Marx's most important conclusion....

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Well Marx's most important conclusion was that capitalism would inevitably collapse. He was wrong, but why?

[ComradeRed]

Why is he wrong? No offense, but you just seem to assert it then wonder why.

One error of reasoning to avoid: it hasn't happened before, therefore it will never happen! What nonsense!

Imagine such an argument presented by a feudal lord to a burgher: Capitalism has never existed anywhere, thus its impossible. Then BAM! Bubonic plague on his ass.

I am curious as to how you came to your conclusion, your logical proof and work, etc.

Just a note though, I have yet to see a criticism of Marx from anyone that has also understood Marx. Bohm-Bowerk, et al. really don't have a clue what they're talking about.

[Janus]

It's not that he's wrong, it's that we're not really sure if Marx will be correct on that. I hope that he is but he used dialectics rather than empirical evidence to justify it. That is where the problem arises from.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

He didn't exactly say, "Capitalism will inevitably collapse," but hints to it all over.

Marx saw capitalism as a system completely dominated by greed of capitalists. As he saw it, a society so dominated by greed it would be incapable of reforming its economic system to give workers a greater share of the goods and services they produce. So as a result of this exploited group, they would rise up and overthrow its masters all over. Pretty much hints the end of capitalism.

So why hasn't it collapsed? Well I think it is because many countries did certain things to protect workers and consumers. What do you think?

[Janus]

There's still room for capitalism to expand so it hasn't reached its demise yet. The capitalist nations enacted the social reforms in order to placate the working class and it worked to a degree. But reforms have pretty much run their course in the first world countries. Marx believed that the doom of capitalism would occur when all the markets have been saturated and there is no longer room for capitalism to exapand.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Janus,

I think your wrong in saying we are not really sure if he is right or not. I think we are sure. It's been a very long time since his writings. The "collapse" would have happened already.

I mean he wrote this at a time where there were terrible working and living conditions in Germany & most of Europe. Unlike today, in the mid-19th century there were few labor unions to organize workers and help them demand better wages and living conditions. Governments at that time were not yet involved in protecting workers from their employers. Today the exact opposite is happening.

[Zingu]

Someone needs to read some economics (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44841&hl=falling+tendancy)

[MysticArcher]

It's been a very long time since his writings. The "collapse" would have happened already.

It's been only 100 some odd years, in the span of history that's small.

And there has been instances where class struggle has come into the open - the Paris Commune, the Spanish anarchists and the Paris 1968 riots

And as has been pointed out - just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. A can of gas doesn't explode just sitting around, does that mean it's impossible for it to explode?


Governments at that time were not yet involved in protecting workers from their employers. Today the exact opposite is happening.

No today the same thing is coming back. In old capitalist countries the safety networks for workers are being dismantled, because cpaitalists can't afford them anymore.

Also ask yourself, what have unions done lately? What reforms have occured that aided the proletariat?

My answer is not much, reformism is failing in the advanced capitalisms.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Someone needs to read some economics

Nope, I think you need to read it, then form your own opinion.


It's been only 100 some odd years, in the span of history that's small.

Yeah like 100 years isn&#39;t a long time <_<


No today the same thing is coming back. In old capitalist countries the safety networks for workers are being dismantled, because cpaitalists can&#39;t afford them anymore.

Also ask yourself, what have unions done lately? What reforms have occured that aided the proletariat?

My answer is not much, reformism is failing in the advanced capitalisms.

What do you mean the same thing is coming back? Explain this. The same thing is not coming at all. We are not moving backwards.

What have unions done? :lol: What they always have done. Fight for better wages, and give benefits. My father&#39;s union is doing pretty good, it gives me medical insurance, a new pc, gave me a scholarship, pretty good if you ask me. Yes, unions are still doing that.

[KC]

Read this. (https://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45625)

[ComradeRed]

Yeah like 100 years isn&#39;t a long time <_< How long did feudalism last? From about 450 ACE to 1500 ACE, then it took 350 years to die out. Thus a grand total of 1400 years to die.

