Years ago, Cockshott spoke of the need for the left to have a new movement of scientific socialism based on empirical Marxism, and said that its first objective should be to debunk and expose neoliberal ideology. What are your thoughts about this?
/empirical marxism/
Joseph Fisher
Other urls found in this thread:
adventures-in-dialectics.org
dialectics.org
mises.org
adventures-in-dialectics.org
paulcockshott.wordpress.com
archive.is
twitter.com
Connor Cruz
I would hesitate to call this 'empirical Marxism'. What's empirical about it? No new empirical data needs to be added to what we know for Marxism to hold. Instead, it is a matter of how we relate to that data and also about self-causations (which our present empirical sciences don't seem to be able to deal with that well, similarly with formal logic in general which I believe would render such matters as being meaningless). New mathematical systems would allow us to manipulate and relate practically to what we sense rather than simply new data which reductionists from who apply bourgeois science to the matters would be able to understand it to some degree as if it were formal and distanced to us in terms of praxis. Here is what I'm hoping to understand better; I point towards it in development of my points: adventures-in-dialectics.org
Elijah Foster
christ as a stemfag i aint going near that shit
Jonathan Sullivan
s u p e r c e d e
Dylan Ramirez
In any case, now that I think about it, why does being a STEMfag necessarily make you so averse? These are dealing with new systems of mathematics which include qualifiers; such models can be applied to the human social field so that we may work with it and understand it as if we are engineers. This was the point of Marx's entire analysis and method, with economics being central to the matter of society (i.e. it is related to how and to what ends we organise the world - not ideologically-speaking, for example: 'I organise the world so that I might be able to eat infinite jaffa cakes' or: 'I do it because I want a bigger investment' - but the universal and ultimate ends to which we do it, namely because of some sort of practical utility in fulfilling as many aims as possible and clearing the way to make our space of consumption greater and to struggle for other things including the sake of struggle itself). Economics is rooted in human praxis, hence a science of economics is a science of human praxis (which is science acting upon science itself since we just happen to be humans - this according to the crazy terminology of Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica is a 'psychohistory', see here but learn the notation first from dialectics.org: dialectics.org
Levi Gray
i'm not saying being a stemfag makes me averse, i'm saying that even though i'm a stemfag, and know a lot of these things, cloaking such a clusterfuck in hegel speak makes it almost unreadable
Evan Brooks
It's a good thing they highlight the fuck out of everything and have some primers though I agree that the formatting is a bit shit and some of the lone images require entire tomes upon tomes to fully-understand. I barely understand it myself and still have several questions such as that which concerns movement of thought (e.g. one is not the other, the other is not one) and actual movement between states (what of becoming as a process rather than becoming as a category which subsumes both being and nothing to explain the two as merely mutual opposites of one another? Is it something to do with determinate being…?).
Robert Miller
In terms of Economis Cockshott is nearly always right, it surprises me he is not even more relevant
Henry Parker
I think letting cockshott define socialism as literally central planning probably won't do us much good.
Bentley Watson
kys narchoid