The greatest tragedy in human history

[zoobyshoe]

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.

"We" who? Sincerely: I haven't encountered a single one since college.

 

[russ_watters]

"We" who? Sincerely: I haven't encountered a single one since college.

Maybe you're just being narrower in your characterization, but the topic seems to come up about once a month. And there is never a shortage of defenders of Marxism (/communism/socialism). Generally, they are not as outspoken as alexandra, alexandra wasn't the only one in the "Objectivity..." thread that is currently open. A "Marxism" search reveals a number of other threads with a number of other defenders of these concepts.

Admittedly, some of these people may be more anti-capitalisms than pro-marxism. It can be tough to know the difference.

Perhaps the most direct thread on the question is HERE, where I ask in a poll if people consider Marxism to be a viable political/economic theory. 10 responded yes (27%).

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, I'm talking 30 years without having run into anyone I would call a Marxist or communist. Here, at PF, I would have missed them since I just about never go into the politic forum. In real life, I guess it has just been a freak glitch. Could be I've met some but the subject of conversation never got to politics.

 

[russ_watters]

No, I'm talking 30 years without having run into anyone I would call a Marxist or communist.

Run into on the street? Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen one.

 

[Joel]

Admittedly, some of these people may be more anti-capitalisms than pro-marxism. It can be tough to know the difference.

Out of curiosity, are you referring to me?

Personally, I can't understand why the capitalism & socialism discussion comes up so frequently (not just here). Or well, I can understand why, but I think it is one of the most dead horses I've seen. Very seldome something new is brought up, but to this the current discussion is a nice exception. Alexandra seams to know what she is talking about and I really want to hear what she has to say to the usual criticism (thanks for presenting that, Russ). It's not like I'm voting with my argumentation, so I like to listen, ask questions and weed out real arguments from rhetorics. Then I can later decide for myself what to make of it all.

 

[russ_watters]

No, I was not referring to you.

 

[Informal Logic]

Since people continue to post on this subject here...

This is a forum based on academia, so with regard to political science, one needs to study other systems of government regardless of individual preference. This is how I have viewed the discussion on Marxism.

If Americans remember, the founding fathers were considered revolutionaries. Though many concepts of our form of democracy, etc. were derived from philosophers and governments in earlier history, our system was considered new and revolutionary (and likewise, the world has gone through many forms of economic systems). Later in American history, communism was becoming popular, perhaps because of a view that there may be other new ideas that could provide continued improvement--like evolution. However, with McCarthyism, and then the Cold War, communism now has a negative connotation in the US, and in fact it may be that this discussion is threatening to some members as a result (mind set?).

I've been reading threads in this forum for some time, and this is the first time I have seen this topic arise. Also, is spotting a Marxist on the street like seeing Big Foot or something? Let's not exaggerate and get all freaked out.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Also, is spotting a Marxist on the street like seeing Big Foot or something?

For me, almost, yep. No exaggeration. Before Alexandra I hadn't run into one that I knew of since college. This is not my fault. It's just the way it happened.

 

[Joel]

Okey-dokey, russ.

Oh, and I'm also betting seeing Alex is a bit like seeing Big Foot and the rest of the intelligent girls here at PF - simply stunning for us nerdies.

Ps. Non the less, good point, Informal Logic.

 

[Informal Logic]

For me, almost, yep. No exaggeration. Before Alexandra I hadn't run into one that I knew of since college. This is not my fault. It's just the way it happened.

I was really thinking more of the reaction some people seem to be having, but I suppose most Americans do not realize there are many Marxist members and groups throughout the US, as there always have been. You can google and find various web sites on this, but I am sure these members do not advertise their affiliation in their workplace, etc. They probably prefer not to have "commie" written all over their home, or more to the point, the FBI tracking them.

Which brings me back to McCarthyism. Why do you suppose there was a desire to suppress this growing movement in the US then, and now? Could it be suppression by our government to preserve the status quo? Marx was formulating his theories about superstructures and resulting ideologies before McCarthy, the Cold War, etc. Looks like he was right in his prediction about this at least.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Which brings me back to McCarthyism. Why do you suppose there was a desire to suppress this growing movement in the US then, and now?

