(MIG Tournament) In Defense of "An Open Society and it's Enemies" Vol. 2

Contention 1. Critique of Historicism.Analytic Laws and Empirical Trends. As I argued in the previous round, Marx did not originate his laws of history based SOLELY on empirical trends as my opponent seems to argue. As I argued in the previous round, it was historical trends coupled with analytical reasoning that lead Marx to his historical laws. One instance of this was his theory of base and superstructure. Sustenance is primary in any given society specifically because without sustenance, no individuals could exist to form society in the first place. Therefore, Marx reasoned, things predicated off of society (such as law, art, religion, etc.) was also predicated off of the economic system in place within that society. He did not employ pure empiricism, but coupled it with rational analysis.Historicism and Falsifiability.My opponent argues that while alternative methods of justifying knowledge may very well exist, he still maintains that falsifiability is always necessary regarding posterior or synthetic claims which he argues cannot be justified by virtue of reason alone as with the cogito. Now while I will agree that falsifiability can in fact be necessary for some types of propositions, the foundations on which Marxism is built upon i.e. philosophical materialism, economic base, etc. are all falsifiable. On top of that, the empirical trends which Marx saw throughout history are themselves not strictly non-falsifiable. While it is only a trend in itself, his observations claim very certain stages to have existed throughout history. These propositions are clearly themselves falsifiable are they not? It is certainly possible to disprove the notion that capitalism developed out of a feudalist society or that barbarism developed out of primitive communism. So, like my opponent, I suppose I have enacted my own trap card?Contention 2. Historicism and Tyranny.(1) I'll first begin that I did point out that it was not the correct implementation of Marxism that caused the various Soviet terrors of the twentieth century, but because of the premature revolutions on the part of excited revolutionaries. My opponent responds in arguing that it is precisely because Marxism was incorrectly implemented which means that it CANNOT be. I will respond to that criticism in (2) below.(2) On the Oedipus effect, my opponent argues that it was specifically Marx's works that lead to the creation of premature revolutionaries and thus, this is a flaw inherent in Marxism. The problem with this argument however, is that my opponent must totally ignore the history of revolutions in order to stand by his point. Consider the French Revolution wherein excited revolutionaries enacted the Reign of Terror and committed atrocities comparable to those of the Soviets (though obviously lessened by virtue of less technological advancements for the French to exploit). But the revolutionaries at the time were fighting for principles which we now hold to be common sense i.e. unjustness of absolute monarchy, a royal class, State religion, etc. So the mistakes of excited revolutionaries cannot simply be taken to disprove the principles which they were fighting for, but must be analyzed through the fact that humanity is prone to mistakes.(3) On the power analysis, my opponent makes the mistake of misinterpreting the power structure which Marx supported and predicted as necessary to erode capitalism. It was not the partyarchy and dictatorships which we have seen in countries which have forcefully hurried Marx's theory, but a worker's democracy that Marx supported as the makeup of a socialist State. My opponent's analysis only pertains to situations wherein a single person or a single party is given complete control over a State. It is in that situation that my opponent's power analysis would apply. A worker's democracy which Marx envisioned would have been closer to the democratic Paris Commune. Engels writes: "Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat."[1]===Sources===[1] http://www.marxists.org...(1891 Introduction by Frederick Engels "On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Commune")