News A question about objectivity in politics

[Pengwuino]

Thank you for your encouragement, antfm - I am feeling a little bit beleaguered at the moment . It does not surprise me that I am being so vehemently attacked, though (I expected it - because people have ideologies and deeply-held systems of beliefs that they often don't have the will to challenge - I know this), but I will try to keep on discussing this rationally and calmly. We'll see how my plan pans out.

After reading this thread and comparing it to other capitalist vs. communist threads I've seen/participated in, i am absolutely amazed that you can call this a "vehement" attack (even though you quickly returned the 'attack' to teh same degree). This thread's savage attack towards you compared to absolutely every other debate on the topic is like... your so called attack was comparable to a firecracker... every other thread I've ever read on the topic would be like every nuclear weapon on Earth detonating at the same time. I mean you were practically being complimented compared to most of the things i see from people.

I see this tactic among many anti-capitalists though. They ALWAYS go "of course, i was attacked for my beliefs" when they do the exact same thing. It also makes me curious as to how you even allow yourself to comment on the American style of capitalism. You do not live in our country (as you implied in a post) and know nothing about our laws or system yet you present an argument and then complain when we don't agree with you and say your "vehemently attacked for my beliefs"

And please, before you act like a majority of the left-wingers of the world and make a fool of yourself, please state what exactly is wrong with our Patriot Act and be specific about it or appologize for such a reactionary statement.

 

[alexandra]

Had to say that this discussion, in its own wicked sense, is a welcomed exception ... and am very happy you're pulling it through the way it is supposed to. It seems that many topics under political are un-discussionable due to the associated complete loss of objectivity - a most prudent question which started this marvellous thread - and as such don't rise to the level exercised in other parts of PF (could it be that scientifically informed people are too "stuck with their numbers" and "short-term" logic in order to converse less quantified issues building up their looks in life...). Great to witness in-depth and (for some parts) well informed political discussion.

Thank you, PerennialII :shy: It worries me that any topics become impossible to discuss, especially on the PF - it seems to me that it is worthwhile trying to address this issue. I will really try to keep a rational discussion going. It may take me a while to get back to people sometimes (because I do have to respond from an informed and thoughtful position that is thought-provoking), but what I intend to do is to find the actual substance of people's arguments and try to respond to these rather than to respond emotionally and allow the whole discussion to degenrate into a slanging match. As a social scientist, I believe that it is possible to achieve some level of clarity and reasoned argument in discussions.

For the record, I am also a mathematics student and have a keen interest in cosmology (this is what attracted me to PF) - but I would not dare to participate in discussions on those matters as I do not feel I have enough knowledge at this point and would have no expertise to offer. I may, however, one day have questions to ask on the relevant forums. By the way, everyone, I really, really enjoy reading your discussions there

 

[alexandra]

Itd be great but the problem with 'factual' politics is that no one likes that and politics entirely deals with the "everyone". Funny enough you can say you have taxes and then conservation of energy. Energy is always conserved because that's just how it is because nature says so. In taxes, people "say so" and the idea of low taxes nad high program funding is what hte people want yet its illogical and impossible. People want everything for nothing and there's always 2 contradicting philosophies. In nature there's 1 philosphy, the philosophy of nature. Nature dictates what works and there is no 2nd nature peopel can subscribe to. In politics of course, there's a multitude of philosophies and one is actually capable of forcing their philosophy on others whether its right or wrong. Along with that, there is no "right" or "wrong" as there is in the universe (E =mc^2 and that's it for example). Since its all about personal preference, you always have people who want one thing and people who want another thing. Since politics caters to all sides, its inveriably trying to gather up personal preferences and taking a nice half-way point in between statistical averages. In science, no, there's no 2 sides, there's no preferences, no averages, nothing but nearly definitive truth.

I agree with much of what you say here, Pengwuino, but I draw somewhat different conclusions. When we discuss something like environmental issues, for instance, I totally agree with you that "In nature there's 1 philosphy, the philosophy of nature. Nature dictates what works and there is no 2nd nature peopel can subscribe to." This is exactly why it is important (if we are thinking of environmental issues) to properly think through the political and economic issues as well - as you say, we cannot impose our own rules on nature, but what we do in our productive activity (a social, economic and political issue) impacts on nature. Experts in groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists ( http://www.bapd.org/gunrts-1.html ) can provide technical information and scientific evidence to back up their assessments of the situation. Current economic activity is sometimes predictably dangerous to the environment and sometimes its effects are unpredictable. Sometimes we just don't know whether human activity is causing irremediable damage to the environment, but it seems likely that we are: "In nature there's 1 philosophy..." So do we just ignore the damage because it's not happening right here, right now? Doesn't anyone on this discussion board have children? Doesn't anyone think they'll have grandchildren?

But one thing you bring up is that "facts change". Well the problem with that is there's fact and perceived fact. Nature works in 1 way no matter what. Our set of "facts" may not mirror nature's way but we try to get as close to it as possible and attempt to refine our facts to match nature. The reason this doesn't work as we know it in society is that we just can't take into account the entire world.

Hmm, it seems to me that when you are attempting to discover how nature works, there are also many variables involved. For example, I would imagine there are many more variables involved when one is trying to understand the universe itself than there are when one is trying to understand human society? Both intellectual activities (trying to understand physics/the universe and trying to understand social organisations) are complex - yet we do not balk from the task of trying to understand the origins and ultimate fate of the universe. It does not make sense to me that, given that ambition, we should give up on attempts to understand humans and their social organisations.

