have been wondering recently what my blind spots are, what are beliefs I have that are unexamined or based on too little evidence for how much I believe them …
maybe there are common patterns, that people commonly believe false things and I might be challenged in my own beliefs this way
Politically, I’m pretty firm in my anti-capitalist stance and I think I’ve learned enough to be justifiably confident about that. But I’m relatively a lot less educated about the specifics of future socialist alternatives. There’s a bunch of reading out there, but it’s hard to keep my attention focused long enough to do that kind of reading without more structure behind it like I had when I was in school.
It’s great to want to learn theory! If you want, I actually made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, it should help with structure. It’s meant to build up as time goes on, so you aren’t thrown in the deep end at the start.
Thanks. Bookmarking this.
No problem! Let me know if you have any feedback. It also has audiobooks!
I believe I have a purpose in life (not a higher purpose, just a purpose) but I don’t know what it is yet. I’m working on internal alignment and hope that my purpose will be found or created that way.
Epstein didn’t kill himself. Epstein island was a Mossad honey trap. Does that one count?
I don’t know how exactly it should be implemented but Germany needs a serious inheritance tax. Tbh. due to not having it in the past a wealth tax might be advised as well.
I want to live in a world where a worker** totally can earn 100x what another worker earns, but not in a world where you earn 100x because of daddy’s money. For that we have to get rid of insane inheritance. I also think this rectifies criminal generational wealth like the church or old noble families.
Let’s be honest: Life is good in Germany so only few people actually complain about that, but it is a * unfair system and I can understand everyone who doesn’t want to play in it.
Hillary Clinton is bisexual, leaning lesbian, and was having an affair with Anthony Weiner’s wife.
It fits a lot of the behavior and side comments of people close to the situation, including the email scandal and his behavior at the time. But I have no real information and never expect to.
Basically everyone has little knowledge about the vast majority of things. People who have strong beliefs generally think they have good evidence for them (even if what they think is clearly untrue and their evidence is nonsensical).
I’ve heard of “appeal to authority” and such, but at the end of the day I think that it’s generally sensible to just believe the mainstream expert consensus on something until you’re given good evidence otherwise, especially if you’re dealing with hard science.
Of course it’s ideal to know more about a topic than basic things you were told and took as fact and this should be paired with some level of media literacy and critical thinking, though.
the dynamics of aviation safety, especially for this year falldown where we witness several airplane crashes that resulting more fatalities.
let say before 2024, the track record was good enough. like I didn’t read or notified much about air crashes at that time. there are several air crashes, but only few I can consider fatal or serious incident.
but now, this year alone: we have American Eagle, Air India, the Bangladeshi military jet, and today the small Russian flight. not to mention several serious incidents and also small fatal plane crashes. not to counting several major air accidents/incidents in 2024 too.
I believe there’s something going wrong here in aviation industry, resulting the overall safety deficiency. but again, my beliefs here is still kinda unproven. I read online discussions about this, but what I read, peoples on that industry can only says “we try our best”.
Aviation functions entirely on our belief in aviation. We believe planes can fly and land safely so they do.
As more planes crash, the belief in its ability wanes, the worse it gets, repeat.
Please don’t lose faith.
I heard this is an expert interview so I know it’s true.
You seem to be slightly confused, that’s how Orkish aviation works. Western FreedomPlanes™ generate lift by harnessing the power of the line that must always go up. For example, the U.S. Dollar’s line has started to go down, which has caused many U.S. airplanes to crash.
My house flew away because so many people had faith in the housing bubble
Short-form video is destroying attention spans and critical thinking skills. The level of brainrot I see in people who are hooked on Tiktok or other platforms is staggering. “I saw 500 10-second videos about this topic and now believe it with every ounce of my being, because the algorithm specifically pushes this particular point of view.” seems to be a common occurrence these days.
people said the same thing about books, radio, television, and movies at one time or another
I also think the same way. If it was short form content of the same subject, ok maaaaybe the brain won’t be so clusterfucked. but as it is, it’s so random it’s just frying our brains.
Economics. I think they’re inexplicable, and yet clearly something is working.
I believe that the fact that there’s a saying, “get four economist in a room and you’ll get five opinions” is evidence that no one truly understands economics, but many only (wrongly) think they do. I personally believe it’s a glitch in the matrix, a hot patch thrown in by developers when the simulation unexpectedly evolved beyond the capacity for barter/trade to handle the scale of the systems. It wasn’t well or thoroughly designed, and frequently crashes (like the big one in the 30’s, and periodic smaller ones since).
And yet… there’s clearly something there.
