WldFyre

I hope you're vegan lol

You ignored nearly all of my comment and just repeated your logical fallacies.

it is possible to use a scientific approach to figure out what works and what doesn't.

Refer back to how this is meaningless. Every country in existence "works" and changing what you mean by "works" means it's not scientific (which it shouldn't be).

I haven't even brought up the low hanging fruit of how since the USSR failed and the USA still exists, then "scientifically" socialism doesn't work if you use that logic.

And something working doesn't mean it is scientifically correct or true, because that's conflating poor philosophy with poor moralizing. It also doesn't "prove" that it is the only thing that works, or that it's the best thing we could have, or that anything couldn't be better, or another way wouldn't be just as good, or...

Which is why enforcing conformity and punishing deviation because socialism is "scientific" is fucking stupid, because you can't prove or even know any of the above.

scientific approach to politics

It's not, because no approach to politics is. It's not reproducible, and there's no control. You can argue it's logical, but that's different.

Also, this means that literally any functioning state "clearly works" as well, many of which have been around longer than modern China. Any place that isn't pure chaos is a valid approach to politics with this argument, and if you (correctly) change what you mean by "works" to be some other criteria, then it's not a pure evidence based approach anymore since we've brought value judgements into it.

Politics can never be purely scientific because we have to make value judgements. Being purely "scientific" is what most communists criticize pure utilitarianism for.

Lol exact same outcome but since I ~~accepted Jesus into my heart~~ wanted to advance the party agenda it's okay

You honestly think citizens should be publicly punished and shamed for purely strategic reasons? I somehow don't believe that.

every Party member must uphold it

Sounds like a moral imperative to me tbh

But honestly this is just more examples of trying to weasel out of hypocritical positions like evangelical Christians do. Change some words around and act like it's a different thing even though the real world effect is the same, which is funny for a group that claims to deal in material conditions.

"I don't HATE you, I just think you deserve to go to Hell."

"We don't denounce deviation because deviating is immoral, we denounce it because it would be bad game theory not to."

i.e. taking uncritical moral positions and then denouncing any deviation

What the Party decides is what the membership must respect and uphold.

Hmmm

And a French thing too

Arguing with teenagers is pointless, you can't vote and think you know it all. Moral absolutism is a fucking scourge smh

If you're a white, straight male who doesn't care about the friends and family around you, then yeah not much changed! /s

Way to out yourself lol

Being better than the worst isn't enough

Be better.

Lol

2016 proved that

2016 proved that Trump would be a fucking disaster, and waiting for your perfect candidate will never happen, and probably wouldn't win with the majority of Americans anyway.

No decision can ever be perfect, is my point.

taking uncritical moral positions and then denouncing any deviation

Lol I've been to Hexbear and old chapo chat, I have no idea how you can say this with a straight face.

Mao harshly criticized this in On Contradiction and On Practice.

Cool, was that before or after struggle sessions were implemented in China?

I think it's one of those weasel words some leftists use so they can ignore their own hypocrisy while they moralize like the evangelical Christians they were raised as.