Jun 24, 2024 09:23 PM
Appetizer: Decades ago, Isaac Asimov proposed something similar to the below, during an interview, which startled the person conducting the conversation.
While Marxist dogma did interfere with innovation in the past ("The tragic story of Soviet genetics shows the folly of political meddling in science"), the original old school was at least devoted to its brand of materialism and most proper science practice.
In contrast, the intellectual movements descended from Marxism (from Gramsci onward), have progressively become more and more anti-Western. To the point now during the current decolonization era, where the "alternative sciences" of traditional local cultures are now the prized usurpers. So it's not Karl's classic and narrower ideological fixation with social oppression that is a potential impending threat, but rather the widely accepted and influential contemporary offshoots of it, that border on the deranged.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The world Is richer than ever, but it's not due to communism or capitalism, it's science
https://www.science20.com/hank_campbell/...nce-257104
INTRO: There are lots of stories about the poor in America, and have been for decades. Smart demographers know that, like racism, if everyone is talking about The Poor, it's almost eliminated.
One of the giant cracks in the communist dictatorship called the USSR last century was when the television program "60 Minutes" had a segment on poverty in America. It was designed to tug at the heartstrings of those with more money. The USSR ran it for their citizens but it actually backfired. Being in 'poverty' in America meant having a television and more living space than anyone not an elite in the Soviet Union had.
Today, America and all western nations are so wealthy compared to the past that for the first time in the history of the world, poor people can afford to be fat. Like cotton, that was once a luxury reserved only for the wealthy. Because poverty has plummeted, everyone not in the business of raising money talking about how poor people are want to take credit for it.
Capitalists note that free markets and globalization led to a quality of life improvement of 300 percent for the poorest during the time Karl Marx was saying that capitalism needed violent overthrow, and hasn't slowed down. Communists note that the world average quality of life has improved so much due to better lives - in China. They have so many people they move the world needle by just not having idiots like Mao forcing hundreds of million to starve.
They're both right. They both also miss the plot. In both cases, the common denominator is science, not which economic model leads to less corruption and grift... (MORE - details)
While Marxist dogma did interfere with innovation in the past ("The tragic story of Soviet genetics shows the folly of political meddling in science"), the original old school was at least devoted to its brand of materialism and most proper science practice.
In contrast, the intellectual movements descended from Marxism (from Gramsci onward), have progressively become more and more anti-Western. To the point now during the current decolonization era, where the "alternative sciences" of traditional local cultures are now the prized usurpers. So it's not Karl's classic and narrower ideological fixation with social oppression that is a potential impending threat, but rather the widely accepted and influential contemporary offshoots of it, that border on the deranged.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The world Is richer than ever, but it's not due to communism or capitalism, it's science
https://www.science20.com/hank_campbell/...nce-257104
INTRO: There are lots of stories about the poor in America, and have been for decades. Smart demographers know that, like racism, if everyone is talking about The Poor, it's almost eliminated.
One of the giant cracks in the communist dictatorship called the USSR last century was when the television program "60 Minutes" had a segment on poverty in America. It was designed to tug at the heartstrings of those with more money. The USSR ran it for their citizens but it actually backfired. Being in 'poverty' in America meant having a television and more living space than anyone not an elite in the Soviet Union had.
Today, America and all western nations are so wealthy compared to the past that for the first time in the history of the world, poor people can afford to be fat. Like cotton, that was once a luxury reserved only for the wealthy. Because poverty has plummeted, everyone not in the business of raising money talking about how poor people are want to take credit for it.
Capitalists note that free markets and globalization led to a quality of life improvement of 300 percent for the poorest during the time Karl Marx was saying that capitalism needed violent overthrow, and hasn't slowed down. Communists note that the world average quality of life has improved so much due to better lives - in China. They have so many people they move the world needle by just not having idiots like Mao forcing hundreds of million to starve.
They're both right. They both also miss the plot. In both cases, the common denominator is science, not which economic model leads to less corruption and grift... (MORE - details)