Karl Popper refuted Marxism

Destroyed by Popper long ago.

www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/Encyclopedia entries/falsifiability.htm

That's probably because you have low reading comprehension.

After Marxism was falsified, Marxists transformed it into a formal pseudoscience by making it unfalsifiable. The revolution didn't happen? False Consciousness! The revolution happened? See, we were right! Always right, unfalsifiable, not scientific or a science like Marx said it was.

not even a marxist bucko

Whoops, that claim of Popper's isn't really applicable.

autodidactproject.org/other/marx-popper-little.html

Yes. From reading about his "flirtations with Marxism", he rejected it when he was only a teenager. No, he is not as well versed in Marxism as Marxian philosophers.

But Marx's diamat is also against a teleological view of history (which is what you're describing). Marx's predictions did come true anyway - there were revolutions, some of them failed and some of them succeeded.

Yes I did. They're all similar vague, dialectics is a matter of degrees.

>Popper's charge of unfalsifiability finds its strongest ground in Marx's willingness to modify his hypotheses in order to save them from direct empirical refutation–for example, in his use of the idea countervailing tendencies to account for the mixed record of the rate of profit over time. Marx's economics predicts that there will be a falling rate of profit within capitalist economies over time. Marx notes, however, that this is often not the case, and attempts to account for this failure by referring to countervailing tendencies: causal factors that work to prop up the tendency for the rate of profit to fall over time. (A countervailing tendency is a previously unknown factor that is hypothesized in order to account for discrepancies between theoretical expectations and observed facts.) Popper believes that appeal to such tendencies is itself a conventionalist twist that deprives the theory of empirical content. But is it scientifically irrational to appeal to countervailing tendencies?

Because economics don't work in a strict scientific sense. Not to mention, the work of Andrew Kliman has proven that the rate of profit did fall. It hasn't recovered since the initial drop in the 70's and it has already dropped. But for example, even when the amount of constant capital is increasing inflation can cause the rate of profit to increase. Or for example, a war. Marx accounted for this. But his general theory, that the rate of profit would fall and not recover completely holds true. You do realize Popper only dabbled in Marxism for 3 or 4 months right?

...

Literally, and I mean that in a non meme way, not an argument

literally wat

being able to see how we got here from the past =/= being able to see the future

Your link actually says that it is very applicable. It's just apologia.

If the standards for physical science were this low, we would still be using ether theory. The Michelson-Morley experiment would just be a "countervailing tendency."

Also,

vs.

Karl Popper was a genius. He didn't have to become a basement dwelling "Marxian philosopher" to understand Marxism. You're insulting his intelligence.

Nobody is describing teleological anything.

The successful revolutions never came as Marx described they would. That's Karl Popper's point. They were supposed to happen in developed countries like Germany and France, not Russia and China. You apparently have less of a grasp of Marxism than Karl Popper.

They're not vague.

The rate of profit is not falling. That's another falsified Marxist prediction. Every time the rate of profit goes up, Marxists just say it's due to a "countervailing tendency" and hold on to their pseudoscience anyway.

If Marxism is science, it belongs in the dustbin of falsified theories.

Source?

Really nigga?

There's this thing called g. If someone is smart in one area, they are usually smart in all areas. Karl Popper was a genius who made more contributions to the philosophy of science than Marx. I'm pretty sure he could handle Marx's little 19th century theories.

Great, two non-arguments. Just makes me more comfy.

Marx's logic: "X should happen; if it doesn't (as observed), it's because of Y (which is the opposite of X)."

Popper's logic: "X is the opposite of Y so the whole thing's shit because there's no falsifiability!!!!1! He's "right" either way!"

The ground upon which to test Marx's theory is to test whether X happens if Y doesn't and vice versa whilst reviewing the causes.

Oops!

archive.is/l1uUf

Try harder.

Yes, which is why I have followed Bobby Fischer and become a white nationalist.

I have to sleep now but that isn't true. If you have a contention over Klimans data, you should email him and disprove him once and fall. He responds to all criticism on his website.

youtube.com/watch?v=V0yU5mTYxas

Ok I'm still not seeing any arguments, not even memeing

Source btw: thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/the-us-rate-of-profit-revisited/
You're wrong.

bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/utopia/methods1/bourgeoisie1/bourgeoisie.html

There are plenty of smart white nationalists. I think you should go back to reddit if you want to stroke your ego and indulge in >le right wingers are le dumb meme.

you're a troll

...

Such as?

Lol wut?

Fucking lol.

None of you lefties are actually addressing Karl's main argument either. You're just strawmanning it.

Falling rate of profit theory is rejected by current mainstream economics, just like ether theory is rejected by current mainstream physics. It's just another falsified theory.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall

FRPT is rejected by all mainstream economists, even Thomas Piketty.

He predicted it would happen in capitalist countries like the UK and Germany, not backwater agrarian places like Russia and China.

theory falsified

The heritability of intelligence in young childhood is very low. Perhaps you should worry about people who can actually vote.

Read the fucking OP.

