[Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[Charles Brown]

Ralph Dumain 

Given the extremes of Marxology between the philosophic/humanistic on 
the one side and scientism on the other, the intent of Marx viz. 
science is not easily decidable. I would venture that Marx's analysis 
exists on several levels or in several dimensions simultaneously, and 
that it is scientific in part and part something else.

Note that Daniel Little isolates Marx's analysis of political economy 
as scientific from Marx's overall oeuvre and viewpoint.  Patrick 
Murray's book on Marx's philosophy of science should also be 
consulted.  My attention is elsewhere, so my mind is rather stale on 
this subject.

^^^
CB:  How about The Theses on Feuerbach as a sort of precis on how to proceed 
"in unity" of humanism and science. So, Marxism is both.

Below is section from _Ludwig Feuerbach_ where Engels attempts to distinguish 
yet unite natural and social science.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm

But what is true of nature, which is hereby recognized also as a historical 
process of development, is likewise true of the history of society in all its 
branches and of the totality of all sciences which occupy themselves with 
things human (and divine). Here, too, the philosophy of history, of right, of 
religion, etc., has consisted in the substitution of an interconnection 
fabricated in the mind of the philosopher for the real interconnection to be 
demonstrated in the events; has consisted in the comprehension of history as a 
whole as well as in its separate parts, as the gradual realization of ideas — 
and naturally always only the pet ideas of the philosopher himself. According 
to this, history worked unconsciously but of necessity towards a certain ideal 
goal set in advance — as, for example, in Hegel, towards the realization of his 
absolute idea — and the unalterable trend towards this absolute idea formed the 
inner interconnection in the events of history. A new mysterious providence — 
unconscious or gradually coming into consciousness — was thus put in the place 
of the real, still unknown interconnection. Here, therefore, just as in the 
realm of nature, it was necessary to do away with these fabricated, artificial 
interconnections by the discovery of the real ones — a task which ultimately 
amounts to the discovery of the general laws of motion which assert themselves 
as the ruling ones in the history of human society.

In one point, however, the history of the development of society proves to be 
essentially different from that of nature. In nature — in so far as we ignore 
man’s reaction upon nature — there are only blind, unconscious agencies acting 
upon one another, out of whose interplay the general law comes into operation. 
Nothing of all that happens — whether in the innumerable apparent accidents 
observable upon the surface, or in the ultimate results which confirm the 
regularity inherent in these accidents — happens as a consciously desired aim. 
In the history of society, on the contrary, the actors are all endowed with 
consciousness, are men acting with deliberation or passion, working towards 
definite goals; nothing happens without a conscious purpose, without an 
intended aim. But this distinction, important as it is for historical 
investigation, particularly of single epochs and events, cannot alter the fact 
that the course of history is governed by inner general laws. For here, also, 
on the whole, in spite of the consciously desired aims of all individuals, 
accident apparently reigns on the surface. That which is willed happens but 
rarely; in the majority of instances the numerous desired ends cross and 
conflict with one another, or these ends themselves are from the outset 
incapable of realization, or the means of attaining them are insufficient. thus 
the conflicts of innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the 
domain of history produce a state of affairs entirely analogous to that 
prevailing in the realm of unconscious nature. The ends of the actions are 
intended, but the results which actually follow from these actions are not 
intended; or when they do seem to correspond to the end intended, they 
ultimately have consequences quite other than those intended. Historical events 
thus appear on the whole to be likewise governed by chance. But where on the 
surface accident holds sway, there actually it is always governed by inner, 
hidden laws, and it is only a matter of discovering these laws.

Men make their own history, whatever its outcome may be, in that each person 
follows his own consciously desired end, and it is precisely the resultant of 
these many wills operating in different directions, and of their manifold 
effects upon the outer world, that constitutes history. Thus it is also a 
question of what the many individuals desire. The will is determined by passion 
or deliberation. But the levers which immediately determine passion or 
deliberation are of very different kinds

[Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[Charles Brown]

CeJ jannuzi at gmail.com 


Which overall system of thought, approach to political economy, has
better predicted the current financial crisis in the US-dominated
world economy?

CJ


CB: Marxism certainly maintains that in general capitalism cannot
escape economic crises forever, though there is no claim of ability to
predict the exact timing of crisis.




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. 
www.surfcontrol.com

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[Ralph Dumain]

Given the extremes of Marxology between the philosophic/humanistic on 
the one side and scientism on the other, the intent of Marx viz. 
science is not easily decidable. I would venture that Marx's analysis 
exists on several levels or in several dimensions simultaneously, and 
that it is scientific in part and part something else.

Note that Daniel Little isolates Marx's analysis of political economy 
as scientific from Marx's overall oeuvre and viewpoint.  Patrick 
Murray's book on Marx's philosophy of science should also be 
consulted.  My attention is elsewhere, so my mind is rather stale on 
this subject.

At 10:07 PM 9/19/2008, CeJ wrote:
>CB:>> However, "double standard" is an _ad hominem_ argument at the
>first level in the sense that even if Popper's situationalist social
>science is not science, Marxism might also not be a science for the
>reason that Popper says.
>The question is does Popper's falsibiability criterion derive from his
>situationalist social science .Also, there is or are falsibiability
>statements for Marxism meeting Popper's falsibiability criterion.<<
>
>Good points all CB.
>
>Or that Popper's critiques of Marxism and Freudians might be
>irrefutable but he was personally inconsistent in how he applied his
>methods--possibly for personal reasons (he knew who to stand on and he
>knew who to thank).
>
>Popper saw the LPs epistemology as unworkable and supposed he had come
>up with something better. I think Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend show he
>didn't.
>
>Which brings me back to that old debate of : Is Marxism a Science? And
>I would say anyone asking the question ought to first answer what do
>they mean by 'science'?
>I see Marx as one of the founders of modern social science (especially
>those that attempt to deal with 'social collectivities'), for better
>or worse (often better).
>And insights, theories, concepts, etc. AFTER Marx have been
>incorporated into social scientific pursuits, regardless of this label
>'Marxist'. And in the case of the label, we see some examples here on
>the list, such as Althusser (structuralist Marxism) and Sartre
>(whatever you want to call that work 'Critique' that we were
>discussing).
>
>CJ


___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic [Popper vs Marx]

[Ralph Dumain]

Thanks. I've added this reference to my bibliography.

