Stosfk and Morrigan argue over theories

[Stofsk]

God I hate Karl Marx and his stupid little theory. My IR teacher was charitable though. "It's ok, everyone knows Marxism is a hard theory."

Ouch.

And goddamit, I said last week I wanted to do Liberalism. The girl who was also doing a presentation today seemed to agree to do Marxism last week too. Apparently I was wrong. God I hate Marxism. I can talk about Liberalism forever and a day, but Marxism? Fuck it.

[The Morrigan]

Liberalism sucks too. I prefer Postmodernism. Particularly if I can work that quote from Umberto Ecco about how modern psychiatry would have been radically different if only Freud had worn a kilt into the discussion.

Otherwise, as far as philosophy/jurisprudence/political science etc goes, see my sig. (no, not the Babylon Zoo lyrics, the bit below it).

[Stofsk]

Liberalism sucks too. I prefer Postmodernism. Particularly if I can work that quote from Umberto Ecco about how modern psychiatry would have been radically different if only Freud had worn a kilt into the discussion.

Uh... post modernism is not a... IR theory...

Otherwise, as far as philosophy/jurisprudence/political science etc goes, see my sig. (no, not the Babylon Zoo lyrics, the bit below it).

'There is no universal truth' - what do you mean? How does that relate to IR?

[The Morrigan]

Liberalism sucks too. I prefer Postmodernism. Particularly if I can work that quote from Umberto Ecco about how modern psychiatry would have been radically different if only Freud had worn a kilt into the discussion.

Uh... post modernism is not a... IR theory...

If postmodernism is a theory of politics, then it can be a theory of international relations (I take it that's what IR stands for). A lot of postmodern theories relate to the issue of power imbalances, which I think are particularly pertinent in international relations.

Otherwise, as far as philosophy/jurisprudence/political science etc goes, see my sig. (no, not the Babylon Zoo lyrics, the bit below it).

'There is no universal truth' - what do you mean? How does that relate to IR?

There is not one 'correct' world view nor any one correct theory of politics which can be universally applied to any situation. I suppose that this statement is in itself fairly postmodern.

[Stofsk]

Liberalism sucks too. I prefer Postmodernism. Particularly if I can work that quote from Umberto Ecco about how modern psychiatry would have been radically different if only Freud had worn a kilt into the discussion.

Uh... post modernism is not a... IR theory...

If postmodernism is a theory of politics, then it can be a theory of international relations (I take it that's what IR stands for).

I don't recall postmodernism being a political theory or ideology, and I did that class last year. Or I don't recall it being a dominant or major theory/ideology.

Can you elaborate on what postmodernism means?

Otherwise, as far as philosophy/jurisprudence/political science etc goes, see my sig. (no, not the Babylon Zoo lyrics, the bit below it).

'There is no universal truth' - what do you mean? How does that relate to IR?

There is not one 'correct' world view nor any one correct theory of politics which can be universally applied to any situation. I suppose that this statement is in itself fairly postmodern.

Yes... My lecturer stated before he concentrated on the four main IR theories - Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, and Rationalism - that none of these theories explain 'everything', each has it's strengths and weaknesses (though to be blunt, rationalism is probably the best of the lot since it meets realism and liberalism in the middle). To put it another way, he said there was no 'Theory of Everything.' I tend to agree with him, though I don't think there is no universal truth (look at science, that applies to everything - of course, science is NOT IR or politics).

[The Morrigan]

I don't recall postmodernism being a political theory or ideology, and I did that class last year. Or I don't recall it being a dominant or major theory/ideology.

Can you elaborate on what postmodernism means?

This passage from the nice people at Wikipedia is about the closest I can come to a nutshell description:

In philosophy, where the term is extensively used, it applies to movements that include post-structuralism, deconstruction, multiculturalism, gender studies and literary theory, sometimes called simply "theory". It emerged beginning in the 1950s as a critique of doctrines such as positivism and emphasizes the importance of power relationships, personalization and discourse in the "construction" of truth and world views. In this context it has been used by many critical theorists to assert that postmodernism is a break with the artistic and philosophical tradition of the Enlightenment, which they characterize as a quest for an ever-grander and more universal system of aesthetics, ethics, and knowledge. They present postmodernism as a radical criticism of Western philosophy. Postmodern philosophy draws on a number of approaches to criticize Western thought, including historicism, and psychoanalytic theory.

