From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon communism.svg

This Communism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Communism and anti science[edit]

I think that this article should include the anti science rhetoric in soviet russia and communist countries in general. They would label any form of science that is incompatible with Marxist-Leninism as "bourgeois pseudoscience" for example genetics which is incompatible with the "universal laws of history" that applied to masses universally. Check out bourgeois science Wikipedia article to learn more. Also another example of anti science rhetoric would be during the pol pot regime. Dogma (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The stopped clock moment would be the declaration of eugenics as pseudoscience. However in general anti "bourgeois" science sentiment was pretty high. Dogma (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Dogma Your reasoning is kinda stupid to be honest. You're just casually conflating a (flawed) socio-economic theory with nation-states that claimed to follow and promote that theory (spoilers, they lied). ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that they weren't real communist/socialist States? Dogma (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Dogma A communist state is a contradiction in terms, so yes. I know some idiot spoonfed you that pathetic attempt at a gotcha, but please do actually learn what you're talking about before you speak. Yes, something that violates a defining criteria of a category is in fact, not in that category. Please see also the exception to the no true Scotsman fallacy. The USSR was as communist as Obama, possibly less if we're being honest. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Postscript, since you just had to edit in "socialist', no, they weren't that either. Again, defining criteria for a category was violated, ergo category is not applicable. Please (re)learn logic 101. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Dogma (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Banned. Lame ass attempts at trolling... Fucking amateurs... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
That was probably a massive overreaction. A few hours sure, but indefinite? Inmate XIII (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Inmate XIII Nah. They weren't engaging in good faith and pretty much admitted to trolling. Fuck'em. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, there was a soviet scientist who tried to replace Mendelian genetics with Lamarckism in the USSR. .It was partly political. CorporateBrinjal (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
But the thing is that there is no such thing as a purely communist country. CorporateBrinjal (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@CorporateBrinjal Indeed there is not. But stating that as if it's a point against communism is just showing your ignorance as to what communism entails. For fuck's sake, I think communism isn't viable and I actually understand what Marx meant by it. Guess what? The USSR, being a state, with a class system and money, wasn't communist. Not even close. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Seriously, if your reference point for "communism" is the USSR, you're fucking light years from knowing anything about communism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
"But that's not REAL communism!" *DRINK*. Is the US technically a Democracy? Not exactly; there's never been a true democracy on the national level, virtually all alleged Democracies are representative Democracies in that people elect others to decide for them, and in the US's case it gets really weird because every state is supposed to be its own semi-autonomous country (i.e., a State), but in reality every state has lost the bulk of that autonomy more than a century ago. So too with Communism. Is USSR true communism? Technically not, because communism is functionally impossible to organize on the scale of cities, let alone entire nations. Was it communist, as in the adjective? Yes, in that everything was collectively owned and there were no private enterprises, even though in practice there were underground capitalist organizations that operated on "Blat". Just like the US is viewed as the standard to compare Democracies because it was the first major country of the modern era to do so (albeit, an undeveloped backwater at the time), Russia was the first major country to declare themselves communist, and so they set the tone for what communism means in practice. CorruptUser 16:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser I swear to fucking god, if one more person misuses the No true Scotsman fallacy I'm going to fucking ban their fucking ass. If a category has clearly defined critieria (stateless, classeless, moneyless society) then anything that violates that criteria is not in fact of that category, Please see also THE FUCKING EXCEPTION TO THE NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY!!!! Q FUCKIN ED, if a Russian, with fuck all relation to Scotland, declares himself a Scotsman, he is not, in fact, a Scotsman. Like-fucking-wise, no matter what the USSR claimed to be, they never achieved the relevant criteria to be of the category "communism". I know 98% of you are both ignorant of polsci and have open disdain for it, but could you please fucking learn something before shooting your godsfuckingdamned traps off?!?!?! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Seriously, this is "evolution is just a theory" levels of ignorant. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Dude, chill. Neoliberals like those two are assholes, yes, but both of those two are trying to piss you off and its working. You're giving them what they want. Inmate XIII (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Inmate XIII Oh no, Cory's just fucking Dunning-Kruger on politics, especially when it comes to the nitty-gritty of polsci. Which isn't the main thing that pisses me off by the way. Sure, it annoys me, but what actually pisses me off is that these takes are so ignorant that I'm forced to defend a possition I actually oppose. That they're so shallow and off the mark that they fucking hinder actual critique of communism with their dogshit. That actually pisses me off. It's the same reason conspiracy theories piss me off. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I've lurked here long enough to be aware of his takes on politics and agree with your assessment, but that doesn't change the fact that he's trying to get a rise out of you and you're giving it to him. Inmate XIII (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Inmate, I think you misunderstand me then. I now get the assumption that you want to increase the maximum possibility of a rise... CorruptUser 17:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
No, I honestly thought you were trolling him a bit because while I k ew you were a cheerleader for neoliberalism, I didn't thin you were clueless enough to say things like that unironically. Thank you for dispelling the notion though, I'll step back from this one and let GC return to giving you your well-deserved berating. Inmate XIII (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a NeoLib, dood. CorruptUser 13:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie If communism isn't anti science, then why does the following passage exist in the war on science article?

