|
| Thread: What is fascism? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted November 01, 2004 10:24 AM |
|
|
Thank you Svarog.
I must admit that my knowledge of Soros can be boiled down to a few newspaper articles.
What catched my interest where not so much Soros as the fact that somebody is finally taking Popper serious.
A claim I now have to withdraw seeing as if what you say is true, Soros is not using Poppers concept of an "open society" correctly.
I agree with you that its a huge calamity for eastern Europe that IMF where being led by neo-liberal economist when the Iron curtain fell.
What you probably wont agree with me on, is when I compare it to Stalins take over of Eastern Europe after WW2. Both had a devastating effect on the economical life in Eastern Europe.
Regarding Marxist analysis, I do know my Marx, and the name of the game is very important. Materialistic-dialectic method precisely describes what you say about "development of productive forces through their contradictions".
This is why I didnt bother to write out in full.
My reasoning for mentioning caveman-slave-feudalism was precisely to show that materialistic-dialectic analysis fails miserably as soon as you dig beneath the surface of any given historical subject.
Remember that Marx wrote his initial analysis in Germany and England during the transition from industrial revolution to the Modern society. This clearly shows in his analysis which is extremely biased towards how these 2 countries have developed, especially Germany.
And this is where my counter argument sets in.
Materialistic-dialectic analysis can and do show some interesting historical points, but they are always one sided, and never shows the complete picture of a given incident. This is why I attacked Marx`s notion of feudalism.
Another example which I incidently knows alot more about, is Tiberius and Gajus Gracchus which tried to lead an agricultural reform in The Roman Republic 133-130 and 121-120 BC. Both of them are favourites among Marxist historians, who hails them as champions of the downtrodden and true communist.
But as soon as you scratch the surface it shows that they where alot more weighty reasons as to the Gracchis actions. Among them the fear that the foundation of the Roman army which at that time comprised of free peasant where being eroded by the huge Latifundias etc.
My point is simply that Marx just shows a very limited aspect of history, and for that matter society as it presents us to us. This is Poppers main thrust against any ideology, it narrows down what we can and are allowed to do in our society. This is never in the interest of said society.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 01, 2004 03:50 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 1 Nov 2004
|
My Turn
'To the spawn of the working class shall there be in excess, plenty of arguments to spare.'
~written by Consis
Quote:
Materialistic-dialectic analysis can and do show some interesting historical points, but they are always one sided, and never shows the complete picture of a given incident. This is why I attacked Marx`s notion of feudalism.
I feel this is where you show your flawed logic and interpretation of the Marx theories. In reality, as Svarog has pointed out, Marx's materialistic-dialectic analysis can be used in any social analysis resting under the heavy boot of any governmental influence. The truth is that Marx's theories are hailed as one of the more influencial peoples' liberating philosophies of the twentieth century. Even here in the democratic capitalism center of the world, Marx's philosophy is practically required reading for any who wish to further their own education in the field of successful democratic capitalistic economies. It's common knowledge that he applied his theories to the pre-soviet/post-tzar era of Russia. Does this mean his opinions should be dismissed simply because he was Russian and his thoughts were only applied to Russian peoples and governing systems? No. If you speak to any democrat or socialist scholar of any real reknown, they would tell you that Marx theories merely scrape the surface of modern thought while leaving many questions unanswered. In fact, many believe his ideas were consciously restrained for fear of his own life. The most important thing to remember about the Marx works and school of thought is that this was a man ahead of his time. Even today, he is able to bring economic theorists to a new level of ideas and inspiration. Personally, I believe this was a man who had the capability to look outside the box while not forgetting his roots and the people who helped him get where he was in life. While it may be true that his philosophies cannot be applied to any modern society, it is also true that if you exclude his philosophy from your own economic theories then you risk becoming the monster of capitalism that devours the common citizen and feasts on his/her individuality.
Quote:
My point is simply that Marx just shows a very limited aspect of history, and for that matter society as it presents us to us. This is Poppers main thrust against any ideology, it narrows down what we can and are allowed to do in our society. This is never in the interest of said society.