Science facts are independant of the environment they take place in. Social facts arent as far as the level we can understand them is concerned. We could technically determine say, the effects on 8 year olds of drinking soda but the theory would have to have provisions and expand to every single variable imaginable (form where you live to how many steps you take every day to what speed you brain works at). Every change in density of the material the kid steps on would have to be a variable in the theory and the theory would be almost infinitely long. Thats why they say social science is just "some people like this, some people dont".

But even on hte more understandable, base level that we can use, there's too many variables to make broad policy decisions and there's always someone dissatisfied.

I'm tempted to bring up the argument here that even pure science can no longer claim objectivity. I have read several 'popular science' cosmology books that say that even in the physical sciences, the very act of observation changes the results of the experiment. I do not, however, have any real or deep knowledge about this so I would call on experts who know science to contribute (I simply don't have time to do the deep amount of study it would take - though I intend to study these things over the next few years). So, can anyone help me out with this one? Is science completely objective, or is it also the case that the observer is a part of the observation and influences it? If the latter is the case, perhaps we should stop 'doing science'?

 

[alexandra]

I don't see how. Can you explain .

Ok, this is why I say that when Marx wrote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" he did not mean what you interpret it to mean, ie. that "Slavery of the able to the lazy as such a proposition can only be implemented by force. Nobody is going to give up his right to life voluntarily."

What Marx meant was that people are good at (and are interested in) different things, so they should work at the things that they are good at and interested in ("From each according to his ability..."), and that all people living in a society should make a useful contribution to their society. For example, in every social organisation we will need both doctors and garbage collectors; both are necessary since without the latter (garbage collectors) we'd need a heck of a lot more doctors to cope with the results. Now, some people have the intellectual skills to study medicine, and also have the desire and the required self-discipline for such study, so that is what they should do and then their contribution to society will be as doctors. Some people just aren't cut out for that sort of study, or just aren't interested, or just aren't suited to being doctors because they faint at the sight of blood (my lame attempt at a joke; sorry!). So they should contribute to the social welfare of the community they live in in other ways - for example, by becoming garbage collectors. In other words, Marx meant that *everyone* has to make *some substantial* contribution to society in return for having their physical survival needs met ("...to each according to his need"). This is why I disagree with your interpretation - Marx just never said what you claim he said.

I challenge you to justify your statement that the capitalist class is lazy and evil. If it hadn't been for the capitalist Henry Ford, we might not have seen cheap cars and a revolution in methods of production for decades to come. If it hadn't been for an "evil" capitalist called JJ Hill, the North would have taken ages to develop. If it hadn't been for the "evil" capitalists, you wouldn't even be able to type what you are typing - there would be no computers. If it wasn't for the "evil" capitalists, 50% of the children would still be dying before the age of 10. If it hadn't been for the "evil" capitalists, most of the people in the world would still have been struggling to make their ends meet. If it hadn't been for the "lazy" capitalists, there would have been no Industrial Revolution..

sid_galt, I do not use emotional language such as 'evil'. It would be infantile of me to argue from such a simplistic position, and I find it insulting that you should accuse me of this. Please point out where I speak in terms of simple things like 'good' and 'evil'? I should hope that my analysis is more sophisticated than that! So, everyone reading this, please go back to what I have written and confirm that I never used such an argument. I made a real point of stating that I am talking about economic classes, and not about individuals.

My statement about the 'lazy capitalists' (words I DID use) was a counterargument to something you said. I regret it. I let my guard down, and will have to be more rigorous in future. My apologies, sid_galt, for allowing even that much emotive language creep into my response.

It is an elementary marxist understanding that capitalism furthered human social organisation. Capitalism was, as you point out, a necessary stage and, again as you say, without this stage of social development there would have been no Industrial Revolution and we would all still be peasants living as serfs in ignorance, and I would not be sitting here having this lively and invigorating discussion with you. We have no argument there; I agree with you

And for your information, the "evil" capitalists most likely work the hardest with the possible exception of scientists and engineers.

sid_galt, I am not convinced about the hard-working capitalist theory of yours. No matter how hard one works, when most people are earning barely enough to subsist on, is it fair for CEOs to earn as much as they do? After all, aren't there only 24 hours in one day? How hard can these CEOs possibly be working? Here's a WorldWatch Institute article with more information about this: http://www.worldwatch.org/features/vsow/2003/08/27/ . An extract: "In 2001, the average annual pay of U.S. CEOs topped $11 million—some 350 times as much as the U.S. factory worker, who earned on average $31,260." I don't know whether CEO earnings have risen or dropped since then, but I imagine if they did drop it would not have been by much. Actually, I've just found a more recent article at USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2003-03-31-ceopay2_x.htm - it confirms that nothing much has changed...

Does a common laborer take the risks a capitalist takes?

According to the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, working as a common labourer can be hazardous to your health and can result in fatalities: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshsum.htm . There's heaps of information on this site, so please excuse me if I don't have time to summarise it.

Does a common laborer work for 3 nights without stopping? Does a common laborer use his mind as much as a capitalist does?

Hmm, ok - you tell me. Where can you give me evidence that a capitalist works for 3 nights without stopping? (I presume you mean straight through three days and nights?). I'm not sure that this is a major issue in the argument, but it is interesting. And regarding whether or not a common labourer uses his mind as much as a capitalist does... well, I would argue that all work involves problem-solving of some sort, and awareness. I doubt that we can measure who uses his mind more. But my question is, why is this relevant to our discussion? Is using one's mind a lot more valuable than using up one's body?

Your notion that capitalists rely on their workers for their wealth assumes that man is only muscles with no mind - that businesses and machines, inventions and factories, only need a brawn to make and run, not brain. Your notion is false.

