Is Marxism really scientific?

[monkeydust]

It's well known, as even a brief read of the Communist Manifesto will reveal, that Marx castigated a great number of his contemporary socialists - Fourier, Owen, de Bevouir and others - on the grounds that they were mere "utopians", with theories and ideas derived "from the sky" and based upon an array of principles that, whilst "nice", were overtly moralistic and without material basis.

What made Marx's theories different, supposedly, was his claim to be scientific. To not simply say "Capitalism bad, Socialism good", but to instead take an objective look at reality and to say "this is what will happen, and here's why" in a systematic and rational manner.

This seems all well and good at first glance, and saves Marxists the trouble of having to root their feelings in any "metaphysical" axioms, which can easily be called into dispute.

But is Marxism's claim to be scientific really valid? Here's a few points that come to mind:

1. Marxism is not falsifiable. There are no conditions by which it can ultimately be proved wrong beyond doubt.

Whenever a prolatarian revolution fails to emerge a Marxist can easily dodge the contention by shifting the boundaries of timespan and asking the critic to wait a bit longer.

But since nobody's set a determinate and unequivocal date for when a revolution should materialize, there is no point where one can say for sure that the project has failed.

If Marxism is unfalsifiable it cannot be considered to be a scientific theory.


2. Marxism imposes a rigid conceptual framework upon the world which does not necessarily exist in reality.

Its scientific side is built upon observations of "objective reality". Yet this objectivity takes place within boundaries already set by the Marxist himself, shaping his "subject" (objective reality) into something that it is not.

For instance, Marxism takes the crude division between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat to be some absolute dichotomy - building a theory on top of this assumption about "objective reality". Yet, scientifically speaking, it should not be taken-for-granted that this distinction should be accepted without prior examination. A scientific view shouldn't interpret society by first making assumptions about it based on anecdote and casual observation.


3. The "data" with which a Marxist uses to asses his scientific paradigm is not empirically observable with any large degree of accuracy.

For example, can we gauge such amorphous notions as "class consciousness"? Can we really say this class is "this or that" "conscious" with considerable veracity?


I'm aware that many of these points are undeveloped and not well explained, but you get the idea. Feel welcome to add other points or answer those above.

[monkeydust]

I'm gonna make it clear now that I'm expecting at least one reply/refutation before I go to bed.

So Bump.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by monkeydust
Marxism is not falsifiable.

Marxism may not be falsifiable in an absolute sense...but it's certainly falsifiable in a practical sense.

And this century or the next is probably it; if by 2300 or so there's been no sign of proletarian revolutions and capitalism is still just rolling along...I'd say you can stick a fork in Marxism, it's done.

It would mean that history doesn't "work" like Marx said it does.

Depressing...but a possibility nevertheless. :(

It's also possible, in the meantime, that a paradigm for understanding human history that is superior to Marxism may emerge.

That hasn't happened yet...but it's also a possibility.


For instance, Marxism takes the crude division between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat to be some absolute dichotomy - building a theory on top of this assumption about "objective reality". Yet, scientifically speaking, it should not be taken-for-granted that this distinction should be accepted without prior examination. A scientific view shouldn't interpret society by first making assumptions about it based on anecdote and casual observation.

Here, I think, you impose too narrow a definition of "the scientific method". A scientific hypothesis can begin with simple assumptions based on "anything" -- the test is always empirical.

In my view, the historical evidence for Marx's paradigm is massive...though others do find it less convincing.

In addition to which, the other "meta-narratives" that have competed with Marxism have little or no evidence to support them.

In despair, the bourgeois historians, with rare exceptions, have retreated to contingency...the "shit happens" school of history.

Many of them are no longer even interested in narrative at all.


The "data" with which a Marxist uses to assess his scientific paradigm is not empirically observable with any large degree of accuracy.

The same thing could be said of an evolutionist; the fossil record is fragmentary and incomplete, the possible paths of evolutionary development multiple and controversial, the causes obscure, etc.

Yet evolution is a fact...and we do the best we can to work out the details of what really happened and why.

In my opinion, the Marxist paradigm is "like" the evolutionary paradigm in many ways; neither will ever possess the predictive powers of physics or chemistry.

But that doesn't mean they're "unscientific".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[monkeydust]

Marxism may not be falsifiable in an absolute sense...but it's certainly falsifiable in a practical sense.

And this century or the next is probably it; if by 2300 or so there's been no sign of proletarian revolutions and capitalism is still just rolling along...I'd say you can stick a fork in Marxism, it's done.

Someone in the 19th century may well have said "If Marx's predictions don't prove to be true by 2005, I think it's fair enough to say his theory's wrong."

