What was Karl Popper's issue with Marxist theory...

look it up, he literally didn't even bother, even though his shit went into like 6 editions

Popper doesn't dislike History, Sociology or Geography, even though you can't "autiscally prove it in a lab".

It's because DiaMat, for all the good it does, is a priori ideologically motived, while History a priori isn't.

clogic.eserver.org/2007/Verikukis.pdf
Also everyone should read this piece and not just gay nazi

Comrade, are you this guy ? I responded to you in that thread, if you have any good book on the USSR I'd appreciate it.

Ya I'm the same guy. I'll hook you up with some books in a comment in the other thread.

just Holla Forums things

Explain

From a philosophical perspective the scientific method presented by Popper, doesn't include its own presuppositions. It does not consider how and why its criteria are right and wrong. It doesn't include the ontology or epistemology in its own method and therefore they are also absent in the conclusions made from it. This can be simplified; as the scientific method considering itself above science. It doesn't have to consider itself when trying to prove if something is right or wrong and therefore breaks universality. Additionally, it doesn't even consider if the method is correct in the first place, or if we humans have made a mistake in the formulation or application of the method.

As for fields that don't always adhere to it. Usually what most people call pseudo-sciences. Psychology and economics being the largest examples. Also when acquiring knowledge in fields which can't be tested, such as astrophysics and certain aspects of human biology, the idea of falsifying becomes null as well. We do however base almost all our wealth on the pseudoscience of economics and our lives based on the imperfect knowledge of the human body.

Please explain which aspects of biology cannot be falsified. Are you referring to things that would require socially unacceptable experiments to find out?

His issue with marxism is that it begs the question and is a self-fulfilling prophecy that can't even fulfill itself. History will lead to communism, because contradictions and materialism, but it will only do so when instructed of it's destiny by marx. This goes for all claims of historical materialism.

Popper never denied the need for meta-analysis when it comes to science, it's what he himself did.

Have you read Marx?

This entire post proves you never bothered to read a bit of what you're now pretending to know about.

I guess I skipped over the part where marx explains how his theory is not a self-fulfilling prophecy and how it does not beg the question. Do give it a try though.

Also, Popper, if I remember well, publicly admitted that his falsifiability was designed with Marxism and psychoanalysis in mind so as to "disprove" these movements with a conveniently made scientific facade.

The study of history will always be ideological. The way that humans conceive of history as a concept is also inherently ideological.
Popper was more autistic than I thought.

Whew I need a source for that one. Need to spread it around.

...

belief in falsifabilty as a philosophical stance about the worth of scientific theories is btfo'd by the mere possiblity of botched experiments. it's still ok as a guiding principle for practical research, though.

In Spanish, but it has citations by the end. This from one of Althusser's books.

Capitalism is a catalyst of antagonistic class relations. Unless the ruling class cleverly subverts the proletariat, it will cause a form of uprising. This uprising is usually in favour of abolishing the system which created the class relations. Here it can either be subverted or stamped out by outside forces.
Communism is the real movement which abolishes the current state of affairs. A communist society is the result of this. Based on dialectical analysis of capitalism, Marx assumed that a communist society must be a socialist society. Since removing the current state of affairs would mean removing private property, the state, money, and commodity production (production for exchange). This would lead to a stateless, moneyless society, which is the same as socialism. So either everything in Capital is wrong or there is something we are missing.

From my experience, scientists use replicability as a remedy to that problem.
If we can't find the same results after reenacting the setting of your experiment, it probably means there is something wrong with the results of your paper.
Also, even if they often get shit wrong, academics are taught to conceive their experiments with criticisms from the scientific community preemptively in mind. As Nick Land put it [comparing capitalism with science] :

What pushed me to create this thread is I guess the only non-retarded nazi post I ever saw here, a few days ago, which said that if Marxist theories (especially what is inside texts like Das Kapital and Grundrisse) are really scientific, how come people haven't really expanded on them in the same way the scientific community would do ? The Marxist community is mainly comprised of continental philosophers, and while they have very interesting things to say, they don't seem to be concerned with rigourousness that much.

That said, I haven't really read Marx very much outside of introductory texts, and in my eyes, it seems to be still the best analysis and critique of capitalism we ever had, as everything fits together from my meme understanding

That's what I meant by "practical research". I'm not attacking the view that you have to settle upon something in the end, it's just that falsifability of theories isn't that much better than logical positivism it was meant to improve upon. (it still boils down to "we try this thing many times and inductively conclue that the theory we have is good enough for now")

I just finished reading this, and holy shit, this is one of the biggest BTFOs I've read. This guy was truly a hack.

and what about this one?

Positivism and anything resembling it is stupid as fuck. Science and academia are two human institutions and can be critiqued as such. One of the problems with Marxism isn't some basic bitch autistic demarcation criteria like falsifiability, which is a useful but very limited line of analysis, but where to situate it within the matrix of all these institutions, as it emerged from and was developed in that which it critiques, and as a body of theory is somewhat chimerical, comprising at the same time the empirical, even quantitative economics and historical analysis, and also the very outermost level of abstraction in that it supposedly encapsulates and enables critique of all other such knowledge production institutions (as "bourgeous" and so on).

Wasn't his """criticism""" calling Marxists muddleheaded? Truly a devastating argument.

Didn't read Hegel btw, just was reacting to Bradley and other British Hegelians who only read like Phenomenology. Sensing a pattern yet?

There is Shaikh Anwar's book on capitalism, which follows in the footsteps of explaining capitalism and backing it up with empirical data.
The problem is the same as it was for Marx. It requires that you collect a lot of data. It requires that you can access this data somehow. You need to find a publisher who is willing to publish a book which "critiques" (as in exposing its flawed inner workings) capitalism but is also off-putting for anyone who isn't into rigorous economics, essentially creating a small consumer base. You will need to find a publisher who is willing the support you financially while you are working on the book. It will take a very long time to write a well-written piece. And then it will likely still be ignored or denounced by mainstream economics and reviewers. I think Anwar said it took him more than 20 years to create a 1000 page book. Which really shows how time-consuming it is.

Scientific socialism is a difficult task for anyone. Especially if you try to replicate what Marx did with Capital Vol. I.