Oh no, sid_galt, I certainly do not assume that 'man is only muscles with no mind'. After all, I consider myself to be an intellectual worker too, and am pretty hopeless at anything practical or involving manual work. I believe that all people use their brain in all jobs - no job is purely manual. Surely one has to be thinking about what one is doing all the time, even if the job is only digging up dirt? I certainly believe in the importance of intellectual labour - I guess I just don't believe that the *really* rich have to do this themselves: they pay to employ other people's brains - managers, scientists, engineers, etc.

I am not being unfair alexandra. GENIERE said that Communism requires a despotic government which cannot tolerate individualism. You responded by pointing to the Patriot Act. By this you are directly implying that the Patriot Act is as evil as the communist dictatorships.

Yes, I do need to clarify this. The Patriot Act can be used in a way that erodes the rights of US citizens and the rights of other people who are not US citizens. It gives the government the power to infringe on the privacy of individuals, whether or not they are a 'threat'. That is what I meant. I meant that this Act can be badly misused. No doubt I will have to expand on this explanation at some stage, but it is getting late now and I am tiring... soon I will say something silly that will come back to haunt me if I don't stop now

 

[russ_watters]

Marx could do maths too! An 'idiot', huh? Here's the link: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/mathematical-manuscripts/index.htm

For some reason, I thought this may help you see that he has intellectual credibility. After all, I presume everyone on this forum respects maths and a mind that can understand it?

alexandra, this isn't about credibility. Marx was a genius and a visionary. But that doesn't automatically make his theory right. Even Einstein made mistakes.

 

[alexandra]

I won't even bother going into a full scale argument on this one but let's just say this. Our tax system is a progressive system. Our tax system has capital gains taxes. .

Let's look at the taxation issue, Pengwuino. I did a google search and found this link: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Taxes#New_Tax_Legislation . On this website, I found a brief article about pending tax reform legislation: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Pending_Tax_Reform_Legislation . A brief extract:

"As of November 19, 2004, the bare outlines of the plan were as follows:

A reform of the existing income tax, not a national sales tax.
Retain mortgage interest and charitable deductions.
Retain at least somewhat progressive tax rates.
Revenue neutral.
Likely to eliminate the state and local tax deduction.
Likely to scrap the employer deduction for health insurance for employees.
Likely to favor income from interest, dividends and capitals gains, and to expand tax breaks for business investment.
Likely to eliminate the alternate minimum tax.
Supposed to be simpler.

The gist of the progressive criticism of proposed tax reform is that it is not appropriate to favor income from property over income from work, that such a regime favors the rich over the poor, that the state and local tax deduction is a principal enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and unduly penalizes those in blue states with higher income taxes, and that we don't need to reduce the incentive to provide health insurance in the midst of a health insurance crisis.

Progressives don't necessarily disagree that the tax system is too complex, but believe that most of the complexities arises out of undeserved tax breaks for monied interests. Progressives also disagree that the current level of tax revenue is appropriate. Unwise Republican tax cuts have led directly to a large budget deficit which amounts to a "birth tax" because it will be paid for by future generations, even though the benefits have gone to the current generation. This revenue shortfall, in the eyes of progressives, should be made up for by those whose tax cuts have created it, corporations and wealthy individuals."

It seems the pending 'reforms' favour the rich and disadvantage the poor? I again have to suggest that you do further reading on this - I don't think I should be copying entire articles onto this website.

No one who has ever claimed politicians are owend by "big business" has ever been able to explain those 2 concepts of our tax laws. They are in 100% direct contradiction towards your idea (I also want to know what your sources are for facts for the concept that big business owns politicians).

Here is a BBC article about big business and politicians: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2117719.stm . If you are really interested in seeing how I can make this link, you could read it. It gives examples of these links. The BBC is, I hope, an acceptable source of information? It has to verify its sources and its information before printing it; otherwise it could be sued - especially about something like this.

Secondly, capitalism has existed for hundreds of years. Most people who bring up this argument usually are unable to setup a timetable for what "success" would be (and most likely, the timetable starts ending at a theoretical failure of capitalism in their minds). And remember, those "un-published" problems occur in every nation, socialist or capitalist or communist or traditional.

I do not want to discuss any timetables for revolutionary changes - I think such a discussion would be futile at this stage, and in any case I have nothing intelligent (based on evidence) to say about this matter because it is the stuff of astrologers. I simply want to demonstrate that it is possible to have a rational, relatively unemotional (perhaps) and relatively objective (perhaps) political discussion from which people learn to look at the evidence. I am interested in whether or not scientists are capable of using their tools of analysis in wider aspects of their lives. So let's call this an experiment...

 

[loseyourname]

I was hoping you'd respond, loseyourname - I wanted to compliment you on your choice of signature message; it's great!

Always great to find another fan of Joyce.

Ok, back on task... It is true that one cannot get beyond the capitalist system of private ownership of property by asking the rich to 'be nice' and 'share' (this is the sort of naive, utopian plan that the early French socialists had, and Marx completely dissociated himself from them as he wanted to develop a scientific theory to explain social change).

It isn't just getting rich people to give up their private property. It's getting anybody to give up their private property.

So, Marx predicted that when the material conditions are right (ie. when the vast bulk of humanity is so impoverished that the ordinary people have nothing to lose), people will unite and do whatever is necessary to try and secure their physical survival.

Yes, that would have to be the case. I would imagine that the average wealth of individuals in a given society would have to be extremely low for it to be advantageous for very many of them to give up their private property and opt for a voluntarily Marxist society (which, strictly speaking, is impossible, as there is no way that everyone will give up their private property). However, as Russ has pointed out, there are no capitalistic societies that are nearing that point. Private wealth has increased across the board; even the poorest among us are generally wealthier than the poorest among us 100 years ago.

