If you wind history back to 1921 and run it again in every way that it could play out, in what percentage of the resulting timelines would the USSR collapse in the late 80's / early 90's as it did in ours? What percentage has it collapse earlier?
What fraction of timelines have it survive to the present day?
And in what fraction does it survive and have a successful economy in the present day? Reminder that posting zero for any of the answers is mathematically ridiculous, given that there would be practically infinite timelines.
>>656568
Calling it now: the world gets fucked by nukes in at least half of the timelines.
>>656568
I just can pull the numbers out of my ass so see them more as tendencies. It is important to evaluate the factors that lead to decline and or success:
1) Collapse as in OTL: I dunno, maybe 35%. In my oppinion the soviets were pretty stable and avoided beeing captured by the nazis or nuclear war. So i guess early 90s/ late 80s are already pretty successfull outcomings for the soviets.
Earlier collapse: 45%
Collapse before ww2 due to internal power struggle after lenins death or western intervention or whatnot.
No help, wrong strategical decisions etc. leading to defeat by the nazis.
Thermonuclear/conventional war leading to collapse of the udssr.
The arms race is more extrem then OTL so slightly earlier collapse due to economic situation, same goes for another war before/parallel to afghanistan.
Dragging on till today without satellite states 10%:
Hardliner remove Gorbatshev or prevent his rise to power. The economy is still fucked up but due to oppression the soviets hold on to the core terriotry of the udssr. Backwater nation not a superpower but a great power due to huge but outdated military and nuclear weapons.
Surviving till today with satellites 5%:
Same as above but with massive opression in some or all satellites. Low chance due to the sorry state the soviets were in in 89.
Economically successfull and surviving till today maybe 5%.
Low chance due to nature of the soviet system and the cold war that will happen in most timelines if the soviets win ww2 and are able to secure a sphere of influence. To enable a economically successfull there ae 2-3 things that could happen in some timelines:
1. A not so convinving victory in ww2. The soviets are only able to regain their own territory in ww2 evtl. without the baltic states and east poland. Without its own bloc the soviets don´t start the cold war and slowly transition to a more capitalist society after stalins death.
2. The NEP pulls through, the soviets become more and more capitalist 1/2
>>656761
cont: and are able to beat the nazis ( or nazis didn?t happen or don´t attack russia whatever) without the forced industrilazation and armament focus stalin imposed on them.
3. The soviets impose far reaching reform sometime after stalins death in the cold war. Highly unlikely due to ideological battle and the needs of the arms race.
4. Just came to my mind: Less extreme arm race, slightly more capitalist policies and overall better state of soviet state finance and economy so that gorbachev enacts better reforms and they actually work out.
>>656568
"Timelines" don't exist.
The Soviet Union came close to collapse in 1921 from urban workers
1926-7 from scissors crisis (peasants)
1929 from urban workers (ural siberian)
1941 from institutional strain
1953-7 from an economic crisis
>>657452
what economic crisis
>>657949
Overinvestment in heavy industry.
One would suppose in the alternate timeline where the west dont support the whites during the civil war,and dont invest in nazi germany prior to ww2, and didnt start an arms race in the cold war would mean the SU could invest in its economy instead of weaponry.
>>656568
It survives in the worlds where it doesn't attempt central economic control.
>>657992
They "could" invest in light industry from 1921. They "failed" to. The reason for the failure was to do with labour control in industry.
See Strauss' Soviet Russia: An anatomy of a social history, https://www.marxists.org/archive/strauss/
>>658097
>Investing in industry during civil war
I bet Assads doing that right now.
IN the historical context, the SU was fighting civil wars and foreign invasions for much of its history, so investing in a powerful army was the most prudent thing to do.
>>658118
>the most prudent
Prudent for whom? Certainly for the nomenklatura, not for the proletariat or peasantry.
And the crises were crises of protest from, GUESS WHICH CLASSES?
>>658011
>Decentralised planned economy which they actually try to optimise with mathematics, specifically using Kantorovich's work
I could get behind this
>>656568
>And in what fraction does it survive and have a successful economy in the present day?
