Is Marxism a science?

[Dermezel]

zz1000zz

Dermezel

zz1000zz

I don't get the point of this topic. The opening post does not address the question raised in the topic title, so just what is the discussion supposed to be over?

Wait, are you arguing it does not reach some philosophical demarcation, like testability? Or that it is not a practical explanation for scientific data? Also it is naturalistic, whereas marginalism is metaphysical.

Your opening post never discusses what is required to be "a science," nor did it make any attempt to show Marxism meets such a requirement. The opening post and the title do not discuss the same thing. This point was highlighted in the very first response you received in this topic:

Golden Dysprosium

What on earth would make Marxism a science? neutral
MArxism is not science; Marxism is a philosophical system.
Stop trying to pass off Eggos as toast!

You completely ignored this post.

The question in your title is, "Is Marxism a science?" Despite the length of your initial post, you made no attempt to answer the question. When directly questioned about that issue, you simply refused to answer. I am hard pressed to find any explanation other than willful trolling.

You made this topic. I think it is about time for you to deal with the topic. So tell us, what is the definition of "a science"? Does Marxism fit this definition?

I note in the opening post that Marxism formulates hypothesis that can be tested by empirical data.

[Golden Dysprosium]

That's funny, because you throw in the provision:

Quote:

I would like an analysis, based on a scientific, as opposed to a political standard of Marx's prediction and theories in Capital based on quantifiable empirical data.

If Marxism was "a science" (like biology?), we wouldn't look at it from the political/philiosophical perspective, would we? talk2hand
And no, you didn't "note" anything. It distinctly says :

Dermezel

I believe, despite what others may think that many of Marx's assertions have been vindicated by empirical data/testing...Some of these predictions are:

1- The Business Cycle
2- The Law of Capital Accumulation-
3- Relative-Surplus Value-
4- The Organic Composition Model (machinery will replace human labor over time).

Those "Others" are people with degrees (which makes them, you know, qualified sources), and we've yet to see any of your own credentials, just C/Ping links and quote-mining.

[zz1000zz]

Dermezel

zz1000zz

Dermezel

zz1000zz

I don't get the point of this topic. The opening post does not address the question raised in the topic title, so just what is the discussion supposed to be over?

Wait, are you arguing it does not reach some philosophical demarcation, like testability? Or that it is not a practical explanation for scientific data? Also it is naturalistic, whereas marginalism is metaphysical.

Your opening post never discusses what is required to be "a science," nor did it make any attempt to show Marxism meets such a requirement. The opening post and the title do not discuss the same thing. This point was highlighted in the very first response you received in this topic:

Golden Dysprosium

What on earth would make Marxism a science? neutral
MArxism is not science; Marxism is a philosophical system.
Stop trying to pass off Eggos as toast!

You completely ignored this post.

The question in your title is, "Is Marxism a science?" Despite the length of your initial post, you made no attempt to answer the question. When directly questioned about that issue, you simply refused to answer. I am hard pressed to find any explanation other than willful trolling.

You made this topic. I think it is about time for you to deal with the topic. So tell us, what is the definition of "a science"? Does Marxism fit this definition?

I note in the opening post that Marxism formulates hypothesis that can be tested by empirical data.

You have made no effort to show any hypothesis made in Marxism. A hypothesis is not simply a prediction. Perhaps your use of "hypothesis" is valid for lay terms, but it is not here. You specifically narrowed this topic to the realm of science, then conflated the two meanings of hypothesis.

It seems you only wish to discuss the merits of Marxism. Its merits, whatever they may be, are completely irrelevant to this topic. Whether or not Marxism is a science is not tied to whether or not Marxism is correct. The two issues are distinct.

You have completely and utterly failed to address the issue raised by your topic title. If you wish to discuss whether Marxism qualifies as a science, it is a simple issue. I have already outlined what you need to do. If you wish to discuss something else, take it somewhere else.

[The REAL easter bunnuh]

Marxism confuses me D:

[Dermezel]

Golden Dysprosium

Those "Others" are people with degrees (which makes them, you know, qualified sources), and we've yet to see any of your own credentials, just C/Ping links and quote-mining.

Thus far in this debate you have presented two primary objections against Marxist theory:

1- Marginal utility- developed by the Austrian school- and admitted to be untestable.

2- The Transformation Problem- likewise developed by the Austrian School, and generally considered a straw man argument.

You also attempted to argue from the site capitalism.org, which is an Ayn Rand front and hence not considered science for that reason. Other then that I have yet to see another substantial criticism coming from you that either negates:

1- The empirical evidence I presented (links to relevant/credible experts and data)

2- Any of Marx's hypothesis (i.e. the tendency of capital to centralize and accumulate over time, the displace of variable capital by constant, and the decline in the relative value of wages. )

For example, I noted how the displacement of variable capital by constant capital can be shown by how much wealth stock owners make relative to wage-laborers (due to the former owning machines and the latter relying on labor-power which is far less productive. )

Another example I have was how wealth has become increasingly concentrated over time, with major corporations generally overtaking smaller enterprises.

[Morberticus]

Dermezel

Golden Dysprosium

Those "Others" are people with degrees (which makes them, you know, qualified sources), and we've yet to see any of your own credentials, just C/Ping links and quote-mining.

Thus far in this debate you have presented two primary objections against Marxist theory:

1- Marginal utility- developed by the Austrian school- and admitted to be untestable.

2- The Transformation Problem- likewise developed by the Austrian School, and generally considered a straw man argument.

You also attempted to argue from the site capitalism.org, which is an Ayn Rand front and hence not considered science for that reason. Other then that I have yet to see another substantial criticism coming from you that either negates:

1- The empirical evidence I presented (links to relevant/credible experts and data)

2- Any of Marx's hypothesis (i.e. the tendency of capital to centralize and accumulate over time, the displace of variable capital by constant, and the decline in the relative value of wages. )

For example, I noted how the displacement of variable capital by constant capital can be shown by how much wealth stock owners make relative to wage-laborers (due to the former owning machines and the latter relying on labor-power which is far less productive. )

Another example I have was how wealth has become increasingly concentrated over time, with major corporations generally overtaking smaller enterprises.

Yes but you haven't shown why Marxism should be considered a science.

[zz1000zz]

Morberticus

Yes but you haven't shown why Marxism should be considered a science.

He keeps ignoring this issue, despite it being the only issue which has any relevance. He is willfully ignoring the issue of this topic for the sole purpose of promoting Marixm.

It seems like a typical propaganda technique to me.

[Golden Dysprosium]

Dermezel

Golden Dysprosium

Thus far in this debate you have presented two primary objections against Marxist theory:

Quote:

1- Marginal utility- developed by the Austrian school- and admitted to be untestable.

Actually, you keep bringing it up. I never said anything about it, or even refer to it as "marginal utility"..

Quote:

2- The Transformation Problem- likewise developed by the Austrian School, and generally considered a straw man argument.

By who? The usual suspects?

Quote:

You also attempted to argue from the site capitalism.org, which is an Ayn Rand front and hence not considered science for that reason.

Actually, that was a joke on my part, something you still don't seem to understand. The only point I was trying to prove was that both socialism and capitalism and equally ridiculous, as are the dolts promoting them. To be honest, I was laughing reading through that site.

Quote:

1- The empirical evidence I presented (links to relevant/credible experts and data)

Really? Because unlike you, I check the sources you post. Most of them had pre-disposed bias to socialism, and a bunch of them listed their educational background as being in physics, as opposed to economics (which would make them credible sources). The only one you provided that meets the standard of "credible experts" was when you posted that completely pointless review of the current economy and proclaimed it a victory for socialism, even though the site was blatantly Anti-Marx and the article said nothing about Marx or socialism. It was, like Das Kapital, a critical review of current economic policies. See, I decided to see if you were trolling by leaving and letting the topic sink. Sure enough, you came back to salvage it by linking to site of people who felt that Marxism didn't meet their standards (the site actually says that empirical evidence is something they embrace). It was almost as bad as when you created an obvious mule so that you'd have someone agreeing with you, since more people accepted my Eggos v. toast comment more than anything you've said or plan on saying.