And now? Whatever anti-communist sentiments are floating around now, are nothing compared to the McCarthy era.

Could it be suppression by our government to preserve the status quo?

That, certainly, but it was all mixed up with enormous suspicion of the Soviet Union, which was fueled by the fact they'd gotten their hands on the bomb.

 

[alexandra]

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.

Hello zoobyshoe

First, my apologies for being a bit brusque in my response - I am very defensive sometimes, with good reason (experiences) and (as others will testify) I sometimes don't control my emotional responses as well as I should I know that Marxism is 'out of fashion' and it is rare to come across marxist arguments nowadays - especially in official places of learning such as universities, so it is understandable that I surprised you. Sorry about that.

While Marxism is no longer fashionable it is, nevertheless, a key feature in many social science courses, though in much watered-down form since the 1960s/70s when it comprised a much larger part of official course work. In academia now, although marxism cannot totally be ignored (it is far too powerful an analytical tool for that to happen), it is generally not studied seriously and/or in depth. Instead, key aspects of Marxism have been incorporated into what marxists would call 'revisionist' theories - these theories borrow key marxist concepts but generally insist on omiting the core of Marxist analysis: the concept of class. So yes, my arguments must have come as a bit of a surprise:-)

 

[alexandra]

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.

russ, I think this may be because of where I studied and the content of the courses I studied. I am aware that very few universities devote much time to studying original Marxist texts - although I looked at some of the MIT OpenCourseware political science courses, and at least one of these, "Political Economy I: Theories of the State and the Economy", (probably others as well) includes readings of some of Marx's original works.

 

[alexandra]

Admittedly, some of these people may be more anti-capitalisms than pro-marxism. It can be tough to know the difference.

You're right it's difficult to differentiate between these two sorts of arguments. The key thing about marxist arguments is that they analyse whatever event is under scrutiny using 'class' as the fundamental concept of analysis. So, for example, instead of blaming individuals for specific policies or actions, marxists analyse in terms of the 'big picture'. To take a more specific (but simple) example, a marxist would not blame the current US administration or any individual in it (eg. the US President) for not signing the Kyoto Agreement. Marxists see mainstream politicians as acting on behalf of the class interests of the 'big capitalists' (I don't want to use jargon people may not understand here), and as having no option but to act in this class' interests (whether the politicians are Republican or Democrat).

 

[Joel]

I think some of the most influental lines of thought today that build upon Marx theories at least partly is the 'Frankfurther school'. It started in germany in the 1920, but didn't funktion long before it had to escape the Nazis. After the war many of its scholars focused on the reasons underlaying the Holocaust, among them Henry Tajfel, who's Social Identity Theory is a central part of today's social psychology research. Just to give an example of Marx's influence on today's theories.

 

[alexandra]

Personally, I can't understand why the capitalism & socialism discussion comes up so frequently (not just here). Or well, I can understand why, but I think it is one of the most dead horses I've seen.

Ah, you're a brave man, Joel; are you running yet? Only kidding - but I think the horse is at least limping

...I like to listen, ask questions and weed out real arguments from rhetorics. Then I can later decide for myself what to make of it all.

I like your attitude of listening, considering and making up your mind afterwards. That is so important, I think, and one of the things I worry about a lot is that many people seem to not be doing this nowadays. Instead of giving others' arguments serious consideration, a lot of 'discussions' just degenerate into shouting matches. But these are complex times we're living in, and it is very difficult to discuss some current world events without getting emotional...

 

[arildno]

My main complaint about Marxism as an analytical tool is that it over-emphasizes the concept of "class struggle" and the importance of "material" causes.

In essence, I regard it is as a failed attempt of making sense of Hegel's political writings through over-simplification.

Hegel does show, on occasion, brilliant insight in social dynamics, and some of his better analyses (for example in Philosophy of Right) are much subtler and, IMO, more credible, than simplistic materialist explanations.
Unfortunately, though, Hegel was a severe crackpot and muddlehead with far too much ambition than ability; if he had been less ambitious, he might have managed to create a coherent and valuable social science. He certainly had a knack for that; it is too bad that he fancied himself capable to explain the rest of the universe as well.

