The Class Struggle
The class struggle. Neither Marx nor Popper. Comments lorgnette.
As a preamble, we must assume that part of the consideration that since the formation of historical societies, the societies were divided into different social classes, and that advance the bell, he said antagonisms and class struggle.
It is not the case in which Marx was the first theorist to try the class struggle. Since ancient times, many witnesses to show that the concept of class conflict was universal.
As is known, the sixth century BC started the great wave of the "polis" democratic. So peaceful or violent, a great number of Greek city-state established democratic systems. It is worth noting that, over time, social conflicts rather increase its virulence. At the end of the fourth century, the democratic revolutions and contra-revolutions occur endless. Wars were often an extension of the civil wars.
As explained in my essay “Philosophy and Religion without masks”, were the masses of the "polis" which found the way to free themselves from the oppression of the oligarchy (the large land owners) id ' establish democratic systems originals.
In that book, I defend this thesis,
Thesis: This broad masses of the working classes which follow the ideology of democracy and led to social revolution. I was in a second time that the "wise" develop theories about "the moral emotivist" and "contractual".
To establish the concepts "moral emotivist" understood in the sense that moral standards, social policies and the rise of human feelings, that the "Nomos" (the rules governing the citizen) is the result of the will of the majority . I "contractual" in the sense that the "Nomos" is the result of agreements among citizens, "the" social contract ".
What I emphasize to my writings on philosophy and society is the rise of ideologies sentiments.
Throughout the long history of class struggle beats around two basic ideologies, the democratic ideology and the aristocratic ideology. To put it more precisely, around the emotivism moral and the intellectualism.
The history of philosophy and encyclopaedias are to understand the idea that there are countless philosophers and philosophies, but the historical reality is that the historical philosophies or "work" to an ideology "emotivist" or an ideology for intellectualists.
The are two basic ideologies, and not more than two. In each historic moment, presenting their own language, but that it distorted the essence of the message.
It is not the case that philosophers are a kind of rare that scientists seek "truth." The point of departure of a thinker starts their own feelings, and often a passion, secret or expressed, mainly, secretly.
How could not be otherwise, in democratic societies is the moral emotivism hegemonic ideology.
The formidable democration of Greek cities was drowned with the formation of Empires.
For two thousand years, kept the power oligarchies. All attempts failed to establish a democracy.
For two thousand years, philosophers of materials produced a purely intellectualist. And abundant literature on the philosophical and moral emotivism and against l’empiricism.
You can see that the philosophers who lived in the millennia are almost all intellectualist ideology.
Regarding this, you can see that the textbooks and encyclopaedias of Catholic countries - Spain, eg. - France and continue to protect the history of thought. Remain conservative categories - Catholic -: placing thinkers illustrated defenders of moral emotivism and democracy to a lower level and the most distinguished philosophers also appeared to continue to slander a section called "the pre-Socratic" (This is In the case with Democritus, although the theory developed around the current physics - the Atomism - from ancient times). Continued pointing "golden age" of philosophy with the reactionary triad: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
That French textbooks Espui keep this version of history is a proof that shows the "BluFin" the explosion of "` Philosophes "French - the" grands Philosophes "they are called -. These "big Philosophes" - including the Marxist; Althusser, eg. - Were always at the service of the French Empire and its evil ideology. With these "grands Philosophes", the French remained motionless and ideologically decadent.
You can see that the text books, in effect, offering a long list of philosophers who, without exception, did their work within the intellectualist ideology . They cultivated the idealism. You can see the names of those listed as most important: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas (currently the Ministry of Education o Catalonian is lucky have incorporated the name of Ramon Llull – XIII Century - in this list of "great philosophers").
Karl Marx.
Marx then in their theories of "historical materialism" and "dialectical materialism" to be the foundation of "scientific socialism”. With the concept of "social science", Marx included in the count of the stick - that man so mediocre -.
Karl Marx did a pirouette that seemed impossible in the very ideology of the working classes - the moral emotivist and the contractualism - the philosopher of Tréveris is removed from the hose a new "intellectualism materialistic." Aims to transform the traditional intellectualism idealistic.
Accordingly, the future socialist society will not be the result of "feelings" for most people, but running a "political science" of "the vanguard of the proletariat." The Communist Party is the vanguard. And "political scientist" will be the implementation of the laws of "dialectical materialism".
