no, you misunderstood my point

You do that when the doubt is little, the cost is bearable

you don't go jumping from your balcony on little evidence you could fly

exaggerated example but I hope you understand

you're saying that it trivializes reality so much that it doesn't really apply to reality in any meaningful way?

taht most political theories aren't robust enough so you can BET entire nations and millions of lives because something sounds nice

political change should be very careful, at least now that we can afford it

we can be smart about it

theories aren't something to be tried, they merely attempt to describe reality. You can use these theories to create fx socialism, but marxism is not a set of affairs to be established

why be attached so strongly to a set of rules that was forged century ago

>theories aren't something to be tried, they merely attempt to describe reality.
I'm not against this

then it doesn't make sense to say you can bet nations and lives on a theory

My issue is that clearly marxist mindset isn't enough to describe reality and we have plenty of disciplines to supplement and change it but most people don't want to

sociology, psychology, complex economics, geopolitical dynamics etc

>then it doesn't make sense to say you can bet nations and lives on a theory
on weak theory

I thought I was clear on that

Obviously theory is all we have, everything is a theory, a model of reality

that's a givegn

we don't have the means to simulate all of universe

you are completely right that theories should be critizised, and that the best critizism often comes from other fields. In fact, I am ringht now reading a book by an anthropologist that heaviliy critizises adam smith

for how long have I been misspelling criticism

: o

When will you criticize marxism ;p

after I understand it

well

I think the "invisible hand that fixes everything" is as wishful as thinking that good will and communism will solve all problems

then it's a good thing that no-one said either

it's the part of the simple weak theories that try to trivialize reality I was trying to communicate

Just saying you implied that I said all theories are bad trivialization of reality.
The problem I think it's obvious, dogmatic ideological follwoing

We should use political systems as tools to ends not as ends themselves

I have ancom and commie friends and acquaintances but I never really talk about politics irl with them bc I have noticed how hostile they become the moment they are criticized by others

and that's a huge issue for me

and it's scary

a theory states that if X is the case then Y will happen. One can then think that Y is preferable and therefore try to make X be the case. However, you cant say whether or not the theory will be satisfactory or not, as you do when you said "I don't think marxist doctrine provides that"

yeah that's really annoying, but that is what ideology is

well you could be ideological and still be open minded?

ideology != dogmatic zealot

in the ordinary sense, yes. I regrettably used the more zizekian version of ideology

>One can then think that Y is preferable and therefore try to make X be the case. However, you cant say whether or not the theory will be satisfactory or not
why exactly do you mean by that?

ideology pretrays itselfs as being able to see the truth, which I argue is the main reason why people strongly defend ideology

@Deleted User my point is that you cannot blame theories, like you cannot prove or disprove them