From: Jon Johanning
> Have you looked at the history of social
> systems from the past ? You know, the rise and fall of swivilizations ?
> Mayas, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, European middle ages. There doesn't
> seem
> to be any that last forever. Are you saying they are destroyed from the
> outside by non-contradictions.
True, these earlier civilizations aren't still around; otherwise we would be them and not us. (Although traces of them are still with us.) And I don't suppose that what we call "our civilization" will last forever. But I have no idea when or how it will change to something else, any more than anyone else does, because that's the sort of thing that is unknowable.
^^^^^^ CB: You are declaring as a matter of principle that this is unknowable. "Our" position is that nothing is in principle unknowable. For there to be something in principle unknowable is a religious position.
So, as scientists we continue to seek to "know" this, the principles by which human societies exist and change. At this point, Marxism overlaps largely with anthropology.
^^^^
^^^^^^
Some civilizations could be said to be destroyed from within, but not all. Toynbee had a far more complex theory which he developed to try to explain the rise and fall of civilizations, and historians tend to criticize even it for being too oversimplified.
^^^^^ CB: Well, there's something we don't discuss much around here. What are some of Toynebee's principles ?
You know, there's Vico, ancient Chinese and Greek writings on "stage" of civ , according to Eleanor Leacock in an intro to _The Origin of the Familiy , PP, and the State_
> CB: Yea he does discuss countervailing tendencies right there in the
> same
> lucid moment he discusses the profit fall. There he also discusses the
> organic composition of capital, which would predict more and more
> machines
> and fewer and fewer human workers, which is exactly what is happening.
> So,
> there's prediction from Marx of the future that has come true. I
> forgot that
> one.
One can point to this or that episode in history that appears to be a "confirmation" of his predictions, as you do --
^^^^^ CB: What do you mean appears to be ? Seems rather substantial that the organic comp of capital is going up, workers per machine is going down, in a long term trend.
^^^^^
> He's notions about the working class are remarkably right on . What
> are you
> talking about ?! Did you notice that we had a little thing called the
> Russian Revolution ? Not only that the German workers were close to
> making
> exactly a Marxist revolution, but the bourgeoisie pulled out fascism.
> There
> was a red revolution in Spain. France had the Commune and a gigantic
> workers' movement. Italy had the largest Communist Party of all. You
> don't
> seem to be too familiar with the how much the workers have fulfilled
> Marx's
> "predictions." The working class is rising in Venezuela as we speak.
-- but the fact that there have been uprisings here and there doesn't confirm Marx's whole theory about the future course of capitalism.
^^^^^^ CB: It confirms a big part of his theory. Why resist it ? It's an anti-Marxist reflex. Some of the things he anticipates are somewhat mundane nowadays, but they are substantial.
Even the bourgeoisie on Wallstreet gave him his props a couple of years ago, by making the Manifesto a coffee table trophy. He and Engels really hit the nail on the head for the 2000 hip bourgeoisie !
^^^^
There have been uprisings here and there in every class society -- Greece, Rome, China, etc. -- because people who are subjugated by an exploiting power are always tending to want to get free of it, and sometimes they have a bit of success, even.
^^^^^^ CB: That's Marxism
^^^
But remember that Marx claimed to have found a "mechanism" whereby the "forces" at work in the capitalist system would produce greater and greater break-downs, and simultaneously produce a stronger and stronger working class, so that eventually the system would break down irretrievably and the working class would take over.
^^^^^^ CB; We're still within a reasonable historical period from when he said it for it to happen. Plus, it has happened in a number of countries.
^^^^^
That just hasn't happened, and it hardly looks likely at this point that it will. The course of world history began to deviate from the Marxist-Leninist early in the 20th century, if not before, and has deviated more and more from it ever since.
^^^^ CB: What are you talking about ?! It did happen. The early 20th century was closer and closer to ML, compared to the late 19th century. What are you talking about ?
&&&&&&&&
If Marx had been right, some advanced capitalist country, such as Germany, would have gone through a revolution and gone to the aid of the Russian Revolution. But the attempted revolution in Germany, whether or not it would have been a "Marxist" revolution, which is another question, didn't happen, and it fell through before fascism arose there. There was a red uprising in Spain, but it was split 6 ways to Sunday between various factions and it failed too. Italy had a large Communist Party, but where is it now? Where is the German Communist Party? What happened to the revolutions in the Soviet Union and China? Who needs to check their facts -- you or me?
^^^^^^ CB: The fact that these didn't completely succeed is not a refutation of Marx. The fact that they were initiated is a confirmation of Marx. There's no way you can say that these were the last of these. YOU are the one who needs to check facts or just face facts right in front of your face. For historical anticipation, Marx is doing great.
MORE LATER