galanthus

I enjoyed our converation, it is more fun arguing with people on the internet when they are not idiots.

But I wonder, do you consider maths a science? Also, there are practices thay deal with practical matters and "the real world" that are not scientific. Like natural philosophy. I think method and rigour are more important than subject.

What do you mean when you say "scientific"?

Well, the argument in your first paragraph is somewhat compelling. I heard the view that the service economy can grow regardless of natural resources, but I suppose you would say to that that it is only possible in imperialistic countries that move industry elsewhere.

I will think on the matter, and maybe come up with counterarguments. I am not an economist, so the finer details of markets are eluding me. In any case, Marxism or not, let us hope for a few more decades of decadent bourgeois life.

Surely you can freely discuss this in blue states, right?

Honestly, it all comes down to historical materialism. You see in everything historical necessity, it was never possible for safety nets to remain in place, capitalism has to negate itself, etc. You can just point to any event, see in that the unalterable course of history and use it as an argument, but why would I accept it?

Hegelian dialectics is a perfectly working framework for analysis(I like Hegel more than Marx), but it is not scientific, is it? It is philosophical.

The point about imperial Russia is interesting. I think you lost a part of the paragraph somewhere, but I think I got it. So if re-proletarisation is necessary for revolution why is imperialism the last stage of capitalism, do we not have a sort of backwards motion here?

Hmm, I feel like I did say that what is profitable is not necessarily what is good, I am not sure why you felt the need to restate thas as if I disagree with that. Also, I believe that markets make resource allocation and general management of the economy more efficient and also drive growth. I never claimed that they drive technological progress. I would say I am not convinced they will become obsolete in the future as you describe it(I do not expect them to be eternal, however).

I should say, regarding your second paragraph, that it does not matter why these policies were inplemented since they might as well be implemented again for a similar or a different reason, and if there is a mode of existence of capitalism which you admit is not self destructive that disputes your point regardless of why it can come to be.

I would say that Marxism is a great conceptual tool, but I do think that it should not pretend to be scientific. It relies on unfalsifiable claims(like historical materialism) and as I said, the dialectical process of Marxism is never dismissed by changes in theory, only affirmed.

I would also say that the most dogmatic Marxism is not in the west but in Marxist countries. At least here in the former USSR it is absurd how dogmatic everyone was in academia and everywhere else really.

Personally, while I understand that it can be a useful conceptual tool, I do not like historical materialism. You can make causal claims in retrospect, saying that this or that had, by necessity, to come after something else. But I would say this is only true now, and it might not have been true then.

History is a capricious lady. I wonder what Marxists think about why the communist revolution started here, in the most backwards country in Europe, and not in the developed western Europe, with later stage capitalism and a more conscious proletariat.

Thank you for the detailed response. I will try to address your points.

Overall, however, the first paragraph hardly matters. I agree with you that the latter half of my original comment is more substantial. I will look at the last two paragraphs of your comment.

Regarding the competency of capitalists, I did not claim that the most competent people in society own capital, this is clearly not true. However, the capitalist system provides strong incentives for correct decisionmaking, and also, to an extent, rewards innovative and generally smart investments and decisions with capital. Also, in practice people who own the capital are not necessarily the same as people who manage it, and those are certainly competent.

You also made a point I do not agree with: while I do not deny that capitalism has a tendency towards monopoly and centralisation, I do not agree with the idea that it negates itself dialectically. I believe that in the 20th century many of the flaws of the previously existing capitalist system were suppressed by a change in policy. It seems to me that it is not necessarily the case that capitalism will destroy itself, as it is concievable that markets will be used in a way that will avoid these pitfalls. I see the argument you are making(at the end of your comment), and it is compelling, but I still am not convinced that markets should be abandoned.

I do not believe that markets are just automatically lead everyone to good outcomes and are just good by themselves. This is very naive. I do understand that what is profitable in a market system is not necessarily good for society. Overall, however, the positive aspects of markets, in my opinion, outweigh the negatives and those negative aspects can be accounted for since markets can be utilised in different ways.

Finally, I would like to ask you about your response to accusations of marxist dogmatism. While it seems like Marxists are indeed ready to concede that Marxism as it exists currently is not perfect, and are ready to criticise and change their theory, since said theory exists as a part of a dialectical process that is believed to asymptotically approach truth(if I understand dialectical materialism correctly), it would not be incorrect to say that Marxism, not as it exists now but as a dialectical process is, according to Marxists, approaching truth, and that is why, I suppose, Marxists do not doubt that Marxism as a whole is true, but rather only expect it to change.

Also, historical materialism is, in my opinion, not proven at all, which is not necessarily a bad thing, it can still be useful as a conceptual instrument, yet it is seemingly accepted as scientific fact by many Marxists.

I would like to offer a few counter-counterpoints.

Property rights are indeed enforced by the state under a threat of violence, but I would say that someone needs to own the factory: workers, the state, or the capitalists, so if the state(or a different institution) did not ensure stable ownership, people would just use violence to take what they can: the economy can not work under such chaotic conditions, as meaningful decisions needs stable expectations.

I would not say that capitalism benefits capitalists at the expense of the workers. Just because capitalists are profiting from the labour of workers, does not mean that this state of things is undesirable for workers, since the profits are then reinvested and so used to improve the economy. I would say this is a sensible arrangement: the economic power is wielded by the people that are relatively competent and driven and have incentives to do well. It has proven it's efficiency.

How else would you describe it?

What you described is the normal one. The american one does not have solid chocolate at all as I described.

I prefer the normal sized ones.

Or do you mean you will buy the american one?

If I remember correctly, they don't even have chocolate in solid form, and the plastic egg splits into two halves, with one having the toy inside and the other some kind of white thing with two balls.

This is not really a kinder egg tbh, it is too different and loses the cool part about it which is the toy being inside the chocolate egg.

I, for one, am happy he has been pardoned. His sentence was disproportionate.