We've got there, and there's little sign of any revolution on the horizon - even generous estimates might aim at 50 years at least before such an insurrection is likely.

Who's to say to the guy in 2300 that he's reached the "deadline" for Marxism's validity? No one. He could quite easily pick out a multitude of reasons to attest to the supposition that the revolution will be "only another 50 years from now." And many would believe him.

The point being, of course, that there is no timeframe for Marxism - the time for its eventual predicions is indeterminate.

It is thus only loosely falsifiable, even in the practical sense. It certainly doesn't stand up to be proclaimed a "scientific theory" in the full sense.


Here, I think, you impose too narrow a definition of "the scientific method". A scientific hypothesis can begin with simple assumptions based on "anything" -- the test is always empirical.


That's a fair enough point, I suppose.


In despair, the bourgeois historians, with rare exceptions, have retreated to contingency...the "shit happens" school of history.

Many of them are no longer even interested in narrative at all.


I think that's a little unfair.

It's hardly true that "bourgeois historians" have plumped for the "shit happens" theory in the absence of any clear direction of history.

They have merely accepted that, whilst we can understand and explain historical forces in the broad sense, we simply do not know enough to claim knowledge of the "laws of history", less still to proclaim that we can predict future events with this knowledge.

Considering the complexity of history - the difficulty in ascertaining what "actually happened" itself, and moreover the problem working out what caused what happened to happen (if there are causes in the usual sense at all) - I think that this may be a fair judgement.


The same thing could be said of an evolutionist; the fossil record is fragmentary and incomplete, the possible paths of evolutionary development multiple and controversial, the causes obscure, etc.

Yet evolution is a fact...and we do the best we can to work out the details of what really happened and why.

In my opinion, the Marxist paradigm is "like" the evolutionary paradigm in many ways; neither will ever possess the predictive powers of physics or chemistry.

But that doesn't mean they're "unscientific".


I take your general point, but I'm not sure if the comparison's appropriate.

Evolutionary theory has been verified - or as near as can be so - by a number of clearly observable phenomena. Patchy in places yes, but distinct for what it is.

It's literally been seen that cockroaches can devlop thinner to avoid being trod upon, that moths can change colour so as to not be eaten, or that bacteria can evolve to become resistant to anti-biotics.

I've been told that now we can observe genetics codes, if only to a limited degree, to notice how the extent of changes varies in accordance with the darwinist hpothesis - the "closer" something is in the evolutionary chain to something else, the more resemblant their comparative genetic structures will be.

The same isn't really true of Marxism. No one's yet taken "class x" and observed it to do "this or that" under some supposed conditions. In fact, to use the example of class consciousness once again, we have some evidence counter to the claim - indeed, in the UK at least, many workers have consistently voted for the conservative party - their "class enemy" of sorts (at least in years past); earlier still, British workers failed to develop significantly greater "class consciousness" during the economic troubles of the 20s and the catastrophes of the early 30s.

This is hardly comparable "data" to that for evolutionary theory.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by monkeydust
Someone in the 19th century may well have said "If Marx's predictions don't prove to be true by 2005, I think it's fair enough to say his theory's wrong."

Actually, the late 19th century version of "Marxism" -- social democracy -- has been falsified. It didn't work.

I think Leninism in all its variants has also been falsified...though many Marxists disagree with me about that.

There may still be defenders of the Marxist paradigm in 2300...but I think that unless they have successful communist societies to point to, they will be very lonely.

People just get tired of shit that never works.


They have merely accepted that, whilst we can understand and explain historical forces in the broad sense, we simply do not know enough to claim knowledge of the "laws of history", less still to proclaim that we can predict future events with this knowledge.

True...but is that because they "really don't know" or is it that the search for "order" in history leads towards "uncomfortable" conclusions, with possibly even "career threatening" consequences?

Science in human affairs is severely constrained by "vulgar" economic considerations -- unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

When I was in my sophomore (and last) year at university, I and another budding young Marxist entered an essay contest sponsored by the political science department...and we were the only two entrants.

Guess what? They decided not to award the $50 prize that year.

Teaching us kids the valuable lesson that overt Marxism is not welcome in academia.

So when bourgeois ideologues (historians, sociologists, economists) "scientifically refute" Marx, I'm not too impressed.

After all, those guys all have families to support. :lol:


Evolutionary theory has been verified - or as near as can be so - by a number of clearly observable phenomena. Patchy in places yes, but distinct for what it is.

So has Marxism...particularly with the development of capitalism itself.