Now on my web site:

Little, Daniel. The Scientific Marx. Minneapolis: University of 
Minnesota Press, 1986. See 
"Falsifiability 
and Adhocness" (pp. 177-186) in chapter 7, "Falsifiability and 
Idealism" (pp. 177-195).


At 08:52 PM 9/22/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote:


>On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:19:30 -0400 Ralph Dumain
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>writes:
> > I may have Shaw's book buried somewhere, but I'm not sure. Could you
> >
> > provide the complete bibliographic and page references?
>
>William H. Shaw, *Marx's Theory of History*
>(Stanford University Press, 1978). The discussion
>of Popper, Lakatos, falsifiability and research
>programs appears in the last chapter of the
>book, pp. 149-168.
>
> >
> > I've had The Scientific Marx sitting on my shelves for years, but I
> >
> > never looked at it. The chapter on falsifiability (on Popper, and
> > also E. P. Thompson) is worth looking at. Little views Marx as doing
> >
> > science rather than dialectical philosophy. Little advises not to
> > take a scientist's explicit methodological claims at face value, but
> >
> > look at their actual scientific practice to determine their implicit
> >
> > methodology and accompanying philosophy. Newton is a prime example
> > here.
> >
> > I don't have Miller's book, but I'm guessing I should add it to the
> >
> > section of my bibliography on Popper & Marx. I will do same with
> > Little. I'm tempted to scan the section on falsifiability.
> >
> > At 08:32 PM 9/16/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> > >
> > >On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:12:48 +0900 CeJ 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > That seems like such a weak way to attack the
> > position--personal
> > > > inconsistency.
> > > >
> > > > Is it really even a current debate? In the analytic tradition,
> > > > after
> > > > Lakatos and Feyerabend, Popper--on what is a science and how it
> > > > works--is thoroughly demolished.
> > >
> > >Some of the Analytical Marxists were interested in this issue.
> > >Richard Miller addressed it in his book, *Analyzing Marx*,
> > >Some of the other Analytical Marxists did too, like Daniel Little
> > >in his *The Scientific Marx* and William Shaw in
> > >in his *Marx's Theory of History*.
> > >Both Little and Shaw used Lakatos to answer Popper,
> > >while Miller drew upon Kuhn and Feyerabend.
> > >
> > >Remember that classical Marxism always insisted
> > >that it was a science. Marx, as we might recall,
> > >called his brand of socialism, scientific socialism.
> > >Karl Popper, among other things, attempted to
> > >explode what he saw as the scientific pretentions
> > >of Marxism. Popper's attitude is summarized
> > >here:
> >
> > ifiabi>http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiabi
>l
> > >ity.html
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In the non-philosophical 'mainstream', Marxism is usually
> > attacked
> > > > as
> > > > a form of political philosophy leading to totalitarian states
> > that
> > > > are
> > > > in conflict with 'human nature' and the 'progress of freedom'.
> > >
> > >Popper of course argued those things too, but he believed
> > >that it was Marxism's ability at convincing people that it
> > >was a genuine science that helped persuade people to
> > >go along with it.
> > >
> > > > Most
> > > > people have never followed the 'philosophy of science'
> > critiques
> > > > anyway.
> > > >
> > > > The wider discussion worth having would be about experimental
> > > > methods,
> > > > quantification and knowledge claims since the social sciences
> > have
> > > > pursued the former two and yet rely mostly on ideologically
> > > > predisposed argument and academic status and little else to
> > make
> > > > knowledge claims, none of which have any hope of generalizing.
> > > >
> > > > CJ
> > ___
> > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> > 
> Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
> > To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic [Popper vs Marx]

[Jim Farmelant]

 
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:19:30 -0400 Ralph Dumain
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I may have Shaw's book buried somewhere, but I'm not sure. Could you 
> 
> provide the complete bibliographic and page references?

William H. Shaw, *Marx's Theory of History*
(Stanford University Press, 1978).  The discussion
of Popper, Lakatos, falsifiability and research
programs appears in the last chapter of the
book, pp. 149-168.

> 
> I've had The Scientific Marx sitting on my shelves for years, but I 
> 
> never looked at it. The chapter on falsifiability (on Popper, and 
> also E. P. Thompson) is worth looking at. Little views Marx as doing 
> 
> science rather than dialectical philosophy. Little advises not to 
> take a scientist's explicit methodological claims at face value, but 
> 
> look at their actual scientific practice to determine their implicit 
> 
> methodology and accompanying philosophy. Newton is a prime example 
> here.
> 
> I don't have Miller's book, but I'm guessing I should add it to the 
> 
> section of my bibliography on Popper & Marx.  I will do same with 
> Little. I'm tempted to scan the section on falsifiability.
> 
> At 08:32 PM 9/16/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> >
> >On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:12:48 +0900 CeJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > That seems like such a weak way to attack the 
> position--personal
> > > inconsistency.
> > >
> > > Is it really even a current debate? In the analytic tradition,
> > > after
> > > Lakatos and Feyerabend, Popper--on what is a science and how it
> > > works--is thoroughly demolished.
> >
> >Some of the Analytical Marxists were interested in this issue.
> >Richard Miller addressed it in his book, *Analyzing Marx*,
> >Some of the other Analytical Marxists did too, like Daniel Little
> >in his *The Scientific Marx* and William Shaw in
> >in his *Marx's Theory of History*.
> >Both Little and Shaw used Lakatos to answer Popper,
> >while Miller drew upon Kuhn and Feyerabend.
> >
> >Remember that classical Marxism always insisted
> >that it was a science.  Marx, as we might recall,
> >called his brand of socialism, scientific socialism.
> >Karl Popper, among other things, attempted to
> >explode what he saw as the scientific pretentions
> >of Marxism.  Popper's attitude is summarized
> >here:
>
>http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiabi
l
> >ity.html
> >
> > >
> > > In the non-philosophical 'mainstream', Marxism is usually 
> attacked
> > > as
> > > a form of political philosophy leading to totalitarian states 
> that
> > > are
> > > in conflict with 'human nature' and the 'progress of freedom'.
> >
> >Popper of course argued those things too, but he believed
> >that it was Marxism's ability at convincing people that it
> >was a genuine science that helped persuade people to
> >go along with it.
> >
> > > Most
> > > people have never followed the 'philosophy of science' 
> critiques
> > > anyway.
> > >
> > > The wider discussion worth having would be about experimental
> > > methods,
> > > quantification and knowledge claims since the social sciences 
> have
> > > pursued the former two and yet rely mostly on ideologically
> > > predisposed  argument and academic status and little else to 
> make
> > > knowledge claims, none of which have any hope of generalizing.
> > >
> > > CJ
> ___
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> 
> 
 