From beautiful advance in the Marx was postulated that the "Marxist science" at a time, sprout spontaneously from the consciousness of the proletarian. At the end of time, there would be "an invisible hand" that would make the proletarian "class awareness" and the "Proletarian consciousness" is to find all ideas that would not be anything else that sparks the "Marxist science" . Of course, the more conscious, inspired by this science, would be "the vanguard of the proletariat", or the Communist Party.
According to the science, Marx says that in the case have four "modes of production, namely agriculture-slavery, the feudal agriculture, the capitalist and in the future of the socialist, " scientific socialism "( that is, communism). But Marx and the Marxists, so little dialogue, leave aside all the historical processes of powerful and well-known that fits scheme no Marxist.
The German philosopher explains that the medieval dialectic, the conflict between the lords and used the land, arose the bourgeoisie, a new class that will display a formidable "capitalist mode of production." According to the philosopher, the bourgeoisie has done almost everything. Let's remarkable text that says:
"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, with an infinite improvement of communications, also dragging all nations, including the barbarian, into civilization. The economic price of their goods are the heavy artillery with which to tear down all Chinese walls, which requires more hatred chapter persist Barbarian everything foreign. Requires all nations to adopt the bourgeois forms of production, if you do not want to ruin it, are forced to enter into its so-called civilization, namely the obligation to be bourgeois. In a word, it creates a world in their image and likeness.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the domain of the city. It has created enormous cities, has grown into a very high degree the urban population compared to the rural, and so has started a significant proportion of the population of idiot rural life. As the field has depended on the city, has made the countries dependent semi-barbarian, barbarians and the civilized nations of peoples bourgeois farmers, East West.
The bourgeoisie, in its domain class just centenary, has developed production forces of great wealth and who had not done all generations together last. Submission of the forces of nature, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphy, entire continents adapted to cultivation, made navigable rivers, whole populations that have emerged as mushrooms; what century earlier than would have suspected of producing similar forces could be asleep in the social work "(" Manifesto of the Communist Party, "page 28).
(I take this opportunity to let them know that this is a corrected version in Catalan by Jordi Moner and reviewed by Manuel Sacristan in, and there is a change - at least - of the original text, where Marx placed in "idiot of rural life" in Moner it translated to "the character of rural life." We see that these " catalan scientists " wanted "soften" the evidence of contempt for Marx felt that way of life of farmers).
These texts of Marx could include, say no, an anthology of texts and neoliberal, lots of people do not realize it.
The "Marxist science" established in a clear and determined that the bourgeoisie is a feudal, that its origin is in feudalism, that the "village" is feudal birth certificate of the bourgeoisie.
Marx's clean sweep in three thousand years of history of cities "bourgeois" feudal past the time (feudalism, however, was a European phenomenon and not universal).
But three thousand years of history can not be removed. Everywhere were abundant testimony of cities, the existence of which was due to its industrial and commercial (Just as in Marx, the activities related to industry and commerce are those that define the middle class).
Where can easily see that the Sumerian cities (from the III millennium BC) were city-state which deployed a significant industrial and commercial activity. The Code of Hammurabi "collects all laws regulating trade and industry.
You can also see that the Phoenician cities (no there the thirteenth century BC, to set a date) due its formidable industrial and commercial activity. Tire, Sidon, Byblos, were also city-state. Unlike cities Sumer, the Phoenician cities were fully "bourgeois" in the sense that they did not have a significant component of the population dedicated to the primary sector. Its success was due to its ability to build ships and for navigation. Success that led to the formation of a string of Phoenician cities on the coasts of the Southern Mediterranean (Among them, "Ibusim" which was the name of the Punic Ibiza).
Even more remarkable was the success of the colonization of the Greek cities, colonization of the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, with the creation of a thousand cities. Miletus, the largest city in the Ionian, created nearly a hundred colonies, many of which became towns, such as Byzantium (Of these cities, at least for a quarantine, have been historical records).
In Marx, however, at all times, reaffirmed the definition of the first mode of production "agriculture-slavery." Expressly recognizes that the Greek cities were industrial production, but argues that this production was done by slaves, which corresponds to the historical reality. Marx expressed it by saying "... the Greek society was based on the work of slaves and was, therefore, as a natural basis the inequality between men and their work forces" ( "The Capital", Volume I, page 26).
