Political beliefs you no longer have

[Thelxi]

Please stop saying “big brains”... lol

I said it.. once.

biggest brains possible

[PC2]

Okay... how is profit, helping humanity?

First of all not every single thing is about helping humanity and nobody should be expected to sacrifice themselves based on that metric. If we did use that metric then nobody should even do fun things like play World of Warcraft because it's not "helping humanity".

Indirectly speaking, increasing profits is good for humanity because it means there is more wealth that can go towards new investments that will stimulate the economy and there's a higher taxable revenue for the government. Every country on the planet knows that more wealth is better than less wealth.

Why would people who dedicate their life to research, care about profit of a corporation?

They shouldn't if they don't work for a corporation. If they do work for a corporation then they must care about profits or growth at some point otherwise their employer won't have the money to pay their salary as a researcher.

[Mihalik]

I mean Marxism is psuedoscientific quackery.

I told you so many times that you need to stop using words that you don't understand.

Marxism is a material method of analysis. It is by DEFINITION not quackery. Tho certain schools of thought within it can ultimately draw erroneous conclusions. Which is part and parcel of all methods of analysis. Which is why we have meta analysis.

Marxist THEORY is a different thing and it ranges from relatively abstract to very straightforward, from authoritarian to extreme libertarian, from classical to post modern from economic to aesthetical, from dialectic to philosophical.

Like, I'm not a Marxist and my understanding of Marxist theory is superficial at best, but even I know that calling Marxism pseudoscientific just means that you don't under what Marxism is.

Understanding what you are trying to critique is a necessary and elementary first step in actually being able to formulate a critique, otherwise you are just being annoying and stupid.

[Beet]

Yeah I’ve found my political views changed a lot over years. I once was a libertarian because Penn Jilette inspired me so much. I read everything he put out and his online work too. He was a magician sure but damn he has a bright mind and is a truly good person.

But I’ve learned to set aside my enjoyment of him as a person from his libertarian views.

[PC2]

I told you so many times that you need to stop using words that you don't understand.

Marxism is a material method of analysis. It is by DEFINITION not quackery. Tho certain schools of thought within it can ultimately draw erroneous conclusions. Which is part and parcel of all methods of analysis. Which is why we have meta analysis.

Marxist THEORY is a different thing and it ranges from relatively abstract to very straightforward, from authoritarian to extreme libertarian, from classical to post modern from economic to aesthetical, from dialectic to philosophical.

Like, I'm not a Marxist and my understanding of Marxist theory is superficial at best, but even I know that calling Marxism pseudoscientific just means that you don't under what Marxism is.

Understanding what you are trying to critique is a necessary and elementary first step in actually being able to formulate a critique, otherwise you are just being and annoying and stupid.

Nothing you've said here indicates that Marxism is scientific, which means by definition it is pseudoscience. If you're only arguing about the "quackery" part then that's fine, you are free to have your own opinion.

[Felya]

First of all not every single thing is about helping humanity and nobody should be expected to sacrifice themselves based on that metric. If we did use that metric then nobody should even do fun things like play World of Warcraft because it's not "helping humanity".

Sacrifice? How about sabotage? How about lobby? How about spend money, to keep competition down, instead of succeed?

Indirectly speaking, increasing profits is good for humanity because it means there is more wealth that can go towards new investments that will stimulate the economy and there's a higher taxable revenue for the government. Every country on the planet knows that more wealth is better than less wealth.

None of this is true... increased profits could mean that... but, what’s more profitable? Spending money on research about marketing a product, or improving it?

They shouldn't if they don't work for a corporation. If they do work for a corporation then they must care about profits or growth at some point otherwise their employer won't have the money to pay their salary as a researcher.

Yeah, so... how does that create or cause progress? Innovation in milking people out of their money?

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing you've said here indicates that Marxism is scientific, which means by definition it is pseudoscience. If you're only arguing about the "quackery" part then that's fine, you are free to have your own opinion.

It’s political science... Do you consider Democracy or Capitalism a pseudoscience?

[PC2]

It’s political science...

No because in order for Marxism to be science of any kind it must be *testable* such that it could be refuted.

Do you consider Democracy or Capitalism a pseudoscience?

That makes absolutely no sense because nobody claims capitalism is science where as Marxists do try to claim that Marxism is science.

[Felya]

No because in order for Marxism to be science of any kind it must be *testable* such that it could be refuted.

Political science is a reaction to current events. There would be no Marx, if not for how industrialization was implemented and the history of feudalism. The testing ground, is the political spectrum. It’s a social science...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science

That makes absolutely no sense because nobody claims capitalism is science where as Marxists do try to claim that Marxism is science.

What do you mean no body? There are literally political science degrees, with those as a focus.