0.000001%
>>>/revleft/
>>657992
My preferred POD is having someone else come to power instead of Stalin, and having the communists elected in Germany instead of the nazis. Though this may lead to WW2 being between the west and the soviets in some of the timelines.
>>658497
Not if they decide to go full capitalist from the beginning in order to slowly transition to communism, as marx predicted.
Honestly having communism as a state ideology is silly. Chances are if its actually possible for you to implement communism then you already have a high level of automation and development, and it would be prudent to do so. Likewise if your economy is capitalist and it's working, you should probably stick with that.
>>>And in what fraction does it survive and have a successful economy in the present day?
>/revleft/
In the time period specified, that's actually the scenario least likely to have revolutions.
>>656568
well if you can run it in every way it could play out, that would be like infinite alternate timelines, in which case it doesn't really fucking matter because there is no percentage. I mean, what's half of infinity? and not in like a theoretical way but in a physical quantity, it doesn't exist.
>>658548
I think you can.
For example, half of all integers are odd, but there are infinite integers and infinite odd numbers.
You just can't reach the result by dividing infinity, obviously.
there are many things that could influence the survival of the union.
If the right SSers would have been purged from the party earlier lenin would not have been assassinated, and would have kept the party line better protected from the influence of revisionists, be they liberals or left leftist drivel.
If Trotsky was outright shot instead of exiled when he started printing anti-party literature there would've been less sectarianism in the leftist movement which would leave very little room for subversion, simply the marxist-leninist line would have been enforced harder and there would be no revisionist fractures to shit up socialism and to be manipulated by capitalists.
If anyone knew what an opportunist and filthy revisionist Hruschev was he would have been removed from party functions and possibly stripped of his military position, which would lead to him not having enough military influence to threaten a military coop if the current supreme soviet didn't step down. The elector before Hruschev kept the marxist-leninist line and would have not reversed the effects of nationalization and collectivization, which means the economic decline of the soviet union would have never come into being.
If Maos beurocracy wasn't overthrown after his death by Deng and buddies China would still be relativley a socialist state, it never was one fully anyway. Be as that may the soviets and Chinese still cooperated against the forces of capitalism, and the union might not have fell with the support of the Chinese party.
If revisionism never came to be many things would have happened differently, there never would have been an uprising in Czechslovakia or in Hungary, and socialism wouldn't have failed in Poland. Poland was the biggest victim of socialist revisionism, ravaged by war it was recovering with a centralized economy only to break down when they brought in private property again during Hruschev.
Cont.
>>656568
In a timeline where Soc-Rev's would finish their revolution instead of believing Lenin that he will change Soviet Union would easily survive as its fall was caused by political reasons rather than economical ones, despite the economy being in horrible state.
The question is whether soc-revs would have the brutality and cunning of Stalin to deal with Hitler is another thing.
>>658591
>only to break down when they brought in private property again during Hruschev.
Private property as in private land was guaranteed by 1947 constitution in Poland. It wasn't revisionism, it was the fact that actual farmers owned the land they worked on in Poland as bourgeois aristocrats moved out to capitalist states so the redistribution and nationalisation wasn't needed.
>>658591
privatization also introduced the infamous bread lines, due to a shortage of resources and a conflicting economy.
This privatization was a form of state capitalism that gave all the wealth to the red bourgeois that formed when Hruschev came to power, you suddenly had enterprises privately held by politicians, and only politicians and they turned a profit from it. Naturally competition came between these red bourgeois as in any economy with private ownership of the means of production.
Suddenly you had shortages of needed goods and an excess of needless goods, you switched from a planned economy built upon central planning, producing the exact amount of resources and commodities as is needed. 'We have X amount of people which means we need to produce Y bread', this could no longer function with competing demagogues looking to earn profit and not produce for maximum efficiency.
Albania stayed on the marxist-leninist party line and fractured from the eastern bloc, refusing Hruschevs influence. Hruschev soon after coming to office pressured other countries of the eastern bloc to reform and introduce privatization. This is about the same time the soviet union started racking up debt, which it was repaying during Stalins governing. Due to massive shortages caused by the chaos of privatization massive amounts of food were imported among other things.
So essentially, capitalist reform is what doomed a socialist state. Not that surprising really.
