alexandra
I'd go with this, zoobyshoezoobyshoe said:I think in most wars, most of the population of most of the countries involved are extremely unhappy that a war is in progress.

I'd go with this, zoobyshoezoobyshoe said:I think in most wars, most of the population of most of the countries involved are extremely unhappy that a war is in progress.
Modern technology has provided many people with the free time to sit down and ruminate on how miserable they feel, yes. It's very ironic. I like technology, but there are some kinds of problems it doesn't touch.russ_watters said:That's a myth and a luxury of living in a society with modern technology. The luxury of ignorance of how much better things really are.
Wide spread hysteria and death, one third of the population of Europe dying. Definately a great tragedy.moose said:I believe that the black plague in europe sharply stopped all technological advancements for hundreds of years. I think that was a true tragedy.
Joel said:Noouuu! That's what I said!Let's see, I said luther was number 3 both times and that was correct. So, when I said "switch 1 and 2" I must have been right either before or after the switch, right?
![]()
![]()
Yeah, I'd forgotten about the plagues - not much can top 1/3 of the population of Europe being wiped out.Monique said:Wide spread hysteria and death, one third of the population of Europe dying. Definately a great tragedy.
Yeah, I think that historical context is important to understanding Marx's errors. Marx did his work in the mid-1800s, right smack in the middle of the industrial revolution. He witnessed things like sweatshops and child labor and guessed incorrectly that capitalism would be unable to deal with them. Marx witnessed a revolution and didn't realize that it was a revolution - that it wasn't finished.stoned said:Marx went to London lived and died there, and he wrote his most important works there. he was in schock when he saw in what conditions people were working in England, not even in France or Germany people workers have been treated this way, England beats them all. Most of workers rights were won in Germany and France and even far sighted and wise governments of those two (specifically German government) nations did enacted some revolutionary ideas like unemployment insurance, universal health care,children care etc.
russ_watters said:Thats a pretty twisted view of capitalism, but in any case the important part, to me, is the first phrase of the second sentence. Capitalism is the best system we have. I always enjoy the ironies of Marxism, but this is just classic. Translation: 'Marxism has no basis in reality, therefore reality is flawed.'![]()
Hmm, ok - it seems we haven't quite shifted the debate to the dark side yet, so I'll do a quick response to this one here:russ_watters said:Yeah, I think that historical context is important to understanding Marx's errors. Marx did his work in the mid-1800s, right smack in the middle of the industrial revolution. He witnessed things like sweatshops and child labor and guessed incorrectly that capitalism would be unable to deal with them. Marx witnessed a revolution and didn't realize that it was a revolution - that it wasn't finished.
So, you see, Marx was correct.With ten of thousands of garment factories employing tens of millions of workers in nearly 200 countries, large corporations search the world for the lowest labor costs and ignore human rights. Unfortunately, sweatshops exists in every corner of the world, from China to Mexico and Kenya to Turkey. These workplaces generally papoverty wages, force workers to labor long hours, employ child labor, deny workers the right to form a union, fire women who become pregnant or subject workers to dangerous conditions. Even in the U.S., sweatshops exists. In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor found that 67% of Los Angeles garment factories don’t pay workers minimum wage or overtime.
U.S. Department of Labor 2000 Southern California Garment Compliance Survey Fact Sheet, August 2000.
Deciding that cats were the problem, then killing all the cats was an even funnier tragedy.Monique said:Wide spread hysteria and death, one third of the population of Europe dying. Definately a great tragedy.
What is it you're up to, exactly? Are you suggesting with all this talk of Marx that it would ever be feasible for any country to make a transition to Marxism?alexandra said:So, you see, Marx wascorrect.
loseyourname said:If we look outside of human history to the history of the entire planet, aside from the mass extinction at the end of the Cambrian period, the evolution of humans was probably the greatest tragedy.
dextercioby said:Bladibla,I guess your acception of "tragedy" would consider the earthquakes and other natural catastrophies resulting in massive death toll to be something else than a "tragedy"...Hmm,interesting.Are u thinking ancient Greek theater ?
Daniel.
loseyourname said:If we look outside of human history to the history of the entire planet, aside from the mass extinction at the end of the Cambrian period, the evolution of humans was probably the greatest tragedy.