Even his prediction (often "refuted") of the "immiseration of the proletariat" is beginning to look robust -- real wages in the U.S. have fallen to the level of 1964 and show no signs of recovery. Household income still increases because of the steadily growing number of couples who both have full-time jobs...but individually they're making less.

That famous "middle-class" standard-of-living is a "house of (credit) cards". New bankruptcy laws will force the standard-of-living down even further.

Further, the numbers of people living from casual and irregular employment are increasing...leading to further immiseration.

Will developments like this lead to proletarian revolution?

It is too soon to say, of course...but I think Marx is looking stronger than he has for a long time.


British workers failed to develop significantly greater "class consciousness" during the economic troubles of the 20s and the catastrophes of the early 30s.

I beg your pardon. Wasn't there a huge general strike in Great Britain in 1926? And were there not large and continuing demonstrations of unemployed workers there (led by the Communist Party) in the 1930s?

I actually agree with you that the problem of class consciousness has been a "thorn in the side" of Marxism since its inception. Not with regard to the ruling class, of course, which has been ever faithful to its own class interests...just as Marx predicted.

But there've certainly been some awkward "disconnects" between the class consciousness that "should" exist...and that kind that "does exist" in the working class.

And we don't really know why...though a number of hypotheses have been advanced.

It's a nagging problem in Marxist theory.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[apathy maybe]

Science has to do with testable hypothises and while Marx's theories are testable to a certain extent like Freud's theories Marxism can not be disproved (the infinite timeline), it can also not be shown to be correct until it actually happens.

I would also argue that while it is theoretically possible to use the scientific method to predicate the behaviour of large numbers of people, practically at the current time (and proabbly for all time) it is not possible to predicate the behaviour of individuals in all circumstances or the behaviour of society.

[monkeydust]

True...but is that because they "really don't know" or is it that the search for "order" in history leads towards "uncomfortable" conclusions, with possibly even "career threatening" consequences?

Science in human affairs is severely constrained by "vulgar" economic considerations -- unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

When I was in my sophomore (and last) year at university, I and another budding young Marxist entered an essay contest sponsored by the political science department...and we were the only two entrants.

Guess what? They decided not to award the $50 prize that year.

Teaching us kids the valuable lesson that overt Marxism is not welcome in academia.

So when bourgeois ideologues (historians, sociologists, economists) "scientifically refute" Marx, I'm not too impressed.

After all, those guys all have families to support.


That may have been quite true in the US. It's not been so bad in the UK.

There have been a number of people of Marxist leaning in academia over here down the years. Many who've been all too willing to deviate from the "acceptable" ideology of the day. The same has been to some extent true in Europe. It may be down to the fact that the European Academic tradition has had a much longer history, and has developed entirely independent of capitalism - some universities being centuries old.

I accept that academia, more today than ever in fact, is heavily influenced by business - though this is generally far more true in science departments than in history or philosophy. But too claim that contemporary academia is simply some "tool of the bourgeoisie" is to go too far. It's clear that there is at least some independence in the intelligentsia, you can to a large degree write what you want and not get sacked. It has been done.

I honestly doubt your contention that all academics have shied away from Marxism simply because they'd get sacked if they did not. It's clear that many genuinely do find fault with the theory.

It's too easy to write them off as "bourgeois acamdemics." Argue against their points, not against what you consider to be the reasons they make them.


I beg your pardon. Wasn't there a huge general strike in Great Britain in 1926? And were there not large and continuing demonstrations of unemployed workers there (led by the Communist Party) in the 1930s?


I beg your pardon. :P

Yes, there was a general strike in 1926, but if anything it demonstrated how profoundly unrevolutionary and "unconscious" the British working class was.

Workers were so enraged at those instruments of state oppression - the police - that they played football with them.

Papers printed by the workers emphasized that the General Strike was not a challenge to ordered government.

In the end this "conscious" class "fell flat on its face" after 9 days, having been stabbed in the back by its own trade union leaders. They gained nothing, and lost a lot.

The strike should have actually occurred a few years earlier. In the event the promised "sympathetic strikes" in support of the miners did not materialize. The workers could not be arsed.

Later demonstrations were sporadic at best.


I actually agree with you that the problem of class consciousness has been a "thorn in the side" of Marxism since its inception. Not with regard to the ruling class, of course, which has been ever faithful to its own class interests...just as Marx predicted.

But there've certainly been some awkward "disconnects" between the class consciousness that "should" exist...and that kind that "does exist" in the working class.

And we don't really know why...though a number of hypotheses have been advanced.

It's a nagging problem in Marxist theory.


One of many.