We can see therefore that the "modes of production" are Marxists false not correspond with historical reality.
You can also see that corresponds to the historical facts alleged Marxist origins of the "bourgeoisie." Not if the "bourgeoisie" had its origins in the medieval village. In the twelfth century, the "bourgeoisie" had already been four thousand years of history.
Marx and the Marxists began a massive campaign - which still have the Marxists now - and manipulation of intellectual mystification. For example, "democracy" and "democratic revolution" is now known as "bourgeois democracy" and "bourgeois revolutions."
Throughout history, throughout time, has given the class struggle and often violently.
Thesis: Often the class struggle and class struggle took a violent historical forms that conceal or disguise the nature of class struggle.
Would appear that the Roman oligarchy in the second century had finally submitted to the common people or the people defeated, but historians tell us that at that time - the end of the second century - the land trade had been interrupted because of attacks by gangs armed. So, had reached a point where the Roman Empire was unable to guarantee the safety of land routes. And it was the beginning of the feudalism in the Empire.
Thesis: The first modern democratic revolution happened with the Facilities Division (You can see the network's Philosophy and Religion without masks , page 38).
Marx strives to present the Lutheran Reformation as a religious variant of alienation. A "German Ideology" argues that the alleged "Christian freedom" to set the Reformation was a fictitious liberty, by which believers themselves submission accepted social order domain of the aristocracy.
Marx and the Marxists said that Luther condemned in the rebellion "communist" farmers of German and passed the bloody repression against rebels (The author of the article on Luther in the Catalan Encyclopaedia provides a Catholic on Reform, gives a biased view to placing N'Erasme above Luther and the Counter-praise of the Jesuits).
The Marxist critics condemn Luther and praise the figure of Thomas Müntzer, who have a history of communism.
Not say what the Marxists - or Catholics - on Reform:
That immediate area Lutheran - Protestant - were free from the oppression of the Inquisition.
That allowed the masses to be directed and controlled by Rome in terms of religious beliefs and moral.
Whereas the "Christian liberty" was announced effective. For the first time in Europe, the letters could not move the brand of "Nihil obstat" of Rome.
That the broad masses had access to German culture.
That reform was a cultural revolution.
Renovated school that stimulated the cultivation of the positive sciences (mathematics, physics, chemistry, nature...).
That the countries of the Reformation came to the forefront of science and technology (Contrary to what Marxists call the encyclopaedias and encyclopaedias French).
German cities that released the power of bishops.
To be declared the perverse moral Catholic intellectualism - aquinas -.
To ensure the intensity of the "salvation" is causing damage to the body were "temptations of Satan." And under the new guidance, public health makes a jump.
Whereas closing the convents of friars and nuns.
That, against the intellectualism, praise manual work and crafts.
That, against the intellectualism aquinas, declared the right of Christians to enjoy the pleasures of daily life.
Communities that were repaired free of the insane sexual repression imposed by Rome. And the woman - and the woman's body - left to be considered an instrument of the devil (Marxism is a variant of Platonism. That can be manifested in favor of a "platonic love" and a rejection against carnal love. "Is that what" what the matter is that working women have class consciousness and to reject bourgeois values ").
... That the list would be endless.
Unlike the religious, Marx was a prophet profane. Preached the coming of the reign of communism, but rather the Holy Book, the exhibit "historical materialism".
The "historical materialism" is a finalist in the theory so that it is the display of the Spirit "in Hegel on. Finalist, to understand the process of universal history is the purpose of "communism."
Finalisme: In matches Aristotle Marx, the inventor of the "final cause." According Aristotle, or in any process change involved the "final cause", ie, directed towards an end, which corresponds to the idea of perfection.
Hegel and Marx. Hegel understands history as a necessary process, as a "deployment". Both are deterministic and finalists. Marx, however, is materialistic. Where Hegel showed in the "dialectical deployment of the Spirit," Marx showed the "dialectical deployment of matter, matter" within the meaning of organization of production and distribution of goods produced materials. For Hegel the dialectic is the succession of different moments of the Spirit and also the process of self to know all, and freedom, for Marx the dialectic in the class struggle resulting appearance and denial of various historical processes.
