InappropriateEmote [comrade/them, undecided]

Never in my life would I have imagined that someone would try to apply dialectical materialism to physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#Lenin’s_contributions

No. electrons and protons dont attract because they have a history or because of the conditions surrounding them

What are you even talking about, yes they do. Two particles will interact if their shared history (light cone) includes them being in the right conditions (like proximity to each other, opposing charge, etc.) for that to happen.

they do so because of intrinsic properties of themselves

Their intrinsic properties are part of the conditions that cause any given particles to behave the way they do. The environment they find themselves in, such as what other particles they are in the presence of, very obviously plays just as much an important part of the role in determining their behavior as their intrinsic properties. And those conditions at any point in time exist because of the history that led to those conditions - which is just as true of leptons and bosons as it is of kings and peasants.

they didnt arrive to their current situation thru a struggle or process of any kind

Yes, they absolutely did! “Struggle” would be an inappropriate (but still not necessarily inaccurate) term for it just because it carries the implication of intent and human emotions. But dialectical materialism, which is a metaphysical framework, absolutely does not rely on intention in any way - in fact it’s largely defined by the fact that it does not rely on intention since that would be idealism. But that’s just a matter of odd phrasing, because if you take the word “struggle” out, and just say “they didnt arrive to their current situation thru a process of any kind,” you would be completely, even incomprehensibly wrong. Of course they arrived at their current situation through a process. It could be any measure of complexity in the process that led to their conditions, but at it’s most simple, it’s literally just cause and effect. True of human society, true of particle physics.

they just are the way they are

As is literally everything else.

and dialectics tells u nothing about how electrons and protons will behave. Dialectical materialism is just one way to look at the world and it is good and accurate when used to describe somethings and useless when used to describe others, its a model like any other, it is more dear to our hearts than most models but that doesnt make it perfect or a theory of everything.

Dialectical materialism is a metaphysical framework. The issue here is not that we have to use it to describe particle interactions or predict their outcomes, but that particle physics and dialectical materialism are absolutely compatible with one another. It is even perfectly reasonable to look at the interaction between electrons and protons through a dialectical materialist lens, as @[email protected] pointed out, by considering that interaction as a contradiction and resolution relationship, (law of unity and conflict of opposites), even negation of the negation.

It’s political inadequacy aside, let’s just take a look at the first few sentences of wikipedia’s entry on Dialectical Materialism

Dialectical materialism is a materialist theory based upon the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that has found widespread applications in a variety of philosophical disciplines ranging from philosophy of history to philosophy of science. [emphasis mine]

It’s way too much to quote, but also please note the section on Lenin’s contributions to dialectical materialism, and note how it relates to physics. I do not mean this in a mean-spirited way, but you don’t seem to understand either physics or dialectical materialism. Almost everything you’ve said indicates a deep misunderstanding of both.

Yep, this is who the episode was about where the rule came from.

Episode 346: Gaddafi’s Gold

In the music video? Yeah, that’s not going to last for anyone, lol. But for what I was talking about above, I know people who have been doing that at the same stores weekly since covid began and have never had a single issue besides an evil eye stare.

Fuck it, just do what these guys do:

Do your bit, Rob the Supermarket

https://youtube.com/watch?v=wqUJ0go5Pww

https://piped.yt/watch?v=wqUJ0go5Pww

It was Target that was well known for doing this, tracking shoplifters and waiting until someone could get arrested for a felony when a minimum amount of dollar worth was stolen. I never did, but from my understanding, Target was the place shoplifters knew not to shoplift as it was and likely still is extremely aggressive this way and more likely to break the law itself by detaining you against your will (which in the US is technically not legal but that doesn’t always stop them from doing it, especially if they think you don’t know that). Walmart on the other hand, was actually surprisingly hands-off and one of the easiest of those kinds of stores to steal from, I was told. It’s possible this has changed in the last couple years that I haven’t kept up, but well into “post”-covid times, if you were shoplifting from one of the big box stores like that, a good bet was Walmart while Target was regarded as the hard-ass goon-hiring bastards and hence the one to avoid.

– EDIT: Removing a bunch of stuff I’m not 100% sure is wise to leave up

I will note here, that while these are among the laws you should know about and use to your full potential benefit, it doesn’t mean that the stores necessarily will, know them or follow them. Regular grocery stores, from everything I know, really don’t give a shit. The method I described above works so well because even if someone does eye what you’re doing and get suspicious, it will be underpaid retail workers and grocery baggers that almost certainly don’t care or are even glad to see that kind of thing happening. BUT other kinds of stores are not necessarily like that. Part of why Target was so bad is because they were known for not caring that they themselves and their thugs were the ones breaking the law. A time could be coming when even grocery stores start getting more like this, and there are probably ones that already do. It can’t hurt to test out the situation on something light. A single bottle of shampoo. Get a feel for the store. Items do matter. Don’t steal the alcohol. THIS is watched heavily in large part because of minors who frequently try to steal it for obvious reasons. I knew someone else who often stole from grocery stores literally by walking in, taking shit and walking out. None of this trying to look legit shit. He was shockingly successful until he tried doing it with liquor. That ended his shoplifting career. At least from grocery stores. In that town. For a little while.