Do you think capitalism will magically dry up over night? Why?



What do you mean the same thing is coming back? Explain this. The same thing is not coming at all. We are not moving backwards. Have you been paying attention to what is going on in the U&#036;? Within the next three years all the reforms of Roosevelt will probably be dismantled.

But how does this affect the reformist status of France, Germany, et al.? Well, for one thing, those states are running out of money; how are you going to pay for it???

Just look at Japan, they will have some serious problems on their hands in the next 10 years or so. Same for the U&#036; and most of Europe.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by FULL METAL [email protected] 4 2006, 06:32 AM
He didn&#39;t exactly say, "Capitalism will inevitably collapse," but hints to it all over.

I think it is, "capitalism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction." Or something to that effect.

As everyone has sad it needn&#39;t have happened yet. Material conditions have changed from when Marx made predictions, therefore the predictions should not be taken as absolute. Marx commented that things should happen in England or Germany around the turn of the century. The power balance in Europe at that time would have rendered attempts futile. The first world war shortly followed (probably would have happened earlier if a revolution occured) and after this material conditions and conflict itself were changed forever.

Military acceleration, and the advent of the second world war meant that early/mid C20th was not the best time either. Marx&#39;s works don&#39;t really deal with the society from the 50&#39;s onwards. This is why Marx&#39;s works are constanly revised and renewed.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Feb 4 2006, 01:44 PM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Feb 4 2006, 01:44 PM)
FULL METAL [email protected] 4 2006, 06:32 AM
He didn&#39;t exactly say, "Capitalism will inevitably collapse," but hints to it all over.

I think it is, "capitalism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction." Or something to that effect.

As everyone has sad it needn&#39;t have happened yet. Material conditions have changed from when Marx made predictions, therefore the predictions should not be taken as absolute. Marx commented that things should happen in England or Germany around the turn of the century. The power balance in Europe at that time would have rendered attempts futile. The first world war shortly followed (probably would have happened earlier if a revolution occured) and after this material conditions and conflict itself were changed forever.

Military acceleration, and the advent of the second world war meant that early/mid C20th was not the best time either. Marx&#39;s works don&#39;t really deal with the society from the 50&#39;s onwards. This is why Marx&#39;s works are constanly revised and renewed. [/b]
Yeah totally agree with everyone you just said. It&#39;s just crazy how many people just take everything they read from Marx-Engels to heart. Like they don&#39;t make mistakes.

[anomaly]

No, FULL METAL JACKET, one simply cannot make a judgement on such a thing.

Marx said it was inevitable. This does not mean it would happen soon, but rather, simply, it will happen. You assert that he &#39;meant&#39; it would happen soon, but you present no evidence.

Also, ComradeRed is quite right when it comes to the current state of the most advanced capitalist states. Things are just beginning to &#39;get bad&#39;.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

No, FULL METAL JACKET, one simply cannot make a judgement on such a thing.

Yes you can.


Marx said it was inevitable. This does not mean it would happen soon, but rather, simply, it will happen. You assert that he &#39;meant&#39; it would happen soon, but you present no evidence.

It doesn&#39;t mean it would happen soon? Yes it does. At that present state when he wrote that, the conditions for workers where unbelieveable. If it kept on until today then of course it would of collapsed. But it didn&#39;t.


Also, ComradeRed is quite right when it comes to the current state of the most advanced capitalist states. Things are just beginning to &#39;get bad&#39;.

Things are getting "bad" in capitalism? What what exactly is getting bad? Everyone one of you say captialism in decline and things are getting "bad" but tell me how and why.

[leftist resistance]

Do you think capitalism will magically dry up over night?

I wish it would :D


Also, ComradeRed is quite right when it comes to the current state of the most advanced capitalist states. Things are just beginning to &#39;get bad&#39;.

