Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

the point is that if you have to refer (and copy) 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
You are still avoiding comment on the various points I have been making, and seem very keen to attack me rather than the words I use. Are you unhappy that you agree that uncontrolled power is the basic problem which Marx failed to anticipate all those years ago? Or that he is at pains to compliment Marx? If your aim is to avoid commenting while others lean forward for you to lash out at, then at least i know :)
 
Passing off wiki as your own words gets you a fail at any school. Very bad form :(
i thought I had changed it, but it turns out that I didn't. I am not putting myself forward as an expert of any sort on Marx, I only know him from other areas and have yet to find a passage which is not divisive and vague in the ways Popper is clearly not.
 
I think what you meant to say was:

Yes, sorry, that's not the right thing to do. I won't do it again...

You may not realise this, but it's always painfully obvious when someone isn't using their own words.
 
Are you unhappy that you agree that uncontrolled power is the basic problem which Marx failed to anticipate all those years ago? Or that he is at pains to compliment Marx? If your aim is to avoid commenting while others lean forward for you to lash out at, then at least i know :)

sorry but i don't understand a word of that - perhaps asking you to formulate your own sentences was not a good idea
 
sorry but i don't understand a word of that - perhaps asking you to formulate your own sentences was not a good idea
Perhaps this would be clearer: the concepts Marx uses such as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and his emphasis on class struggle are an anachronism. It is not relevant anymore because it is just not accurate enough in the modern globalised world we have. When you have stopped getting an ache from patting yourself on the back that fact will remain unanswered along with the much clearer points that Popper makes (also uncommented on) about uncontrolled power and the need to work towards a more open society.
 
having admitted that you know next to nothing about Marx (and clearly haven't read anything by him) how can you so confidently assert that his analysis is not relevant anymore? You don't know what that analysis is - so how can you tell if it is relevant or not?

And using Popper (who you don't understand) to put forward your views about Marx (who you also don't understand) is convincing no one (as has been demonstrated earlier when you used a quote of Popper which contradicted the point that you had been trying to put across)
 
I know very little of Popper, but I have watched a couple of interviews with him IIRC and he espoused a view that I like which was human behaviour is almost naturally problem solving, and we are good at it, the most important question however rather than just continuing problem solving all over the place, was to spend a lot of time deciding WHICH problem was most important to solve.
 
I know very little of Popper, but I have watched a couple of interviews with him IIRC and he espoused a view that I like which was human behaviour is almost naturally problem solving, and we are good at it, the most important question however rather than just continuing problem solving all over the place, was to spend a lot of time deciding WHICH problem was most important to solve.

I thought we were already spending quite a lot of time doing just that? In fact these very boards could be considered a manifestation of just such behaviour.
 
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.

It wasn't meant to be disparaging of either Darwin or Marx... but maybe a little to those who take either too literally.

As Crispy said, both Origin and Capital are phenomenal works of reason, observation and logic. But set against a background of significant unpredictable environmental (and, in the case of Marx, technological) change they both remain pretty useless as either a method of recording history or predicting the future.
 
It wasn't meant to be disparaging of either Darwin or Marx... but maybe a little to those who take either too literally.

As Crispy said, both Origin and Capital are phenomenal works of reason, observation and logic. But set against a background of significant unpredictable environmental (and, in the case of Marx, technological) change they both remain pretty useless as either a method of recording history or predicting the future.

I don't think you've thought that one through. Origins is still the basis for evolutionary theory (alongside Mendelian genetics) and is very much useful in contemporary evolutionary biology. Likewise, Capital, whilst slightly more dated in some minor respects, still contains core theoretical and methodological ideas that are incredibly useful for the analysis of societies and economies, whether you agree with the political messages it contains or not. Class is still a useful analytical category - albeit IMO not necessarily one that should always be of primary interest.
 
Origin ... remain pretty useless as either a method of recording history or predicting the future.

You're kidding! Evolution by natural selection is one of the most powerful and enduring theories in modern science! It explains the 4 billion year history of life on Earth: Now that's history!
 
[Marx's analysis]...is not relevant anymore because it is just not accurate enough in the modern globalised world we have. .

