Marxism is a science

Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com
Mon Dec 31 11:44:52 PST 2001


Popper BTW in discussing Marxism and falsifiability, did not claim that Marx himself was unscientific as such. Popper in fact asserted that Marx unlike Freud did formulate hypotheses that were testable and falsifiable. What he claimed was that Marx's disciples, after Marx's death when confronted with the falsification of some of Marx's predictions, then formulated ad hoc hypotheses which saved Marx's theories at the expense of rendering the resulting corpus unfalsifiable. Popper was IMO wrong about this, but I also think that people here have mischaracterized somewhat his position concerning Marxism and falsification.

(See Bill Gorton's paper "Popper's Debt to Marx" at www.polisci.umn.edu/information/theory/kiosk/spring2001/Popper.pdf).

I would add, that some of the Analytic Marxists have attempted to deal with this issue on Popper's own terms. Dan Little in his book *The Scientific Marx* argued that historical materialism was best thought of not as an articulated scientific theory as such but more as a research program in Lakatos' sense. And I believe that William Shaw in his *Marx's Theory of History* took a somewhat similar view.

Jim F.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 18:45:07 +0000 James Heartfield <Jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> A friend of mine studied Popper in his philosophy degree and, fed up
> at
> not understanding him, got his number from international enquiries
> and
> rung him up to ask about it. (It was a while ago, he died, I think,
> a
> few years ago)
>
> 'Do they still read my book in England' said the little reedy voice
> on
> the other end, incredulous.
>
> Anyway, sad to say, Popper is not to be taken too seriously. His
> arguments are pretty standard cold war fare designed to give an a
> priori
> rejection of the Marxism that Popper held in his youth (see the
> autobio
> Unending Quest).
>
> The 'is it falsifiable?' test is pretty trivial, but as it happens,
> Marx's own theory, as he intended it, meets the test. He never held
> that
> he necessarily had *the* answer, nor that his investigations could
> not
> be improved upon or overthrown. Most definitely he did not think
> that he
> had the answer for all time, since his account of historical laws
> sees
> them as changing over time, so resisting all final description.
>
> The 'is it falsifiable' test is weak because it takes the special
> claim
> of scientific objectivity and reduces it to one of formal logic. At
> best
> it only works as a secondary expression of scientific rationality.
> The
> underlying implication is that scientific reasoning draws its truth
> not
> from its own character, but from the object it describes. The reason
>
> that something is falsifiable is because its truth content is
> outside of
> itself.
>
> As to Gordon's persistence with the over-philosophical
> interpretation of
> Heisenberg, you have to say with Einstein that H. had merely hit
> upon
> some barriers in the present, not absolute ones. The history of
> science
> is littered with such apparently insurmountable barriers. Comte
> thought
> that you could never measure the chemical content of the sun, but
> that
> was because spectography had not yet been developed.
>
> In message <20011231182344.31083.qmail at web20004.mail.yahoo.com>,
> Cian
> O'Connor <cian_oconnor at yahoo.co.uk> writes
> > --- Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote: >
> >Cian says:
> >>
> >> >Because the statements of Marx could not be
> >> >falsifiable, Marxism is not scientific.
> >>
> >> You have yet to prove your hypothesis that "the
> >> statements of Marx
> >> couldn't be falsifiable."
> >
> >I suggest that you read "The Poverty of Historicism".
> >I am not Popper, and it's been a few years since I've
> >read him, so my paraphrasing of his theories would be
> >hopelessly inadequate. I don't have my copy to hand,
> >or I'd quote from it.
> >
> >> BTW, is Popper's theory falsifiable?
> >
> >Popper's theory doesn't claim to be scientific. Being
> >scientific is not a mark of legitimacy. However
> >unscientific theories cannot take advantage of the
> >scientific toolset of predictive induction etc.
> >
> >It's worth bearing in mind that in Marx's day, being
> >scientific was a used as a mark of academic
> >respectability and modernity. More a buzz word, than a
> >description of philosophical rigour.
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> >from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> >http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
> --
> James Heartfield
> Sustaining Architecture in the Anti-Machine Age is available at
> GBP19.99, plus
> GBP3.26 p&p from Publications, audacity.org, 8 College Close,
> Hackney, London,
> E9 6ER. Make cheques payable to 'Audacity Ltd'. www.audacity.org

________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list