For socialism to succeed, the generations that lived during the revolution need to die out so the last semblances of the capitalist thought can die out within the country, and the generations that grew up in socialism replace the old bureaucracy. It would leave very little to no room for any revision, because human consciousness is shaped by the material conditions they thrive in.
That is pretty much it.
>>658607
That is revisionism, as it is not orthodox marxism, that is the meaning of revisionism. It is not some curse word.
I was not aware however that private ownership existed in Poland pre-Hruschev, I can predict a few things that would have happened.
1) Poland would have broke away from the eastern bloc like Yugoslavia for keeping private property within it's economy, and would enter a precarious balance between east and west, and would probably become an 'informal' part of the NATO pact.
2) Poland would have removed private ownership over the means of production under soviet pressure.
This is interesting, thank you for pointing it out.
>redistribution and nationalization wasn't needed
can you give me more information? In my opinion redistribution of land would have been needed for maximum food production and to avoid building a peasant bureaucracy, which would have been bourgeois in nature. How do you mean there was no land collectivization? The peasantry didn't have Kulaks in Poland?
>>658591
>purges were good and we needed more, not substantially less
>lenin's assassination could have been prevented by purging the party more (what?)
>trotsky should have been killed earlier instead of left alone
>trotsky was "anti-party" instead of anti- the guy who exiled and killed him
>the party needed less debate and diversity of opinions, rather than more
>khrushchev was worse than your pic related
>khrushchev was anything other than on the receiving end of a coup
>It is good to hold marxism as a dogma, rather than questioning and re-questioning everything
>Totalitarianism is good
>Mao was better than Deng
>It wasn't the overbearing totalitarian stalinism and the attempt to inforce a strict marxism-leninist line itself which led to the justified alternative socialisms in eastern europe
>Everything bad was "revisionists"
>>658630
>can you give me more information? In my opinion redistribution of land would have been needed for maximum food production and to avoid building a peasant bureaucracy, which would have been bourgeois in nature. How do you mean there was no land collectivization? The peasantry didn't have Kulaks in Poland?
1) the redistribution of land was proven to decrease efficiency whether it was applied because Poland lacked enough managers skilled in agriculture therefore shit like growing wheat on a soil that reminded sand and potatoes in grade A black soil was present in state-owned farms.
2) The land left by aristocracy(in 1939), Germans and their settlers was collectivised(western Poland, pre-war german territory) or distributed among the farmers(eastern Poland).
3) nigga 2 multi-million armies went through Poland 4 times and Germans had pretty exploitative policy, do you think there was anything resembling "rich peasants" left here?
>>658642
hello left leftist. How does being relevant feel? I love how you revisionists write off everything the west does and says, except when it suits you.
>>658645
>redistribution of land
collectivisation, redistribution generally worked
>>658645
You have a point, except for one thing
>because Poland lacked enough managers skilled in agriculture
actually when this happened they usually sent people over from the Soviet Union that knew this shit, it is what happened in other east bloc states anyway. I will however research more on Polands agriculture post WWII, I am not informed enough to argue about Polish agriculture.
>>658646
>Totalitarianism is good
>Believing in dogma like a religious text is better than checking all of your axioms scientifically
I hope this is bait
>Infinity
>Percentages
>>658493
The centralization and decentralization debate have to be very specific, in order to prevent over-generalizations. Namely, to what extent the economy is centralized and which part.
According to Ismail the AIDF, for example, during Stalin's era factory tractors (forgot the term) were free to use by the workers themselves. It was actually after Stalin that it's not allowed to.
>>658591
Wasn't Lenin shot by an anarchist? So you're basically arguing for total obedience toward the Party lel
>>658655
Courses began in early 50's. Before they've filled the cadre with enough skilled people Gomułka took power and everything was screwed from ministry level downwards. Basically people who didn't took those courses decided how to allocate crops centrally without taking soils in account. Some managers avoided controls and did it properly, that's how profitable farms worked like.
However the reasons why you could still own private land was that Poland lacked managers(by the time constitution has passed) and our communist and socialist party(that were later managed into unified worker's party) for YEARS of their pre-war presence claimed that there will be no wide-scale collectivisation. Seeing as there were still partisan units fighting here and there, they didn't want to piss peasants off(and give partisans their support) by breaking that promise.
>>658693
>(that were later managed i
merged*
>>658673
No he was shot by a catholic disguised as a panda bear
>>658666
>marxism-leninism is unscientific
>implying I or anyone else who was at the party back then followed it like religious dogma
>ignoring that Stalin/Lenins view was the voice of the majority, and that everything was voted for democratically on the party congress.
>if someone goes against a democratic vote it's okay because lol democracy is totalitarian
>apprehending political criminals is bad
>sabotaging the party politically, and assassinating party members should go unpunished
>gets btfo at party congress every time so he cries authoritarianism
Trotskyism, not even once. Read the SKPU history of congress, Trotsky and his sect didn't get the majority vote and there was no authoritarianism involved in that. he fucked up by sabotaging the party because his ideas didn't get passed at the congress, of course he was exiled and later killed off. I really can't see how it's authoritarian to sit down at the congress, vote, and not get your vote passed because the majority voted for something else.
>>658673
>wasn't lenin shot by an anarchist
nope, it was a woman from the right SSers, it was early after the civil war and you had coalition members in the party who were not marxist-leninist, among them you had nationalists, ie the right SSers. So lenin was shot by a progressive nationalist.
>so you are basically arguing for total obedience toward the party
the revisionist elements within the party were part of the party congress, and they were left alone until they started sabotaging shit. They were not in the majority so most of the stuff they petitioned for didn't get passed, simply people disagreed with them. They spun this to be opressive totalitarianism aimed at them, however. If you are interested, read the history of the SKPU congresses, it has every congress written down in great detail.
>>658591
>Not realising Stalin doomed the USSR
shiggy tbhfam
At any time before WWII is over, if the US stops providing aid.
The USSR falling apart in the early 90s was the result of Gorbachev's ineptly handled reforms causing severe destabilization. The country could've survived without them, but would've stagnated economically and would most likely have fallen severely behind America, possibly become 3rd largest economy in the world after Japan in the 2000s. I am not sure however it would've been able to retain its eastern european sphere of influence.
>>660222
I think they would done a lot better than people in the west usually expect if they had just put economists in charge of the economy instead of bureaucrats, actually tried to optimise the economy with mathematics, created an independent judicial system, and generally sorted out the structure of government with several incremental reforms including making it more democratic over a period of 20-40 years or so.
Oh and don't make secession legal, that was stupid.
>>660425
Gorbachev tried to push too much in just 5 years, transition to a market economy will inherently cause some instability, hence why it needs to be gradual, and probably not simultaneous with democratic reform, otherwise the temporary economic downturn caused by the transition will make people riot, with no fear of retaliation.
>Timelines
Please
>>660425
>I think they would done a lot better than people in the west usually expect if they had just put economists in charge of the economy instead of bureaucrats, actually tried to optimise the economy with mathematics
You really do know nothing about the history of the Soviet Union do you?
>>660585
Exactly. Also don't invade afghanistan, invest more in education, and don't let ideology distort or censor any important field e.g. put more resources into economics, biology and psychology.
>>661282
Enlighten me.
>>661348
From 1921 economists were in charge of the Soviet economy. This was an economy with significant private capital in industrial and agricultural industries with state owned, but not "controlled" trusts operating as private capital.
Mathematical optimisers developed the 5 year plan in cooperation with economists and this produced higher levels of state coordination but every "business" including banks and trusts in the Soviet Union had to turn a profit. Plan overfulfillment broke the plan, this was a problem until 1953.
The other problem was worker and peasant non-compliance, as they lacked control over their working lives "they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work." Amusingly this was most critical in the light industry sectors.
>>661422
Have you got sauce for these statements?
>This was an economy with significant private capital in industrial and agricultural industries with state owned, but not "controlled" trusts operating as private capital.