Quote:

2- Any of Marx's hypothesis (i.e. the tendency of capital to centralize and accumulate over time, the displace of variable capital by constant, and the decline in the relative value of wages. )
For example, I noted how the displacement of variable capital by constant capital can be shown by how much wealth stock owners make relative to wage-laborers (due to the former owning machines and the latter relying on labor-power which is far less productive. )
Another example I have was how wealth has become increasingly concentrated over time, with major corporations generally overtaking smaller enterprises.

These are actually highly common, not to mention basic business practices, and have occured for quite some time. Presenting those as brilliant will get you laughed out of any economics class you happen to stumble into, and no one will take you seriously.

[orangefan9]

Marxism does nothing to support the arts, especially ones that take much collaboration that is potentiated by capital. If you love the arts then it is a great reason why not to pursue such a perversion of real freedom and optimization of the will of the people. Anarchism is a more proper system, because it can incorporate a capital system into it. The most conservative form of anarchy calls for a justification of all authority, quite different from the usual anti-archy platform. Anarchy calls for true democracy by popular sovereignty, and thus is a great system to align the will of the people with the governmental system. If one person rises to power, it is the job of the commoners to mute said person's ability to achieve power immediately, discouraging any power struggles. I would like to think that anarchy could be achieved peacefully, although commending such an effort would be difficult because often the peaceful movement is less of an anarchy movement and more of a show-off of egos. There would have to be many people who are both intelligent and peaceful intertwined in the anarchical system, to prevent the ignition of a resistance through words.

[Dermezel]

Golden Dysprosium

And no, you didn't "note" anything. It distinctly says :

Dermezel

I believe, despite what others may think that many of Marx's assertions have been vindicated by empirical data/testing...Some of these predictions are:

1- The Business Cycle
2- The Law of Capital Accumulation-
3- Relative-Surplus Value-
4- The Organic Composition Model (machinery will replace human labor over time).

Those "Others" are people with degrees (which makes them, you know, qualified sources), and we've yet to see any of your own credentials, just C/Ping links and quote-mining.

Also I'd like to note a couple points, first your semantic argument largely plays on ambiguity:

Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: bə-ˈlēf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe
Date: 12th century

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

I have examined the evidence and believe Marxism qualifies as a scientific theory.

As for your second point, I have quoted only qualified sources. Jared Diamond is a Ph.d and is quoted in most college history texts, of course you won't accept him because somebody is suing him over what one tribesman in New Guinea is claiming he didn't say. Another source is an accredited professor from the University of California. I have also quoted Joseph Stiglitz, official government sites, and various recognized economic institutes.

Whereas you've thus far quoted nothing but Libertarians from the Austrian School, and Ayn Rand.

Again to summarize, so far you've made two primary arguments, one based on the idea that Marxism is not a science because it cannot be a science. Or to put it more precisely, no social science can be a science, so one theory is as good as any other. You have really not brought in any thing to back up that claim in the way of qualified sources or evidence or even a line of reasoning- you just repeat the claim.

Your second argument is that I "just don't understand X", which is a rather poor argument in science, as I think I have brought in far, far more data then you have, and you have yet to even explain some of the formulas you presented.

[Dermezel]

Here is some more evidence to establish the scientific validity of Marxist theory, primarily the prediction of capital centralization and accumulation in this case. I am presenting evidence like this because science is determined primarily by empirical data, not a priori categorizations as many here seem to think.

Quote:

The richest 1% of adults owned 40% of the world’s total assets in the year 2000. The richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of total assets. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth. (Source: World Institute for Development Economics Research, The World Distribution of Household Wealth, 2006).

