Skip to main content

Prediction v/s Determinism

In the previous class we briefly touched upon the topics of the explicative and predictive powers of Marxist theory in general and materialism in particular. In reference to materialist standpoint and Artz (2006) article, I find myself struggling with the three concepts of Explanation/ Prediction and Determinism. While Lee as well as materialism clearly posits that material forces have a critical role to play in almost any conspicuous social change they also maintain that the historical circumstances do not alone determine the course various phenomena eventually take (it is here that Artz (2006) leaves the scope for individual action). The explanation offered by materialism of historical phenomenon is understandably in retrospect. Given these tenets I find myself unable to understand how and where does Marxist theory derive its predictive aspect. In connection to this, but somewhat at a tangent, I also (may be naïvely/ incorrectly) find the notions of predictability and non-determinism incompatible when extrapolated logically. I therefore struggle with this conceptual triad and would welcome insights from all to clarify the same.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into &

Echoing Malcom

Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t