Ask a Red III

[aelf]

Of course, even if nurture is "winning the debate" (though it is hardly the only factor), Marx couldn't know about it. He didn't understand anything about genetics; he had no access to controlled statistical studies on human behavior.

I find it very silly when someone say: "see this ancient Greek philosopher was right all along! quantum physics says X, just like he did! He knew it!".
No he didn't.

Likewise, Marx couldn't possibly have anything useful to say about the "nature x nurture" debate, unless you credit him with prophetic powers. If he was right it is pure luck. He didn't conduct any scientific experiments to test his hypothesis. He didn't read anything about scientific experiments testing those hypothesis. In short, he didn't know. And if anyone wants to learn anything useful about that debate, Marx is not an useful source.

Yeah, and you don't understand the latest thinking in philosophy either, evidently.

As ReindeerThistle has said, it's really outmoded to suggest that something couldn't possibly be true if it was not yet known. And knowledge and scientific certainty are not the same. It's absurd to claim (with something akin to scientific certainty) that Marx couldn't have known anything useful about the nature vs nurture debate. While his knowledge was without a doubt imperfect (as is ours), he could certainly have known something about it, perhaps enough to point us in the right direction. We are, after all, talking about a human matter, and we can reasonably expect that Marx, being a human being and a member of a human society, could know something useful about the matter, no matter how unclearly defined this useful knowledge is.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Of course, even if nurture is "winning the debate" (though it is hardly the only factor), Marx couldn't know about it. He didn't understand anything about genetics; he had no access to controlled statistical studies on human behavior.

I find it very silly when someone say: "see this ancient Greek philosopher was right all along! quantum physics says X, just like he did! He knew it!".
No he didn't.

Likewise, Marx couldn't possibly have anything useful to say about the "nature x nurture" debate, unless you credit him with prophetic powers. If he was right it is pure luck. He didn't conduct any scientific experiments to test his hypothesis. He didn't read anything about scientific experiments testing those hypothesis. In short, he didn't know. And if anyone wants to learn anything useful about that debate, Marx is not an useful source.

Wow, Luiz, and you claim to be a scientist? I suppose it's just for personal gain. Marx was saying that the point is the change the world. You obviously have no interest in changing it, so your commens are, as we say pointless. Marx was a scientific socialist. His "experiments" were revolutionary activity: the revolutions of 1848, the First International, support of the Paris Commune.

You are not trendy, nor are you a revolutionary. Good to have you around, because those interested in sincerely learning about communism and socialism firsthand can see what kinds of opposition from the left and right we are up against.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Yeah, and you don't understand the latest thinking in philosophy either, evidently.

As ReindeerThistle has said, it's really outmoded to suggest that something couldn't possibly be true if it was not yet known. And knowledge and scientific certainty are not the same. It's absurd to claim (with something akin to scientific certainty) that Marx couldn't have known anything useful about the nature vs nurture debate. While his knowledge was without a doubt imperfect (as is ours), he could certainly have known something about it, perhaps enough to point us in the right direction. We are, after all, talking about a human matter, and we can reasonably expect that Marx, being a human being and a member of a human society, could know something useful about the matter, no matter how unclearly defined this useful knowledge is.

Thanks, Aelf. Lukacs in "What is Orthodox Marxism" explains handily that even if every piece of data Marx had was wrong, it would not render his methodology incorrect. Only a non-dialectician would think so. Marx, in fact, took the same data as the bourgeois economists and came up with an analysis that revolutionaries could use toward class struggle.

Read Engels preface to the first volume of Capital. There is a great analogy to Priestley's "discovery" of "phlogicized air" and Lavoisier taking the same data and discovering oxygen.

Chew on that, Luiz.

 

[luiz]

Yeah, and you don't understand the latest thinking in philosophy either, evidently.

As opposed to master philosopher aelf?

As ReindeerThistle has said, it's really outmoded to suggest that something couldn't possibly be true if it was not yet known. And knowledge and scientific certainty are not the same. It's absurd to claim (with something akin to scientific certainty) that Marx couldn't have known anything useful about the nature vs nurture debate. While his knowledge was without a doubt imperfect (as is ours), he could certainly have known something about it, perhaps enough to point us in the right direction. We are, after all, talking about a human matter, and we can reasonably expect that Marx, being a human being and a member of a human society, could know something useful about the matter, no matter how unclearly defined this useful knowledge is.

Please...
Yeah, Marx he may have had interesting insights on the subject, but he cannot possibly be regarded an authority on the matter.

Whatever he said was the result of intuition and wild speculation. No scientific hypothesis there. It has no more validity today than Aristotle's physics. We now have scientific studies, controlled by statistical methods that Marx could not possibly know, that can give us a far better understanding even of nuanced issues like nature x nurture.

Whatever he had to say on the issue should only be read by historical curiosity. It has no validity whatsoever on modern research.