Which is why I've come to regard Marxism with more scepticism - though I still accept much of it. I feel it needs to present a stronger case before we can credit it as being the "laws of history"

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by monkeydust
But to claim that contemporary academia is simply some "tool of the bourgeoisie" is to go too far. It's clear that there is at least some independence in the intelligentsia, you can to a large degree write what you want and not get sacked. It has been done.

I honestly doubt your contention that all academics have shied away from Marxism simply because they'd get sacked if they did not. It's clear that many genuinely do find fault with the theory.

It's too easy to write them off as "bourgeois academics." Argue against their points, not against what you consider to be the reasons they make them.

When the matter of a specific bourgeois hypothesis arises, I'm happy to argue the specifics of the evidence.

But my "working assumption" is that the "intelligentsia" is like all the rest of us...they have to eat. Their pretenses of "objectivity" rarely overcome the material reality of who signs their paychecks.

I'll grant you that things are perhaps not so "naked" in Europe; your point about universities there being pre-capitalist in origins is a very good one.

On "this side of the pond", things are very naked indeed; there's a professor over here by the name of Ward Churchill who's about to be sacked for an essay he wrote about 9/11...and another in Florida who is also "on the edge". Neither of those guys are even Marxists...just anti-imperialists.

In the U.S., even a tenured academic can be fired should his/her controversial views become publicized in the media...and every academic here knows that.

That doesn't mean, of course, that "nothing" worthwhile gets written...on occasion, one can write a Marxist analysis of some historical crisis by carefully avoiding Marx's name and terminology...and not only get away with it but even win academic praise.

But you can imagine the strains involved; very few make the attempt.

When you say that it's "too easy" for me to just dismiss academics as bourgeois "tools", I don't think you give due weight to what is really easy for the aspiring academic...just dismiss Marxism as "discredited" and look for other, more acceptable, "explanations" of social reality.

Acceptable to who?

Guess.


I feel it needs to present a stronger case before we can credit it as being the "laws of history"

Well, remember that all of that "laws of history" stuff reflected the 19th century convention among early social scientists of trying to emulate the physical sciences' "laws of nature". I think most modern Marxists would speak in terms of "tendencies" and "probabilities", not "laws".

Even Marx moved in that direction in his lifetime...when he spoke of "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time", he realized that other factors could offset that tendency in particular circumstances.


The workers could not be arsed.

Now that's an interesting remark...with an even more interesting sub-text.

To be crude about it, I wonder how many young "intellectuals" are initially attracted to Marxist theory...only to abandon it in disgust when the working class does not "act revolutionary enough" in a particular situation.

Do some of these kids say to themselves something along the lines of "hey, those fucking workers won't fight for themselves...why the fuck should I fight for them!"?

Rather than a scientific disagreement, do these young "intellectuals" feel "betrayed" by the working class...and decide henceforward to look after their own self-interests?

Just a thought.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[cph_shawarma]

it can also not be shown to be correct until it actually happens.
This is true, but why is this a problem? The negative characteristics of a future society lies within the negation of the description of capital in Das Kapital. For example, communist society does not produce and distribute commodities, nor will it use capitalist technology.

While, in some aspects, I can see Marx's works as "scientific", I believe that his goal was to go beyond science and philosophy. Let's just look at Theses on Feuerbach, where Marx clearly states his "belief" in the subjectivity of the human being, within an objective, material world. One can not simply interpret the world, one must intervene and change, as stated by the famous quote (which I must say is quite pale in comparison to the other theses).

Of course this does not imply liberalistic ideas of "free will" or such nonsense. Instead Marx found the really existing communist movement and started studying the context in which this movement existed, to grasp it and to see the interventions and social changes possible at this point in time. We must of course learn from Marx, but must also develop much of his practice.

I believe I have stayed within the perimeters of this discussion, and I hope I'm not boring you. ;)

Edit: Grammar error.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 13 2005, 01:19 PM--> (redstar2000 @ May 13 2005, 01:19 PM)
monkeydust

It's too easy to write them off as "bourgeois academics." Argue against their points, not against what you consider to be the reasons they make them.

When the matter of a specific bourgeois hypothesis arises, I'm happy to argue the specifics of the evidence.

But my "working assumption" is that the "intelligentsia" is like all the rest of us...they have to eat. Their pretenses of "objectivity" rarely overcome the material reality of who signs their paychecks.
[/b]
Gramsci provides a pretty satisying analysis of this topic. Essentially all intellectuals are organically connected to some class or another. So where are the working class intellectuals?


On "this side of the pond", things are very naked indeed; there's a professor over here by the name of Ward Churchill who's about to be sacked for an essay he wrote about 9/11...and another in Florida who is also "on the edge". Neither of those guys are even Marxists...just anti-imperialists.