Both authors claim to be scientific. Marx, the historical science, and Hegel, the totality of the sciences (Until now, no philosophy has exceeded the claims of "scientificity" In the of Hegel).
The three authors - Aristotle, Hegel and Marx - are finalists and deterministic: the end of history is to reach perfection (Well, for Aristotle human society is in process, it is ordered according to the idea of perfection from the beginning, the thinker accepted society as it was, like a product of nature and so, for example, said that, given that there was slavery, it was good to have slaves, so he The freed men were free of mechanical and nasty work could be devoted to the cultivation of philosophy, if they wanted).
In order to Hegel, history is the "Display of the Spirit", ie the history is progressive, and each "historical moment" "the Spirit" is also displayed. In each new historical period, humanity is a step higher civilization. We report progress on the "self" into the realm of freedom, the State no rational, definitive and final stage of history.
According to the "historical materialism", the story is a succession of failures, a "continuum" of social disposals. Based Marx is to be understood that the various stages of the story is not real progress. All times are systems of exploitation of man by man. The class struggle is constant and universal, but as history shows us, the struggles have failed to end the system of exploitation of man by man.
According to Marx in the cultural - religion, philosophy, art - an alienation that are derived from the transfer key, which is the economy. Striking is the marginalization of classical culture in which Marx, as an example of this, the three volumes of "Capital" is only a brief reference to Athens.
Follow the theory of Marx, it seems that we should reach a pessimistic conclusion about the fate of humanity in the way of a Hobbes, for example.
According to Marx in the class struggle, mostly, just a failure of the exploited classes. But in the case of a victorious battle, such as the "bourgeois revolutions, the bourgeoisie established a new operating system and starts a" new dialectic " in the class struggle (Incidentally, Marx only gives the example of "bourgeois revolution" and not any other example of a different historical periods).
It seemed that mankind had no solution, but Marx made use of a technique which is very common to do works of Marx and Marxists. The new technique invented by the philosopher is to make an "ad hoc theory" than a contradiction of the general theory. The theory "ad hoc" to "overcome" the general theory of "dialectical materialism" is the concept of the proletariat. "
Based Marx, the dialectic between "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" has some very special features - "ad hoc" - that is the announcement of the final chapter of history with the establishment of "communism."
In ancient times, millions of slaves had not succeeded in removing a few thousand Roman patricians, certainly. And the Middle Ages, the peasant rebellion against the nobility also failed. But Marx says in some of the elements that determine the new dialectic, in which the "proletarian" mature militarily "middle" - will the workers revolution "- and begin the phase of" construction of socialism, a society without social classes.
According to the theory ad hoc in the "proletariat", the following are "laws" that prepare the Proletarian Revolution ":
a) The uncontrolled growth of productive capacity.
b) The increasing intensification of the exploitation of the proletariat "
c) The growing proletarianization of society.
d) The law of concentration of capital.
e) The big bourgeoisie ceases to participate in the production process and becomes a useless class.
But once made the statement of this theory "ad hoc", immediately, Marx make a new society, which meant a new "ad hoc theory that the correct general theory. This new proposal was expressed by saying:
"In Germany, as early as the middle class appears with a revolutionary communist party to fight the bourgeoisie against the absolute monarchy, the feudal landowners big and small bourgeoisie reactionary. But never, at any moment, they forget that most of the workers to instil more awareness of the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, because the German workers become aware of the immediate social and political conditions that are necessarily derived from bourgeois domination in arms against the bourgeoisie, because after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany immediately begin fighting the bourgeoisie. The Communists are set especially in Germany, because Germany is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution and this revolution will be in the most advanced European civilization in general and with a much more developed proletariat than in England del XVII C enturyand XVIII Century of France, namely that the bourgeois revolution in Germany can be an immediate prelude Proletarian Revolution "(" Manifesto ", page 64).
"No telling Who is traitor", Marx and the Communists let you in a situation of weakness of the administration of the State caused by a democratic revolution, look to protect themselves from power.
The Marxist "science" fails; forecasts about the breakthrough in Germany is currently not upheld. But Lenin showed the world the "good" theory of the last "ad hoc" in the Marx. Lenin himself in taking care to explain it through a "Marxist theory ad hoc" with the title of "Theory of the most weak link" ( "The more weak link" between the countries of Europe in October 1917 was the recent weak Russian democracy, which emerged from the revolution in February of that year).
