Just found a really ****ing disturbing tinfoil hat conspiracy.

[Kukulofori]

http://www.frostcloud.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17849

Thread from May.



Theorists wrote "Not only did members discuss new surveillance provisions as was the publicly stated reason for the closed door session, they also discussed: The imminent collapse of the U.S. economy to occur by September 2008, the imminent collapse of US federal government finances by February 2009, the possibility of Civil War inside the USA as a result of the collapse and advance round-ups of "insurgent U.S. citizens" likely to move against the government.

Also theorised was the detention of those rounded-up at "REX 84" camps constructed throughout the USA and the possibility of retaliation against members of Congress for the collapses and the location of "safe facilities" for members of Congress and their families to reside during expected massive civil unrest

Other answers included "the necessary and unavoidable merger of the United States with Canada" (for its natural resources) and with Mexico (for its cheap labor pool), the issuance of a new currency - THE AMERO - for all three nations as the proposed solution to the coming economic armageddon.


Uh... creepy. Seems a bit Illuminati for my tastes, but even then some of the predictions it makes are disturbingly valid.

Should we be concerned, you guys think?

[#FF0000]

I heard about the whole market collapsing thing back around then. I joined some Situationist mailing list and this guy named Chris sent out something about 500 billion dollars being transferred into Kenyan Banks or something like that. This was back in September. A few weeks later, the market tanks.

Might all be coincidence, but it still irritates my paranoia.

[chegitz guevara]

This is old bullshit.

[which doctor]

Ever notice that it's only the predictions that come true that we end up hearing about later?

With all the monkeys pounding away at their keyboards, a few are bound to say something that will end up coming true.

[chegitz guevara]

Communists have predicted ten of the last three recessions.

[GPDP]

Communists have predicted ten of the last three recessions.

what

[bcbm]

I believe he was making a joke.

[Enragé]

^its true actually

though what i read it was 5 out of 3 :P

[Oneironaut]

With all the monkeys pounding away at their keyboards, a few are bound to say something that will end up coming true.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[ckaihatsu]

Theorists wrote "Not only did members discuss new surveillance provisions as was the publicly stated reason for the closed door session, they also discussed: The imminent collapse of the U.S. economy to occur by September 2008, the imminent collapse of US federal government finances by February 2009, the possibility of Civil War inside the USA as a result of the collapse and advance round-ups of "insurgent U.S. citizens" likely to move against the government.


Also theorised was the detention of those rounded-up at "REX 84" camps constructed throughout the USA and the possibility of retaliation against members of Congress for the collapses and the location of "safe facilities" for members of Congress and their families to reside during expected massive civil unrest

Other answers included "the necessary and unavoidable merger of the United States with Canada" (for its natural resources) and with Mexico (for its cheap labor pool), the issuance of a new currency - THE AMERO - for all three nations as the proposed solution to the coming economic armageddon.


One of the few perks of being on the revolutionary left is the occasion to bellow waves of hearty laughter at the inanities that come from the nation-centric types (libertarians) when their skewed take on events goes belly-up.

It also makes me wonder, too -- at times they're *so* nation-centric that they seem to serve as more of a *prop* for these Western elite types than really bursting them...!


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Black Dagger]

Seems a bit Illuminati for my tastes, but even then some of the predictions it makes are disturbingly valid.

How is that really possible though? No one can predict the future on such a large scale, there are too many variables/unknowns.



Should we be concerned, you guys think?

No.

As a general rule, i think it's prudent to ignore anyone whose POV entails claims about predicting the future.

[ckaihatsu]

How is that really possible though? No one can predict the future on such a large scale, there are too many variables/unknowns.


My position is that the U.S. has not had the mass support needed to continue building its military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor has it been able to maintain its recruitment goals, much less pull off a compulsory draft, as Bush had wanted to. Given this mass anti-war sentiment (that aided in putting Obama into office), there would *not* be political grounds to enable an action of domestic martial law, as the libertarians were recently claiming would happen.



As a general rule, i think it's prudent to ignore anyone whose POV entails claims about predicting the future.


As Marxists we *are* scientists of the (material) world and so we should not shy away from being able to extrapolate into the future. The difference, of course, is that we're partisan, so the point is to organize and be effective in the world, not *only* to analyze it objectively. (That's a paraphrased version of Marx.)

[Black Dagger]

As Marxists we *are* scientists of the (material) world and so we should not shy away from being able to extrapolate into the future. The difference, of course, is that we're partisan, so the point is to organize and be effective in the world, not *only* to analyze it objectively. (That's a paraphrased version of Marx.)

