'Middle Class' it's basically just a construct isn't it...

[Kizmet]

You can't... you have to have lots of small taxes.

 

[Gmart]

Some sort of union of tradespeople?

You say union - I say cooperative...
I can hear a song coming...

 

[Santino]

You say union - I say cooperative...
I can hear a song coming...

Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer.

 

[Gmart]

Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer.

I don't know it, but if you hum it maybe I'll catch up

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's what I mean - vague and general so that no one can disagree, but short on the accuracy needed especially for the modern, globalised world we have developed.

I've not read the whole of Capital like ld, but I know enough of it to say that it is anything but vague or general. That's one of the reasons it's so long!

One of the things that gives it such a great deal of power is that his analysis was at such a fundamental level that it remains very relevant even today. The comparison with evolution that Kizmet made was intended to be disparaging, but it's a good one, I think. Darwin's work, which I have read, is equally painstaking and methodical, and it also contains at its heart a fundamental insight that remains true to this day - indeed that is far more provably true today than it was in Darwin's day. It seems to me that Marx's fundamental thesis has a similar power. That's not to say that you need to agree with everything he says. But by calling it vague and general, you expose the fact that you don't actually know what it is.

 

[love detective]

absolutely

 

[Crispy]

I've not read the whole of Capital like ld, but I know enough of it to say that it is anything but vague or general. That's one of the reasons it's so long!

One of the things that gives it such a great deal of power is that his analysis was at such a fundamental level that it remains very relevant even today. The comparison with evolution that Kizmet made was intended to be disparaging, but it's a good one, I think. Darwin's work, which I have read, is equally painstaking and methodical, and it also contains at its heart a fundamental insight that remains true to this day - indeed that is far more provably true today than it was in Darwin's day. It seems to me that Marx's fundamental thesis has a similar power. That's not to say that you need to agree with everything he says. But by calling it vague and general, you expose the fact that you don't actually know what it is.

I have read neither work in detail, but I could easily put across the central theses of both in two or three sentences. No great leaps of logic are required, just "A and B so C and D so E"

If you can't do likewise, you're either ignorant or ideologically blinded. That will come across as offensive. Sorry.

 

[Gmart]

Whatever you like about Marx it is still an example of historicism, and is thus in contrast with the principles of empiricism and rationalism.
As Popper said when comparing Marx with Hagel:

Yet it would be utterly unfair to overlook the difference between them. Althought their intellectual origin is nearly identical, there can be no doubt of the humanitarian impulse of Marxism. Moreover, in contrast to the Hegelians of the right-wing, Marx made an honest attempt to apply rational methods to the most urgent problems of social life. The value of this attempt is unimpaired by the fact that it was, as I shall try to show, largely unsuccessful. Science progresses through trial and error. Marx tried, and although he erred in his main doctrines, he did not try in vain. He opened and sharpened our eyes in many ways. A return to pre-Marxian social science is inconceivable. All modern writers are indebted to Marx, even if they do not know it. This is especially true of those who disagree with his doctrines, as I do

 

[love detective]

you don't have a clue what you're talking about do you

 

[Random]

Whatever you like about Marx it is still an example of historicism, and is thus in contrast with the principles of empiricism and rationalism.

Popper read and tried to understand Marx, and was indebted to him. You seem to be refusing to even think about considering anything said by Marx. Which seems like a closed-minded approach at best.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Whatever you like about Marx it is still an example of historicism, and is thus in contrast with the principles of empiricism and rationalism.

Could you expand on that a little?

(In your own words, preferably.)

 

[Gmart]

Popper read and tried to understand Marx, and was indebted to him. You seem to be refusing to even think about considering anything said by Marx. Which seems like a closed-minded approach at best.

He goes on to say:

Why, then, attack Marx? In spite of his merits, Marx was I believe, a false prophet. He was a prophet of the course of history, and his prophecies did not come true; but this is not my main accusation. It is much more important that he misled scores of intelligent people into believing that historical prophecy is the scientific way of approaching social problems. Marx is responsible for the devastating influcence of the historicist method of thought within the ranks of those who wish to advance the cause of the open society.

He cites an example:

In order to make my point clear, I shall briefly describe a theory which is widely help but which assumes what I consider the very opposite of the true aim of social sciences; I call it the 'conspiracy theory of society'. It is the view that an explanation of a social phenomenon consists in the discovery of the men or groups who are interested in the occurrence of this phenomenon (sometimes it is a hidden interest which has first to be revealed), and who have planned and conspired to bring it about.

This view of the aims of the social sciences arises, of course, from the mistaken theory, that, whatever happens in society - especially happenings such as war, unemployment, poverty, shortages, which people as a rule dislike - is the result of direct design by some poweful individuals and groups. This theory is widely help; it is older even than historicism (which, as shown by its primitive theistic form, is a derivative of the conspiracy theory). In its modern forms it is, like modern historicism, and a certain modern attitude towards 'natural laws', a typical result of the secularisation of a religious superstition.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What do you think about Popper's approach to the scientific method, gmart? Do you think scientists should stick strictly to the approach Popper advocated or do you think valid knowledge can come from other methods too?

 

[Gmart]

Could you expand on that a little?

(In your own words, preferably.)

It has to be empiricism and rationalism first and foremost, not conspiracy theories about vague groupings in society leading to the replacement of one authoritarian system with another.

 

[Crispy]

Not his prophecies, his analysis.

PS: Good luck applying empiricism and rationalism to the organisation of human society!

 

[Random]

He goes on to say:

He cites an example:

None of that relates to the quotes by Marx posted up by LD earlier. Your refusal to consider them, because of Popper's conclusion about Marx, is rather like me saying I'll not listen to any quotes by Darwin, as he was a liberal and I'm not.