The validity of the method "Marxist-Leninist" to protect themselves from the state was confirmed by historical events. Invariably, given a situation of war or civil war, the Communist parties showed a rare ability to gain control of the "revolutionary army" army, through which the Communist parties obtained a monopoly from the administration of the State. So, a rare ability for the assault of Power.
It is worth noting that in consolidated democracies, the communist parties in any case they got the power. A post-II, although the French Communist Party and the Italian Communist Party had become large mass parties, with hundreds of thousands of supporters, never managed a majority government.
Lenin inaugurated the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat," which, as we know, was in reality the dictatorship of the Communist Party and, in practice, became the personal dictatorship of Lenin. Who was in Lenin had decided whether or not to bomb the common Kronstadt (The Central Committee approved the proposals invariably the Secretary-General).
In the USSR - and then the subsequent communist regimes - the "Marxist science" was declared legal tender. This meant - and that is what interests me emphasize - as other ideologies and social policies were declared "erroneous" and prohibited its dissemination.
Black began the night for the political dissidents workers. Began the legal process of dissidents. Depending on the degree of divergence, and the prosecution took varied formulas, could be caused by an error or a deviation, in ignorance, because of "leftism child", for right, because of personal selfishness, for the personality cult, and other corruption. When the confrontation was very vivid inevitably training dissident was accused of treason and collusion with the enemy (This is suffered by the anarchist Kronstadt rebels, bombed, charged with being agents of France and Trostki, murder, agent of capitalism and N'Andreu Nin, assassinated and disappeared, Agent of Franco).
Thesis: The workers at wages, the laborers and peasants hired participated decisively in the democratic revolutions.
It was not the case (contrary to what Marx says) that the working classes lead a struggle for the mastery of the "bourgeoisie." It was for freedom of the "bourgeois" who were fighting, but for their own freedom and demanding justice.
Thesis: The so-called "wars of religion" - international or civil wars - wars were really revolutionary.
Thesis: Throughout time, religion was used as an instrument of ideological struggle and class struggle, therefore.
The democratic revolutions (for example, 1520, 1556, 1648, 1688), the reactionary forces is endorsed by the Catholic Church and the rebels with the churches of the Reformation.
Certainly, the popular classes that participate in the democratic revolutions did not specifically in the defense of free trade.
Against the concept of Weber in the fact that capitalism originated and spread out to the countries of the reformed churches should not be explained due to Calvinist morality.
The deployment of capitalism was as a result of the triumph of democratic revolutions.
Thesis: The absolute monarchy was the social and political system with which the aristocracy - the oligarchy - had established a monopoly of power.
Thesis: The monopoly of power meant the oligarchy of the primary monopoly of economic activities, not just land. This monopoly of the great economy, the king - as the supreme aristocrat - he corresponded exclusive monopoly of some benefit, such as the salt, and, of course, your participation in any "big business the kingdom "(The current monarchy, despite the limitations that imposed democracy, trying to imitate the ancient splendor of royalty).
Thesis: The oligarchic monopoly made impossible the deployment of the economy.
The splendid weather in another commercial republics like Genoa and Venice, not managed to maintain independence and fall under the yoke of the monarchy, so they will be marked and left to be protagonists of the story.
Neither Marx nor Popper. Karl Popper as an escort.
The idea of countering the name of the Marx Popper - I like the title of the article - was rather random in the sense that instead of the name served as Popper had another name among many other authors , under the "love of knowledge", in fact conceal his desire to defend capitalism.
The Marx-Popper pair is asymmetrical. Popper is a theoretical hackwork alongside Marx, although the British elites praise. The Austrian philosopher of referring us to show how it relates to philosophy and the social elite.
Currently Popper appears as one of the most notable on the theory of scientific methodology. Specialized study of the language of science, was selected for his original contributions known as "theory of falsification", whereby a pretesament scientific theory is valid if and only if it can be "falsable” or refutable, ie, capable of being experienced or may be confronted with the observation of physical reality.