Some leftists and communists have claimed based on mostly motivated reasoning that certain theories or even fields are a capitalist pseudoscience or other antiscientific right wing propoganda, while themselves being antiscientific in their outlook. Fields subject to this treatment have included human variation, Darwinian evolution and the (non) heritability of acquired traits, cybernetics, evolutionary psychology, and more. Scientists are fallible and just as capable of being bigoted or having their research misused or falsifying data as anyone else. So the fear that for example, someone, not necessarily but possibly a scientist, could abuse evolutionary psychology or Darwin's theory of selection for misogynistic, racist, or conservative, capitalistic ends is entirely warranted. This is likely driven by the fact that the leftists making these proclamations overcorrect against that biases and abuses they see on the right with their own biases and abuses, simply denying the validity of whatever legitimate scientific field is being abused instead of debunking the abuse itself. Highboi (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Now, I understand your reasoning that a self declared communist state or person isn't necessarily a communist. But then, why does this passage exist in the war on science article which probably has a lot of views?

Highboi (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

communism and communists are not the same thing. and some is not all. show where communism the theory is anti-science rather than its proponents. is it fundementally anti science or does it just necessitate its fans ignoring the relevant science for their implementation of it to work?
the passage you cite refers to adherents of communism dismissing criticism as unscientific and propaganda, while latching onto dubious science and.or misrepresenting legitimate science when convenient. that isnt any anything inherent to communism, thats just dogmatism AMassiveGay (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
also, citing our own articles is not really a great argument for anything. we are not infallible, the cited article can very easily be mistaken. its like citing wikipedia - its not best practice. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Alright fair enough. Highboi (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
But, why?
Why those specific domains are rejected by the proponents of communism?
There must be a reason as to why they are usually reject those theories. A Fundamentalist reject the theory of evolution because it compromises their world view. Would I be wrong to assume that those specific theories compromise the world view of a certain branch of communism? Highboi (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
the linked passage does not state any specifics. our page on lysenkoism might give an answer for some instances. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Highboi This whole thing boils down to one point. I do not consider the USSR (what you're actually trying to critique here) to be communism. Partly because they didn't either, but mainly because Karl Marx wouldn't have. You know, that guy who created some relatively concise and clear criteria on what communism is? Yeah, that guy. If you want to criticize the USSR, there's a page for that. As for the quoted article section, it's a bit hard for me to address something that vague. Nonetheless, this article is specifically on the PolSci theory, not random morons. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Luxemburg and Lenin[edit]

One wonders what the history of the communist movement would've turned out to be like if Luxemburg proved more influential than Lenin. It would probably be quite different, and perhaps not as catastrophic. Vee (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I read somewhere that ol' Karl based his theories on the assumption that Germany would be the first country to throw off the yoke of the capitalist oppressors and the lickspittle lackeys of gangster imperialism. I think it was actually in Len Deighton's “Spy Story” which had German reunification as a central theme the thick end of twenty years before it actually happened, but Mr Deighton is a stickler for doing his reasearch in much the same way that Dan Brown isn’t. Mr Larrington (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


While Marxism claimed to be a scientific theory or worldview, it is in fact a political ideology. Which may be not evil in itself. Marxism may be even true but it isn't a scienfitic theory which can be proofen by empirical methodes. This has to be in the article. Just read something from Karl Popper or something. — Unsigned, by: 2a02:8071:60a0:92e0:84dc:df1d:af36:fde6 / talk

You don't understand how social theories work. Marxism is also a system of social analysis. Marx the sociologist is distinct from Marx the politician, and even then Marxian analysis is rooted in empirical observations. There's a reason that Marxism is hugely influential in the social sciences, and that's because of the utility of Marxian analysis in sociology. Carthage (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)