Churchill's essay was foolish rubbish anyway, but who are you referring to in Florida? Al-Arian?

[SonofRage]

I swear that every time someone reads Karl Popper this thread gets created again

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by perception+--> (perception)So where are the working class intellectuals?[/b]

Me? :P

Seriously, they probably do exist...but find it nearly impossible to "break through" to a significant audience. Their books are only published by small independent presses, have very small press runs (1,000 - 2,000 copies), and are only stocked by independent book stores. Their scholarly articles can only be published by a small number of journals...to which only a few of the largest university libraries subscribe.

Otherwise, they are, like all the rest of us, limited to the internet...trying to find a niche in the enormous babble of commerce and bullshit.

I know for a fact that there is a guy in England who is putting together a fantastic critique of the dialectic -- the excerpts he showed me (in confidence, otherwise I'd post them) are written with astonishing clarity for a philosophical work. It will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and then ultimately posted on the internet...and I think it will become a "classic".

But "who knows" what else is out there?


Churchill's essay was foolish rubbish anyway, but who are you referring to in Florida? Al-Arian?

I don't remember the guy's name in Florida. But come to think of it, I believe there's an academic in Arizona who's also "on the edge". And there's a campaign being mounted against "pro-Palestinian" professors at Columbia University. An anarchist professor was just sacked in New England recently (New York City IndyMedia has the story). It's really not that uncommon here at all.

And don't forget, Churchill is not simply under fire for writing "foolish rubbish" (wouldn't be many professors left if they used that criterion :lol:).

His "crime" was vehement dissent from the "imperial consensus".


SonofRage
I swear that every time someone reads Karl Popper this thread gets created again

:lol: Yeah...people forget, even though Popper freely admits that he favored "social engineering" -- slow, partial, and gradual "improvements" to existing society -- and frankly wanted nothing to do with revolutionary upheavals or ideas that pointed in that direction.

Ironic in a way; the Athens of Pericles that Popper thought so highly of was the product of mass upheavals in the previous century.

It wasn't as if the Athenian aristocrats gathered together one fine morning in 500BCE and said, "you know, we really ought to give the demes some power in this town". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[monkeydust]

Sorry about how long it took me to get back to this. Anyway...


When you say that it's "too easy" for me to just dismiss academics as bourgeois "tools", I don't think you give due weight to what is really easy for the aspiring academic...just dismiss Marxism as "discredited" and look for other, more acceptable, "explanations" of social reality.

Acceptable to who?

Guess.


I do accept your point to some extent. But, at least "over here", I'd still have to disagree on your assessment of academic motivation.

Certainly in Europe, academics can be and have been either overtly or implicitly Marxist in their work. They have not only "got away with it", but even had, more so in the past than now admittedly, considerable acclamation for their efforts.

The first one that comes to mind for me is E.H. Carr, author of the famous What is History? and his monumental history of the Soviet Union. I know for a fact that there was at least one Leninist professor, and another with strong Marxist sympathies, at SOAS (University of London) well into the 1980s - far beyond the point where you could reasonably claim rightwing thinking had not yet got its "claws" firmly into Academia.

As I have said, certainly in Britain, there's a long tradition that works hard to keep academia autonomous of the state and of private institutions. Granted, this line has been crossed somewhat in recent years (though not really in History or Philosophy), but any attempts to impinge upon academic freedom are often treated with scorn.

I think it's fair to say that, in Europe at least, a Marxist academic can eat. But I think the issue goes a bit deeper than this.

I'd argue that academics very often have a different social motivation to that predominant in society. Even a cynic like me admits that many aren't "in it for the money" - and this is attested to by the fact that lecturers' earnings aren't as great as those comparative to their colleagues in, say, industry or the civil service.

They sometimes simply seek "the truth", or more often wish to pursue their enquiries for its own sake - for some intrinsic interest to them - independent of their social status or monetary reward.

So, again, I can't agree that academia's "turning its back on" Marxism is entirely or even largely down to factors of material interest.

There's much more to it than that.


Well, remember that all of that "laws of history" stuff reflected the 19th century convention among early social scientists of trying to emulate the physical sciences' "laws of nature". I think most modern Marxists would speak in terms of "tendencies" and "probabilities", not "laws".

Even Marx moved in that direction in his lifetime...when he spoke of "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time", he realized that other factors could offset that tendency in particular circumstances.


Sure, you can say that they've become "tendencies" rather than "laws". But once the pillars of the theory start to become flimsy it become increasingly likely for the whole paradigm to collapse.

Classical Marxism could proclaim that "law x will mean that in situation y event z will occur"; the predictions that followed had apparent veracity stemming from this theoretical certainty.

