this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
6 points (65.0% liked)
Asklemmy
54932 readers
229 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Science is not independent of philosophy. There's idealist science, metaphysical science, etc, all of which are wrong. There is no such thing as science without philosophy, because science is an attempt by humans to understand the world. Humans are all philosophers, as we all have a world outlook. By rejecting study of philosophy as it relates to science, you are ignoring preconcieved biases, rather than acknowledging them and correcting the misconceptions.
This is why Marxism-Leninism is correct, and why all science must be done from a dialectical materialist standpoint.
I mean yeah the scientific method and the tools of science, namely mathematics are indeed branches of philosophy, so is aesthetics but that doesn't mean science is aesthetics even though they both are philosophy. Now if the claim that Marxism-Leninism is "correct" aka is the most optimal form of governance for producing human wellbeing then of course a system dedicated to finding through scientific enquiry the most optimal means of governance will scientifically prove it is through all possible measurements. There's no need to have feelings when we can have proof, quantifiable, measurable, repeatable proof. Once again science and specifically the scientific method doesn't need hand holding, the process will derive the most optimal means of governance regardless of people's seemingly infallible worship of this political system or that political system.
You're still treating science like it's not a process gone through by humans. Science once posited that race science was correct in order to justify eugenics. We need to be aware of our world outlook and correct it before we begin to use science, otherwise we come to incorrect conclusions and incorrect propositions. That's my point.
Marxism-Leninism is correct not because it is a "form of governance" (it isn't) but because it's a living social science grounded in scientific understanding of the world.
You're correct, the best aspect of science is the self revision built into it unlike other systems. The problem with a lot of political philosophies is they suffer from the same blindness but don't have a system that is ultimately self revising. Once again if what you are saying is true then it will be shown through repeatable measurement, and testing. There's no need to depend on feelings when we can have facts. If Marxism-Leninism is the most optimal form of governance for producing human wellbeing then a system designed to discover the most optimal form of governance will reproduce it. Putting political philosophy before science is putting the cart before the horse, aka Marxism-Leninism is a good hypothesis we can test using a stronger mental construct called the scientific method.
I already said Marxism-Leninism is not a "form of governance." The fact that you repeat this claim leads me to believe that you aren't actually reading what I'm writing.
Phikosophy, our world outlook, is already before science. The way we see the world and understand it determines how we view science and perform it. This is why vulgar materialists, as opposed to dialectical materialists, tried to prove race theory correct and thus advocate for eugenics. Science is not neutral. The world around us, the material world, does not care how we interpret it beyond how we change it. However, there is no such thing as a perfectly neutral observer, we all have preconceived biases.
Marxism-Leninism is already scientific, the scientific method is a tool employed by it already. You're trying to remove science from the context it exists in.
I think we've run afoul of two issues. How do you define Marxism-Leninism? Through which means do you know its correctness?
If you know its correctness through implementation and then measuring the results then that's science testing a hypothesis. For example I know my nose is between my eyes because I can measure through my senses and test that idea repeatedly until I have statistical confidence that's the location of my nose. If for some reason the location of my nose changes then that information can be updated with testing and measurement most likely through my senses.
If you know through some other means like spiritual revelation then it's still the case that the concept will have measurable outcomes we can use to test and compare with other concepts to verify its correctness.
Marxism-Leninism is an ideological framework. Essentially, it fronts dialectical materialism, the materialist conception of history, and Marxist political economy as correct. There is no one "Marxist-Leninist form of governance," just as in real life there is no one universally correct form of governance. However, all of the component parts of Marxism-Leninism are correct, including dialectical materialism, which is the basis of correct scientific analysis and interpretation. It is not a replacement for the scientific method, but a way we understand the world.
What you describe is broadly empiricism. The limits of pure empiricism are that, if we are being truly pure, we do not draw connections between linked phenomena. In other words, we do not assume gravity will be the same tomorrow as it is today, because we have not yet tested it. As the world is constantly changing on both a micro and macro scale, this means each test is in fact fresh, with fresh conditions. Empiricism, taken to the extreme, denies this understanding.
Dialectical materialism expands upon empiricism by recognizing the interconnection of everything, and that knowledge is something continuous. As we test the world, we gain a better understanding of it, and therefore the world is always changing so our knowledge is always becoming outdated as long as we are not continuously testing and practicing. Through practice, we gain better knowledge, with which we can better predict what will happen.
There's nothing spiritual about Marxism-Leninism. Knowledge comes from practice, of course it does. However, without acknowledging that we all have a world outlook, this solidifies what might be incorrect, such as idealism or metaphysics, as has often happened in the field of science.