I'll have to mention that to them the next time I see them. They'll get a kick out of it.russ_watters said:That's a myth and a luxury of living in a society with modern technology. The luxury of ignorance of how much better things really are. Ask them (oh wait, you can't - they just died of the plague!)
I had thought of this and decided against it. Perhaps just removing the part of humanity that causes us to be selfish would remedy the problem. That is why I voted for the destruction of the ego. Then again, I guess we wouldn't be human without it.loseyourname said:If we look outside of human history to the history of the entire planet, aside from the mass extinction at the end of the Cambrian period, the evolution of humans was probably the greatest tragedy.
Bladibla said:But it can't be really called a tragedy.. can it? I mean, we couldn't exactly stop some x-organism evolving over millions of years to become us.
A tragedy would be a event which it *could* have been prevented, but could't due to human failures.
Correct me if i am wrong.
On what do you base that? Ove the past 20 years, the poverty rate in the world has decreased by half. Why do you think that trend will reverse itself?Huckleberry said:As it is over 1 billion people in the world have bad water quality. About 1/3 of the world's population have substandard sanitation. These numbers will increase in the next few decades.
Au contraire. You cannot really understand something until you have experienced it. I can describe skydiving to you till I'm blue in the face, but it won't help you understand how it feels except in the most basic, academic, detached sense.Because a person lives in a poor, out of the way place does not make them ignorant to the world. You are making an assumption that they are ignorant of modern technology. That is untrue. These people know exactly what they are missing but live according to their means as best they can, and I might add far better than many in richer nations would in the same circumstances.
I wasn't basing it on poverty at all. I was basing it on world water supply and demand. There are already fresh water shortages in many nations. As populations increase these shortages will increase as well. Many of the poorest nations are already in areas with water shortages. Poorer nations experience a greater population growth% than wealthier nations. River basins are already important resources and will become more so in the future. Over 150 river basins are shared by 2 or more countries. Two important ones are between India and Pakistan and the U.S. and Mexico. Fresh, potable water is not an infinite resource.russ_watters said:On what do you base that? Ove the past 20 years, the poverty rate in the world has decreased by half. Why do you think that trend will reverse itself?
People in impoverished nations know what a well is. They know unclean water can make them sick and potentially be fatal. They are aware of the existence of technologies for supplying fresh water and sanitation. They just don't have the means to acquire these things themselves.russ_watters said:Au contraire. You cannot really understand something until you have experienced it. I can describe skydiving to you till I'm blue in the face, but it won't help you understand how it feels except in the most basic, academic, detached sense.Huckleberry said:Because a person lives in a poor, out of the way place does not make them ignorant to the world. You are making an assumption that they are ignorant of modern technology. That is untrue. These people know exactly what they are missing but live according to their means as best they can, and I might add far better than many in richer nations would in the same circumstances.
A person must certainly be alive to enjoy life. There are poor people that are alive in the world, far more than there are rich people. I think they would disagree with you that they have no quality of life. I certainly do.russ_watters said:Besides - my statement has a much more basic implication: Arguing over quality of life is a moot point. To have a quality of life, you need to be alive. Lifespan has doubled this century too.
Probably just as unhappy as the family who lost a child despite the best available medical care. Maybe more, maybe less. Mostly depends on how well adjusted the family in question is, don't you think?TheStatutoryApe said:I thought this was about lack of technology? At least this particular side dicussion.
Huck I say go to a family that has lost a child recently due to lack of advanced medical care and ask them how happy they are.
I think you're missing the point. In a society with less advanced medicine infant mortality is higher. So more families in those societies are going to suffer the loss of children.zoobyshoe said:Probably just as unhappy as the family who lost a child despite the best available medical care. Maybe more, maybe less. Mostly depends on how well adjusted the family in question is, don't you think?
This sounds logical, but is probably specious. The happier society, as a whole, would be the one that has the best psychological coping mechanism for dealing with loss and death.TheStatutoryApe said:Soooo the overall happiness of that society would most likely be hampered by families grieving for lost children. And that's just one single aspect of why technology can make a society happier on average.