Save on Trade Schools - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oLavvCUeEaPmZXxZ6baz5wOvk6j6U8V14ISV6NrESvBBTfL/

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic [Popper vs Marx]

[Ralph Dumain]

I may have Shaw's book buried somewhere, but I'm not sure. Could you 
provide the complete bibliographic and page references?

I've had The Scientific Marx sitting on my shelves for years, but I 
never looked at it. The chapter on falsifiability (on Popper, and 
also E. P. Thompson) is worth looking at. Little views Marx as doing 
science rather than dialectical philosophy. Little advises not to 
take a scientist's explicit methodological claims at face value, but 
look at their actual scientific practice to determine their implicit 
methodology and accompanying philosophy. Newton is a prime example here.

I don't have Miller's book, but I'm guessing I should add it to the 
section of my bibliography on Popper & Marx.  I will do same with 
Little. I'm tempted to scan the section on falsifiability.

At 08:32 PM 9/16/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote:
>
>On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:12:48 +0900 CeJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That seems like such a weak way to attack the position--personal
> > inconsistency.
> >
> > Is it really even a current debate? In the analytic tradition,
> > after
> > Lakatos and Feyerabend, Popper--on what is a science and how it
> > works--is thoroughly demolished.
>
>Some of the Analytical Marxists were interested in this issue.
>Richard Miller addressed it in his book, *Analyzing Marx*,
>Some of the other Analytical Marxists did too, like Daniel Little
>in his *The Scientific Marx* and William Shaw in
>in his *Marx's Theory of History*.
>Both Little and Shaw used Lakatos to answer Popper,
>while Miller drew upon Kuhn and Feyerabend.
>
>Remember that classical Marxism always insisted
>that it was a science.  Marx, as we might recall,
>called his brand of socialism, scientific socialism.
>Karl Popper, among other things, attempted to
>explode what he saw as the scientific pretentions
>of Marxism.  Popper's attitude is summarized
>here:
>http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiabil
>ity.html
>
> >
> > In the non-philosophical 'mainstream', Marxism is usually attacked
> > as
> > a form of political philosophy leading to totalitarian states that
> > are
> > in conflict with 'human nature' and the 'progress of freedom'.
>
>Popper of course argued those things too, but he believed
>that it was Marxism's ability at convincing people that it
>was a genuine science that helped persuade people to
>go along with it.
>
> > Most
> > people have never followed the 'philosophy of science' critiques
> > anyway.
> >
> > The wider discussion worth having would be about experimental
> > methods,
> > quantification and knowledge claims since the social sciences have
> > pursued the former two and yet rely mostly on ideologically
> > predisposed  argument and academic status and little else to make
> > knowledge claims, none of which have any hope of generalizing.
> >
> > CJ
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[CeJ]

RD:>>'Continental philosophy' is an artificial construct designed to
exclude Marxism while now selectively allowing certain figures into
the realm of philosophical consideration. <<

Well it could be used to point out a few interesting historical
trends. One, Marx developed as a German philosopher, and the French,
with their own social scientific and radical traditions, tended to
ignore the Germans, until the 20th century. Perhaps simply because the
Germans mostly wrote in German? Two, it comes about because of the
profound differences in higher education systems across Europe, the UK
and then, later, the US.

At any rate, I never saw the construct 'continental philosophy' as
excluding Marx. At university in the US, I often saw it used to
dismiss Marx as a philosopher along with many of the continentals
post-Kant (we spent much of the term on Descartes and Kant and blew
through Marx in a few minutes in a History of Philosophy class).

I soon saw the contradiction, however, of starting 'modern
anglo-analytic philosophy' with a continental who was mostly obscure
when he was doing his best work, namely Frege. And for those who held
up Frege while dismissing Brentano, Meinong, Husserl, and Heidegger as
metaphysical nonsense, they seemed to have ignored the similarities of
training--and even interests in terms of philosophical problems. I
think the biggest reason why Frege was ignored  is because he pissed
people off and alienated possible benefactors unnecessarily, much the
same way the largely obscure genius Peirce did. Or perhaps maybe he
was just one of many who was doomed to get no recognition, but Russell
discovered him.

And as for that anti-philosophy/anti-metaphysical stance, I quickly
saw it as one way in which Marxists got hoist on their own petard. And
that started with Marx himself. So mainstream economics in the US and
UK dismissed Marx as a minor 19th century economist, often over
'quantification' issues. And mainstream philosophy in the US dismissed
him as a minor Hegelian who got switched on Feuerbach and materialism.

The biggest problem with the concept 'continental philosophy'
excluding Marx though would be at least two-fold. (1) The old man's
enshrined disclaimers notwithstanding, Marxism largely develops as
philosophy (and textual exegesis, which brings to mind the continental
love of hermeneutics), (2) and much of that philosophy is continental
in geography (I'm thinking of Frankfurt School, Sartre, Althusser,
Deleuze, Guattari, Negri, etc. without much effort being required). It
just took a century for it to take real root in France. It isn't
helped much by Europeans being as ignorant of the US and UK as the
latter are of Europe.

RD >>It's not a current debate, but the effects of Popper's position
persist.  Furthermore, there are a number of Popperians. I know a
bunch of them here in Washington and via the Internet. They are either
social democrats, liberals, or libertarians.<<

Which overall system of thought, approach to political economy, has
better predicted the current financial crisis in the US-dominated
world economy?