 

[alexandra]

I think some of the most influental lines of thought today that build upon Marx theories at least partly is the 'Frankfurther school'. It started in germany in the 1920, but didn't funktion long before it had to escape the Nazis. After the war many of its scholars focused on the reasons underlaying the Holocaust, among them Henry Tajfel, who's Social Identity Theory is a central part of today's social psychology research. Just to give an example of Marx's influence on today's theories.

That's an excellent example, Joel. Another example of a theory that borrowed from Marxism is Jurgen Habermas' 'critical theory', whose work spans many discipline areas including literary criticism, philosophy, history and politics.

 

[alexandra]

My main complaint about Marxism as an analytical tool is that it over-emphasizes the concept of "class struggle" and the importance of "material" causes.

It is true that marxism emphasises class struggle as being the 'motor' of history; however, this seems to make sense to me. But so-called marxist analyses that only focus on class and material conditions, and do not take the interplay between class, material conditions, and ideology into account, are simplistic and should be criticised for being so.

In essence, I regard it is as a failed attempt of making sense of Hegel's political writings through over-simplification.

Hmm, I don't really agree with this, arildno. Marx was a 'Young Hegelian', and his early works were written in response to Hegel's writing. But Marx then drew from many other disciplines (notably economic theory) as well in formulating his mature theory,

Hegel does show, on occasion, brilliant insight in social dynamics, and some of his better analyses (for example in Philosophy of Right) are much subtler and, IMO, more credible, than simplistic materialist explanations.
Unfortunately, though, Hegel was a severe crackpot and muddlehead with far too much ambition than ability; if he had been less ambitious, he might have managed to create a coherent and valuable social science. He certainly had a knack for that; it is too bad that he fancied himself capable to explain the rest of the universe as well.

LOL. I remember many painful hours dissecting Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' paragraph by paragraph, to try to understand it. It was a very challenging experience, but I gained much from the exercise (though this was years ago and, although I have the book nearby, I shudder at the thought of having to open it again and relive the experience).

 

[alexandra]

Oh, and I'm also betting seeing Alex is a bit like seeing Big Foot and the rest of the intelligent girls here at PF - simply stunning for us nerdies.

/insert 'Big Foot' smiley here/

 

[Joel]

Ah, you're a brave man, Joel; are you running yet? Only kidding - but I think the horse is at least limping

Well, all the greater cruelty if it's still alive, concidering how it has been beaten. Kidding - I'm just saying the discussions have usually been more ideology driven than academic. And to directly applay either Smith or Marx litterally, without adjustments, on today's much complexer world doesn't seam meaningfull. Using theories based on both, on the other hand, seems very meaningfull, as I pointed out in my post about the Frankfurt school.

And I actually thought more about running, combined with mines and a new identity - why?

I like your attitude of listening, considering and making up your mind afterwards. That is so important, I think, and one of the things I worry about a lot is that many people seem to not be doing this nowadays. Instead of giving others' arguments serious consideration, a lot of 'discussions' just degenerate into shouting matches. But these are complex times we're living in, and it is very difficult to discuss some current world events without getting emotional...

Thank you. And I like your apparently endless patience.

 

[Joel]

That's an excellent example, Joel. Another example of a theory that borrowed from Marxism is Jurgen Habermas' 'critical theory', whose work spans many discipline areas including literary criticism, philosophy, history and politics.

Another good example, altough Habermas is also concidered to belong to the Frankfurther school. (I think).

 

[alexandra]

Isn't 'critical theory' and Frankfurther school at least partly the same thing? Jurgen Habermas has at least been concidered to belong to the Frankfruter school.

That's correct, Joel. One of my books divides the critical theorists into two 'generations', both having their intellectual roots in the Frankfurt school. The 'first generation' included theorists like Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm and Walter Benjamin, and the 'second wave' of critical theorists include Habermas, Offe, Wellmer and Ulrich Beck.

 

[alexandra]

And to directly applay either Smith or Marx litterally, without adjustments, on today's much complexer world doesn't seam meaningfull.

Absolutely. Marx would have been horrified at the thought of anyone trying to apply the theory he developed over a hundred years ago literally, without modification, today. To do that would be to go against one of marxism's principle tenets in any case, ie. that one can only properly understand a situation if one knows its historical context and all the complexities of the current situation - the analysis must be dynamic enough to take into account the dynamics of life. Nevertheless, one cannot modify marxist theory to the extent where the importance of class is not acknowledged; once the analysis ignores classes, it is no longer marxist; I'm pretty sure Marx would agree with me on that one.