It's all perspective. I think most women though would tell you they would be far happier never losing a child then having lost one. The reason I picked this as an example was that it's would be hard to turn around because it's so emotional. Most other things can be turned based on perspective.zoobyshoe said:This sounds logical, but is probably specious. The happier society, as a whole, would be the one that has the best psychological coping mechanism for dealing with loss and death.
I think Huck's overall quality vs quantity argument is pretty sound.
Death of a child = #1 hardest thing to deal with, they say.TheStatutoryApe said:It's all perspective. I think most women though would tell you they would be far happier never losing a child then having lost one. The reason I picked this as an example was that it's would be hard to turn around because it's so emotional. Most other things can be turned based on perspective.
I think you may have misread: I didn't say that the poor have no quality of life, I said that the dead have no qualilty of life. The catch being that the poor are more likely to die young - so if a poor person (meaning a resident of a 3rd world nation) and one living in the US have the same average quality of life, the person living in the US would have twice the total quality of life due to living twice as long.Huckleberry said:A person must certainly be alive to enjoy life. There are poor people that are alive in the world, far more than there are rich people. I think they would disagree with you that they have no quality of life. I certainly do.
This is what I am up to exactly: when the scientific body of work of a serious scholar such as Marx is linked to the actions of insane individuals who had no understanding of his theory, I try to bring attention to the facts of the matter. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were Marxists. Marx's theory can in no way be linked to what those individuals did, and I wanted to point this out. My aim is not exactly unreasonable, since I am a political scientist. If someone said something you knew to be incorrect in your specialist field of study, I imagine you too would try to correct the errors?zoobyshoe said:What is it you're up to, exactly? Are you suggesting with all this talk of Marx that it would ever be feasible for any country to make a transition to Marxism?
Course, but you're clearly going beyond correcting errors. I sense enthusiasm for Marxism. I'm trying to figure out if you're saying, merely, that Marx was good in that he exposed the evils of Capitalism, or if you think Marxism could ever actually be put successfully in place here, or anywhere.alexandra said:If someone said something you knew to be incorrect in your specialist field of study, I imagine you too would try to correct the errors?
Just out of curiosity, what is your level of qualification?alexandra said:...I am a political scientist. If someone said something you knew to be incorrect in your specialist field of study, I imagine you too would try to correct the errors?
And for the record, I was (am) very precise with my wording: I did not say that Hitler and Stalin were Marxists. My assessment is that Stalin was close to being a Marxist, but Hitler was not. Neither "truly" followed Marx's vision and, as I said, I doubt Marx would have approved of their usage of it. However, Hitler's anti-semitism may have been related to Marxism.Neither Hitler nor Stalin were Marxists.
I am saying that Marx developed a theoretical perspective that provides the tools with which to analyse capitalist societies. In effect, Marx is the 'Einstein' of political science - through a lifetime of research, thinking and analysis, he developed the equivalent of Einstein's theory of General Relativity in the discipline of Political Science. Much of current political theorising is either informed by Marx's insights or is a reaction to Marx's theory. By using the analytical tools of Marxist theory, one can understand the workings of capitalist systems - how the economy works, why politicians behave as they do, what the role of the mass media is in capitalist societies, why so little progress has been made in addressing pressing environmental problems, the role of trade unions (as well as their inherent limitations in defending the rights of workers), etc. Discounting Marx's contributions to the development of political theory is the same as discounting Einstein's contributions to the development of modern physics.zoobyshoe said:Course, but you're clearly going beyond correcting errors. I sense enthusiasm for Marxism. I'm trying to figure out if you're saying, merely, that Marx was good in that he exposed the evils of Capitalism, or if you think Marxism could ever actually be put successfully in place here, or anywhere.
russ_watters said:Just out of curiosity, what is your level of qualification?
It is true that Marx wrote a lot, and that some of his work could have been misinterpreted. This can happen to all theories that are put in the public domain: once you have published something, you no longer have any control over its interpretation. It is also true that Stalin presented himself as a Marxist. But how people present themselves and what they are is not always the same thing. The way to judge whether someone is what they claim to be is to check how well their actions match the claim. Marx would definitely not have approved of Stalin's 'interpretation' of his theory.russ_watters said:And for the record, I was (am) very precise with my wording: I did not say that Hitler and Stalin were Marxists. My assessment is that Stalin was close to being a Marxist, but Hitler was not. Neither "truly" followed Marx's vision and, as I said, I doubt Marx would have approved of their usage of it. However, Hitler's anti-semitism may have been related to Marxism.
