u/Delti_Snaki

I was just wondering on whether or not to tag this as a shit post but maybe it has more merit that that.

I also just thought of this at the gym so absolutely 0 research done but I think it's something like Tito did.

Regardless.

A socialist state, so one socialist party, the whole shabang. BUT! Commonly owned economy. Enterprises and firms are commonly held by workers and/communities but the a more central state exists for macronomics and general governing.

Idk, seems like a solid compromise and maybe even a plausible way to go about a modern 21st century socialist construction.

Are dialectics necessary?

Marxism, as an empirical method of social analysis which in turn produces a political practice, derives it's observations and predictions not from dialectical metaphysics but empirical observations and predictions.

Societies are materially produced by the material conditions and needs of human beings. These conditions and needs sometimes conflict. These conflicts on a micro (between individuals) and on a macro (between populations) scale, produce outcomes which favour one, multiple or neither side of that conflict. This resolution begets new conditions, needs and interests.

This is also paired with the technological and otherwise material developments human populations produce in order to meet their needs and interests.

All of these observations can be done without dialectics.

So, are dialectics needed? Or can a more empirical materialism prove sufficient?

I know it is not a Hegelian materialist ideology.

But is it materialist in the sense of deriving it's principles from empirical and material factors exclusively? I know Kropotkin's work "Mutual Aid: a factor of evolution" is a good example, but is that it?

Thank you.