The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

[Gary Childress]

I think Popper's "understanding" of Marxism is very poor and overly simplistic, because Marxism has successfully predicted many things, and is falsifiable.

However, if you're interested in the topic in more depth, this piece ought to interest you. You'll note that Lakatos specifically rejects Popper's analysis while still being critical of Marxism itself.

Lakatos notes that Marxism is not the only science to be primarily "degenerate," that is, directed toward analyzing and making sense of past actions instead of predicting new ones. Biology, for example, operates in much the same way. Evolutionary biologists are unable to predict with accuracy how a given species will evolve, but they can explain very well why past species evolved and how. We don't think of biology as less of a science for that, so neither is Marxism. Although, as I said, Marxism has made novel predictions; when Marx wrote, for example, he described a world-dominating capitalist society which did not exist yet and arguably did not exist until the latter half of the 20th Century; where craft and cottage industries are wholly replaced by the capitalist mode of mass production, and the old order of aristocrats and nobility is erased, leaving only proletarian and capitalists as defined by the capitalist system. He also identified and described Fascism, albeit not by name (in the figure of Louis Napoleon). Lenin predicted the path of imperialism and finance capital while it was still in its nascent stages as well. These could have easily been refuted by the failure of these changes to materialize and universalize. Marxism may be primarily directed toward analyzing the past, and as I said that is no crime, but it does make novel predictions about the future.

In what way is Marxism falsifiable?

 

[brennan]

You'd have to answer that by presenting a simple statement of what Marxism is, perhaps something like 'Capitalism inevitably leads to wealth inequalities that themselves result in social movements amongst the lower social group/class (proletariat) that oppose Capitalism/Capitalists (bourgeoisie) and capitalist policies'.

This could be disproved by taking a strongly capitalist economy and observing that over a period of time no wealth inequalities emerged and no social movements in opposition to socialism appeared.

Now look at the history of the 20th century: legalisation of Labour Unions & massive welfare spending in all the major economies; universal education; universal healthcare; social security; communist revolutions in Russia, China, Korea, Cuba etc.

Marxism, in essence, has been confirmed as correct. The crucial bit Marx got wrong was that in the industrial era violent revolution is so deadly and destructive it is beyond the pale for most people - but when Marx wrote there had been and were ongoing revolutions - in France and Prussia for example. Thus purely Marxist Socialism is broadly giving ground to Democratic Socialism.

 

[Gary Childress]

But hasn't inequality in wealth among other things been a constant since the invention of the very first man made item? Take a stick that has been sharpened and nicely detailed and adorned by a caveman. Some other cave man admires his spear and says, I want that spear. There is the birth of inequity. It seems that Popper would say that simply making the statement, "there is inequity" is not itself scientific because it is an unfalsifiable fact. Marxism seems to boil down to the idea that there will be revolution, that is certainly probable but it also predicts a society that overcomes the ills of capitalism. That hasn't happened yet and now Marxism is perhaps in a state of "degeneration" as Popper would maybe put it, perhaps to the point of becoming a "pseudo-science". At least if we are to take what Popper says uncritically. I'm critical of Popper but many hold Popper as some sort of scientific god-head.

These factors combined to make Popper take falsifiability as his criterion for demarcating science from non-science: if a theory is incompatible with possible empirical observations it is scientific; conversely, a theory which is compatible with all such observations, either because, as in the case of Marxism, it has been modified solely to accommodate such observations, or because, as in the case of psychoanalytic theories, it is consistent with all possible observations, is unscientific. For Popper, however, to assert that a theory is unscientific, is not necessarily to hold that it is unenlightening, still less that it is meaningless, for it sometimes happens that a theory which is unscientific (because it is unfalsifiable) at a given time may become falsifiable, and thus scientific, with the development of technology, or with the further articulation and refinement of the theory. Further, even purely mythogenic explanations have performed a valuable function in the past in expediting our understanding of the nature of reality.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#BacHisTho

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

In what way is Marxism falsifiable?

Materialism. If the primacy of material relationships between people in shaping their consciousness could be disproven, it would catastrophically weaken Marxism.