It's been a while since I've read Marx (a good six years at least), but I'm pretty sure he thought that the revolution of the proletariat would occur fairly soon, and that living conditions and the average wealth of individuals in capitalistic societies would decrease over the coming century. None of the testable predictions he made thus far have been born out.

When you say that I should use 'capitalist theory' to understand capitalism, I don't really know which theory you are referring to. Please point me to some readings.

I'm not terribly well-read on political science, but keep in mind that capitalism is an economic theory. The theory I refer to is simply capitalism itself, as originally proposed by Adam Smith - market dynamics, productions possibility curves, the 'invisible hand,' all that good stuff. One book that I can direct you to that explains the rise of nationalism over dynasticism over the last three hundred years, and cites capitalism as one of the factors, is Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson. It's not a book of capitalist theory, but it does show one way in which capitalism can help us to understand modern history.

 

[Pengwuino]

@Alexandra

You seem to be desperately missing my point on nature vs social science. The "philosophy" of nature is F =ma, gravity is a function of mass (for all intensive purposes), blackbody radiation is a certain formula, a certain # of universal constants, etc. etc. I am not talking about man's effect on nature. And as far as observing something actually changing something about the experiment, that's quantum physics and is a very small theory within it which doesn't apply. When we figure formulas and put them into real world situations, we can pretty much ignore all other factors while the same is horribly untrue for social science.

As for the capitalism thing, you seem to care little about the upper classes of capitalism which really leads to your downfall. You immediately dismiss any notion that the 'upper class' has worked hard, didnt know what "9-5" meant and only knew that his job was done whenever it was done, never sacrificed, never put his physical health in danger, etc. etc. You also do not acknowledge those who have failed and are now 'in the gutter' per say.

as for the politicians, its getting annoying that you comment on another nation's government when you obviously do not understand what you are saying. I believe even during the time that article was published, many CEO's and businessmen that did business under the Clinton administration were being thrown in jail under the Bush administration. Also, that expodedia (closed link, sorry) link obviously is inaccurate. Many economists, some nobel prize nominated/winners agreed that the tax cuts pulled the US economy out of what would have been a depression thanks to the 'burst bubble' of the tech sector. The "scandal" about Bush though is also rather laughable as there's been very little evidence to indicate any wrong doings. Even the parties fighting for control of our nation gave up on that a long time ago.

And you do realize the great problem with Marx's theory is that its impossible. We thought resources were unlimitd at that time. We now realize there not. You also state everyone gets to do what they are good at or like to do yet immediately contradict yourself by saying some people will have ot be forced into doing crappy work for the same rewards as a doctor or afast food worker or a police officer. You also of course, must have someone dictating what you are going to do and what you deserve to live with whereas in a capitalist society, if you want more then hte next guy, you can work your way into that position of getting more then the next guy.

You also bring up CEO's and such getting huge sums of money (by the way, after that article you posted about teh 11 ml average, salaries did drop a very large amount). Well you don't seem to acknowledge that no factory worker ever left a trail of homeless factory workers in his rise to where he is. CEO's on the other hand do, for every 1 CEO, who knows how many people failed at the prospect of being a CEO and some lost all that they owned in the process.

also... The gist of the progressive criticism of proposed tax reform is that it is not appropriate to favor income from property over income from work, that such a regime favors the rich over the poor, that the state and local tax deduction is a principal enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and unduly penalizes those in blue states with higher income taxes, and that we don't need to reduce the incentive to provide health insurance in the midst of a health insurance crisis.

Ok after re-reading that post and coming across this, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with this website. The term "blue state" was only recently coined and was meant to be used for a very short time and shows obvious political bias to this site. The implications are absolutely preposterous. Please find some far more credible sitse then this.

 

[Pengwuino]

You also failed to explain the concept of capital gains; an incredibly high tax targeted directly at the "capitalist" class (your words, even though that invariably is everyone in America using its correct definition).

And do wonder why our definition of 'poverty' is actually considered middle or even upper-middle class in many socialist countries if our nation holds down the poor so much.

 

[alexandra]

alexandra, this isn't about credibility. Marx was a genius and a visionary. But that doesn't automatically make his theory right. Even Einstein made mistakes.

Ok, thanks for this reassurance russ_watters. I just couldn't believe that anyone would compare Marx to Hitler, and this is why I was so adament that people should first investigate what sort of thinker Marx was before accepting such a comparison. I also objected to being told that I have put so much intellectual effort into studying something that is worthless, a view that anyone who has actually made a study of his work could not possibly hold.

It annoys me that people judge any intellectual's work (not only Marx's) without first having read it. I once made that mistake regarding Nietzsche, and felt totally ridiculous once I started reading it and realized that I had just taken on the 'popular' misconceptions about him without giving myself a chance to think for myself. I was so 'against' him (based on no credible evidence) that I had even refused to read any of his work! How ridiculous is that?

 

[alexandra]

You do not live in our country (as you implied in a post) and know nothing about our laws or system yet you present an argument and then complain when we don't agree with you and say your "vehemently attacked for my beliefs".

My apologies about the 'vehement attack' thing; you're quite right, that was definitely an overstatement of the case. I think it's just that I've read some of the other thread and the way people react to what they disagree with there and I was worried the same would happen here. It hasn't so far.

But I do have two questions for you before we continue our discussion, Pengwuino, and they relate to something you have said twice now (refer to first line quoted above and to statement quoted below).