[Daelak]

That US conservatism was a legitimate choice for governing a first world nation.

[Jimmy Woods]

I used to be more socially conservative, but I would never have called myself a conservative. Maybe if my liberal Dad was more like my conservative Uncles from my mom's side I would've been full on, but my household was pretty much politics free except for family gatherings where someone would get my super conservative uncle riled up which made a memorable Christmas where his eldest daughter spent the night crying after her father said some racist shit. So, I guess growing up that was my only home experiences with politics. However you couldn't escape the daily recite of the "lord's prayer" in grade school or the fact that I went to 99% white elementary school in the burbs and later an 85% white junior high and high school. I remember in junior high a deeply religious girl, who I was kinda friends with at school, mainly because her last name and mine came back to back and teachers were lazy and forced us to sit in alphabetical order, was slut shamed over a rumor she had an abortion. And who did the shaming? Others of the same religious belief.

But still leaving High School I would not have considered myself attached to any political belief. Even my first time voting I chose third party. But, my university career and my work career was starting and man did my social views change from being exposed to people from different walks of life and different ways of thinking. Once I lost my prejudices, any remaining social conservatism quickly fell away as I opened my eyes to what was being said and how it was being said and taught.

It's funny because I'm probably further right on economic issues today than I was years ago, but Fox News, RW media and the batshit crazy of social conservatives keep me away from their side. Also, helps that Trump had full Republican control and yet he spent more money than Obama, he redistributed more money to in need farmers during the apparent "Greatest economy ever!" *tm and he bailed out corporations in a much bigger way then Bush's bank bailout. So even with my firm belief in free markets and free market competition being of upmost importance to our economic system, the Republicans of today don't believe that and at least the Democrats pander about wanting to help solve the issues of our time, wealth inequality, climate change, systematic racism. FFS, 4 years, 3 miles of new wall and 0 dollars from Republicans in congress. I dunno. Sorry for the long post and maybe going a little off topic.

[Mihalik]

Nothing you've said here indicates that Marxism is scientific, which means by definition it is pseudoscience. If you're only arguing about the "quackery" part then that's fine, you are free to have your own opinion.

You are still not getting it. "Marxism" is not a scientific field just as Stoicism or Liberalism aren't scientific fields.

They are respectively an analytical and philosophical field. What sets Marxism apart from let's say Stoicism is its materialistic approach and its relative focus on socio economic interactions,

This is a natural consequence of Marxism just being an off shot of Enlightenment materialism when applied to sociology and economics.

You calling Marxism pseudoscientific is akin to saying economics or sociology (with all the derived subfields) being pseudo science.

Economics and sociology simply study the human phenomenons of economics and society. It is not any less real than mathematics or physics.

And Marxism is one toolset within the fields of economics and sociology. And it's a wildly influential and relevant one, that would never be dismissed or not utilized for certain things by even the most ardent capitalist economic or libertarian sociologist or historian. The entire field of dialectics as use today is essentially Marxist dialectics derived from Hegelian dialectics.

You are literally the first person I ever met who seems to think that there are people who consider "Marxism" a scientific discipline.

[Tuor]

I used to be afilliated to a political party when i was youger (center-right), since then i shifted even more to the center at the same time i stoped beliving in any politians, i still vote (it's a duty after all) but all my votes are worth of nothing because i always vote a party that i know it won't elect anyone.

Politians in my country are really crap...

[Powerogue]

Used to ignorantly parrot a fair few of my parent's conservative beliefs, particularly when homosexual rights were being brought up. Not proud of that, I was ignorant and very young. Pretty standard "got older, went to college, met people outside of their group and learned to not be such an a-hole towards them" story.

[Katie N]

Used to think democracy was something to strive for. After seeing how it plays out in Europe and USA I have changed my mind.

[postman1782]

I would say

Believing Obama should still be president.

My belief, is that the right wing were a decent party and that they cared about the American people, that is no longer happening.

[Slant]

I used to believe the US was the leader of the free world, firmly democratic and above all reproach.

Boy, was I naive and wrong...

[Felya]

I used to believe the US was the leader of the free world, firmly democratic and above all reproach.

Boy, was I naive and wrong...

I’m a fucking immigrant... I’m watching this shit and all I can think of... not this again... fucking idiots...

[Slant]

Look at the bright side, the checks and balances are holding. Not all is lost.

[DingDongKing]

I used to think modern conservatives would be more reasonable and conservative parties would widen their tent, whilst abandoning bigoted and prejudiced views. Boy, was I wrong. They've gotten worse after realising that you can be voted into office by using internet troll tactics in real life.

[Cerilis]

Used to think democracy was something to strive for. After seeing how it plays out in Europe and USA I have changed my mind.

I take it you have a viable alternative in mind?