Grok,

Marx could not, any more than anyone else, predict what might 'emerge' out of the dynamics of productive forces and relations, i.e. what antitheses might 'emerge' against existing and future theses (and which ones might be the 'correct' one), and what future theses might 'emerge'. He wasn't superhuman, and I'm very concerned that your model relies so heavily on superhuman, all-seeing, all-good, all-knowing geniuses. Sound a bit medieval, if you'll forgive me.

And as you say: "What has truly been tragic in the past century or so .... has been the overarching failing in the working-class at all crucial moments."

Amen to that. Marx might have got that a bit, dare I say it, wrong. People are as they are, and the workers have been no more likely to throw themselves into the fires of revolution, even if on behalf of 'geniuses', than anybody else. Strangely, they often may not see certain death as being in their material interests. And they may even perceive that they have other, more attractive options, fools that they may be.

So, what do we do ? What do we work towards ? If the bus is obviously not coming, do you curse it and go home, or do you start walking ?

Joe Lane

*Speak for yourself and not for others.*

Groky, you can be assured, I am not alone on this one.

If you think that there is going to be rioting in the
streets, that people will risk what they have,
because someone in the third world is missing out,
you clearly don't know much about human behaviour!

Sorry fella, but preaching the marxist doctrine in
Australia, is going to leave you a very lonely fellow.

But you are free to dream on of course, it is not illegal.

>Marx could not, any more than anyone else, predict
what might 'emerge' out of the dynamics of productive
forces and relations, i.e. what antitheses might
'emerge' against existing and future theses (and which
ones might be the 'correct' one), and what future
theses might 'emerge'.

Well, if you actually understood Marx, et al., you'd realize just how very off-base and simply wrong you are, to make this blanket statement. You might as well say -- indeed it is a requirement of your 'argument' also -- that scientists cannot make any predictions whatsoever, either.

And I must point out here now as well (yet again) that Marx was NOT in the business of making *detailed* predictions -- as is often demanded of him, by supporters and detractors (far more the latter) alike -- any more than most scientists are in a similar position to do so. It is not in the nature of Science, beyond simple physical relations, to make much more than statistical predictions on the outcomes of systems interactions -- dialectically understood or otherwise.

>He wasn't superhuman, and I'm very concerned that your model
relies so heavily on superhuman, all-seeing, all-good,
all-knowing geniuses. Sound a bit medieval, if you'll
forgive me.

Pure strawman bunkum. Be ashamed for yourself, Loudmouth. The fact that Karl Marx WAS quite a genius is beside the point of his science -- which stands of its own accord.

>Marx might have got that a bit, dare I say it, wrong.

Marxism -- being science -- is an ongoing, unfinished, in fact *open-ended* process of discovery and explanation, Loudmouth. What we have discovered during Marx' later life and since his death, is that the process of the world working-class seizing control of the Planet back from the slaving elites is indeed a protracted and ugly process, with many zig-zags and failures and steps back. That's all. Only paid liars and fools in the employ of the Rich would interpret that fact as being 'proof' of scientific socialism's supposed failure, complete or otherwise.

>Strangely, they often may not see certain death as
being in their material interests. And they may even
perceive that they have other, more attractive options,
fools that they may be.

What? The option of slow starvation for themselves and their children, perhaps..? Victory over the wage-slavers -- and supposed "certain death" in the successful waging of that undertaking -- is a complete non sequitur, Loudmouth; but then again, this entire process we've undergone here on this forum is IMO a classic study in misdirection, disinformation and intellectual hooliganism on the part of the anti-communists here. Disgusting-to-the-Max (or Marx), I would say.

>>*Speak for yourself and not for others.*
>Groky, you can be assured, I am not alone on this one.

Ya, and you know what, Yabby? It is far easier to be ignorant, and even a fool in this world, than it is to be aware and not one. So what's your point.

>If you think that there is going to be rioting in the
streets, that people will risk what they have,
because someone in the third world is missing out,
you clearly don't know much about human behaviour!

How wrong you are on ALL points there, me bucko...
And how deluded. But that should be understood by now, by all.

>Sorry fella, but preaching the marxist doctrine in
Australia, is going to leave you a very lonely fellow.

We'll see how many 'marxists' there are in the coming period -- factoring in all the repressive tricks of the ruling elite and their stooges in trying to suppress all such opposition to their plans and their system of exploitation.

>But you are free to dream on of course, it is not illegal.

What a frigging lie. There are many ways to oppress people 'below the radar' -- until, of course, it becomes official and open government policy. Like any day now, AFAIC.

As for the aborigines -- whose land your type simply stole and murdered for, in the past 200 years -- and the political and economic refugees created by YOUR system, and the South Sea islanders of your little Oz-Kiwi Empire for that matter, and indeed workers of all sorts who don't buy into your faux, murderous murdochite "democracy": I'm sure they would have LOTS to say about B.S. of your type here -- if your Master-race bourgeois mass-propaganda media weren't essentially and 'de facto' closed to all dissenting voices.

The Internet, of course, is a problematic source which the elite and their stooges (like you) even now are trying to figure out how to censor -- while maintaining the official fiction that it remains 'free'...

But do continue in your lies here. It's funny.

Dear Squeers,

grok maintains that Marxism is science. Do you agree?