Wow, Luiz, and you claim to be a scientist? I suppose it's just for personal gain. Marx was saying that the point is the change the world. You obviously have no interest in changing it, so your commens are, as we say pointless. Marx was a scientific socialist. His "experiments" were revolutionary activity: the revolutions of 1848, the First International, support of the Paris Commune.

You are not trendy, nor are you a revolutionary. Good to have you around, because those interested in sincerely learning about communism and socialism firsthand can see what kinds of opposition from the left and right we are up against.

Woah...

How you gathered all of the above from my statement that Marx cannot possibly have anything useful to say for the modern researcher about nature vs nurture is beyond me.

You probably share the prophetic powers of Marx.

The sensitivity of marxists whenever someone says that Marx could not have had all the answers is bizarre. Religious, one might say. I mean, for a normal human being the statement that the ideas of a 19th Century sociologist on complex biological debates is irrelevant for the modern researcher is pretty much a truism. But not marxists! Nope, Marx was right about that. He probably knew of relativity, DNA and could tell the year in which Hitler would be born as well.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I'm starting to think that the human nature argument that liberals espouse doesn't square with the narrative on the virtue of hard work as the capitalist's claim to ownership. To begin with, there seems to be a distinct lack of individuality in the ideological belief in individualism and self-interest. I mean, if you're going to typecast people according to strong common motives, then it makes sense to see people as belonging to concrete and distinct classes, seeing that the interests of workers and the capitalist class are different.

So how can you fail to see class antagonisms? If workers are self-interested, as dictated by the belief in the universality of self-interest as part and parcel of human nature, then why wouldn't they band together to oppose the capitalists, at least to some degree? So then being against labour movements is simply taking the side of the capitalist and his interests (out of some form of self-interest, naturally, perceived or otherwise), and the entire narrative about the virtue of hard work is simply a self-righteous moralising excuse for this act of choosing sides.

What do you guys think about this hypothesis?

Good start. As I stated in an earlier post, when you have thousands of people unable to afford their heat and elecric bills, and wh they cut BACK on usage, the government let's the energy companies raise their rates to make a profit -- you have but a small example of a class antagonism. The government, with its stated goal (in New york State, the agency in charge of regulating gas and electric rates has as its mission statement "To protect consumers from the abuse of monopoly power") is not doing its own mandate, but favoring the utility company and it is not hard for people to see who the adversary is.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

As opposed to master philosopher aelf?

Please...
Yeah, Marx he may have had interesting insights on the subject, but he cannot possibly be regarded an authority on the matter.

Whatever he said was the result of intuition and wild speculation. No scientific hypothesis there. It has no more validity today than Aristotle's physics. We now have scientific studies, controlled by statistical methods that Marx could not possibly know, that can give us a far better understanding even of nuanced issues like nature x nurture.

Whatever he had to say on the issue should only be read by historical curiosity. It has no validity whatsoever on modern research.

Woah...

How you gathered all of the above from my statement that Marx cannot possibly have anything useful to say for the modern researcher about nature vs nurture is beyond me.

You probably share the prophetic powers of Marx.

The sensitivity of marxists whenever someone says that Marx could not have had all the answers is bizarre. Religious, one might say. I mean, for a normal human being the statement that the ideas of a 19th Century sociologist on complex biological debates is irrelevant for the modern researcher is pretty much a truism. But not marxists! Nope, Marx was right about that. He probably knew of relativity, DNA and could tell the year in which Hitler would be born as well.

Well, no one said he had all the answers. He had a methodology that supported a world view and a plan for revolution. If you read my response, I was pointing out the fact that Marx's premise was that understanding how the world worked was not enough. The point was to change it. What good is it to know more about quantum physics or genetics if you don't apply it to the common good?

Speaking of Hitler, if he hadn't come along, the ruling class of Germany would have created someone like him. But, no, Marx did not predict anythings, he examined social and economic trends.

 

[aelf]

As opposed to master philosopher aelf?

Not a master philosopher, but I definitely know more than you. What happened to being interested in knowledge?

Please...
Yeah, Marx he may have had interesting insights on the subject, but he cannot possibly be regarded an authority on the matter.

Whatever he said was the result of intuition and wild speculation. No scientific hypothesis there. It has no more validity today than Aristotle's physics. We now have scientific studies, controlled by statistical methods that Marx could not possibly know, that can give us a far better understanding even of nuanced issues like nature x nurture.

Whatever he had to say on the issue should only be read by historical curiosity. It has no validity whatsoever on modern research.

So you only listen to the people you consider authorities on subjects?

Then I don't suppose I need to listen to you go on about what you think about Marxism either.