Once we admit that these "laws" are mere "tendencies", the final predictions of Marxism - the teleological point of the whole system - seems rather less convincing.

To illustrate what I'm saying here, take the proposition that, over time, the working class will become increasingly more revolutionary with increasingly bad conditions resulting from Marx's tendency for the rate of profit to fall over time.

This would seem strong enough, but since the points are no longer "laws", the theoretical credibility of the system is called into question. As you will know, the Labour Theory of Value is on very "shaky" foundations these days. And there's evidence to show that workers will go through considerable hardship before they become openly revolutionary rather than just strongly reformist.

I agree that these tendencies are still important, and an excellent tool for understanding society and history.

But they don't "stand up" like they used to. And can't be taken-for-granted as in years past.


I swear that every time someone reads Karl Popper this thread gets created again


Admittedly the guy is overrated. But he did have some useful stuff to say.


It wasn't as if the Athenian aristocrats gathered together one fine morning in 500BCE and said, "you know, we really ought to give the demes some power in this town".


You're right, but it's worrying how many people seriously believe this to be the case.

[NovelGentry]

Some general responses.

On the issue of Marx being wrong and when to decide that:

Personally I think this issue is best approached not through time alone but through events in time. Specifically when we see property relations beginning to change. We see this already in the digital realm. The more the advancement of technology pushes towards computers, the more intellectual property is going to become far more important, and thus far more limited by the bourgeoisie. We talked about this on the 3D printer thread a little. When such an object becomes common, it will now be illegal to download the "blueprints" to print out devices that capitalists would like to sell. Just like it's illegal to download music, movies, books, images, etc.

I'm not sure how in depth Marx went on the issue of property relations, but in the end it is both a matter of production and distribution, strangely, in the digital world, production and distribution are carried out effectively simultaneously. The product is "copied" in digital form over wires; whether it be a wire from a server to your house to download a certain product, or the final manifestation of that product through a device like an iPod (for music) or a device like a 3D printer (in the future for god knows what kind of stuff), it's production effectively is it's distribution.

As this technology advances, I believe you will see the prerequisite property relations necessary for determining when the bourgeoisie's time is up. They will simply lose control and they will have done so, as Marx pointed out, through their own productive power, by making not only the tools that will be used against them, but the class to weild those tools.

So what it comes down to is determining when those relations will change in such a way to overcome the bourgeoise mode of production itself.

The reality on this issue is that Marx CANNOT be wrong. The bourgeoisie constantly push to advance technology, to produce their products with less and less man labor, and thus more and more profit. They want to produce everywhere, with smaller factories for cheaper production, and produce as much as possible to sell to both domestic and foreign markets. So with that they produce the means necessary to do so. Before you know it, the production scale is so large, and so cheap, and requires so few workers, that they are in something of a balancing act.

They no longer employ anyone to make these things, services positions are far fewer than the population of workers, but without people at work they can't buy these things; the market and method is self-destructive. There will come a time when everything can be produced so quickly and so cheaply that private property itself is obsolete. If you're willing to actually look at technological progression, this is undeniable.

One thing is certain, Marx's theories are designed to flow with time. That is to say, if you look at the line between capitalism and socialism as being blurred, when capitalism definitively ends, could be a wide number of positions in the socialist timeline -- and what is necessary to maintain from capitalist society becomes less and less.

We understand there are times that are too early (such as the USSR), there too may be a time where the revolution comes much later than necessary, and the society which is built after it is so close to communism, that a transitional phase effectively disappears. That is to say, it may come when it is immediately possible to do away with private property. Given that, the "state" to follow may need to exist for less and less time as we move forward.

Marx accounts for these changes, and brings it up in several points that "what is to be done" will differ greatly depending on regional advancements.

Remember too, capitalism does this far more rapidly than previous systems.

On what Marxism is:

I consider Marxism to be a pseudo-science. It is materialist philosophy, which if one applies the scientific method to in order to "prove," could be considered science. The problem is that I don't think the sceientific method was designed to span over hundreds/thousands of years -- although it seems to be doing ok with evolution in that sense.

Even still, as redstar pointed out, casting the details of what and how it developed is not so easy. In this sense it is very difficult to have the specifics of what happened and figuring out the specifics of what will happen.

[apathy maybe]

I agree that Marxism is pseudo-science. I disagree when you say that Marx cannot be wrong. Nothing is inevitable.

I think that it is quite possible for technology to render obsolete both class and property. Whether this comes about before or after the "inevitable" collapse is a point worth considering.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 09:00 AM
What made Marx's theories different, supposedly, was his claim to be scientific.
Perhaps it could be interpreted through Marx's view of materialis that he espoused a view of material objectivity, however, to be politically correct, it was Engels who definitively called socialism "scientific".

