Is communism falsifiable?

[Publius]

This is, I guess, the question I've had regarding communism for quite some time, I just never have been able to properly describe it.

What aspects of communism are falsifiable/quantifiable? What aren't?

Does the LTV make testable hypotheses?

I think one good one is Marx's prediction that capitalism would work to only immiserate the working class (because indeed if you take something from someone, you necessarily make them poorer from it). The problem of course is, capitalism did just the opposite. Now communists have, as I understand it, stepped around this problem by saying capitalism was only able to increase living standards in one area by reducing them in another ("hyper-exploitation" or "super exploitation" or some other bit of neo-Marxist cant), but this too seems to be false. Even the claim that wages have 'stagnated' is only half right. Direct wages have, but overall compensation has not (look what's paid out for health care or what's paid into 401ks or what have you), but even excepting that they have stagnated, that still does not account for the working class becoming immiserated.

So to cut myself off before I stray too far off topic, what testable predictions has Marxism made that have been upheld? It seems to me that Marxists are almost completely in the dark about what actually happens ("Who'd of thunk the revolutions would turn sour!?" *upturned hands* or "Oh, about that whole "immiseration" thing...it turns out we left out numerous key variables that completely change the entire argument..."). I mean, look at the increasing prevalence of Radical Islam and Christianity. Does Marxism predict this? If not, what does it predict? Fantasies, it seems like to me, certainly not things that are occuring in the real world.

Basically, what good is Marxism?

[ComradeRed]

I think I see where you are trying to go with this (you're trying to pull a Popper and attempt to "prove" that Marxism isn't a science).

Well, there's a serious problem in your approach (chiefly that a science is not defined by making predictions; it's defined by it's explanations and how accurately they reflect reality). Here's a good counter-example to Popperian falsfication: evolution. What does it predict? Well, it doesn't really work that way.


What aspects of communism are falsifiable/quantifiable? What aren't? This is kind of an ambiguous question, since a great deal of Marxist theory (all of it I would argue) is translate-able into mathematical equations and formulae; but the math is not in itself "quantifiable".

This may present itself as somewhat paradoxical if you are unfamiliar with things like abstract algebra or category theory and its applications (viz. in physics). The latter is considered as "the math of math without axioms" which is somewhat "deep" if you think of it as the foundations for the house while being part of the house, all most circular; but as it appears from just that description, it is very qualitative and not quantitative.

A great deal of sheaves and presheaves are actually applicable to historical materialism; does that make it "quantifiable"?


Does the LTV make testable hypotheses? Does the STV?

[KC]

I think one good one is Marx's prediction that capitalism would work to only immiserate the working class

The concept of the increasing immiseration of the working class as a product of the development of capitalism isn't a Marxist concept, and was shown as such by Ernest Mandel in his introduction to Capital:


How, then, has it been possible for so many writers, for so long, to have attributed to Marx a 'theory of absolute impoverishment of the workers under capitalism' which obviously implied a theory of tendential fall in the value not only of labour-power but even of real wages? In the first place because Marx, in his youthful writings, did in fact hold such a theory - for example, in the Communist Manifesto. But this was formulated before he had brought his theoretical understanding of the capitalist mode of production to its final, mature conclusion. It is only in the years 1857-8 that we have the birth of Marx's economic theory in its rounded, consistent form. After he had written A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and the Grundrisse, there was no longer a trace of any such historical trend towards absolute impoverishment in his economic analysis.

In the second place, because so many writers confuse Marx's treatment of the value of labour-power (which depends on the value of the consumer goods the worker buys with his wages) with the category of real wags (determined by the mass of consumer goods his wages buy). Under capitalism, given the constant increase in the productivity of labour, these categories can move in opposite directions.

In the third place, because two famous passages in Capital Volume 1 have been consistently misinterpreted. In both these passages Marx does speak about 'increasing misery' and pauperism and about 'accumulation of misery'. But the context indicates clearly that what he is referring to is the poverty and misery of the 'surplus population', of the 'Lazarus layer of the working class', that is, of the unemployed or semi-employed poor. Revealing studies on poverty in rich countries like the United States and Great Britain have strikingly confirmed that the misery of these old-age pensioners, unemployed, sick, homeless, degraded or irregularly working lower layers of the proletariat is indeed a permanent feature of capitalism, including the capitalism of the 'welfare state'. The truth is simply that in passages such as these Marx uses formulations that are ambiguous and so lend weight to confusion on the question.

Does this mean that Marx did not formulate any theory of impoverishment of the working class, or that he made optimistic predictions about the general trend of working-class conditions under capitalism? This would of course be a complete paradox, in the light of what he wrote in Chapter 25 of Capital Volume 1. The point to be made is simply that this chapter - like all of Marx's mature writings on this subject - is not concerned with movements of real wages at all, any more than the chapters on value are about movements of market prices of commodities other than the commodity labour-power. This is clearly indicated in the very passage in question by Marx's statement that as capital accumulates the situation of workers becomes worse irrespective of whether their wages are high or low.

What we in fact have here is a theory of a tendency towards relative impoverishment of the working class under capitalism in a double sense. Firstly, in the sense that productive workers tend to get a smaller part of the new value they produce: in other words there is a trend towards an increase in the rate of surplus-value. Secondly, in the sense that even when wages rise the needs of the workers as human beings are denied. This applies even to their additional consumer needs that grow out of the very increase in the productivity of labour which results from the accumulation of capital. One has only to think of the unfulfilled needs of owrkers in the fields of education, health, skill acquisition and differentiation, leisure, culture, housing, even in the richest capitalist countries of today, to see how this assumption remains accurate in spite of the so-called 'consumer society'. But it applies much more to the needs of the worker as a producer and a citizen - his need to develop a full personality, to become a rich and creative human being, etc.; these needs are brutally crushed by the tyranny of meaningless, mechanical, parcellized work, alienation of productive capacities and alienation of real human wealth.