I respectfully disagree. I believe you have some overly extreme views and tend to lean toward chaos theories. Notice the parts of your post that I've highlighted. You use words like 'never' and 'always'. If it is one thing you should remember about Marx, it is that he would not limit himself to such closed-minded thinking. Using those words creates mental boundaries especially in the democratic/socialist schools of thought. I think it's important to try and remember not to limit yourself to only capitalism, only socialism, only democracy, or only religious motivation. This is another reason why I think my country is so successful today. I think my country injects a little of everything. Moderation is the key if you were to ask me; governmental moderation, individual recognition, and personal competition.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2004 08:33 PM |
|
|
*sigh*
First to the factuals.
Karl Marx (1818-83) was born in the city of Trier (Which to my knowledge is nowhere near Russia) and died of respiratory illness in London.
He studied law in Bonn in 1835 and then in Berlin in 1836 where he changed his major to philosophy. He completed his thesis in 1840, but had no chance of getting a career in the Academa in Prussia, he left for for Paris in 1844, and worked in collaboration with Karl Engels on different radical publications in France, Rhineland and Belgium, untill he finally where expelled from Prussian territory in 1848.
He moved to London, where he with both moral and financial support from Engels began writing what is considered his masterpiece "Das Kapital" which he hadnt finished at his death. Engels published posthumously the last manuscripts Marx had worked on.
For his analysis in "Das Kapital" Marx primarily used examples from the heavily industrialized area around Liverpool and Manchester, where Engels had his factories. But also examples from the Rhine district where used.
Marx predicted that the first clash between the working class and the Bourgoise would stand in England and Germany as these 2 countries where the most industrialized in the 1860ies.
When the class struggle finally came, it happened in Russia in the 1917 revolution, which certainly didnt fit with Marxs prediction.
Therefore the leading ideologist (Namely Lenin and Trotskij) had to alter Marx initial analysis, which could answer for the failure of his predictions.
This would become standard in all following countries who experienced a communist revolution. (Most prominently China in 1949 with its Maoism, Vietnam with its mixture of Maoism and Trotskijism. Yoguslavia with its Titoism etc.)
I have had this discussion about the merits of Marxism plenty of times, and I do believe Svarog have had is aswell.
Im not saying that Marxism is worthless which you would see if you read my post properly Consis.
Im only saying that if you only use Marxist analysis to attack a certain problem, you would miss out on a whole range of possible solutions.
And believe me Consis, there is plenty of extremely one sided Marxist analysis flourishing in a broad spectrum of fields of studies. Like sociology, history, anthropology and even phsycology.
Im actually pleading for the exact thing you accuse me of not doing. That is taking the pragmatic route. Using from Marx what is appropiate, taking a hint from Weber, and even some Luhmann, eventhough Im not a big fan of constructivism.
Poppers main thrust against Marxism is actually to be found not in his "Open society: And its enemies" but rather in his very influential article "Conjectures and refutations" which is mainly about the demarcation of science compared to pseudo science.
Here Poppers claim is that to be a true science, one needs to throw out a theory, a conjecture, and then try with all your wit to show that the conjecture doesnt fit with the empirical data.
If it doesnt fit with the empirical data, you need to make a new conjecture.
Marx came with such a conjecture. Namely that there would come a revolution from the working class in England and Germany.
When this didnt happen, Marxs heirs, instead of rethinking the whole foundation for the theory, instead made ad hoc solutions as to why this revolution didnt take place.
Aswell as reducing all critisism of Marxism to the work of imperialistic-capitalistic lakeys.
This is what I dont like about the way Marxism is being used in contemporary analysis of particularly historical cases. (Which incidently is my field of study).
So to sum things up.
If you want to disagree with me Consis, at least have the decency to disagree with something I actually says, instead of putting words in my mouth.
Regards
Defreni
PS: Pun intended about the factual data. I think you mistook Marx for Lenin.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 03, 2004 02:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What you probably wont agree with me on, is when I compare it to Stalins take over of Eastern Europe after WW2. Both had a devastating effect on the economical life in Eastern Europe.
It’s sure Stalin’s rule was overall devastating, but I’m not sure about the economy in post-war Eastern Europe. One thing is that the entire region was marked with destruction from the war. Otherwise, Stalin’s rule in the USSR is known to have achieved some fast economical progress and industrialization of the country, albeit the mass prosecution of rivals and despotic control of all spheres of society.
About your disagreement with Marx, I really don’t see what you are up against. Is it the cave/slave/feudal progress, feudalism itself, industrial Germany or what? If you could explain why any of the Marxist interpretations of these fail.