The sensitivity of marxists whenever someone says that Marx could not have had all the answers is bizarre. Religious, one might say. I mean, for a normal human being the statement that the ideas of a 19th Century sociologist on complex biological debates is irrelevant for the modern researcher is pretty much a truism. But not marxists! Nope, Marx was right about that. He probably knew of relativity, DNA and could tell the year in which Hitler would be born as well.

I'm free to take away whatever from Marx's writings. Categorically refusing to believe that there's anything useful, on the other hand, seems more like faith that anything I've said. That's a problem I find with 'scientific' Popperists.

 

[luiz]

Not a master philosopher, but I definitely know more than you. What happened to being interested in knowledge?

Being interested in knowledge also means knowing where to look. If you're interested on biology, I suggest biologists. In particular, well known biologists with peer-reviewed papers on prestigious publications.

So you only listen to the people you consider authorities on subjects?

Then I don't suppose I need to listen to you go on about what you think about Marxism either.

Absolutely. Whatever I have to say on Marxism is not new, innovative or authoritative.

You can listen to whoever you want, of course and it's frequently interesting to read outdated, amateurish and even plainly wrong stuff. But if you want to actually understand a subject, that's not where to look

I'm free to take away whatever from Marx's writings. Categorically refusing to believe that there's anything useful, on the other hand, seems more like faith that anything I've said. That's a problem I find with 'scientific' Popperists.

There can be plenty of useful stuff there. And interesting stuff. But not anything useful on biology, I'm afraid, at least from a scientific POV. As I said, it's a truism. Even if he was the greatest human being ever, he couldn't possibly know certain stuff that we know today.If he wrote that man is only or primarily a product of the environment, he couldn't possibly be doing anything other than speculating. He completely lacked the tools to actually examine and test this hypothesis.

 

[aelf]

Like I said, you seem not to know the difference between knowledge and scientific certainty. Here, your lack of philosophical training is evident, and since this subject matter concerns mostly philosophy (particularly epistemology), you couldn't possible have anything useful to say, according to yourself.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Not a master philosopher, but I definitely know more than you. What happened to being interested in knowledge?

So you only listen to the people you consider authorities on subjects?

Then I don't suppose I need to listen to you go on about what you think about Marxism either.

I'm free to take away whatever from Marx's writings. Categorically refusing to believe that there's anything useful, on the other hand, seems more like faith that anything I've said. That's a problem I find with 'scientific' Popperists.

Well stated, Aelf. Resetting the syllogism. This is a thread for people who want to listen to experts answer questions about socialism and communism. What luiz is doing is akin to the non-buyer wasting the saleman's time when they do not want what he or she is selling.

We are in the twenty-first century. Mainstream state-sponsored media have poisoned the words socialism and communism, and the Reds at Ask a Red are here to offer the antidote, or ar least clear the air.

Information is only part. Lenin states that the solution is not meely to educate the workers socialism, but to socialist VICTORY.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Being interested in knowledge also means knowing where to look. If you're interested on biology, I suggest biologists. In particular, well known biologists with peer-reviewed papers on prestigious publications.

Absolutely. Whatever I have to say on Marxism is not new, innovative or authoritative.

You can listen to whoever you want, of course and it's frequently interesting to read outdated, amateurish and even plainly wrong stuff. But if you want to actually understand a subject, that's not where to look

There can be plenty of useful stuff there. And interesting stuff. But not anything useful on biology, I'm afraid, at least from a scientific POV. As I said, it's a truism. Even if he was the greatest human being ever, he couldn't possibly know certain stuff that we know today.If he wrote that man is only or primarily a product of the environment, he couldn't possibly be doing anything other than speculating. He completely lacked the tools to actually examine and test this hypothesis.

Dear sir or madam, you may be right.

 

[luiz]

Like I said, you seem not to know the difference between knowledge and scientific certainty. Here, your lack of philosophical training is evident, and since this subject matter concerns mostly philosophy (particularly epistemology), you couldn't possible have anything useful to say, according to yourself.

I really don't have anything to say about the value of wild speculation.

I can say that Marx didn't know what he was talking about in his speculations about the roles of nurture and nature in man's development.

 

[Agent327]

Don't speak of human nature. What do you know of human nature? You know how humans behave in capitalism, in a situation of perpetual class struggle. Without Diamat, a weapon you refuse to wield, you cannot pretend to know what human nature "really" is!

I think, being human and of a certain age, I can make a rather accurate assessment of what human nature entails.

But following your argument, people have to be educated by "good" teachers to be good people. It then follows that these teachers have to be good. It still revolves about some endemic goodness in human nature.

But I appreciate the Trotski quote; I was unaware that he could be so philosophical.

 

[Old Hippy]

Originally Posted by luiz
Being interested in knowledge also means knowing where to look. If you're interested on biology, I suggest biologists. In particular, well known biologists with peer-reviewed papers on prestigious publications.


