Duh.
Of course, what I do keep in mind is that workers in developing nations even had to die to get some reforms going. But it is a fact that reforms came, regardless of the actions the corporations made to prevent that.
Once again, I do acknowledge that it will be disheartening for a long time, but history does show me that corporations are not invincible.
Marxism isn’t a predictive theory. I’ve even said as much in this thread. The correct response to anyone who tries to use Marxism to predict anything is:
Dilektix: Yr doin it rong.
As even or resident Marxist historian and others pointed out, the middle class was an irrelevant item to Marx, please check what was posted before coming into a discussion.
Well, then I need some further clarification:
Why is that many of the proponents of Marxism claim that it was scientific?
No it wasn’t. The modern bourgeoisie arose from the middle classes of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and they had a social, economic, and political role in their society.
Nonsense. Social change can be driven by technological change alone. It is not because of any class struggle that the Japanese of today are so much richer and better-fed than they were before WWII. A Star Trek-type society, post-scarcity for purely technological reasons, would be quite classless enough to satisfy Marx, without class stuggle having played any role in its formation.
Social change can also be driven by political change alone, political change that is not rooted in any class struggle. Like, as I’ve said, the independence of the American colonies. Or women’s suffrage – however you characterize women as a group, they are not a social class and they never were. Or the vast social changes brought to America by the New Deal – the only “class struggle” in play there was ordinary voting behavior. Or the abolition of slavery, which did not happen because slaves struggled for it.
Ok, then how important was their role so far? I thought that if the middle class would die that then it would be irrelevant to the Marxist model of class struggle.
Because it is. Science, however, does not make a business of predicting. Science makes a business of analyzing and explaining, and the only way it says something will do something else is because that particular behavior (for example, ‘a body at rest stays at rest, a body in motion remains in motion, unless acted upon by an outside force’) is because there’s enough evidence behind it to elevate it to the status of law. Outside of that - hypotheses and theories - the language is ‘should’ and ‘ought to’ based on previous observations.
Sorry, as soon as you say that it is clear that science has nothing to do with it.
If you do not ever test a theory you do not have science.
Incidentally my question was a little bit tricky, I do think Marx did attempted to make it a science, and IMHO he did point at items that would demonstrate the validity of it if the theory was a good one. The evidence so far shows me that Marx was onto something but he missed a mess or parameters before reaching his conclusions.
There would be no problem with that if social scientists of the extreme left would acknowledge that Marx was just one scientist whose ideas of social progress needed to be amended and changed to deal with present conditions.
If this was biology I would see Marx like a Gregor Mendel, he got the gist right regarding genetics but IIRC modern geneticists calculate mutation and heredity in ways that are not as “perfect” as Mendel used to calculate.
The point is that Scientists do not dig in their heels insisting that beautiful theories of the past can not deal with “ugly” facts of the present.
The American Revolution was a class struggle. The American colonial bourgeoisie obviously had economic and social power, but were limited politically (‘taxation without representation’ ring a bell?) and the Revolution was the fight for that political power between a still-nascent bourgeoisie and the tattered remnants of feudalism trying to cling onto an empire.
No, but they fought like hell for the vote, and working women agitated for solidarity from working men. And women were very much a class - they were expected to be homemakers, mothers, and wives, supporting the current generation of workers and raising the next while being treated as little more than property with no political rights whatsoever. They had a definite social role in production and, according to Marx, that’s a class.
Ignoring the decade or so of labor agitation prior to it that made people like FDR realize (unwillingly) that they had to come up with something or face the prospect of revolt.
Lincoln once said, “If I could have won the war without freeing the slaves, I would have done so.” It was the struggle of abolitionists and of slaves from below that convinced him he needed to. And slaves were definitely a class.
None of these outcomes would have been possible without the struggle of the oppressed classes against their oppression.
Remove that “not” over there.
I meant to say that:
The point is that Scientists do not dig in their heels insisting that beautiful theories of the past can deal with the “ugly” facts of the present.
GIGObuster - the parallel with Mendel is a good one, but you’re missing an important point. Mendel, for all his limited knowledge of genetics (and this because he was a pioneer in the field) has not been thoroughly discredited. His basic ideas have been found to be sound after almost two centuries of testing. Mendel - and I’m sure you agree - was right.
Darwin’s another one. He didn’t have all the answers to evolution, but his ideas have withstood the rigorous testing of the scientific method. Darwin - and I’m sure you agree - was right.
Nowhere have I asserted that Marx is the be-all and end-all of revolutionary social theory. His ideas needed to be tested rigorously and scientifically, and I take the fact that Capital is still very much in print as a strong piece of evidence that this has in fact happened, and he hasn’t been thoroughly discredited. Marx was right.
Keep digging…
I there are no experiments or tests made with the theory, then it is not scientific. Resorting to an argument of popularity is really silly.
I do think that it is high time to see new and recognized (by many experts) social scientists that are making progress rather than reheating untested or failing theories.
Popularity’s got nothing to do with it. If Marx had been thoroughly refuted by now, he’d be justifiably obscure. Much like the numerous opponents of evolution from Darwin’s time.
You are right in asserting that if there are no experiments or tests made to the theory, then it is not scientific. But simply stating that doesn’t prove there have been no experiments or tests made against Marxism.
As noted in post #63, the Founding Fathers were not bourgeois, and their relationship to the British Empire was not a feudal one. And the British Empire was not a “tattered remnant” of anything, it was a new thing – centralized administration of colonies that before 1763 had enjoyed the Crown’s “benign neglect” and essentially governed themselves – against which the Americans were rebelling. The only “class struggle” element was a theoretical one – the Americans knew well that when the Scots and the Irish lost their political independence, they soon lost their economic independence as well and were reduced to tenant farmers for English absentee landlords; and they didn’t want that to happen to themselves ever. But there were a lot of other ideological currents in play. And the new British Imperial model was no obsolete relic of the past – to the contrary, it proved highly efficient and highly successful when applied elsewhere around the world.
And that is why I demand to see those alleged experiments or tests, have any good examples?
BTW I have to clarify: I do think that Marx was being scientific, there is unfortunately a strong current of denial that tests on the theory have taken place, if we do want to follow science we have to modify the theory and reach a new consensus to keep going forward (this consensus BTW will not be appreciated by the capitalists).
Elements of change like democracy,** that Marx dismissed**, means that past “marxist” theories on changes of society need to be changed a lot to be useful for today and for the future.
Do what now?! You’re going to need cites for that one.
Where did the American bourgeoisie come from, then?
And yet a scant few lines later:
Which is, at bottom, a feudal relationship.
Capitalism was born of class struggle, which is the same way any society comes into being.
I’m referring to liberal democracy, Marx’s dismissed (bourgeois, rationalist) democracy. It turned out that there was still a lot of room for improvement there, not all democracies are 100% beneficial to the bourgeois.
Marx supported socialist (or communist) democracy. Unfortunately, in practice, the democracy under the dictatorship of the proletariat was more prone to being the opposite to what Marx thought it would be.
And I’m still expecting the alleged examples of the tests already made to Marxism.
Wasn’t Marx the one who said “Democracy is the road to socialism”? Fox News should hire that guy.
Marx wasn’t really against democracy as such, quite the contrary. But he didn’t think real democracy could be achieved in a capitalist society, since it is easy enough for property owners to control the media and the parties (through campaign contributions). In these days of Fox News and dodgy campaign financing, I’m thinking he may have been onto something here as well.
Marx: Socialism From Below by David McNally Chapter 4
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/socfrombel/sfb_4.htm