@Alexandra

...as for the politicians, its getting annoying that you comment on another nation's government when you obviously do not understand what you are saying.

My questions are:
1. Do you believe that as a non-American my view is necessarily uninformed and worthless?
2. Do you want me to stop participating in this discussion?

I will desist until you have responded either way. If you want me to just stop, say so and I will. If you don't respond, I will assume you want me to desist.

 

[GENIERE]

Although not solicited -

yes
yes
yes

 

[Pengwuino]

Geniere, there were only 2 questions you intellectually deprived american :D lol

@ alexandra

1. Of course not but you have so far brought about outside opinions about my country using incorrect data and said that people, such as me and others, are too...i forget what word you use, but we're too "stuck" on our ideology to ever think against it? I don't know what term you used, but you say we are stuck on our ideology and won't listen to you. Well we don't listen to you not because we love our ideology or something, we arent listening because you have presented incorrect data on our country in an argument against our country. It seems only fair to present data if its correct and as Americans, our knowledge takes precident over yours in matters where incorrect data might be used seeing as how we are the ones who live in this country and we are the ones in-tune with American politics. Wherever you live, you are far more in-tuned to whichever country it is's politics then we are. Hopefully, we would never attempt to argue against your country using data from a New York or Washington newspaper or American website that you know, as a resident of your country, is incorrect.

2. No but please bring up some facts based on what we have requested. I personally ahve requested actual cited cases inside the Patriot Act where US citizens rights are somehow utterly destroyed as most people seem to say they are and you have not done so. Someone also asked as to what your evidence is for the "capitalist" class being lazy was.

So, in conclusion, we would love for you to stay as long as some real arguments are being presented and not here-say and "rhetoric".

 

[russ_watters]

It annoys me that people judge any intellectual's work (not only Marx's) without first having read it.

That's a big assumption that you're making there. And not just about Marx's work itself - but about the history of communism and capitalism that followed it.

I just couldn't believe that anyone would compare Marx to Hitler...

Well, the comparison to Hitler would be indirect, but I would directly compare Marx and Stalin. Marxism was the enabling idea that led to the deaths of tens of millions of Russians under Stalin. Stalin murdered (through starvation) most of the farmers in Russia for the purpose of collectivization. No, I'm certain Marx would not have approved of his methods, but Stalin's actions were a real effort to implement an aspect of Marx's theory. And as I and others pointed out, Stalin's methods were the only way many such ideas of Marx could actually be implimented. That's the flaw in Marxism and its a biggie.

I do not want to discuss any timetables for revolutionary changes...

That is a key flaw in the Marxist ideology (the ideology of his followers). Its unscientific. A good example in science is the discovery of neutrinos (I think it was neutrinos...). Neutrinos are discovered by their interactions with other molecules - ie, an energetic collision. By making a huge tank of water and shielding it from other forms of radiation, you can detect neutrino collisions. Theory predicted the number of such collisions that should be detected - for the first few detectors, on the order of one or two a year. The point is, that if the theory had merit, neutrinos would have been detected. Probability allows for the chance that you might go more than a year without seeing one, but the longer you go without seeing one, the greater the probability that the theory is wrong. So too with Marxism. Marxism has failed to happen for so long, while the counter-theory has had unbridled/unprecidented success, that the likelyhood of Marxism proving itself viable is asymptotically approaching zero. Had a neutrino detector gone 5 years without seeing a neutrino, the theory would have been dropped - well, Marx has had 100 years of similar failure.

Also, there is one fact that people made (correct and incorrect) implications about that I need to make sure is clear: everyone benefits from capitalism in a capitalistic society. Yes, you read that right. I said everyone. And the evidence of that is direct: the income of every segment of the US society increases with time. Yes, even the bottom 20% - the poorest of the poor - are getting richer.

But what of the homeless, jobless man on the street, you say? Hasn't capitalism failed to help him? No, not even him. It is likely he, his family, his health, etc. failed him, but not capitalism. Capitalism has still helped him. How? He hasn't starved to death. If he gets hit by a car, an ambulance paid for by capitalism will come to his aid. In most other societies, if you fail completely, you often die. And sometimes, even, attempted Marxism itself kills people (see Stalin and Kim Jong Il). In the US, capitalism at the very least allows/enables everyone to live and gives them the opportunity to try again.

Regarding Bush: Even if he were wholly owned and operated by a corporation, it would not be relevant to this thread. Bush has 3 years to go and then he's not going to be President anymore. Our last President was a democrat - our next may be too. While it is true that despite his supposed political beliefs, Clinton's entanglements and corruptions regarding business were far worse than Bush's, that isn't relevant either.

A discussion of why "it" is getting worse is only relevant if "it" is getting worse, and the fact is that "it" is not getting worse, "it" is getting better.

edit: Furthermore, recent history alone cannot be used to establish trends. That applies in all fields of science. Establishing trends requires long-term data. How long term? Well, for a start, it must be long enough to account for periodic and random fluctuations. Presidential terms are such a periodic function in politics. The economic cycle (which typically goes for about 4-8 years) is one in economics. Random fluctuations include things like natural disasters.

 

[russ_watters]

The more I read of this thread, the more incredulous I get - the OP was about applying science to politics. For the love of money ( ), apply some scientific reasoning to this:

So, Marx predicted that when the material conditions are right (ie. when the vast bulk of humanity is so impoverished that the ordinary people have nothing to lose), people will unite and do whatever is necessary to try and secure their physical survival.

That's great: its a testable hypothesis in Marxism, and one of the more fundamental ones. And its perfectly scientific and straightforward to prove with real data. Put into a more concise hypothesis form, it is:

--Capitalism causes the severe decline in wealth of everyone except for the richest few in a capitalistic society.