>every "business" including banks and trusts in the Soviet Union had to turn a profit
>The other problem was worker and peasant non-compliance, as they lacked control over their working lives
>>661667
1) Strauss opcit
2) Strauss opcit, Fitzpatrick S, Every Five Year Plan*
3) Pirani S, Andrle V, Haraszti M
* Low interest loans were provided as state subsidies to favoured industries, comparable to the graft of the military industrial complex in the United States in terms of intervention.
>>661707
You'll also want to read Djilas, Lomax B, Kornai Overcentralization (1953)
USSR guaranteed to survive at like 50% if it wins world war II, there is 50% chance to win it. So by broad estimate I give it at least 20%.
>>661921
Yes actually. Given your vast unfamiliarity with the field of soviet economic and social life you're only going to get seminal texts.
>>661960
I noticed you said that "banks" in the ussr were run like a business. You are aware that there was only one bank in the soviet union - gosbank?
>>661981
Not in the fucking 1920s mate.
>>656568
It would play out exactly as it did in reality 100% of the time. Unless you add new variables.
>>662191
So the universe is deterministic and free will doesn't exist?
>>656568
0%
Simple math. Number of times it works/Total possible playouts.
There are an infinite number of possible ways it could play out total.
So [x/(infinity)]*100=0%
>>661707
I'm not familiar with any of these authors. Which books should I be looking at from Strauss, Pirani, Andrle and Haraszti?
And how do I even find these books?
Why did you put "opcit" next to Strauss when noone has cited any work from Strauss in this thread.
Oh great, another roleplaying thread for Stalinists on the Internet!
>>656690
scary desu
>>662557
Strauss https://www.marxists.org/archive/strauss/
Fitzpatrick, Sheila, Everyday Stalinism
Haraszti, Miklos, Worker in a workers state
Andrle, Vladimir, [workers in the 1930s]
Pirani, Simon, only has one book on the implementation of the NEP over working class discontent
Djilas, The New Class, Conversations with Stalin
Lomax, Bill, [source book on the 1956 workers councils]
>>656568
What a silly question, I can't believe that anyone has actually attempted a serious response.
>>662420
There's a reason nobody has confirmed your idiotic post
>>656761
What about China-like economic reforms after Stalin's death?
>>663570
You can't. Social welfare in the Soviet Union was distributed at the firm level. Cut that, and you get a Hungary 1956 nation wide.
>>656568
I wonder what would have happened if the Provisional Government stayed in power and the Bolsheviks never came in
>>656568
>A percentage of infinity
>>663657
Well, the 2nd Russian revolution would be delayed until February 1918.
>>656568
To all questions: the one that mattered.
>>662609
>USSR after Stalin's death
>Stalinist
Tell me more about the Stalinist tyrant, Gorbachev.
>>656568
USSR didn't collapse.
It was very methodically disolved. By states, organizations outside of the USSR, as well as within.
>>661667
Fuck you are stupid.
>>665431
Fucking this, tbqh.
>>662609
There's just the one obsessive tankie and everyone else is shooting him down if you bother to properly read the thread to be desu.
>>663667
>50% of the infinite amount of integers are odd.
>>663657
If they successfully stopped subvertives like lenin, they'd be one of the winners in WW1 and would likely get compensated like everyone else in Versailles, then industrialise in the 20th century and join usa, britain etc in the sun.
>>665735
>Implying you would be able to point out exactly how if you tried.
>>664598
After Stalin died Khrushchev basically disavowed him without getting rid of the Stalinist bureaucracy which lasted until the collapse of the USSR. There was clearly a spate of reforms from all subsequent leaders because Stalin was clearly off his fucking rocker, but the essential ruling structure remained the same.
>>667342
>Zero is the integer denoted 0 that, when used as a counting number, means that no objects are present. It is the only integer (and, in fact, the only real number) that is neither negative nor positive. A number which is not zero is said to be nonzero.
Zero -- from Wolfram MathWorld
>Zero is an even number. In other words, its parity—the quality of an integer being even or odd—is even. The simplest way to prove that zero is even is to check that it fits the definition of "even": it is an integer multiple of 2, specifically 0 × 2.
Parity of zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero
Wrong
>>667353
There is 50% chance for integer to be odd therefore 50% of integers are odd.
>>663657
It depends on which one you speak of because there were several. It's an interesting question though.