As @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml said, Marxist economics are sound and they work. The problem is that the conclusions of Marxist economics point to it being unquestionably correct to move beyond capitalism and into socialism, so the capitalist status-quo spends more time trying to make up any excuses they can to keep the gravy train going for that little bit longer. Liberal economists can’t form a consensus because it’s all based on rejection of working economic theory.
The problem is that the conclusions of Marxist economics point to it being unquestionably correct to move beyond capitalism and into socialism
It’s even earlier, Marx himself noted that conclusion of LTV itself is socialism and indeed all the economists basing on Ricardo’s work arrived at this point. Marx was just completely conscious in his tries and used dialectical materialism unlike others to develop a scientific socialism, thus his theory was the best one. He also noted that this necessity was why the pet economists of capitalists needed to take a step back and turned mainstream political economisc into the superficial justifications of capitalism, that happened with J.S. Mill Junior iirc.
Definitely true! The LTV of course predates Marx, and could easily be used as justification for socialism. I was more referring to the problems with Smith’s and Ricardo’s work that Marx resolved, giving an even better justification that only points towards socialism.
Yeah other socialist theoreticians fumbled over idealism and several other issues, Marx literally wrote volumes about it (Theories of Surplus Value plus a lot in his other works, he was incredibly well versed in history of economic thought).
Yep! I’m working my way through volume 2 of Capital right now, getting into turnover time, and Marx is about to start discussing Smith and the physiocrats.
Volume 2 is the most dry one, it’s nearly entirely about capital circulation.
I know 🫠 volume 1 had fun metaphors and worked in examples, plus you could really feel Marx’s anger. It’s a much more engaging work. That being said, volume 2 has been very eye-opening so far, just like volume 1 was, so I’m sticking with it. Should be done with volume 3 early next year at the pace I’m at.
I don’t agree on this point, because I think communism is predicated on selflessness, and there’s a decent amount of evidence that we’re only selfless on the small scale (communities ≈ 150 ppl). Without selflessness, communism depends on authoritarianism, forcing people to be selfless and work for the greater good.
Capitalism has enjoyed relative success because it is predicated on selfishness. It’s not necessarily better for society, but the fact that there are no large, successful communisms is pretty strong evidence that it exploits humanity’s baser nature. I don’t see communism working outside of either small, isolated communities, or in idealized, hypothetical thought experiments.
Communism isn’t predicated on selflessness, nor is capitalism predicated on selfishness. Socialism/communism are predicated on public ownership and direction of production, while capitalism is predicated on private. The superstuctural elements like ideology are not the driving factors, the underlying base is. The superstructure comes from the base, and reinforces it, but does not decide whether it works or not.
Secondly, all states are authoritarian, they are all extensions of the ruling class. The degree that authority is exerted is a direct reaction to circumstance. Nazi Germany and modern Germany are both authoritarian and both ruled by the bourgeoisie, the reason Nazi Germany is seen as more authoritarian is because the economy was in dire straits and the capitalist class needed to violently crush dissent and assert itself in order to protect the existing property relations. Modern Germany is not opposed to the same violent repression, it just lacks the current necessity to do so, outside of crushing pro-Palestinian protestors.
Finally, socialism works. Socialist economies run by communist parties have had remarkable success in achieving high rates of economic growth and uplifting the working class. The largest and most significant economy in the world today is the PRC, which is socialist. People who say “communism/socialism don’t work” are largely pointing to the dissolution of the USSR, but the Soviet Union worked remarkably well until it liberalized and undermined its own system based on centralized planning. The reintroduction of capitalism to Eastern Europe was devastating, killing 7 million people and resulting in lowered life expectancy, skyrocketing drug abuse, human trafficking, poverty, wealth disparity, and more.
I think you would do well to investigate the topic further, as you already admitted you haven’t really done so yet, so this is a great opportunity.
Communism isn’t predicated on selflessness, nor is capitalism predicated on selfishness.
Not explicitly, but by virtue is human nature. I should have phrased it as a requirement for it to function without authoritarian control, which we’ll bicker about in a bit.
Secondly, all states are authoritarian, they are all extensions of the ruling class.
Again, hard disagree. You’re stating a useless tautology: if everything is authoritarian, the word has no useful meaning. If you believe we live in a universe without free will, then we exist in an authoritarian universe, and debate is pointless. There are degrees of control, and some systems have more than others. Living in a prison is different than living in Stalin’s USSR, which is different than living in Russia today, which is different than living in Sweden today. Only a fool would insist they’re equivalent.
Finally, socialism works
Socialism is not communism. Socialism allows for private property and individual rewards for contributions; communism seeks complete state control over all resources and a classless society.
Not every society is authoritarian. Tribal, classless societies were not so, they had no state. A fully collectivized, ie communist system will have no class, and thus no need for one class to oppress others, ie is not authoritarian. Every existing society in between those is authoritarian, from the feudal lords to the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, each ruling class will wield the state and thus authority to resolve class contradictions. I already explained the differences in degrees of oppression, and how they depend more on circumstances than an implicit desire for control. It’s better for the proletariat to be in charge than the bourgeoisie.
Socialism is pre-communism. Socialism is a mode of production where the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and controlled, ie the PRC, Cuba, and former USSR. Communism is when all production globally has been collectivized, and thus is classless, and therefore stateless (though not without management, administration, or planning). Further, even collectivized systems allow for rewards for individual contributions, no socialist country in history has had equal pay, Marx railed against “equalitarians.” The process of sublimating all property is a gradual one, private property in socialism is something expected to vanish over time as firms grow and are folded into the collectivized system.
Finally, “human nature” has nothing to do with our conversation. I don’t see why you think communism can only work at a small scale, when the opposite is the case, communism can only be realized globally. I think you’re mixing up anarchist economics with Marxist economics.
Mainstream economists don’t understand economics since they dumped out the LTV in XIX century. Current science of economics is basically a cult writting plausible sounding justifications for capitalism.
I strongly believe that I can get trans girls pregnant despite the fact I have no evidence in the affirmative but I am still conducting research with great fervour
Keep trying. For science.
There is no power on this earth that could stop me
😳
My door is always open to new study participants!
I believe my wife loves me, even though she’s unable or unwilling to articulate why. There’s a song she likes where the chorus goes “I don’t know why I love you, I just do”, a sentiment she finds romantic and I find vaguely terrifying.
I would submit that our culture is severely deluded in thinking that conscious reasoning is behind most of our actions and reactions to things. If you like a thing, and have reasons why, those are generally rationalizations to explain why, after the fact, not actually how you got there.
Your’s, too?
Actually, I have some data points. My wife grew up in a family of women: two sisters, a mother, and a bum dad who disappeared when she was a kid. Once, early in our relationship, my wife asked for help moving a heavy box. I walked over, picked it up, and moved it for her. She just sort of stood there with her mouth open and then said, “how did you do that??” I said, “man 🤷♂️”. She said, “that’s so hot.”
But, yeah. I often feel like I got the better part of the deal.
🧐🍗I deliberately make it a point not to, when I can.
No investigation, no right to speak.
I have mixed feelings:
And yet ordinary people should be able to say “I want to stop choking on yellow smoke every time I go outside” without having to learn the difference between hexamethyldecawhatever and tetraethylpentawhatever.
That’s a fair point, but that doesn’t apply to everything. Believing something strongly is more about the factual basis of things, rather than direct desires for improvements. Like, I wouldn’t say I have a strong belief that I want a bagel right now, I just want the bagel, but I can say I have a strong belief that bagels are a type of bread.
okay fair enough. But placing “want” aside, I also think people should be able to say there shouldn’t be yellow smoke even if they aren’t experts.
Sure, but I maintain that we are talking about different scenarios.
never expected Mao Zedong to be cited as someone’s inspiration to take an empirical approach to beliefs, lol
You’ve been on Lemmy for over a year and you’re surprised?
I’m a Marxist-Leninist, so I see Mao more favorably than not. He made mistakes, but was also a critical figure in establishing socialism in China, and is beloved in China because of it. That being said, Mao did not invent the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge nor the necessity of unifying theory with practice, that’s a core part of Marxism from the beginning. Mao just had a poetic and direct way of writing that is immensely quotable in ways Marx, Lenin, etc. don’t often compare.
It’s just wild to me that people are invested in Marx’s “scientific” application of Hegel’s dialectic, esp. considering how badly Marx’s theories have failed (even before his death, Marx found “primitive communism” in anthropological accounts he was reading, which invalidates the “evolutionary” way he and Hegel thought about history as linear), and even worse, how little relevance Hegel and German idealism in general has maintained … Of course Mao didn’t invent these ideas, but they’re not even great ideas to begin with, Marx is a terrible philosopher tbh. He was much better for his sociology and analysis of capitalism than his ability to predict the arc of humanity.
Mao is poetic in ways Marx and Lenin are not, though - I agree with that.
Either way, I am not a Marxist-Leninist, and as far as I can tell Marxist-Leninism is a misnomer since it seems to betray both Leninism and Marxism 🤷♀️ I’m always open to being wrong about this, but my past experiences with Marxist-Leninists have generally not been productive, and I have yet to understand why people are MLs today other than as a kind of pragmatic alignment against Western imperialist powers, though even then I don’t understand the ML love of contemporary Russia, since Russia does not even promise itself to be socialist the way China, Cuba, or North Korea do. I’d love to hear your thoughts, though!
It’s a bit of irony, really, that Stalin would name his state ideology “Marxist-Leninism”, esp. as he lost in the power struggle to Stalin.
Assuming you meant that Lenin lost to Stalin, he lost power by suffering several grave ailments—including three strokes—for several years and then dying. He became physically & mentally unequipped to lead.
Marxist-Leninism is a misnomer since it seems to betray both Leninism and Marxism
This is a common belief among Western leftists, including most Western Marxists[1][2].
As some of us say—tongue in cheek—ultras fear the scroll.I have yet to understand why people are MLs today other than as a kind of pragmatic alignment against Western imperialist powers
That’s not the whole of it by any means, but imperialism vs anti-imperialism has been the primary contradiction of the last 150+ years of capitalism, and likely will continue to be in the coming decades.
V. I. Lenin, 1916: Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalismI don’t understand the ML love of contemporary Russia
That’s because we don’t “love” contemporary Russia, nor do we think that it’s in any way socialist:
https://lemmy.ml/comment/16985906This is… shockingly misinformed. To a frankly massive degree.
-
Tribal societies, called “primitive communism,” were not at all what Marx was describing post-socialist communism to be. Tribal production was largely based on hunting and gathering, and tiny, communal ownership, rather than collectivized production built on a globally interconnected system.
-
Historical materialism does not pitch history as “linear.” It’s an advancement on idealist notions of dialectics as humanity advancing, unknown to themselves, a grand “Spirit.” Dialectical materialism flipped dialectics on its head, it’s matter that drives thought, not a metaphysical ideal that drives movement.
-
Hegel and German idealism have faded because they are idealist, and thus wrong. See point 2. You’re confusing Marxism as idealist, and erasing materialism by referring to it as “scientific” dialectics.
-
Marxism-Leninism betrays neither Marx nor Lenin. You just kind of left this hanging without explaining why, so I’d like clarification. Stalin’s contributions are largely limited to the political economy of the Soviet Union, such as the policy of Socialism in One Country. Not sure what you mean when you say Stalin lost in the power struggle with Stalin, I assume that’s a typo.
-
Marxist-Leninists have no love for the Russian Federation. MLs recognize that due to the RF’s lack of the immense financial capital and potential subjects to imperialize that the west already has, despite being a nationalist capitalist nation it’s forced to oppose western imperialism, and engage in trade with actual socialist countries like the PRC. Russia has every reason to want to imperialize the global south, but simply lacks the means to do so.
Marx’s theories have not failed. Crucially, what I’m picking up on is a surface-level understanding of Marxism coupled with false-conclusions resulting from a lack of depth in understanding. To be frank, I’m a Marxist-Leninist because Marxism-Leninism is successful as a tool to bring about socialism, and a useful tool in identifying the main contradictions in existing society. If you have more specific critiques, we can get into them, but as it stands there’s nothing for me to really counter, and I don’t want to just stand on a soapbox and tell you to “read more theory,” that’s almost always unproductive.
-
Evolution, carbon dating, some physics topics
Aliens. There’s got to be more than just us in this insanely huge universe. It’s statistically impossible that in such a huge place there’s only one life form out there that’s capable of making credit scores and movies. Plus, with all the UFO stuff in the news these past few years I really think that something is hiding in the shadows and one day something will blow the lid off. Maybe tomorrow or 50 years from now but I think something will happen that will answer the question “Are we alone?”
I agree that there must be other stuff living out there, but I don’t think they’re here. My belief that I can’t prove is that the Fermi paradox has a simple but quite depressing solution: that space and time are just too big and there’s no special undiscovered way of getting around it. I’m sure there are some staggeringly unlikely situations out there somewhere where two species have evolved independently at the same time to a similar level of intelligence at a distance close enough to reach each other, but for the vast majority of intelligent life the odds are so vanishingly small that they might as well be alone.
If we’re a typical example of an intelligent species, for example, we’ve been capable of space flight for less that a century and we just about got as far as the moon, and with all the inventions that came along with becoming capable of space flight we’ve almost destroyed ourselves countless times. It’s kind of a wonder we’re still here at all, and with climate change who knows how much longer we’ll last? TBH I think the best we can hope for is to maybe get a radio signal from some ancient place that’s probably long gone, and send one back knowing we’ll probably be long gone by the time it gets there.
It’s crazy, but I want to believe that 4chan post from supposedly a government insider. I can’t remember everything, but the aliens are supposedly not coming from space, but are already here and have an established base underwater. That’s why the credible military sightings are over the ocean and the UAPs appear to dive into the water. There’s also another theory that the aliens are in fact humans from the far future, trying to warn humanity about what it’s doing to doom the planet. But I don’t understand why they can’t just make the message clear and have to resort to vague UAP sightings.
