"Marxists are clueless" (Funk N. Furter)

[Steve Ballmer]

1. 'Marxism' was 'tried' in the USSR, to use your crude language, for the first 6 years. Stalin not only abandoned it, he waged a bloody one-sided civil war against Marxists.

2. It failed, beginning in 1923, as Marxism would predict, because the revolution in the more advanced Germany did not succeed. Socialism cannot exist in a backward country in isolation.

3. The fact that the revolution happened in the first place, and the fact that it failed because Russia was isolated, both were predictable and predicted by Marxism.

Yes, Marxists could have predicted the revolution, and yet they recklessly attempted it for a full 6 years. Like you said, "clueless".

Meanwhile, other schools also predicted the failure of the revolution, and by your logic, they must all be right. Hence, Mises AND Marx must both have been correct. This is rather awkward for you.

[Bean Machine]

Anyway, since you have chickened out of answering my questions, the debate seems to be over. Bye.

Stevie boy hasn't chickened out of anything. He's been very clear that, after you provide a peer-reviewed scientific study of Marxism, he'll be more than happy to explain his thoughts on evolution to you. Since he asked you first, you're the one who's obliged to respond.

Now, this raises the question, why do you keep chickening out of responding to his challenge?

[Steve Ballmer]

Simple tasks relevant to the debate that Funk N. Furter has run from so far:

1. Supplying the slightest shred of evidence that Marxism should be considered a science..
2. Answering the question of the use of violence during a socialist revolution.
3. Answering (rather than deflecting) my critique of Marx's fallacious definition of value.
4. Explaining how the failure of the USSR could somehow prove Marxism.
5. Producing this 12 year old wunderkind he keeps mentioning, who apparently can understand what 150 years of economists have failed to.
6. Demonstrating that A=!A.
7. Explaining how Marxism (a) has been "tested many times in the past", yet (b) "has to be global to work" (his claims, not mine).

(Note: this is not a comprehensive list)

Refusing to go off onto yet another tangent before these points are resolved is not "chickening out". Quite the contrary in fact, it's sticking to the debate—a meagre feat that Funky has shown himself to be quite incapable of.

I'd be particularly interested in seeing him grapple with points 6 and 7.

The giant elephant in the room is of course that this Marxism is supposedly meant to be for the people, and yet the average Joe is clearly too dumb to understand it ("If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist"- Marx), yet too smart to buy into it ("Fuck this shit" - Joe).

TV, now that's for the people, and I'm very much looking forward to the new season of Glee! Just how exactly are they going to deal with Cory's death, I wonder.

[Steve Ballmer]

Yup, the debate is over:

Funk: Marxism is a science!
Steve: Prove it!
Funk: Marxism may not be a science!

[Steve Ballmer]

You would do well to find out what Marxism is, and to define science. I would say Marxism is scientific, but I'm not sure I would go so far as to call it a science in quite the same way metallurgy is. But then again, is geology as scientific as metallurgy? It's harder to run a 400 million year experiment than dip steel in an oil bath. However you do not agree with Political Science or Social Science being science do you?

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning" (Wikipedia).

So, not a science, not even scientific.

I have answered this many times. There does not need to be any violence, but there probably will be, because the capitalists will impose a military dictatorship rather than allow a Marxist party to get voted in. They will start a civil war if they think they need to.

And as I and other have explained to you, theft is a form of violence. Until you accept this and integrate it into your theory, you have not properly dealt with this point.

I gave you a good link to Kapitalism101 and started to go through one of the sections. http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

I didn't ask for homework, rather I gave a very specific analysis for Marx's actual words which you have also not yet properly dealt with. Your responses so far have simply been off-topic.

I have done this. Marxism predicts that socialism cannot be established in a backward country in isolation. The German revolution was crushed during the years 1919-23. In 1924 the degeneration of the Russian revolution started. In 1928 Trotsky was exiled, and in 1936-9 the remaining Marxists were murdered by Stalin in a huge political genocide, along with many kulaks from the other end of the spectrum. Stalin also crushed the Revolution in Spain during this period. The capitalist press said nothing about either.

