Will you please stop debating me?

I like a civilized debate. That’s why I posted, and you replied.

this is the weirdest thing you said

Physics (thermodynamics) says you can’t transfer information without simultaneously transferring matter or energy. What’s so weird about that? Can you describe a single experiment that proves otherwise?

it’s a mathematical construct to describe and predict the development of physical systems

So is everything else in physics. The model, however, describes something that is really there. I could say the same thing about “force”.

WHAT PEOPLE thing yugoslavia was better?

The people in Yugoslavia liked their system better than what they could see when they traveled to the USSR. It’s true Tito took loans from the IMF, but in the end, the external debt was relatively small compared to the capitalist countries. If you ask the Polish or the Bulgarians if they liked their socialism, that the Soviets introduced, the majority will answer no. Most of the fmr. Yugoslavs, who lived back then, will say theirs was good.

you’re communicating as if the definition you give to a word matters in a clash of ideas.

The definition is crucial to the exchange of ideas. Inadequate definition leads to issues later on. There is a very good reason why mathematics insists on formal language. Every theorem proof starts with a careful set of definitions.

you’re only going to create confusion and embarrassment

Only if others don’t agree to updated definitions. That’s why I don’t insist on that.

they don’t affect the material reality, it’s just a tool of communication

There is no communication (exchange of information) without exchanging matter/energy. The two are connected.

what the soviet union did probably was the quickest path to that

…and probably the most unpleasant, unfortunately. It caused far more suffering than the Yugoslav approach. People also liked the Yugoslav approach better.

that’s a big complex discussion

It is, and that is part of the reason I believe we need broader definitions of terms.

the other form of the equation is just in a ideal case scenario which is impossible

What is “ideal” about an object not moving? Why is it impossible for a thing not to move?

you are wrong, it is a mathetical abstraction and you’re not a materialist if you believe it isn’t

I believe the electricity in my home is not a mathematical abstraction, and the chemical energy in my laptop and electrical screwdriver battery is also not an abstraction. How does that make me less materialist?

I am very much a socialist. I simply thought it would be a good idea to recognize how things evolved over the last century and perhaps assign new meanings to certain words, including liberalism. I see that creates a lot of confusion and negative karma, so I concluded it is more trouble than it is worth.

As to E^2 = (mc^2) ^2 + (pc)^2 there is a typo in your post I believe, but that’s beside the point. This equation is for the total energy when a particle is moving. When it’s not moving, p=0 so the rest energy is E=mc^2. I disagree that energy is an abstraction. I believe it is very real.

What makes you believe I think I’m “smarter than I am”? You keep analyzing me, trying to investigate my motives and whatnot. I don’t really understand why you’re doing that. I have no special motives beside what I wrote: I wanted to see if people want to assign additional meaning to the word “liberal”, mainly because without that word, it’s difficult to explain the difference between Yugoslav and Soviet style socialism. The Soviets were far more rigid, so how would you call the Yugoslav style?

That’s exactly what energy is. Energy is a property of a body which becomes apparent when it is doing work. Work is, then, the amount of energy transferred to or from a body. In relativistic terms, E=mc^2 a.k.a. mass-energy equivalence. That relation tells you a completely different thing about energy.

This doesn’t translate to politics, but goes to show that completely different interpretations of the same thing can exist in materialist sciences.

you keep conveniently ignoring half the shit people tell you and then act in so much bad faith

I have not ignored, but tried to understand what people told me. How exactly did you conclude I did anything “in bad faith”? What is wrong with you?

you have such an insanely idealist world view when you act like the word you use shapes the material reality

That’s not my world view. Physicists are materialists, yet they can also insist on alternative interpretations. For example, energy is the ability to do work, but according to a relativistic interpretation, it is also equivalent to matter.

you’re being the one using the United States definition of what is liberal

I learned that interpretetion long before I even heard about the US definition.

There were two types of communists in ex-YU. One group advocated the Soviet style, less liberal ideas, following the Soviet lead. The other, Tito style, described themselves as more liberal.

no, stupid mfer

Well, clearly I was wrong, esp. when I said “people discuss progressive ideas all the time, and are very tolerant of each other.”

disconected with historical materialism. it feels like you don’t even read what people are telling you

I’m beginning to understand how the lack of tolerance for alternative interpretations among the leftists caused the 1948. split between Yugoslav brand of communism and the one in the Eastern Bloc. Thankfully we never followed a prescribed recipe about how we should design our own leftist state.

“reactionary” doesn’t make sense either because reactionary means to move back according to the dialectical model of history

To me, reaction simply means movement in the reverse direction.

I got used to different meaning of those words. In my country, the Communist Party was the ruling party up to the early 1990s, so for me, “reactionary” means someone who wishes to restore the communist rule. In a similar way, I interpret the word “liberal”, but I understand most people here adhere to the US-centered interpretation.

Very well, but which mechanisms can we use to make sure this is how it really works in practice? How do you make sure the politicians will be subject to recall?

I think I understand. The word “liberal” appears to have been thoroughly discredited for most Western leftists.

we have a real definition for what it is. It is idealistic, creates a dictatorship of capital,and preserves the monstrous status quo

I understand. If you insist on this definition, then it is a problem, I agree.

Very well written, thank you.

I understand the point. It’s just that I believe things have evolved over time, and liberalism is not the same thing it once was, but I will not insist on that if people really think it is trolling.

LOL, I never thought of it that way 😄

I believe the use of the term “liberal” is highly dependent on which country or region you’re coming from. Where I live (Yugoslavia), the liberals didn’t advocate owning slaves and those that call themselves “liberals” today are very different from, say, those calling themselves “liberals” in the US. In some places, liberalism evolved and can no longer be described using the same ideological framework from over a century ago.

I think we need some way to distinguish between American style liberals and those who are really progressive even by today’s standards, but who also describe themselves as liberals. Please note that the “mainstream discourse” is different in different parts of the world.

“Slammed” 😄😄

When you say “liberalism”, do you only have American liberalism in mind, or liberalism in general? I take it you don’t believe in the ability of American liberalism to reform itself?

You need to be more specific. What do you have in mind? Trotsky’s views were formed at a time he had much less experiences with the real world issues of communism than we have today. The problem proved to be tough and difficult to solve. The proletariat doesn’t seem to be capable of independently self-organizing quite to the degree the initial theories assumed. I believe the Left requires this subject to be discussed in light of more recent experiences.

Like Catradora said, we can’t be too picky about our allies atm. Western imperialism is too powerful, and China is also partly nationalistic, partly unwilling to engage on the international stage as much as Russia is.

Russia is a beacon of hope…