Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) shares his message to voters in the Uncommitted Movement who are considering not voting in the presidential race over the Biden administration's handling of Israel.
You honestly think citizens should be publicly punished and shamed for purely strategic reasons? I somehow don’t believe that.
every Party member must uphold it
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.”
You honestly think citizens should be publicly punished and shamed for purely strategic reasons? I somehow don’t believe that.
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.
Sounds like a moral imperative to me tbh
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.
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.
it is possible to use a scientific approach to figure out what works and what doesn’t.
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.
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 heartwanted to advance the party agenda it’s okayExcept 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.