In addition to this law of general relative impoverishment of workers under capitalism, Marx also notes a trend towards periodic absolute impoverishment, essentially in function of the movement of unemployment. This is closely linked to the inevitability of cyclical fluctuations under capitalism, that is the inevitability of periodic crises of overproduction, or 'recessions' as they are called today with less provocative connotations.

So it seems the very foundation of your assertion that Marx developed a theory about the "increasing immiseration of the working class" - i.e. the increase of absolute poverty - was wrong and therefore the rest of your post is irrelevant.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 05:32 pm
This is, I guess, the question I've had regarding communism for quite some time, I just never have been able to properly describe it.

What aspects of communism are falsifiable/quantifiable? What aren't?
Lemme point out that Popper's definition didn't exist at the time that Engels coined the term "scientific socialism". So obviously he wasn't claiming that communist theory met that definition.

That definition, IMO, has its merits - prediction is one important test of how good an explanation is - but can't be applied rigidly.

I wouldn't claim Marxism is scientific in the same sense as the physical and biological sciences. I don't think any major Marxist writer ever claimed it was.

It does have some features in common with those sciences, beginning with materialism and a systematic attempt to understand reality (primarily human society.) Marxism attempts to understand the already existing laws and tendencies of social development, not just proclaim how things should be. That's apparently what Engels was referring to with "scientific socialism."

("To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and this the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism." source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm))

Engels is sometimes accused of trying to turn Marxism into an all-encompassing philosophical system with answers to everything in the universe. But in reality Engels specifically denied that any such thing was possible or desirable, in the course of his polemic against Duhring who did attempt to create such a system of socialism.

("In both aspects, modern materialism is essentially dialectic, and no longer requires the assistance of that sort of philosophy which, queen-like, pretended to rule the remaining mob of sciences. As soon as each special science is bound to make clear its position in the great totality of things and of our knowledge of things, a special science dealing with this totality is superfluous or unnecessary. That which still survives of all earlier philosophy is the science of thought and its law — formal logic and dialectics. Everything else is subsumed in the positive science of Nature and history."source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch02.htm) Note also the broad use of "science" here, to include philosophy not only as a science but as formerly the queen of the sciences.)

I would say that Marxism is, by any definition, at least as scientific as any bourgeois "social science". Economics is the most quantifiable of those - and it has a rotten record of prediction. None of them can attempt to understand the development of society - because they are all busy pretending that development has come to an end, that capitalism is eternal.

You might see some of Comrade Red's posts criticizing marginal economics for an idea of just how unscientific bourgeois economics is.

Oh, and when you criticize Marx's predictions you should have some idea what they are. As Zampano's pointed out, you don't.

[Publius]

I think I see where you are trying to go with this (you're trying to pull a Popper and attempt to "prove" that Marxism isn't a science).

I'm just sort of interested in what would or could prove Marxism wrong to Marxists and what could prove Marxism to me.

Without some actual "something" to go over and prove, how can either side know it's right or wrong?



Well, there's a serious problem in your approach (chiefly that a science is not defined by making predictions; it's defined by it's explanations and how accurately they reflect reality). Here's a good counter-example to Popperian falsfication: evolution. What does it predict? Well, it doesn't really work that way.


Evolution doesn't predict things, but using evolutionary processes we can predict things.

"Marxism" may not predict things, but Marxist theory should be able to predict things. Now I can think of one thing that would validate Marxism: a worldwide proleterian revolution. But I don't think that's in the works just yet. So what predictions can you make using Marxism now that I can check out?


This is kind of an ambiguous question, since a great deal of Marxist theory (all of it I would argue) is translate-able into mathematical equations and formulae; but the math is not in itself "quantifiable".

This may present itself as somewhat paradoxical if you are unfamiliar with things like abstract algebra or category theory and its applications (viz. in physics). The latter is considered as "the math of math without axioms" which is somewhat "deep" if you think of it as the foundations for the house while being part of the house, all most circular; but as it appears from just that description, it is very qualitative and not quantitative.

I'm certainly ignorant of math, but a "math without axioms" does seem very strange to me. I'd say I'm out of out of my league though.




Does the STV?

No. But I would argue that they are slightly different, at least in this context, because in Marxism, the LTV is part of the overall idea that a worldwide proleterian revolution is coming, whereas under capitalism, no such overarching prediction is made. But yes, I see your point.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Zampanò@November 30, 2006 05:31 am







The concept of the increasing immiseration of the working class as a product of the development of capitalism isn't a Marxist concept, and was shown as such by Ernest Mandel in his introduction to Capital:

In order to extract a profit, capitalists must exploit; in order to extract a greater profit, capitalists must exploit more, therefore, it follows necessarily that in order to increase profits, the portion of value taken from labor has to increase, thus, the value given to labor has to decrease in some meaningful way.

If the devlopment of capitalism does not cause increased immiseration of the working class, then it will continue to enrich the working class (or at least not make them any poorer or any richer, which would be an impossible balancing act). So, left to run its course, capitalism would make every worker very wealthy, correct?

