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

[frogwoman]

Well, is the 'conspiracy theory of society' a fair criticism of Marx's analysis of the workings of capitalism?

absolutely not.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What is the charge of historicism? What does that mean?

 

[Random]

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.

"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'll let the two of you fight this one out amongst yourselves.

 

[Random]

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.

You're a grinning loon

 

[Crispy]

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.

No social science (arguably, any science) can escape historicism. Everything we do, and how we understand it is coloured by our experience and shared culture. All I was doing was pointing out that you'd used a supporting quote that was in opposition to your later statement.

 

[Crispy]

What is the charge of historicism? What does that mean?

AFAICT, it's that Marx had a narrow view of Western C19th capitalism, and he cannot therefore be used to analyse the modern world.

 

[Random]

AFAICT, it's that Marx had a narrow view of Western C19th capitalism, and he cannot therefore be used to analyse the modern world.

No, in the contect of Karl Popper, it means that Marx was a determinist, and that he was trying to predict the future based on history, etc.

 

[Crispy]

Oh, well in which case, ignore his predictions and instead concentrat on the analysis (which is all we were ever talking about anyway)

 

[Gmart]

Oh, well in which case, ignore his predictions and instead concentrat on the analysis (which is all we were ever talking about anyway)

I thought this thread was about class and whether it is a useful device to explain the world around us?

Marx often takes over such threads, and he is right to concentrate on the analysis of material conditions, taking the starting point as the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. But then he goes into class struggle, which is as I say vague and divisive, when we should be working towards cooperation and rationality.

 

[Random]

I thought this thread was about class and whether it is a useful device to explain the world around us?

Marx often takes over such threads, and he is right to concentrate on the analysis of material conditions, taking the starting point as the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. But then he goes into class struggle, which is as I say vague and divisive, when we should be working towards cooperation and rationality.

What do you disagree with in this?

Nature does not produce on the one side owners of money or commodities, and on the other men possessing nothing but their own labour-power. This relation has no natural basis, neither is its social basis one that is common to all historical periods. It is clearly the result of a past historical development, the product of many economic revolutions, of the extinction of a whole series of older forms of social production

 

[Random]

You can't talk about class without talking about class struggle. Does talking about conflict give you a nose bleed or something? So far you've reacted against any mention of Marx like a vampire faced with a crucifix.

 

[Gmart]

What do you disagree with in this?

What does 'natural basis' even mean? Unaffected by human will?
So we are a result of history? Really?
Some have assets, some don't? Really? Sounds unfair to me!!
It is just a blatant call to arms against a vague grouping on society.
Some have assets, and those who don't have to live on their wits and try and get enskilled as much as possible hopefully to get assets later otherwise they will be sucked into the dismal part of the unskilled labour force.

Marx wrote correctly about the perils of unbridled capitalism he saw in his own time, but as Popper says:

The dogma that economic power is at the root of all evil must be discarded. Its place must be taken by an understanding of the dangers of any form of uncontrolled power. Money as such is not particularly dangerous. It becomes dangerous only if it can buy power, either directly, or by enslaving the economically weak who must sell themselves in order to live.

We must think in these matters in even more materialist terms, as it were, than Marx did. We must realize that the control of physical power and of physical exploitation remains the central political problem. In order to establish this control, we must establish 'merely formal freedom'. Once we have achieved this, and have learned how to use it for the control of political power, everything rests with us. We must not blame anybody else any longer, nor cry out against the sinister economic demons behind the scemes. For in a democracy, we hold the keys to the control of the demons. We can tame them. We must realize this and use the keys; we must construct institutions for the democratic control of economic power, and for our protection from economic exploitation.

 

[Random]

"The dogma that economic power is at the root of all evil must be discarded. Its place must be taken by an understanding of the dangers of any form of uncontrolled power...We must realize that the control of physical power and of physical exploitation remains the central political problem." How is this not also a "blatant call to arms against a vague grouping on society"?

 

[Random]

Look Gmart, look how I relate directly to you quotes, rather than just whining and putting my fingers in my ears. Not that hard, really, is it?

 

[Gmart]

"The dogma that economic power is at the root of all evil must be discarded. Its place must be taken by an understanding of the dangers of any form of uncontrolled power...We must realize that the control of physical power and of physical exploitation remains the central political problem." How is this not also a "blatant call to arms against a vague grouping on society"?

'Being against uncontrolled power of any form' is not a 'vague' grouping in the same way as the proletariat or bourgeoisie, it is a statement of principle; and you managed to both not comment on the text and then complain about how I don't comment on yours, impressive

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Hmm, well what do you think about this phrase, gmart?

Money as such is not particularly dangerous. It becomes dangerous only if it can buy power, either directly, or by enslaving the economically weak who must sell themselves in order to live.

Do you think Popper is right? My question would be this: when and where in history has money not been able to buy power? If money has always been able to buy power, how do you construct a new society in which it no longer can?

 

[Random]

'Being against uncontrolled power of any form' is not a 'vague' grouping in the same way as the proletariat or bourgeoisie, it is a statement of principle; and you managed to both not comment on the text and then complain about how I don't comment on yours, impressive

Tell me how I managed to quote the text, comment on it and yet not comment on it?

 

[love detective]

Marx often takes over such threads, and he is right to concentrate on the analysis of material conditions, taking the starting point as the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. But then he goes into class struggle, which is as I say vague and divisive, when we should be working towards cooperation and rationality.

why are all of your posts made up of unattributed copy & pastes from the first lines of the wikipedia article on the topic you are trying to talk about?

As i said in my first response to this nonsense - you don't have a clue what you are talking about

And your attempts to set up empiricism & rationalism as mutually exclusive opposites of historicism is laughable - if you pick up a copy of Capital you will find it stuffed full of an ingenious synthesis of empirical & rational analysis (and one that is far superior to the kind of crude/vulgar pre-kantian clinging on to one or the other)

Also amusing you blame Marx for the divisive nature of class struggle - pure shooting the messenger type stuff there. Capitalism engenders modern class struggle, class struggle is at the heart of capitalism and it's main motor. Capitalism is predicated upon a divisive system, one that replaces the more natural tendency of humans to cooperate with an unnatural tendency to compete - in short it's a completely irrational and wasteful system. Marx's idea scenario would be one in which the divisiveness, competition and irrationality that you talk of above are replaced by unity, cooperation and a more rational way of organising our society. You and Marx seem to be on the same page with regards to ideals.

 

[Random]

'Being against uncontrolled power of any form' is not a 'vague' grouping in the same way as the proletariat or bourgeoisie, it is a statement of principle

It's far more vague than the closely argued and explained concept of proletarian and bourgeois that Marx uses.

you've got no clue, everyone can see this. Not expecting you to admit it, though, people in the Internet rarely do so.

 

[Gmart]

Tell me how I managed to quote the text, comment on it and yet not comment on it?

I await your more considered comment with anticipation - until then we just have your complaint that Popper is also using a vague grouping, whereas I would say that he is stating a principle, one you seem unable to comment on.

why are all of your posts made up of unattributed copy & pastes from the first lines of the wikipedia article on the topic you are trying to talk about?

So suggesting that we start with the material needs of society (something Marx indubitably did) is now also somehow under copyright control?

And your attempts to set up empiricism & rationalism as mutually exclusive opposites of historicism is laughable - if you pick up a copy of Capital you will find it stuffed full of an ingenious synthesis of empirical & rational analysis (and one that is far superior to the kind of crude/vulgar pre-kantian clinging on to one or the other)

No doubt, as Popper points out, his analysis was well needed in his time frame.

Also amusing you blame Marx for the divisive nature of class struggle - pure shooting the messenger type stuff there. Capitalism engenders modern class struggle, class struggle is at the heart of capitalism and it's main motor. Capitalism is predicated upon a divisive system, one that replaces the more natural tendency of humans to cooperate with an unnatural tendency to compete - in short it's a completely irrational and wasteful system. Marx's idea scenario would be one in which the divisiveness, competition and irrationality that you talk of above are replaced by unity, cooperation and a more rational way of organising our society. You and Marx seem to be on the same page with regards to ideals.

Capitalism is not divisive, or else it would not have spread so far - it is the UK system which is divisive.

Ironically you seem to be missing the quotes from Popper where he salutes Marx for the exact reasons you give.

However in the modern world we need a broader call against any system with uncontrolled power rather than engaging in simplistic divisions such as class. Cooperation has to be the key rather than division which is sadly where Marx goes. Logic and efficient systems are now needed, not freedom only for those in power - that way the status quo continues.

 

[Gmart]

It's far more vague than the closely argued and explained concept of proletarian and bourgeois that Marx uses.

you've got no clue, everyone can see this. Not expecting you to admit it, though, people in the Internet rarely do so.

The concepts of proletariat and bourgeoisie are divisive - that's just obvious - we need to get away from such simplistic divisions - the modern world is just too complicated now. I'm not expecting you to notice that you are wrong, people on the internet rarely do, as you say. They sort of persuade themselves, even against evidence, and refuse to even read or think about anything different.