I don&#39;t think so.I see the workers getting less interested in defending their rights and more to earning more income.a majority of the people i know don&#39;t really give a damn about anti-capitalism and/or social and political problems.i&#39;ll be called a commie and thats when i decide to shut up
if what was said in the qoute was true,i wouldn&#39;t be the only person in my country(i think i am) who is on the path of socialism

[KC]

Well Marx&#39;s most important conclusion was that capitalism would inevitably collapse. He was wrong, but why?

He wasn&#39;t wrong at all.


It&#39;s not that he&#39;s wrong, it&#39;s that we&#39;re not really sure if Marx will be correct on that. I hope that he is but he used dialectics rather than empirical evidence to justify it. That is where the problem arises from.

Check into Marxist economics. That&#39;s empirical evidence.



So why hasn&#39;t it collapsed? Well I think it is because many countries did certain things to protect workers and consumers. What do you think?

It is because capitalism hasn&#39;t developed to the point where it falls in on itself yet. Marx thought that the capitalist system would be rather short. In fact, he thought that the fall of capitalism was beginning in his lifetime. Of course, what was really happening was industrialization. So he wasn&#39;t wrong about the inevitable collapse of capitalism. He was just wrong about when this collapse would take place.


There&#39;s still room for capitalism to expand so it hasn&#39;t reached its demise yet.

Hardly, and room for expansion is diminishing very quickly.


The "collapse" would have happened already.


Of course it wouldn&#39;t have&#33;



I mean he wrote this at a time where there were terrible working and living conditions in Germany & most of Europe.

Yes; this was the cause of industrialization.


Unlike today, in the mid-19th century there were few labor unions to organize workers and help them demand better wages and living conditions. Governments at that time were not yet involved in protecting workers from their employers. Today the exact opposite is happening.


Yes, worker organization has gotten stronger, and because of this the standard of living has gotten much higher than it was during Marx&#39;s time. But this point is irrelevant as we will soon see all these protections granted to the worker be destroyed.



Nope, I think you need to read it, then form your own opinion.


I think you need to become educated on the subject, and present your ideas in a seperate thread as to what you disagree with Marx on in economics, so we can have a debate on that. Because it seems like you are very mislead about Marxist economics.



But how does this affect the reformist status of France, Germany, et al.? Well, for one thing, those states are running out of money; how are you going to pay for it???

As is the United States&#33;


It&#39;s just crazy how many people just take everything they read from Marx-Engels to heart.

I think you&#39;re too hung up on this to draw logical conclusions.


If it kept on until today then of course it would of collapsed. But it didn&#39;t.

Do you know why that is? Because the bourgeoisie saw this imminent collapse of the capitalist system and, since they could afford it (they were making huge profits back then), they enacted these reforms to save capitalism. Granted, they aren&#39;t as rich as they were, but they&#39;re still rich.




Things are getting "bad" in capitalism? What what exactly is getting bad? Everyone one of you say captialism in decline and things are getting "bad" but tell me how and why.

Well, for one it is becoming nearly impossible to retire. Also, companies are cutting employee benefits such as retirement and pension plans. The national debt of numerous countries is piling up at an alarming rate. Those are just a few examples.


I see the workers getting less interested in defending their rights and more to earning more income.a majority of the people i know don&#39;t really give a damn about anti-capitalism and/or social and political problems.

That&#39;s because the conditions haven&#39;t arisen for the workers to become politically involved. As long as the workers are comfortable, they won&#39;t care. But we can see from the past couple of years that this decline in standard of living will happen and it will be happening very soon.


if what was said in the qoute was true,i wouldn&#39;t be the only person in my country(i think i am) who is on the path of socialism

No. He said things are "just beginning" to get bad. That doesn&#39;t mean that conditions are bad enough yet, much less bad enough to warrant mobilization of the proletariat.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by FULL METAL [email protected] 4 2006, 04:23 PM


Nope, I think you need to read it, then form your own opinion.


What is that supposed to mean? I have read it, Marx&#39;s economic works is one of the very important points in understanding why capitalism is going to "fall on itself".

I linked to a pretty simple summary of that reason, and if you are just going to flat out reject it, I question your real reasons of why you are posting this topic in the first place.