>>667358
>There is 50% chance for integer to be odd
…
>>667353
Your post doesn't have any bearing on the post you quoted.
When the numerator and denominator of a fraction are both infinite, the fraction itself is impossible to find by doing division since infinity / infinity isn't defined. If the numerator is finite or zero then yes, the percentage will be zero. But the numerator can't be zero or finite since any event with a remote chance of happening will have infinite timelines.
This is because any scenario that has a non-zero chance of happening must have infinite timelines as opposed to a finite number of timelines, since it splits into infinite possible variations the moment after the scenario begins.
So every scenario has either zero timelines or infinite timelines.
And given the total number of timelines (infinity), in order for an event to have zero chance it would have to be very improbable indeed in order to not appear in at least one (and thus infinity at the next moment) timelines.
Now, particles literally appear and disappear randomly everywhere all the time due to quantum mechanics, so even the chance of a turquoise bear spontaneously appearing on the moon is non-zero (although the actual percentage of that would obviously be very small - so small you would have to talk about it in negative orders of orders of orders of magnitude). In comparison to that event, the survival of any state, no matter how untenable its structure, is relatively very likely indeed.
>>667565
Why did you imply that >>667358 is incorrect? Anon clearly has a grasp of the concept.
Take the set of all integers
{..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
Now group every adjacent pair in the set:
{... , {-2 , -1} , {0 , 1} , { 2 , 3} , ...}
As you can see, in every one of the infinite pairs the fraction of odds is 1/2 i.e. 50%.
So it follows that the fraction of odds in the total set of integers is also 50%.
As >>667358 stated, picking an integer at random there is 50% chance it will be odd, although there are infinite integers in total.
>>667877
>chance
>mathematics
You do understand that deductive fields are not subject to empirical constraints?
>>667906
What the fuck are you talking about? People look at probability in numbers all the time.
>>667909
The discipline of mathematics is not subject to probability EVEN AS probability is one of its objects of study.
FFS.
>>667915
>probability is one of its objects of study.
Hence my post involving probability.
>The discipline of mathematics is not subject to probability
Oh, you're shitposting.
>>667978
You're using probability to demonstrate an argument regarding logical objects.
You've obviously taken no mathematics.
Or philosophy.
I'd advise you to change to a trade or unskilled vocation.
>>656568
The kind of stupid question is this? How do you propose to judge answers to this question, given your sample size of one timeline?
>>667991
>You're using probability to demonstrate an argument regarding logical objects.
If you pick one timeline out of the total set of timelines, it will have a certain probability of having a particular trait, i.e. the shengen zone existing in an EU or decolonisation happening. This is where probability enters.
Now, provided the number of timelines which share the trait you are interested in is itself infinite (analogously, the total set of integers is infinite, and the total set of integers that share the trait "even" or "multiple of 3" are also infinite), then the chance of picking a timeline with the trait you are looking for is a finite percentage.
I believe that due to the nature of quantum mechanics, any trait that has at least one timeline will in fact have infinite timelines. So there will be a finite percentage chance of picking a timeline with this trait if you pick a timeline randomly from the total pool.
If there are actually finite variations for any trait, then it follows that the total number of timelines is itself finite, and thus there is again a finite percentage chance of picking a timeline with any given trait (since finite / finite yields a finite number).
I don't believe that this
>You're using probability to demonstrate an argument regarding logical objects.
negates any of that, as it does not apply to the thought experiment, which is stochastic by nature (not to mention entirely heuristic).
>>668072
>timeline
And you're a fucking moron.
History as a discipline does not admit thought experiments.
>>668028
It's a heuristic thought experiment. Noone expects you to be able to calculate the actual percentage, given that that would require knowledge of the distribution of alternative timelines. The point of the thread evidently isn't the accuracy of the numbers that you come up with; it's your thought process in getting there.
>>668072
not him but that is just a theory, we don't know whether random quantum phenomena is truly random or just due to the heisenburg uncertainty principle and our inability to measure quantum phenomena accurately as we can on a larger scale
>>668121
alternate timelines do not exist outside of the autism of waifuist analyticals
>>668083
I see that you didn't respond to the content of the post you quoted, assuming you read it.
