tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26183234.post9096063940412622892..comments2023-07-25T12:00:23.138+00:00Comments on Bonobo World: Marx and Monkeys.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26183234.post-76464852051345641042011-10-18T18:58:33.342+00:002011-10-18T18:58:33.342+00:00I see Popper's point. But try going back to S...I see Popper's point. But try going back to Spinoza (I recommend the excellent R4 'In Our Time'). Cause and effect? Free will vs determinism? How would we know? The world is as it is.<br /><br />But Marx says that we can change it. We're compelled to, if we're conscious of where our interests lie.Edward the Bonobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02650872371620413588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26183234.post-53750345195209402732011-10-18T04:18:11.351+00:002011-10-18T04:18:11.351+00:00Well I look forward to your argument that Dialecti...Well I look forward to your argument that Dialectical Materialism has the same obviousness factor as the theory of evolution! Let's just say, I remain to be convinced. ;) Not that I'm a huge fan - as you know - but Popper's comment on Hegelian dialectics seems rather good to me. Essentially, it is either trivial (this is a way that change can happen) or extremely doubtful (this is the way all change happens).Dan | thesamovarhttp://thesamovar.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26183234.post-52600318843759038942011-10-17T22:07:19.814+00:002011-10-17T22:07:19.814+00:00Yes...I'd say that it's reasonable to see ...Yes...I'd say that it's reasonable to see Marxism as an interesting point of view without committing to it...except that it implies a fundamental, Dialectical Materialist point of view that it is impossible *not* to commit to. (sneak preview of forthcoming post). Once you understand it, like Darwin it's just obvious. (And I acknowledge that this might be a problem...)<br /><br />You can apply Dialectical Materialism to the simplest of human transactions. Recently I've been pondering this while watching such films as 'The Godfather' and 'The Gangs of New York' wherein human struggles are shown in the raw. We could probably get even rawer and more individual. <br /><br />Where it gets messier is when we scale it up. When the struggles involve more people and more abstractions of people, then firstly we approach a chaotic system and secondly the data tends to be incomplete. So with Marxism the picture will always be incomplete and open to some interpretation and - yes - you may feel that you want to reject some versions of the analysis, just as I reject those of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. But the analytic method is still sound. And I acknowledge that the above were, inescapably if embarrassingly Marxists. Lenin and Mao had theoretical insights which they applied to murderous effect.<br /><br />The other important thing about Marx is the Praxis part. As you say, neither Marxism nor Darwinism have predictive value. But Marxism has an intent of action. Marx saw that Capitalism was a sorry mess which was bound to fail in a catastrophic way. His project was to try to make it fail in a good way instead, and that required Communism. But he also thought Communism was bound to happen anyway because smart, adaptive apes would necessarily evolve towards it. That or die out.<br /><br />Oh...and The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a necessary step. (Damn! I'd promised another blog on that.) We have a choice between a chaotic collapse or running our affairs in a smart way that will deliver Communism. This is why Slavoj Zizek has been telling the Occupy Wall St kids that they need to learn to follow orders. Fluffy anarchism will fail unless it's directed towards an ultimate goal.<br /><br />Incidentally - that's an entirely different interpretation to the one I was going to blog a couple of weeks ago. Blame this excellent book which is very illuminating on theory:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.co.uk/Frock-Coated-Communist-Revolutionary-Friedrich-Engels/dp/0713998520Edward the Bonobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02650872371620413588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26183234.post-10834496423289491492011-10-17T17:59:51.274+00:002011-10-17T17:59:51.274+00:00It's a very interesting comparison actually, b...It's a very interesting comparison actually, because I would say - and I think you'd agree - that Darwin is much better understood as a philosopher, or possibly even mathematician in some strange way, than scientist. This is taking the view of science as being about prediction, and philosophy as being about ways of seeing the world, and mathematics as about statements that must be true and don't require experimental evidence (which the theory of evolution has somewhat the quality of). All of which are of course simplifications, and most of Darwin's work was actually painstaking observation supporting his theory. But the kernel of the idea doesn't require all that - it's so simple and unavoidably true that simply to state it is to know that it is true.<br /><br />So yes, Marx and Darwin are similar in the sense that they are not scientific (predictive), but are closer to philosophy and ways of seeing. However, there are differences. For a start, Marxism doesn't have anything like the obvious and inevitable truth of the theory of evolution. This is a huge difference. Given the vastly complex and non-obvious nature of Marxism, we shouldn't accept it without serious evidence in favour of it. Maybe reading Marx does that, I don't know. I have my doubts, as you know.<br /><br />Perhaps the point is how you see the status of accepting the theory as true. Is it OK to just treat Marxism as a potentially useful point of view, but not one that you have to commit to? In which case, I have no objection, but it feels unsatisfactorily wooly somehow.<br /><br />On a side note, I don't think evolution and economics are isomorphic. I know the economists want it to be so, and some evolutionary theorists too, but there are important differences. For a start, the basic object is different: for evolution it is the necessarily short lived gene. For economics, it is potentially long lived companies. Also, there is a limit to the size and power of organisms, but not for companies. Evolution doesn't need anti-monopoly regulation.Dan | thesamovarhttp://thesamovar.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com