I hope this has been a helpful comment.

Mods: If any of this shouldn’t be here, I get it, no hard feelings if it’s deleted. I’ll also gladly be the creator who removes it if that’s better.

That’s my only issue with the image. It kind of implies the the blue pill and red pill tend to be mutually exclusive when in fact those things are very often comorbidities.

If you want to read further but past hexbear discussion on the topic of “Uncle Ted,” he was talked about quite a bit around here when he died a year ago. I remember a couple threads where people were debunking the mythology you’ll sometimes see portraying him as a kind of based anarchist. I can’t seem to find the exact one I was thinking of, but here is another with 100 comments.

Just because you aren’t used to hearing about the vast reality beyond the propaganda bubble you’ve (knowingly or unknowingly) confined yourself to, that doesn’t mean that something you encounter outside of that bubble that contradicts it isn’t factually the truth. If anything, as a rule of thumb, it’s more likely to be closer to the truth if it contradicts whatever narrative nonsense you’ve been swallowing from any given large western media news outlet.

Bro, learn to read paragraphs. My comment above is literally made up of two of them of very normal and standard size. Have you ever read a book? Paragraphs written in places other than twitter or reddit tend not to be broken up arbitrarily every 2 sentences like it seems you wanted me to do.

The question is why won’t you condemn the aggressor and stop putting the onus of peace on the people who are being murdered by an aggressor?

The people being murdered… Oh, you mean the Russian-speaking population of Eastern Ukraine? The ones who the openly fascist banderite government (that coupe’d the democratically elected government in 2014) were trying to ethnically cleanse when Russia stepped in and prevented it? Yes, I do support those people of Donbas, and seeing as they support Russia, you should too if you care about innocent people getting murdered. Similarly, I condemn the aggressors, the aforementioned banderite Ukrainian fascists and their NATO backers.

I’m not the person you were asking, but yes, I also support the people of Western Ukraine, the vast majority of whom do not want to fight in this war but are being press ganged, literally kidnapped off the street by the Ukrainian government and shipped off to be cannon fodder and die on the front line. I fully support them and advocate for the immediate end of this war so that no more of them will die needlessly in this senseless meat grinder that NATO and the Ukrainian government insist on perpetuating despite their inevitable loss. If you care about human life and if you care about justice, then you would completely support Ukraine immediately accepting this peace offer. If you think human life is cheap (especially if it’s foreign to you) and that Ukrainian working class people are expendable and should go ahead and die for the sake of lines on a map that favor western countries, then yeah, that would be in line with cheerleading for the Ukrainian government and opposing the offer of peace.

Russia is neither fascist nor “the aggressor.” Anyone who doesn’t recognize that Russia entered a civil war where one side (a coup government with an actual fascist military that openly admits their fascism) was trying to ethnically cleanse the other side (who are speakers of the Russian language) doesn’t know what the fuck is going on and has almost certainly swallowed gallons of propaganda.

could stop it at any minute by returning to their own territory

And then what would happen to the people of Eastern Ukraine, the Donbas? They would get ethnically cleansed. But I guess you don’t give a shit about that? Or you literally didn’t know about that?

and admitting that they’re simply the bad guys in this war?

Baby-brained simplistic bullshit. No, Russia is not “the bad guy” in this war and you need to expose yourself to more of the world than fucking marvel movies. Also, the word fascist has a meaning, it’s not a synonym for “bad guys,” and if you had any exposure to the world beyond your little bubble from which you lap up propaganda like it’s ice cream, you’d know that (for example) the US just as if not closer to being fascist than Russia.

Nah, there was never any point where Russia was going to lose this unless countries other than Ukraine joined in with more than just grift money and weapon donations but with actual troops on a large scale (beyond just small scale mercs that are easy to deny). And fortunately that wasn’t too likely to happen because even the most belligerent NATO warhawks knew it would be seriously risking global nuclear war. So many internet armchair generals, mostly NAFO dipshits but plenty of Russia-aligned SMO-watchers too, were (and are) way too focused on the lines on the map, the fine details of kettles and who held what small towns, etc, all without recognizing the bigger picture: long term attrition. In that sense, Russia has always had the upper hand by a large margin. That’s not going to change either. Russia is, as you say, “slowly getting the upper hand,” in the more obvious ways but this was always what was in the cards and it’s just going to continue in that same inevitable direction. The only way Russia will lose this war is if there is some major change in how things are set up on the global stage.

Also it’s not really true to say that Russia is asking for more than they hold because even if some areas are still contested, Ukraine has no chance of hanging on to them. As others have noted, this is a very generous offer and I expect it’s only being made because Russia is plainly aware that Ukraine will not accept it (in fact Ukraine cannot accept it because those who fund them, those who are using Ukraine as their proxy and who are ultimately responsible for all this, wouldn’t allow them to). That’s the only way in which this offer is “dishonest,” if you consider it dishonest for Russia to propose a plan they know full well that there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of Ukraine accepting.

