarding Holodomor, it happened during the collectivization of agriculture, and it happened because of a combination of bad planning in collectivization (doing it too fast), unfair and poorly-planned requisitions of grain in certain regions such as Ukraine or Central Asia in general (which people often forget about because then they can't make baseless claims of genocide against Ukrainians), sabotage by Kulaks, and bad crops. But this is the first and last famine that the USSR saw, and it happened prior to the industrialization of the country. Almost as if famines are commonplace in preindustrial societies, huh? Almost as if Russia was a region which has suffered historically about 5 famines per century. That's not to say it wasn't intensified by poor planning by the government, but again, first and last famine in the USSR. And it's not like capitalism doesn't create famines. Just some years later, during WW2, the British provoked a famine in India (Benghal Famine if you're interested) which killed 3+mn people, and that one was actually done with explicitly racist undertones, with Churchill famously justifying the famine by telling Indians that "they reproduced like rabbits".

that USSR finally imploded

If 1970s USSR was this great superpower, then somehow 10 years later it fell to stagnation and then collapse?

Because, again, you're not being faithful to reality. The USSR never impoded, and it never collapsed. The USSR did suffer a period of stagnation, but how exactly does stagnation lead to collapse? Spoiler alert: it doesn't. The USSR was dissolved illegally and antidemocratically against a referendum carried out in 1991, from the top down, by the Gorbachev administration. This is indeed a consequence of one of the biggest problems of the USSR: the immense concentration of power at the top spheres of government. But you can't accuse the USSR of collapsing. In fact your reasoning is backwards. If the USSR survived to a civil war in which 14 foreign countries invaded it, if it survived to a WW2 where 25+ million inhabitants perished, and if it survived to the Cuban Missiles crisis, how on Earth is it supposed to crumble under stagnation? As I said I'm Spanish, Spain hasn't grown AT ALL in per-capita terms since 2007, so it's been stagnant for almost two decades at this point. Would you say it's a failed state and that it's collapsed and the government should be dismantled, or is economical stagnation really not that big a thing? The USSR was burdened with problems with economic planning (very hard to do properly before modern computers, if you're interested in this I suggest that you read "People's Republic of Walmart", a book that outlines arguments for economic planning and criticises planning within the USSR as antidemocratic and inefficient), with overspending in military (triggered and forced by the USA despite the constant attempts of the USSR to try and reduce tensions and reach deals about disarmament and deescalation), and several other problems. But the moment it all started going down (and not just stagnating) is after the mid-80s, when Perestroika was applied and huge swaths of the economy were suddenly liberalized and subjected to markets.[1/2]