this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
20 points (95.5% liked)
World News
1957 readers
312 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the way Marx should be understood is that there isn't a way capitalism can remain stable in the long term, contradictions will lead invariably to crises. Not that he can predict the future exactly how that unfolds. It's like looking at a house built on a cliff prone to mudslides and predicting that shit's gonna collapse eventually
It loosely reminds me of the Foundation Sci Fi series. In the novel, a Mathematician creates a new field he calls psychohistory, basically a mathematics of sociology, vaguely dialectic materialism. Using statistical laws of mass action, it can predict the future of large populations, and the first thing he sees is the inevitable collapse of empire.
SPOILERS AHEAD
I'm reading the Foundation now (some prequels and in 6th book now) and while at first it was deep disappointment that the Seldon plan was not only just the second imperium, but achieved by the mind control and mentalist ubermensch ruling the galaxy (got a real good heads up how stellarly would that work in 5th book), but with the introduction of Gaia it turned out to be incredibly hilarious.
Gaia is basically utopian communism, sustainable, classless, moneyless society, which furthermore is centrally planned and follow literal democratic centralism (or at least it works like that because group consciousness). But seen by the lib eye, "human nature" problem which no liberalism ever can overcome even in speculation, is eliminated by being group consciousness. Even funnier, arguments used against Gaia by Trevize and some other people mirror arguments used by liberals against communism. If i didn't know Asimov was ultimately a lib and anticomunist i would thought it was a bait.
Also, never allow mathematicians to plan the future.
Haha I was thinking of Foundation when I wrote that comment!