CJ

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[CeJ]

CB:>> However, "double standard" is an _ad hominem_ argument at the
first level in the sense that even if Popper's situationalist social
science is not science, Marxism might also not be a science for the
reason that Popper says.
The question is does Popper's falsibiability criterion derive from his
situationalist social science .Also, there is or are falsibiability
statements for Marxism meeting Popper's falsibiability criterion.<<

Good points all CB.

Or that Popper's critiques of Marxism and Freudians might be
irrefutable but he was personally inconsistent in how he applied his
methods--possibly for personal reasons (he knew who to stand on and he
knew who to thank).

Popper saw the LPs epistemology as unworkable and supposed he had come
up with something better. I think Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend show he
didn't.

Which brings me back to that old debate of : Is Marxism a Science? And
I would say anyone asking the question ought to first answer what do
they mean by 'science'?
I see Marx as one of the founders of modern social science (especially
those that attempt to deal with 'social collectivities'), for better
or worse (often better).
And insights, theories, concepts, etc. AFTER Marx have been
incorporated into social scientific pursuits, regardless of this label
'Marxist'. And in the case of the label, we see some examples here on
the list, such as Althusser (structuralist Marxism) and Sartre
(whatever you want to call that work 'Critique' that we were
discussing).

CJ

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[CeJ]

>>This post makes no sense to me.

Most of the original logical positivists were leftists, but I'm not
convinced that this would explain Popper's critique of them. Popper
paradoxically rebels against empiricism and scientism while himself
perpetuating their tradition.<<


Why doesn't that surprise me? However, I will point out that I don't
think the LPs excluded normative sciences. In fact, their whole
project was an ambitious, naive normative undertaking.

And so some, including LPs, were optimistic that scientific socialism
was such an undertaking, especially if you think a socialist
government is doing a better job dealing with the great depression.

CJ

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[Jim Farmelant]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:36:56 -0400 Ralph Dumain
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for the reference, which fits into my 
> current investigation of the Positivist Dispute.
> 
> I need a reference to Richard W. Miller's critique of Popper.

Miller covers Popper and positivism in 
*Analyzing Marx: Morality,
Power and History ( Princeton University Press, 1984).
See pp. 236-240, where Miller advances an
alternative account of the falsification of
scientific theories.  Also, pp. 292-301
where he discusses confirmation and
attempts to provide an alternative account
to the one provided by both the positivists
and Popper.  Also see pp 304-313 for
his discussion of positivists and politics.

Jim F.
 
> 
> At 12:29 PM 9/13/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> 
> >Louis Proyect posted the following announcement
> >on his Marxmail list concerning the latest issue
> >of the journal Cultural Logic.  I found
> >the article by Hristos Verikukis
> >"Popper's Double Standard of Scientificity in Criticizing Marxism 
> ,"
> >to be quite interesting.  Verikukis basically convicts
> >Popper of having been inconsistent in the way
> >he defined and applied his concept of falsifiability
> >as a criterion for demarcating science from
> >non-science.  Popper, according to
> >Verikukis, was much stricter about
> >defining falsifiability when applying
> >to Marxism (which Popper claimed
> >was not falsifiable and hence, not science)
> >than he was when applying to his
> >own situationalist brand of social
> >science, where he embraced what
> >he called the Principle of Rationality,
> >which he variously described as being
> >not falsifiable, or was falsified but
> >still in some sense true.  Anyway,
> >I think that Verikukis's article
> >dovetails with the criticisms that
> >other writers like Cornell philosopher
> >Richard W. Miller have made of
> >Popper's critique of Marxism.
> >
> >http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/Verikukis.pdf
> >---
> >http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/2007.html
> >Tenth-Anniversary Issue
> >
> >(The current issue files are in pdf format. Click below to 
> download
> >the latest version of Adobe's Acrobat Reader.)
> >
> >Articles
> >(Names listed alphbetically)
> >
> >Roland Boer
> >"Socialism, Christianity, and Rosa Luxemborg"
> >
> >Philip Bounds
> >"George Orwell and the Dialogue with English Marxism"
> >
> >Paula Cerni
> >"The Age of Consumer Capitalism"
> >
> >Stephen C. Ferguson II
> >"Social Contract as Bourgeois Ideology"
> >
> >Grover Furr and Vladimir Bobrov
> >"Nicolai Bukharin's First Statement of Confession in the Lubianka"
> >
> >Catherine Gouge
> >"'Amibivalent Technologies' of American Citizenship"
> >
> >Bruno Gulli
> >"Early Plenitude: An Essay on Sovereignty and Labor"
> >
> >Katerina Kolozova
> >"The Project of Non-Marxism:
> >Arguing for 'Monstrously' Radical Concepts"
> >
> >John Maerhofer
> >"Aimé Céasare and the Crisis of Aesthetic and Political Vangardism 
> "
> >
> >Michael Mikulak
> >"Cross-pollinating Marxism and Deep Ecology:
> >Towards a Post-humanist Eco-humanism"
> >
> >Terence Patrick Murphy
> >"From Alignment to Commitment:
> >The Early Work of James Kelman"
> >
> >Ronald Paul
> >""To turn the whole world upside-down':
> >Women and Revolution in The Non-Stop Connolly Show "
> >
> >Philip Tonner
> >"Freud, Bentham: Panopticism and the Super-Ego"
> >
> >Hristos Verikukis
> >"Popper's Double Standard of Scientificity in Criticizing Marxism 
> "
> >
> >Reviews
> >
> >Ivan Cañadas
> >Christos Tsiolkas, Dead Europe
> >
> >David Hursh
> >Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine
> >and
> >Peter McLaren and Nathalia Jaramillo, Pedagogy and Praxis in the 
> Age of
> >Empire
> >
> >Howard Pflanzer
> >Robert Roth, Health Proxy
> >
> >Louis Proyect
> >Amazing Grace
> >
> >Charlie Samuya Veric, Tamara Powell, and John Streamas
> >E. San Juan, Jr., Balikbayang Mahal
> >
> >
> >Poetry
> >
> >Christopher Barnes
> >Poems
> >
> >
> >Dave Bruzina
> >"Boom" and "The Committee Dissolves"
> >
> >
> >Iftekhar Sayeed
> >Poems
> >
> >
> >George Snedeker
> >"The History Lesson" and Other Poems
> >
> >
> >Contributors
> 
> 
> ___
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
> 
> 

Meditate on the best. Find great yoga mats for less by clicking now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3n58mpyTk08WEh4Vy6E0XusjzcttMsSIzqV418Hb6A0lyRpP/

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[Charles Brown]

>>> Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/17/2008 6:36 AM >>>
Thanks for the reference, which fits into my 
current investigation of the Positivist Dispute.

