Re: Thinking and Analysis based on Marxism & Literature

On Apr 14, 9:09 pm, "Tronscend" <tronf...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi there,

"Alex" <a...@xxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meldingnews:ca680c3b-71b7-434a-8d52-fa9ecb4e68aa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

....  he tried to predict the future, in which task he failed totally.

Nah ... Disagree.
He was right about a few things, IMO, or IMHO, if that feels better.

Do you know what Pratchett said about the people who are using
"IMHO"? :-)

And for me one fair parameter is whether he was right more than others who
tried
to predict the future.

Comparing to the astrologist from Buster Keaton's "Three Ages" he was
well behind in his short-term predictions. And, as far as I can see,
there are not too many poverty-stricken members of the industrial
proleatriat to be seen around (to be fair, I saw some _claiming_ that
they are and I'm open-minded enough to assume that what looked like
the beer-bellies was actually a result of a starvation). :-)


That he gave himself a 10 out of 10 is pare for the course, they all do;
but geting a 3:10 is actually above average. Way beyond "Revelations", e.g.

My estimate would be between 0.2 and 0.5 of 10 but I never said that
I'm unbiased (just that I'm right). :-)

...

Compare with Orwell's writings on "The Managerial Revolution" (title?),
 which forms the basis of "1984", in his collected journalistic columns..

Well, Orwell was a fiction writer not a 'serious' <whatever>.

That guy predicted a lot. Lots of people predicted. Where are they now?


Orwell is not forgotten.

The problem is not with the basic premise but in his total inability
to produce, based on this premise, a model which would fit anything
besides his extremely primitive and superficial ideas of the 'known
history'.

Yeah, well, Columbus thought he'd found India.
He hadn't.
But he found _something_.

He found something tangible which was not known to his contemporaries
(and which was, of course, known to the natives). What, in the
tangible terms was 'found' by Marx? If there was something, my nose
would be most probably pushed into it during the education.
(Un)fortunately, nothing of the kind happened except for the vague
blablings and inconvincing attempts to reconcile what he wrote with
the existing realities (like 'socialism' being built in the places
which were not even in the 'true feudalism').


Freud thought he was on to something, too.

Most probably, he was but I confess a total indifference to this area.

Psychology today rejects most of his findings.
But without Freud, there wouldn't be any "psychology"
(departments, professors, researchers .... etc.) to reject him.

Ah, now you got to the substance! Yes, Marx provided well-being of the
numerous people who were (or perhaps still are) studying his works
while being paid other people's money. This IS most definitely
something tangible.


KM is valued differently because of his immense following.
To some degree, it might be KM's fault. He may have been a "following
builder".
But not all of the followers' madness can be laid at his doorstep.

The same can be said about Jesus, Mohammed, Buddah, Moses and probably
other personalities of the same type.


For me, it is mainly the one he shared with Hegel:
Sorry, "shared" or "borrowed"?

OK, he copied it word for word, almost,
from "Ph. des Rechts" and "Ph. der Geschichte", IIRC.

Thanks, having serious dislike to the philosophy (by the reasons you
can figure out), I was making an educated guess.

But then Nietzsche copied most of his stuff from Schopie,
and still everyone thinks N is a powerful innovator ....

Not "everyone": I don't think anything on the subject by the reasons
described above. :-)

But seriously, conversation is not about what people are 'thinking'
but about the facts that support their opinion. In many cases, opinion
is based not on the facts or analytical thinking but on religion-like
belief into something (because you had beeen told, taught, etc.).

I think it's called "creative research" even today.
But all those copyists gave it a new and appealing "packaging".
That is a neat trick in itself.


Of course. I'm not sure that "Jesus" (a very successful advertising
company that not necessarily had anything to do with its alledged
founder) had too many truly original ideas but the package was great.
Ditto for Mohammed, etc.

As Schopenhauer pointed out, you have to convince audience that what
you are saying is going to benefit them.


to have discovered laws
of historical development of human society.
He did not.

And I agree.
But not because they didn't have the full catalogue of empiry,
rather because "laws of history" is something of a contradictio
in adiectio as long as "history" is defined as "unique occurrences
which changes the course of events".

I agree on this. IMHO (:-)) a human society is a system too
complicated and subjected to too many uncontrollable factors to be
adequately modeled in a forward direction. In the very primitive
terms, Marx used a "linear approach" ignoring even most of the factors
that already were in a full swing (like technological progress,



"Laws of unique events" ... pigs flying, etc?

Well, if you place a pig on the edge of a hig roof and give it a
strong push, it will fly, at least for a while...



Well, according to the followers, _this_ was the only right version
and argument would immediately deterriorate into a purely religious
disputation. :-)

Again, there is no "the" followers.
While not devaluing your reports on the followers you know/knew,
it is still not the full story.


Followers I was talking about had been reflecting an official position
so it did not matter if you asked one or all of them: result would be
exactly the same (with the minor variations on wording and adjustment
to a degree of a personal stupidity and/or dishonesty).

This sounds rather medieval ...   :-)
It is. Or was. The only way to get through the courses related to The
Theory was to relax and repeat whatever you are told (or what was
written). Argment will just get you into a trouble (at least when it
comes to exam).

This sounds rather medieval ... !!!!!

Actually, it is very close to the advice given by Mefisto to a young
student so, depending on how you are going to look at it, it is either
medieval (as something that happens in "Faust") or early modern (as
something Goethe was reacting upon). But getting back to your point,
it was either 'medieval' (putting aside the fact that this was
happening in a 'socialist' state) or religious, whatever you prefer.


In his case it was an opinion, in my it is a fact. :-)

Ooops, don't go a-theoretical now.
Value judgements are never supported by reports
of states of affairs.

Never use "never" because they most definitely were in the SU (and
probably not only). Paraphrasing The Greatest Genius of All Times, it
is not important what state of affair is, what is important is who is
going to report on it. :-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Meteoric and Cometary impacts in historical times - Hard Evidence
    ... >>6,000 years of recorded history we should expect there have been about ... Shoemaker also estimated that meteors arrive about once a ... rain in the Chiing-yang district. ... There have been several reports of larger impactors in the twentieth ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Why you should review your medical records
    ... substance abuse", now that every doc is wired to every other doc, has the ... "history of substance abuse" unless I can get them to stop writing ... In researching this further I've come to the conclusion that the doctor is ... probably not the one who has been writing these reports. ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: Shiny new thread for Tony
    ... It reports ... history. ... The Noahic Flood event did occur. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The historical Jesus didnt create a new religion!
    ... His followers were called Netzarim? ... history they practised Torah? ... His parents were practising ... According to world-recognized authorities in this area Ribi Yehoshua ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
  • Re: Meteoric and Cometary impacts in historical times - Hard Evidence
    ... >> of reports cannot be attributed to there being nothing to report. ... >6,000 years of recorded history we should expect there have been about ... >wouldn't surprise me at all if Tunguska was the first event of this size ...
    (sci.archaeology)