[monkeydust]

You're right, of course. But when we refer to "Marxism" we're talking about the efforts of his work condensed into a more systematic theory after his death...by Engels, amongst others.

Incidentally, I'd prefer to call it a "quasi-science" than a "pseudo-science" for two reasons:

1. To me, "pseudo" implies claiming to be something which something is not; or being an "improper" version of what it is claimed to be. So, say, a "pseudo-intellectual" is not simply one who is only a "sort of" academic, but is more usually one who has pretensions to be an intellect when he in fact is not. "Quasi" seems to convey more of a "sort of" feeling to me than "pseudo".

2. More importantly, "Quasi" undoubtedly sounds way better than "pseudo". It's a cooler word.

[NovelGentry]

I agree that Marxism is pseudo-science. I disagree when you say that Marx cannot be wrong. Nothing is inevitable.

I didn't say Marx cannot be wrong. I said there is one issue which he cannot be wrong on, assuming (as I thought was implied) no purposeful or accidental devastation to all that we have come to build thus far. You are correct in saying that nothing is inevitable, but the what-ifs are always swift deviations. What if aliens destroy your planet before socialism? What if humans destroy the planet before socialism? The question of whether or not capitalism inevitably self-destructs is 100% dependent on that capitalism is continuing, and that nothing has destroyed it prior to that point. One we can figure out, the other we cannot.


I think that it is quite possible for technology to render obsolete both class and property. Whether this comes about before or after the "inevitable" collapse is a point worth considering.

The point at which technology renders class and property obsolete is the inevitable collapse point. Anything before such a time can be "held-off" through various means.

[mikelepore]

The writers in this topic have tried to discuss how scientific Marxism is, without even mentioning any of Marxism's scientific areas. How can you talk in such general terms about it, when no one has tried to make a list of scientific socialism's theorems and corollaries?

People merely mentioned the feeling of the younger Marx that the arrival of socialism is "inevitable." This was nothing more than his personal utterance found in a couple of his correspondences, and it is NOT one of the basic principles of Marxism. To consider any form of historical change "inevitable" was the way almost all educated people in 19th century Germany spoke, due to the popular influence of Hegel on both the political right and left.

What are some of the basics of scientific socialism?

The materialist conception of history says that such physical conditions as geography and the stage of development of the tools used for making a living provide the starting points for the ideas that tend to prevail in a historical period, such as morality, religion, law, art, etc. For example, there are characteristic hunter-gather ideas of democracy, there are characteristic feudal agricultural conceptions of a god, etc. Since human ideas are extentions of a physical base, in order to make the world a better place, we must not deal merely with ideas, such as preaching about love and peace, but instead we must take steps to move civilization into the next period of history, which will have different tools and relations of economic production.

Marx's economic theory of how capitalism works is an internally-consistent algebraic model that shows capitalist profit coming from the unpaid wages of workers, so that workers effectively work part of the day for their wages and the rest of the day uncompensated for the employers' profits. As a result, all workers together don't get paid sufficient wages to buy back their own products, which causes cyclical recessions. Critics of Marx like to attack his economic model by denying his axiom that, when the prices of commodities fluctuate due to supply and demand, the prices are fluctuating around values that are proportional to the socially-necessary labor time materialized in the production of the various commodities. It almost always turns out that the critics' errors are due to their misunderstanding of the definitions of Marx's technical terms.

These are some of the topics people need to get into, if they want to discuss the science of socialism.


Mike Lepore
email lepore at bestweb dot net
http://www.deleonism.org/

[JudeObscure84]

HA HA :D You guys are all coming to the same conclusions that occured during the 1890's and Eduard Bernstiens Crisis of Marxism during the loss of the first international. His critique provided a devastating blow to where Marx had to be revised. Out of this grew the notion of rejecting Marx as a science, and opting for direct action. Three schools were parlimentary(social democrats), anarchism(anarcho-syndicalism) and Fascism(national syndicalism).

What conclusion finally grew out of this string of events was the introduction of Bolshevism, Nazism and Italian Fascism.

[NovelGentry]

You guys are all coming to the same conclusions that occured during the 1890's and Eduard Bernstiens Crisis of Marxism during the loss of the first international.

Unfortunately it would be very difficult for someone in the 1890's to recognize the changing property relations as we see them today -- the only conclusion which we must come to in order to see communism as an inevitability is that technology will progress as it has and continues to do so. I'm sorry, but no matter HOW you cut it, there will become a point when technology makes control/ownership over the means of production, and for that matter the products, obsolete.


