Imagine equating a state and related movements that massively improved working-class people’s lives, including in terms of life expectancy, literacy rates, including by providing guaranteed housing, universal healthcare, fundamental women’s rights that are taken for granted today, and which not only fought off settler-colonialism in the form of the Lebensraum and the Holocaust, but also helped many other countries liberate themselves from European powers, with things like Germany under NSDAP, the US, Pissrael, and NATO in general.

It’s the soviet onion.

Guaranteed housing has not been a thing since 1998. The end of an era.

On that note, despite all my knowledge saying that planned economies are interested in implementing guaranteed housing, and despite that conclusion/conjecture being supported by every case that I have encountered information on so far, I would like to ask for sources with confirmation of this fact, including ones in Putonghua. Can you point to any such sources.

The hukou system means many are effectively guaranteed housing

Is everybody (barring some individual cases of people falling through the cracks) guaranteed to be provided housing? If not, then that’s not it. If yes, then why do there seem to be quite a lot of homeless people, and why is the price of housing a concern at all?

‘But how will they afford college???’

It is curious that the Chinese state is willing to pursue many forms of macroeconomic policy but seems to avoid some of the more basic socialist policies like working rights and wages.
Is this some neoliberal erosion of imagination and class struggle in the CPC or is there some justification from their part? Is that justification one that holds up to scrutiny?

This is a natural consequence of private property and the profit motive’s presence in an economy.

Hell, if homes are ‘for living, not for speculation’, then the PRC should do what the USSR (and, I’m pretty sure, pre-liberalisation PRC) did - provide guaranteed housing. That is, however, not possible unless and until the PRC adopts planned economy again.

The RFK meatsuit lost its pilot.

Israel and Russia have been throwing around a lot more bombs than America

You are demonstrating a complete lack of ability to research things you decide to talk about.

Why did he get out of the hole?

But if India is fascist so is America, Italy, Poland (new regime), the Netherlands (under Wilders), etc.

They are. They literally can’t stop engaging in colonialist atrocities.

Edit:

The BJP is not making comments to annex other nations, tightening the rule of law, passing discriminatory policies

Are you sure about that?

Waowls

No, no, they should keep this up.

I’ve had at least two pure mathematics majors people argue strenuously with me that statistics, being applied mathematics, isn’t really math, but that isn’t really my point here.

That was extremely silly of them for a bunch of reasons, in addition to calling (applied) mathematics not mathematics:

• What is considered applied mathematics and what is considered pure mathematics is arbitrary cultural stuff and varies from community to community.
• Applied math is not fundamentally different from pure math, and relevant fields - regardless of whichever branches a particular culture considers to be ‘applied’ and not ‘pure’ - are studied the same way (in the relevant in this context sense) and with the same standards of rigour.

This is especially amusing to me - a person who has studied as both an applied mathematician and as a pure mathematician, - as some of my classmates from all of the relevant groups specialised in the field of probability theory and statistics.

Statistics is math that is derived from empirical observations

It isn’t.
You can use statistics for empirical studies, but it itself is not studied empirically.

Without that actual data, statistics as pure mathematics is completely meaningless to the engineering process

Just as arithmetic, just as geometry, just as logic, just as stuff like control theory, wavelet theory, theories of differential and integral equations, vector field theory, theory of switch functions (not sure what the English name of that one is, actually), etc.
What you are probably confused about is that relevant fields can be used for models used by engineers, physicists, chemists, biologists, medical professionals, etc., and then jump to the conclusion that they must be studied empirically.

I’m saying there is a materialist dialectic that proceeds between the empirical, physical, observations made, and how math is then used to then depict, formulate and transform those observations into more empirical measurements, which then continues to transform those depictions

Okay? But how are engineers going to do their job without both the knowledge discovered by mathematicians and without other people’s discoveries made using said knowledge? How would transistors come to be developed without relevant understanding of math, for example?

Quite often these days the math precedes the observation, but particularly before the advent of electronic computers it wasn’t uncommon for the observation to precede the mathematics. For example, you absolutely cannot have transistors without the Fournier transformation, but you also cannot have transistors without the observed phenomenon and concept of electrical conductivity (or more usually talked about resistance), which was not originally conceptualized mathematically at all, though is now.

Firstly, that example does not actually show ‘observation preceding the mathematics’.
Secondly, that example doesn’t actually show how that development could be done without math. The fact that it also required empirical study and did not come about from pure reason is irrelevant if you are trying to claim that development and manufacture of devices that allowed the person I was initially responding to to make their comments could realistically be done without math.

Math is not dealing with literal objects

It is.
For example, again, mathematicians study such objects as numbers, functions, sets, propositions, transforms (and their invariants).

