Marx’ great mistake

I think there is no better time to provide some short review of Marxisms than May, 1st.
Marx, having his work cited in many many scientific publications, was an important philosopher, no doubt about that.

Demonstration in Moscow

Downloaded from

One of hist great ideas was that history has its rules. The evolution of societies, which is reflected by historical events is the main idea of fauceir evolution, too, the society being only one of many different fauceirs. Unfortunately, he made a mistake. This is nothing to be ashamed of. Every great scientist made his or her mistakes, so why not Marx. Ironically, his mistake was part of the rules in history. Erroneously, he regarded himself as an independent observer who only describes and interprets—as we all do—but of course he was only part of the story—as we all are.

His great discovery was progress in history. Human history improved from stone ages, through slavery and feudalism to capitalism. The latter being the most progressive as it favored dramatic progress in industry, science, and human culture. But as every fauceir capitalism has its drawbacks too. Inherent imprecision, we would call that from a more abstract point of view. Among other things these drawbacks included unemployment, cyclic crises, and great differences in income, and Marx thought he had found the solution, but he terribly failed. His solution, though it seemed to improve the drawbacks, made all things worse. What he proposed was not actually social progress but regress, a step backwards to feudalism. As a matter of fact, during feudalisms there was less unemployment rather a shortage of labor, there were few economic crises rather frequent wars. There most of the time was stagnation, restriction of human rights and many many other drawbacks.

Marx’ yearning for feudalism does not come as a surprise. He published his Manifesto 1949, while in Germany the democratic revolution took place. Almost every democratic revolution had its counter-revolution. Remember Cromwell in England, Napoleon in France, and Lenin’s October revolution after the democratic revolution in February 1917 in Russia.

Marx’ idea to reinstall feudalism was a bit different from what, for instance, Napoleon reinstalled which was outright feudalism. Marx’ idea of feudalism was meant to be a better one based on democratic elections and one that cared for social problems. This made his ideas more popular, but it was feudalism anyway, and sooner or later all the disadvantages of feudalism became apparent in all socialist countries. Socialism failed as feudalism failed centuries before.

As they correctly felt the danger of going back in history, many politicians sweepingly disapproved marxism in general, again a matter of imprecise fauceir control. But not until you will appreciate its merits will you be aware of its faults.

You have to understand marxism to dismiss its mistakes.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at


A Clockwork Orange revisited

Sometimes it is difficult to resume writing after such a pause. The first think one wants to talk about is the cause of a writers block, if there is one. Well, there is a cause as far as I can understand it. I made a long journey and during this journey I was listening to an audiobook. It was the  Clockwork Orange that I found worth going deep with after this little passage on a web page on English Grammar. No, it was not disappointing. The book is well written as the comment made me guess. Yes, it was annoying. Probably I’m one of very few people on this planet who instantly understood all words in this audiobook, as in fact all the words that may sound so strange to native English speakers are in fact Russian words, easily comprehensible to someone who speaks both languages. But this was the annoying point. Why did he use Russian words? Easy enough, it is clear to everybody that the writer invented this alien jargon to characterize a group of youngsters as detached from normal social behavior. The unfamiliar language creates a distinct reality in which the degree of brutality exposed by this group of criminals becomes out-of-this-world and hence tolerable, though not acceptable.

But, why Russian? I guess the answer to this question is that this book was written by Anthony Burgess in 1962. It was the period of cold war, and Russia was the enemy. An here it occurs to me that it was an intended effect a means to subconsciously infuse hatred against Russian people who speak the same tongue. In fauceir terms it is the imprecision ingrained in every information process here employed intentionally in terms of propaganda to manipulate people. Nowadays an author would probably rather use Arabian.

All this was clear to me right from the beginning. There was something else that made me nervous that subconsciously infused something in my mind that made me depressed and silent. Now I know what it was. By contrast to native English speakers these words were not alien to me. They have a meaning that aroused feelings and these feelings were in stark contrast with what happened in the plot.

To give an example that can be apprehended by English speakers, imagine members of a gang addressing each other by words like ‘my friend’ or ‘my dear one’. Sounds strange doesn’t it. An English speaking gang would use words like pal, crony, buddy, and so on,  and in Russian, of course, such words exist, too. Droog, however, the word frequently used by gang members in that Burgess’ book,  when used among criminals has a rare sarcastic taste.

An other example, devotchka in Russian is an innocent girl and the word is synonymous with virgin. Russian criminals wouldn’t use that word to address a normal female person, if they were not sex criminals. Even among ordinary criminals this word is reserved for someone they harbor sincere feelings for. An ordinary woman is called by Russian criminals whore or bitch like supposingly everywhere in the world.

Having said that, I hope everyone can understand how I took in this book. It was detestable. It was as if these criminals not only showed an extraordinary degree of brutality, but also trampled the least bit of their own feelings, as if they were not humans at all but robots programmed only to destroy.  It was unbearable. But it was unreal, too,  as every robot has its programmer. Robots don’t brutally destroy everything on their own account. They must have a programmer.

Finally, I got over it because I understood that everything was my mere misconception, imprecision in fauceir terms so to speak.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Logical Fallacies—Assets and Impediments—the Fauceir Stance

post hoc-propter hoc fallacy

Logical fallacies are a typical example of fauceirs as they clearly embrace the dualism of information and control, and as such they are not simply good for cheating or bad for rational discussions. They have evolved and carved out a niche for themselves in communication and decision making, so a rational analysis of logical fallacies has to set off advantages and drawbacks. I’m well aware about fierce protests of those who deny any usefulness in the realm of rationality, but please allow to explain my point in further detail.

As discussed before, two aspects of fauceirs may be analysed separately:
1.the impact on the signaling cascade
2.the imprecision that is added to this signaling cascade

ad 1) The impact on the signaling cascade is that the so called logical fallacies significantly reduce and improve the signaling cascade by abridging complex evaluations.
For illustration the post-hoc-propter-hoc fallacy. As our experiences show that in many cases the sequence of events also signifies causality, for some decisions, it is enough to know the sequence and not the causality. For instance, if the administration of a new medication is followed by serious complications, we would be much more careful to administer it again even if unaware about the causality.
Next illustration the appeal-to-authority fallacy. Nobody is capable to muster all the scientific evidence, so we have to rely on experts of some sort.

Ad 2) Abridging complex evaluations might be useful in some instances, but can lead to wrong conclusions elsewhere. Examples are abundant when doctrines have been used to misguide people. Some are listed here, but we have to be aware that almost every faith is misusable that way.

Finally, someone may counter that the term logical fallacy is reserved for cheating on logical discussions only. I generally agree, but my intention was to make clear that this cheating is rooted in useful developments of our thinking. Cheating is a natural by-product of every fauceir’s imprecision.

Grant application cheating

Once upon a time, there was a rule that someone can further his or her career by inventing something important and selling it for a proper price. The income enabled to expand research and to create more income that meant more research and so on. If applied properly, this principle favored the gifted and pooled resources in the hands of those who were the most capable and could make the most of it.

This method had its drawbacks of course. In fauceir analysis, we have to discriminate two sorts of drawback

  1. the interrupted signaling cascade
  2. imprecision that in the worst case leads to cheating

ad 1) If the inventor was not a talented entrepreneur at the same time, this control loop didn’t work and the inventor did not got the necessary resources to proceed his research. The history is plenty of destinies like this one, the inventor of a sewing machine who died in absolute poverty, because he failed to properly sell his invetion.
Ad 2) Of course, cheating happened too. People who were so talented to convince customers to bye some crap for an exorbitant price, became rich without advancing science or technology.

Therefore in the middle of the last century an other principle to select gifted scientists and to focus money in their hands evolved. The grant application system. As discussed before, this system is far from perfect too. Though it diminishes the failure of the interrupted signaling cascade in one place (entrepreneurial skills are no longer necessary) it it created an other problem. A brilliant scientist is not necessarily a successful application writer. And imprecision and cheating become more evident these days. As this article demonstrates, it is no longer legitimate to assume an application contains only trustworthy information. Instead, a convoluted system interconnected criteria evolved that makes an application difficult to validate, and furthermore as these application, predominantly contain secondary criteria such as published papers and grants received before, the grant driven research is veering off practicability and usefulness. Grant industry favors research that is easy to apply for and not what is useful.

I wonder if it wouldn’t be worth returning to the former rule.

Hearing Colors, Tasting Shapes

This is kind of a post Mato made on his website. As it is no longer available I include it here for reference.

Other more recent synesthesia articles  can be found here.

People with synesthesia–whose senses blend together–are providing valuable clues to understanding the organization and functions of the human brain

By Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and Edward M. Hubbard

Scientific American

April 15, 2003

This article illustrates the lack of precision in fauceir action in neuroscience and eludes its possible role in evolution–in particular language evolution.

Cross activation is the term used to describe perceptive fauceir’s imprecision. Whether this cross activation takes place because of wrong connections build during ontogenesis or defective pruning of preexisting connections or skewed balance of chemicals traveling between regions or reduced cross talk inhibition is unimportant from the viewpoint of the fauceir theory. The fauceir theory is predominantly interested in its evolutionary implications.

An idea of a possible evolutionary implication of such a lack in precision is given by the crowding experiments in which synesthetes were able to read a number hidden by crowding only because they could associate the perceived color to the otherwise invisible figure.