Yes, it’s entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown.
As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the “final” evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is “true” socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions.
I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR’s socialist path, but by how I defined it above.
We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that’s why we are dialectical materialists.
And I am not seeking ideals; rather, I am presenting the model of society that appeals to me most among those currently in existence.
My opinion is, of course, subjective—but at least it is grounded in real-life experience, rather than in imagination or fantasy.
Yes, there were certainly plenty of problems and shortcomings involved; however, these were not systemic miscalculations, but rather structural flaws—issues that do not require a wholesale reformation of the system.
Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time.
I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism.
Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time.
Here, I am compelled to disagree with you: dialectics and empiricism are two fundamental, yet fundamentally distinct, approaches to philosophy. However, empiricism and dialectics do not exclude one another; rather, they are complementary. Empiricism represents keen observation, while dialectics embodies rigorous logic. I would also add criticism to this mix. Criticism is analysis. Therefore, I find figures such as Hume and Jung just as acceptable as Marx and Kant.
Now, let me say right up front: I am not a professional philosopher—I’ve merely read them.
“I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc.”
What, specifically, accounts for the impossibility of building a socialist system that outwardly resembles the USSR?
Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… When workers in the USSR were toiling away in the 1930s, the country was merely struggling to survive—it certainly wasn’t the second-largest economy in the world…
Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because…
Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners.
And don’t get the wrong idea—in Moscow, people work just as hard as they do in China. I was one of them once; back during the crisis, I went to Moscow to work.
There’s that saying: “Moscow Never Sleeps.” Do you think that’s just because people there don’t feel like sleeping? …))) It’s exactly the same in China—socialism in full swing!
Comrade, you’re not the first Chinese person I’ve interacted with. I know that Chinese people possess boundless work ethic. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But, in my view, aside from work, there should also be a personal life.
I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I’ll chalk it up to language difference, though.
As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China.
The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR’s isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There’s also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism.
What’s common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy.
By trying to narrow down socialism to “whatever the soviets did,” you’re making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country.
Yes, it’s entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown.
As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the “final” evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is “true” socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions.
I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR’s socialist path, but by how I defined it above.
We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that’s why we are dialectical materialists.
I am an empiricist.
And I am not seeking ideals; rather, I am presenting the model of society that appeals to me most among those currently in existence.
My opinion is, of course, subjective—but at least it is grounded in real-life experience, rather than in imagination or fantasy.
Yes, there were certainly plenty of problems and shortcomings involved; however, these were not systemic miscalculations, but rather structural flaws—issues that do not require a wholesale reformation of the system.
Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time.
I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism.
Here, I am compelled to disagree with you: dialectics and empiricism are two fundamental, yet fundamentally distinct, approaches to philosophy. However, empiricism and dialectics do not exclude one another; rather, they are complementary. Empiricism represents keen observation, while dialectics embodies rigorous logic. I would also add criticism to this mix. Criticism is analysis. Therefore, I find figures such as Hume and Jung just as acceptable as Marx and Kant.
Now, let me say right up front: I am not a professional philosopher—I’ve merely read them.
“I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc.”
What, specifically, accounts for the impossibility of building a socialist system that outwardly resembles the USSR?
Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… When workers in the USSR were toiling away in the 1930s, the country was merely struggling to survive—it certainly wasn’t the second-largest economy in the world…
What do you have to say to that?
Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners.
And don’t get the wrong idea—in Moscow, people work just as hard as they do in China. I was one of them once; back during the crisis, I went to Moscow to work.
There’s that saying: “Moscow Never Sleeps.” Do you think that’s just because people there don’t feel like sleeping? …))) It’s exactly the same in China—socialism in full swing!
Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?)))
Comrade, you’re not the first Chinese person I’ve interacted with. I know that Chinese people possess boundless work ethic. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But, in my view, aside from work, there should also be a personal life.
No. People do but just like how some European’s work 3 jobs doesn’t make it representative.
I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I’ll chalk it up to language difference, though.
As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China.
The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR’s isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There’s also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism.
What’s common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy.
By trying to narrow down socialism to “whatever the soviets did,” you’re making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country.