The greatest tragedy in human history

[russ_watters]

Wide spread hysteria and death, one third of the population of Europe dying. Definately a great tragedy.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about the plagues - not much can top 1/3 of the population of Europe being wiped out.

 

[russ_watters]

Marx went to London lived and died there, and he wrote his most important works there. he was in schock when he saw in what conditions people were working in England, not even in France or Germany people workers have been treated this way, England beats them all. Most of workers rights were won in Germany and France and even far sighted and wise governments of those two (specifically German government) nations did enacted some revolutionary ideas like unemployment insurance, universal health care,children care etc.

Yeah, I think that historical context is important to understanding Marx's errors. Marx did his work in the mid-1800s, right smack in the middle of the industrial revolution. He witnessed things like sweatshops and child labor and guessed incorrectly that capitalism would be unable to deal with them. Marx witnessed a revolution and didn't realize that it was a revolution - that it wasn't finished.

Also, I wouldn't get too down on England - since England led the revolution, its understandable that they had the most difficulty with it (followed closely by the US). That's just the way things work - what takes enormous effort and pain for one person (country) to figure out seems self-evident to the next one. England didn't have the benefit of learning from the mistakes of another country.

 

[alexandra]

Thats a pretty twisted view of capitalism, but in any case the important part, to me, is the first phrase of the second sentence. Capitalism is the best system we have. I always enjoy the ironies of Marxism, but this is just classic. Translation: 'Marxism has no basis in reality, therefore reality is flawed.'

Hi all

As you can see, this is quite an argument. Russ and I have agreed to continue it where it started off, so I won't be posting my responses to his points here. To all those interested in this debate, please refer to the ‘Politics and World Affairs’ section (aka ‘the dark side’) of the General Discussion forum where over the rest of my lifetime I intend to address russ_watter’s arguments point by point with supporting evidence. It’s too complex a discussion to pursue here, and much has already been written there on the topic that it would be a waste of resources to repeat here...

 

[alexandra]

Yeah, I think that historical context is important to understanding Marx's errors. Marx did his work in the mid-1800s, right smack in the middle of the industrial revolution. He witnessed things like sweatshops and child labor and guessed incorrectly that capitalism would be unable to deal with them. Marx witnessed a revolution and didn't realize that it was a revolution - that it wasn't finished.

Hmm, ok - it seems we haven't quite shifted the debate to the dark side yet, so I'll do a quick response to this one here:
russ_watters, Marx was correct that capitalism would be unable to deal with sweatshops and child labor. They still exist, not only in 'third world' or 'underdeveloped' countries, but in the US. Here is the link to information about this: http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/index.php?s=50&r=5

And here is a taste of the information you can get on that website:

With ten of thousands of garment factories employing tens of millions of workers in nearly 200 countries, large corporations search the world for the lowest labor costs and ignore human rights. Unfortunately, sweatshops exists in every corner of the world, from China to Mexico and Kenya to Turkey. These workplaces generally papoverty wages, force workers to labor long hours, employ child labor, deny workers the right to form a union, fire women who become pregnant or subject workers to dangerous conditions. Even in the U.S., sweatshops exists. In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor found that 67% of Los Angeles garment factories don’t pay workers minimum wage or overtime.
U.S. Department of Labor 2000 Southern California Garment Compliance Survey Fact Sheet, August 2000.

So, you see, Marx was correct.
PS: Marx was not *guessing*. His analysis of capitalism was based on empirical observations and on the application of sophisticated economic theoretical tools of analysis.

 

[ShawnD]

Wide spread hysteria and death, one third of the population of Europe dying. Definately a great tragedy.

Deciding that cats were the problem, then killing all the cats was an even funnier tragedy.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So, you see, Marx wascorrect.

What is it you're up to, exactly? Are you suggesting with all this talk of Marx that it would ever be feasible for any country to make a transition to Marxism?

I say, let's keep things the way they are, and stay vigilant about the excesses like the LA sweatshops.

 

[loseyourname]

If we look outside of human history to the history of the entire planet, aside from the mass extinction at the end of the Cambrian period, the evolution of humans was probably the greatest tragedy.

 

[Bladibla]

If we look outside of human history to the history of the entire planet, aside from the mass extinction at the end of the Cambrian period, the evolution of humans was probably the greatest tragedy.

But it can't be really called a tragedy.. can it? I mean, we couldn't exactly stop some x-organism evolving over millions of years to become us.

A tragedy would be a event which it *could* have been prevented, but could't due to human failures.

Correct me if i am wrong.