His critique provided a devastating blow to where Marx had to be revised.

Maybe you would like to provide this critique.

[JudeObscure84]

Unfortunately it would be very difficult for someone in the 1890's to recognize the changing property relations as we see them today -- the only conclusion which we must come to in order to see communism as an inevitability is that technology will progress as it has and continues to do so. I'm sorry, but no matter HOW you cut it, there will become a point when technology makes control/ownership over the means of production, and for that matter the products, obsolete.


Well first you would have to understand the doctrines of each class of marxist revisionary.



Maybe you would like to provide this critique.

gladly... Bernstein pointed out simple facts that he took to be evidence that Marx's predictions were not being borne out: he noted that the centralisation of capitalist industry, while significant, was not becoming wholescale and that the ownership of capital was becoming more, and not less, diffuse.He also pointed out some of the flaws in Marx's labour theory of value, which many economists can point out too.He believed that socialism would be achieved through capitalism, not through capitalisms destruction (as rights were gradually won by workers, their cause for greivance would be diminished, and consequently, so too would the foundation of revolution).Evolutionary socialism. the question squared around what to do with revolution.

[NovelGentry]

Well first you would have to understand the doctrines of each class of marxist revisionary.

Sounds like a good way out of an argument.


gladly... Bernstein pointed out simple facts that he took to be evidence that Marx's predictions were not being borne out: he noted that the centralisation of capitalist industry, while significant, was not becoming wholescale and that the ownership of capital was becoming more, and not less, diffuse.

I would say Bernstein overlooked some points. Obviously not for 1890. He may be very well right that in 1890 this was not occuring. But let's make some points about Marxist theory, which DOES account for globalization, which we are seeing a lot more now than we did in 1890, and enough that Bernstein might shit all over his own argument. Look at the huge multinationals, look at the IMF, even if it's separate CEOs and Presidents, one bank to rule them all, centralized capital -- pay attention.

Furthermore, Marx points out several ways in which the capitalists overcome the hills of their own roller coasters. Global expansion, or the "chase around the globe" as Marx put it is not nearly complete, nor are global markets near saturated. To assume these aspects would be completely visible and present so early in capitalisms life is a fallacy, and one Marx wrongly pointed out in certain instances too.

The problem with Bernstein here, is that while he may have pointed out flaws in Marx's specific examples, the daily examples, and the aura of that time period, capitalism, particularly if no government intervention is present, has shown this to be true over a greater scale of time. Of course, that is something Marx kept in mind too, particularly when he pointed out the cycling effect in the growth of the proletariat, and the increase in the middle class, and it's eventual dissolvement into a proletariat TOO large to be overcome. We've already seen these cycles, we're on the peak of another one... the last one for the US was nicknamed the "booming 20s."

The dispersion of wealth, particulary in todays market is a myth kept floating through a single magical word, credit. In the 20s it was something called margin.

A single lifetime, quite possibly ours included, is not nearly enough to view history on the scale Marx talked about it. Bernstein cut Marx short by a few centuries, apparently you're willing to do the same. I suggest you read what Marx had to say again, and maybe this time, keep his scale in mind.


He also pointed out some of the flaws in Marx's labour theory of value, which many economists can point out too.

And they rightfully can. Much of Marx's scope and for that matter statistics for which he examined the labor theory of value was far shorter than that of which he viewed history with.

The big question is, however, does this change whether or not exploitation occurs? To that, I would hope you can willfully and knowingly answer that exploitation does occur.


He believed that socialism would be achieved through capitalism, not through capitalisms destruction (as rights were gradually won by workers, their cause for greivance would be diminished, and consequently, so too would the foundation of revolution).Evolutionary socialism. the question squared around what to do with revolution.

We've seen what happens to the gains of the workers. I've talked about this enough in other threads too. The problem is then of course that we don't want gains, we want it all. The compromises they're willing to give are necessities of their own, which Marx pointed out, and again Berstein seems to have overlooked. The need for more educated workers gives way to public schooling becoming "reasonable." Even then, it's from the pockets of the people in taxes. As technology replaces workers, and the population grows, it's no longer even necessary for 12 hour work days.... now, people work 12 hours because they NEED the money, and even if you have an 8 hour work day, it won't be nearly enough to survive on for most of the population.

Even these compromises only seen in the more advanced capitalist nations, third world markets still resemble early US capitalism, with little compromises. All over the US and Europe labor laws continue to diminish anyway -- and where there are limitations to what is proper (no child labor for example) we continue to see it overcome, even in those advanced nations.

Exactly what gains have the workers made?