But that seems unavoidably to be the case as far as I can see. It is interesting that neo-classical economics has been cited as an example of what positivism is, as if its scientific pretensions were proof of the objectivistic caste of contemporary theory.
But it should be said that Marx's critique of the pre-cursors of neo- classicism, what he called the vulgar economists, was not due to their excessive objectivity. To the contrary, Marx attacked them for the excessively subjective theory of prices. The cornerstone of Marx's critique of economics is the demonstration of the objective laws of development of capitalist society, and their self-destructive tendency.
I've watched this thread since I started it, and I am still looking for one influential thinker who meets the caricature of positivism promoted by the critics. All of the logical positivists seem to have anticipated the argument. The social scientists are all Weberians - you would have to go back to the Chicago school.
Istvan Meszaros recently wrote the following:
'It is by no means accidental that by far the most durable form of ideology in the age of globally articulated and technologically legitimized capitalism capital is _positivism_...'
Which seems plausible enough until you read his list of examples, which just don't hold up at all
'...from its early 19th century manifestations (Comte, Taine, neo- Kantianism etc.) to "sociologism," "pragmatism," "relativistic positivism," "instrumentalism," "juridical positivism," "logical positivism," "linguistic analysis," "structural functionalism," "structuralism," etc., and to many fashionable neopositivistic "philosophies of science."
What is lurking behind all of these scary quotation marks is the painfully obvious fact those schools of thought he mentions (insofar as they are schools of thought, and not just caricatures) would all subscribe to the critique of positivism.
So where exactly are these positivists that everyone is talking about: Name me one self-avowed positivist of any note. -- Jim heartfield