 

[dextercioby]

Bladibla,I guess your acception of "tragedy" would consider the earthquakes and other natural catastrophies resulting in massive death toll to be something else than a "tragedy"...Hmm,interesting.Are u thinking ancient Greek theater ?

Daniel.

 

[Bladibla]

Bladibla,I guess your acception of "tragedy" would consider the earthquakes and other natural catastrophies resulting in massive death toll to be something else than a "tragedy"...Hmm,interesting.Are u thinking ancient Greek theater ?

Daniel.

You have a extremely good point. They could be called 'natural disasters' but then again, it is a 'tragedy' after all.

Greek theatre?

 

[kaos]

If we look outside of human history to the history of the entire planet, aside from the mass extinction at the end of the Cambrian period, the evolution of humans was probably the greatest tragedy.

Hmm i would agree with you man.Its the worst thing that happened to the planet.

 

[Huckleberry]

That's a myth and a luxury of living in a society with modern technology. The luxury of ignorance of how much better things really are. Ask them (oh wait, you can't - they just died of the plague! )

I'll have to mention that to them the next time I see them. They'll get a kick out of it.

As it is over 1 billion people in the world have bad water quality. About 1/3 of the world's population have substandard sanitation. These numbers will increase in the next few decades. Most of the people that suffer from this are the poor. They already live without running water and good sanitation systems and without vaccinations. Because a person lives in a poor, out of the way place does not make them ignorant to the world. You are making an assumption that they are ignorant of modern technology. That is untrue. These people know exactly what they are missing but live according to their means as best they can, and I might add far better than many in richer nations would in the same circumstances.
edit-

If we look outside of human history to the history of the entire planet, aside from the mass extinction at the end of the Cambrian period, the evolution of humans was probably the greatest tragedy.

I had thought of this and decided against it. Perhaps just removing the part of humanity that causes us to be selfish would remedy the problem. That is why I voted for the destruction of the ego. Then again, I guess we wouldn't be human without it.

 

[loseyourname]

But it can't be really called a tragedy.. can it? I mean, we couldn't exactly stop some x-organism evolving over millions of years to become us.

A tragedy would be a event which it *could* have been prevented, but could't due to human failures.

Correct me if i am wrong.

The classical tragedies (which is where the word came from) generally involved circumstances that were beyond the protagonist's control. What made them tragedies was that a trait that is usually a virtuous trait became disadvantagous and leads to the tragic fall. This trait is referred to as the protagonist's 'tragic flaw.'

In the particular case of human evolution, what might very well be considered the great 'tragic flaw' of our race is our propensity toward violence and warfare, a trait that evolved in chimpanzees as a method for controlling access to reproductive resources. The great tragedy is that the same mechanism of natural selection, which relies on differential reproductive success, that produced the wonderful biodiversity we see everywhere around us, also produced a species that threatens to destroy most of it. This is what is known in the literary world as 'tragic irony.'

 

[kaos]

Anyway do u guys remember the part in the first matrix movie ,when agent smith said something like "there are only 2 species in the planet that does not achieve equilibrium with its environment ,viruses and humans".
I honestly think that that is how external observers such as aliens would see us.

 

[russ_watters]

As it is over 1 billion people in the world have bad water quality. About 1/3 of the world's population have substandard sanitation. These numbers will increase in the next few decades.

On what do you base that? Ove the past 20 years, the poverty rate in the world has decreased by half. Why do you think that trend will reverse itself?

Because a person lives in a poor, out of the way place does not make them ignorant to the world. You are making an assumption that they are ignorant of modern technology. That is untrue. These people know exactly what they are missing but live according to their means as best they can, and I might add far better than many in richer nations would in the same circumstances.

Au contraire. You cannot really understand something until you have experienced it. I can describe skydiving to you till I'm blue in the face, but it won't help you understand how it feels except in the most basic, academic, detached sense.

Besides - my statement has a much more basic implication: Arguing over quality of life is a moot point. To have a quality of life, you need to be alive. Lifespan has doubled this century too.

 

[Huckleberry]

On what do you base that? Ove the past 20 years, the poverty rate in the world has decreased by half. Why do you think that trend will reverse itself?

I wasn't basing it on poverty at all. I was basing it on world water supply and demand. There are already fresh water shortages in many nations. As populations increase these shortages will increase as well. Many of the poorest nations are already in areas with water shortages. Poorer nations experience a greater population growth% than wealthier nations. River basins are already important resources and will become more so in the future. Over 150 river basins are shared by 2 or more countries. Two important ones are between India and Pakistan and the U.S. and Mexico. Fresh, potable water is not an infinite resource.

