chat

8579 readers

302 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net

Sulvy@hexbear.net

oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net

Wakmrow@hexbear.net

LeninWeave@hexbear.net

have any of y'all read this article? I'd love to discuss. (open.substack.com)

submitted 4 days ago by bdazman@hexbear.net to c/chat@hexbear.net

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The author accuses Losurdo of revisionism and dubs it 'Marcyism'?

It seems to largely center around critiques of Dengism I've seen before, but also acts like it will be criticized for attacking left unity which is interesting.

Accuses PSL/Gabriel Rockhill of being "genetically Trotskyist"?

There's a shitload here but it was presented to me in an org I'm in as "a summary of issues I have with PSL and Losurdo citers and Rockhill fans" and it's gonna take me all damn day to wrap my head around this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 2 points 4 days ago

The essay is nothing more than a polemic in an ever-expanding pile of polemics. I think people fall into a trap of trying to find the best argued polemic when as a science, the principle criterion should be first and foremost how well the science can predict phenomena. "China is capitalist" means that you can say "a capitalist state responds to A, B, and C with X, Y, and Z, and since China is a capitalist state facing A, B, and C, it will respond with X, Y, and Z." Ditto for "China is socialist," "China is fascist," "China is authoritarian," or whatever other label you want to stick to China.

Polemics will often have arguments in the form "China responded to A, B, and C with X, Y, and Z, and since a state that responds to A, B, and C with X, Y, and Z is [adjective], China is [adjective]," but they almost always do it after the fact. It's no different from some astrologist pulling something out of their ass to explain why a relationship failed. You know, the asspull explanation would've been a lot more helpful before the relationship happened. Curious how their actual predictions seem to always either be wrong or be vague enough that they can wiggle their way out of getting called out for being wrong.

Fundamentally, people do not take the idea of the immortal science as a science seriously. The thing about science, the only reason why people even care about science in the first place, is its ability to explain and predict phenomena. Predicting phenomena is key. It's why meteorology replaced killing birds and divining predictions based on their mangled corpses or sticking sticks in the grounds and somehow predicting weather with them. The reason why people value astronomy over astrology is the science of astronomy can be used to predict solar ellipses, used to predict when the number of solar flares will go up, and so on. Meanwhile, astrology doesn't predict anything. It may offer some kind of explanation of human behavior, but it certainly can't predict how people would behave. At best, it offers explanation to explain shit after it had already happened. Virtually all polemics are of this character.