/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>706515
How dare you minimize the crimes of the evil Soviet Union like that. Vladimir Stalin personally murdered at least 1 billion people, and that was just with his bare hands.

>>706514
>I'm going to invent Analytical Philosophy just because I can't understand the more abstract "Continental Philosophy"
Eh, pretty sure Bertrand‘s actual problem is that Marxism is too concrete and empirical. His philosophy is abstract through and through as it only deals with Euclidean systems, axioms and interchangeable variables. It‘s formal logic on stereoids.

Didn't he advocate for nuking the USSR, right up until the USSR acquired nukes, at which point he started advocating for disarmament?

Bertrand Russell is actually rather sympathetic to Lenin and the Bolsheviks despite his criticisms in "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism", which details his visit to the USSR after the 1917 revolution, but neither online Marxists, libsocs or liberals will ever read those 100 pages, so you might as well as make a thread about Hatsune Miku to foster a potentially much more interesting conversation.

>>706515
>can't keep the "just innocently asking questions" pretense up for even a single post because you're too busy seething about the soviets killing some losers who deserved to die
fucking saged lol, we deserve better bait

>>706538
Shut your bitchass up. Bertrand Russel was a liberal who at best was a misguided utopian socialist and believed in reformism. He complained about famine and economic collapse in the Soviet Union when the revolution happened only a few years before he released his book, implying the idiot believed implementing a new system right after a revolution should work perfectly. He then complained about the suppression of counter revolutionaries on the basis of free speech reminding the reader what a halfwit liberal he is. He also complained about authoritarianism which goes to show how unself-aware liberals are. Every system including theirs puts up restrains and employs violence. Of course he doesn‘t give a shit when factory workers are left to starve if they strike because the dictatorship of capital is as natural as air to him which is why he doesn‘t notice the authoritarianism of his own system. He then compared Bolshevism to religion which is as much of a low brow attempt at invalidating something as it sounds like.

>>706539
You don't deserve fine bait you deserve cheap earthworms because you're shitty fish that tastes bad metaphorically speaking and are only used for the sport of trolling by more probing minds

>>706539
Otherwise I would engage in intellectual debate but the fact is: leftoids don't deserve it

>>706550
Just take L lil bro

>>706518
>Eh, pretty sure Bertrand‘s actual problem is that Marxism is too concrete and empirical.
Lenin explicitly rejects empricism for being too metaphysical and not dialectical enough lol. This is because of the Hegelian heritage of Marxism and Marx's Hegelian mode of expression, especially in the opening chapters of volume 1 of capital. Empricial Marxism that rejects Hegelian dialectics comes from Rudolf Hilferding and gets passed down to Paul Cockshott.

>>706579
>Lenin explicitly rejects empricism for being too metaphysical
Elaborate on that if you will

Russell was a yuuge lib. That's kind of his whole schtick

>>706579
Notice how the lib author of this comic never featured lenin or mao

>>706582
Read Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. Empiricism as represented by Hume, Bogdanov, Mach et al. is a repackaged form of Berkeleian Subjective Idealism, which denies the ability to know anything outside of direct sensations, such as the existence of material reality.

>>706763
I already read Empirio-Criticism. I also read empiricist philosophy such as the writings of Hume and Francis Bacon. I think Lenin needlessly repeats himself making the same few points over and over again and ends up making arguments that don‘t accurately reflect what empiricists are saying. He is then projecting a conclusion onto them regarding what their philosophy would lead to that neither they themselves are saying nor is it evident that it would do as Lenin claims. When I first read Empirio-Criticism I didn‘t interpret it as a whole sale rejection of empiricism (which would be moronic as a materialist) but rather as a critique towards how Mach‘s philosophy of science limits everything to sense perception instead of extrapolating a world beyond from the data you are receiving. Not every empiricist thinks like Mach and it‘s not a given either.

Also, when people ask you to elaborate on something you should be able to explain it yourself when you point them to books to read, because recommending books implies that you‘ve read them yourself.

>>706771
So you should already understand why every empiricist will infallibly arrive at some form of idealism. They're unwilling to concede the necessity of materialism, therefore they cannot have a firm stance on ontology, epistemology or religion, instead veering into the metaphysical. The choice is between vulgar idealism and total agnosticism (idealism), the logical endpoints of every philosophy that tries to reject the identity of though and being.

>>706772
But what you are saying is evidently not true because most empiricists draw their conclusions based on a materialist outlook. Also, you are misusing the word metaphysics. Materialism is a metaphysical standpoint. Materialism is not something different and outside of metaphysics.

>>706775
>materialist outlook
The humean line represents an antiquated obscurantism in the philosophy of science. It is what Christians use to excuse their materialist actions and hold onto their unscientific worldview. The "big bang" is a sensoric singularity, therefore a reduction of reality to sense-perception affords the sophists in the sciences plenty of room to smuggle in their theology and peddle books about a deist or pantheist god.
>materialism is metaphysical
Only in the minds of metaphysicians! Marx builds off of the Feuerbachian rejection of Idealism, mainly the concrete experience of objects that informs vulgar materialism.

>>706579
>This is because of the Hegelian heritage of Marxism and Marx's Hegelian mode of expression, especially in the opening chapters of volume 1 of capital. Empricial Marxism that rejects Hegelian dialectics comes from Rudolf Hilferding and gets passed down to Paul Cockshott.
Reducio ad absurdum.
Also >Marx is a Hegelian
Marx uncovered the materialist dialectic and explicitly broke with Hegelianism. But you obfuscate this to safeguard your bourgeois material/ideological biases, humanist.

>>706778
I don't think you know what metaphysics are.