You just invoked a normative distinction: true and false. Unfortunately, in this instance, it makes your claim false.
> Unless you are claiming that every action has a
>normative base even if the actor denies it, there is no need whatever
>for a normative base for the critique of capitalism. I've just about
>finished in my rereading of _Grundrisse_, and so far I haven't come
>across any claim that such & such a norm exists, nor does the reader
>have to infer such a claim. Ditto two other books I've been rereading,
>_Retreat from Class_ and WITBD.
Ok, you must be using the Party dictionary again. What does the word "normative" mean? (and why does it differ so substantially from every other known definition).
>Norms belong to religion, not political analysis.
Even Popper acknowledges that science has a normative basis.
>The only foundation that I can think of off hand is the turtle the world
>rests on, and according to one of Russell's interlocutors, it's turtles
>all the way down.
>
>Carrol
Well, Russell's interlocutor swiped that story from William James (1897). But, you know, since there is no such thing as a normative basis for social criticism, it just doesn't matter does it? I mean, anything goes because, well, anything goes.
ken