5 ms·

Marx predicted this and has been wrong for 140 years. It'll come true this time you guys.

mcpackieh 3y ago
Indeed, the science of socialism makes some fair critiques of society but has a track record of poor predictive power. It totally failed to predict the economic prosperity of liberal democracies in the late 20th century, and the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. But I'm sure they've got things figured out now..
- modo_mario 3y ago
  I'm not a socialist but this seems like some weirdly bad faith train of thought no? With weird homogenising wording such as "the science of socialism" to be considered and discarded as a whole. How did it fail to predict these things or should be expected to predict these things? Like are you talking about Marx who talked about capitalism in the context of western countries said capitalism was a necessary stage of development that brings about remarkable scientific and technological changes—changes that greatly increased aggregate wealth by extending humankind’s power over nature? Is he or his ideas the embodiment of this science of socialism or is it broader and how broad? Does it include critiques of the kind of economic determinism you have in mind? What did 'the science' say about the sino soviet rift, vietnam, etc? Is the science of capitalism embodied in Adam Smith or some similar amalgamation of concepts? Did the science make predictions about Free State Congo, the republic of china and modern day US?
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    During the 19th and 20th centuries, Socialism and Communism were purported to be sciences that could make predictions about the future. The Soviet Union eventually succeeding in achieving Communism was claimed to be a scientific inevitability. I think the "end stage capitalism" hearkens back to this kind of rhetoric because it purports to predict the future of capitalism. I wouldn't take any "science of capitalism" seriously either. Anybody telling you their political or economic ideology is a science that can predict the future is somebody you should laugh at. No ideology can predict with anything approaching scientific precision or accuracy the complex chaotic interplay of competing nations and the impact of technology yet to be invented.
    - CapstanRoller 3y ago
      Ultimately, Marx and Lenin boil down to: "look at the material conditions of society (the actual territory) instead of believing ideology (the map)" There's nothing unreasonable about that. In fact, it is an extremely rational viewpoint, and pretty bluntly obvious. That's why Marxism-Leninism (aka "scientific socialism") is "materialistic" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
  - tonfreed 3y ago
    I think it's the fundamental difference between planned vs free market economics. While markets are generally thought to make rational decisions over time due to the decentralized signalling of prices, and planned economy needs to have someone up on top making "correct" decisions. It's not really science, but they needed a way to try and quantify and measure what they were doing.

Indeed, the science of socialism makes some fair critiques of society but has a track record of poor predictive power. It totally failed to predict the economic prosperity of liberal democracies in the late 20th century, and the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. But I'm sure they've got things figured out now..

modo_mario 3y ago
I'm not a socialist but this seems like some weirdly bad faith train of thought no? With weird homogenising wording such as "the science of socialism" to be considered and discarded as a whole. How did it fail to predict these things or should be expected to predict these things? Like are you talking about Marx who talked about capitalism in the context of western countries said capitalism was a necessary stage of development that brings about remarkable scientific and technological changes—changes that greatly increased aggregate wealth by extending humankind’s power over nature? Is he or his ideas the embodiment of this science of socialism or is it broader and how broad? Does it include critiques of the kind of economic determinism you have in mind? What did 'the science' say about the sino soviet rift, vietnam, etc? Is the science of capitalism embodied in Adam Smith or some similar amalgamation of concepts? Did the science make predictions about Free State Congo, the republic of china and modern day US?
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  During the 19th and 20th centuries, Socialism and Communism were purported to be sciences that could make predictions about the future. The Soviet Union eventually succeeding in achieving Communism was claimed to be a scientific inevitability. I think the "end stage capitalism" hearkens back to this kind of rhetoric because it purports to predict the future of capitalism. I wouldn't take any "science of capitalism" seriously either. Anybody telling you their political or economic ideology is a science that can predict the future is somebody you should laugh at. No ideology can predict with anything approaching scientific precision or accuracy the complex chaotic interplay of competing nations and the impact of technology yet to be invented.
  - CapstanRoller 3y ago
    Ultimately, Marx and Lenin boil down to: "look at the material conditions of society (the actual territory) instead of believing ideology (the map)" There's nothing unreasonable about that. In fact, it is an extremely rational viewpoint, and pretty bluntly obvious. That's why Marxism-Leninism (aka "scientific socialism") is "materialistic" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
- tonfreed 3y ago
  I think it's the fundamental difference between planned vs free market economics. While markets are generally thought to make rational decisions over time due to the decentralized signalling of prices, and planned economy needs to have someone up on top making "correct" decisions. It's not really science, but they needed a way to try and quantify and measure what they were doing.