this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
8 points (70.0% liked)

Asklemmy

55051 readers
419 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

That is all policies and political structures are testable and tested to see their effect on those three (or other suggested) factors. If a policy doesn't reasonably work then it's simply not continually employed. I'm curious to see what factors others think ought to be used.

It seems most political systems now were built without science in mind and utilize it as an afterthought to help develop legitimacy for policies individuals want. Generally politics across countries seems deeply emotionally driven and not fact driven. That is people have a feeling that an idea is a good idea and then they cobble together whatever they can to support that point without any unified measure of good or better. Ideally it ought to be the other way around, fact or evidence informed policy generation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're still treating science like it's not a process gone through by humans. Science once posited that race science was correct in order to justify eugenics. We need to be aware of our world outlook and correct it before we begin to use science, otherwise we come to incorrect conclusions and incorrect propositions. That's my point.

Marxism-Leninism is correct not because it is a "form of governance" (it isn't) but because it's a living social science grounded in scientific understanding of the world.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You're correct, the best aspect of science is the self revision built into it unlike other systems. The problem with a lot of political philosophies is they suffer from the same blindness but don't have a system that is ultimately self revising. Once again if what you are saying is true then it will be shown through repeatable measurement, and testing. There's no need to depend on feelings when we can have facts. If Marxism-Leninism is the most optimal form of governance for producing human wellbeing then a system designed to discover the most optimal form of governance will reproduce it. Putting political philosophy before science is putting the cart before the horse, aka Marxism-Leninism is a good hypothesis we can test using a stronger mental construct called the scientific method.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I already said Marxism-Leninism is not a "form of governance." The fact that you repeat this claim leads me to believe that you aren't actually reading what I'm writing.

Phikosophy, our world outlook, is already before science. The way we see the world and understand it determines how we view science and perform it. This is why vulgar materialists, as opposed to dialectical materialists, tried to prove race theory correct and thus advocate for eugenics. Science is not neutral. The world around us, the material world, does not care how we interpret it beyond how we change it. However, there is no such thing as a perfectly neutral observer, we all have preconceived biases.

Marxism-Leninism is already scientific, the scientific method is a tool employed by it already. You're trying to remove science from the context it exists in.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think we've run afoul of two issues. How do you define Marxism-Leninism? Through which means do you know its correctness?

If you know its correctness through implementation and then measuring the results then that's science testing a hypothesis. For example I know my nose is between my eyes because I can measure through my senses and test that idea repeatedly until I have statistical confidence that's the location of my nose. If for some reason the location of my nose changes then that information can be updated with testing and measurement most likely through my senses.

If you know through some other means like spiritual revelation then it's still the case that the concept will have measurable outcomes we can use to test and compare with other concepts to verify its correctness.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Marxism-Leninism is an ideological framework. Essentially, it fronts dialectical materialism, the materialist conception of history, and Marxist political economy as correct. There is no one "Marxist-Leninist form of governance," just as in real life there is no one universally correct form of governance. However, all of the component parts of Marxism-Leninism are correct, including dialectical materialism, which is the basis of correct scientific analysis and interpretation. It is not a replacement for the scientific method, but a way we understand the world.

What you describe is broadly empiricism. The limits of pure empiricism are that, if we are being truly pure, we do not draw connections between linked phenomena. In other words, we do not assume gravity will be the same tomorrow as it is today, because we have not yet tested it. As the world is constantly changing on both a micro and macro scale, this means each test is in fact fresh, with fresh conditions. Empiricism, taken to the extreme, denies this understanding.

Dialectical materialism expands upon empiricism by recognizing the interconnection of everything, and that knowledge is something continuous. As we test the world, we gain a better understanding of it, and therefore the world is always changing so our knowledge is always becoming outdated as long as we are not continuously testing and practicing. Through practice, we gain better knowledge, with which we can better predict what will happen.