One thing I meant to comment on previously was the irony that in these present times, more and more pro capitalist figures are actually pointing (back) to Marx as a way of beginning to understanding the mess we're in

Someone who should know a thing or two about this 'modern globalised world we have' is George Magnus who is the Chief Economist at UBS - one of the world's largest universal banks

In a research document on the current crisis which was published last month - he starts it off with a quote from Marx and comments

Chief Economist at UBS said:
Now you don’t have to be a member of the Socialist International to recognise that Marx’s words above have contemporary relevance

This isn't a one off either - the same George Magnus - Chief Economist at UBS recently wrote a letter to the Financial Times titled Capitalism is Having a Very Marxist Crisis - below are a few quotes from that letter:-

As a member of the Marx-is-relevant school
the reason for Marx’s relevance today is precisely because we are in a once-in-a-generation crisis of capitalism
Marx analysed and explained insightfully how and why capitalism would succumb to recurrent crises, and especially big ones after a credit bust. He also placed this, as his peer predecessors had, in the context of political economy, and what we’d now call feedback loops.
How regrettable then that economists and bankers substituted the delusion of the “new economy” for the rigours of political economy, and still maintain that if only government and regulation would get out the way, there would be a spontaneous revival in private spending and lending. They need to reboot intellectually, as Sir Samuel suggests, and think about how to address a very Marxist crisis of capitalism


Or how about this piece he wrote for Bloomberg - Give Karl Marx a Chance to Save the World Economy

Policy makers struggling to understand the barrage of financial panics, protests and other ills afflicting the world would do well to study the works of a long-dead economist: Karl Marx. The sooner they recognize we’re facing a once-in-a-lifetime crisis of capitalism, the better equipped they will be to manage a way out of it.
Consider, for example, Marx’s prediction of how the inherent conflict between capital and labor would manifest itself. As he wrote in “Das Kapital,” companies’ pursuit of profits and productivity would naturally lead them to need fewer and fewer workers, creating an “industrial reserve army” of the poor and unemployed: “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery.”
The process he describes is visible throughout the developed world, particularly in the U.S. Companies’ efforts to cut costs and avoid hiring have boosted U.S. corporate profits as a share of total economic output to the highest level in more than six decades, while the unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent and real wages are stagnant.


So here's an example of someone who clearly wouldn't care much for Marx's politics or the type of world he'd like to see, however, unlike yourself, he's astute enough to realise the value of Marx's work in attempting to understand this 'modern globalised world we have'

And it's not just him - how about Nouriel Roubini who was one of the few mainstream economists to actually predict the financial crisis before it hit in 2007 - he clearly owes a debt to Marx for his ability to have a better handle on what's going on around us in the here & now than most economists do. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago he says:-

"Karl Marx had it right," Roubini said in an interview with wsj.com. "At some point capitalism can self-destroy itself. That's because you can not keep on shifting income from labor to capital without not having an excess capacity and a lack of aggregate demand. We thought that markets work. They are not working. What's individually rational ... is a self-destructive process."
NYU Economics Professor Nouriel "Dr. Doom" Roubini said unless there's another round of massive fiscal stimulus or a universal debt restructuring, capitalism will continue to experience a crisis due to a systemic flaw first identified by economist Karl Marx more than a century ago.


Now both these two gentlemen are clearly not Marxists but are bright enough to acknowledge the insights that Marx's decades of research & analysis brings us

As to why i'm typing all this out fuck knows as you're as daft as a stick

 
It wasn't meant to be disparaging of either Darwin or Marx... but maybe a little to those who take either too literally.

As Crispy said, both Origin and Capital are phenomenal works of reason, observation and logic. But set against a background of significant unpredictable environmental (and, in the case of Marx, technological) change they both remain pretty useless as either a method of recording history or predicting the future.

This is just a lot of buzzwords and vague bullshit meant to make you look semi intelligent and reasonable, when infact all it does is show you have never actually read Capital, because if you had you would understand that technological development and expansion are central to it's analysis of capitalism. Furthermore the whole point of Capital and Origins is that they are about fundamental laws operating at an abstract level, they don't seek to predict or record every concrete manifestation of evolution or capitalism but rather show what is fundamental/essential across them all.