 

[Joel]

That's correct, Joel. One of my books divides the critical theorists into two 'generations', both having their intellectual roots in the Frankfurt school. The 'first generation' included theorists like Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm and Walter Benjamin, and the 'second wave' of critical theorists include Habermas, Offe, Wellmer and Ulrich Beck.

Ahh, yess - and Tajfell also built on Fromm's, The escape from freedom (at least) and Habermas built on Michael Focault, and Focault inspired the emergance of 'Elite theorists' like Robert Michels, who was critical to democracy, and on that Robert Dahl - one of US great political scientists - built his theory of competing power elites, 'poliarchys' - and ... You get the picture?

 

[russ_watters]

russ, I think this may be because of where I studied and the content of the courses I studied. I am aware that very few universities devote much time to studying original Marxist texts - although I looked at some of the MIT OpenCourseware political science courses, and at least one of these, "Political Economy I: Theories of the State and the Economy", (probably others as well) includes readings of some of Marx's original works.

The only formal study of Marx I had was in the context of history, not political science... I suspect that's what most people get. We did, however, read some of his work and discuss his theory, but altogether it was probably less than a week, total treatment.

Absolutely. Marx would have been horrified at the thought of anyone trying to apply the theory he developed over a hundred years ago literally, without modification, today.

But that confuses me - the first counter argument to "Marxism doesn't work..." is always that Marxism hasn't been tried (as seen in the thread in the politics forum). It seems like Marxists always argue that since there has never been a "pure" Marxist government, it hasn't been tried in various similar forms. I've gotten the impression that some people think of a "Marxist utopia" that must exist in utterly pure form if it can exist at all, rather than the idea that any government can contain certian Marxist principles.

You're right it's difficult to differentiate between these two sorts of arguments. The key thing about marxist arguments is that they analyse whatever event is under scrutiny using 'class' as the fundamental concept of analysis.

I doubt that really helps me any - whether its called "class" or just "inequality" the argument is the same when discussing it as a flaw in capitalism and its probably the biggest criticism of capitalism either way.

 

[Joel]

Ahh, yess - and Tajfell also built on Fromm's, The escape from freedom (at least) and Habermas built on Michael Focault, and Focault inspired the emergance of 'Elite theorists' like Robert Michels, who was critical to democracy, and on that Robert Dahl - one of US great political scientists - built his theory of competing power elites, 'poliarchys' - and ... You get the picture?

No, I don't get the picture - you are making no sense, what so ever. Please stop rambling.

I think the following paragraphs illustrate the connection between Marx, The Frankfurter School and more modern Democracy Theories:

Reacting to Marxism and its stress on class were various theorists emphasizing the importance of elites. Elite theories maintain that elites, not economic and social class forces, determine what happens in society. (For a summary of the various elite theories see Parry 1969.) Writers such as the Italian Vilfredo Pareto criticized Marxists for ignoring the power of elites. Elite theorists criticized communism as actually practiced in the real world, pointing out that the communist countries themselves are dominated by various privileged elites and their progress stultified by inflexible bureaucracies (see Michels 1949).

American leftists responded to elite theory by uniting Marxism with the theory of elites to produce new theories focusing on the dominant role played by unfair coalitions of powerful elites. C. Wright Mills (1956) in The Power Elite discussed how a coalition between the military, business executives, and top politicians created an elite (but not actually a ruling class) that dominated the country in undemocratic ways. (For another theory in this vein, see Miliband 1974.)

Political scientists responded by saying that although elites dominate, there is a balance among them that still is democratic and fair. One of the outstanding spokesmen for this viewpoint was Robert Dahl in Who Governs? (1961). (For a critique of the power elite thesis on the national level, see Rose 1967). The problem with this perspective of balancing elites is that it ignores that these elites are largely reflective of the middle and upper classes only and that the elites cooperate to block progressive legislation. In fact, a serious flaw in the entire elite approach is the overemphasis on the power of elites. All too often, elites are absolutely powerless before the havoc created by class, race, ethnic, gender, and other social divisions.

- http://www.vernonjohns.org/vernjohns/sthcrit.html

Another site about elit theories: http://www.politicalscience.utoledo.edu/faculty/davis/IGelite.htm

I doubt that really helps me any - whether its called "class" or just "inequality" the argument is the same when discussing it as a flaw in capitalism and its probably the biggest criticism of capitalism either way.

My question is (for everyone): is for example Robert Dahl and other Democracy Theoriests Marxist? They appear to be influenced by Marx; they cite Marx or someone citing Marx, they use social classes as analytic tools (altough not like Marx saw them) and they discuss inequality, influence, power and governance (just like Marx). On the other hand, they recognice the importance of a government, free elections, a free market and press, and other essentialities for modern democracy, not necessary seen as positive by Marx.

 

[alexandra]

No, I don't get the picture - you are making no sense, what so ever. Please stop rambling.

Joel, are you talking to yourself now? Sorry for not responding earlier. I was sort of worrying about having sabotaged this thread completely - but I guess people who were going to respond to the original question have already done so now, so maybe it's ok to keep talking about this new topic here..?

My question is (for everyone): is for example Robert Dahl and other Democracy Theoriests Marxist? They appear to be influenced by Marx; they cite Marx or someone citing Marx, they use social classes as analytic tools (altough not like Marx saw them) and they discuss inequality, influence, power and governance (just like Marx). On the other hand, they recognice the importance of a government, free elections, a free market and press, and other essentialities for modern democracy, not necessary seen as positive by Marx.

Mills, Dahl and the other elite theorists are not Marxist - well, not according to my understanding of Marxism, or according to any of the critiques I have read of elite theory. Elite theory essentially separates economic domination from political rule, while Marxist theories see economic power as an integral part of the political process. There are various criticisms of elite theory, one of which you have included in your quote (this criticism applies to Dahl’s idea that:

… although elites dominate, there is a balance among them that still is democratic and fair.

You quoted one of the criticisms of such a theory:

The problem with this perspective of balancing elites is that it ignores that these elites are largely reflective of the middle and upper classes only and that the elites cooperate to block progressive legislation.

A general Marxist criticism of elite theories is that they cannot identify the underlying basis of political power; they tend to obscure reality rather than revealing it.

Hmm, I see that one of the URLs you provided - http://www.politicalscience.utoledo.edu/faculty/davis/IGelite.htm - describes Marx as an elite theorist; very odd – I’ve never come across such a classification before (and it doesn’t make sense to me).

PS: If you’re interested, here’s a website with information about some key sociological theorists/theories: http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/%7Elridener/DSS/INDEX.HTML . Unfortunately, neither Mills nor Dahl are listed there (but Marx and Pareto are). A google search also brought up this interesting page that briefly outlines Mills’ and Dahl’s theories (scroll down the page to the section entitled ‘The State’): http://thunder1.cudenver.edu/sociology/introsoc/CUOnlineRevise/UnitNotes/Week10.html

 

[alexandra]

The only formal study of Marx I had was in the context of history, not political science... I suspect that's what most people get. We did, however, read some of his work and discuss his theory, but altogether it was probably less than a week, total treatment.

Yikes! A week! But I suppose if it is was in history then it makes sense.

 

[alexandra]

I doubt that really helps me any - whether its called "class" or just "inequality" the argument is the same when discussing it as a flaw in capitalism and its probably the biggest criticism of capitalism either way.

Sorry, russ - I should have explained in more detail. Marxists have a very specific definition of class. In the Marxist sense, 'class' is defined in terms of 'ownership of the means of production' - ie. to belong to the capitalist class it is not enough just to be relatively wealthy (ie, to own a home, one or more cars, a yacht, etc). To belong to the capitalist class, one must own the means of making more wealth. So classes are very specifically defined - it's not just a matter of inequality; it's a matter of a few having the means to create more (great) wealth for themselves while most rely on working (selling their labour power - be this manual labour or intellectual) to get by. Perhaps this helps?