So you tell me: what does the data show about this prediction?

 

[russ_watters]

I believe that a marxist analysis is a very powerful theoretical tool that is still very much valid because it enables social scientists to understand capitalist societies since:...

My main point is this: if ever there were a theoretical perspective/tool of analysis in the social sciences that was scientific, marxism is the one.

Marx's idea of applying science to politics is separate from the form of government he proposed. Essentially, its like Newton inventing calculus as a tool to help him derive the physics of gravity. But the thing that is so ironic (and mystifying) to me is that Marxists don't follow it.

I think that if Marx were alive today, if he truly accepted his own philosophy and didn't just believe in his political theory religiously, he'd call it (as Einstein once said), "...my greatest blunder..."

 

[SOS2008]

I have only briefly reviewed posts to date, some going in different directions, so I will try to return to some of the original posts of this thread. It has been some time since I studied this topic as well, and it was not my area of specialty, so I provide a summary to comment to:

http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/marxism.html

Marxism is a set of theories, or a system of thought and analysis of: philosophy, history, and economics.

Materialist philosophy is based on empiricism, on the direct observation of measurable or observable phenomena; studying how the human mind, via the senses, perceives external reality, and particularly with the idea of how we know things "objectively," without the interference of emotions or preconceived ideas about things.

As a historian, Marx identifies five basic historical developments or changes in the mode of production: the primitive community, the slave state, the feudal state, capitalism, and socialism. He focuses on capitalism as an unequal mode of production, one that exploits workers. From these economic relations comes a crucially important concept in Marxist thought: the idea of alienation.

The economic base (the relations and forces of production) in any society generates other social formations called superstructures, and ideologies, which will articulate what, and how people can think. The ideologies present in a capitalist society will explain, justify, and support the capitalist mode of production. Again, the example of slavery in nineteenth-century US culture is useful: all of the superstructures, such as organized religion, local and national politics, and art (especially literature), worked to uphold slavery as a good economic system.

An initial concept, as put forth in this thread, is the use of Marxist theory for empiricism. However, it would seem that studying the human mind, senses, perceptions, etc. are subjective, so it would still be difficult to measure observable phenomena in relation to these things.

Of course, there is no pure form of capitalism any more than Marxism. A completely free market would be like a jungle in which the strongest predators would rise to the top and eat everyone else (Enron is an example). We must have anti-trust laws to retain competition, and regulation to maintain safety, environmental protection, etc., and must protect some aspects of our economy for national security interests. So really, it is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. In this sense, Marx is correct.

I feel we are socialized to believe our capitalistic system is superior and just. However I feel it is more than that, which brings up the point of alienation, and for me always the question of human nature.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marxism.html

Marx claimed we are alienated not only because many of us toil in tedious, perhaps even degrading, jobs or because by competing in the marketplace, we tend to place profitability above human need.

Some people may be accepting of being a “wage slave” because they may like the security or may not know any alternative. Like gambling, people like the idea that they may make it big (become part of the 1% capitalists), even if the odds are slim. Still, I believe attitudes and behaviors evolve.

Martha Gimenez notes more recent and interesting trends in her review of Sean Sayers, Marxism and Human Nature (London: Routledge, 1998), 203pp., paperback

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1299gimen.htm

The creative use of non-work time is a modern development which, paradoxically, reflects the need to work; people whose work lives are less than satisfactory seek fulfillment during their leisure time. Another manifestation of the need to work is the extent to which people today (particularly the younger generations) are reluctant to accept meaningless work just because it is necessary for survival or because one has a duty to work. The greater the education and skills of the workforce, the more demanding they are likely to become. But one wonders how far those demands can go under the conditions imposed by world capitalism, which allows capital unprecedented freedom and mobility.

We see several things. With companies no longer as loyal to labor as use to be the case in the US, people change industries an average of five times in their life. More people are trying to find ways to work for themselves (though I’m not sure if/how new bankruptcy laws may impact upon the risks people will be willing to take in the future). The average age that children leave home is now 28. Illegal immigrants are now doing the jobs that use to be filled in part by young people while acquiring education/skills. In the meantime, US companies have taken work to other countries, moving from one country to another country as the work force becomes more sophisticated and demanding. The long-term effects such trends may have on the standard of living Americans enjoy has yet to be seen.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course, there is no pure form of capitalism any more than Marxism. A completely free market would be like a jungle in which the strongest predators would rise to the top and eat everyone else (Enron is an example). We must have anti-trust laws to retain competition, and regulation to maintain safety, environmental protection, etc., and must protect some aspects of our economy for national security interests. So really, it is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. In this sense, Marx is correct.

I must then point out the other side of the coin (you allude to it, but I don't want others to miss it): Marxist political/economic theory, too, would never be "pure", but that can't be used as an excuse to say it has never been tried any more than it can be said that capitalism has never been tried. It has been tried in many forms in many places, and has failed catastrophically in virtually every application.

We see several things. With companies no longer as loyal to labor as use to be the case in the US, people change industries an average of five times in their life. More people are trying to find ways to work for themselves (though I’m not sure if/how new bankruptcy laws may impact upon the risks people will be willing to take in the future). The average age that children leave home is now 28. Illegal immigrants are now doing the jobs that use to be filled in part by young people while acquiring education/skills. In the meantime, US companies have taken work to other countries, moving from one country to another country as the work force becomes more sophisticated and demanding. The long-term effects such trends may have on the standard of living Americans enjoy has yet to be seen.