Also Capital is in many ways more accurate today than it was when it was written, which would make sense as Marx was concerned with underlying dynamics and how they would develop rather than superficially detailed analysis of secondary phenomena. Origins is only dated today in so much as it has become the fundamental cornerstone on which modern evolutionary biology rests, it can ofcourse be corrected, improved upon and even thoroughly critiqued in many aspects but it's central thesis stands and is the giant shoulders upon which modern biology sits.
 
I don't think you've thought that one through. Origins is still the basis for evolutionary theory (alongside Mendelian genetics) and is very much useful in contemporary evolutionary biology. Likewise, Capital, whilst slightly more dated in some minor respects, still contains core theoretical and methodological ideas that are incredibly useful for the analysis of societies and economies, whether you agree with the political messages it contains or not. Class is still a useful analytical category - albeit IMO not necessarily one that should always be of primary interest.

You didn't read what I said correctly. I said they were both analytical tools.... so useful when analysing relationships within prescribed situations. As you just said.

But as a method of recording history or predicting the future? Useless.
 
You're kidding! Evolution by natural selection is one of the most powerful and enduring theories in modern science! It explains the 4 billion year history of life on Earth: Now that's history!

It's one of many things that combined explains history... but on it's own it's too iterative to explain anything.

It explains the processes within the environment... but without knowledge of the environment and changes to it.
 
You didn't read what I said correctly. I said they were both analytical tools.... so useful when analysing relationships within prescribed situations. As you just said.

But as a method of recording history or predicting the future? Useless.

In that case you might wanna specify what you think are proper methods of recording history or predicting the future. Natural selection is both a method of reading/recording history and predicting the future.
 
It's one of many things that combined explains history... but on it's own it's too iterative to explain anything.

It explains the processes within the environment... but without knowledge of the environment and changes to it.

I again get the feeling you haven't thought this through, or you don't know that much about Darwinism. Natural selection is the function of the interaction between organism and environment. The concept doesn't make sense without either term - evolution is strictly speaking not to do with organisms, but with organisms-in-environments. So any and all changes to an environment are components in the equation that loosely runs d(organism) * d(environment) = natural selection. That is - the rate of change in the organism combined with the rate of change in the environment equals the distribution of natural selection on BOTH organisms and environments.
 
It's one of many things that combined explains history... but on it's own it's too iterative to explain anything..
It is precisely its iterative nature that does explain history! In the case of natural history, it is the only way to make sense of the data.
 
Furthermore the whole point of Capital and Origins is that they are about fundamental laws operating at an abstract level, they don't seek to predict or record every concrete manifestation of evolution or capitalism but rather show what is fundamental/essential across them all.

You're a dick... but at least this is correct. :)
 
But the significance of its correctness seems to be lost on you.

On the Origin of species is so correct (amazingly so given that Darwin knew nothing of Mendel), that it can be applied to every single aspect of the history of life. I know Capital less well, but there are certainly very important aspects of it that are applicable wherever there is such a thing as capital! Marx understood how capital operates. Powerfully so - precisely because he identified its fundamental dynamics.

tbh I'm at a bit of a loss to understand your point in all this.
 
It is precisely its iterative nature that does explain history! In the case of natural history, it is the only way to make sense of the data.

Yes, but history is much more than just the iterative transitions between species. For example how does evolution explain the extinction of the dinosaurs? Or the Cambrian explosion?
 
Ah. 'Evolution' doesn't explain anything. People explain things. But the extinction of the dinosaurs and the Cambrian explosion are impossible to understand without evolution. Darwin's insight is fundamental to all - and I stress ALL - understanding of the development of life.
 
The point is that it is all too easy to place too much significance on the correctness.

That's no point at all, sorry.

Darwin's insight is one of the most important insights in the history of thought.

Marx's insight is slightly less fundamental in that he was explaining a purely human phenomenon - and one that is not common to all humans. But it is nonetheless a hugely important insight into how a particular - our current particular - kind of society came into being.

You're trying to underplay the importance of such thinking. I really don't understand why.
 
Back
Top Bottom