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

I will not deny anything from C1 as it was both merely a summary of Marxism and, furthermore, it was written by me.Contention 1. Critique of Historicism(A) Analytic laws vs. empirical trends This point by my opponent stems from a flawed conception of the philosophy of science. He argues that analytic laws are different from empirical trends. But it is specifically through our observation of the world empirically that we discover those laws! Consider the law of conservation of mass. The way in which it was formulated was through direct observation of the world. This, then coupled with analytic reasoning, was how it was determined to be a law. Now this is not to underscore the need for reasoning in extrapolating these kinds of conclusions, but knowledge of anything always starts with empirical observations. For instance, even mathematical laws would be unbeknown to us if not for our observations and interactions with the world around us. Numbers and functions and the like were used to represent relationships within the world itself, trends that we spotted in our observations. This means that they could not be epistemically separated from the empirical trends in which they originated. What Marx did was observe general tendencies in human societies throughout history and use that as a base on which to apply analytic reasoning to. My opponent is mistaken in thinking that it was observation alone and not at all the help of dialectics and philosophical materialism that caused Marx to form the conclusions which he did surrounding his theory of history.(B) Predicting individual actionMarxism doesn't so much as claim to be able to predict the specific actions of individuals as to claim that society generally develops in certain directions. For instance, Marxism wouldn't have anything to say on whether or not a specific worker would join a union in response to dwindling wages and bad hours. It would say however that people would generally become disgruntled with capitalism. This is simply based on a general conception of human responses to their environment. We come to enjoy certain things and detest others. Working for long periods of time with sub par pay and working conditions generally counts as something that people detest so Marx predicted a general trend that would occur. MY opponent is misinterpreting Marxism as more specific then it really is. It merely predicts trends in society and doesn't claim to predict the actions of individuals in themselves.(C) Historicism and falsifiabilityNow to the big point. Can historicism be falsified and regardless of the answer, if falsifiability either the only reliable and acceptable method of conducting science, or is it a legitimate method at all? Certainly this method of conducting science cannot just be accepted on my opponent's mere assertion can it? Now remember that all I have to do is show my opponent's case to be lacking. Building a separate and positive case in favor of Marxism is not my burden. Therefore I will employ a few different options to show why my opponent's lone falsifiability criterion is incorrect.(C)1 Alternative Epistemological MethodsPaul Feyerabend, a philosopher of science and epistemology, argues for a position known as methodological pluralism or more controversially (and seemingly appropriate for a debate on Marx after all) epistemological anarchism[1]. The theory put simply is that in the pursuit of knowledge, there has not ever been shown an exception free rule that is both reliable and yield correct results. Drawing on accounts of past scientific research as mostly predicated on scientific conditions of the time (thus being tilted in favor of the then existing scientific paradigm) and the fact that different methods of conducting science can yield equally correct results (such as experimentation or abstract analysis). Therefore instead of relying on one simple theory of knowledge, Feyeraband argues that the best way to proceed epistemically is through effective anarchy. This means that there are no official rules of science since all they do is impede possible alternative routes to knowledge. This also draws somewhat on Thomas Kunn's idea of the paradigm shift, whereby heavy standards and scientific beliefs of any given time (paradigm) are only changed (shifted) as a result of a huge amount of internal contradictions and evidence. Chances are this would not be the case to such an extent if alternative methods of conducting research and the like were accepted, depending on their results of course and whether they correspond to the truth.My opponent's idea that Marxism should be wholly rejected for not conforming to a single epistemic method which he never bothered to justify in itself (a course necessary I would say seeing as it's not exactly universally accepted) fails in that it unduly rejects alternative methods of deriving knowledge about the world.It is certainly not impossible to find unfalsifiable statements which we know to be true. For instance, Descarte's famous statement "Cogito ergo sum" is non-falsifiable in that the utterance makes it necessarily true. But this doesn't mean that we aren't justified in knowing that we exist, so falsifiability must not be the sole acceptable epistemic criterion for knowledge.(D) Trends and outcomesCorrect me if I'm wrong Pro, but it appears that you are arguing that the existence of trends within human history does not necessitate that those trends MUST have existed. Basically, my opponent's point seems to find fault with determinism itself. Marx's determinism stems from first the observation that means of sustenance is the primary need on which all other wants or desires are secondary to. We can see this point more clearly expressed in Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" in which actually staying alive is the primary motivation of human behavior[2].From this, Marx deduced that most of our behavior is predicated on the pursuit of sustenance and other means of survival. This view has come to be known by names like economism and economic determinism. Now when this is coupled with another tenet of Marxist philosophy, namely materialism, we get a rather determinist view of human nature. Not fully predictable in every way necessarily, but we can see that "since matter precedes thought, thus human behavior and thought are constrained within materialist limits" (in my own words from Pro's R2 C1). Materialism in the physical world largely predicates a mostly deterministic universe. When applied to humanity as "material" creatures and our primary motivation being objective features of production, necessary economic conditions are not too far away intellectually speaking. The rest of the gap is filled by Marx's historical findings in past societies.Contention 2. Specific Marxist CritiqueMarxist Historicism and TyrannyWhether or not Marxism has historically led to certain "bad" conditions is certainly irrelevant to its soundness as a theory. Marxism could still be correct even applying the criticism of bad consequences to it. I will argue here from the fact that the Russian revolution (and other various Communist movements) was fought in a relatively rural society. Excited revolutionaries attempted to force the revolution when it was not yet ready. Marx predicted that revolution would occur in more developed capitalist countries as the contradictions inherent in the system became more apparent. The fact that Communist countries suffered was precisely because the development of the base modes of production was not ready, as Marx predicted would be necessary. So even if my opponent is correct in his Oedipus effect theory, it does not empirically disprove the validity of actual Marxist philosophy.===Sources===[1]http://www.marxists.org...[2]http://psychclassics.yorku.ca...