If you are right that there is a fundamental structural error, you should be able to pick apart my post at the exact point at which it falls apart (even if from the first line), and explain the logical inconsistency, and how it affects the premise. You would at least be able to elaborate how your statement that "you cannot use probability to demonstrate an argument regarding logical objects" relates to the idea or train of thought that you are trying to debunk.
The fact is, probability and logic are not mutually exclusive, and often intersect in many fields, including probabilistic logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_logic
>The aim of a probabilistic logic (also probability logic and probabilistic reasoning) is to combine the capacity of probability theory to handle uncertainty with the capacity of deductive logic to exploit structure of formal argument. The result is a richer and more expressive formalism with a broad range of possible application areas.
To read and respond to your post:
>>timeline
>And you're a fucking moron.
The OP doesn't purport that alternative timelines are an actual phenomenon, it uses them as part of the premise in a thought experiment.
>History as a discipline does not admit thought experiments.
I see, you're just baiting. Does the field of history admit rankings of "the greatest generals of all time" or lists of "genuinely good history flicks"?
>>668203
>Cites a philosophy journal
Oh fuck off. Marwick, A. Two kinds of history.
>>668186
See:
>>668203
>The OP doesn't purport that alternative timelines are an actual phenomenon, it uses them as part of the premise in a thought experiment.
>>668182
This post >>668072 just elaborates on how alternative timelines work in the thought experiment given that they would work. All the evidence we have points to QM being truly probabilistic btw. It's already proven that if there is a deterministic core to QM, and the outcomes of probabilities are "fixed", then that would violate locality and thus the theory of relativity. Not that it matters to the thread, as that's all just the mechanism of the thought experiment. If OP's mechanism involved some divine intervention by God, or a hall of doors, or a ouiji board, then it would be just as valid as long as it got you to think about history.
>>668280
The fact that you can't develop a historical question to save your arsehole from the rape pig is pretty indicative of your general ignorance.
>>668287
Since you clearly lack sufficient wit to see the larger point I was making, and merely focus on the strict semantic content, I endorse your position as an academic button-sorter.
>>668229
>Not responding to the content of my post again
>No evidence that you did anything other than look at the image
Read the first line of the post you quoted.
>>668295
I heartily enjoin you to publish in the AHR
>>668333
>Argument from ridicule
It's not quite a substitute for reading the posts you respond to, is it?
>>668369
You seem to be impervious to the argument from dismissal of anti-disciplinary metaphysical clap trap so you're a cunt brimming with pig slime.
>>668395
You want me to respond to the full content of your post here >>668229 (the only one I missed) despite your unwillingness to do the same (you missed the last three)? Very well.
As far as I can tell, "Two Kinds of History" - Arthur Marwick isn't actually a book, but rather a quote from his book "The Sixties". Here it is in full:
>It is an inescapable fact of the intellectual world in which we live today that there is, on one side, the non-metaphysical, source-based scientific history of the historians and, on the other, the metaphysical history of those committed to left-wing causes (or, alternatively, to the nihilistic philosophy that humanity is helpless in face of the impersonal structures of bourgeois thought and language).
Presumably the fact that the topic of the thread is a metaphysical discussion of a socialist country has sent alarm bells ringing throughout your head. This would explain the anymosity in your posts. Tell me, does Mr Marwick also invite you to respond to people's work without reading what you are responding to? That would also explain a lot.
As I've stated, and you likely haven't read, this is a moot point. Do you also passionately enter these threads >>667799 >>668552 >>663217 >>665218 and launch diatribes about how insufficiently academic they are?
I wasn't actually able to find the full book "The Sixties", but the quote you alluded to was contained in the book "Reconstructing History" - Fox-Genovese E, Lasch-Quinn E p31
The authors go on to say:
>The distinction we need to make is not between scientific and “metaphysical" history, but between that which self-righteously stays within strict confines of its own bias and that which constantly challenges itself to confront and take into account opposing views. Whether more narrative or more analytical, this kind of engaged history enters the debate self-consciously and open to challenge rather than remaining closed and aloof.
You have decidedly failed to demonstrate the latter.
