I think that’s a misinterpretation of Historical Materialism. The course of development isn’t rigid, nor are stages divided by hard lines but blurred. Safety Nets could remain temporarily, but you can’t expand Imperialism beyond the limits of Earth and you can’t stop the mechanisms of competition from necessitating larger trusts, only slow that rate down. As industry advances, it is required to expand, and when said expansion suffocates competition by killing off its chance of opposition, there ceases to be any benefit to Capitalism.
As for Hegel vs Marx, I would say the Idealist nature of Hegelian Dialectics negates its practicality for analyzing the real world. It’s certainly an interesting framework, but Materialism will inherently be more grounded in scientific analysis and thus practicality.
Your last paragraph is the most interesting. For starters, we have not seen a revolution in an Imperialist country, only victims of Imperialism. The reason Marxists believe it to be the last is because it chokes itself, causing Imperialized countries to revolt or decouple and cripple the profits of the Imperialist countries, which takes away from the “bribes” for the labor aristocracy. The Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall exists regardless (and if you want me to go over that I can, I think you’ve been glossing over this one but it’s actually critical for analysis of Capitalism as self-defeating as rates of profit approach zero).
This process of “re-proletarianization” is a hypothesis, not a real observation yet. We will have to watch the US working class and how it organizes (or doesn’t) in the face of tariffs and an attempt at restarting industrialization. By Imperialism’s weakening, monopoly Capitalism remains in place but without the super-profits for bribery, which means you have an increasingly socialized Proletariat in the Imperial Core and decaying Material Conditions.
Well, the argument in your first paragraph is somewhat compelling. I heard the view that the service economy can grow regardless of natural resources, but I suppose you would say to that that it is only possible in imperialistic countries that move industry elsewhere.
I will think on the matter, and maybe come up with counterarguments. I am not an economist, so the finer details of markets are eluding me. In any case, Marxism or not, let us hope for a few more decades of decadent bourgeois life.
As a rule of thumb, I mean with respect to practical analysis of the real world, rather than constrained to analysis of ideas.
Your second paragraph is spot-on. Unless you reach full automation of industry, service-based economies depend on industry of other economies.
As a concluding message, I recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism text. It very accurately describes the primary mechanisms of Capitalism as it develops, and is necessary analysis even if you reject the rest of Marxism.
I enjoyed our converation, it is more fun arguing with people on the internet when they are not idiots.
But I wonder, do you consider maths a science? Also, there are practices thay deal with practical matters and “the real world” that are not scientific. Like natural philosophy. I think method and rigour are more important than subject.
I appreciate it too, though I wouldn’t call this “arguing” so much as talking. I would call what the other user was trying to do “arguing,” haha.
Generally, science requires experimentation and observation, mathematics generally doesn’t fall into that category. Marxism generally does, as it is a toolset for observing and experimenting with human organization and social relations. You could call it “sociology” and be mostly correct, though that encompasses non-Marxian views of sociology as well as Marxian. I think when you get to this point in the specifics, the labels don’t actually matter as much except for shorthand descriptors.
I think that’s a misinterpretation of Historical Materialism. The course of development isn’t rigid, nor are stages divided by hard lines but blurred. Safety Nets could remain temporarily, but you can’t expand Imperialism beyond the limits of Earth and you can’t stop the mechanisms of competition from necessitating larger trusts, only slow that rate down. As industry advances, it is required to expand, and when said expansion suffocates competition by killing off its chance of opposition, there ceases to be any benefit to Capitalism.
As for Hegel vs Marx, I would say the Idealist nature of Hegelian Dialectics negates its practicality for analyzing the real world. It’s certainly an interesting framework, but Materialism will inherently be more grounded in scientific analysis and thus practicality.
Your last paragraph is the most interesting. For starters, we have not seen a revolution in an Imperialist country, only victims of Imperialism. The reason Marxists believe it to be the last is because it chokes itself, causing Imperialized countries to revolt or decouple and cripple the profits of the Imperialist countries, which takes away from the “bribes” for the labor aristocracy. The Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall exists regardless (and if you want me to go over that I can, I think you’ve been glossing over this one but it’s actually critical for analysis of Capitalism as self-defeating as rates of profit approach zero).
This process of “re-proletarianization” is a hypothesis, not a real observation yet. We will have to watch the US working class and how it organizes (or doesn’t) in the face of tariffs and an attempt at restarting industrialization. By Imperialism’s weakening, monopoly Capitalism remains in place but without the super-profits for bribery, which means you have an increasingly socialized Proletariat in the Imperial Core and decaying Material Conditions.
What do you mean when you say “scientific”?
Well, the argument in your first paragraph is somewhat compelling. I heard the view that the service economy can grow regardless of natural resources, but I suppose you would say to that that it is only possible in imperialistic countries that move industry elsewhere.
I will think on the matter, and maybe come up with counterarguments. I am not an economist, so the finer details of markets are eluding me. In any case, Marxism or not, let us hope for a few more decades of decadent bourgeois life.
As a rule of thumb, I mean with respect to practical analysis of the real world, rather than constrained to analysis of ideas.
Your second paragraph is spot-on. Unless you reach full automation of industry, service-based economies depend on industry of other economies.
As a concluding message, I recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism text. It very accurately describes the primary mechanisms of Capitalism as it develops, and is necessary analysis even if you reject the rest of Marxism.
I enjoyed our converation, it is more fun arguing with people on the internet when they are not idiots.
But I wonder, do you consider maths a science? Also, there are practices thay deal with practical matters and “the real world” that are not scientific. Like natural philosophy. I think method and rigour are more important than subject.
I appreciate it too, though I wouldn’t call this “arguing” so much as talking. I would call what the other user was trying to do “arguing,” haha.
Generally, science requires experimentation and observation, mathematics generally doesn’t fall into that category. Marxism generally does, as it is a toolset for observing and experimenting with human organization and social relations. You could call it “sociology” and be mostly correct, though that encompasses non-Marxian views of sociology as well as Marxian. I think when you get to this point in the specifics, the labels don’t actually matter as much except for shorthand descriptors.