"There were an estimated 7.7 million millionaires in the world at the end of 2003, half a million more than at the end of 2002, as stock markets and economic growth picked up and the rich took more risks with their cash.These wealthy individuals saw their riches increase by 7.7 percent to $28.8 trillion in 2003, recovering to levels seen before the global recession took hold in 2001, according to a survey on Tuesday from U.S. investment bank Merrill Lynch and technology consultancy Capgemini. And the rich are set to get richer, with their wealth forecast to grow by seven percent a year and to exceed $40.7 trillion by 2008, the survey predicted... The survey also highlighted a small, but fast-growing global group of 70,000 super rich individuals with more than $30 million in financial assets. It found that this group was growing at a faster pace than those in the $1 million-plus bracket." (World's richest worth $29 trillion in 2003; Survey: Wealthy now back at level before dot-com bust. MSNBC.com, June 15, 2004,)

Very Richest's Share of Income Grew Even Bigger, New York Times, June 26, 2003

In the late 1970s, the top one percent of the US population held 13 percent of the wealth; in 1995 it held 38 percent. (Levy, Frank. The New Dollars and Dreams ).

In 1998 the top 1 percent of the population owned 38 percent of the wealth, the top 5 percent owned over 60 percent (source: www.inequality.org/fatcsfr.html).

The top ten percent of the U.S. population owns 81.8 percent of the real estate, 81.2 percent of the stock, and 88 percent of the bonds. (Federal Reserve Bank data in Left Business Observer, No. 72, Apr. 3, 1996, p. 5).

One percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty percent of the total wealth. (Hawken, Paul, The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York: HarperBusiness, 1993).

The top one percent of U.S. households owned 42 percent of all stock in 1997...
The top ten percent of households owned 82 percent of all stock-market wealth...
Only 27 percent of households held more than $10,000 in stock in 1997...
57 percent of Americans didn't own any stock at all...
The top fifth of households saw their income rise 43 percent between 1977 and 1999, while the bottom fifth saw their income fall 9 percent....
Since 1973, every group in society except the top 20 percent has seen its share of the national income decline, with the bottom 20 percent losing the most. They have just 3.6 percent of national income, down from 4.4 percent a quarter century ago.
Indeed, the top fifth now makes more than the rest of the nation combined...
Rebecca Blank, who recently left the President's Council of Economic Advisors, pointed out, ‘We've gone back to levels of income and wealth inequality that this country hasn't seen since the teens and 1920s.’" (Source: Merrill Goozner, Crash of '99?, Salon.com, Oct. 1, 1999).

The top one percent of Americans receive more income than the bottom 40 percent. (Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World, p. 10 cool .

When he was worth $40 billion, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates was worth more than the bottom 110 million Americans (the bottom 40 percent of the population). By 1998, Gates was worth $59 billion; a year later, he was worth $85 billion. Gates is twice as wealthy as the second richest American, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen (worth $40 billion). (Source: open letter from Ralph Nader (December 199 cool , citing Edward Wolff of New York University, whose calculations included home equity, pensions and mutual funds, but excluded personal cars, based on Gates' then-current net worth of $40 billion).

In 1995, 358 billionaires were worth $760 billion, the same as the poorest 20 percent of the world’s people. (Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World, p. 83).

http://www.endgame.org/primer-wealth.html

Note here we are dealing with two hypothesis. According to the Ayn Rand/Libertarian hypothesis followed by Golden and crew, under a relatively free market wealth should naturally spread. It should "trick-down" and raise the poor up to the level of the rich. According to Marxist theory wealth tends to centralize and accumulate in a relatively free market system.

[Morberticus]

Are you ignoring posts? At this stage you're just spamming.

I'm going to throw in with zz and conclude that you are not actually interested in discussing whether or not Marxism is a science, and are only interested in whether or not it's valid. The Politics forum would probably be better for that discussion.