Newton died over 300 years ago, yeah I don’t think his writings about gravity are super accurate in the here and now. (floats away triumphantly)
(catches your foot as you try to float away and lifts the finger annoyingly)
I wonder if the comparison serves the argument.
Newtons writings about gravity are indeed “not super accurate in the here and now”.
What I am referring to is ofc Einsteins findings about gravity (general-relativity) which do render Newton’s findings inaccurate. In fact all of Newton’s findings regarding physics (not mathematics) are in the strictest sense false, all of classical physics is. They are an approximation that in most circumstances provide an accurate-enough depiction of things, yet these approximations don’t hold in all circumstances and hence are not the “real” laws that nature adheres to. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are able to describe all phenomena Newton described (by arriving at the very same formula’s) and cover the circumstances where classical physics breaks down. They describe the “real” physics of nature, or at least they do to the degree we know today. Their combination remains the last hurdle of the “standard model” of physics, which eventually will provide the accurate model of the universe and all things in it, should it ever be discovered.
That being said: Newtonian (classical) physics is used everywhere where Quantum-effects and relativity are irrelevant, which covers a lot of everyday life. In those circumstances they yield the same results as Quantum-mechanics and Einsteins formulas yet are infinitely more practical. So one could phrase Newtonian physics as “correct under the right circumstances”, which is a phrasing that also applies to Lenin’s analysis.
In the end all we ever have are models that break down at some point, science has simply been able to map out the constraints under which Newton’s (classical) models hold truth. For Lenin’s theory the same applies although the constraints are different.
Newton’s models hold truth at low speeds and large (but not too large) scales. Lenin’s models hold truth under the assumption that (monopoly) capitalism is the dominant force of production. Some of his concrete findings are obviously more constrained in time than Newtons (as human history changes faster than the laws of physics which hopefully are constant) and some of Newton’s concepts were inherently flawed compared to Lenin’s: Time and space simply work differently, but for concepts like capital and states no similarly transformative descriptions have emerged (Although some supplementation to account for the coordinating effects of a US-centered transatlantic ruling class, as the tricontinental research institute has attempted with hyper-imperialism is necessary).
To conclude: We have to be weary of the limits of both models, yet most of the circumstances both authors assumed are present in today’s world. Both theory’s have something relevant to teach and both models have predictive accuracy within the realm where their assumptions are valid. So all in all I would deem the comparison apt.
(let’s go of your foot and let’s you float away in peace)
I actually did have some of that in mind when I wrote my comment. Thanks for taking the time to write all of that out. You did a better job than I probably would have.
lenin should have accounted for the fact that he would die in his writings, huge error tbh
Why would you believe a word he wrote? He wasn’t even immortal.
One of those things that is (likely accidentally) a little bit true but also very wrong.
If Lenin were alive today, I’m sure he would not want people to think that you should try to literally apply everything they did back then in today’s material conditions. But that was also never the point of marxism and related theory.
It’s not doctrine, it’s science, and the difference is important. Doctrine is something that can be clung to largely unchanging for hundreds of thousands of years (if it can pull off remaining that way throughout pressures to change) and is specifically about keeping something intact the way it is. Science is superficially similar in that aspects of it can remain unchanging due to better research and observations not yet being done and taking hold, but it’s also meant to be adaptive and change as needed. Science is based on observing what is there, so if what is there is different, there are aspects to application that will need to be different. However, this doesn’t mean anyone can casually observe a whole framework worth of understanding and have no need to learn from what others have observed. Science depends heavily on previously observed knowledge and experiments in order to build a more comprehensive understanding of the world. Marx observed new things and also revisited old, in order to add to overall comprehension. As did others who came after him.
Those who don’t learn from scientists who came before are only crippling their own capability. Instead of adding to what’s already there, their observations will be limited to the framework of what they got from osmosis of being immersed in a specific societal context, which could be extremely unhelpful if said societal framework is one they think they are going to push back against!
The humorous post about Newton conveys this point much more simply. :) But I still wanted to do a breakdown.
Edit: phrasing
Looking further standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.
Darwin died 200 years ago, guess evolution is not accurate anymore.
Gauss and Euler died over 250 years ago, guess we have to scrap a large chunk of mathematics.
This person had never read Lenin. The one thing that strike me every time i read Lenin is how accurate he still is.
Corporatism is what happens when you want to be a leftist but don’t want to read theory.
So good luck to BumboJumbo with reinventing checks notes one of the century old fascist ideologies. Oh, isn’t that ironic.
I honestly think someone with this little critical thinking skills would probably harm themselves, more than they would learn, if they were convinced to read Lenin. They wouldn’t be able to absorb the information or know how to apply it.
We need more better Dogma if we hope to overcome Dogmatism. That’s all that we have in the West, book and idol worship. That is the objective irrefutable truth, because otherwise we wouldn’t be in this mess. Either that or Marxism is wrong and this person is right that Lenin is irrelevant.
And If I’m wrong, even though I have read theory, then I’m right that you need more than theory. But we’re not working together here we’re playing a game of chess where both of us are trying to get the other to do something, aren’t we? Sorry, but that’s Liberalism
Never heard of Alexander Bogdanov nor tektology.
Tektology (sometimes transliterated as tectology) is a term used by Alexander Bogdanov to describe a new universal science that consisted of unifying all social, biological and physical sciences by considering them as systems of relationships and by seeking the organizational principles that underlie all systems. Tektology is now regarded as a precursor of systems theory and related aspects of synergetics. The word “tectology” was introduced by Ernst Haeckel, but Bogdanov used it for a different purpose.