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:50 PM

I think it is, "capitalism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction." Or something to that effect.

Marx commented that things should happen in England or Germany around the turn of the century. The power balance in Europe at that time would have rendered attempts futile. The first world war shortly followed (probably would have happened earlier if a revolution occured) and after this material conditions and conflict itself were changed forever.


In which of his works,does he say this sentence?

This conclusion comes out of historical materialism,or not?

[KC]

In which of his works,does he say this sentence?


Originally posted by Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

the rule of the bourgeois democrats, from the very first, will carry within it the seeds of its own destruction

I believe I have seen it elsewhere as well.



This conclusion comes out of historical materialism,or not?


It does. It was proven by Marx through his economics.

[Ligeia]

Hmm...I&#39;m not sure if people really care about the social services being cut down and even if they do ,there is not much resonance in a whole society to complain about or do something since most think that the ones in power will know what&#39;s good for economy,consequently for themselves and their heirs....so they&#39;ll do the sacrifice now for the future getting better through the persistent system and not a new one,well..that&#39;s only the ideological point of view.

I once read about marxist economy theory (a book from Ernest Mandel)but I can&#39;t remember that much about the contradictions in capitalist system..so don&#39;t blame me for that...better explain or I&#39;ll better read over it again :P

Furthermore the media(or all institutions,organisations able to influence)build up the scare for alternatives and made it that way that all forms of alternatives will end up like the soviet union and only show the bad sites of alternatives,even the social welfare system is denounced as something bad in times of globalisation(although social welfare system is capitalism,as well) and people believe the media for saying "the time has come for abolishing welfare but after this eceomoy gets better for all".And even if they see things get worse they better not try think for alternatives since "they won&#39;t work" and what is more important if they come you&#39;ll lose your liberties...the idea of democracy and liberty as something persitent today is deeply indoctrinated to the majority ,most could&#39;nt imagine how society could get more democratic or free.......

Anyway,this only may be the point of view of more wealthier countries....time will tell...

[viva le revolution]

Marx developed the thesis that capitalism would inevitably fall, like any other social system before because of it;s inherent contradictions. Lenin developed this thesis furthur by introducing the concept of imperialism as a hyperactive stage of capitalism. In he &#39;founations of leninism&#39; by J.V Stalin, the three principal contradictions of imperialism are pointed out:
1) The contradiction between labour and capital.
2) The contradiction between the financial groups and imperialists themselves.
3) The contradictions between imperialist nations and dependant nations.


1). THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN LABOUR AND CAPITAL.
This is the essential principal behind class struggle. This struggle has manifested itself countless times in the course of history From open class warfare, ie. the paris commune, spain, russia, china, cuba, vietnam, korea, etc. etc., to domestic expressions of the incompatibility between the two, such as strikes, trade union movements, protests etc. etc.

2). THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE IMPERIALISTS THEMSELVES
Through the competition between the imperialists themselves over raw materials, territory and cheap sources of labour, the competing parties are mutually weakened, thus bringing the proletarian victory closer. an analogy could be drawn to the competition between the financial powers in the U.S and the E.U, or the competition between the U.S and China, or China and India. This quest to redivide an already divided world will inevitably lead to conflict between the imperialists. Thus weakening them and bringing the proletarian revolution closer.

3). THE CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE DEVELOPED AND DEPENDANT NATIONS.
The world is divided between a handful of rich nations and the vast majority of the peoples of the world falling into the secind category of the colonial and dependant peoples. In an effort to extract super-profits, the imperialists are forced to invest in undeveloped nations to facilitate the extraction of raw materials and products, such as factories and mines etc. etc. This leads to the emergence of a class of proletarians, a native intelligentsia, and in movements of national liberation. Thus the capitalists facilitate their own downfall. This is evident in the growing wave of anti-americanism the world over, from Latin america, to Asia, to Africa.