I agree with marx that 'the point' is to change the world - not just to think about it. Anaylsis is different to predicting the future, though the difference is largely a matter of degrees or emphasis. Also, marxists are not 'scientists' - some may be social scientists -perhaps - but most adherents of marxism would not really qualify for this title either - unless a very loose definition is used (in which case many more lay people would be considered 'scientists'). Historical materialism is not a science, though it and marxism do emulate aspects of science (observation -> use of models -> predictions)- they are still not falsfiable. Also historical materialism is treated by most marxists not as a scientific theory, but fact - not open to contestation - which is a thoroughly unscientific POV.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree with marx that 'the point' is to change the world - not just to think about it. Anaylsis is different to predicting the future, though the difference is largely a matter of degrees or emphasis. Also, marxists are not 'scientists' - some may be social scientists -perhaps - but most adherents of marxism would not really qualify for this title either - unless a very loose definition is used (in which case many more lay people would be considered 'scientists'). Historical materialism is not a science, though it does emulate aspects of science - it is not falsfiable.


Historical materialism is * absolutely * a science, and a _hard_ one at that, despite conventional claims otherwise. Here is a reification of it:


History, Macro-Micro

http://tinyurl.com/2dafgr

[Black Dagger]

Could you please explain how/why it is a 'hard science' in words? That diagram is a bit simplistic and there's pop-up ads etc.

[ckaihatsu]

Could you please explain how/why it is a 'hard science' in words? That diagram is a bit simplistic and there's pop-up ads etc.


The practice of historical materialism happens whenever clinical science is performed -- it could be an archeological excavation or a forensic examination, or what Marxists do in the service of history.

That's not to say that everyone has all the relevant information they would like, but given a preponderance of factors certain conclusions can be arrived at, to varying degrees of certainty.

The diagram I created serves as a universal framework for *any* situation studied, regardless of time period or magnitude.

I recommend using it in conjunction with this diagram, a political spectrum:


Ideologies & Operations

http://tinyurl.com/yqotq9


- And, additionally, you can look at this, too -- it's basically social psychology:


Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics
http://tinyurl.com/32qsdb


Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics (Page 1 of 2)
http://tinyurl.com/275drt


Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics (Page 2 of 2)
http://tinyurl.com/2vd8dg

[Black Dagger]

You didn't explain/prove anything :/



The practice of historical materialism happens whenever clinical science is performed -- it could be an archeological excavation or a forensic examination, or what Marxists do in the service of history.

Stating this does not prove that marxism is a hard science - you haven't really addressed that, but mentioned other actual sciences and then simply thrown marxism on the end and stated that it's the same...



That's not to say that everyone has all the relevant information they would like, but given a preponderance of factors certain conclusions can be arrived at, to varying degrees of certainty.

Right, except in marxism the theories can't really be tested, falsified etc?

I'm not interested in looking at diagrams or links to other websites etc., just for an argument to be made - in words - demonstrating (rather than claiming) that marxism is a hard science, how its theories can be tested, falsified etc.

[black magick hustla]

I think it is a soft science to be fair. It is an attempt to extrapolate a paradigm out of empirical data. Not all science is testable, including a big bulk of physics today.

[ckaihatsu]

You didn't explain/prove anything :/


I did -- to repeat:



The diagram I created serves as a universal framework for *any* situation studied, regardless of time period or magnitude.



I'm not interested in looking at diagrams or links to other websites etc., just for an argument to be made - in words - demonstrating (rather than claiming) that marxism is a hard science, how its theories can be tested, falsified etc.


The diagram "History: Macro-Micro" that you already looked at *is* the argument. it shows -- to put it in words -- that some factors in history loom larger, and have greater magnitude, than others. Class, or class struggle, is the greatest factor of all in *anything* being considered.



Stating this does not prove that marxism is a hard science - you haven't really addressed that, but mentioned other actual sciences and then simply thrown marxism on the end and stated that it's the same...


Science is science -- again, *any* investigation involves considering a number of factors, a permutation of which may support one hypothesis or another.



Right, except in marxism the theories can't really be tested, falsified etc?


Well, as with any other investigation, a theory / hypothesis may be tested against a null hypothesis.

[Black Dagger]

I think it is a soft science to be fair. It is an attempt to extrapolate a paradigm out of empirical data. Not all science is testable, including a big bulk of physics today.

This is the thing - i don't think marxism is a hard science - ok - but that doesn't change my opinion of marxism. I don't need for it to be a hard science or any kind of 'science' to find it credible or useful, or 'correct' about any given thing. Where as i think other people (some marxists) seem to have something invested in that classification (which is a weird 19th european thing to do, 'science as the ultimate knowledge' etc.). They get a lot of rhetorical mileage out of saying 'scientific' this or that and by borrowing the intellectual credibility of 'science' to make their views seem more 'correct' and also to separate themselves from other leftists (particularly anarchists) who are disdainfully regarded as 'unscientific' etc. I just think the whole 'marxism is scientific' thing is an artifact of marxisms origins in 19th european thought, and so to continue to talk about marxism in this way today is abit outmoded and i guess a little embarrassing for communists generally.


Not all science is testable, including a big bulk of physics today.