That doesn't mean proving that other things influence people, it means disproving that material exchange does. Before Marxism this idea was disorganized and not particularly popular nor well understood. It was Marx who identified its centrality, and the past 150 years has seen extensive development of that theory, such that the concept today is so universalized as to be taken for granted by most people, which is why they are able to look at Marxism and believe that he contributed nothing.

 

[brennan]

It seems that Popper would say that simply making the statement, "there is inequity" is not itself scientific because it is an unfalsifiable fact.

That's simply equating facts that are demonstrably not false with unfalsifiable ones. An unfalsifiable fact is one that could never be shown to be false in principle, the reality of current inequality does not show that inequality could never become a thing of the past.

There is the birth of inequity

..right, so before that there wasn't inequity - demonstrating that inequity is falsifiable.

You're right that the whole of history features inequality, but then Marxist theory sees the whole of history as the slow rise of capitalism, so that's not a problem for a Marxist.

That hasn't happened yet

Well... no. Neither has teleportation. That it hasn't happened yet is no fundamental criticism.

 

[Azale]

http://www.thirteen.org/programs/tavis-smiley/magazine-founder-bhaskar-sunkara/#.U--4nRHn-y4.twitter

fun interview, I appreciate how Bhaskar repeats the point that socialism isnt alien to the American or Western intellectual tradition. The desire to push back against the misappropriation of American history was probably what first drew me to socialisms.

any realistic strategy for the left in the US has to rely on the narrative that socialism is as American as apple pie, might as well get started now

 

[ReindeerThistle]

What are some thoughts from "reds" regarding the passage above. The passage above seems pretty damaging to Marx's credibility given that Marx was very much a believer that his theory is a "Scientific" one.

Even if it isn't scientific, so what? Marx isn't the Pope of Marxism. Marx isn't Ayn Rand. He could be wrong on some stuff and that's hardly surprising.

That's not even considering that Marx might not always have held that dialectical materialism is scientific. The later Marx seemed less interested in asserting that it was.

^^^ This, plus this well-stated excerpt from Lukacs' "What is Othodox Marxism"

If the question were really to be formulated in terms of such a crude antithesis it would deserve at best a pitying smile. But in fact it is not (and never has been) quite so straightforward. Let us assume for the sake of argument that recent research had disproved once and for all every one of Marx’s individual theses. Even if this were to be proved, every serious ‘orthodox’ Marxist would still be able to accept all such modern findings without reservation and hence dismiss all of Marx’s theses in toto – without having to renounce his orthodoxy for a single moment. Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx’s investigations. It is not the ‘belief’ in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a ‘sacred’ book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to"method."It is the scientific conviction that dialectical materialism is the road to truth and that its methods can be developed, expanded and deepened only along the lines laid down by its founders. It is the conviction, moreover, that all attempts to surpass or ‘improve’ it have led and must lead to over-simplification, triviality and eclecticism.

That is all. The principles of flight control patented by the Wright Brothers are still in use today, in spite of the fact that Orville and Wilbur would not recognize any modern flying machine today were they to lay eyes on it.

(My prospective in-laws live five minutes from Kill Devil Hills, NC and the Wright Bros. Monument, and I was born in Dayton, OH)

 

[red_elk]

"This Big World", a song from a Soviet fiction movie "Moscow-Cassiopeia"


Link to video.

 

[red_elk]

Delete

 

[_random_]

Edit: I clicked the wrong link in the signiature, meant to post this in Ask a Red.

 

[mech654]

Here is a fun article about Rosa Luxemburg explaining Capitalism with spoons.
http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/34411-rosa-luxemburg-explains-capitalism-using-spoons#14528991224341&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data=

 

[red_elk]

I'd like to recommend one of classic Soviet fairy-tale films, for those who like this genre (and for kids, obviously).
The film directed by Alexander Rou and based by novel of Vitaly Gubarev.