I need a reference to Richard W. Miller's critique of Popper.

At 12:29 PM 9/13/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote:

>Louis Proyect posted the following announcement
>on his Marxmail list concerning the latest issue
>of the journal Cultural Logic.  I found
>the article by Hristos Verikukis
>"Popper's Double Standard of Scientificity in Criticizing Marxism ,"

CB: However, "double standard" is an _ad hominem_ argument at the first level 
in the sense that even if Popper's situationalist social science is not 
science, Marxism might also not be a science for the reason that Popper says.  

The question is does Popper's falsibiability criterion derive from his 
situationalist social science 

Also, there is or are falsibiability statements for Marxism meeting Popper's 
falsibiability criterion.



>to be quite interesting.  Verikukis basically convicts
>Popper of having been inconsistent in the way
>he defined and applied his concept of falsifiability
>as a criterion for demarcating science from
>non-science.  Popper, according to
>Verikukis, was much stricter about
>defining falsifiability when applying
>to Marxism (which Popper claimed
>was not falsifiable and hence, not science)
>than he was when applying to his
>own situationalist brand of social
>science, where he embraced what
>he called the Principle of Rationality,
>which he variously described as being
>not falsifiable, or was falsified but
>still in some sense true.  Anyway,
>I think that Verikukis's article
>dovetails with the criticisms that
>other writers like Cornell philosopher
>Richard W. Miller have made of
>Popper's critique of Marxism.
>
>http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/Verikukis.pdf 
>---
>http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/2007.html 
>Tenth-Anniversary Issue
>
>(The current issue files are in pdf format. Click below to download
>the latest version of Adobe's Acrobat Reader.)
>
>Articles
>(Names listed alphbetically)
>
>Roland Boer
>"Socialism, Christianity, and Rosa Luxemborg"
>
>Philip Bounds
>"George Orwell and the Dialogue with English Marxism"
>
>Paula Cerni
>"The Age of Consumer Capitalism"
>
>Stephen C. Ferguson II
>"Social Contract as Bourgeois Ideology"
>
>Grover Furr and Vladimir Bobrov
>"Nicolai Bukharin's First Statement of Confession in the Lubianka"
>
>Catherine Gouge
>"'Amibivalent Technologies' of American Citizenship"
>
>Bruno Gulli
>"Early Plenitude: An Essay on Sovereignty and Labor"
>
>Katerina Kolozova
>"The Project of Non-Marxism:
>Arguing for 'Monstrously' Radical Concepts"
>
>John Maerhofer
>"Aimé Céasare and the Crisis of Aesthetic and Political Vangardism "
>
>Michael Mikulak
>"Cross-pollinating Marxism and Deep Ecology:
>Towards a Post-humanist Eco-humanism"
>
>Terence Patrick Murphy
>"From Alignment to Commitment:
>The Early Work of James Kelman"
>
>Ronald Paul
>""To turn the whole world upside-down':
>Women and Revolution in The Non-Stop Connolly Show "
>
>Philip Tonner
>"Freud, Bentham: Panopticism and the Super-Ego"
>
>Hristos Verikukis
>"Popper's Double Standard of Scientificity in Criticizing Marxism "
>
>Reviews
>
>Ivan Cañadas
>Christos Tsiolkas, Dead Europe
>
>David Hursh
>Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine
>and
>Peter McLaren and Nathalia Jaramillo, Pedagogy and Praxis in the Age of
>Empire
>
>Howard Pflanzer
>Robert Roth, Health Proxy
>
>Louis Proyect
>Amazing Grace
>
>Charlie Samuya Veric, Tamara Powell, and John Streamas
>E. San Juan, Jr., Balikbayang Mahal
>
>
>Poetry
>
>Christopher Barnes
>Poems
>
>
>Dave Bruzina
>"Boom" and "The Committee Dissolves"
>
>
>Iftekhar Sayeed
>Poems
>
>
>George Snedeker
>"The History Lesson" and Other Poems
>
>
>Contributors


___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu 
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. 
www.surfcontrol.com

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[Ralph Dumain]

This post makes no sense to me.

Most of the original logical positivists were leftists, but I'm not 
convinced that this would explain Popper's critique of them. Popper 
paradoxically rebels against empiricism and scientism while himself 
perpetuating their tradition.

Popper may no longer be in vogue in philosophy of science but I doubt 
he is remembered now only for his anti-Marxist diatribes, though I 
can think of someone who places his significance in The Open Society 
and Its Enemies.

At 10:18 PM 9/16/2008, CeJ wrote:
> >>Popper of course argued those things too, but he believed
>that it was Marxism's ability at convincing people that it
>was a genuine science that helped persuade people to
>go along with it.<<
>
>Perhaps this helps explain his somewhat negative relationship with the
>contemporaneous logical positivists?
>
>At any rate, my point was this is how Popper is remembered in 'popular
>memory', if he is remembered at all. A sort of forerunning foot
>soldier (along with Hayek and Rand) for reigning Miltonfriedmanism.
>
>Camus's anti-Hegelian and anti-Marxist essay, The Rebel, at least
>still stands as great literature.
>
>CJ
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[Ralph Dumain]

The last and third last paragraphs are worth following up on; the 
rest is kinda silly.  But I will follow up on the various references.

As it happens, I've been cross-posting on Popper and Adorno on 3-4 
different listservs.  It might be overdoing it to add this 
one.  Eventually I should convert my running commentary into a web 
page. But in any case, here are some references on my web site.

I'm in the process of reading:

Adorno, Theodor W.; et al. The Positivist Dispute in German 
Sociology, translated by Glyn Adey and David Frisby. London: Heinemann, 1976.

