Marxism and Lacan - Incompatible Theories

[Cael]

It doesn't follow from the fact that capitalism is a system based on a form of slavery that it would be a good thing if it were abolished. Nor that the fact that it will collapse and be replaced by communism is a good thing. There is no necessary logical connection between believing that the collapse of capitalism is inevitable and believing that capitalism is exploitative and evil. And yet, we tend to observe that the people who reject the argument purporting to show that capitalism is doomed are also the people who don't think that capitalism is exploitative and evil. A Marxist might tell us, apparently without irony, that this is because the interests those people have in the status quo are blinding them to the historical inevitability of the Marxist's conclusions. The Marxist will typically forget to ask whether it is her belief that the status quo is exploitative and evil that is leading her to accept the inevitability of its collapse. Or whether prophets, religious and secular, throughout history have declared the inevitability of their triumph, and how many are still waiting.



Do you have any data to support the claim that Friedman has been popular? Have you considered alternative causal accounts of any such popularity, and contructed hypotheses to test these theories? (You know, like social scientists do.)

So you do agree with Kuhn, after all, that its the conceptual framework we chose that will largely determine the results of our research? Clearly, any such choice will not be unmotivated.

There is no small amount of data showing that Freedman has been popular, the rest I havent done. Lets just say the Anglophone ruling classes desperately needed someone to tell them that Keynes was wrong about trade balances, and lo and behold, Freedman did just that.

[Cael]

Cactusflower, you asked me what I ment by language. I mean any system of symbols, including the colours and smells that are so important to animals.

[stringjack]

I don't agree with this at all, it is like most of your arguments an assertion not backed by any evidence. Do you not think that there are many people who experience capitalism as exploitative and damaging and may consider it "evil", but who have no perspective whatsoever of it coming to an end? Speculations about what people might say or observations of what they tend to think are not compelling evidence if they are presented without anything to substantiate them.

...

Example? Link? Evidence ?

...

Cheeky to ask Cael for support data when you show no signs of producing any yourself.

What exactly was it that you think I was trying to communicate?

[stringjack]

So you do agree with Kuhn, after all, that its the conceptual framework we chose that will largely determine the results of our research? Clearly, any such choice will not be unmotivated.

No, I don't. 'Influence' or 'condition' does not equal 'largely determine'.

There is no small amount of data showing that Freedman has been popular, the rest I havent done. Lets just say the Anglophone ruling classes desperately needed someone to tell them that Keynes was wrong about trade balances, and lo and behold, Freedman did just that.

Like some obscure magic.

[Cael]

No, I don't. 'Influence' or 'condition' does not equal 'largely determine'.


Like some obscure magic.

So we are agreed, then, that there is no such thing as science that is not, at the very least, influenced and conditioned by our choices of framework?

It wasnt magic at all. The Anglophone countries were going to continue with their trade imbalances regardless of whether a theory came along to condone them or not. But you generally find that when the ruling class need some intellectual justification for their thieving, they will not have to wait long till some academic to provides it.

By the way, what do you think of this quote from Bertrand Russell:

The observer, when he seems to himself to be observing a stone, is really, if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of the stone upon himself.

[stringjack]

So we are agreed, then, that there is no such thing as science that is not, at the very least, influenced and conditioned by our choices of framework?

Well, we might be agreed, if that's what you thought. You don't however, appear to think that.

It wasnt magic at all. The Anglophone countries were going to continue with their trade imbalances regardless of whether a theory came along to condone them or not. But you generally find that when the ruling class need some intellectual justification for their thieving, they will not have to wait long till some academic to provides it.

Kind of like meta-supply-side economics (supply-side meta-economics?).

By the way, what do you think of this quote from Bertrand Russell:

The observer, when he seems to himself to be observing a stone, is really, if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of the stone upon himself.

It's cute.

[Cael]

Well, we might be agreed, if that's what you thought. You don't however, appear to think that.



Kind of like meta-supply-side economics (supply-side meta-economics?).



It's cute.

I think that in the best of cases, i.e. where the wealth and privilege of the ruling class are not the subjects of investigation. If they are, you will probably end up doing your reseach in poverty like Marx did.

[stringjack]

I think that in the best of cases, i.e. where the wealth and privilege of the ruling class are not the subjects of investigation. If they are, you will probably end up doing your reseach in poverty like Marx did.

Poverty is relative, I suppose. How many Marxists do you suppose have been fully-paid members of the academy?

[Cael]

Poverty is relative, I suppose. How many Marxists do you suppose have been fully-paid members of the academy?

Lots of people who consider themselves Marxists, and look forward to Revolution - as long as its happening far away. These days academic Marxism is safely channeled into "cultural studies" of one type or another.

[stringjack]

Lots of people who consider themselves Marxists, and look forward to Revolution - as long as its happening far away. These days academic Marxism is safely channeled into "cultural studies" of one type or another.

Or, it's dying off because it's obsolete and has been superseded by better theories. (Or, in the past, it was only popular because it served the interests of the ruling classes.)