There's nothing spiritual about Marxism-Leninism. Knowledge comes from practice, of course it does. However, without acknowledging that we all have a world outlook, this solidifies what might be incorrect, such as idealism or metaphysics, as has often happened in the field of science.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I see the issue now. I was operating with the common definition or the definition one gets when you search Marxism-Leninism. That being

Marxism-Leninism is a communist political ideology based on the ideas of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, focusing on a vanguard party, state-led economies, and the overthrow of capitalism. With the primary ideas of a vanguard party or a dedicated group of leaders guides the working class to launch a successful political revolution. Dictatorship of the proletariat, the working class holds state power to run society and block capitalist opposition during the transition to socialism. Democratic Centralism, decisions are made through open debate inside the party, but once a choice is final, all members must support it completely. Command Economy, the government takes control of property, industry, and resources to build a planned socialist system.

By any standard definition I can easily find it doesn't deal with a process of discerning truth through measurement or testing as the scientific method does.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Sounds a bit like the Bible in that it's self referentially true. If there's a hypothesis, measurement, and test then that's science. If one takes that and adds other ideas onto it it's science plus some other ideas. So far I haven't seen anyone use Marxism-Leninism to discover new particles, new methods of computation, medical treatments, and so on.

You can have whatever ideas you want but ultimately there will be some outcome from them that's measurable, even faith (or lack thereof) has measurable outcomes in the psyche and physiology of an individual or even a populace.

You see even science is used to legitimize these ideas within your own comment. That is we know ultimately through the scientific method if something is valid. If something has no measurable effect on reality then it can be noted but it's not of much concern. Like for instance maybe on the tip of every match is ten thousand angels doing the moonwalk, if it has no effect on anything it's not awfully important.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I agree, the underlying philosophical framework I'm talking about is measurably and methodically increasing individual and societal human wellbeing through metrics like the human development index, gross domestic product purchasing power parity, and environmental impact. Few policies will be a win across the board but there can be an optimization of multiple metrics to increase wellbeing individually and overall.

I don't think we need anything more than just that, or some self referentially true quasi religious faith in abstract concepts. Let's get back to actual real world measurable and quantifiable wellbeing of people and humanity. We don't need faith in politics or governance when we can have facts. Afterall what is the actual goal of society? Is It for individuals to have their philosophy win or is it to increase the wellbeing of humanity?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You can say it isn't but science is a philosophical framework and science with the application of measurably increasing human wellbeing is even more so. I'm not sure which philosophy will change facts around physiological wellbeing like starvation, lack of access to basic necessities, measurable cognitive health and so on. You can be of any political affiliation yet reality will still be there waiting for you.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Once again you can say it isn't but it indeed very much is a philosophical framework stemming from the philosophical foundations of logic and reason. Is it better to have a particular outlook on starvation or to actively be ending it through the most optimal means via evidence informed planning and practices? Reality doesn't care what we think about it. You can take any angle you want on it but it'll be there as it is.

As for change its always been guns, germs and steel. The philosophy you're speaking of was an inefficient middleman towards change and development. If for instance a society follows a diety who says cleanliness is holy and they were more clean aka more biologically fit then they were accidentally discovering something true which could have been directly discovered via science. Them having that faith helped but not as much as having a framework for determining facts.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I mean yeah if we viewed starvation as some uncontrollable demonic force of the body then that would change things but would that be better or worse than the scientific approach? Maybe you have an example to better hit home the point you're getting at.

All forms or attempts of understanding reality aren't early science as in they weren't employing the scientific method in full but observation, testing, and measuring are basic aspects of being alive and aware. I know my nose is on my face through observation, testing, and measurement.

I'm aware reality can be strange, there's a plethora of epistemological arguments to show one the limits of science, but we're not talking about what lies beyond measure and testing or at least I'm not. There's lots of philosophical ideas about things we can not measure or test. Once again what does not appreciably effect reality measurably is worth awareness but not as much as what can be measured and directly influenced.

I wouldn't suggest one use science to attempt to understand epistemology but I would suggest it for methodically increasing societal wellbeing. The view one takes may change their behavior but it won't change physics. They can believe they can fly unassisted but will fall to their death all the same when leaping from a building.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You skipped giving an example. What tangible real world examples do you have to back up your claims? You seem well convinced so you must have many good examples to support your case where material science failed at increasing human wellbeing while dialectic material science produced a better outcome.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

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.