"Королевство кривых зеркал" (Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors), 1963.
IMDB 7.4
Reviews



Plot summary (from wiki page)

Similar in subject to and perhaps inspired by the novel Through The Looking Glass, the film centers around an encounter between a girl named Olya Yukina and a mysterious counterpart, Yalo, while staring into a mirror. The characters are exact opposites: Yalo is the absolute opposite of Olya in every way. Where Yalo is organized and precise, Olya is careless and absent-minded. In the story, Olya steps through the mirror into the Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors where Yalo resides. The kingdom, under the rule of King Yagupop LXXVII (reverse of Popugay, meaning parrot) produces crooked mirrors that brainwash its people through subtle changes in reality. When Yalo's friend, a man named Gurd, is suddenly imprisoned for refusing to make crooked mirrors by the evil leaders "Anidag" (reverse of Gadina, meaning snake), "Nushrok" (reverse of Korshun, meaning Kite (bird)) and "Abazh" (reverse of Zhaba, meaning toad), Olya decides to accompany Yalo to rescue him.

I found full length movie with pretty good English translation on youtube.


Link to video.

 

[Daw]

I'd like to recommend

Totally and absolutely.

As to reverse names outlined in the quote from the wiki, the movie probably has no other names at all.

Starting with Yalo, which is the reverse from Olya (justifying the girls' personalities to have many opposite traits).
The guy they are saving is named Gurd, which is reversed Drug (reads "droog", with "u" sound like in "book" or "drool"; means "friend").
The maid that helps them is named Aksal, which is reversed Laska, which means generic "comforting gesture", like cuddle, hug, hand stroke, etc.

Also, I cautiously wonder if the movie has any satire underlayer as well, hidden under its overtly obvious face value...

 

[red_elk]

Interesting that in the video I posted, translators chose to use reverted English names.
Such as Ailo, Dneirf, Daot, Elitper. And Aksal was translated as Lesaew, which was IMO arguable choice

 

[Flying Pig]

Materialism. If the primacy of material relationships between people in shaping their consciousness could be disproven, it would catastrophically weaken Marxism.

That doesn't mean proving that other things influence people, it means disproving that material exchange does.

I apologise for cutting the rest of your post - which makes a very good point - but it seems to me that these two lines contradict each other. To disprove the primacy of material things in the shaping of consciousness, it is only necessary to find other things which influence it to the same or greater degree. By definition, the second most important thing does not have primacy, however much importance it has in the abstract.

 

[Daw]

And Aksal was translated as Lesaew, which was IMO arguable choice

Yeah, homonyms can be tricky.

To disprove the primacy of material things in the shaping of consciousness, it is only necessary to find other things which influence it to the same or greater degree.

And this is exactly where I think the conflict with the religion(s) is originating from.

 

[red_elk]

Mikael Tariverdiev, waltz from the movie "17 Moments of Spring".


Link to video.

 

[red_elk]

Sci-Fi cartoon "Contact", 1978.
Translation not required.


Link to video.

 

[Hygro]

That was so cool.

I see LSD reached the Soviet art community.

 

[Lexicus]

But hasn't inequality in wealth among other things been a constant since the invention of the very first man made item? Take a stick that has been sharpened and nicely detailed and adorned by a caveman. Some other cave man admires his spear and says, I want that spear. There is the birth of inequity. It seems that Popper would say that simply making the statement, "there is inequity" is not itself scientific because it is an unfalsifiable fact.

No, and on the contrary presuming such a thing implies a completely unfalsifiable theory of inequality (as that which results from man making items). The origins of the modern private property system on which capitalism is based are traceable back to Roman slavery. That is the source of the 'inequality' with which Marx is concerned.

I apologise for cutting the rest of your post - which makes a very good point - but it seems to me that these two lines contradict each other. To disprove the primacy of material things in the shaping of consciousness, it is only necessary to find other things which influence it to the same or greater degree. By definition, the second most important thing does not have primacy, however much importance it has in the abstract.

Meh. Marxism recognizes a dialectical relationship between the Material realm and the realm of Ideas, which means that Ideas can have an effect on the material realm. It's just that the material realm is considered the independent variable or prime mover in an ultimate sense.

I don't agree that getting rid of materialism cripples marxism, which is why I'm a Marxian and not a Marxist