Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that’s how it’s commonly understood.
Here I would like to summarize our discussion.
See:
Doubt within doubt is a key dialectical principle, signifying the transition from simple skepticism to critical self-knowledge, where the instrument of verification itself becomes the object of verification.
Skepticism is the highest form of empiricism.
Dialectics is the highest form of skepticism.
Therefore, it can be said that dialectic is the highest form of empiricism.
This is when the mind does not rest on its laurels, but continues to dismantle dogmas. This process is continuous and does not allow for relaxation.
Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of “empiricism,” the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to “stupid materialism,” as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That’s why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as “empiricists” but “dialectical materialists.”
Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge.
Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man.
Subtitles do not work in English on my end, so unfortunately I cannot read it, and I do not speak Russian. Is there a text version I can run through a translator?
It’s a shame, I stumbled across it by accident and experienced déjà vu. as if it were a continuation of our conversation
I couldn’t find the transcript of this video.
I can summarize his views.
Nikolai Platoshkin has an ambivalent view of modern China: while acknowledging its remarkable economic successes, he criticizes the country’s departure from classical Marxism and expresses concerns about Beijing’s overly pragmatic foreign policy toward Russia. The politician’s main theses on China: “Special” socialism: The politician notes that the Chinese Communist Party retains power and state planning, but within the country, hard-line capitalism prevails, with colossal social stratification and private property. Foreign policy pragmatism: The expert warns that Beijing primarily protects its economic interests and fears large-scale Western sanctions, which is why it acts with an eye on the United States and may limit cooperation with Russia. Historical parallels: Platoshkin criticizes some of Deng Xiaoping’s decisions and China’s current course, believing that in terms of social protection and equality, China is inferior to the standards established under Mao Zedong.
There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don’t believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics.
Here I would like to summarize our discussion.
See:
Doubt within doubt is a key dialectical principle, signifying the transition from simple skepticism to critical self-knowledge, where the instrument of verification itself becomes the object of verification.
Skepticism is the highest form of empiricism.
Dialectics is the highest form of skepticism.
Therefore, it can be said that dialectic is the highest form of empiricism.
This is when the mind does not rest on its laurels, but continues to dismantle dogmas. This process is continuous and does not allow for relaxation.
Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of “empiricism,” the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to “stupid materialism,” as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That’s why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as “empiricists” but “dialectical materialists.”
It wasn’t me who named it, Lenin named it… ))))
Yes, you’re probably right.
Really, this is what I’m more getting at:
I agree with Lenin, of course… )))
Here, I found this especially for you. Just don’t scold me, please, it’s not me speaking.
I found a video of that Russian communist whose book, only in translation, some guy here presented to me as an argument.
Therefore, you should understand this man the same way.
This is Platoshkin, whom Putin recently almost sent to prison because he called for revolution. He miraculously got off with a suspended sentence.
He’s a professor, a graduate of Moscow State University, who worked as a diplomat back in the USSR.
Turn on English subtitles. You’ve never heard such an opinion… from “Eastern Communists”… )))
He is one of the most ardent communists currently existing in Russia.
https://youtu.be/du8jt5pSFR0
Subtitles do not work in English on my end, so unfortunately I cannot read it, and I do not speak Russian. Is there a text version I can run through a translator?
It’s a shame, I stumbled across it by accident and experienced déjà vu. as if it were a continuation of our conversation
I couldn’t find the transcript of this video.
I can summarize his views.
Nikolai Platoshkin has an ambivalent view of modern China: while acknowledging its remarkable economic successes, he criticizes the country’s departure from classical Marxism and expresses concerns about Beijing’s overly pragmatic foreign policy toward Russia. The politician’s main theses on China: “Special” socialism: The politician notes that the Chinese Communist Party retains power and state planning, but within the country, hard-line capitalism prevails, with colossal social stratification and private property. Foreign policy pragmatism: The expert warns that Beijing primarily protects its economic interests and fears large-scale Western sanctions, which is why it acts with an eye on the United States and may limit cooperation with Russia. Historical parallels: Platoshkin criticizes some of Deng Xiaoping’s decisions and China’s current course, believing that in terms of social protection and equality, China is inferior to the standards established under Mao Zedong.
There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don’t believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics.