History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Popper, Marx, historicism

April 13th, 2009 · No Comments

I mentioned already today the way one starting point for the eonic model was the Popperian critique of historicism. Here’s the passage from World History And The Eonic Effect.
Laws Of History And Popper On Historicism

In the eonic model, this makes little difference: best to critique Marx, because his thinking resurfaces in a better form But this classic criticism of Marx made Popper’s reputation, and people are satisfied to apply this to the controversial Marx when in fact the argument is quite general and could be applied to many of the products of scientism. But they all seem exempted from the criticism.
In any case, Marx would have been better off without theories. Simple statements of historical insight would have been sufficient. Once you propose a theory you set yourself up for a dialectic of falsification. If the theory is not very good, the whole game is shot.

Simple historical observation can easily confirm a restatement of a Marxist insight.
The entirety of civilization as this emerged from the Paleo into the Neolithic has been subjected to the division of society in class and inequality as this came into existence in the new mode of production, agriculture.

Job done, in one sentence. And the question persists, as Marx, and the socialists asked it: will civilization through its duration remain in this condition, or will some resolution of the inherent false logic of civilization ever be possible.

An ominous question.
The left has turned the simplicity of the basic issue into a fetish of ideological commodities, and a false propaganda for a gang of psychopaths.

Tags: selections · World History and The Eonic Effect

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment