Major L

Comments

• marcos@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Fascists are all the same.

  Sounds a lot like Hitler decreeing quantum mechanics a “Jew science” and expelling almost everybody that knew nuclear physics from the country.

  source
• Dippy@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Me and my sociologist fiancé are both communists… but we are not tankies. I wonder if there is any correlation in that.

  source

  • rockerface@lemmy.cafe ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Marxism did begin as a purely scientific study, before Soviets mutated it into an ideology

    source

    • FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Where did you get that idea? Marx actively built the first international, how is that purely scientific study?

      source
    • davetortoise@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      You are incorrect. Marx felt strongly that his ideas should be used politically to change the state of the world. Aspects Marxism can be applied in a scientific/apolitical way, but this is not what it was initially developed for.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it

      source
  • fossilesque@mander.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism

    source

    • Dippy@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Why is theory so dense??? I cant even comprehend the Wikipedia summary of this lmao (im not asking for a rephrase).

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• megopie@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  In the us, there was a dark and dismal corner of poltical science called Kremlinology, where far to much attention was payed to the positions various people were during speeches and parades, trying to determine who was and was not influential with in party at any given time, and then try to determine Soviet policy and action based on this.

  Having access to the archives, we now know that they were almost entirely wrong, and the times when they were right were basically just random chance.

  Like, it was ancient divination more than it was real analysis. People called them out on it at the time, but, they were influential because the CIA was gullible and congress was desperate for any sort of insight.

  source
• Collatz_problem@hexbear.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I’m really interested in what sources this articles cites.

  source

  • Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Good call.

    I tracked it down: [37] is from a book called “The Lady Tasting Tea” by retired statistician David Salsburg, pages 147-149. While I’m sure he’s knowledgeable about statistics, he doesn’t seem to have any special qualifications regarding history.

    :::spoiler I also went to the trouble of tracking down a pdf:

    Image Image Image Image

    :::

    The claims about the government of the USSR seeing statistics as “an insult” seem to be partially his own speculation and partially the speculation of a statistics journal from the 50’s, rather than being drawn from any kind of official statements. The only claims that seem to have something to do with material reality are:

    1. The parts about the Vestnik Statistiki, which was not shut down (as the text seems to imply) but rather was adopted as an official publication of the Central Statistical Administration (TsSU), an organizations whose existence seems to fly in the face of this “the Soviets hated statistics” narrative.

    2. A couple researchers leaving the field of statistics, which could have happened for any number of reasons.

    I see absolutely nothing that suggests the study of statistics was banned or sidelined in any way.

    source