 

[Gmart]

None of that relates to the quotes by Marx posted up by LD earlier. Your refusal to consider them, because of Popper's conclusion about Marx, is rather like me saying I'll not listen to any quotes by Darwin, as he was a liberal and I'm not.

Which part of the Popper did you disagree with?

 

[Gmart]

What do you think about Popper's approach to the scientific method, gmart? Do you think scientists should stick strictly to the approach Popper advocated or do you think valid knowledge can come from other methods too?

What other methods did you have in mind?
Scientific method is fine, it is constantly self regulating (though one could argue for the declaration of funding), it is based on observations and logic and gets more accurate as time goes on.

 

[Random]

Which part of the Popper did you disagree with?

That Marx "erred in his main doctrine". I think Marx's materialistic and class-based analysis is fundamentally sound, and offers important insights into how capital operates.

Now, play fair, and say what you disagreed with in the Marx quotes that LD posted up.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Which part of the Popper did you disagree with?

Well, is the 'conspiracy theory of society' a fair criticism of Marx's analysis of the workings of capitalism? Does his analysis hinge on conspiracy, or does the logic of capital and capitalist relations operate without any need for a central controlling mind?

 

[Gmart]

That Marx "erred in his main doctrine". I think Marx's materialistic and class-based analysis is fundamentally sound, and offers important insights into how capital operates.

Now, play fair, and say what you disagreed with in the Marx quotes that LD posted up.

Fair's fair - you decided to read five lines of mine - which five lines do you suggest?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What other methods did you have in mind?
Scientific method is fine, it is constantly self regulating (though one could argue for the declaration of funding), it is based on observations and logic and gets more accurate as time goes on.

I was trapping you a bit here. Sorry, but it is kind of relevant. You're quoting Popper but you don't appear to know much about what Popper thought. Popper had a very specific idea about proper scientific method, which you clearly don't know about. That's fine, but when you start quoting someone, normally that means you know something about them. ld is quoting Marx because he knows something about Marx. Best not to quote people you don't know too much about.

 

[Random]

Fair's fair - you decided to read five lines of mine - which five lines do you suggest?

I read the lot. Go and do the same. Or just give up and admit that you don't want to, rather than wriggling like this.

 

[Random]

I was trapping you a bit here. Sorry, but it is kind of relevant. You're quoting Popper but you don't appear to know much about what Popper thought. Popper had a very specific idea about proper scientific method, which you clearly don't know about. That's fine, but when you start quoting someone, normally that means you know something about them. ld is quoting Marx because he knows something about Marx. Best not to quote people you don't know too much about.

Popper is the preferred prohet.

 

[Gmart]

Well, is the 'conspiracy theory of society' a fair criticism of Marx's analysis of the workings of capitalism? Does his analysis hinge on conspiracy, or does the logic of capital and capitalist relations operate without any need for a central controlling mind?

It depends on simplified statements on motive certainly, but capitalistic systems do indeed work in general without a central controlling mind - everyone needs to work and so it is a matter of using what resources you have to get yourself into a position to be useful to the world around you - there are many roles which are available, each has a list of qualifications which can be worked for.

If you have no resources you can rot as far as the British system goes, but that is a problem with that system specifically rather than a problem with capitalism. The whole world works generally quite well together engaged in mutually beneficial trades. There are certainly fewer opportunities, especially for those who refuse to work hard, or who are unskilled, but money can be made, and in return there are certain key services provided!

This could turn into another round of 'what have the Romans ever done for us'
*gets deckchair*

 

[Gmart]

I read the lot. Go and do the same. Or just give up and admit that you don't want to, rather than wriggling like this.

Of course I don't want to - if you read the lot then comment on it, otherwise I will read any five lines you choose.

 

[Gmart]

I was trapping you a bit here. Sorry, but it is kind of relevant. You're quoting Popper but you don't appear to know much about what Popper thought. Popper had a very specific idea about proper scientific method, which you clearly don't know about. That's fine, but when you start quoting someone, normally that means you know something about them. ld is quoting Marx because he knows something about Marx. Best not to quote people you don't know too much about.

I admit that I don't know everything about Marx (or Popper for that matter), but every line I read of his has the problems I have stated. It is generalised, vague and divisive - it perpetuates the death grip the people are in by continuing a war which should be logically sorted out through the application of logic rather than oppression.

 

[Crispy]

capitalistic systems do indeed work in general without a central controlling mind

But you used this quote

In order to make my point clear, I shall briefly describe a theory which is widely help but which assumes what I consider the very opposite of the true aim of social sciences; I call it the 'conspiracy theory of society'. It is the view that an explanation of a social phenomenon consists in the discovery of the men or groups who are interested in the occurrence of this phenomenon (sometimes it is a hidden interest which has first to be revealed), and who have planned and conspired to bring it about.

Which says exactly the opposite, as a criticism of Marx. Marx explicitly says that there is no shadowy controlling cabal. The system functions as it does due to the way it works, not due to the overt efforts of those it benefits.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Could you be specific and give an example of one of those lines?

 

[Gmart]

But you used this quote

Which says exactly the opposite, as a criticism of Marx. Marx explicitly says that there is no shadowy controlling cabal. The system functions as it does due to the way it works, not due to the overt efforts of those it benefits.

So you consider the charge of historicism to be unwarranted because he stated that there was no conspiracy? I am not sure if most interpret him as a 'that's life' sort of guy - he certainly had a beef with perceived interests.

Conspiracies need a step of faith and so are closer to religions really - those who choose to believe, will.