10-30-2012, 01:47 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2012, 07:29 AM by FireIceTalon.)
Toward you and shoju, I think I've been pretty civil 
Marx's theory is much harder to test, because after all, we can't travel back in time and change the course of history. Sociology, economics, and Marxism are soft sciences, where as Biology is a hard(er) science so its not really a fair comparison in that sense. And even if we could go back in time, it would still be difficult to test because sociological and economic processes are constantly changing in a material sense. The process of evolution takes place much slower and over a very long period of time compared to human social development.
Nevertheless, I do think DM is necessary for really understanding the true nature of social problems and relationships within class society. The problem I have with more mainstream and conventional methods is that they focus too much on independent and circumstantial causes, and they tend to look at identity politics alone - in short they usually just look on the surface and fail to delve deeper, to look at the *big picture* in my opinion. To be fair, some Marxists focus TOO much on class politics, and as I've stated in another thread, I think this is a mistake also. Class politics and identity politics don't exist in a vacuum, they have a very important relationship to one another. As Marxists, we do hold class politics as the predominant focus, because identities develop after classes do. But understanding these interrelationships is kind of the point of DM, and it helps us to get a more comprehensive - and accurate - view of history. While DM can't necessarily offer up solutions, it analyses and presents the issues in a much more concrete framework than conventional methods instead of just looking at relative, independent developments or causes. To solve problems, we must analyze and understand them first, and DM is excellent for doing this. Mainstream views seek to reform policies, laws, and institutions by means of parliamentary elections; in the hope of solving social and political problems or altering material processes - while us Marxists, sidelined and not allowed in the conversation because we are too "radical", just sit back, watch, and shake our heads, knowing that such attempts for resolution are futile. And over and over, we are proven right - unfortunately. It is pure fantasy to think that racism, poverty, patriarchy or other reactionary conditions can be reformed out of capitalism. If it were possible, it would have likely happened by now.
While Marx was fundamentally right about the big picture of how capitalism works, I think he underestimated its ability to reinvent itself, and of course he only looked at it through a economic, political, and social lens. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist of the 20th century, discovered the theory of "cultural hegemony" and really built upon Marx's work by addressing capitalism in a cultural lens. In this sense, DM has evolved since the time of Marx, because capitalism has indeed become very deeply embedded within our culture (consumerism/commodity fetishism) - it is no longer just social, political, or economical. You should look at some of Gramsci's works if you haven't, I find much of it very relevant to the current state of capitalism right now. Cultural hegemony at this point has moved from beyond "theory" status, into the "objective sociological process" category since 1991.
Anyways, glad we can have a civil discussion on this topic, whether we agree or not.
Marx's theory is much harder to test, because after all, we can't travel back in time and change the course of history. Sociology, economics, and Marxism are soft sciences, where as Biology is a hard(er) science so its not really a fair comparison in that sense. And even if we could go back in time, it would still be difficult to test because sociological and economic processes are constantly changing in a material sense. The process of evolution takes place much slower and over a very long period of time compared to human social development.
Nevertheless, I do think DM is necessary for really understanding the true nature of social problems and relationships within class society. The problem I have with more mainstream and conventional methods is that they focus too much on independent and circumstantial causes, and they tend to look at identity politics alone - in short they usually just look on the surface and fail to delve deeper, to look at the *big picture* in my opinion. To be fair, some Marxists focus TOO much on class politics, and as I've stated in another thread, I think this is a mistake also. Class politics and identity politics don't exist in a vacuum, they have a very important relationship to one another. As Marxists, we do hold class politics as the predominant focus, because identities develop after classes do. But understanding these interrelationships is kind of the point of DM, and it helps us to get a more comprehensive - and accurate - view of history. While DM can't necessarily offer up solutions, it analyses and presents the issues in a much more concrete framework than conventional methods instead of just looking at relative, independent developments or causes. To solve problems, we must analyze and understand them first, and DM is excellent for doing this. Mainstream views seek to reform policies, laws, and institutions by means of parliamentary elections; in the hope of solving social and political problems or altering material processes - while us Marxists, sidelined and not allowed in the conversation because we are too "radical", just sit back, watch, and shake our heads, knowing that such attempts for resolution are futile. And over and over, we are proven right - unfortunately. It is pure fantasy to think that racism, poverty, patriarchy or other reactionary conditions can be reformed out of capitalism. If it were possible, it would have likely happened by now.
While Marx was fundamentally right about the big picture of how capitalism works, I think he underestimated its ability to reinvent itself, and of course he only looked at it through a economic, political, and social lens. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist of the 20th century, discovered the theory of "cultural hegemony" and really built upon Marx's work by addressing capitalism in a cultural lens. In this sense, DM has evolved since the time of Marx, because capitalism has indeed become very deeply embedded within our culture (consumerism/commodity fetishism) - it is no longer just social, political, or economical. You should look at some of Gramsci's works if you haven't, I find much of it very relevant to the current state of capitalism right now. Cultural hegemony at this point has moved from beyond "theory" status, into the "objective sociological process" category since 1991.
Anyways, glad we can have a civil discussion on this topic, whether we agree or not.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)