For example, 1+1=2 doesn’t have to reference any kind of object at all in order to be self-contained, logical and true

Not sure what you are trying to say there.
The expression ‘1+1 = 2’ refers to the proposition that some object referred to with the expression ‘1+1’ (as we know, that is - in the standard context - a real number that is the successor of 1 in terms of Peano axioms) is the same object as the one referred to with the expression ‘2’. We could go into more detail here, but there are plenty of objects being referred to here.
What does ‘self-contained’ mean in this context? What does it have to do with references to any objects? What does it have to do with the rest of this conversation?
What does ‘logical’ mean? That the relevant expression refers to a proposition (which contradicts your claim that no objects are being referenced)? I genuinely do not know what the word is supposed to mean (other than ‘not stupid’ in a colloquial sense, which is not really applicable here).

This can be explicitly shown in things like statistics, where you have a mathematically logical statement that is ‘people in the U.S. have on average 1.5 children’. A nonsense statement if taken purely empirically, but the idea of how an average is mathematically created can make it logically sound, however it is also completely meaningless to us if that average wasn’t generated from real data.

I genuinely can’t tell what you mean by ‘taken purely empirically’ without completely changing these two sentences to the point of the loss of any relevance to the conversation. Would you mind rephrasing that?
But also, not only is that not meaningless if it is not ‘generated from real data’, as that expression does have a meaning that I’m fairly confident is commonly understood, and that understanding of that meaning is not dependent on whether or not it is based on ‘real data’ (the data may be false, or it might not even exist to begin with) and whether or not one is presented with that data.
But also, not sure how this is supposed to be an argument against any of what I have said to begin with.

It is conceptualized mathematically now, but it didn’t start as that, it didn’t start as a formula, it came from some other ideas like ‘lets make a more durable iron’ and through our physical interaction with it has come to a point of conceptualized mathematics,…

Again, I am not sure how this is supposed to be an argument against me claiming that relevant stuff was discovered/developed using knowledge about the objects that are studied in mathematics-as-an-academic-field.
Do you think that I claimed that engineering or physics, or other relevant fields do not engage in empirical studies? If so, then I’m pretty sure that I can even quote myself saying the opposite in this thread.

Scientists and their benefactors wouldn’t build the Hadron collider if just knowing the math was the answer

I never claimed that all that engineering and other relevant fields involve is just mathematics. What I did claim is that they all do use mathematics (not to the exclusion of empirical studies and knowledge developed through those).

but I am also arguing that mathematics likely isn’t the end-all be-all understanding of accurate conceptualization

If by that you just mean that knowledge about objects that are studied in math-as-an-academic-field is not sufficient for stuff like engineering, physics, chemistry, etc., then I don’t think you have been contradicted here by anybody - not by me, at least.

Hexbear is taking too long introducing the emotes.

I just completey disagree with your statement that math isn’t dealing in abatractions and isnt rooted in the material world

Some quick counter-examples:

• Real numbers are not abstractions, are not material objects, and are not dependent on the material stuff.
• Functions are not abstractions, are not material objects, and are not dependent on the material stuff.
• Linear (and other transforms).
• Sets.
• Topologies.

I imagine, but the items in math that we hold in our head or express on paper and manipulate are abstractions

Relevant objects do not - generally - abstract anything. They can do so in models, but that is not a given, and mathematicians do study relevant objects outside of contexts of models.

And the dialectical aspect means that the material world and the abstractions we make have a never ending dialogue with each other

Define ‘dialogue’.
Relevant objects obviously do not engage in conversations with each other, so you must be using that word in a meaning other than colloquial. I do not have a good guess for what you actually mean by that word in this context. (And yes, I’m aware that people who use the word ‘dialectic’ like to describe it using the word ‘dialogue’, but one reason why I steer clear of using the word ‘dialectic’ is that I am yet to find actual definitions of the term.)

But they are always derivative of the material world

They quite obviously are not. No matter what different properties material stuff could have (including things merely being in other locations than they are ‘currently’ (strictly speaking, there is no global ‘currently’, though this is, admittedly, a tangent)), no non-self-contradictory systems of axioms would suddenly become self-contradictory and vice versa, and the like.

Even when you think you are dealing with a purely abatract ideal

Not sure what you mean by a ‘purely abstract ideal’. Relevant objects are not generally abstractions, and how do you even distinguish their ‘purity’? Between a function, a complex number, a tensor, a fundamental group, a homology group, an equivalence class of knots with respect to isotopy, a Lebesgue Integral, the C¹⁰([0, 1]) class of smooth functions, which ones are ‘purely abstract ideals’?

its still expressed in consciousness

An expression of an object is not the same as that object itself, so this isn’t really relevant.

and manipulated via symbols

They aren’t ‘manipulated’. You get representations of different things, but you do not actually change any of the relevant objects.