For fear to the threat Nazi (in Popper's family was Jewish converts), in 1937 emigrated to New Zealand and in 1945, he was able to reside in the United Kingdom where he was initially wanted to go. He emphasized the special relationship with Friedrich von Hayek in one of the economists - and philosopher - the most influential in defense of capitalism (the "liberalism" that they say) and very critical of socialism. Thanks to Hayek, Popper was able to play in the professor of logic at the London School of Economics. Was a typical academic life until he retired the year 1969. He received a mountain of awards, of which include:
Knight appointed by the Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in 1965, was also a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, founded community studies by von Hayek to promote a liberal political agenda, and the Royal Society of London. In 1989 he was awarded the Catalonia International Prize, in its first edition and by the Government of Catalonia.
In the figure of Karl Popper as a philosopher was "in crescendo" to be considered one of the great philosophers of the Anglo-Saxon world.
But since the 1960s has also increased the number of authors who are critical of Popper's thought.
Currently, although some had cooled the enthusiasm of the followers of Popper in the textbooks and encyclopaedias (especially the Anglo-Saxon) insist to consider it one of the great philosophers of the twentieth century.
My position is critical in respect to Popper. I'm in the line of thinkers who believe in Popper is a "bluff"
that he helped to creating. In agree with Malachi Hacohen, who in his book, "Karl Popper. The years of training ", 2003, shows a string of forgery and manipulation of the philosopher. I think that Popper was in a Pharisee and a manipulator. I think the philosophy of "falsification" lies used to crop the image of his "great philosopher". I also believe that their subordinates ideological production in order to satisfy those who should protect and facilitate their social ascent.
Coinciding with other critics believe that the epistemological theory of the "falsification” is inconsistent. The author claimed to have solved "the problem of induction" which had arisen in Hume. We also believe - or understand that she believed - that he had exceeded the approach of the Vienna School of logical positivism.
But, as critics argue any (I can cite, in particular, Martin Gardner), the "falsification" really is a formula that covers a variant of which is the induction of typical and induction of science itself.
Popper In a moment he should think about their contribution to the world of science could be an earthquake (his friend and collaborator John Eccles the physiologist had said publicly that he used the same method of falsification. But how critics say, scientists continue as if nothing made use of induction as a method,as if it knew nothing in the theory of the falsification Popper. And what scientists do is to provide evidence (through of induction) in support of their thesis, as always have.
On this issue, could be a general statement saying that the military defeat of the Catholic Church, began experimental science (the countries of the Reformation), without any theological or philosophical conditioning.
How common is the logical positivists and the pragmatist philosophers, Popper states in Herald of science, but contrary to what was in Hume, is showing "very respectful of the great moral teachers of Judaism and Christianity" and is not criticism or to the churches or with respect to crimes of the churches.
"Popper opponent of Marx," I said, that what I display here is not a proper analysis of Popper's philosophy in, but in areas where Popper shows his true ideological interests.
It comes to see why the title "Neither Marx nor Popper. "Neither Marx nor Popper" in the sense that we must deny the practice of ideological In Karl Popper, a practice that is serving the ideological interests of social and economic elites, or of capitalism (not to Bade, the first thing led the race in professional Popper was in Friedrich von Hayek, one of the leading theorists of neoliberal economics and radical critic of socialism, to combat the slightest measure of state intervention in the processes economic, that is, firmly believed in the "invisible hand" of the market economy).
Certainly, in Popper was a scholar in the field of mathematics, logic, physics, and also of psychology. But this theory, as they felt safe against the basic principles of defense said that positivism began to publish all materials from philosophical speculation, ie, making a statement:
Thesis: In Popper all materials presented a speculative allegedly scientific language, as stated the "passing of the philosophy," as if "the false solutions to the problems of philosophy as a science." But you see these "big theories" are mostly inconsistent, scandalously inconsistent.
In "The open society and its enemies", in two volumes, 1945, Popper to show that the major problems that threaten democratic societies, fascism and communism, have their origin in historicism, and that the design Historism first, which derive from modern, to be in Plato. ( Popper changed the word "idealism", which usually applies to the philosophy of Plato, by "historicism", probably with the intention of saving the word "idealism" of the critics to put their own "historicism ").
