You are truly a master of asking unintelligible questions.

OK it's two questions:

1) Where the evidence that "All the philosophical underpinnings are amply scientifically tested" as Putin33 describes?
2) If historical determinism is untrue because history is dynamic but unpredictable, then does communism make sense?

"Is it the case that communism requires historical determinism to be true though?"

No, it is not the case. And the entire premise of this thread goes out the window.

Ah! One question answered. Historical determinism out the window. What about scientific support for communisms "philosophical underpinnings"? Experimental evidence?

"All the philosophical underpinnings are amply scientifically tested"

I already provided the evidence in the so-called discussion of dialectical materialism. Some of which you even conceded to be true.

"then does communism make sense?"

Yes because Marxism does not at all make the claim that history is determined. People (with agency) make history, Marxism is very clear about this. Although conditions do matter and restrict what people can do. See: 18th Brumaire.

Dude those were essays, not scientific studies. That's not science, that's poetry. I'm talking about theories that provide testable predictions. How can we know communism will work?

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM

Why have you started a second thread to discuss something already being talked about in your other thread?

@Jamiet99uk The subject of the other one had wandered far from the original topic, plus it was getting too long. It's not a deliberate spam, but I can see your point. I certainly won't start another one.

This thread is spam and the Ombudsman should delete it.

I can't find any scientific basis for any political system, what's your point?

" That's not science, that's poetry"

It was Engels talking about how small imperceptible quantitative changes lead to sudden qualitative changes in physics & chemistry, which was a central point of dialectics. That wasn't poetry, you just didn't feel like reading anything because you'd rather ask inane questions and ignore the responses. You like living in an echo chamber. Which is ironic for someone who shouts about science 500 times a day.

Exactly. You can't hold philosophy, sociology, economics and similar branches of science to the same standards as physics and chemistry because you can't do any repeatable experiments. Thus the whole idea that theories in these branches can't have merit unless they are falsifiable is a stupid one and criticizing only communism for it exceedingly so as the exact same argument can be used to criticize capitalism, socialism, humanism, or whatever social/political philosophy you can think of. Which basically renders it a useless argument for discussion of this subject matter.

Which also makes it clear that you are just asking these questions to vent your disdain for communism and not at all to have a constructive discussion about it.

"It was Engels talking about how small imperceptible quantitative changes lead to sudden qualitative changes in physics & chemistry, which was a central point of dialectics."

This is just using physics and chemistry to illustrate an example of quantitative change, it's not a theory of social science.

I only raise this because Putin33 said that communism's underpinnings were scientifically proven. Like dD_ShockTrooper, I don't believe any political, sociological, or economic field can make that claim.

I'm trying to identify the sources of the stridency and lack of accommodation in discussions between communists and non communists.

And by the way, the fact that a system is too complex to calculate a good prediction has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is deterministic. The laws of physics as we know them are deterministic and thus so is history. Although it should be noted that due to quantum mechanics it is not the actual outcome that is deterministic but rather the probability of each outcome.

"This is just using physics and chemistry to illustrate an example of quantitative change, it's not a theory of social science."

No it was illustrate examples of qualitative change. The same principle applies to the social realm, which is proved by the very historical fact of social revolutions having occurred.

"I'm trying to identify the sources of the stridency and lack of accommodation in discussions between communists and non communists."

The source is your complete unwillingness to treat the subject with any degree of honesty, or even read.

"I'm trying to identify the sources of the stridency and lack of accommodation in discussions between communists and non communists."

It's the same as the source of the lack of accommodation in discussions between tendmotes and non tendmotes, i.e. hardheadedness.

Seriously though, you act as though all communist think and talk alike. That's about as stupid as thinking that all Americans think and talk alike.

There is no source of this lack of accommodation, because the lack of accommodation only exist in your feeble mind.

....God, wherever it has been tried, it has failed.

No, there is no scientific basis for Communism, because all lab data points to failure.

Enough said, end of discussion.

And further nonsense that utilizes pie-in-the-sky idiotic philosophical idealism that completely rejects human nature is just a bunch of assclowns mentally masturbating.

that is all.

You may now continue to brain-jack-off. Pleas wipe up your ridiculous messes when you are done.

"....God, wherever it has been tried, it has failed."

Except that it has never really been tried anywhere. Countries that have called themselves communist where in reality about as communist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.

Now comes krellins rant about how it will never happen.

Well, he would probably be right about that.

^That's a bold claim. To propose that humans will cease to exist before communism occurs. Very possible, though I think it could go either way. In our lifetime, certainly not.

Some communists support revolution up until the point when it actually succeeds. Then they're hailing the fall of the Wall, the restoration of neoliberalism, and the carpetbombing of North Korea.

Oscar.....sigh.....of course it has never truly been tried....DUHHHHH...."completely rejects human nature".

Yes, communism as a Utopian ideal works. It fails in reality because the attempted implementation is always fucked up by the fact that corrupt humans are necessarily involved....greedy, lazy, scandalous humans.

So of course it has never been tried.....duhhhhh......

THAT was the fucking point of my post.

And ShockTrooper....he, too, completely misses the point as well....and he will now insist that no, I'm wrong...it CAN work if we can just...just....just....

Just what Shock? Find a method of oppressive power that keeps the people in line but isn't abused? Or what?

Moron....

No, find a method of oppressive power that is abused, but is powerful enough to convince the public that it isn't. Everyone is happy.

So the OP wants to know if there is a scientific basis/evidence that communism will work.

NO...there is not. There is *philosophical* "evidence" that it will work, in that people have written pretty books and gee-wiz-lookee-me articles about how it would be implemented...and all these philosophical ramblings are worth about as much as the befouled paper I just wiped my post-chili ass with, as these philosophical Utopian puff-pieces consistently fail to take human nature in to account.

So once to look at a *complete* picture of communism....i.e. go BEYOND the moronic Utopian writings of ignorant mad-men...and then add in the NECESSARY addition of human behavior to get a complete picture of what the actual implentation of communism is...it fails. Every time it's tried.

Shock - this perfect form of oppressive power that won't be abused by the weilders is as fantastical a concept as communism functioning.

And if you have access to this perfect power or persuasion, then you would be a fool to use it to implement communism, as it clearly must involve some sort of mind control which causes people to do things that don't wish to do but be happy to do it.

If I can cause people to be happy in their unhappy labor...

It's called "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Read it.

^But is that enough data to formulate a conclusion on the matter? I'd hope not. A handful of data points is a very shitty sample size.

I never said anything about such a system being communist.