Most of the insights related to the creation of electronics, or any engineering applications, are generally statistical in nature, rarely deriving purely from mathematics

Well, statistics is a branch of math. The relevant skills are taught to mathematicians and applied mathematicians, and some end up specialising as statisticians and end up working in math departments with that focus.
Furthermore, I don’t really see how it can be argued that relevant things were made without such things as theories of differential equations in partial derivatives and integrals, frequency-amplitude decomposition using tools like Fourier transform, let alone even more simple stuff like integrals, differentiation, algebra (including linear), and especially basic geometry, arithmetic, logic. Not sure how transistors, long-distance communication, etc. were supposed to be discovered/developed without math.

but even then most engineering (not all though) up until the advent of the electronic computer was based in mathematical approximations, compared against rigorous statistical analysis which is then used to create general formulas or find constants that improve those mathematical approximations

Computational mathematics (which is where approximations are studied) is a branch of math. Not sure why any of that should supposedly be disregarded, unless I misunderstood what you were suggesting there.

And it is more concrete in that it deals with the very literal objects that are being produced, even if it can be more imprecise

Well, math is also dealing with ‘literal objects’ that are already there, so I’m not sure how stuff like engineering is ‘more concrete’ in this regard.

I see what you mean about believing that Israel is independent is not idealism in itself, but calling idealist is shorthand for the fact that such a view

And he isn’t rooting his analysis in historical materialism, i.e. in an analysis of imperialism, capital accumulation, class power, and value flows

Well, at the very least ontological materialism and idealism don’t really have anything to do with this matter. One can be a an ontological materialist or an ontological idealist and have either of the relevant views about Pissrael’s dependence/independence from the much more militarily powerful polity that is in charge of supplying it with everything, and the same goes for the analyses mentioned.

I’d argue that when people in socialist spaces mention idealism and materialism, they aren’t talking about idealism and materialism - not in general, anyway, - but about having a basic understanding of base and superstructure, as well as political-economical analysis based on that.

I don’t think math can escape materialism

I don’t see how one could argue that, as the objects that math studies are neither material, nor depend on material stuff in any way, and they can be studied perfectly well without any understanding of material stuff.

Even if the abstractions are “ideals”

Well, what is studied by mathematicians is not, in general, an abstraction of something. Unlike physicists, chemists, biologists, etc., mathematicians have the luxury of studying relevant objects directly, with no models involved.

Ideas in math are abatractions that, like all abstractions, have their roots in the material world and its historical trajectoey

But they don’t have any ‘roots’ in material stuff. I welcome you to try to come up with any counter-examples, though.
(Nor, as I have mentioned, are those things abstractions of anything. Also, There can be abstractions of non-material things, even without involving material stuff, but that’s not particularly relevant or interesting.)

Your comment reminds me of my own rant I have had in the past. It’s like when Marxists economists disparage math because neoclassicalists use it. Math isn’t the problem, its the base assumptions that bourgeoisie economists have.

On a somewhat similar note, I would actually like to point out one thing:

His idealism shows through and polluted any analysis and made it cheap. Thinking that Israel is independent of the US and that it will be the US’s military competitor in the region shows that no amount of game theory will correct for idealistic world views.

People like to reach for idealism bashing, but believing that Pissrael is an actor that is independent from the US doesn’t have anything to do with idealism. Subscribing to a framework that, for example, postulates that numbers exist and are not dependent on matter would be both idealist and not have any contradictions with relevant economical-political conclusions that anybody here would make.

Game theory is based on rationalization (in the philosophical sense, opposed to empiricism), ie it is by definition purely idealist

All math is. And it produces a lot of non-trivial insight that has led to, among other things, things like the device you sent that message from.
Furthermore, despite what a lot of people think for no good reason, idealism is not a belief in magic (and the definitions one can find in works of socialist thinkers - where idealist schools of thought are characterised by a supposed belief that mental stuff magically influences material stuff - excludes things like Platonic idealism and common instances of religious idealism), and there don’t seem to be any serious contradictions between it and Marxist schools of thought (or, at least, nobody seems to be able to point to any such contradictions).

You even confirm this by stating it’s a type of math - a purely abstract, idealist and rational system - as opposed to a concrete, materialist and empiricist system

Going to also note that empirical studies rely heavily on math (which, by the way, is not any less ‘concrete’ - hell, empirical studies deal with a lot worse precision and accuracy; also, saying that it is ‘abstract’ is meaningless - what does it supposedly ‘abstract’ when the field just studies the objects that it talks about and not their models?).