There can be plenty of useful stuff there. And interesting stuff. But not anything useful on biology, I'm afraid, at least from a scientific POV. As I said, it's a truism. Even if he was the greatest human being ever, he couldn't possibly know certain stuff that we know today.If he wrote that man is only or primarily a product of the environment, he couldn't possibly be doing anything other than speculating. He completely lacked the tools to actually examine and test this hypothesis.

has this thread drifted off to a critique,of Darwin? I am pretty sure he was right....

 

[Praise_Satan]

This is the ultimate strength of Marxist position: Marx did not postulate that humans had endemic natural traits, but rather that man was fully the product of his environment.

Fully? Like personality and temperament the product of the environment? What about personality disorders? Other mental illnesses? I'm confused.

I don't believe this "fully". I believe it's nature and nurture, not nature vs. nurture.

 

[Takhisis]

That's quite true. Guevara personally executed people suspected of those crimes, including minors, and by all accounts took great pleasure and satisfaction from that. Humanism, you know.

And this has to do with being a Communist/Socialist/Red how…?

You guys shouldn't attempt to explain the natural sciences with dialectics, because it really does not work. Just sayin'

You should prove such bombastic statements, luiz.

has this thread drifted off to a critique,of Darwin? I am pretty sure he was right....

Not quite, but it's degenerated into luiz-v.-reds while iw as away from teh site.

 

[Masada]

At the very least there is solid evidence that a lot of traits that could be considered "human nature" vary as a function of culture.

Yeah, that's consistent with what I've read. I was interested for a while in how a bunch of quantitative studies on adopted children and how they come to be rather more similar to their adopted parents than biological parents. That doesn't prove that 'human nature' doesn't exist; but it does suggest that it's a rather weaker force than environmental factors.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Fully? Like personality and temperament the product of the environment? What about personality disorders? Other mental illnesses? I'm confused.

I don't believe this "fully". I believe it's nature and nurture, not nature vs. nurture.

Dear sir or madam, you may be right.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Yeah, that's consistent with what I've read. I was interested for a while in how a bunch of quantitative studies on adopted children and how they come to be rather more similar to their adopted parents than biological parents. That doesn't prove that 'human nature' doesn't exist; but it does suggest that it's a rather weaker force than environmental factors.

Marx took Feuerbach's notion of "you are what you eat," and explained that while people are products of their environment, they can also change that environment -- I.e. that they did not have to settle for the status quo. That is one of the basic tenets of Marxism.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Do you agree that communism already had its historical chance to become something beneficial & great for humanity but it turned out to be a total failure everywhere where people attempted to implement it? If yes, why do you think it utterly failed and what would you modify in it to really become such an utopian, beautiful dream as in the original 19th century concommuniseption?

No, I do not agree that communism already had its historical chance.
There has not been "communism" on this planet since the stone age and "primitive communism." Marx points out that the history of hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle. One cannot achieve communism, a classless society, while there are still classes and class antagonisms. Those antagonisms exist because of opposing interests and goals. The working class and the ruling class have nothing in common. What generally benefits the top .01% is detrimental to the bottom 99% (the other .99% benefit but are not in charge, necessarily.) Witness the downturns in the stock market when unemployment goes down, or the minimum wage is raised. Neither are accurate statistics of economic health, BUT isn't it interesting that this happens consistently?

On a more practical note: consider that when minimum wage does go up, statistically the economy improves: people with money in their pockets form work will spend it -- and they usually spend it locally -- which creates more jobs.

I will be attacked for this simplicity, but this is about as basic as it gets.

If what you mean by communism is the socialism in the form it takes in China, Vietnam or Cuba, et al, under the leadership of a communist partry, then I do not see it as a failure at all. Socialism did not fail in the USSR, the people failed. China has stated it will not go that route, and Cuba and Venezueal are building socialism for the 21st century -- which does not rely on the tactics that the USSR used. Keep in mind the ultimate test of socialism is in the improvements it makes in both the day-to-day lives and in the overall struggle - and it is a struggle. The end product of this socialism is communism, and it is not a utopian dream.

And second question:

Do you consider modern social democratic welfare states, such as those in Scandinavia, as capitalist in the negative sense? And why do you think that communism could ever be or even pretend to be any better alternative for a good life than this Nordic model of social democratic welfare state?

I look at all capitalist economies as negative. However, it does not harm the movement when 23 million Norwegians can take a two-week vacation in the tropics on doctors' orders. But Norway, et al, still have their problems. The system cannot sustain itself forever, even Nelson Rockefeller knew that.

Keep in mind that Norway is an oil producing nation, so it can sustain its system for some time, without the class contradictions reaching a boiling point. Ditto for Sweden and steel. It is when the ruling class can no longer extend the bribe, and there is the subjective element of a revolutionary party to organize for change, that is when the government can no longer rule in the same way. I look at capitalism as a dying system, but it will not die on its own, it must be replaced.

Answer your questions?