I think the success of "The open society and its enemies" because it affirms the basic values of the dominant ideology (of the social and political elites), or to appear without the class struggle or conflict ideological resulting therefrom. According to Popper in, any attempt to explain the process of history is "historicism" and "historicism" has some consequences.
Thesis: Popper dresses or delete anything that refers to conflicting economic, social or political.
Thesis: The distinction and who Popper was awarded in people power, people from the social and economic elites, people, ultimately, very concerned about the authors or organizations that are critical to the capitalist system.
With Popper In the end no more than a few culprits. The biggest of all, Plato. And the time modern, who followed the Plato, that is, according to the author, in Hegel and in Marx. So, ultimately, the evils that exist in history are caused by "false ideas" of "historical" are a few people.
In shorthand, a step of exposing the silences in Popper on key issues - and any claim involved - which rests, in my opinion, shows the conservative thinking of the author and his phariseism:
Her glamorous silence on the Jewish Question and the threat hanging over the Jews in Austria and Germany. His family was Jewish and converted skating seriously because of Nazi persecution.
Critics say - and I think - In Popper wanted to deny their status as convert, and criticizes the lack of ability of Jews to integrate into Austrian society or Germany.
In his work does not speak at all of anti-Semitism or the "Jewish question". At all times, this author is presented as a man German or English has nothing to do with the Jews (I think he should not think that was good for his career, referring to its status as convert). However, it said and repeated that it was "very respectful of the great moral teachers of the Jewish religion and the Christian."
It also hastens to say that it considered reasonable for many people believe religion to be a spiritual help.
I supported his friend John Eccles in his attempt to make a metaphysical "science" to accept the possibility of the existence of an immortal human soul.
Talk about Pericles and Athens, as if democracy were a chance, like a product designed for one person. Popper is in a very poor historian of philosophy.
Makes no reference to the democratic revolutions of the Greek cities, or civil wars, or the contra-revolutions. I do not talk about the formation of empires and the universal Evil affecting at Roman Empire. In referring to Hegel.
Refers to the class struggle as if it were a sort of Marxist manipulation. Do not mention the aristocracy as a class that had a monopoly of power.
It does not say that in Plato was neither aristocratic family that was aristocratic party.
Popper presents himself as a "social science" that deals with ideas that are perverse because of totalitarianism.
Makes no reference to the exploitation of man by man or social inequalities.
Democracy unfolds in Athens because of the democratic ideas that had men in Pericles.
Similarly, also by chance, in Plato had "totalitarian ideas" because I wanted an ideal society. The "Republic" Plato contains all ideas "historicist". Lead directly to totalitarianism.
The "social scientist" who had seen that was not considered appropriate to Socrates at Plato in that bag. So, does appear to Socrates as a kind of Democrat opposed to the figure of Plato, this figure does not match that of the historians of philosophy.
The historicism "Plato is that he made a journey through the centuries and is mysteriously play thought of Hegel and Marx. The ideas "historicist" were the cause of Hitler's totalitarian ideas of Marx and Stalin.
So, in short, is not the case that there are social crises, crises of capitalism, class struggle, exploitation of the working class, accumulations of wealth, privilege of the elite social powers of the capitalist class. What are misconceptions are due to the ambition or the egoism of a man.
So, in Popper denies the validity of the claim to Marx to make a science of history ", but also negates all the economic and social realities to which Marx refers in.
So, for Popper in, there would be one way of doing social science is that which corresponds to the positive. He should be considered from the "open societies to market economies" are the best companies possible that, if anything, the politicians - or, rather, "social scientists" - has made proposals to overcome shortcomings and make improvements, but any attempt to propose an alternative global social is falling into totalitarianism.
Suddenly, those responsible are of totalitarianism in Mussolini in Hitler, Stalin, and in men as well. So, ultimately, would be "ideas" the real agents of history.
Popper is presented as a "social scientist" makes all times and thorough statements of good feelings about freedom, tolerance, the spirit of solidarity, critical spirit, interest in science and all those things that make up a national liberal (liberal, in the English sense of the word), if statements stand as the time of Locke and repeat the discourse of "Letter on Tolerance"
Occasionally, surprising the extraordinary ingenuity displayed by the philosopher: to put a specific time such as a man of "liberal" Democrat and a Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the Conservative government of Great Britain (Government, just had authorized the entry of Popper in Britain).