Do you ever ask yourself what the point of getting into big internet fights like this and typing all that stuff out is? What do you think you're gonna learn from this?

I'm not here to learn. I'm here to school Marxists.

But do you really get that much satisfaction from thinking you're arguing better than some random person on the internet who you will never meet?

Absolutely.

Marxists are the clergy of the university I attend. I love taking them down a few pegs.

Well then why don't you argue against the Marxists at your university who actually know what they're talking about instead of the relatively poorly read users of Holla Forums?

Because I just want to keep my head down and get my CS degree, and then never give money to another SJW institution again.

So to recap: you come to this board because you want to win arguments, specifically against people who are easy targets. You do this because you would rather win arguments than be open to different points of view. Is that right?

I don't come here because they're easy to destroy. I come here because there is no leftypol on half chan, and every leftist sub on reddit just instabans for dissent.

You said you don't want to talk to the Marxists at your university, the people who would have a much greater understanding of Marx than we do. On all accounts you're not really adding anything to this board or helping us or yourself learn because you can't even face up to people who are more educated about the viewpoints that we're sympathetic to.

You're so stupid. It's not about how educated they are, or how well read they are, it's about them using their political power within the student union to make my life difficult once they know that I'm not a Marxist drone like them or not an apolitical normie that is just willing to go along with their stupid plans.

How do you expect anybody to take you seriously when you're making it seem like questioning a university teacher, people who get asked questions for a living, will get you sent to a gulag?

How do you expect to be taken seriously when your reading comprehension is so poor that you can't tell when I'm referring to students and not teachers?

Why did you say that Marxists were a clergy then? You're one of those crazy people who believes that Marxists run the education system, so why don't you ask a philosophy professor instead of idiots like us?

Philosophy professors don't fucking bother with Marxism because they know it's trash.

Then what are you even complaining about at your university?

THE FUCKING STUDENTS!!!

Omg. Do you live under a rock? They are loud, they are disruptive, they are occasionally violent. If I were to say conservative stuff on the campus or online, they would harass me, doxx me, and try to ruin my life for being an infidel.

Marxism is unscientific garbage that based Popper fucking destroyed before I was even born.

Rope day can't come soon enough.

I'm going to bed.

So the students would come after you for having these views, but willingly pay money to be taught by people who agree with you? Doesn't make sense fam.

That much is obvious. This is also why you're probably not nearly as smart as you think you are. The way human knowledge is advanced is by admitting the possibility that one's ideas could be mistaken and endeavouring to test them and subject them to criticism in order to approach the actual truth.

Literally all you've done, on the other hand, is say 'look, this guy is really smart and he agrees with my preconceptions' while doing your damned best to avoid actually engaging with our argument for and his argument against in order to figure out how they work and which if any is true.

Altogether, thoroughly undialectical. I give it 2/10

Yeah ok now we know you're being retarded

...

kek

thephilosophyofscience.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/strauss-and-voegelin-on-popper/

Is that supposed to be an argument or something?

Precisely: there is no detail about any of Marx's predictions supposedly proven wrong in OP.

Well, that's one thing he has in common with OP.

Like what? And if this is some of his earlier "formulations" then what about some of his alter work? What about the stuff he got right?

Like what?

Geez, being this defensive I'd say you are the one being triggered.

Literally not an argument. If you don't have a keen understanding of something then how can you expect to make a thorough refutation of it? (which Popper didn't even do, he's just dismissing it out of hand). I guess maybe i don't need to know anything about maths, phyics or have years of study before calling Einstein a hack fraud.

Kind of like how you said his predictions were wrong but then quickly cover your ass by saying "b-b-but it didn't happen in Germany like he said he would! What a false prophet!"

So he predicts the mode and method of the revolutions and all Popper has is this uncritical and completely pointless criticism? Whoa, what a brilliant genius.

I've got news for you: history is not over, nor will it ever be.

What's the matter? Afraid of a confrontation? I thought you weren't afraid of niggers and degenerates and "cultural marxists"? Guess you Holla Forumstards really are spineless after all, all you can do is spout memes and post frogs online, but when push comes to shove you back down like the pussies you know you are. How pathetic. And you even have the gall to go on about muh roep day too, haha. How are you going to have a roep day when you're all too scared of fighting against the people you claim to hate? Oh but let me guess, they're all going to do the fighting *for* you, right? Yeah, you're just gunna stay at home shitposting or playing vidya while you expect all the other imbeciles to go out and fight for your pussy ass…yeah, and there's no other person on Holla Forums who's going to do the exact same thing right? Surely those internet memesters you shitpost with online wouldn't let you down right? Of course none of them are just like you right? A roep day is still completely feasible, right?…right?

Yeah…nah. Piss off.

This is pretty much the definition of triggered

But a revolution did happen in Germany, and it failed.

Friendly reminder that ROP fell in Germany pretty hard.

archive.is/AT5WT

...

See this here graph. Could it also be that this graph is showing that the work we do today is less productive? Like loads more people today work for the government and inj the services industry. These aren't as productive as the work in the primary and secondary industries, ie those that were much larger pre 1945.

I like how half your argument is just "Karl Popper said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

Do you have a source?

...

Holy shit comrades, why are positivists so fucking insufferable?

It was taken from here:
thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/the-marxist-theory-of-economic-crises-in-capitalism-part-one/

The data was put together by Argentinian economist Esteban Ezequiel Maito, and somewhat ironically one of the sources used was Thomas Piketty, who, as stated earlier in the thread denies the FRoP.
Maito shows that when marxist theory is applied to the same data, it actually shows a secular fall in the industrial rate of profit (unproductive sectors seem to be doing fine though).

PDF very much related.

So a faggot from 4/pol/ gets ass devastated by other students at his school and decides to start an internet fight (which he loses) to vent his impotent rage. Goddamn is that pathetic!

Yeah, fuck Popper.

Also

the only people who believe this are idiot stalinists.

I can "destroy" marxism in 3 words:
muh human nature.

I WANT POSITIVISTS TO LEAVE

t. not even a marxist

Those are fighting words, lad.

Thank you.

Fucking victim-complex idpol.

so Stalinist stole Trotsky terrorism and communism , the industrialization plan, and now they want his war train

heh pathetic

That is clearly a choppy and stompy bus.

...

fag; let the b8 flow

S-Sorry mr.stache man…I-I'll just go back to my gulag now….

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall

I feel as if you didn't look at this, because besides you taking wikipedia at face value as a source lacking bias, they do cite Kliman and his point in "The Failure Of Capitalist Production" - there is a quite obvious drop empirically in the rate of profit. It just seems like this article has a maelstrom of opinions with no solution.

No. The majority of people work in the private sector and we have exponentially more people living in the United States than in 1945. The industrial profit has fallen and that's a fact. If you include assets(such as houses) it brings the rate of profit up a little bit(but still lower than the decades following WW2) - thats an example of countervailing tendencies.

This. The falsification principle could be falsified in a situation where countervailing tendencies exist.

It should be noted that Karl Popper also rejected the theory of evolution as being unfalsifiable for a time, in part because of his antipathy towards Marxism.

Liberals a shit non-argument poster. We already know that.

no such thing.

He was being ironic when he made the human nature comment

Hey OP, here's a refutation of Poppers criticisms of Marxism from someone who's more intelligent than every single person on this entire board ( and a Marxist).

He sounds like a Holla Forumsidiot who just learned about a new logical fallacy.

He came up with falsifiability in the sciences. It's his double standards regarding his rationality principle in social sciences that makes his criticisms fall flat, see

Gross when did he say that?

Metalheads are libertarian, is actually what he said:
youtube.com/watch?v=To7Lwp73WjI

At the 9:00 mark.

Also revcom.us/a/110/makingrevolution06-en.html for OP.

They're just denying that Marxist predictions have been falsified, even though non-Marxists accept they have been falsified. Most Marxists turned Marxism into a pseudo-science because they had to come up with ad hoc modifications just to prevent falsification.

stephenhicks.org/2010/03/02/marxs-three-failed-predictions-ep/

plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Three tactics used by Marxists in this thread so far:

1. Denying Marxism ever made failed predictions or was ever falsified.

2. Special pleading saying that Marxism deserves a lower standard of what is scientific.

3. Claiming that Marxism doesn't have to be scientific.

The Verikukis PDF is just a giant strawman. Popper was extremely critical of social sciences that were not falsifiable.

pos.sagepub.com/content/27/1/56.abstract

...

You didn't understand his critique at all. The problem is with Popper's Rationality Principle, namely that it results in contradictions and is itself unfalsifiable. From the conclusion:
Your response is a non sequitur.

Still waiting for these so-called "falsified" theories.

Not him, but already we are seeing some of them become true. One of which being automation. The only thing I've found 'falsified' is timing, it seems. Either way, capitalism is still prone to crisis and has contradictions.

Capitalism is just one gigantic strawman, a platonic form, a container term, a big other.. not something that really exists. It's the same type of phrase as "the masses", or "the people".

...

That must be short for "I can't argue against your position but I need to respond with something."

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Still waiting on which predictions were meant to be falsified. Preferably not ones held to a retarded standard like the OP has to incorporate.

He was an economist, historian, social scientist and philosopher. Why are you using Karl Popper's scientific standard and his social science standard like demonstrates?

Who says it does?

Thats good, but it doesn't Marxism fails or his predictions were wrong just because it isn't a "hard science".

It's short for "we don't live in a world similar to a computer which runs on operating systems called capitalism or communism, which you can't comprehend because you are a word thinker"

"that's not real capitalism!"

Yes I do, more than you.

How would you know? You evidently don't understand either capitalism or communism, even purely as concepts.

No, you quite obviously don't. Platonic forms weren't "a big other" or "not something that really exists." Rather, for Plato, objects we perceived only existed contingently through their participation in the forms which were the only truly existing things. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about, something which seems to be a recurring trend.

I have a gift for you, my property.

You might as well ask "what is economics".

bump for butthurt

No, it's a materal relationship not a transcendent archetype.

bump