(MIG Tournament) In Defense of "An Open Society and it's Enemies" Vol. 2

Historicism: an approach to the social sciences which assumes that historical prediction is their principal aim…The belief… that it is the task of the social sciences to lay bare the law of evolution of society in order to foretell its future. – Poverty of Historicism C1: Marxism is Historicist (provided by SPinko) Everything is matter in motion. As per Marx's acceptance of philosophical materialism. The world is not simply a world of ideas a la Hegel. It exists in the here and now as only that which is material. VV Contradictions within everything are what push change. it will begin with an abstract or thesis. Owing to its incompleteness a negation (anti-thesis) appears to counteract it. The result is a concrete which incorporates the anti-thesis or synthesizes it. The process then begins again as the concrete becomes the new abstract. This happens over and over until the Absolute is reached or totality. It's hard to describe it in words exactly but I think I understand what totality means. VV These principles are applicable to human behavior since matter precedes thought, thus human behavior and thought are constrained within materialist limits. VV The dialectical process in regards to humanity is based on internal economic contradictions within a given society i.e. incompatible class conflict based on the forces of and one's relation to the means of production. VV Economic conditions in regards to the means of productionare the basis of human society. Politics, law, ethics, religion develop in relation to these economic forces. VV Society progresses as the internal contradictions within various economic arrangements become clear. C2: Critique of Historicism In An Open Society and Its Enemies Popper assumes that his audience has already read The Poverty of Historicism. Some general criticisms of historicism, and thus applicable to Marxism are: First, historicist accounts confuse analytic laws with empirical trends. Marxism attempts to create a scientific law dictating social movement by appealing to trends in shifting economic superstructures. For example, primitivism led to feudalism which led to capitalism which according to Marx will lead to socialism, communism and eventually anarchism. For Marx this is the trend which society a dicto will inevitably lead to. The problem with this however is that from a scientific standpoint there is no way to compare this to any other variable since society is moving naturally and it not controlled in a lab. As such, historicists make the jump from historical trends to universal laws. This is not to say that certain trends are not correct, but rather it is impossible to know if these trends are correct. Second, individual action cannot be predicted. Even assuming Marxist and biological determinism is correct, as mentioned above there is no way to predict the behavior of humans. Whereas predicting a meteor path is pretty simple using math and physics, predicting the path of humanity is not possible at this stage in the development of man’s knowledge. Even if humans are on a certain path it is not possible for Marx or anyone to know the causes and especially the effects of this path. Third, falsifiability. ;) Even within science, theories and laws are tested and if nothing contradicts it then science can make a non-falsified claim. However once the theory has been contradicted science must look to other alternatives. The problem with Marxist social sciences is that they attempt to link social behavior to an inevitable path without anyway to falsify that information. Historicists can easily make the claim that their theory coincides with any potential empirical trend that disproves its theory because there are so many variables operating that it is impossible to isolate the main operating variable. Fourth, a trend vs. an outcome. Even if we assume Marxist trends are correct, there is no link that Marx provides us that shows these trends to be the inevitable trends of human history. In other words, Marx claims that since there exists a trend that it must be the trend. Marx does not provide nearly sufficient evidence to prove this rather broad claim of an inevitable trend of human history. C3: Specific Marxist Critique Popper makes the claim that historicism is dangerous because it promotes a utopian world view which a dicto must exist in the future. As such society unlocks the Oedipus Effect – society behaves in order to attain that which has been prophesized. This is where the danger comes in and where we can understand the title An Open Society and its Enemies. In Capital, Marx makes the claim that politics is impotent in social change and especially in terms of the inevitable social change towards socialism. As such, Marx calls for the uprising of the proletariat in order to bring about the social change needed for the apex of human history. Marx during his life saw the capitalists block almost all major legislation to protect the labor and their rights. As such Marx believes that politics themselves are impotent and thus the superstructure must be destroyed and a new one brought about. The problem with this is no matter how one looks at the issue tyranny will most likely result. Even Marx believes there can be no stateless and classless society without a purging period where the state is run by the proletariat (the proletariat dictatorship). At that time the open society must be closed for the inevitable stateless society. Referring to history this has not been the case – the U.S.S.R. under Lenin and Stalin, Mao under his weird interpretation of Marx, Cambodia, Laos, etc. The list goes on and the variable consistent in each is a deprivation of freedom and state control via violence. The thing Marx misses in his analysis is the relationship of power on these historical trends. For Marx, institutionalized power is an effect not a cause of the ills which exist in each period of history – the ever evolving superstructure is and everything built on top acts in accordance with this structure. Even granting truth value to this statement Marx doesn’t fully anticipate the effects on the individual or collective conscience and how they react to the structure itself. Thus, Popper’s analysis of the danger that the Oedipus Effect has is correct: Either, Marx is correct and statelessness will occur naturally through a destined path in which violence is not necessary. However, due to Marx’s ideas themselves violence becomes almost unavoidable as a means to speed up the process. Or Marx is not correct and there is no apex of humanity culminating in socialism which means Marx is perpetrating eventual and empirically demonstrated crimes against humanity all for the sake of supposedly more desirable state (or lack thereof). In both cases violence becomes the mean and the result is a deprivation of rights, liberty and the formation of an even more oppressive state than the status quo has.