 

[loseyourname]

I'm beginning to notice one thing, Alex. You note that you subscribe to Marxist theory because it helps you to understand developments in human affairs. It's a paradigm by which you can place into a certain context the events of history, both in the recent past and as it is being made today. However, depending on who you are, any number of paradigms might help you to personally better understand history and current events, or at least make sense of them within whatever given paradigm you have subscribed to. Heck, I can think of many political paradigms, from the egoism of Hobbes to the civilizational conflicts of Huntington, that make sense of certain aspects of current events. I can point to incidents and say "look, that government was acting in its own rational self-interest to gain power by the right of nature" or "look, that nation supported another nation that was part of its civilization against a nation of another civilization." Each statement can be true. What paradigm becomes accepted academically, however, largely depends on predictive power.

Perhaps you can lay out for us novices all, or at least most, of the testable predictions that Marx made, and then we can determine whether or not they have come true. The only ones I know of myself are the much discussed proletariat revolution and the increase of worldwide poverty and consolidation of wealth. The thing is, compared to Marx' own lifetime, there is less consolidation of wealth, less poverty in the world, fewer worker's revolutions, and very few Marxist states (Cuba is the only one I can even think of).

It might be that the key question we can ask here is how people align themselves in the contemporary world. Do we align ourselves with others of the same culture? The same ethnicity? The same nation? The same civilization? The same religion? Or do we mostly align ourselves by economic class? It seems to me that for Marx to be right, alignment by economic class must be the prevailing alignment in the world. It doesn't seem to me that reality conforms.

 

[alexandra]

I'm beginning to notice one thing, Alex. You note that you subscribe to Marxist theory because it helps you to understand developments in human affairs. It's a paradigm by which you can place into a certain context the events of history, both in the recent past and as it is being made today...

Hi loseyourname - this post raises another very interesting point, but I feel this is the wrong section of the forums to continue this discussion. To discuss this matter properly, we're going to have to discuss it at length and get into some pretty heavy political theory. So, I'll start a new thread in the 'Politics and World Affairs' section of the PF General Discussion area and will copy and paste your post and we can continue talking there (an appropriate thread title may be 'Political Perspectives'?).

I'm feeling really bad about having gotten so serious in PF's 'play and relaxation' area; sorry folks

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, russ - I should have explained in more detail. Marxists have a very specific definition of class. In the Marxist sense, 'class' is defined in terms of 'ownership of the means of production' - ie. to belong to the capitalist class it is not enough just to be relatively wealthy (ie, to own a home, one or more cars, a yacht, etc). To belong to the capitalist class, one must own the means of making more wealth. So classes are very specifically defined - it's not just a matter of inequality; it's a matter of a few having the means to create more (great) wealth for themselves while most rely on working (selling their labour power - be this manual labour or intellectual) to get by. Perhaps this helps?

So you can own a yacht and not be part of the "capitalist class" - and conversely by owning a business (regardless of how successful) you are? In that case, it doesn't appear to me that the term "capitalis class" has any relevance to the US or the condition of her citizens. Why a yacht owning, self-made, new rich person (and there are millions of those guys) would want to join a Marxist revolution is beyond me.

 

[Moonbear]

Hi loseyourname - this post raises another very interesting point, but I feel this is the wrong section of the forums to continue this discussion. To discuss this matter properly, we're going to have to discuss it at length and get into some pretty heavy political theory. So, I'll start a new thread in the 'Politics and World Affairs' section of the PF General Discussion area and will copy and paste your post and we can continue talking there (an appropriate thread title may be 'Political Perspectives'?).

Sounds like a great idea! I've just been reading along on this thread because my own formal education on Marxism is probably less than that week Russ had; we might have spent a day on it in a history class in high school. The rest of my knowledge of politics is mostly self-taught, and I have a hard time sorting out what Marxism really is vs what are bad interpretations of Marx's writings. Your posts have been really helpful in sorting out some of the fuzzier aspects of my understanding on that topic.

I'm feeling really bad about having gotten so serious in PF's 'play and relaxation' area; sorry folks

No need to worry about that. This isn't just a play area, though that's what we do a lot of here. It's really a place for anything that doesn't fit well in the other topics and is of interest to members. The GD forum is just a bit more relaxed in terms of demands for evidence to support statements, etc.

 

[Danger]

The GD forum is just a bit more relaxed in terms of demands for evidence to support statements, etc.

Can you prove that? Provide your references.