No, you don't.alexandra said:Don't I sound like the 'normal' political scientist to you?
To me, the more important question is: what would Stalin have done if Marx hadn't existed?It is true that Marx wrote a lot, and that some of his work could have been misinterpreted. This can happen to all theories that are put in the public domain: once you have published something, you no longer have any control over its interpretation. It is also true that Stalin presented himself as a Marxist. But how people present themselves and what they are is not always the same thing. The way to judge whether someone is what they claim to be is to check how well their actions match the claim. Marx would definitely not have approved of Stalin's 'interpretation' of his theory.
This is a good question. I was answering briefly and inaccurately earlier when I said that Hitler and Stalin were insane - in my view, history is never made by individuals. To understand Stalin's rise to power and Stalinism will require a long discussion of Russian history in the context of what was happening not only in Russia but also internationally at the time. Overall, Marx's theory did, of course, form a 'link' in the historical chain of events that led to the Russian Revolution. After that, Lenin's death and Stalin's exiling and subsequent murder of Trotsky, as well as many other factors took over. But I'm not sure this is the proper place to be discussing such 'heavy' politics...russ_watters said:To me, the more important question is: what would Stalin have done if Marx hadn't existed?
Maybe I have misinterpretted what I've read. When you say the 'dead have no quality of life' I assumed that you were speaking of the poor. You had mentioned the death of poor people in the previous posts as well. Who should I have assumed were the dead people you were referring to?russ_watters said:I think you may have misread: I didn't say that the poor have no quality of life, I said that the dead have no qualilty of life. The catch being that the poor are more likely to die young - so if a poor person (meaning a resident of a 3rd world nation) and one living in the US have the same average quality of life, the person living in the US would have twice the total quality of life due to living twice as long.
Huh? The fact that there are so many poor people has very little to do with how good they are at surviving. Poor people tend to procreate more, plus poverty (having nothing) is the default human condition. Its only relatively recently that it became possible for anyone but royalty to be anything but poor.If poor people are so prone to death then why are there so many in the world? Despite the conditions they live in they are very successful survivors.
There are always some people trying to take advantage of other people.alexandra said:I don't foresee an end to the wars, or to the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, or to the environmental disasters that are looming.
Well, I'd say we see them all the time - what's rare is a Marxist who has actually studied political science formally - a "real" Marxist.zoobyshoe said:Your posts are all quite surprising simply because I haven't run into anyone espousing Marxism since I was in college 30 years ago.
"We" who? Sincerely: I haven't encountered a single one since college.russ_watters said:Well, I'd say we see them all the time - what's rare is a Marxist who has actually studied political science formally - a "real" Marxist.
Maybe you're just being narrower in your characterization, but the topic seems to come up about once a month. And there is never a shortage of defenders of Marxism (/communism/socialism). Generally, they are not as outspoken as alexandra, alexandra wasn't the only one in the "Objectivity..." thread that is currently open. A "Marxism" search reveals a number of other threads with a number of other defenders of these concepts.zoobyshoe said:"We" who? Sincerely: I haven't encountered a single one since college.
Run into on the street? Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen one.zoobyshoe said:No, I'm talking 30 years without having run into anyone I would call a Marxist or communist.
russ_watters said:Admittedly, some of these people may be more anti-capitalisms than pro-marxism. It can be tough to know the difference.
For me, almost, yep. No exaggeration. Before Alexandra I hadn't run into one that I knew of since college. This is not my fault. It's just the way it happened.Informal Logic said:Also, is spotting a Marxist on the street like seeing Big Foot or something?
I was really thinking more of the reaction some people seem to be having, but I suppose most Americans do not realize there are many Marxist members and groups throughout the US, as there always have been. You can google and find various web sites on this, but I am sure these members do not advertise their affiliation in their workplace, etc. They probably prefer not to have "commie" written all over their home, or more to the point, the FBI tracking them.zoobyshoe said:For me, almost, yep. No exaggeration. Before Alexandra I hadn't run into one that I knew of since college. This is not my fault. It's just the way it happened.