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

Contention 1. Critique of Historicism.I'll first point out that I did not actually drop the argument regarding controlling macro-societal variables even though I didn't respond to it specifically. The refutation of this point lies in my point regarding analytic laws and empirical trends. My opponent claimed that we could not reproduce macro-societal factors or variables and thus that a viable macro-societal theory was not possible. But I showed in my point regarding laws and trends that laws can be grounded in observation coupled with analytic investigation of those observations. For instance, Marx's observation that society has never existed without some sort of economic system in place and that societies have existed without things like organized political structures or advanced culture lead him to deduce that economic relations formed the base on which other aspects of society (the superstructure) formed. Obviously this is a simplified version of his reasoning for space reasons but my opponent's point of macro-societal experimentation falls within this point since it shows that laws can be formed in a way separate from the way my opponent merely presupposed that they had to be.My opponent's point that Marx was contained by the viewpoint of his current culture was not sufficient to refute the point in that he did not base the concepts of exploitation only on current observations but on the inherent aspects of capitalism. Any system where workers were not paid the full product of their labor time was exploitative, irrespective of legislative impotence. My opponent's contention that the viewpoint of newly industrialized society was the only point of reference which Marx took to create his historical examination of capitalism is simply a strawmann and ignores almost the entirety of my case surrounding the methodology Marx used in his formation of historical laws.Analytic Laws and Empirical Trends.My opponent has conceded this point in favor of focusing primarily on his new point of testability which I showed to be lacking above. Also, refer to my R2 point regarding epistemic anarchism. My opponent has not shown reasonably why testability itself is the lone and necessary condition in the attainment of knowledge even though it might be a valid one. Historicism and Falsifiability.(A) In arguing against the idea of Marxist falsifiability, Serk argues that any historical claim is non-falsifiable due to the omnipresent existence of limited information. He writes specifically that: "we are bound only to the knowledge left to us. Certain people write history and not all events are written or kept on the books. We cannot go back in history and re-live events in order to falsify them. As opposed to a physics lab we cannot falsify what has already happened." But this point simply proves too much. If we cannot possibly trust historical records or documents (or any other ways in which to go back and look at history) then that in itself refutes almost all but the most basic physical knowledge. For instance, how can we know that Great Britain fought on the side of the Allies in World War I? Well obviously we need to look no further than any history book or (if we wish to be more thorough) through national records on the matter. But by my opponent's standards we cannot trust this since "certain people" had to write this down and they may be lying or mistaken. Pro here is clearly insisting on an unreasonable burden of evidence here.(B) My opponent has also yet again not properly responded to my point regarding the reasoning behind the point behind the ill effects of the various Communist revolutions. He claims that Marxists can simply use ad hoc reasons as to why this occurred. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the countries in which the various Communist revolutions occurred had economic conditions wholly anti-thetical to the conditions sufficient for a proper revolution as basic Marxist theory points out. Dialectical materialism points out that revolution occurs when the dominant economic system of the time has run its course long enough to the point where its internal contradictions and class structures become too incompatible. This means that a fully developed and advanced capitalist economy would be ripe for revolution, not a barely developed agrarian economy like that of Russia or China at the times of their revolutions. A proper understanding of Marxism would be able to predict the ill effects of revolutions in these countries. It's not ad hoc, it's sound analysis.Contention 2. Historicism and Tyranny.Pragmatism.I'm not sure where my opponent gets the idea that I conceded anything regarding pragmatism in the last round. Regarding C2, I argued that (A) I did not concede historical Communism as the proper implementation of Marxism (making this the second time my opponent has falsely claimed I conceded a point, (B) mistaken implementations do not necessarily refute underlying principles as in the case of the French Revolution, and (C) that my opponent has a mistaken view of the power structure which Marxism supports in the socialist State. So I never conceded such a thing, thus my opponent's pragmatic framework is as of yet unjustified by him. And since this is the last round he cannot justify it.Deaths.My opponent also relies heavily on the number of deaths incurred by the various "Marxist" States. I suppose I'll repeat my point which I have repeated at length, that the various Communist revolutions occurred in societies which were mostly of third world economic status. None of them actually fit the description which Marx wrote as necessary for the proper transition into a socialist State. Therefore, my opponent's point is inapplicable to actual Marxist theory and is simply based off of his pragmatism point which he falsely claimed I conceded in the last round. Power Analysis.On the Oedipus effect, I'll simply repeat my point which was unrefuted by my opponent. The fact is that my opponent is attempting to use an example of history which is wholly inapplicable to Marxist thought and is itself merely based on an assumed pragmatist debate structure which my opponent never justified. This debate is about the actual principles which Marx forwarded and whether they are true, not whether people will always adhere to Marx's thought (which Marx never even claimed). It is about whether or not the tenets of Marxism are correct i.e. economism. historical materialism, irreconcilable class conflict, etc. On C2, my opponent is trying to cast these principles into doubt by drawing on the flawed interpretation of them. As I have shown though, this does not refute the principles just as the French Revolution does not refute the principle of anti-monarchism (note that my opponents point regarding more deaths resulting from the Communist revolutions ignores technological developments and fallaciously draws upon the unjustified pragmatism value).===Conclusion===My opponent has failed to defend Popper's thesis in a number of ways. Pro has drawn upon an unjustified pragmatic framework which I never conceded and that he never justified, has attempted to totally ignore the simple fact that historical Communist revolutions are not indicative of actual Marxist predictions (and thus they are not applicable in judging Marx's principles), would eliminate historical investigation completely if his standards of evidence were adopted, and has forwarded testability as a necessary method of gaining knowledge without sufficiently disproving my own observatory-analytic method of grounding historical laws. It is for these reasons that I feel Popper's criticisms have been sufficiently refuted.I'd like to thank Serk for certainly one of the most engaging debates I've participated in in a while. A great way to learn about a concept is to actually listen to the opposition and Serk has certainly defended Marxist opposition well.