On my web site see:

Title pages, contents, index of sources
http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/positivismusstreit/contents.html

and:

Adorno, Theodor W. "On the Logic of the Social Sciences," pp. 105-122.
http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/positivismusstreit/adorno-logic.html


and I've scanned three fourths of Adorno's introduction (pages 1-49 of 67):

http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/positivismusstreit/adorno-intro1.html

Some of the secondary literature on the Positivismusstreit is
included in my bibliography:

Vienna Circle,
Karl Popper, Frankfurt School, Marxism, McCarthyism & American
Philosophy: Selected Bibliography

. . . mostly under the section "Popper & the Frankfurt School".

See also:

Alker, Hayward R.. Jr. "Logic, Dialectics, Politics: Some Recent 
Controversies," in Dialectical Logics for the Political Sciences; 
guest editor, Hayward R. Alker, Jr. (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1982), pp. 
65-94. (Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the 
Humanities; v. 7)
http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/poznan5.html

I'm now reading:

Frisby, David. "The Popper-Adorno Controversy: the Methodological 
Dispute in German Sociology," Philosophy of the Social Sciences, vol. 
2, no. 2, June 1972, 105-119.

I need to look up:

Holub, Robert C. JURGEN HABERMAS: CRITIC IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE. New 
York: Routledge, 1991.


At 10:06 PM 9/16/2008, CeJ wrote:
> >>Remember that classical Marxism always insisted
>that it was a science.<<
>
>So did Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science. So did a lot of things
>trying to get people to follow them. So did a lot of people or fields
>trying to get people to believe that they were espousing a TRUTH.
>
>Most likely 'classical Marxism' included a lot of different opinions
>about what a science is and how Marxism was a science.
>
>I think the postmodern reality of science is something like: if a
>specified field's academics call their research 'science' and they
>successfully politic to get funding to produce lots of 'results' in
>scholarly, peer-reviewed articles, then it's a science. Special
>attention given to experiments and analysis and interpretation of
>results.
>
>Science is whatever gets money to be science. Until this or that
>particular ideological andor discoursal bubble are over and done with,
>and the academic horde move onto some other hobby horse to ride.
>
>And then there is the emergence of political economy (i.e., history +
>economics + political science) as academic fields with pretense to
>scientific status, in a rationalist sense and even in an empiricist
>sense, if not in a strictly experimental sense.
>
>The problems with Popper's high brow establishment critique of Marxism
>include: 1. Popper is subsequently shown to be doubtful about what
>sorts itself out to be science by other philosophers of science.  2.
>Even if you accept Popper's criteria, you can then apply it to show
>that establishment social sciences don't actually attain to science
>status either.
>
>Little wonder then that people who like to claim what they do is
>SCIENCE throw around the charge of PSEUDO-SCIENCE against rival
>approaches or fields that might compete with them for finite
>resources. And little wonder they don't like to apply the same
>standards (however flawed or incomplete or misleading they were in the
>first place) to their own academic pursuits.
>
>***I still think one key issue that would be fruitful to examine more
>closely is how knowledge claims emerge from experimental methods and
>research. In the case of social sciences and education, you very
>quickly see how fraught with absurdities these enterprises are. For
>example, the use of parametric statistics on 'intangible objects'
>(like quantification of 'motivation') and unstable, non-normed
>populations. Or confusion of cause-effect (or simply correlation of
>effect 1 with effect 2). Over-interpretation of epiphenomena.
>
>Then take a look at how most such knowledge claims never attain
>practical knowledge status other than the ways in which they dominate
>the discourse of grad. schools where degrees are got and careers are
>made.
>
>*** This then leads to issues like: is all knowledge that we use to
>operate in the world derived from controlled experiments written up
>and published in scholarly journals? I think if that were the case,
>the world would be mostly all that is NOT th

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[Ralph Dumain]

It's not a current debate, but the effects of Popper's position 
persist.  Furthermore, there are a number of Popperians. I know a 
bunch of them here in Washington and via the Internet. They are 
either social democrats, liberals, or libertarians. My conclusion 
from dealing with them is that, like many other liberals, they dwell 
in an ideological world of make-believe. For all of their advocacy of 
criticism, they remain remarkably uncritical about the central 
issues.  And for this reason, the mentality as well as the 
methodology involved, remain a current concern. Furthermore, 
Popperian epistemology replicates the problem of epistemology in 
general: its purely formalist approach renders it practically 
useless.  Adorno, not always clearly, addresses this problem in his 
contributions to the Positivist Dispute (Positivismusstreit).

There is some secondary literature in English on the 
Positivismusstreit, but it seems to have largely disappeared down the 
memory hole. Yet it remains pertinent to the ideologies of science today.

Furthermore, there is the current deliberation on analytical and 
continental philosophy in the Anglo-American world. 'Continental 
philosophy' is an artificial construct designed to exclude Marxism 
while now selectively allowing certain figures into the realm of 
philosophical consideration. But the Positivismusstreit already 
embodied this confrontation of two traditions when it was initiated 
47 years ago! Popper and the Frankfurt School embodied the most 
illustrious currents of both camps. Analysis of what was at stake in 
that debate is far more interesting to me than all the BS wasted on 
coming to terms with 'continental philosophy' from the standpoint of 
the analytic perspective, and conversely, attempts of the latter to 
colonize the former.


At 07:12 PM 9/16/2008, CeJ wrote:
>That seems like such a weak way to attack the position--personal 
>inconsistency.
>
>Is it really even a current debate? In the analytic tradition, after
>Lakatos and Feyerabend, Popper--on what is a science and how it
>works--is thoroughly demolished.
>
>In the non-philosophical 'mainstream', Marxism is usually attacked as
>a form of political philosophy leading to totalitarian states that are
>in conflict with 'human nature' and the 'progress of freedom'.  Most
>people have never followed the 'philosophy of science' critiques
>anyway.
>
>The wider discussion worth having would be about experimental methods,
>quantification and knowledge claims since the social sciences have
>pursued the former two and yet rely mostly on ideologically
>predisposed  argument and academic status and little else to make
>knowledge claims, none of which have any hope of generalizing.
>
>CJ
>
>___
>Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
>Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
>To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
>http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[Ralph Dumain]

Thanks for the reference, which fits into my 
current investigation of the Positivist Dispute.