Popper save comments on the privileges of the British monarchy. Neither has anything to say about the existence of the huge British Empire.
Speaks of the right to property as a natural right, but that right had already been picked by the democratic.
Argues in favour of free trade - which is also a natural law - as a guarantee of individual freedom. But maintaining a silence on the crisis highlighted capitalism and capitalist exploitation.
Neither explains how you can play free if they are capitalists who imposed conditions of employment and wages. Says nothing of the contradiction between capitalism and "equal opportunities".
The theory of capitalism - and Popper and his friend Hayek, NeoCon champion - argue that the capitalist competition acts as a social Darwinist and rewards employers who demonstrate more skills to your business address.
Contrary to Popper in holding - and the Neocon - I made the following
Thesis: As a person of mediocre king can do no problem (remember the case of Carlos II, the spell), as a mediocre exercise can finance tycoon well without any problems.
In Popper and theorists of capitalism fills the mouth with words of freedom and democracy, but
Thesis: Capitalism means the reintroduction of the absolute monarchy. One think we exaggerate, suffice to say that the capitalists are the aristocracy of the market economy. But I say that no, that the capitalists, the big capitalists, not forswear loyalty to a supposed "king" of the economy. I repeat: The magnates at all times act as absolute monarchs or at least as little kings.
Thesis: Capitalism is incompatible with democracy.
Certainly, the deployment of capitalism took place in the countries that had democratic revolutions.
Thesis: The activities such as "market economy" was possible once we were apart the privileges of the aristocracy and despotism of the Catholic Church. Until then, the despots and oligarchs is endorsed monopoly of the major economic sources.
Thesis: It is not the case that they are agents of capitalist democracy. As soon as it formed the capitalist economic elite, they were giving privileges and trying the armor of its beauty, also immediately began to practice all that seriously harm the democratic system.
Popper, similarly to Hayek - and coinciding with Senator McCarthy - has been warned to be guardian defending democracy, that always has to carry the warning against ideological the alleged enemies of the "open society" against those who advocate social utopias or ideologies "historicist" or "social revolution".
It gives a striking contradiction to the evaluations that are thought o Popper: On the one hand, there is the praise as if it were one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century, ad on the other, the ' making a definition of thought, this definition fits what would be thought of Locke or Stuart Mill.
When the maturity in 1972, should explain what their political position is that "the classical market, not liberal socialist, with a touch of culture conservation (ecological), and added:" I do not think makes sense that the demand for a single guiding principle, so in three I say: peace, freedom and prosperity”.And refers to specific policies, saying: "The next three seem to be a minimum, we can add others:
1. Free trade, ie the freedom of individuals to participate in voluntary exchange of property and legal services, even if they are in different countries.
2. The rule of law, equality before the law, due process, etc..
3. A moral framework, including elements such as honesty and compassion.
And three guiding principles of public policy:
Minimize suffering.
The fight against tyranny.
The promotion of tolerance. "
Popper and theorists of capitalism goodness mouth filled with statements of moral principles, but set aside the obvious evil deeds which affect the capitalist system.
Thesis: We must restore the original democracy, which existed before the emergence of economic elites (capitalists).
Thesis: With the system of free market capitalists increase their wealth and their privileges, and break, thus, democracy.
Thesis: We can not therefore speak of equality (in Popper and popperians are no consistent) while promoting a system that stimulates the fight for inequality.
Thesis: Can not talk about "minimize suffering", while supporting the "freedom" of the big pharmaceutical companies.
The question addressed by those who want to restore democracy is lost: What's the problem for socializing big pharmaceutical companies?
Thesis: It is absurd to put these side beat invite to fight tyranny and to promote an economic system that does nothing other than create tyrants.
Thesis: Can not talk about freedom while supporting a system that Abduct freedom, and strings and puts.
The Pharisees are great magnates who are the owners of the media. Rather, we read:
Thesis: It is a negation of democracy and a cruel tyranny that the economic elites (the Rupert Murdoch) takes over the press and media and imposes their capitalist totalitarianism.
Thesis: To restore democracy, journalists must be independent, and in this respect is essential to deprive the world of Rupert Murdoch. The mass media should not be in the hands of tyrants.
La Tafanera
del.icio.us
No hi ha Comentaris »