• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Marxism

Physical science is largely complete.
1911 called, they want their wildly incorrect assumption back.

If you can reconcile Quantum Field Theory and Relativity, then perhaps you might be justified in that claim. If you are not sure whether or not you can, check to see if you have any Nobel Prizes kicking around the place. If you don't, then you can't.
 
^Doctrinaire physicalists will of course continue to contend that we all need to concern ourselves with how many quarks can dance on the head of a pin. They do this specifically to avoid engaging with the actual and pressing need to broaden and deepen our understanding of mankind.
 
In any case, here is Waton's answer:

The quantum theory postulates ultimate units of matter, but now we see that there are no ultimate units of matter. A unit of matter is continuous with its gravitational, magnetic or any other field. Then there are no longer quanta. This was known to the ancients long ago, and Spinoza already demonstrated that there are no units of substance; but substance is one continuous, indivisible and infinite. Some of the relativists already began to perceive that there are no quanta in existence.
 
Physical science is largely complete.
1911 called, they want their wildly incorrect assumption back.

If you can reconcile Quantum Field Theory and Relativity, then perhaps you might be justified in that claim. If you are not sure whether or not you can, check to see if you have any Nobel Prizes kicking around the place. If you don't, then you can't.
1911 called, they want their Nobel Committee back. The whole concept of giving the Nobel Prize for recent work, to a scientist still young enough to potentially use the money to finance further research unconstrained by hidebound grant committees, is just so quaint. If NR isn't sure whether or not he can reconcile Quantum Field Theory and Relativity, he needs to wait around until he's about 80 and then check to see if he has any Nobel Prizes kicking around the place. :wink:
 
There have always been somewhat successful somewhat communist societies: hippy communes, monasteries and nunneries, Amish communities. Universal communism is not interested in these, however. Universal communism is concerned only with mankind as whole. Mankind is here understood as single individual that evolves from primitive communism through capitalism, state capitalism and socialism to universal communism. ...
Note that all of your successful communist societies are small. The size limit is the size limit of the number of people we actively know. ...

Communism only truly works to the extent that it is universal.
Right. That’s why it works very well on the scale of a tribe that is small enough that everyone knows everyone else. The “problem” is that it ONLY works on that scale.

^Primitive communism worked on a small scale. Capitalism replaced primitive communism and established a global economic system. ...
"Primitive communism" is a "noble savage" myth. It never happened. It's a just-so-story made up by philosophers to make their political theories sound more credible than they are, same as Hobbes's solitary pre-social man or Rawls's "original position". There's no evidence Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farming communities were communist. Existing primitive tribes aren't communist. The Amish aren't communist -- their land is divided into privately-owned farms. Monasteries and nunneries are de facto feudal manors owned and ruled by the Church. Not even a hippy commune is the real thing. Any collectively-owned resource it has is only available to the commune because its private owner chose to deploy it that way voluntarily; people in actually communist societies don't have a choice about whether to live without private property. Scaling a community down to the 150 people it's possible for each person to actively know isn't enough to make communism work.

 
Here is Waton on the subject of primitive communism:

Mankind were conceived, born and brought up in communism, and in communism they grew and developed. Emerging from an unknown and indistinct background of chaos, darkness and ignorance; commencing at the zero point in experience and knowledge, without articulate speech, without fire, without artificial tools, without any outside help, with bare hands and weak bodies, mankind fought their great battles, first for existence, then for more of the means of existence, and finally for a human existence. They brought light into darkness, order into chaos, knowledge into ignorance, and laid the foundation for a wonderful world. They brought out and perfected human speech, cleared the earth's surface, tamed and harnessed animals, and appropriated for their use the earth. They discovered the use of fire, they invented and perfected artificial tools, first of flint, then of bronze, and finally of iron; and by means of these tools they utilized the treasures of nature to increase their food, clothing and shelter. They acquired a knowledge of horticulture, and of agriculture; they learned to spin, weave and sew, to build enduring and comfortable dwellings, to make pottery and other household things for use and ornament, and attained to an esthetic appreciation of beauty in architecture, sculpture, painting, music and language, and laid the foundation for an enlightened religion, a comprehensive philosophy and an exact science. Such was the achievement of mankind while yet in a state of primitive communism.

