From: dogangoecmen@aol.com
Date: Thu Apr 10 2008 - 05:56:06 EDT
dogangoecmen@aol.com wrote:? > Marxism means above all to be critical and self-critical.? ? Sadly, this is not true. There are enough historical examples of Marxists that have been anything but self-critical. Marxism is a political philosophy and must thus be analyzed as such, i.e. as an ideology. Moreover, as a body of thought spanning over some 160 years it also contains a very valuable body of scientific knowledge and research. ??? ?? ?? ??? Dave Z: I am talking about the nature of Marxian theory, not about what people make out of it. You cant blame Marx for the failure of of people who ??? ??? ??? describe themselves as Marxists. The first and underlying category? of dialectics is? negativity.? In his development Marx starts with the critique of ??? ??? ??? philosophy, politics and comes finally to the critique of political economy. And in this development he always been very critical of his former thought ??? ??? ??? ??? and works. > Yes but evidence must be presented that justifies to abandon a theory. > In the case of Marxian theory ( I am saying 'theory' - not this or > that statement of Marx) all evidences brought forth just confirms it.? ? Dogan, you must realize what an extraordinarily strong claim you are making here. Really, all evidence brought forth supports Marxist theories? Even theories that contradict each other?? ? ??? ?? ?? ?? Again you are talking about Marxist theories. I am talking about Marxian theory. If you come to Marxists theories and attempts to develop it? further I??? ?? ??? ??? ??? would agree with you. But we are talking about entirely two different things. >? > " But what I'd like to know is what science explicitly mentions the > concept "unity in diversity"?" Please see my post to Paul Z. In > Physics we differentiate between various forms of matter (water, > light, air and so on). But We collect them all under the term matter. > Without doing this we cant refer to the concept of the world or even > the universe.? ? Ok, so what you are referring to here is the capacity to use abstract and generic concepts. Indeed, science always tries to find the 'general' underlying the 'specific'. You may call it "unity in diversity" but it is a general human capacity and does in no way immunize people from dogmatism, which was your initial claim.? ? >? > "Also I'd like to know, is it conceivable that Marx was wrong about > certain theories?"? >? > This is a hypothetical question. Please make explicit what you mean.? ? I was asking a more general question than Paul C recently gave. I'm simply wondering, do you think it is even *possible* that some of Marx's theories could have been wrong? I.e. are you prepared to substitute one of his theories for another one if there was enough evidence? ??? ?? ?? Of course I am. This is what any Marxists, any normal human being should do. I find this question rather ridiculous. ? >? > "And how would you go about to test it?"? >? > Test? It is practice, experiments and as such history. ? I can give a more specific question: How would you for instance test the theory of production prices?? ? //Dave Z? _______________________________________________? ope mailing list? ope@lists.csuchico.edu? https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope? ________________________________________________________________________ Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail f?r alle. Klicken Sie auf AOL.de um heraus zu finden, was es sonst noch kostenlos bei AOL gibt. _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:00:18 EDT