After what I just said about long-term trends, all I can say about that is this: long-term trends do not appear to indicate a detriment to the standard of living is occurring. Many of the individual issues you describe would have manifested themselves by now if they were problems. Overseas outsourcing, for example, has been going on for decades, though arguably it is speeding up. The loss of millions of jobs to outsourcing (some even go as short term as 2001 - 2.7 million jobs). Such numbers should manifest themselves even in the short term. So have they? There is a reason Democrats didn't bring up unemployment in the last election...

 

[SOS2008]

I must then point out the other side of the coin (you allude to it, but I don't want others to miss it): Marxist political/economic theory, too, would never be "pure", but that can't be used as an excuse to say it has never been tried any more than it can be said that capitalism has never been tried. It has been tried in many forms in many places, and has failed catastrophically in virtually every application...

Agreed that Marxism has not been practised in the pure sense, and the forms that have been tried I feel have not been successful because human nature is difficult to predict with scientific methods, and IMO this is where the theory miscalculates.

After what I just said about long-term trends, all I can say about that is this: long-term trends do not appear to indicate a detriment to the standard of living is occurring. Many of the individual issues you describe would have manifested themselves by now if they were problems. Overseas outsourcing, for example, has been going on for decades, though arguably it is speeding up. The loss of millions of jobs to outsourcing (some even go as short term as 2001 - 2.7 million jobs). Such numbers should manifest themselves even in the short term. So have they? There is a reason Democrats didn't bring up unemployment in the last election...

The original outsourcing of US jobs was manufacturing in nature. Our economy changed to a service industry in part due to this fact, and cheap imports in general. Now the jobs that are outsourced are largely technical, and the effect of this has been manifested in the technical sector with loss of jobs (beginning with the recession just prior to 9-11). These are higher-paying jobs than the old "sweat shop" jobs that were outsourced before, and as you mention, the practice is on a larger scale now.

 

[GENIERE]

Geniere, there were only 2 questions you stupid american :D lol…

Please edit your post. Replace stupid with “intellectually deprived”.

...

 

[Pengwuino]

Please edit your post. Replace stupid with “intellectually deprived”.

How dare you censor me! See! Your so brainwashed by your anti-stupid propoganda that you... uhm... do .. whatever... george w bush = hitler! *runs off naked*

Wait a second, penguins don't have clothes!

 

[GENIERE]

Wait a second, penguins don't have clothes!

Neither do Marxists, just olive grey uniforms. A display of color would distinguish the individual. That is not permitted. I suggest you dye your feathers red, white, and blue.


...

 

[Pengwuino]

No way, my furw ould sell for a pretty capitalist penny

 

[alexandra]

Always great to find another fan of Joyce.

Ah, yes, Joyce - I'd forgotten that's where it came from:-)

Private wealth has increased across the board; even the poorest among us are generally wealthier than the poorest among us 100 years ago.

I was wondering whether or not anyone has any evidence to back up this statement? This claim has been made in a few posts in this thread. I found a US source of information on this question at http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3146724 . This article claims that poverty is actually increasing

It's been a while since I've read Marx (a good six years at least), but I'm pretty sure he thought that the revolution of the proletariat would occur fairly soon, and that living conditions and the average wealth of individuals in capitalistic societies would decrease over the coming century. None of the testable predictions he made thus far have been born out.

I can't remember reading anywhere in Marx's work a definite prediction regarding the timing of the collapse of capitalist societies. If anyone else has a reference of where he made such a prediction, please let me know.

The theory I refer to is simply capitalism itself, as originally proposed by Adam Smith - market dynamics, productions possibility curves, the 'invisible hand,' all that good stuff. One book that I can direct you to that explains the rise of nationalism over dynasticism over the last three hundred years, and cites capitalism as one of the factors, is Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson. It's not a book of capitalist theory, but it does show one way in which capitalism can help us to understand modern history.

I have read work on the 'invisible hand' of the market and the 'trickle down' economic theories; I just did not find them convincing:-) I will locate the text you suggest by Anderson (I recall reading an extract from it a while ago) and read it when I get a chance (but this won't be for a while as things are pretty busy at work at the moment).

 

[russ_watters]

I was wondering whether or not anyone has any evidence to back up this statement? This claim has been made in a few posts in this thread. I found a US source of information on this question at http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3146724 . This article claims that poverty is actually increasing

Only over the last 4 years - read what I said about long term and short term trends. Over the long term, poverty has decreased radically in the US and around the world due to capitalism. Even if you think its starting to change, poverty needs to double in the world and in the United States just to get back where it was in 1950 (30% in the US).

And with unemployment finally down, poverty levels will follow.

Something else important to note: the definition of "poverty" has changed with time (moreso in the US than for the world) to make it stricter. What we consider "poverty" in the US would not qualify as poverty in communist countries. In the US, poverty means having to choose between eating out and cable tv. In communist countries, it means choosing which person in your family gets to eat that day.

I can't remember reading anywhere in Marx's work a definite prediction regarding the timing of the collapse of capitalist societies.

Regardless, we're 100 years into his prediction and we're further away from it happening than we were then. Sooner or later, you need to choose between the continuing unbridled success of capitalism and the Communist Revolution that gets further away with every passing year (and that's only if you choose not to look at communism's multiple, spectacular failures).

I have read work on the 'invisible hand' of the market and the 'trickle down' economic theories; I just did not find them convincing:-)

You don't need to worry about whether the argument is convincing, just look at the data. However it is happening, capitalism is working.

 

[alexandra]

That's a big assumption that you're making there. And not just about Marx's work itself - but about the history of communism and capitalism that followed it.

My assumption was based on the comparison of Marx to Hitler; anyone who has read Marx's theory would know that his writings were serious works while Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' was anything but.

