Liberalism is associated with those things because it allowed them to happen to avoid a negative effect to property rights (revolution, riots) once more radical people pushed for them. Liberalism is reactionary and regressive, but some liberals are easier to convince of specific rights extensions than others. You’ve been lied to a lot if you think liberals did these things
I would be easily convinced I was wrong if you’d show any sort of proof. So take your imperialist ass and shove yourself in a wood chipper or a mineshaft if you are unwilling to spend 5 minutes googling to prove your claim or prove yourself wrong.
Yeah the “field of bodies” video is pretty easy to find even if you’re not looking for it. I don’t blame you for not wanting to see the shit, It’s terrible. But don’t come with some fake claim that only cars can be found. “Leveled” is a word used to mean “made rubble” sometimes and “made to be as useless and dangerous as rubble” others. This is probably the latter time, but I haven’t seen videos showing the remains of the building honestly. I don’t search for this shit tho
Find something or delete this bullshit.
You should read a goddamn book about any of these topics or begone ye 
Edit: ah shit I’m outside of Hexbear. Ok then let’s engage a bit here. What about these things seems contradictory to you? That there is an active genocide for about 100 years in Palestine or that Stalin is good?
To be clear, because reading it again gave me some unclarity, I absolutely defend Stalin because he was good, not just as a rhetorical strategy. Just that even if he could’ve been better, he was the best possible and denigrating him denigrates socialism every time. Real critique is fine (“75% good of course”) but painting him as a problem as a person cannot be removed form socialism. Hamas is doing decolonization, and denigrating them is denigrating decolonization
Yes, we must understand that not only do Gazan Palestinians as a majority support Hamas, but Hamas is a force for good and they are correct for doing so. Sure, after decolonization, start fighting for a better representative, but for now Hamas is the best shot they have at not being genocided.
This same framework is used every time there is a broad movement which chooses, with good reason, for a strong group which can accomplish their goals. “Socialism is fine but Stalin did it bad” but then the purity fetish prevents the original goal from ever being achieved. Don’t bother convincing people socialism is good but Stalin bad. No Stalin is good and so I socialism.
You can just make it a “born before this date” and it just solves this entirely. That date just doesn’t change. Everyone who sells darts memorizes it. Then it actually changes every day by a day. Fuck it, let’s give it an hour too, just to fuck with those kids born an hour later
I dismissed cybernetics as a way to supplant the need for an underlying philosophy, which is what you were doing at the beginning. You can study cybernetics and believe it’s supported by dialectics, but the other way is nonsense. I am in no way dismissing that MST s are another way to talk about dialectical movements, but it is not dealing with the essence of a thing or that thing in itself at the level of philosophy. Hegelians talk about similar things very often, with a lot of the examples on the pages shown being almost identical in form to things Engels pointed out. But saying you’re not a Hegelian (we mean dialectician here, you’re likely not a marxist either) indicates to me that our disagreement is not at the level of cybernetics, but at the level of what causes such interactions at all
Hegelian dialectics was possibly sublated by marx, but Marx’s dialectic is not a dialectic idea but a material world which does exist as a basic assumption that is perfect for any theory which intends to be useful. You cannot sublate the material world itself. But again, I think that you are under the impression that, because you thought of a quick gotcha, that this hasn’t already been thought about and written by many scholars before you. Hegel himself saw this gotcha coming
Ok you pull me back in, read some philosophy of science which is at the basis of your beliefs here. There are such huge assumptions under the ideas of mutual feedback you’re representing here. I’m a Systems Engineer, I get the appeal and genuinely base my scientific analysis of socio economics in the ideas that I’ve developed through that lens. But I also understand the limitations of this because I’ve read philosophy of science at the most basic level.
You sound like the people who think that math is a formally complete system and base worldviews on it (“everything is math and we can understand all that happens by the math at the quantum levels and even below eventually”) without realizing that the experts of the field are completely against this interpretation, and even claim it’s disproven. You’re doing intuitionism but I don’t think you realize it. I do it too, because it’s easiest for understanding and useful, but I know it’s limited
“indisputable democratic source of knowledge wikipedia (feel free to edit the page if you it can be improved):”
Fair enough on the framing, just meant that I ignored it for the first half, otherwise the reply was not engaging with you up to that point, but I wrote sloppily.
But you did not originally say “bigger and smaller IMPERIALIST” you said capitalist empire. It’s a totally different discussion which is where we started speaking past on another. I still don’t think that’s correct, because I don’t think a new analysis like Lenin made of imperialism would find Russia as materially equivalent in form or content of imperialism at all (maybe requiring a new word for the type of imperialism done by the US/NATO like super-imperialism or so. That’s why I still hold the point that it’s not just “bigger v smaller” that matters, but the Qualitative difference that then arose from the quantity of Imperialism performed/exported capital and coerced labour. They should be understood as 2 phenomenon at this point, not a big and small
You act as if cybernetics supersedes basic philosophical presuppositions. Of course I support cybernetic sciences like any other scientific study of systems, but if you think you’re doing this independent of an undergirding philosophy you’re entirely wrong.
The only difference in the first paragraph is understanding not just that these are parts of a system, but that in practice they define one another directly through their internal contradictions (which are related to each other). Again, you’re just an anti-hegelian who thinks you’re above defining your own metaphysics.
I also am entirely unconvinced you read either of those articles in their entirety
But I’m not going to convince you here, and my replying is only to you at this point, nobody else will read. So hopefully you read those and try to grasp the underlying philosophy, but I’m out
There is an inherent contradiction to defining intellectual either as individual or collective, but you’re not a Hegelian or a marxist so that’s why Im just done with the Convo, it’s not interesting because we’re not gonna get past that
Because its not relevant. It HAPPENS to be the case now, but it’s in no way a defining feature. Sure, I’m absolutely fine with that detail being described so, because it’s true. But you minimized the analysis to that. “Framing” is ambiguous and I’m ignoring that, I guess you could call it framing, but your framing is irrelevant to my analysis
Only replying to the first paragraph: you’re doing the exact thing I’m describing by defining “intellectual” in an individualized way (you say our, but you’re defining it as each individual, not understanding its basis in the collective).
I’m not gonna talk any more because you’re not really saying much interesting. You’re just defining everything as opposites and not seeing the dialectic between it, but then we’re getting to an ages old argument that just results in me saying ‘read Hegel’ and that’s it
One more point here, made clearly by Marx, is that understanding how systems shape humans both as individuals and as a society is not de-humanising, it’s possibly the most humanising something can be. To be human is to be shaped entirely by your environment and your reactions to it simultaneously, and mass psychology is how we come to have anything remotely psychological to be. It’s finding how to live as both a human individual and a human who partakes in, creates, or grows away from mass psychologies. This misunderstanding is exactly Nietzsche hate for the masses. He attempted to understand HIMSELF as not human in this way and create a philosophy around it, while he himself was calling back to individual, anti-change philosophies from the Greeks who did the same (Plato as opposed to Aristotle)
No. Both are bourgeois states and yes I prefer the weaker one winning in this case, but the framing of “big vs small” is very ignorant of any reason to support something critically
Philosophy absolutely has the ability to examine and propose better definitions when definitions (like the ones you linked) do not capture the phenomenon. Losurdo read more books than you’ve seen by liberals in order to write his “Liberalism” book. He understood the phenomenon deeper and further than its dictionary use.
How do you capture such a thing in your world view? Because he found flaws in definitions and worked deeper, he just did nothing because it wasnt the Oxford definition?