1198
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
1198 points (97.5% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2640 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think it's one of those weasel words some leftists use so they can ignore their own hypocrisy while they moralize like the evangelical Christians they were raised as.
So you don't know what it means.
Critical support means supporting AES countries against the capitalist hegemon despite still having criticisms of some of their decisions. I don't have to think every single decision they make is perfect because I don't moralize about my politics.
What you're talking about is dogmatism, i.e. taking uncritical moral positions and then denouncing any deviation. Mao harshly criticized this in On Contradiction and On Practice.
No decision can ever be perfect, is my point.
Lol I've been to Hexbear and old chapo chat, I have no idea how you can say this with a straight face.
Cool, was that before or after struggle sessions were implemented in China?
Okay, that's about following the Party line and the strategy of democratic centralism. What the Party decides is what the membership must respect and uphold.
I am not a member of the Communist Party of China. They wouldn't want me anyway lol
Hmmm
It's strategic, not moral. The Communist Party of China has 99 million members. Without democratic centralism it would just be a big club of communism fans, not a Party.
Once there's an agreed upon decision, every Party member must uphold it for the strategic advancement of the Party agenda.
You honestly think citizens should be publicly punished and shamed for purely strategic reasons? I somehow don't believe that.
Sounds like a moral imperative to me tbh
But honestly this is just more examples of trying to weasel out of hypocritical positions like evangelical Christians do. Change some words around and act like it's a different thing even though the real world effect is the same, which is funny for a group that claims to deal in material conditions.
"I don't HATE you, I just think you deserve to go to Hell."
"We don't denounce deviation because deviating is immoral, we denounce it because it would be bad game theory not to."
I think Party members should be disciplined and forced to follow the Party line. Regular citizens who aren't involved with politics shouldn't be held to the same standards. If you want to be member of the Communist Party then you must subject yourself to the democratic center.
They don't really hold every single Chinese citizen to the same standards as Party members these days. It's unnecessary.
It's strategic because the goal is to advance the Party agenda. A moral imperative is just saying it's the right thing to do, but that's not what democratic centralism is about. It's a strategy to hold Party members to a Party line and advance the Party's agenda.
You're trying to frame this as moralism but it has nothing to do with right or wrong. It's about what works.
Lol exact same outcome but since I ~~accepted Jesus into my heart~~ wanted to advance the party agenda it's okay
Except if you look at China today it clearly worked. It's an evidence based scientific approach to politics. No faith necessary.
Meanwhile, religious people can't prove anything and have no evidence for anything and have to take everything on faith.
It's not, because no approach to politics is. It's not reproducible, and there's no control. You can argue it's logical, but that's different.
Also, this means that literally any functioning state "clearly works" as well, many of which have been around longer than modern China. Any place that isn't pure chaos is a valid approach to politics with this argument, and if you (correctly) change what you mean by "works" to be some other criteria, then it's not a pure evidence based approach anymore since we've brought value judgements into it.
Politics can never be purely scientific because we have to make value judgements. Being purely "scientific" is what most communists criticize pure utilitarianism for.
China isn't merely a functioning country, it's the fastest growing economy on Earth despite being backwards and feudal and colonized only a little over half a century ago. It's an incredible and unprecedented achievement. You can't ignore this.
And sure, politics can't be purely scientific, because nothing human is ever pure science, but it is possible to use a scientific approach to figure out what works and what doesn't. This is why socialists call their politics a science.
Liberals refuse to even attempt to make their politics scientific. They believe politics is just about doing what you think is right based on faith i.e. moralism.
You ignored nearly all of my comment and just repeated your logical fallacies.
Refer back to how this is meaningless. Every country in existence "works" and changing what you mean by "works" means it's not scientific (which it shouldn't be).
I haven't even brought up the low hanging fruit of how since the USSR failed and the USA still exists, then "scientifically" socialism doesn't work if you use that logic.
And something working doesn't mean it is scientifically correct or true, because that's conflating poor philosophy with poor moralizing. It also doesn't "prove" that it is the only thing that works, or that it's the best thing we could have, or that anything couldn't be better, or another way wouldn't be just as good, or...
Which is why enforcing conformity and punishing deviation because socialism is "scientific" is fucking stupid, because you can't prove or even know any of the above.
It's a soft science, like psychology. You can take a scientific approach even if empiricism is more difficult.
The USSRs failure proves that their own approach was wrong. We can learn from it, because socialists learn from the material results of policy. That's scientific.