You’re taking a vulgar empiricist approach and denying the ongoing material processes and trends that point to decay in imperialist countries and the rise of socialist countries. If you only trust what you can directly see with your own eyes, then you deny evolution, geographical shifts, and other phenomena that require observation over an extended period. Again, you’re also choosing to ignore imperialism, that’s like saying capitalism works great because capitalists live great while ignoring the necessity of worker exploitation.
Are you denying evolution, geographical shifts, and the process of imperialism, or are just taking an agnostic stance while doubling down on ineffective methodology?
The fact that some predictions are wrong doesn’t mean we can’t analyze trends and trajectories, nor does it mean taking the opposite approach and focusing on static snapshots is better. Again, vulgar empricism denies evolution, geographic shifts, and imperialism. Are you denying evolution, geographical shifts, and the process of imperialism, or are just taking an agnostic stance while doubling down on ineffective methodology?
Are you allergic to giving a clear answer? Being extremely vague about your claims and refusing to address points I’ve made isn’t helping your case here.
You said according theories you believe in that socialist countries will be best of the best and so on. I’m not concerned about the future and don’t really trust these sort of predictions, so what else can even say really. I wanted to be nice and agree that yeah maybe at some point.
I’m just not very interested in speculation, that’s all
I said that socialist countries are better at providing for the working class now. This statement requires isolating variables and taking differences into account when making a comparison, not looking at static and arbitrary comparisons. Further, the decay in imperialist countries and the rise of socialist countries are already ongoing, not processes for the future. You’ve been explained this before and haven’t responded to it, or justified why your arbitrary comparison is better than comparing peer countries and trajectories.
Same goes with not giving a clear answer on geographical shifts, evolution, and imperialism. Your static snapshot method is wrong.
You’re taking a vulgar empiricist approach and denying the ongoing material processes and trends that point to decay in imperialist countries and the rise of socialist countries. If you only trust what you can directly see with your own eyes, then you deny evolution, geographical shifts, and other phenomena that require observation over an extended period. Again, you’re also choosing to ignore imperialism, that’s like saying capitalism works great because capitalists live great while ignoring the necessity of worker exploitation.
I’m sure your theory and methodology is fine. I just don’t trust much in that sort of speculation tbh.
Are you denying evolution, geographical shifts, and the process of imperialism, or are just taking an agnostic stance while doubling down on ineffective methodology?
Like said, I’m sure it’s a good theory and all. I’m just cautious about trusting that sort of predictions. They don’t always pan out quite as predicted.
The fact that some predictions are wrong doesn’t mean we can’t analyze trends and trajectories, nor does it mean taking the opposite approach and focusing on static snapshots is better. Again, vulgar empricism denies evolution, geographic shifts, and imperialism. Are you denying evolution, geographical shifts, and the process of imperialism, or are just taking an agnostic stance while doubling down on ineffective methodology?
I didn’t say you weren’t allowed to do your predictions. I’m sure they’re good predictions. I just don’t put much faith in them.
Are you allergic to giving a clear answer? Being extremely vague about your claims and refusing to address points I’ve made isn’t helping your case here.
You said according theories you believe in that socialist countries will be best of the best and so on. I’m not concerned about the future and don’t really trust these sort of predictions, so what else can even say really. I wanted to be nice and agree that yeah maybe at some point.
I’m just not very interested in speculation, that’s all
I said that socialist countries are better at providing for the working class now. This statement requires isolating variables and taking differences into account when making a comparison, not looking at static and arbitrary comparisons. Further, the decay in imperialist countries and the rise of socialist countries are already ongoing, not processes for the future. You’ve been explained this before and haven’t responded to it, or justified why your arbitrary comparison is better than comparing peer countries and trajectories.
Same goes with not giving a clear answer on geographical shifts, evolution, and imperialism. Your static snapshot method is wrong.