Quote:
Another example which I incidently knows alot more about, is Tiberius and Gajus Gracchus which tried to lead an agricultural reform in The Roman Republic 133-130 and 121-120 BC. Both of them are favourites among Marxist historians, who hails them as champions of the downtrodden and true communist.
But as soon as you scratch the surface it shows that they where alot more weighty reasons as to the Gracchis actions. Among them the fear that the foundation of the Roman army which at that time comprised of free peasant where being eroded by the huge Latifundias etc.
Nice. I’m not familiar with how exactly Marx explained this, but the key question to be asked here in my opinion, is whether or not Marxist theory can accommodate this example without being altered. Undoubtedly yes. There’s nothing in this example pointing to the non-material interest of the tribunes. Marx may not have been right when (if) he championed these particular two as early communists, however that doesn’t prove detrimental or contradictive to his theories in any way.
Karl Marx was not omnipotent after all. Being involved in the practicalities and future predictions, no one could’ve expected from him to be correct at every instance. As history has proven, his prediction that the developed capitalist countries would experience the revolution first, as we see, was disproven many years later. But his ideas about the basic forces that drive society, the dialectical processes, the interests of society classes are still valid today, and I hope will stay that way for a long time.
In spite his productiveness, there are still areas of history and political science not researched enough and not viewed through the Marxist prism. That’s why there’re numerous Marxist scholars today who advance and further develop his teachings, even correct him where needed, in response to the new political realities. Marxism is a living matter, not a divine Code of rules, which are considered an absolute truth and shouldn’t under any circumstances be changed. Why should we “rethink the whole foundation”, if the bit that doesn’t fit can be perfectly well explained with the “foundation” and rearranged making the entire theory more perfect than before.
That’s the way normal science operates, that’s the way Marxism should operate also.
In science whenever a new paradigm is established, not all anomalies can be explained with the new theory. In fact, there are quite a few which stay a mystery for longer time, and remain to be solved through the process of investigating further, but under the new set of rules and ideas provided by the fresh paradigm. Only when these anomalies/irregularities become chronic, the theory should be replaced with a new one (or its foundation extensively altered).
When Copernicus proposed his heliocentric system, indeed, the irregularities were much more numerous than in the Ptolomeic already in place. It was only in the years after Copernicus that his followers really solved all those problems. Same can be said for many other scientific revolutions. And I can say the same about Marxism (in a way I consider it to be a philosophical revolution), a school of thought which currently doesn’t have any inherent anomalies which cant be solved, or to put it better, can be solved better by a different school.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 03, 2004 02:34 PM |
|
|
Interesting Popper vs. Kuhn discussion you have here 
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2004 08:54 PM |
|
|
Yup Terje, it sure looks as if this is not going to be Marx anymore, but Popper Kuhn.
Needless to say Im all for Popper on that one, but again I define science in the strict sense to natural science. Not social science, which takes some of the force out of my arguments against Kuhn.
Perhaps we should take this topic to a new thread Svarog. But it will take me a couple of days before I feel up to posting some serious comments. Im still reeling from Bushs victory. Eventhough I had absolutely no say in the matter, it still put a mark on my faith in humanity. Seems like nobody wants to learn any lessons from history these days.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 02:43 AM |
|
|
Ha ha. You two recognized the vocabulary without even mentioning his name. I like that.
Its up to you Defreni, a new thread or not. btw, if you exclude Marx from further discussion, i take it that you agree with Marxist interpretations, but not with interpretations by Marx, yes?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2004 08:48 AM |
|
|
Nope Svarog 
Thats still up for discussion. Its precisely the Marxist analysis done by contemporary Marxist I strongly disagree with.
Offcourse this is not fascism, so if Laelth agrees I will gladly hitch-hike this thread and use this thread to give examples both of historical analysis which I find if not outright wrong, then at least extremely one tracked. And in contemporary analysis, why a deviant of Marxist analysis, namely the economist who argues that all Africas problems are grounded in neo-colonialism, is also wrong.
But again, it will take me some time to gather my arguments, seeing as Im in the process of reading up on my Turkish history
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted November 05, 2004 12:35 AM |
|
|
No problem, Defreni.
I was trying to get a few Americans to see which direction they were pushing America. I got derision or outright denial from them.
Please, carry on with your intelligent discussion.
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
| |
|
|