Now an attempt is made to get around this by saying the difficulty is foisted upon the non-workers. This fails for a few reasons. One, if the worker is not becoming immiserated but is instead increasing his take, he is allowed to spend more in dependents, improving their lot as well.



value of labour-power (which depends on the value of the consumer goods the worker buys with his wages)

Alright, value of labor power is based on the value of the goods one can purchase. Value.


with the category of real wags (determined by the mass of consumer goods his wages buy).

Alright, real wage is determined by the mass of goods one can purchase. Amount.


Under capitalism, given the constant increase in the productivity of labour, these categories can move in opposite directions.

Alright, so since work is continually more productive, the value of what a person can purchase and the amount of what a person can purchase can move in opposite directions.

So this is saying that because of increased productivity, there is no necessary tie between the "value" of labor and the amount of goods one is able to buy.

Is that not what is being stated? If so, I don't know what this actually is supposed to tell me.

Why am I not able to parse this better?


But the context indicates clearly that what he is referring to is the poverty and misery of the 'surplus population', of the 'Lazarus layer of the working class', that is, of the unemployed or semi-employed poor.

Well, that's convenient. Obviously the people who don't get paid or get paid very little will be poor.


Revealing studies on poverty in rich countries like the United States and Great Britain have strikingly confirmed that the misery of these old-age pensioners, unemployed, sick, homeless, degraded or irregularly working lower layers of the proletariat is indeed a permanent feature of capitalism, including the capitalism of the 'welfare state'.

I actually agree with this. But I don't see how it does anything to disprove what is being said earlier.


The truth is simply that in passages such as these Marx uses formulations that are ambiguous and so lend weight to confusion on the question.

Really? No shit.


Does this mean that Marx did not formulate any theory of impoverishment of the working class, or that he made optimistic predictions about the general trend of working-class conditions under capitalism? This would of course be a complete paradox, in the light of what he wrote in Chapter 25 of Capital Volume 1. The point to be made is simply that this chapter - like all of Marx's mature writings on this subject - is not concerned with movements of real wages at all, any more than the chapters on value are about movements of market prices of commodities other than the commodity labour-power. This is clearly indicated in the very passage in question by Marx's statement that as capital accumulates the situation of workers becomes worse irrespective of whether their wages are high or low.


Which of course divorces Marxism from any real-world, consequentialist value. Marx is unconcerned over the actual value of labor, over how people really live, and is concerned only with theoretical or abstract "exploitation." This hardly does anything to allay my concern that Marxism is entirely a pie-in-the-sky theoretical circle-jerk. In fact, it all but confirms it. If one is unconcerned about the real values of real things, one is unconcerned about real things, about real people, and thus real value. What then, is the point of it all?



What we in fact have here is a theory of a tendency towards relative impoverishment of the working class under capitalism in a double sense. Firstly, in the sense that productive workers tend to get a smaller part of the new value they produce: in other words there is a trend towards an increase in the rate of surplus-value.

Maybe.


Secondly, in the sense that even when wages rise the needs of the workers as human beings are denied. This applies even to their additional consumer needs that grow out of the very increase in the productivity of labour which results from the accumulation of capital. One has only to think of the unfulfilled needs of owrkers in the fields of education, health, skill acquisition and differentiation, leisure, culture, housing, even in the richest capitalist countries of today, to see how this assumption remains accurate in spite of the so-called 'consumer society'.

So to summarize, because everyone does not have everything they desire, capitalism sucks.


But it applies much more to the needs of the worker as a producer and a citizen - his need to develop a full personality, to become a rich and creative human being, etc.; these needs are brutally crushed by the tyranny of meaningless, mechanical, parcellized work, alienation of productive capacities and alienation of real human wealth.

Marxism on it's philosophical bent. I guess capitalism gets in the way self-actualization is the point here. Again, maybe. At any rate I don't see how you can get around "the tyranny of meaningless...work". Work is necessary, and there is no 'meaning'. Get used to it. "Alienation" I'm sure hammer makers really miss their hammers. Do they have an existential longing for them? Are they crushed by the mechanized tyranny of having their labor sold in a hardware store? No.


In addition to this law of general relative impoverishment of workers under capitalism, Marx also notes a trend towards periodic absolute impoverishment, essentially in function of the movement of unemployment. This is closely linked to the inevitability of cyclical fluctuations under capitalism, that is the inevitability of periodic crises of overproduction, or 'recessions' as they are called today with less provocative connotations.



So it seems the very foundation of your assertion that Marx developed a theory about the "increasing immiseration of the working class" - i.e. the increase of absolute poverty - was wrong and therefore the rest of your post is irrelevant.

No, the rest of my post was actually the part of real value, the "immiseration" thing was just an example. Perhaps an ill-used one, but nevertheless, it's not my main point, or my main question, which is: what would it take to prove communism wrong?

Sorry I've danced around that a lot. I just type as I think, I don't really formulate sequential arguments or anything of the like.

[Publius]

Lemme point out that Popper's definition didn't exist at the time that Engels coined the term "scientific socialism". So obviously he wasn't claiming that communist theory met that definition.

I'm only vaguely aware of Popper and, in fact, he wasn't in my thoughts at all in when I formulated this, though upon recollection, I do remember Popper's main work was the philosophy of science and he did work in falsifiability.



That definition, IMO, has its merits - prediction is one important test of how good an explanation is - but can't be applied rigidly.

But what would or could prove Marxism incorrect?



I wouldn't claim Marxism is scientific in the same sense as the physical and biological sciences. I don't think any major Marxist writer ever claimed it was.

I'm not implying that it is. And it isn't.