>>LINK TO WHOLE ARTICLE<<

I studied it as a theory of law, rather than politics. However I believe it has application equally as a theory of either.

Yes... My lecturer stated before he concentrated on the four main IR theories - Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, and Rationalism - that none of these theories explain 'everything', each has it's strengths and weaknesses (though to be blunt, rationalism is probably the best of the lot since it meets realism and liberalism in the middle). To put it another way, he said there was no 'Theory of Everything.' I tend to agree with him, though I don't think there is no universal truth (look at science, that applies to everything - of course, science is NOT IR or politics).

It was my understanding that science had yet to explain everything. It may seek to explain everything, but there is a point were even scientists have to throw their hands in the air and say 'we don't know'. It is also my understanding that there is a scientific theory that states that there may be parallel universes where the laws of physics do not operate the same way as they do this one.

I tend to think of science as less of a universal truth than a quest for understanding

[Stofsk]

I tend to think of science as less of a universal truth than a quest for understanding

I don't see either one as mutually exclusive.

[The Morrigan]

If you want to compare apples with buddhism.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Spam split to testing

[Stofsk]

Liberalism sucks too.

So back on-topic, why does Liberalism suck? Why does postmodernism superscede it as a theory on International Relations?

[The Morrigan]

Liberalism sucks too.

So back on-topic, why does Liberalism suck? Why does postmodernism superscede it as a theory on International Relations?

I shall meditate on this and compose an appropriate reply when I am:
a) Not at work; and
b) Near a computer.

ie. Probably around Thrusdayish.

Unless you'd like the short answer which is: It just bloody does, ok.

[Stofsk]

Unless you'd like the short answer which is: It just bloody does, ok.

No it doesn't; Postmodernism according to the article you linked to, informs Critical Theory, which is itself a theory of Marxism. Marxism has plenty of problems. So does Liberalism by the way, but Marxism can be seen as a failed experiment in light of the collapse of Communist states all over the globe and the rise of capitalism in the form of globalisation.

[The Morrigan]

... Marxism can be seen as a failed experiment in light of the collapse of Communist states all over the globe and the rise of capitalism in the form of globalisation.

Few, if any 'communist' states can be said to follow pure Marxism. Many nations that have or have had these so-called communist regimes had failing, mostly agrarian economies prior to the rise of the communist regimes which is in itself contrary to Marx's theories. It is my understanding that even many modern communists disagree with certain aspects Marx's philosophies.

Likewise, many states which practise capitalism in some form or another incorporate aspects of socialism into their ecomomies and government. Social security anyone?

Marxism may have many flaws, however the fall of purportedly communist states and the rise of purportedly capitalist ones cannot of itself be said to indicate the 'failure' of Marxism.

[Stofsk]

Few, if any 'communist' states can be said to follow pure Marxism. Many nations that have or have had these so-called communist regimes had failing, mostly agrarian economies prior to the rise of the communist regimes which is in itself contrary to Marx's theories.

Yes it is. That is because men like Lenin and Mao wanted to take a short cut through the process that Marx said would occur. However, in spite of this, the Soviet Union was communist. It had one party, economy was centralised and collectivist, and Russia went through a quick period of modernisation in regards to it's industrialisation after the first world war.

It is my understanding that even many modern communists disagree with certain aspects Marx's philosophies.

Modern Marxists are highly critical of the Communist governments that failed in history, because if they didn't they would be called nutballs.

Likewise, many states which practise capitalism in some form or another incorporate aspects of socialism into their ecomomies and government. Social security anyone?

This actually is a failure of Marxism. Marxism projects revolution as the standard model in which history progresses. We 'revolt' when under Feudalism to go to Capitalism, we see Empire-states go the way of the dodo thanks to nationalistic revolutions. But Marxism doesn't consider that society can change in gradual steps, and thus it fails to account for how liberal capitalist societies can continue to exist. In other words, where is the revolution to socialism that Marxism promises? The answer is there isn't any and will never be one, because Capitalism has made concessions to Socialism in the form of pensions, welfare, healthcare etc.

Marxism may have many flaws, however the fall of purportedly communist states and the rise of purportedly capitalist ones cannot of itself be said to indicate the 'failure' of Marxism.

See above.