Therefore a conclusion can be drawn that the age of imperialism is not yet at an end, all of these contradictions still exist and are played out before our very eyes, be it in the form armed struggles by communists, or anti-globalization protests in seattle, all these are expressions of the contradictions within imperialism, expressions of the growing dissatisfaction with the world order of neo-liberalism and imperialism. Therefore, the fall of imperialism is inevitable.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

What is that supposed to mean?

What do you think it means? I asked you for your opinion, not a link to a reading.


I question your real reasons of why you are posting this topic in the first place.

Am asking you guys for your opinions. For christ sake look at my I said:


So why hasn&#39;t it collapsed? Well I think it is because many countries did certain things to protect workers and consumers. What do you think?

Am asking your opinion&#33; Am not trying to undermine anyone or be a smart ass, I don&#39;t go to bed at night feeling fulfilled because I pissed a fellow comrade off.

[Morpheus]

"The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution." - The Communist Manifesto (emphasis added)

It&#39;s pretty clear Marx thought proletarian revolution would happen soon, if not within his lifetime then at least within a few decades after his death. That didn&#39;t happen, so his predictions were false.

Claiming "it hasn&#39;t but it will inevitably happen some day" is not a scientific statement. In science, a hypothesis has to make predictions which are falsifiable and can be tested. For example, intelligent design doesn&#39;t make those kind of predictions. If any kind of test was done on it and it came back negative, the ID&#39;ers can just claim god was using his superpowers to cover it up. Thus it&#39;s not scientific. The same is true of this Marxist escape clause. When the prediction of inevitable revolution doesn&#39;t happen, the time frame just gets moved farther into the future ad infinitum. If capitalism is still around in a million years there will probably be Marxists saying that the revolution is still inevitable, but it just hasn&#39;t happened yet. Thus, it can&#39;t actually be tested and so isn&#39;t scientific.

[ComradeRed]

Claiming "it hasn&#39;t but it will inevitably happen some day" is not a scientific statement. In science, a hypothesis has to make predictions which are falsifiable and can be tested. No, but in thermodynamics it is "inevitable" that the system will become increasingly in disorder. We can make this hypothesis based on the empirical observations that in a closed system, the entropy must always go up.

Consider a box that is somehow a perfectly closed system in a perfect vacuum (that is, in absolute zero). Now, if we add every minute 10 joules of energy, the entropy is 1-(10/10*numberOfMinutesPassed).

The hypothesis is remarkably similiar to the Marxist "unscientific statement". If we observe class society over the past years, there is a remarkable trend for classes to go through various stages (being from primitive classlessness, to proto-class, to despotism, to minidespots, to a hypothetical advanced equality -- communism&#33;).

How and what form they take are not, of course, immalleable. The USSR was a capitalist dictatorship, but it didn&#39;t resemble the capitalism in England or Germany&#33; It still remained as certain as the increasing entropy of a closed system that capitalism follows feudalism&#33;

This is not an isolated incident, either. This phenomenon has occurred throughout recorded human history. This, I think, is "enough" evidence to support the hypothesis. As much at least as there is for thermodynamics&#33;

[anomaly]

The communist manifesto was, however, more of a rallying cry than anything else. Is it possible he just exaggerated things here? I ask this because, judging by his ideas on historical materialism, Marx could not have seriously expected communism within his lifetime. Perhaps here Marx was referring to his famous &#39;10 points&#39; of the communist manifesto, in which he lays out "measures" as a means of "revolutionizing the mode of production." These 10 points resemble quite closely those nations we recognize as &#39;social democracies&#39; today, and this seemed to be a &#39;first step&#39; for Marx on the long road to communism.

It should also be noted that Marx was probably wrong on just how long any &#39;bourgeois revolution&#39; in Germany would take. It can be argued that this &#39;revolution&#39; was just ending at the time Marx died.

Also, I think it is quite obvious that Marx&#39;s theories cannot be &#39;tested&#39; as can other scientific hypotheses, but rather his theories were based upon an interpretation of history, and noticing trends therein. Basically, one&#39;s opinion on whether communism is inevitable is completely dependent upon whether one thinks HM is correct or not.

Therefore, if communism is not inevitable, those who claim this must present an alternative to HM, or atleast point out its flaws.

[KC]

It&#39;s pretty clear Marx thought proletarian revolution would happen soon, if not within his lifetime then at least within a few decades after his death. That didn&#39;t happen, so his predictions were false.

No. It is clear that he based his ideas off of the development of capitalism and historical materialism. However, he failed to realize the extent to which capitalism could develop. So his prediction that capitalism will inevitably fail according to his economics was right, but his specific prediction of an imminent proletarian revolution was wrong.

[Ice]

Marx was right about the collapse of capitalism and he was also clear that only a violent revolution could over throw the capitalist system completely.

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:05 PM
Marx was right about the collapse of capitalism and he was also clear that only a violent revolution could over throw the capitalist system completely.
Hmmm.....I thought first of all there has to be a basis of people supporting the overthrow and they have to be organized and this basis is the problem,afterwards or while the process of revolution is going on,there still has to be a basis which has to be kept straight for a while.

Nevertheless,ideas and thoughts will change if the economic system changes,at least there will be a mixture of old and new thoughts and lifestyle,you can&#39;t radically change people&#39;s minds,they will try to resist and the basis will disappear....so violently,very likely,but on the other hand you can&#39;t forget the consent of the masses.

[Ice]

During times of crisis people will automatically go for a revolution and all we have to do is just teach people about the socialist alternative. According to me the revolution should be led by poor countries first because, once countries like Bolivia manage to come out of the U.S suppression automatically countries like America, Britain and other rich countries will undergo heavy losses and automatically people in those developed countries will be forced to go for a change. So the first thing now should be stop the rich countries from exploiting the poor countries, which can be done only through a socialist government with a correct political line and then we can force the developed countries to overthrow capitalism and I also want the revolution to be a pure workers revolution participated by all sections of working people.

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:38 PM
During times of crisis people will automatically go for a revolution and all we have to do is just teach people about the socialist alternative. According to me the revolution should be led by poor countries first because, once countries like Bolivia manage to come out of the U.S suppression automatically countries like America, Britain and other rich countries will undergo heavy losses and automatically people in those developed countries will be forced to go for a change. So the first thing now should be stop the rich countries from exploiting the poor countries, which can be done only through a socialist government with a correct political line and then we can force the developed countries to overthrow capitalism and I also want the revolution to be a pure workers revolution participated by all sections of working people.
I wish it was that easy,but at least in industrialised countries ,a crisis can happen whenever it want but the civil society and the political society will stand behind the state,behind the dominating ones and the majority will follow this course,and their menatlity about a world without alternative is deeply indcotrinated in them ,you wont talk most of them over.Of course during the crisis the ears are more perceptive but how can you fight against the mass media(as an instrument of manipulation)?,there you have to establish the opposition but there is no material for in our hands...it&#39;s really difficult,we have to look at the interest and the comune minds of the majority and study it and look further...well...or something in the way ;)

Of yourse,developing countries are more likely to such events and as colonial politics begin to vanish because there won&#39;t be another way for them the compulsion in industrialised countries should become unveiled but there is a long way to go...and Im pretty sure that people in industrialised countries are more keen to reformism,pacifism,syndicalism and such....than revolution.

[Ligeia]

sorry

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:06 AM
No, but in thermodynamics it is "inevitable" that the system will become increasingly in disorder. We can make this hypothesis based on the empirical observations that in a closed system, the entropy must always go up.
Except there are no empirical observations supporting the notion that capitalist societies inevitably transition into socialism/communism It has not happened. Marx predicted it would happen relatively soon. That prediction was tested and falsified (unless you consider the USSR socialist), so Marx&#39;s theory is either wrong or at least requires serious modification. Changing the theory so that the "inevitablity" of socialism is put of ad infinitum makes the theory unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. There are no falsifiable tests that can be done to test this version of Marxism, so it&#39;s unscientific. In your thermodynamics example, youv&#39;e got an equation and we can carry out experiements to test your equation and see how accurate it is. It has falsifiable tests. The inevitable fall of capitalism, or at least the version being promoted here, doesn&#39;t.


The hypothesis is remarkably similiar to the Marxist "unscientific statement". If we observe class society over the past years, there is a remarkable trend for classes to go through various stages (being from primitive classlessness, to proto-class, to despotism, to minidespots, to a hypothetical advanced equality -- communism&#33;).

Except that the Marxist claim can&#39;t be tested, while thermodynamics can. In addition, actual societies often don&#39;t correspond to your evolutionary scheme. There are many cases of societies that don&#39;t fit into your your little schema (like Thai Saktina or Confuscian China) as well as many societies that don&#39;t follow the path you lay out (like the collapse of ancient civilizations leading to a return to classless or proto-class society). Both the Marxist and bourgeois versions of history are based on the &#39;progress&#39; version of history, and that version requires ignoring a lot of historical facts.


The USSR was a capitalist dictatorship, but it didn&#39;t resemble the capitalism in England or Germany&#33;

That&#39;s another reason why Marxism is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific. Hypothetically, the fall of capitalism could be followed by a new kind of class society or by a return to an older version of class society. Yet, if that happened Marxists would refuse to admit it and instead claim that this transition was just a new phase of capitalism and not "true Marxism" much as is done with the USSR. It&#39;s therefore unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

[anomaly]

Morpheus, I think ComradeRed is explaining how this hypothesis (of Marxism being true) can be tested, that is by looking at trends in history. Historical materialism is the principle upon which Marx&#39;s theories of the inevitability of communism rest. Historical materialism certainly can be tested, however difficult this may be. HM is, therefore, a scientific theory. It only follows that the inevitability of communism is scientific so long as one accepts that HM is true. So, let me reiterate: if you claim that Marxism is not scientific, the burden is upon you to present an alternative to HM. If you cannot do this, you have no premise.

If you suggest that a class society can follow the downfall of capitalism, you completely ignore HM. Theoretically, this cannot happen. And the Soviet Union did not evolve from a capitalist society, but rather it was a capitalist society (the USSR that is) which evolved from a feudal one, just as HM predicts.

Again, you apparently find HM unconvincing and, utlimately, untrue, so you must present an alternative, or atleast show the shortcomings of HM.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 02:20 AM
Morpheus, I think ComradeRed is explaining how this hypothesis (of Marxism being true) can be tested, that is by looking at trends in history.
Looking at historical and contemporary trends is what Marx did, and he predicted that capitalism would inevitably fall relatively soon (within a century). That didn&#39;t happen. If your&#39;e being scientific then that&#39;s a major blow against your theory. But instead Marxists invent various excuses to get around the failures of historical materialism. As I explained before, these excuses make Historical Materialism unfalsifiable and thus unscientific. Historical trends themselves can&#39;t be the content of falsifiable tests because they&#39;re historical, they&#39;ve already happened. In order to be scientific a theory must make falsifiable predictions about a test, and since we already know history it&#39;s hardly making a prediction.

What kind of test can be carried out on Marxism or historical materialism which, if it didn&#39;t have a certain result, would prove Marxism/hm wrong? There isn&#39;t any result that would prove it wrong - that&#39;s why it&#39;s unscientific. Marxists will make up excuses for any result that doesn&#39;t correspond with their theory. Capitalism hasn&#39;t inevitably fallen? "Well, it will some day in the future." If a thousand or a million years passes and it still hasn&#39;t happened we&#39;ll be hearing the same excuse ad infinitum forever. A society jumps from feudalism to socialism? We&#39;ll hear excuses about how that society is "really" capitalist. Implementing Marxist politicals doesn&#39;t have the results Marxists predicted? Well, see the last excuse.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Morpheus

Except there are no empirical observations supporting the notion that capitalist societies inevitably transition into socialism/communism It has not happened. Marx predicted it would happen relatively soon. That prediction was tested and falsified (unless you consider the USSR socialist), so Marx&#39;s theory is either wrong or at least requires serious modification. Changing the theory so that the "inevitablity" of socialism is put of ad infinitum makes the theory unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. There are no falsifiable tests that can be done to test this version of Marxism, so it&#39;s unscientific. In your thermodynamics example, youv&#39;e got an equation and we can carry out experiements to test your equation and see how accurate it is. It has falsifiable tests. The inevitable fall of capitalism, or at least the version being promoted here, doesn&#39;t. The problem is that thermodynamic potentials which are scientific "fact" (that is, propositions that have not been falsified and whose predictions have been confirmed experimentally) are not empirical in any sense of the word&#33;

Does that mean we have to reject thermodynamics altogether? No&#33;

Instead what we do is we derive potentials based on certain observations. That is the "essence" of thermodynamics.

Historical materialism, on the other hand, does not deal with any such thing. Instead, it relies on cold, hard empiricism.

There are observations made about the progression of class society and based on this the equivalent of a potential is formed: the Marxist hypothesis.

Is it thus an &#39;unscientific theory&#39;? Well, I refer to Hawking on the definition of scientific theory: "it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified." He added in a brief history of time that it should also encompass a large body of observation under the explanation.

Historical materialism does all of these things&#33; I&#39;m sorry, but in my book by Hawking&#39;s definition of a theory, Historical materialism is a scientific theory.

It is tested against observation (history), makes definite predictions (evolution of class society), and it is possibly falsified.

But is it "falsified"? In the sense that by identifiying the relationship of humans to the means of production and labor, yes it is falsifiable.

It is still true people need to sell their labor power to live in any society today with the possible exceptions of Cuba, and a few other places. It has not been falsified yet&#33;


That&#39;s another reason why Marxism is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific. Hypothetically, the fall of capitalism could be followed by a new kind of class society or by a return to an older version of class society. If this were to occur, that would mean there would be new and unique relations between humans, labor, and the means of production.

However, seeing as this is unsubstantiable, this is an unwarranted speculation. Although it may be feasible, observing history would deem it unlikely.



Looking at historical and contemporary trends is what Marx did, and he predicted that capitalism would inevitably fall relatively soon (within a century). I&#39;m sorry, but where did Marx exactly predict his "dooms day"? He stated that capitalism sows the seeds of its own demise, that doesn&#39;t mean "Hey, 27 January 1876 there&#39;s a revolution -- be there or be reactionary&#33;"


What kind of test can be carried out on Marxism or historical materialism which, if it didn&#39;t have a certain result, would prove Marxism/hm wrong? By empirically observing the relations between humans, labor, and the means of production changing&#33; If we notice that people are getting paid differently, by doing different jobs, with different exploitation, etc. That would signify something&#33;

On the other hand if there is changes in the "superstructure", that would also signify something. Yet another way for hm to be falsified.

[Ice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:21 PM
I wish it was that easy.
What I am trying to say is, for a revolution to be successful it is important that there is a need for a revolution and the poor countries are more in need of a socialist revolution than the rich countries.

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:47 PM

What I am trying to say is, for a revolution to be successful it is important that there is a need for a revolution and the poor countries are more in need of a socialist revolution than the rich countries.
Well,that&#39;s true,economic factors always are some kind of important and the ones in the poor countries are better for revolutionary thoughts than in richer countries and there&#39;s more need for it.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by FULL METAL [email protected] 4 2006, 07:17 AM
Well Marx&#39;s most important conclusion was that capitalism would inevitably collapse. He was wrong, but why?
Excuse me, but what&#33;? History is change, all that is solid melts into air&#33;
Nothing lasts for ever; the only thing that is permanent is that nothing is permanent.

Capitalism is not the end of history, capitalism is not an unique exception in history.
Capitalism will fade away, as all societys before and all societies after. It is just a matter of time, it always is.



And really, that was more an axiom of Marx&#39; than a conclusion.