It does have some features in common with those sciences, beginning with materialism and a systematic attempt to understand reality (primarily human society.) Marxism attempts to understand the already existing laws and tendencies of social development, not just proclaim how things should be. That's apparently what Engels was referring to with "scientific socialism."

I think that's Marxism main flaw: it's too much "how it should be."

I can agree entirely that the working class is exploited under capitalism, to some degree depending on how one defines exploitation. But I'm not a Marxist or even necessarily a leftist. Does that make me a leftist? I don't know.



("In both aspects, modern materialism is essentially dialectic,

Is it now.



I would say that Marxism is, by any definition, at least as scientific as any bourgeois "social science". Economics is the most quantifiable of those - and it has a rotten record of prediction. None of them can attempt to understand the development of society - because they are all busy pretending that development has come to an end, that capitalism is eternal.

See, that, I think, is Marxism's flaw: it wishes to call social science bunk because it doesn't agree with it's radical ideas on history. If we're all products of capitalism, no social science can be reliable. I tie this in with communism being, essentially, against "human nature", broadly defined, which is no doubt true. Marxists are often supporters of tabula rasa and Marxists, almost without fail, respond that current studies and data on human behavior is invalid because of capitalism. I think this is total bullshit and is a total cop-out and is radically unscientific.

Economic games demonstrate people are greedy, in some situations. This is science. This isn't something one can will away by saying "they were only taught to be greedy." That isn't science. But that is Marxism. But here I am, off on another rant.



You might see some of Comrade Red's posts criticizing marginal economics for an idea of just how unscientific bourgeois economics is.

I have.



Oh, and when you criticize Marx's predictions you should have some idea what they are. As Zampano's pointed out, you don't.

I do.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 05:37 pm
I'm only vaguely aware of Popper and, in fact, he wasn't in my thoughts at all in when I formulated this, though upon recollection, I do remember Popper's main work was the philosophy of science and he did work in falsifiability.
Right; Popper came up with falsifiability as a criterion. It's his idea whether or not you know where it came from.

As I said, I'll agree the definition is somewhat useful. When a more fully scientific understanding of human society is developed, it'll be able to make more testable, falsifiable predictions. That hasn't happened; partly because human society is just a more complex field of study (just as organic chemistry more complex than inorganic, and biology is more complex than physics.) Partly because of there are class interests in the findings of social sciences.

And there isn't the factor that protects the physical and biological sciences, that the functioning of production depends on their truthfulness. See Orwell on how any system has to accept 2+2=4 at least for purposes of aiming artillery; i.e. where ideas contact the unforgiving physical world.



Oh, and when you criticize Marx's predictions you should have some idea what they are. As Zampano's pointed out, you don't.
I do.

As he pointed out, Marx didn't predict increasing absolute impoverishment. Marx did predict increasing relative impoverishment - a growing gap between rich and poor. To summarize the Mandel quote Zampano gave.

That gap is certainly growing currently. My impression is it has grown, overall, between Marx's time and today. It might not be easy to look up exact stats. But if so, that's one prediction of Marxist theory validated.

Marx's theory implies other predictions about the development of capitalism. Growing concentration of capital, for example. Definitely validated; when's the last time you saw a Studebaker?

So that's a couple examples of stuff that would prove Marxism wrong, if those trends ran in reverse, globally, for a respectable period. Or they'd prove the theories no longer describe reality; that we're in a very different situation.

The biggest limit on the falsifiability of Marxist theories is - timing. There isn't a particular time frame on most of its predictions, in part 'cause it's not all that quantitative. 'Course, nobody else does that well on predicting the timing of economic events either, or they'd rule the stock market.

So, what events would prove your outlook wrong or obsolete?

[ComradeRed]

Evolution doesn't predict things, but using evolutionary processes we can predict things. Unless the evolutionary processes themself evolve too (by "evolutionary process" I assume you mean something like a "step" in cellular automata?).


"Marxism" may not predict things, but Marxist theory should be able to predict things. Now I can think of one thing that would validate Marxism: a worldwide proleterian revolution. But I don't think that's in the works just yet. So what predictions can you make using Marxism now that I can check out? No, Marxist theory does not provide a "prediction", no more so than the theory of evolution (see, adding "theory" to it adds nothing). Marxism (or "Marxist theory" if you semantically prefer) is a paradigm and provides a set of tools to work with and analyze material reality with.

These tools, as I stated, are (feasibly) translateable into mathematics (making them "quantifiable").

Further it seems your objection is similar to the black swan fallacy, you would need to integrate over all the past and future in order to come to the conclusion "a worldwide proletarian revolution will not happen", and no one can do that.


I'm certainly ignorant of math, but a "math without axioms" does seem very strange to me. I'd say I'm out of out of my league though. Well, the fellow who thought of the idea thought it up some 50 or 60 years ago and was far ahead of his time; rumor has it he was driven insane by a lack of recognition for his work (since everyone at the time dismissed it as "nonsense" only to realize now that it was genius), and is now flocking sheep in Southern France. Even today there is some trouble understanding his work.

Don't confuse "Math without axioms" for "Math without definitions". It's a very easy thing to do, and it's also very wrong.

And unless you understand graduate level math, it would be a little out of your league ;)


No. But I would argue that they are slightly different, at least in this context, because in Marxism, the LTV is part of the overall idea that a worldwide proleterian revolution is coming, whereas under capitalism, no such overarching prediction is made. But yes, I see your point. I would argue that the LTV is a generalized case of classical economics and that it was an underlying element in classical economics. One could use Neo-Ricardian economics and demonstrate the very same thing without the LTV at all. But that's tangential.

[Connolly]

Yes, I think communism and Marx's ideas are falsifiable depending on how developments pan out.

His theory of alienatioin for example, continues to be of less importance as new production methods are implemented and found which remove repetitive labour and allow the worker to control the final product.

The class system itself might change significantly away from the classic "proletariat vs bourgeois" model, again, with new economic states and production methods.

The property relations of the proletariat have not worked out either, with most owning property of their own. They have the wealth to invest, start up their own means to appropriate capital and change their social class.

IMO, communism has the potential to become a religion of sorts. It can impede objective judgement of events and possibilities. I see exactly what your saying. It can lead people to focus on an end goal or idea, without any scientific or rational justification to real conditions. This does happen, it can be seen alot on this board where people jump to conclusions believing "capitalism" is at its end when it begins to imperialistically invade Iraq etc. Communism, to a "Marxist", could be the heaven to a christian if it dosnt get grounded in reality.

But, however, I think the movement can be divided in two, but not always seperate, one in which we propose a theoretically sound alternative to the present system ( a new way to organize a production line or office for example) and the other to understand theoretically the most logical direction society will take with historical analysis.

Theoretically, the realization of communism as an alternative organizational structure seems plausible and worth a try. We have presently, and continue to, advance technology further than Marx's time and this promotes further, the realization of communism as being something of an alternative. Coupled with the erosion of superstition and the greater education of the population.
This side of things has nothing to do with predicting anything. Its just realizing what humanity and the individual is capable of with scientific evidence.

Its another thing whether communism is something of an inevitibility of historical processes. So far, as far as iv seen and read, historical materialism hasnt predicted much from the obvious. I could fool myself by looking at an end goal and somehow bluff my way to create something which appears to be that communism as an end result - a bit like creationists, who start with the idea of a God, and create a falsifiable science to suit their own beliefs. Fascists too find Jews in high positions and conclude based on a preplanted idea that Jews are evil, and find them be to controlling the world.

Marxism is a method of scientific social analysis and social understanding, similar to what comradered points out in evolution, it shouldnt necessarily conclude communism as an inevitability, without good reason. As soon as it does this, it becomes religious and detached from reality.

As Severian has pointed out, its still a matter of time before we can conclude that communism is falsifiable as an inevitable historical outcome based on drastic unprecedented social changes. As of now, I see it as quite a logical social outcome from the present class system and technological changes occuring in society, automation for example. Time will tell.


Basically, what good is Marxism?

I think its fairly safe to conclude that the capitalist system is not the end of history.

Its factually safe to conclude that class antagonisms exist and must logically result in the reorganization of society - whatever shape it might take.

Its logically safe to say which class within society has the potential to overthrow bourgeois society and enforce its own production relations.

Its also logical to conclude which forces within society are progressive and which are out right reactionary.

This alone validates Marxism, since the very forces which Marx concluded as changing the social superstructure, such as the Marxian class system and technology, are still 100% relevent. Without predicting anything, Marxist social analysis best describes history and the present.

Prediction is no more necessary to Marxism as it is evolution.

I personally dont see Marxism historically necessary for class struggle, or any socialist or anarchist ideas for that matter. They could have manifested themselves as another form with another vision. It does however facilitate an idea which promotes greater class struggle and helps us question exactly whats actually possible and further develop new ideas for social organization.

Opposition to authority, the bourgeois class and the state are something progressive and inevitable under present circumstances. The Marxian way of thinking has helped us question the very framework of society and proposes an end goal alternative for us to work off and possibly realize.

Man might have seen birds fly and thought of possible ways to achieve this, but in this process of thought and built upon other objective conditions, he might have got that one step further by discovering something new. We might look at a distant galaxy and think how we might someday travel to it and in the process, discover something new. Reaching that galaxy might be impossible however.

We can focus on achieveing another type society, which might be impossible, and in the process, discover something new, progressive and an addition to the present.

Communism seems possible, whether its an inevitible historical outcome is another matter, and I believe its worth a try. Marxism provides that foundation of ideas to create an alternative society aswell as understand our very existence.


I'm just sort of interested in what would or could prove Marxism wrong to Marxists and what could prove Marxism to me.

If you could prove that the same social and economic forces which Marx uses to predict social change, were not the driving factors of social change at all, that would be quite an achievment in proving Marxism wrong. You cannot prove this by looking at Marx's predictions and seeing their failures - that would simply conclude that historical materialism itself isnt a very good tool for predicting things in society. The failures of his predictions however dosnt remove the validity of the forces in which he describes as the social factors for progression.

Marxism, as I have said, dosnt necessarily have to conclude communism or socialism to be an end result. It dosnt really have to conclude anything other than how something works.

Its validated by the fact that the Marxian understanding of the class system as a means to social change is correct. Its validated by scientific develoments which prove human potential and possibility to be restricted by present social conditions.

So basically, in my view (and others will probably disagree with me), I think that Marxism can be divided in two. One which seeks to understand both present and historical societies and their driving forces, and the other, and more debatable and questionable one, which tries to predict social outcomes.

I would personally go for the first, while concluding that through scientific and rational understanding, an alternative is possible to the present society - though not strictly inevitable. Just as I could propose another way of reorganizing an office - I could propose my idea with a rational argument as to why it might have workable and potential advantages - But i wouldnt say my idea of organization is to be inevitably introduced through some special office forces - it might, but only time would tell. One thing, however, is that the realization of an idea can only be met with putting it into practice and trying it out.

[Tungsten]

Publius

I can agree entirely that the working class is exploited under capitalism, to some degree depending on how one defines exploitation. But I'm not a Marxist or even necessarily a leftist. Does that make me a leftist? I don't know.
Truth be told, too much of a fuss is made of "exploitation". The very use of the word exploitation in this context is a lousy attempt at hegemonic discourse- an attempt by the accuser to plant himself on higher moral ground so that he can swing the debate in his favour. Anything is exploitation when framed in the Marxist context; the capitalist exploits the proletarian, but doesn't the proletarian also exploit the capitalist? The shop keeper exploits the customer, but doesn't the customer exploits the shop keeper? It renders the word meaningless.

There's something useful to be learned from marxism, just as there's something to be learned from popper, chomsky, smith, rand etc, but most of it's just BS. It's a matter of sifting through the crap and finding the diamonds.

Severian

As he pointed out, Marx didn't predict increasing absolute impoverishment. Marx did predict increasing relative impoverishment - a growing gap between rich and poor.
What's relative impoverishment? It's not real impoverishment at all. I forget who said that every society is only three missing meals away from revolution, which is somewhat true, but how does that apply when it comes to relative poverty? It doesn't.

[Connolly]

Truth be told, too much of a fuss is made of "exploitation". The very use of the word exploitation in this context is a lousy attempt at hegemonic discourse- an attempt by the accuser to plant himself on higher moral ground so that he can swing the debate in his favour.

We use the word exploitation to make evident and bring to attention the class struggle inherent within class society.

Apparently, you still deny this struggle even exists :lol: "its just an illusion and in our minds" I suppose youll say.

[Publius]

Right; Popper came up with falsifiability as a criterion. It's his idea whether or not you know where it came from.

As I said, I'll agree the definition is somewhat useful. When a more fully scientific understanding of human society is developed, it'll be able to make more testable, falsifiable predictions. That hasn't happened; partly because human society is just a more complex field of study (just as organic chemistry more complex than inorganic, and biology is more complex than physics.) Partly because of there are class interests in the findings of social sciences.

But just how complex is it? Too complex to be properly understood by any overarching framework?



As he pointed out, Marx didn't predict increasing absolute impoverishment. Marx did predict increasing relative impoverishment - a growing gap between rich and poor. To summarize the Mandel quote Zampano gave.

That gap is certainly growing currently. My impression is it has grown, overall, between Marx's time and today. It might not be easy to look up exact stats. But if so, that's one prediction of Marxist theory validated.

One can easily guess a correct outcome for incorrect reasons. Just because Marx wrote a bunch of theory AND happened to predict that inequality would rise does not necessarily imply that his theories are correct, I mean, hell, he had at least a 1/3 chance of being right, period.

I'll grant that Marx predicted this, and that this validates some parts of his theory, because it does, but you see how it's sort of a side-issue.



Marx's theory implies other predictions about the development of capitalism. Growing concentration of capital, for example. Definitely validated; when's the last time you saw a Studebaker?

I don't know. But notice all those Nissans, Hondas, Subarus, etc.?

Just using the example of cars, there are now MORE auto manufacturers in America than in the time of the Studebaker.



So that's a couple examples of stuff that would prove Marxism wrong, if those trends ran in reverse, globally, for a respectable period.

I'm completely unconvinced that, overall, capital is growing more concentrated.


Or they'd prove the theories no longer describe reality; that we're in a very different situation.

We may. How does the internet influence Marxist economics, for example? I don't honestly know.



The biggest limit on the falsifiability of Marxist theories is - timing. There isn't a particular time frame on most of its predictions, in part 'cause it's not all that quantitative. 'Course, nobody else does that well on predicting the timing of economic events either, or they'd rule the stock market.

True enough. But I think that ties directly in to the fact that most market predictions and most economic theories are simply bunk. Bad theories cannot accurately predict
things.



So, what events would prove your outlook wrong or obsolete?

I would first like to identify a difference between us, that I'm not a proponent of any particular ideology, per se. I used to be "for" capitalism, but I'm not really "for" it anymore, I just sort of accept it.

That being said, if evidence came about that non-market forces could allocate resources better than market ones, that would do much to convince of the folly of perpetuating capitalism.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 05:48 am


Unless the evolutionary processes themself evolve too (by "evolutionary process" I assume you mean something like a "step" in cellular automata?).

We can predict the effects of say, mutations, using the theory of natural selection.

"What would happen if..." based on sound evolutionary principals.



No, Marxist theory does not provide a "prediction", no more so than the theory of evolution (see, adding "theory" to it adds nothing). Marxism (or "Marxist theory" if you semantically prefer) is a paradigm and provides a set of tools to work with and analyze material reality with.

Part of analyzing is predicting. If you analyze say, the results of an experiment, you should then be able to make predictions based on those results.

If a drop a book, it should fall. This is a prediction based on the theory of gravity.



These tools, as I stated, are (feasibly) translateable into mathematics (making them "quantifiable").

Further it seems your objection is similar to the black swan fallacy, you would need to integrate over all the past and future in order to come to the conclusion "a worldwide proletarian revolution will not happen", and no one can do that.

Not quite, though I see the connection.


Well, the fellow who thought of the idea thought it up some 50 or 60 years ago and was far ahead of his time; rumor has it he was driven insane by a lack of recognition for his work (since everyone at the time dismissed it as "nonsense" only to realize now that it was genius), and is now flocking sheep in Southern France. Even today there is some trouble understanding his work.

Don't confuse "Math without axioms" for "Math without definitions". It's a very easy thing to do, and it's also very wrong.

And unless you understand graduate level math, it would be a little out of your league ;)

I'm sure it would be.

I'll never understand my inability to understand math.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Marxism isn't purely scientific as far as I can see. Rather, you can't emperical test the hypothesis under controlled conditions to find out whether it works - or we don't have the means to do so.

The best way would to be deductively prove Marxism incorrect using premises that are widely accepted. I don't know how to define Marxism. I think one could create a deductive argument against socialism.

[ComradeRed]

We can predict the effects of say, mutations, using the theory of natural selection. Actually, I think that this would not be possible until there is a better understanding of how the genes directly interfere with the appearance. Further, mutations are treated as random for all practical purposes in modelling of biological processes.

Further, you would have to take into account the exogeneous variables (natural disasters, etc.), the complexity of an ecosystem (and so on and so forth). So you couldn't really predict anything with evolution but you can explain a great deal of phenomena.


"What would happen if..." based on sound evolutionary principals. But evolution is just an explanation of what is going on. A better example of a "set of tools" in science would be quantum field theory.

It explains that a field is composed of particles, and does a number of steps to "update" a classical field into a quantum one.

You can't really falsify quantum field theory, rather you can say "Canonical Quantum Field theory has problems in its underlying premises, viz. the treatment of space and time that is not really relativistic..." And then come up with a better method which takes into account that which the previous paradigm neglected, omitted, etc.

Alternatively, you could come up with problems that exist and can't be tackled with the current paradigm; a good example of this for quantum field theory is gravity. We know gravity really exists and it is a serious problem for "traditional" quantum field theory (it is notoriously nonrenormalizeable!).

A solution would be to throw out the current QFT paradigm and "invent" a new one that can make the same predictions for the other forces and explain why gravity is an exception to such a rule. The other solution would be to apply QFT to gravity in a way no one has really thought of yet.


Part of analyzing is predicting. If you analyze say, the results of an experiment, you should then be able to make predictions based on those results. The problem is that the experiments are non-repeatable (if we allow the past to be all ready done experiments in society).

The real problem is that variables do not readily and distinguishably present themselves due to the complexity of society. With gravity, you can make the x axis the distance an object falls and y the time it will take. This is a logical thing to do. There is nothing like that with society because it's feedback is complex and can't simply be "integrated over time". So the distinction between the variables become "blurred" if you attempt to do it in a semi-reductionist approach.

If you think of the social system as somewhat like a biological system, then things can be distinguished when modelling it as a complex system. The problem is that if you think of the economy as a computer, it's transistors are evolving over time with every use of the transistor. If you didn't know this, it'd be very hard to model it; and if the rules of the evolution of the circuitry themselves evolve over time, then it would be incredibly difficult to "precisely" predict the evolution of the circuitry...though certain concepts could be said (the information is in discrete units, rough patterns to the evolution, etc.) and this would be the "best" that it could do (it could do more, but that would require a great deal of work).

Different people may come up with different results to the same problem because some went further back chronologically to look at the state at much earlier times. When dealing with a complex system, this makes a world of difference!

It may turn out that several events "cancel each other out" in the complexity of the system and thus become negligible. But you wouldn't know that until you knew exactly what was going to happen indefinately into the future, because it could turn out later that the events were critical to some later event.

It's not as "black and white" as QFT is, largely due to the intrinsic complexity of the observed system (not to mention taking into account the observer!).

[Tungsten]

The RedBanner

We use the word exploitation to make evident and bring to attention the class struggle inherent within class society.
Exchanging one word with a morally loaded one doesn't make something evident, (It's evident to you, because you use the word without thinking) and you've as good as confirmed my point.

Apparently, you still deny this struggle even exists
Conflicts exist, but they don't resemble a "workers vs bosses" struggle, which is why all of this "workers of the world unite" nonsense has failed to take hold. Communism requires contrived conflicts (and contrived alliances) to be manufactured and people just haven't made them- because it wasn't in their interest.

"its just an illusion and in our minds" I suppose youll say.
That one is.

[Severian]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+December 01, 2006 07:48 pm--> (ComradeRed @ December 01, 2006 07:48 pm)
We can predict the effects of say, mutations, using the theory of natural selection. Actually, I think that this would not be possible until there is a better understanding of how the genes directly interfere with the appearance. [/b]
Actually, population biology - based on neo-Darwinist theory - does make predictions about how a new gene - say, from mutation will spread through a population. There are equations which take into account the effect of selection. Expected changes can be modelled, and the predictions can be tested.

So that's on the level of how evolution works. There are also predictions of what we'd expect depending on whether neo-Darwinist or creationist claims are right:

For example, if life evolves, we expect to see new strains of flu, as we do.

Or another example, which has actually played a significant role in the debate: we expect to discover more and more transitional fossils if the life forms we know are in fact descended from common ancestors. Some creationists said the discovery of fossilized ancestral whales with legs would be evidence against their view. These fossils have since been found - not suprisingly, creationists have failed to drop their "theory". 'Cause creationism is not remotely science.

It may seem a bit odd to make predictions about the past, but it's common in historical sciences like paleontology. It's a prediction about what will be discovered....


Originally posted by [email protected]
You can't really falsify quantum field theory

On the contrary, it's certainly falsifiable, since the theory makes a lot of predictions. The difficulty, in trying to disprove, is that it's made so many accurate predictions! Which is why quantum field theory became widely accepted among scientists, even though it's so counter-intuitive.

Any new and better theory would have to do at least as well in predicting particle behavior....you have a point only in that it would be hard to do better, and the new theory would have to do better in other respects.

But that's only valid as an argument for not being rigid about predictions as the only criterion for evaluating a theory.