The World Bank report shows a decline in global poverty. The validity of this report is still being debated. Here is a list of distribution of wealth of the most equal and most unequal 30 nations. How much are the poor benefiting in the 30 most economically unequal nations?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908770.html

Because a person lives in a poor, out of the way place does not make them ignorant to the world. You are making an assumption that they are ignorant of modern technology. That is untrue. These people know exactly what they are missing but live according to their means as best they can, and I might add far better than many in richer nations would in the same circumstances.

Au contraire. You cannot really understand something until you have experienced it. I can describe skydiving to you till I'm blue in the face, but it won't help you understand how it feels except in the most basic, academic, detached sense.

People in impoverished nations know what a well is. They know unclean water can make them sick and potentially be fatal. They are aware of the existence of technologies for supplying fresh water and sanitation. They just don't have the means to acquire these things themselves.

You assume incorrectly that I have not experienced it. My family has been homeless when I was a child. I lived in a campground for several months. I went without food for days at a time. I have also spent 3 months living in Mexico and working with the poor. If you look on the list of wealth distribution you will see that Mexico is one of the 30 most unequal. And I could go on. I do have some experience both with being a poor person in a wealthy nation and living with poor people in a poor country.

I understand your example of experience being necessary for understanding. Skydiving is a pretty indescribable feeling. What experience do you have to make your claims about the beliefs of poor people? Maybe our experiences differ.

Yes, these people are upset about not having some of the basic necessities of life. No, they are not miserable (from my experience). A homeless person in a poor community will be fed and sheltered. In the United States they will be shunned and denied spare change.

Besides - my statement has a much more basic implication: Arguing over quality of life is a moot point. To have a quality of life, you need to be alive. Lifespan has doubled this century too.

A person must certainly be alive to enjoy life. There are poor people that are alive in the world, far more than there are rich people. I think they would disagree with you that they have no quality of life. I certainly do.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I thought this was about lack of technology? At least this particular side dicussion.
Huck I say go to a family that has lost a child recently due to lack of advanced medical care and ask them how happy they are.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I thought this was about lack of technology? At least this particular side dicussion.
Huck I say go to a family that has lost a child recently due to lack of advanced medical care and ask them how happy they are.

Probably just as unhappy as the family who lost a child despite the best available medical care. Maybe more, maybe less. Mostly depends on how well adjusted the family in question is, don't you think?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Probably just as unhappy as the family who lost a child despite the best available medical care. Maybe more, maybe less. Mostly depends on how well adjusted the family in question is, don't you think?

I think you're missing the point. In a society with less advanced medicine infant mortality is higher. So more families in those societies are going to suffer the loss of children.
-----edit-----
Sorry I'll finish the thought. Soooo the overall happiness of that society would most likely be hampered by families grieving for lost children. And that's just one single aspect of why technology can make a society happier on average.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Soooo the overall happiness of that society would most likely be hampered by families grieving for lost children. And that's just one single aspect of why technology can make a society happier on average.

This sounds logical, but is probably specious. The happier society, as a whole, would be the one that has the best psychological coping mechanism for dealing with loss and death.

I think Huck's overall quality vs quantity argument is pretty sound.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This sounds logical, but is probably specious. The happier society, as a whole, would be the one that has the best psychological coping mechanism for dealing with loss and death.

I think Huck's overall quality vs quantity argument is pretty sound.

It's all perspective. I think most women though would tell you they would be far happier never losing a child then having lost one. The reason I picked this as an example was that it's would be hard to turn around because it's so emotional. Most other things can be turned based on perspective.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's all perspective. I think most women though would tell you they would be far happier never losing a child then having lost one. The reason I picked this as an example was that it's would be hard to turn around because it's so emotional. Most other things can be turned based on perspective.

Death of a child = #1 hardest thing to deal with, they say.

A better example of quality vs quantity that comes to mind is the effect of better medicine on the elderly. One can argue that better medical care has made it possible for people to linger much longer in a poor quality fringe existence in nursing homes. You have to have visited a nursing home (I don't mean an appartment complex for seniors) to know what I mean.

 

[russ_watters]

A person must certainly be alive to enjoy life. There are poor people that are alive in the world, far more than there are rich people. I think they would disagree with you that they have no quality of life. I certainly do.

I think you may have misread: I didn't say that the poor have no quality of life, I said that the dead have no qualilty of life. The catch being that the poor are more likely to die young - so if a poor person (meaning a resident of a 3rd world nation) and one living in the US have the same average quality of life, the person living in the US would have twice the total quality of life due to living twice as long.

Regarding water supply: it was my impression that that corellated well with poverty, but I'm not really sure. I'll see if I can find some stats. Regardless though, I don't think water is quite that big a problem (nor do I think it'll become one). There are other places besides rivers to get water.

edit: HERE is some info on water. Its about running water, not drinking water - a step up from drinking water. But it says the proportion of people in the world with running water has been increasing and is now above 50%.

