Sorry Roger, but I just don't agree that Marxism is a science. I know he
thought of it that way, but from what I've read, few people, other than
committed Marxists see it that way these days.
In a science, such as chemistry, a theory can make predictions about what
will happen when, say, two elements are brought together. If that prediction
is borne out, then the theory is verified. If the prediction is not borne
out, then the theory has to be modified or abandoned.
Now, if you want to grant Marxism the status of a scientific theory, then
let's evaluate it on that basis. If Marx made predictions that have been
borne out, then that would validate his theory. But if he has made
predictions that later proved eroneous, then his theory must either be
modified or abandoned.
He predicted that revolution would occur in the most advanced capitalist
countries. That turned out not to be the case.
He predicted that capitalism would collapse because of its internal
contradictions. That also has turned out not to be the case.
He expected a revolution to take place in 1957-58, mistaking a depression
for the final crisis of capitalism.
The rate of profit has not gone into a steady decline as Marx predicted.
So, as a scientific theory, Marxism is found wanting.
That does not discount his insights into the shortcomings of capitalism, as
I have said here before more than once.
He was a philosopher who studied history and arrived at some very important
ideas about the workings of the economy, some of which have been adopted by
those advanced capitalist nations, to the benefit of the workers, and which
probably forestalled those worker revolutions.
As I quoted Yuval Harari in a post here some time back, "Marx forgot that
capitalists know how to read." And they did read him and they created
welfare systems in response to his very cogent criticisms of how the
capitalists conducted themselves. But a scientist? No, I don't believe it.
That is my current view. I will be happy to hear your response.
I have tried to state my views in a reasonable way and to be
nonconfrontational. Sorry for doing that in the past. Hope this is better.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 8:10 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: waging war with words
Saying that Marxism has never been tested is like saying that science
has never been tested. Marxism is a process of observation and
experimentation. It seeks to gather knowledge just like science and it
uses science to gather that knowledge. The difference between Marxism
and science, per se, is that Marxism uses that process to advance a
goal. If one experiment toward that goal does not work out it is
examined and analyzed to find out why and the knowledge that is acquired
through that process is applied to the next experiment.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and
more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the
evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/22/2018 11:25 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
But if he claimed that Hinduism was the solution to all economic problems, you would not need to be an expert in Hinduism to be skeptical of his claim, especially since (in this particular case), as you have admitted, Marxism has never been tested, since Communism has never been tried. (Your words exactly.) So you have a theory that has never been verified by any test.
I don't have to be an expert in Marxism to be skeptical of a theory that has no evidence to support it.
See the Asimov quote in your signature.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:31 PM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: waging war with words
Now you are making up things out of thin air and calling it my logic.
No, I have no intention of converting to Hinduism, but if a Hindu tried
to explain the concept of Karma to me and I retorted that what he was
telling me was untrue because he completely left out the god, Thor, then
I would not blame him if he started rolling his eyes.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/19/2018 10:18 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Your analogy is faulty for one big reason.
Explaining Science Fiction to someone who just doesn't seem to get it is one thing.
Trying to explain to someone why Science Fiction is better than any other form of literature to someone who just does not agree is a very different matter. Even if they know less about Science Fiction than I do, that does not oblige them to agree with me simply because I know more.
Whether or not you know more about Marxism than I do is one thing.
Trying to justify the idea that Marxism provides the solution to the ills of our current capitalist system is an altogether different kettle of fish.
By your logic, if I knew more about Hinduism than you do, (I have no idea whether or not that is true, but it doesn't matter), you should bow to my greater knowledge and become a Hindu.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 9:22 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: waging war with words
True enough, but when someone asks me how new businesses will be started
under a socialist economy it could not be more clear that I know a lot
more about socialism than the person asking the question. Ethics require
me to at least make an attempt to explain. When every attempt on my part
to explain is met with denouncements of my explanations by the person
who does not understand the subject then that gets to be exasperating.
Because you are a science fiction fan let me make an analogy that
relates to science fiction. Suppose you said that you were a science
fiction fan and someone said, "Oh, you mean all that stuff with the
fairies and goblins in it?" I would expect that you would then try to
make some attempt to explain the difference between science fiction and
fantasy. But suppose that same person who has apparently never read a
science fiction story in his life started denying everything you said.
And suppose each and every one of those denials showed even further
ignorance of what science fiction is. Just how long would it take you to
get to your exasperation point?
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/15/2018 9:18 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
It's important to remember though that quantity of knowledge does not guarantee that every conclusion drawn from that knowledge is correct.
For instance, I know my Bible pretty well, but I do not have it memorized by any stretch. I don't think that I should have to admit that Christianity is true merely because I might be discussing the matter with someone who does know the Bible better than I do.
I know quite a bit more about computers than some people I talk to. But that doesn't mean that I can't be wrong about something, and that the person, who may know less, might not be able to point out something I may have missed.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 8:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: waging war with words
Miriam, you may call it debating, but, honestly, I rarely consider
myself to be debating. What I am trying to do is to explain things to
people who show that they do not quite understand it. That leads to a
lot of frustration for me when the other person thinks it is some kind
of debate. And it is completely exasperating when I can tell from the
statements made that it is a subject that I know more about than the
other person and then the other person starts lecturing me on it as if I
was the one who does not know what he is talking about. I am engaging
much more in a debate when I am discussing something like religion with
someone like Mostafa.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 11/10/2018 5:18 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I think that probably Sylvie is one of the smartest people I've known. She
handled participation on this list by posting articles and almost never
getting involved in discussions. I suspect that, that's because discussions
on the list don't feel like discussions. They feel like battles. Perhaps
that's just the nature of communicating by email or of any online
communicating. I listen to what the young people on podcasts say about their
twitter communication and it sounds as if they're all in constant daily
battle with opponents, even people who, supposedly, have views similar to
their's. At any rate, it does seem to me that attempting to win arguments by
trying to find statements that are absolutely unquestionable, is futile.
That's partially because there are varying levels of depth and meaning and
often additional facts that we don't know about or have forgotten about,
that can change the entire meaning of a discussion. All of this rambling
from me was caused by Evan's statement about how that one case of cancer,
caused by the Fukushima meltdown, is uncontrovertible. That's undeniable. Of
course, it's the only one that, the individual who wrote about it on
Wikipedia, knew about. So that's what was documented in Wikipedia and that's
what Evan quoted and then what? Does that mean that we had a debate and he
won? Does it mean that no other deaths were caused or that future deaths
related to that nuclear disaster won't take place? And when Roger and Evan
debate something and one of them bests the other with a logical argument,
what does that prove, except that in that instance, that particular
individual did better in the argument? We do all this debating and arguing,
as if what we say has some kind of impact or relationship to the truth. But
we don't have impact. Each of us continues to have our own take on things,
and we certainly don't know what relation to reality, our statements have.
I have one interesting little footnote. When I looked for articles on
Fukushima, the only article I found from the corporate media, was from The
Guardian, which is a British publication. And there was one from a Japanese
paper, I think the Tokyo Times, that I didn't read. Interestingly, there
were no articles from US corporate outlets. To me that says, "news
blackout".
Miriam