I need a reference to Richard W. Miller's critique of Popper.

At 12:29 PM 9/13/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote:

>Louis Proyect posted the following announcement
>on his Marxmail list concerning the latest issue
>of the journal Cultural Logic.  I found
>the article by Hristos Verikukis
>"Popper's Double Standard of Scientificity in Criticizing Marxism ,"
>to be quite interesting.  Verikukis basically convicts
>Popper of having been inconsistent in the way
>he defined and applied his concept of falsifiability
>as a criterion for demarcating science from
>non-science.  Popper, according to
>Verikukis, was much stricter about
>defining falsifiability when applying
>to Marxism (which Popper claimed
>was not falsifiable and hence, not science)
>than he was when applying to his
>own situationalist brand of social
>science, where he embraced what
>he called the Principle of Rationality,
>which he variously described as being
>not falsifiable, or was falsified but
>still in some sense true.  Anyway,
>I think that Verikukis's article
>dovetails with the criticisms that
>other writers like Cornell philosopher
>Richard W. Miller have made of
>Popper's critique of Marxism.
>
>http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/Verikukis.pdf
>---
>http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/2007.html
>Tenth-Anniversary Issue
>
>(The current issue files are in pdf format. Click below to download
>the latest version of Adobe's Acrobat Reader.)
>
>Articles
>(Names listed alphbetically)
>
>Roland Boer
>"Socialism, Christianity, and Rosa Luxemborg"
>
>Philip Bounds
>"George Orwell and the Dialogue with English Marxism"
>
>Paula Cerni
>"The Age of Consumer Capitalism"
>
>Stephen C. Ferguson II
>"Social Contract as Bourgeois Ideology"
>
>Grover Furr and Vladimir Bobrov
>"Nicolai Bukharin's First Statement of Confession in the Lubianka"
>
>Catherine Gouge
>"'Amibivalent Technologies' of American Citizenship"
>
>Bruno Gulli
>"Early Plenitude: An Essay on Sovereignty and Labor"
>
>Katerina Kolozova
>"The Project of Non-Marxism:
>Arguing for 'Monstrously' Radical Concepts"
>
>John Maerhofer
>"Aimé Céasare and the Crisis of Aesthetic and Political Vangardism "
>
>Michael Mikulak
>"Cross-pollinating Marxism and Deep Ecology:
>Towards a Post-humanist Eco-humanism"
>
>Terence Patrick Murphy
>"From Alignment to Commitment:
>The Early Work of James Kelman"
>
>Ronald Paul
>""To turn the whole world upside-down':
>Women and Revolution in The Non-Stop Connolly Show "
>
>Philip Tonner
>"Freud, Bentham: Panopticism and the Super-Ego"
>
>Hristos Verikukis
>"Popper's Double Standard of Scientificity in Criticizing Marxism "
>
>Reviews
>
>Ivan Cañadas
>Christos Tsiolkas, Dead Europe
>
>David Hursh
>Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine
>and
>Peter McLaren and Nathalia Jaramillo, Pedagogy and Praxis in the Age of
>Empire
>
>Howard Pflanzer
>Robert Roth, Health Proxy
>
>Louis Proyect
>Amazing Grace
>
>Charlie Samuya Veric, Tamara Powell, and John Streamas
>E. San Juan, Jr., Balikbayang Mahal
>
>
>Poetry
>
>Christopher Barnes
>Poems
>
>
>Dave Bruzina
>"Boom" and "The Committee Dissolves"
>
>
>Iftekhar Sayeed
>Poems
>
>
>George Snedeker
>"The History Lesson" and Other Poems
>
>
>Contributors


___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[CeJ]

>>Popper of course argued those things too, but he believed
that it was Marxism's ability at convincing people that it
was a genuine science that helped persuade people to
go along with it.<<

Perhaps this helps explain his somewhat negative relationship with the
contemporaneous logical positivists?

At any rate, my point was this is how Popper is remembered in 'popular
memory', if he is remembered at all. A sort of forerunning foot
soldier (along with Hayek and Rand) for reigning Miltonfriedmanism.

Camus's anti-Hegelian and anti-Marxist essay, The Rebel, at least
still stands as great literature.

CJ

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[CeJ]

>>Remember that classical Marxism always insisted
that it was a science.<<

So did Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science. So did a lot of things
trying to get people to follow them. So did a lot of people or fields
trying to get people to believe that they were espousing a TRUTH.

Most likely 'classical Marxism' included a lot of different opinions
about what a science is and how Marxism was a science.

I think the postmodern reality of science is something like: if a
specified field's academics call their research 'science' and they
successfully politic to get funding to produce lots of 'results' in
scholarly, peer-reviewed articles, then it's a science. Special
attention given to experiments and analysis and interpretation of
results.

Science is whatever gets money to be science. Until this or that
particular ideological andor discoursal bubble are over and done with,
and the academic horde move onto some other hobby horse to ride.

And then there is the emergence of political economy (i.e., history +
economics + political science) as academic fields with pretense to
scientific status, in a rationalist sense and even in an empiricist
sense, if not in a strictly experimental sense.

The problems with Popper's high brow establishment critique of Marxism
include: 1. Popper is subsequently shown to be doubtful about what
sorts itself out to be science by other philosophers of science.  2.
Even if you accept Popper's criteria, you can then apply it to show
that establishment social sciences don't actually attain to science
status either.

Little wonder then that people who like to claim what they do is
SCIENCE throw around the charge of PSEUDO-SCIENCE against rival
approaches or fields that might compete with them for finite
resources. And little wonder they don't like to apply the same
standards (however flawed or incomplete or misleading they were in the
first place) to their own academic pursuits.

I still think one key issue that would be fruitful to examine more
closely is how knowledge claims emerge from experimental methods and
research. In the case of social sciences and education, you very
quickly see how fraught with absurdities these enterprises are. For
example, the use of parametric statistics on 'intangible objects'
(like quantification of 'motivation') and unstable, non-normed
populations. Or confusion of cause-effect (or simply correlation of
effect 1 with effect 2). Over-interpretation of epiphenomena.

Then take a look at how most such knowledge claims never attain
practical knowledge status other than the ways in which they dominate
the discourse of grad. schools where degrees are got and careers are
made.