Communism is not something new, something which never existed, and which must be established. Communism is as old as human society is. Communism was and is the foundation of society; it was and is the basis of all human progress; it was and is the soul of all institutions; it is the hope of the working class and the destiny of mankind. Human society was conceived in communism, it was brought up in communism, and all through communism was the soul of all human progress. Religion, morality, philosophy, science, art, culture and industry all were communistic in origin, nature, use and destiny. For thousands of years mankind struggled to acquire knowledge, understanding and skill. With infinite thought they crystallized ideas and truths of religion, philosophy, science, art, morality, culture, industry and civilization; and with infinite labor they brought out the tools, invented machines, discovered processes and created a wonderful mechanism for the production and distribution of the means of life. All these infinite values and treasures the past generations bequeathed to posterity as the common property of all freely to be used by all. No matter when, where and by whom an idea was crystallized, a truth discovered, a machine invented and a process worked out, it is now the common property of all, and each one is free to use them. Each idea, each truth, each invention and each process grow out of the infinite intellectual and material values and treasures which mankind created in common, and which they now own, possess and use in common. Destroy all that is communistic in origin, nature, use and destiny, and human society will disappear, and mankind will degenerate and become extinct. Universal communism is the hope of the working class, for only in universal communism will the working class be ultimately emancipated from exploitation, oppression, degradation, slavery and dehumanization. Universal communism is the ultimate destiny of mankind. All social evolution and all human progress were communistic in origin, nature, use and destiny. The great redeemers, the great thinkers, the reformers and the revolutionaries, all through history, were imbued with the idea of universal communism, and all served the whole human race. With time and progress, all these communal efforts brought out a rich harvest of communal institutions and promoted the communal life of mankind. Consider but a few communistic institutions that mankind already wrested from individualistic chaos and selfishness: the public schools, the municipal departments, the health centers, the public libraries, the public parks, the public hospitals, and the numerous functions of government. A poor man may have ten children, and a rich man may have but one child; yet the ten children of the poor man have the same right to the privileges and benefits of the public school as the only child of the rich man, although the rich man may have contributed much to the support of the public schools. A poor man is just as free to use the books in the public libraries as the rich man is, although the rich man might have contributed much to the support of the library. The municipalities, the cities, the government and the state are ready to serve all; the fire department is just as ready to extinguish the fire in the hut of the poor man as it is ready to extinguish the fire in the mansion of the rich man. The law is just as ready to protect the life, the property and the rights of the poor man as of the rich man; and so it is with all social and political institutions. Religion, philosophy, science, art, literature, culture and human progress of any and all forms all are ready to serve all. And from day to day these communistic institutions increase in number, in extent, in function and efficiency. In turn, society and the state demand from the individual a like communistic return. All are directly and indirectly taxed to maintain the functions of the government and the various public institutions. And, when necessary, the state and society demand from the individual the supreme sacrifice of his life. Is not this the highest communism? But the most fundamental transformation of society into the state of communism is taking place in the process of production of the means of life. The mode of production is becoming ever more and more communistic. Consider the great industries. Hundreds of thousands and millions of workers are united, integrated and organized in the vast industries; they all work in common, they produce in common, and in common turn out millions of commodities. This communistic mode of production brought out national mass production, and now is bringing out international mass production. The time is coming when all production in the world will become one universal system of production, and this will mean universal communistic production. The mode of production of the means of life is the basis and substance of the mode of distribution. As the mode of production changes, so also does the mode of distribution change. And as they change, so also change the organic relations of society. See what is already taking place in the United States. The capitalists are reduced to mere managers, and the state becomes the capitalist. The state assumes ever more and more control of the production and distribution of the means of life, and at the same time the state acquires ever more economic and political power. All that is taking place in the world is only the manifestation of the revolutionary transformation of society; it is the retirement of private capitalism from the stage of history, to prepare the ground for state capitalism and ultimate universal communism. Throughout the past communism was and remained the soul of society and of all human progress. Originally, the economic basis of society was communistic. The land which they occupied and the things which they produced and acquired they used in common. But gradually a change took place. The introduction and establishment of private property accomplished this change.
 
There's no evidence Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farming communities were communist.
I’d expect Neolithic communities to be pragmatic rather than political. If it’s a “community” there had to be value in the commune/commons itself.
It remains that way until the community is large enough for opposing factions to form within it, and it has either gained enough “common” resources to fight over or is threatened by a common enemy.
 
There's no evidence Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farming communities were communist.
I’d expect Neolithic communities to be pragmatic rather than political. If it’s a “community” there had to be value in the commune/commons itself.
It remains that way until the community is large enough for opposing factions to form within it, and it has either gained enough “common” resources to fight over or is threatened by a common enemy.
If by political you mean ideological, I think you're quite right. But to be political in the sense of cultivating alliances and being acutely aware of who has power and who can be influenced, that goes back far beyond the dawn of humanity. Chimps, heck, even lemurs are political animals with factions.

Among primitive tribes there's endless variation in customs of what is held in common, what is reserved for individual use, and what is shared out selectively based on whom an owner owes or chooses to get on the good side of. And yes, these customs tend to be very pragmatic. For at least seven million years there's been value in the commune/commons, living alongside value in property-rights practices. Sharing is a universal pre-refrigeration food-preservation technology -- we chimpanzees store our excess calories in the bodies of those likely to return the favor -- but each society evolved its own unique sharing rules in reaction to local conditions. So it's risky to generalize; but two arrangements that are never seen are holding everything in common and holding nothing in common.
 
In any case, here is Waton's answer:

The quantum theory postulates ultimate units of matter, but now we see that there are no ultimate units of matter. A unit of matter is continuous with its gravitational, magnetic or any other field. Then there are no longer quanta. This was known to the ancients long ago, and Spinoza already demonstrated that there are no units of substance; but substance is one continuous, indivisible and infinite. Some of the relativists already began to perceive that there are no quanta in existence.
What drives a person to decide whether there are quanta of charge by consulting prescientific goat herders, a philosophically inclined optician, and a Kabbalistic rabbi, rather than, say, an oil drop experiment?
 
In any case, here is Waton's answer:

The quantum theory postulates ultimate units of matter, but now we see that there are no ultimate units of matter. A unit of matter is continuous with its gravitational, magnetic or any other field. Then there are no longer quanta. This was known to the ancients long ago, and Spinoza already demonstrated that there are no units of substance; but substance is one continuous, indivisible and infinite. Some of the relativists already began to perceive that there are no quanta in existence.
What drives a person to decide whether there are quanta of charge by consulting prescientific goat herders, a philosophically inclined optician, and a Kabbalistic rabbi, rather than, say, an oil drop experiment?
Are you really going to ignore the time-honored practices of reading tea leaves and entrails?
 
On the subject of quanta, Waton continues as follows:

Schroedinger tells us ( as quoted by Eddington in his book: The Nature of the Physical World ): Imagine a sub ether whose surface is covered with ripples. The oscillations of the ripples are a million times faster than those of visible light too fast to come within the scope of gross experience. Individual ripples are beyond our ken; what we can appreciate is a combined effect when the convergence and coalescence of the waves conspire to create a disturbed area large enough compared with the individual ripples, but small from our point of view. Such a disturbed area is recognized as a material particle; in particular it can be an electron. Accordingly, the electron is only a disturbed surface of the sub ether. This means that the electron is not an infinitely small individual unit of matter, it is only a disturbed area of the sub ether. Now, a ripple on the surface from the water is not separate and distinct from the water; it is only a state of the water itself. Thus all material realities are only ripples on the surface of the infinite energy which fills the universe. Hence the continuum is not the distances between the units of matter and the intervals between their motions; the continuum is the infinite energy itself; it is infinite in extension and in duration. There is no vacuum between the units of matter, and there is no hiatus between the events. There is but one absolute, infinite and eternal substance.

Waton presents a critique of science. In essence, science lacks a truly comprehensive approach. Philosophy is require to keep scien ce from degenerating into mere cant.

The oil drop experiment merely quantifies the charge of an electron. The point Waton makes is that an electron is a localized concentration of charge within the universal continuum.
 
^Doctrinaire physicalists will of course continue to contend that we all need to concern ourselves with how many quarks can dance on the head of a pin. They do this specifically to avoid engaging with the actual and pressing need to broaden and deepen our understanding of mankind.
It's not a matter of tiny differences.

There have been household-level devices that used QM but other approaches have surpassed them and it's application to real world devices is uncommon. SR is commonly cited in the example of GPS, but it actually is pervasive, if your car were Newtonian it wouldn't work.
 
I have read over 150 works written by Marx, Engels, Bebel, ect. I also know and worked with many people from the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries as well as mainiand China. I believe their system worked and they for the most part were not the impoverished dumps our propaganda made them out to be.

The problem isnt that they didnt work They just didnt work the way people in the west with money and power want an economy to work

To be honest I dont think you really can say whether such and such system works or not universally for all because it depends on who you are, your values and how you want an economy to function . A Confederate slave holder would say a slave economy is just fine, not so much if you ask the slaves opinion.
 
The problem isnt that they didnt work They just didnt work the way people in the west with money and power want an economy to work

To be honest I dont think you really can say whether such and such system works or not universally for all because it depends on who you are, your values and how you want an economy to function . A Confederate slave holder would say a slave economy is just fine, not so much if you ask the slaves opinion.
Yes, whether it works is a matter of opinion. I guess we'll never know this guy's opinion,
250px-Body_of_Peter_Fechter_lying_next_to_Berlin_Wall.jpg

but we could ask the East German border guard that shot him.
 
The problem isnt that they didnt work They just didnt work the way people in the west with money and power want an economy to work

To be honest I dont think you really can say whether such and such system works or not universally for all because it depends on who you are, your values and how you want an economy to function . A Confederate slave holder would say a slave economy is just fine, not so much if you ask the slaves opinion.
Yes, whether it works is a matter of opinion. I guess we'll never know this guy's opinion,
250px-Body_of_Peter_Fechter_lying_next_to_Berlin_Wall.jpg

but we could ask the East German border guard that shot him.
In your opinion what would have justified the shooting?
 
Back
Top Bottom