No offence, I'm sure we can agree to disagree, with mutual respect?

 

[Gmart]

Hmm, well what do you think about this phrase, gmart?

Do you think Popper is right? My question would be this: when and where in history has money not been able to buy power? If money has always been able to buy power, how do you construct a new society in which it no longer can?

You cannot! By doing so you would be imposing an authoritarian system to replace the one you are looking to replace. there will always be those with money and those without - we just need to work out a better system based on logic rather than stories about oppression and how unfair life is.
I think he is right to call for a system which incorporates checks on such abuses of power - as have been necessary everywhere else in the world. That's not to say that the politicians won't try to avoid their duties, that is another issue.

We need to be guided by rationalism, not simplistic terms such a prolatariat etc. These meant more in Marx's time but not in the modern world. It is just too different and divided.

 

[love detective]

So suggesting that we start with the material needs of society (something Marx indubitably did) is now also somehow under copyright control?

the point, as you well know, was that you lift sentences from the introduction of the wikipedia article of the chosen topic and present it as though it was your own formulation

i.e.

...analysis of material conditions, taking the starting point as the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs

....analysis of material conditions, taking at its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs

As I and others have said, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, your grasping around to try and make yourself look like you know what your talking about. Not that there's anything wrong with no knowing about any of this stuff, but to pretend that you do when you don't just makes you look even thicker than you are - got no interest in continuing this discussion with you given that you're full of shit

 

[Random]

I'm not expecting you to notice that you are wrong, people on the internet rarely do, as you say. They sort of persuade themselves, even against evidence, and refuse to even read or think about anything different.

It's fairly obvious that you're refusing to actually read or think about Marx's ideas. Obvious enough even for you to notice?

 

[Random]

We need to be guided by rationalism, not simplistic terms such a prolatariat etc. These meant more in Marx's time but not in the modern world. It is just too different and divided.

It's odd that you keep on saying that these terms are 'simplistic', yet it's clear that it's rather your (mis)understanding of the terms that makes them simplistic to you. The fact is, is that you're advocating rationalism and empiricism and then refusing to argue above the level of 'good/bad' 'I don't like that it smells bad/it's divisive'

 

[Random]

the point, as you well know, was that you lift sentences from the first line of the wikipedia article of the chosen topic and present it as though it was your own formulation

Ouch

 

[Gmart]

the point, as you well know, was that you lift sentences from the first line of the wikipedia article of the chosen topic and present it as though it was your own formulation

i.e.

As I and others have said, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, your grasping around to try and make yourself look like you know what your talking about. Not that there's anything wrong with no knowing about any of this stuff, but to pretend that you do when you don't just makes you look even thicker than you are - got no interest in continuing this discussion with you given that you're full of shit

It wouldn't have any effect on my arguments if I lifted them directly from Wiki, the bible or anywhere else - you can use that fallacy to leave without commenting if you wish - I am sorry if you feel that my method of presenting arguments is more important than the arguments themselves being made about uncontrolled power in the modern society. Everyone is entitled to their priorities. I did use wiki as a reference to remind myself of the basics of Marx but I feel no remorse at the words I typed because I believe them still.

 

[Gmart]

It's odd that you keep on saying that these terms are 'simplistic', yet it's clear that it's rather your (mis)understanding of the terms that makes them simplistic to you. The fact is, is that you're advocating rationalism and empiricism and then refusing to argue above the level of 'good/bad' 'I don't like that it smells bad/it's divisive'

I think I am clearly stating, with examples, the simplistic terms that Marx used to frame his argument. It is up to you whether you engage or not.

 

[love detective]

It wouldn't have any effect on my arguments if I lifted them directly from Wiki, the bible or anywhere else - you can use that fallacy to leave without commenting if you wish - I am sorry if you feel that my method of presenting arguments is more important than the arguments themselves being made about uncontrolled power in the modern society. Everyone is entitled to their priorities. I did use wiki as a reference to remind myself of the basics of Marx but I feel no remorse at the words I typed because I believe them still.

the point is that if you have to refer (and copy & paste) the introduction of a wikipedia article on a topic it demonstrates that you have no actual knowledge of the topic of which you try to make yourself out as a critical authority on, and therefore not someone who its worth spending any time discussing with - given your dishonest portrayal of your own knowledge on the topic

 

[Crispy]

Passing off wiki as your own words gets you a fail at any school. Very bad form