 

[alexandra]

What is it you're up to, exactly? Are you suggesting with all this talk of Marx that it would ever be feasible for any country to make a transition to Marxism?

This is what I am up to exactly: when the scientific body of work of a serious scholar such as Marx is linked to the actions of insane individuals who had no understanding of his theory, I try to bring attention to the facts of the matter. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were Marxists. Marx's theory can in no way be linked to what those individuals did, and I wanted to point this out. My aim is not exactly unreasonable, since I am a political scientist. If someone said something you knew to be incorrect in your specialist field of study, I imagine you too would try to correct the errors?

 

[zoobyshoe]

If someone said something you knew to be incorrect in your specialist field of study, I imagine you too would try to correct the errors?

Course, but you're clearly going beyond correcting errors. I sense enthusiasm for Marxism. I'm trying to figure out if you're saying, merely, that Marx was good in that he exposed the evils of Capitalism, or if you think Marxism could ever actually be put successfully in place here, or anywhere.

 

[russ_watters]

...I am a political scientist. If someone said something you knew to be incorrect in your specialist field of study, I imagine you too would try to correct the errors?

Just out of curiosity, what is your level of qualification?


I'll be perfectly up-front in saying I have only taken about half a dozen poly sci courses in college.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were Marxists.

And for the record, I was (am) very precise with my wording: I did not say that Hitler and Stalin were Marxists. My assessment is that Stalin was close to being a Marxist, but Hitler was not. Neither "truly" followed Marx's vision and, as I said, I doubt Marx would have approved of their usage of it. However, Hitler's anti-semitism may have been related to Marxism.

And its not like I made up the idea of a link between these 3 individuals. A quick google produces much on the subject:
http://www.ilv.org.nz/index.php?action=view_article&article_id=265
http://www.friesian.com/marx.htm
http://russp.org/nazis.html

 

[alexandra]

Course, but you're clearly going beyond correcting errors. I sense enthusiasm for Marxism. I'm trying to figure out if you're saying, merely, that Marx was good in that he exposed the evils of Capitalism, or if you think Marxism could ever actually be put successfully in place here, or anywhere.

I am saying that Marx developed a theoretical perspective that provides the tools with which to analyse capitalist societies. In effect, Marx is the 'Einstein' of political science - through a lifetime of research, thinking and analysis, he developed the equivalent of Einstein's theory of General Relativity in the discipline of Political Science. Much of current political theorising is either informed by Marx's insights or is a reaction to Marx's theory. By using the analytical tools of Marxist theory, one can understand the workings of capitalist systems - how the economy works, why politicians behave as they do, what the role of the mass media is in capitalist societies, why so little progress has been made in addressing pressing environmental problems, the role of trade unions (as well as their inherent limitations in defending the rights of workers), etc. Discounting Marx's contributions to the development of political theory is the same as discounting Einstein's contributions to the development of modern physics.

Marxism is not, however, a political system as such - it is a perspective of analysis - so Marxism could not be 'implemented' as a socio-political system. Marx wrote that capitalism may be overthrown and replaced by another political system, socialism - but that this would depend on people's actions - in his own words: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past" (Marx, 'The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte').

Personally, for the record, I believe that socialism (true socialism, according to how Marx defined it) would be a superior system to capitalism in that it would eradicate the economic competition that creates wars and threatens our existence as a species because of its effects on the environment. It seems logical to me that humanity would progress on all fronts if resources were put into solving pressing problems (environmental, meeting human beings' basic needs, social, etc) and into useful research (eg. the development of technology to explore the universe) rather than into military research and technology. However, there has at no stage of human history yet existed a socialist society, and it is by no means certain that human beings will ever evolve enough to create such a society. But I am not being fair to people here - there are very powerful forces that actively prevent people from thinking for themselves and critically analysing capitalism and seeing it for what it is. Nevertheless, whether people see it or not, the consequences will be the same - I don't foresee an end to the wars, or to the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, or to the environmental disasters that are looming.

 

[The Rev]

The birth of the guy who invented war (or torture, or hate, or reality TV, etc.)

(I hear it was an exceptionally easy delivery)

$$\infty$$

The Rev

 

[alexandra]

Just out of curiosity, what is your level of qualification?

What's the matter, Russ? Don't I sound like the 'normal' political scientist to you? Well, just as in all disciplines, there are contending theories in political science. I happen to belong to that school of thought you may not have encountered too frequently in your own studies. For the record, my entire undergraduate degree was in politics (all units over three years' study were related to politics), and I have studied Marxism further on my own (informally, over several years). There is still much to learn, and I do not claim to be a total expert on Marxism; I have, however, read a fair amount over the years. I have made a brief post about my formal studies on the other thread as well (in the Politics section).