Mises also explained in a text that you will never read that socialism simply cannot work. Marx and Mises can't both be right. The USSR proves nothing.

As I said, my post was analysed by readability software. You can use it to scan texts and websites. It came out with a reading age of 12. You did not understand it though.

What other software are you using? I have seen random essay generators that make more sense than you.

Trotsky said that A is not equal to A, no two bags of sugar are 100% identical down to the subatomic particle, obviously. You have seen his explanation, and you could not possibly argue against it, or you would have done so.

Yes, I read Trotsky's paper, and he does indeed mange to prove that one bag is not the same as another bag, i.e., that A1 is not equal to A2. However, A1 is equal to A1, and thus A is equal to A. Trotsky is a fucking genius.

You are confusing two separate things. Socialism has to be international to work properly. Marxism is a set of theories and observations which have been applied or not applied in a million situations. For example, lets put things so that a child of two could understand, Marx said that only the WORKING CLASS could establish socialism. Well in Russia there was hardly any working class in 1917. And socialism was not established. This was why Lenin was banking on Germany, with it's huge industrial working class.

This is fair. If you wish to consider Marxism and socialism as two separate things, then so be it. Let me rephrase my critique to take into account this ever-so-essential distinction:

1. Socialism has never been tested, and thus your desire to impose it worldwide makes you no saner than the crazy vaccinator we discussed before.
2. Marxism has never been tested either, your unsubstantiated and ridiculous claims to the contrary not withstanding.

Marxist theory is tested in every strike, in recessions, revolutions, war. World war 1 was proof of Marxist theories. So was Fascism and WW2. The current global recession is proof of Marx's theories.

Yup—these claims. For some reason, I can't seem to recall WW2 ever being peer-reviewed.

So far your attempts to address my points have totally and utterly failed. Try again.

[Steve Ballmer]

Behind that lies it's philosophical basis... A geologist looks at a rock, in the context it was found, and he attempts to unravel it's history. Marxism looks at society and attempts to unravel it's history.

Sorry to be a grammar Nazi.

Superior intellect

My favourite part here is the fact that you actually took the time to italicise the last "it's", yet still didn't see your mistake.

Boy-Genius strikes again

[H20nly]

whew... there's a lot of ground being covered here. let me make sure i get this straight.

science = measurable observation and experimentation
Marx = predictable failure theory
it's = its

did i miss anything?

[Steve Ballmer]

Nope, you seem have the major points, even the ad homonyms *heh*.

[H20nly]

it was explained so a one year old could understand it

for my notes; was that a long goo before the second to the last gah?

[Steve Ballmer]

Why was it reckless? (For the second time)

No, you're right. It wasn't reckless at all. In fact it is perfectly cautious for a bunch of "clueless" nitwits to throw a country into violent turmoil, knowing that their efforts would fail.

[Steve Ballmer]

Nationalisation of utilities built by the working class is theft.

FYP.

[Steve Ballmer]

Well done for spotting those unintentional mistakes.

FYP

[Steve Ballmer]

)Marxism is based on empirical evidence and subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Such as A is not equal to A.

[Steve Ballmer]

I gave you a good link to Kapitalism101 and started to go through one of the sections. http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

I didn't ask for homework, rather I gave a very specific analysis for Marx's actual words which you have also not yet properly dealt with. Your responses so far have simply been off-topic.

Your 'analysis' consisted of claiming that Marx only viewed value objectively, whereas in your opinion value is completely subjective. If that a fair summary?

No, again you failed to understand the subtleties of my prose. It's as if... *gasp*... you're criticizing something you don't understand.

[Bean Machine]

Steven claimed that I introduced 'Darwinism' into the 'debate', but in fact it was he who did. This is pretty obvious seeing as I would never use a term like 'Darminism'.

Actually, no. You were the one who introduced evolution into the debate, in an attempt to draw a comparison between social evolution and that of living creatures. Would you like me to go back and dig up the exact quote?