/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2819212

Marx was only talking in terms of tendencies, “Counteracting influences.”( what we now understand as homeostasis) and conditional structures ( dependency on struggle).

I find Khun more interesting than Popper

I have agree with Popper on this one.

>>2819212
It's basically a strawman on his part. Marxists don't pretend to know the exact way history goes. Lenin and Stalin were writing on how an actual socialist state deals with progress in the technological and social dimensions extensively. He was free to polemicize but chose not to because it would compromise the typical anglo way of looking at the world:
>you can never take action to improve your country because how can you justify doing anything that has a destructive compoment
>us starving the population of Ireland to death is just the natural order of things, we didn't do anything teehee
and even then, the English state was involved in a lot of things like forcing vagrants into the factories, but it's still the natural order somehow.
It's being passive aggressive on a worldview level. The choice is between the capitalist class that is fundamentally incapable of planning and acting as a cohesive unit for any extended period of time and the working class that is capable of that - first through its party, then without it. We have seen what happens when his people are given total freedom and not even the anglos themselves seem to be thrilled at what happened.

complete pseud, the paradox isnt even a paradox if it has a seemingly convenient solution. its him and probably arendt that held back the social science atleast half a century

>>2819212
>Historical determinism to predict future

I'm frankly too lazy to write an actual effort post, but the fundamental problem is that Popper has a tendency to:

<1. consider "pseudoscience" (i.e., unprovable claims) to be false
<2. treat Hegelian historicism as unfalsifiable and definite facts about the future
Neither of which are true. Marx isn't making a historicism. He's not saying that communism has to emerge with certainty in the post-capitalist world order. He's simply saying that the end of political development ends with communism.

Think of it this way: the state and its development change because of multiple conditions (a revolution, class conflict, instability, conquest, etc.). Now, when we look at the state, we can see that it mostly serves as a means to reproduce capitalist reified relations, to ensure property for a specific group of people.

As such, when the conditions that make the state change disappear, political development ceases. This isn't to say that event X can't happen under communism, or that regression is impossible, but that the conditions which create change in the first place (namely, class conflict) disappear. Marx radicalizes this idea by positing that the state, as it exists, only serves the purpose of protecting the class interests of the bourgeoisie, and that, as such, if communism does arise, the lack of class distinction will lead to the withering of the state.

Now, the reason why Marx claims that communism will likely arise is simply from a sociological standpoint: the globalization of the bourgeoisie and the creation of a capitalist hegemonic mode of production has converged toward the establishment of only two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
For instance, a feudal society like France in the Middle Ages had many classes and centers of power: it had the Church, the landed gentry, the bourgeoisie, the robe gentry (state admins and the king), the peasants, etc. Only one of them took power, leaving the rest to be subject to the now bourgeois power.
But in our current times, there is no such composition. Sure, there might be some variations in the interests of a white-collar Boston man and his Indian delivery driver, but they still nonetheless share the same composite interest in overcoming the bourgeoisie. As such, Marx is not claiming that communism has to prevail, but that it is simply the probable trend, and that it will likely usher in a new age where political development as we know it ceases.

Popper takes issue with this because he's retarded and doesn't understand Hegel or Marx. Instead, he thinks that they are making scientific claims that are to be empirically demonstrated. In doing so, he shows his lack of understanding of what communism is and of the fundamental nature of Marx's claims.

>>2819701
I love mogging liberals who bring up that bitch Arendt by providing them with the quotes of her calling Africans subhuman monkeys and how she wrote in favour of segregation in America.