Exchanging one word with a morally loaded one doesn't make something evident,

Instead of whining about "morally loaded" words, why don't you address the analysis and predictions behind them? It's a waste of time to argue about terminology.

Of course, to address the theory and not the words, you'd have to understand the theory, and then know enough facts to compare the theory to those facts. Too much like work?


Publius
I'm completely unconvinced that, overall, capital is growing more concentrated.

Oh, come on. Consider, for starters, how much of the population used to be self-employed, owning their own capital.

[ComradeRed]

Actually, population biology - based on neo-Darwinist theory - does make predictions about how a new gene - say, from mutation will spread through a population. There are equations which take into account the effect of selection. Expected changes can be modelled, and the predictions can be tested. You don't know a lot about mathematical biology or computational evolution, do you?

Evolutionary algorithms are stochastic algorithms!

Further, the mutation spreading through a population is modelled based on a fitness function which is a random walk on a phase space. (From the book Mathematical Modeling of Complex Biological Systems)

Yeah there are equations, but that doesn't make it "predictable" especially when using stochastic measures!

But what I was referring to was the exact genetic sequence in DNA and it's direct physical appearence, how it is in the environment, etc.

There still is the factor, which is key in evolution that is held as exogeneous, which you forgot about: the environment! All evolution really is when it boils down to it is adaptation to a changing environment through reproduction.



On the contrary, it's certainly falsifiable, since the theory makes a lot of predictions. The difficulty, in trying to disprove, is that it's made so many accurate predictions! Which is why quantum field theory became widely accepted among scientists, even though it's so counter-intuitive. Not so, because you can't falsify a method directly. Which was my point throughout.

There are phenomena (e.g. gravity) which the current paradigm of field theory cannot easily explain. That means one of two things happen: replace (not throw out) the current paradigm with a better one that explains gravity and all the other fields just as well, or apply uniquely to gravity in ways not yet thought of (e.g. in the canonical example of QFT it uses frequency, well what if we notionally make that curvature?).

So when there is phenomena which is unexplainable that is the time for a new paradigm. And logically, if the paradigm is applied and results in false statements then it needs to be replaced (but that would be the first scenario, since it can't explain the difference in its explanation and the phenomena).

[KC]

Exchanging one word with a morally loaded one doesn't make something evident, (It's evident to you, because you use the word without thinking) and you've as good as confirmed my point.

I wouldn't pay attention to that guy. He's fucking wacko. All marxists use the term exploitation because there is exploitation going on, not just for some bullshit reason that he suggests.

[Enragé]

The problem of course is, capitalism did just the opposite. Now communists have, as I understand it, stepped around this problem by saying capitalism was only able to increase living standards in one area by reducing them in another ("hyper-exploitation" or "super exploitation" or some other bit of neo-Marxist cant), but this too seems to be false.

This is only part of it, that form of exploitation btw is not "neo marxist", except if you want to call lenin a neo-marxist.

Another, very important factor, is the threat of revolution and/or general social unrest.

Capitalists arent stupid, when they realise that the working class might revolt, they pay them a bit more so they wont, when profits are threatened by massive strikes, they'll cave in to demands so that at least they'll have some profit.

Just look at western europe, compare it to the US.
In western europe the threat of revolution and the level of organisation of the working class was much, much higher, and attraction to the (obviously flawed but still supposedly revolutionary) USSR only amplified this.
So to stop this, healthcare programmes were introduced, social democrats movements were put forth as "the answer" (and some were quite radical, certainly compared to nowadays), but all the while keeping a check on things so that it didnt go "too far".
You can clearly see that the gap between rich and poor is smaller, that the workers are better off in say, sweden, than in the US.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 12:05 pm
You don't know a lot about mathematical biology or computational evolution, do you?

Evolutionary algorithms are stochastic algorithms!
I took a class in evolution and population biology, which is what I'm talking about. Yes, of course, this is all about probabilities (stochastic.) Everything in genetics is, all the way back to Mendel's pea plants, with their one-quarter chance of getting a double recessive. Once that's understood, it leads to a prediction that one-quarter of a certain generation will express the recessive trait.

And based on probabilities of a gene being selected for or against, and other variables, it's possible to make predictions on the increasing or decreasing frequency of genes in a population. Probabilities average out with a large enough group.

We've discussed this basic definition-of-science business before. Your definition is atypical, in that you want to define math as a science, and science in terms of math. Most scientists don't. Most scientists would define science primarily in terms of repeatable observation and experiment.

[ComradeRed]

We've discussed this basic definition-of-science business before. Your definition is atypical, in that you want to define math as a science, and science in terms of math. Most scientists don't. Most scientists would define science primarily in terms of repeatable observation and experiment. That would be hard for my definition of science to be atypical since I haven't defined science before (I have stated that science should be translateable into the language of math, which is a truth that most scientists hold!).

The problem with the "Observation, Reptition" definition is that Biological experiments really aren't that repeatable! There is a large margin of error because of the stochastic nature of reproduction, the impossibility to reconstruct an environment perfectly, etc.

Rather than go with the falsifiable approach, I am more in line with the Kuhnian paradigm approach. How the results ("laws") should be formulated ought to be in the language of math.

"But Astrology is a science according to Kuhnian paradigms!!!!!!!!!!!3"

No, not really since it doesn't have a defined scope for its paradigm. It has a defined method, but where this method can apply (what the positions of the "heavenly bodies" imply) is not.

Consequently Astrology is not a paradigm...which makes it hard to argue that it is scientific.

[encephalon]

Oh, publius, you've evolved quite well. Hopefully that trend shall continue.