Yeah, something of that proportion could not be kept secret even if all NATO member states were all in total agreement and unity and even with the avowed silence of high officials. It also would at least partially defeat the purpose of NATO if a state joining it were to be kept secret.

That’s right! We have to make sure the very last Ukrainian dies in a meat grinder before we even think about agreeing to these completely reasonable, even generous peace terms. Wait, what’s that? Russia will have even better leverage and grounds to demand even more concessions the longer this conflict goes on and the further Ukraine gets beaten back? Damn, oh well who cares? As long as western arms manufacturers can keep their grift going a little longer and a few more Eastern Asiastics get taken out, it will be well worth it, right guys?

Lol. I wouldn’t have been surprised by this kind of blatant cope a year or two ago. Those cringe lies about Russians not knowing how to fight or having inferior tech were all the rage among the NAFO losers at the time. Of course it was all projection even then, but now that Russia is so obviously and thoroughly spanking Ukraine, it’s much harder to phrase the “Russian orcs are dumbdumbs who fight with shovels!” line without doing a massive self-own.

And speaking of self-owns, it’s pretty funny that you insist on bringing up a completely unrelated topic where you were totally not owned by people who schooled you in an attempt to disabuse you of your willful ignorance regarding Tienanmen Square. But it looks like you won’t even believe your vaunted western liberal sources when it comes to making sure you don’t have to take your head out of the sand.

edit: Looks like I was a little late to reply to this one. Does anyone know if a user still sees responses to their comment if the reply was made after the parent comment was removed?

While we’re at it… I know there can only be one clock as the site default, but I always thought it would be kind of cool to also have a Beijing clock and Havana clock. I’d say Pyongyang too, but it’s only one zone away from Beijing.

For what it’s worth, I agree with you on almost all of that. I think the main difference here is that I see the labor theory of value as being much more fundamental to Marxism than just, as you put it, one facet of it. It’s very difficult to keep Marxism as a whole if you toss out the LToV, since the whole structure would begin to crumble. It may be possible for similar models to be put in its place to prevent the crumble, but I think that those models would have to be close enough to the LToV that the distinctions wouldn’t really matter except to academics. (edit, fixed a word)

Yeah, any non native government is a fraud. Everything the US does, China and any other “super power” has committed as well.

Lifting over 800-million people out of abject poverty and all but eliminating homelessness is fraud?

I’m not anywhere near an expert on history,

That is very apparent.

but when one regime is held up higher than another regime,

Yes, all governments, no matter whether they’re fuedal monarchies, capitalist “democracies” that funnel all wealth directly to the bourgeosie while millions starve, or socialist revolutionaries employing the mass line consistently proving they are made up of and represent the working class with 95% approval of the population… all of those are “regimes” and everyone knows that “regimes” are equally bad.

we forget that they got there through blood and murder.

If a people rises up and kills the landlords brutally holding them in de facto slavery, then the blood and “murder” of those landlords is good actually, and so is the resulting government formed by those people. (And just so we’re clear, that is not sarcasm. My previous sentence about “regimes” was.)

Yes, I know the article was on infrastructure, but there is a whole intricate world where everything is connected in one way or another.

It’s almost as if you have to have an understanding of the material circumstances of a given country to have a fucking clue what you’re talking about regarding them!

Uyghurs are just one population that have existed on this planet.

You don’t say!

And yes, I’m sure there are some ethnic Uyghurs who are doing just fine.

Not just “some.” The Uigher population as a whole is thriving in China.

You can easily find a video where a north Korean defector is claiming how much better north Korea is compared to the US.

And they would be right. North Korea is substantially better than the US in almost every way.

Eh ltv isn’t really Marx’s and if it were it would be one of his many significant contributions to various fields.

Marx may not have been the first theorist to come up with it, but the LToV is still foundational to most of the economic theory that did have its origin in his work. Furthermore, Marx did make contributions to the LToV itself, and in that sense it is one of his significant contributions to various fields.

It’d still be reasonable to call yourself a Marxist if you ascribe to other parts of his framework, especially in specific academic contexts. And in revolutionary contexts I doubt most non-academic revolutionaries fully understand the mechanisms laid out in Capital, so it seems inconsequential really.

A person doesn’t need to fully understand evolution by natural selection to consider themselves a Darwinist (biologically speaking, obviously I’m not talking about social Darwinism here). But if they reject evolution by natural selection as the mechanism for the diversity of species, then they are not Darwinists. Similarly, you don’t have to be able to explain the LToV let alone its nitty-gritty details, but if you claim that the theory is false, you probably shouldn’t be calling yourself a Marxist revolutionary.

Class analysis doesn’t inherently require ltv either.

Class analysis requires a mechanism for how one class exploits another economically, a mechanism that the LToV provides.

I do think ltv makes more sense than modern models, but Marx was basically using bourgeois theory to critique itself,

And that critique is what extended it beyond being merely bourgeois theory.

and arguably the same can be done using the more abstract modern models.

Maybe so. But are those models refutations of the LToV or elaborations on it? In either case, do you have examples?