 This then leads to issues like: is all knowledge that we use to
operate in the world derived from controlled experiments written up
and published in scholarly journals? I think if that were the case,
the world would be mostly all that is NOT the case.

CJ

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[Jim Farmelant]

 
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:12:48 +0900 CeJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That seems like such a weak way to attack the position--personal 
> inconsistency.
> 
> Is it really even a current debate? In the analytic tradition, 
> after
> Lakatos and Feyerabend, Popper--on what is a science and how it
> works--is thoroughly demolished.

Some of the Analytical Marxists were interested in this issue.
Richard Miller addressed it in his book, *Analyzing Marx*,
Some of the other Analytical Marxists did too, like Daniel Little
in his *The Scientific Marx* and William Shaw in 
in his *Marx's Theory of History*.
Both Little and Shaw used Lakatos to answer Popper,
while Miller drew upon Kuhn and Feyerabend.

Remember that classical Marxism always insisted
that it was a science.  Marx, as we might recall,
called his brand of socialism, scientific socialism.
Karl Popper, among other things, attempted to
explode what he saw as the scientific pretentions
of Marxism.  Popper's attitude is summarized
here:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiabil
ity.html

> 
> In the non-philosophical 'mainstream', Marxism is usually attacked 
> as
> a form of political philosophy leading to totalitarian states that 
> are
> in conflict with 'human nature' and the 'progress of freedom'.  

Popper of course argued those things too, but he believed
that it was Marxism's ability at convincing people that it
was a genuine science that helped persuade people to
go along with it.

> Most
> people have never followed the 'philosophy of science' critiques
> anyway.
> 
> The wider discussion worth having would be about experimental 
> methods,
> quantification and knowledge claims since the social sciences have
> pursued the former two and yet rely mostly on ideologically
> predisposed  argument and academic status and little else to make
> knowledge claims, none of which have any hope of generalizing.
> 
> CJ
> 

Give back to your community.  Click here to start a new career as a Police 
officer.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mAL8MjxxY5xwKBHqUDoxgpiALmiIkSwcipkJ7CxAMY0djGp/

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[CeJ]

That seems like such a weak way to attack the position--personal inconsistency.

Is it really even a current debate? In the analytic tradition, after
Lakatos and Feyerabend, Popper--on what is a science and how it
works--is thoroughly demolished.

In the non-philosophical 'mainstream', Marxism is usually attacked as
a form of political philosophy leading to totalitarian states that are
in conflict with 'human nature' and the 'progress of freedom'.  Most
people have never followed the 'philosophy of science' critiques
anyway.

The wider discussion worth having would be about experimental methods,
quantification and knowledge claims since the social sciences have
pursued the former two and yet rely mostly on ideologically
predisposed  argument and academic status and little else to make
knowledge claims, none of which have any hope of generalizing.

CJ

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

[Marxism-Thaxis] Cultural Logic

[Jim Farmelant]

Louis Proyect posted the following announcement
on his Marxmail list concerning the latest issue
of the journal Cultural Logic.  I found
the article by Hristos Verikukis
"Popper's Double Standard of Scientificity in Criticizing Marxism ,"
to be quite interesting.  Verikukis basically convicts
Popper of having been inconsistent in the way
he defined and applied his concept of falsifiability
as a criterion for demarcating science from
non-science.  Popper, according to
Verikukis, was much stricter about
defining falsifiability when applying
to Marxism (which Popper claimed
was not falsifiable and hence, not science)
than he was when applying to his
own situationalist brand of social
science, where he embraced what
he called the Principle of Rationality,
which he variously described as being
not falsifiable, or was falsified but
still in some sense true.  Anyway,
I think that Verikukis's article
dovetails with the criticisms that
other writers like Cornell philosopher
Richard W. Miller have made of
Popper's critique of Marxism.

http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/Verikukis.pdf
---
http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/2007.html
Tenth-Anniversary Issue

(The current issue files are in pdf format. Click below to download 
the latest version of Adobe's Acrobat Reader.)

Articles
(Names listed alphbetically)

Roland Boer
"Socialism, Christianity, and Rosa Luxemborg"

Philip Bounds
"George Orwell and the Dialogue with English Marxism"

Paula Cerni
"The Age of Consumer Capitalism"

Stephen C. Ferguson II
"Social Contract as Bourgeois Ideology"

Grover Furr and Vladimir Bobrov
"Nicolai Bukharin's First Statement of Confession in the Lubianka"

Catherine Gouge
"'Amibivalent Technologies' of American Citizenship"

Bruno Gulli
"Early Plenitude: An Essay on Sovereignty and Labor"

Katerina Kolozova
"The Project of Non-Marxism:
Arguing for 'Monstrously' Radical Concepts"

John Maerhofer
"Aimé Céasare and the Crisis of Aesthetic and Political Vangardism "

Michael Mikulak
"Cross-pollinating Marxism and Deep Ecology:
Towards a Post-humanist Eco-humanism"

Terence Patrick Murphy
"From Alignment to Commitment:
The Early Work of James Kelman"

Ronald Paul
""To turn the whole world upside-down':
Women and Revolution in The Non-Stop Connolly Show "

Philip Tonner
"Freud, Bentham: Panopticism and the Super-Ego"

Hristos Verikukis
"Popper's Double Standard of Scientificity in Criticizing Marxism "

Reviews

Ivan Cañadas
Christos Tsiolkas, Dead Europe

David Hursh
Naomi Klein: The Shock Doctrine
and
Peter McLaren and Nathalia Jaramillo, Pedagogy and Praxis in the Age of
Empire

Howard Pflanzer
Robert Roth, Health Proxy

Louis Proyect
Amazing Grace

Charlie Samuya Veric, Tamara Powell, and John Streamas
E. San Juan, Jr., Balikbayang Mahal


Poetry

Christopher Barnes
Poems


Dave Bruzina
"Boom" and "The Committee Dissolves"


Iftekhar Sayeed
Poems


George Snedeker
"The History Lesson" and Other Poems


Contributors

Click to book your dream cruise.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nL6YUeBPZAIuI1yXxoKuJ5StDtktH1OsawsJnwwmbvS1doF/

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis