Philosophy Now Forum

This is interesting

http://philosophynow.org/videos/The_Oly ... Philosophy

Karl Marx advised that under capitalism, all will be distorted by commercial interests.

He also thought capitalism would produce greater and greater bubbles until it burst.

Perhaps we should learn more of Marx ?

JasonPalmer wrote:This is interesting

http://philosophynow.org/videos/The_Oly ... Philosophy

Karl Marx advised that under capitalism, all will be distorted by commercial interests.

He also thought capitalism would produce greater and greater bubbles until it burst.

Perhaps we should learn more of Marx ?

Your kidding, right? Is this like the sarcastic section of the forum?

nope, I think the video raises interesting questions about things and so does Marx

JasonPalmer wrote:nope, I think the video raises interesting questions about things and so does Marx

Interesting and accurate are two different things, which is why people are attracted to pseudoscience, like Marxism.

Marxism is lunacy on steroids.

ForgedinHell wrote:

JasonPalmer wrote:nope, I think the video raises interesting questions about things and so does Marx

Interesting and accurate are two different things, which is why people are attracted to pseudoscience, like Marxism.

Marxism is lunacy on steroids.

Why do you use the word 'accurate'? And what has it got to do with the discussion here?

Pluto wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:

JasonPalmer wrote:nope, I think the video raises interesting questions about things and so does Marx

Interesting and accurate are two different things, which is why people are attracted to pseudoscience, like Marxism.

Marxism is lunacy on steroids.

Why do you use the word 'accurate'? And what has it got to do with the discussion here?

I used the word "accurate" because the truth matters. Marxism is easy to debunk because it is false.

Which system is true and why?

Pluto wrote:Which system is true and why?

Well, put it this way, as a believer in science, I know when a theory makes a prediction, and when one tests the facts against the prediction, and the facts contradict the prediction, then I know the theory is wrong. Marx made numerous predictions that are contradicted by the facts; therefore, the theory is false. If you think believing in a pseudoscience is a smart thing to do, then more power to you, but I'm sticking with real science.

perhaps he was partially right ?

JasonPalmer wrote:perhaps he was partially right ?

In science, either a theory is right or wrong. Partially right makes no sense. That would mean the theory is being accepted although it is wrong. If a theory predicts an object should end up at a certain place in 5 seconds, and it gets there in 10 seconds, the theory is wrong. It's not partially right, because one can say the results were only off by a facror of 2.

Marx made predictions that are false.

Many thanks for this clarification, I see clearly now

JasonPalmer wrote:Perhaps we should learn more of Marx ?

Marx stated Capitalism had to precede Socialism... evolutionary, i.e. once Capitalism was unable to support the masses, the next step in economics would be Socialism. Communism would/will follow Socialism when it no longer supports the people.

Knowing that, Russia, China, Cuba and other failed "Socialist" or "Communist" countries failed simply because they were never Capitalist to begin with. But governments and leaders worldwide simply state Socialism and Communism failed, period, and they are worthless, so to speak, as economic theories, without knowing why those systems did not work.

Brilliant post.

mtmynd1 wrote:

JasonPalmer wrote:Perhaps we should learn more of Marx ?

Marx stated Capitalism had to precede Socialism... evolutionary, i.e. once Capitalism was unable to support the masses, the next step in economics would be Socialism. Communism would/will follow Socialism when it no longer supports the people.

Knowing that, Russia, China, Cuba and other failed "Socialist" or "Communist" countries failed simply because they were never Capitalist to begin with. But governments and leaders worldwide simply state Socialism and Communism failed, period, and they are worthless, so to speak, as economic theories, without knowing why those systems did not work.

Actually, Marx stated that capitalism was needed to build up the wealth, which was something socialism cannot do, and neither can communism. However, the whole idea of Marxism is unscientific nonsense from start to finish. We now know from real science that human nature is inconsistent with communism, and it will never work. We also know from real science that due to group evolutionary selection, there is no need for socialism, because people will work together voluntarily to meet their needs. Marxism is not science, it is junk science on steroids.

Aryan_Invader wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:

JasonPalmer wrote:perhaps he was partially right ?

In science, either a theory is right or wrong.
Partially right makes no sense. That would mean the theory is being accepted although it is wrong. If a theory predicts an object should end up at a certain place in 5 seconds, and it gets there in 10 seconds, the theory is wrong. It's not partially right, because one can say the results were only off by a facror of 2.
Marx made predictions that are false.

So typical of an unphilosophical mind to say something like that.
What you call science so narrow-mindedly like that is utilitarianism for you. Science is beyond either/or.
Science in a wider sense is a discriminate methodology for maximum exploitation of knowledge.
A pigeon that is unable to extract water from a pitcher will call it useless but a crow that drops in stones to make the water rise exhibits a science.
A Scientific mind tries to extract what it can from Marxism and exploit it accordingly. [I'm not a Marxist].

Laugh my ass off. When you learn how to pass your shapes test in school, then come and talk to me about real science. A scientific mind recognizes Marxism for the 100% drivel and nonsense it is.