And as I and others pointed out, Stalin's methods were the only way many such ideas of Marx could actually be implimented. That's the flaw in Marxism and its a biggie. That is a key flaw in the Marxist ideology (the ideology of his followers). Its unscientific. .

As SOS2008 points out, Marx’s theory involved historical changes in modes of production from ‘lower’ to ‘higher’ levels; quoting SOS2008:

“As a historian, Marx identifies five basic historical developments or changes in the mode of production: the primitive community, the slave state, the feudal state, capitalism, and socialism. He focuses on capitalism as an unequal mode of production, one that exploits workers.”

In 1917 Russia was still largely a feudal society; it had not yet achieved capitalism; whether or not Marx’s theory of the historical evolution of societies is correct has therefore not yet been tested. Going strictly according to Marx’s theory, one cannot ‘skip’ the vital stage of capitalist development. It can be argued that Stalinism (which was neither Marxism nor ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’) occurred not because of any flaws in Marx’s theory but because of Russia’s stage of economic development at the time (although there were a number of other significant reasons for the failure of the revolution in Russia, including the drain on Russia’s resources as a result of the world wars and the hostility of the major capitalist countries – Leon Trotsky’s “The History of the Russian Revolution” provides good background information about the prevailing conditions).

Marxism has failed to happen for so long, while the counter-theory has had unbridled/unprecidented success, that the likelyhood of Marxism proving itself viable is asymptotically approaching zero. Had a neutrino detector gone 5 years without seeing a neutrino, the theory would have been dropped - well, Marx has had 100 years of similar failure.

Well, you just never know… as everyone keeps saying, there is no predictability in social affairs. If you want to argue this, then it would only be fair to concede that it is impossible to predict the eternal dominance of the present (capitalist) mode and relations of production. It is also worth noting that the transformation from feudalism to capitalism happened over a much longer timespan than just 100 years. According to Wikipedia, feudalism’s decline commenced in the 13th century
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism#Decline_of_feudalism ), while capitalism started becoming the dominant mode of production with the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.

Also, there is one fact that people made (correct and incorrect) implications about that I need to make sure is clear: everyone benefits from capitalism in a capitalistic society. Yes, you read that right. I said everyone. And the evidence of that is direct: the income of every segment of the US society increases with time. Yes, even the bottom 20% - the poorest of the poor - are getting richer.

I have provided a link regarding this in my previous post to loseyourname; I think you may consider The Economist a reputable source of information?

 

[Pengwuino]

@Alexandra

Our poverty rate has been increased a lot in the past few decades. We believe in a far higher standard of living then say, many European nations. Also, it doesn't mater if you are convinced by a theory or not. It only matters what theory works and what theory doesnt. I am not too keen on this Uncertainty Principle but eh, what can you say.

After glancing at that economist link, I am starting to wonder about that companys credibility as there was very recently like a $1000 jump in the poverty level (03'?).

 

[alexandra]

Only over the last 4 years - read what I said about long term and short term trends. Over the long term, poverty has decreased radically in the US and around the world due to capitalism. Even if you think its starting to change, poverty needs to double in the world and in the United States just to get back where it was in 1950 (30% in the US).

And with unemployment finally down, poverty levels will follow.

Something else important to note: the definition of "poverty" has changed with time (moreso in the US than for the world) to make it stricter. What we consider "poverty" in the US would not qualify as poverty in communist countries. In the US, poverty means having to choose between eating out and cable tv. In communist countries, it means choosing which person in your family gets to eat that day. Regardless, we're 100 years into his prediction and we're further away from it happening than we were then. Sooner or later, you need to choose between the continuing unbridled success of capitalism and the Communist Revolution that gets further away with every passing year (and that's only if you choose not to look at communism's multiple, spectacular failures). You don't need to worry about whether the argument is convincing, just look at the data. However it is happening, capitalism is working.

Oops - you're too quick in your responses! I was busy getting together the arguments for my last response while you posted this. russ_watters, perhaps we do have to agree to disagree on this one. I am happy with the way we aren't 'shouting' at each other and being juvenile about it, though. Given our ideological differences, I think we're managing nevertheless to have a rational conversation about this (so I think my experiment is meeting with at least some success). Are you interested in continuing the discussion (given that it seems very unlikely either of us will convince the other)? On my part, I am enjoying the discussion, and it is forcing me to think more deeply about my own views and how to back up my arguments (so I'm learning from it, which is always a plus).

 

[alexandra]

@Alexandra

Our poverty rate has been increased a lot in the past few decades. We believe in a far higher standard of living then say, many European nations. Also, it doesn't mater if you are convinced by a theory or not. It only matters what theory works and what theory doesnt. I am not too keen on this Uncertainty Principle but eh, what can you say.

After glancing at that economist link, I am starting to wonder about that companys credibility as there was very recently like a $1000 jump in the poverty level (03'?).

Hi Pengwuino

I'm glad you're still talking to me - I thought I'd gotten you so annoyed ( ) you wouldn't want to read any more of my posts. I've spent an hour or so responding to some of loseyourname's and russ_water's points tonight, so I won't be able to respond properly to yours - but I did want to say I'm glad we're still 'talking' I'll see if I can come up with something annoying tomorrow, though

 

[russ_watters]

Oops - you're too quick in your responses! I was busy getting together the arguments for my last response while you posted this. russ_watters, perhaps we do have to agree to disagree on this one.

Um, well - you don't have a response? The article you posted clearly shows only a very short term increase in poverty level and a drastic, long term decline. Again, hard data directly contradicts the predictions of Marx.