And for the record, I was (am) very precise with my wording: I did not say that Hitler and Stalin were Marxists. My assessment is that Stalin was close to being a Marxist, but Hitler was not. Neither "truly" followed Marx's vision and, as I said, I doubt Marx would have approved of their usage of it. However, Hitler's anti-semitism may have been related to Marxism.

It is true that Marx wrote a lot, and that some of his work could have been misinterpreted. This can happen to all theories that are put in the public domain: once you have published something, you no longer have any control over its interpretation. It is also true that Stalin presented himself as a Marxist. But how people present themselves and what they are is not always the same thing. The way to judge whether someone is what they claim to be is to check how well their actions match the claim. Marx would definitely not have approved of Stalin's 'interpretation' of his theory.

 

[russ_watters]

Don't I sound like the 'normal' political scientist to you?

No, you don't.

It is true that Marx wrote a lot, and that some of his work could have been misinterpreted. This can happen to all theories that are put in the public domain: once you have published something, you no longer have any control over its interpretation. It is also true that Stalin presented himself as a Marxist. But how people present themselves and what they are is not always the same thing. The way to judge whether someone is what they claim to be is to check how well their actions match the claim. Marx would definitely not have approved of Stalin's 'interpretation' of his theory.

To me, the more important question is: what would Stalin have done if Marx hadn't existed?

 

[alexandra]

To me, the more important question is: what would Stalin have done if Marx hadn't existed?

This is a good question. I was answering briefly and inaccurately earlier when I said that Hitler and Stalin were insane - in my view, history is never made by individuals. To understand Stalin's rise to power and Stalinism will require a long discussion of Russian history in the context of what was happening not only in Russia but also internationally at the time. Overall, Marx's theory did, of course, form a 'link' in the historical chain of events that led to the Russian Revolution. After that, Lenin's death and Stalin's exiling and subsequent murder of Trotsky, as well as many other factors took over. But I'm not sure this is the proper place to be discussing such 'heavy' politics...

 

[Huckleberry]

I think you may have misread: I didn't say that the poor have no quality of life, I said that the dead have no qualilty of life. The catch being that the poor are more likely to die young - so if a poor person (meaning a resident of a 3rd world nation) and one living in the US have the same average quality of life, the person living in the US would have twice the total quality of life due to living twice as long.

Maybe I have misinterpretted what I've read. When you say the 'dead have no quality of life' I assumed that you were speaking of the poor. You had mentioned the death of poor people in the previous posts as well. Who should I have assumed were the dead people you were referring to?

In the above quote you are comparing the sum to the average. A person who lives longer will likely experience a greater sum of happiness. They will also likely experience a greater sum of unhappiness. This does not make their average level of happiness (if there is a way to quantify such a thing) any more or less.

I realize that the death of a child is difficult for any caring parent to cope with. Certainly they will be unhappy. The arguments about water and sanitation and vaccination are all secondary to my point. We could also mention famine and war and countless other difficulties they must endure.My point, simply stated, is that people will live the best they can with what they have available. The impoverished understand loss and death far better than you or I and they know how to cope with it, because if they cannot they will die. Should they also deny themselves happiness? Poverty is like a foul odor. Eventually a person adapts to it, but it doesn't mean they can't smell roses anymore.

If poor people are so prone to death then why are there so many in the world? Despite the conditions they live in they are very successful survivors.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a pretty pessimistic view of "happiness", but we're starting to get into philosophy, so I won't pursue it.

However:

If poor people are so prone to death then why are there so many in the world? Despite the conditions they live in they are very successful survivors.

Huh? The fact that there are so many poor people has very little to do with how good they are at surviving. Poor people tend to procreate more, plus poverty (having nothing) is the default human condition. Its only relatively recently that it became possible for anyone but royalty to be anything but poor.

To summarize:

Number of poor: decreasing
Life expectancy: increasing

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't foresee an end to the wars, or to the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, or to the environmental disasters that are looming.

There are always some people trying to take advantage of other people.

Your posts are all quite surprising simply because I haven't run into anyone espousing Marxism since I was in college 30 years ago. Anyway, thanks for your comprehensive, articulate answer to my question.

 

[russ_watters]

Your posts are all quite surprising simply because I haven't run into anyone espousing Marxism since I was in college 30 years ago.

Well, I'd say we see them all the time - what's rare is a Marxist who has actually studied political science formally - a "real" Marxist.