That is true, but the kind of physics you are talking about is really the absolute frontier of human knowledge of the universe - so you really need to consider why this may be untestable (we can't replicate a 'big-bang' for example, yet...), how this condition is regarded by other scientists and how this science is otherwise presented - in the case of physics, it is all grounded within major, sound, testable theories.
Also, much of what cannot currently be tested in physics (or science), will eventually, probably either be verified or falsified - so accepted as a sound theory or forgotten accordingly. That is what makes it a part of 'science', change - more evidence, appropriate experiments, proofs etc. the possibility that speculation will be replaced with evidence, and the particular claims may eventually be verified - or at least, have the possibility of being verified or falsified.

This will never the be the case for historical materialism - there is no further development, it is an ahistorical/transhistorical theory that makes predictions that will never change regardless of other developments of human knowledge (as it is treated religiously by many of its adherents) and will never be falsifiable, ever. In short, Marxism is not falsifiable because it just isn't science, but rather 19thC pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience).

To ckaihatsu - No offense, but i don't feel like i'm getting a straight answer out-of-you - or at least one really engages with what i have said or have asked, so yeah - don't worry about it.

[ckaihatsu]

This is the thing - i don't think marxism is a hard science


If, by 'hard' science, we mean one that provides consistent, sound results, and that can make predictions, then Marxism fulfills this definition. Given certain social conditions, like oppression, a people will rise up and engage in class struggle, in various forms. (This is one example.)



- ok - but that doesn't change my opinion of marxism. I don't need for it to be a hard science or any kind of 'science' to find it credible or useful, or 'correct' about any given thing.


I hear ya, but I'd rather know that people *do* find Marxism to be credible and useful on *objective* grounds, rather than subjective ones.



Where as i think other people (some marxists) seem to have something invested in that classification (which is a weird 19th european thing to do, 'science as the ultimate knowledge' etc.).


Science-backed knowledge *is* the ultimate knowledge, because it transcends individual experience. We'd be far worse off, individually, and as a society, if each of us only lived life on the basis of our own, untested experiences.



They get a lot of rhetorical mileage out of saying 'scientific' this or that and by borrowing the intellectual credibility of 'science' to make their views seem more 'correct' and also to separate themselves from other leftists (particularly anarchists) who are disdainfully regarded as 'unscientific' etc.


People say all sorts of stuff -- even those who purport to be "scientists". Certainly we saw, and still continue to see, plenty of bad science. The practice of scientific methods doesn't *automatically* yield valid results -- science, like anything else, is either done well or it isn't.



This will never the be the case for historical materialism - there is no further development, it is an ahistorical/transhistorical theory that makes predictions that will never change regardless of other developments of human knowledge (as it is treated religiously by many of its adherents) and will never be falsifiable, ever. In short, Marxism is not falsifiable because it just isn't science, but rather pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience).


Again, science is science. Science uses the scientific method, the use of which necessarily involves selection of certain factors rather than other factors (which may or may not be valid). Marxism includes the axiom -- the reality -- of class division being the main division in any society that produces a surplus. This is hardly pseudoscientific -- it is absolutely cognizant of real conditions.

[alpharowe3]

I may be totally off but I view society like a group of rats in a Skinner box. If one group of rats controls the lever(Means of production) that releases food(resources), it is expected that that group would have the group without food do services for the group with food to get food. Eventually it is expected that the group w/o food will kill the group with control of the lever. Do ya follow me? You'd have to know BF Skinner & behavioral psychology to really understand. Now I think we can agree behavioral psychology is a quantifiable "hard" science... I don't know about Marxism...

[welshboy]

I may be totally off but I view society like a group of rats in a Skinner box. If one group of rats controls the lever(Means of production) that releases food(resources), it is expected that that group would have the group without food do services for the group with food to get food. Eventually it is expected that the group w/o food will kill the group with control of the lever. Do ya follow me? You'd have to know BF Skinner & behavioral psychology to really understand. Now I think we can agree behavioral psychology is a quantifiable "hard" science... I don't know about Marxism...
I'm sorry but from what I've read of BF Skinner I really don't see how you can make this comparison.
We would not expect the rats to behave in that manner at all unles they had been conditioned into doing so. You really can not use behavioral psychology to back up the claims of historical materialism. You could possibly use it to back up the studies of people like Bowles and Gintes or Althuser and their studies into the educational system.
These guys are Sociologists however not Psychologists.
The experiments of Skinner can not be applied to a macro-social situation and also do not take into account the greater levels of compexity of human beings.
Sorry if I'm being obtuse here but how does operant conditioning come into play with historical materialism?

[alpharowe3]

But Skinner would argue an organism is an organism, & any organism will react negatively to painful stimuli & positive to pleasurable stimuli.

[Coggeh]

Ever notice that it's only the predictions that come true that we end up hearing about later?

With all the monkeys pounding away at their keyboards, a few are bound to say something that will end up coming true.
Ehhh , didn't we know the recession was going to come ? I was at a meeting in 2005/06 where we discussed the "credit crunch" .... I'm sure a lot of economically conscious people saw it coming ....

[welshboy]

But Skinner would argue an organism is an organism, & any organism will react negatively to painful stimuli & positive to pleasurable stimuli.

Skinner would not however argue that society is an organism.