/lit/ - Literature

>>6166168
>So much anger. Did a critical theorist break your heart? I'm used to poli-sci people being smug, but you take the biscuit.
Funny story, I did history.

>It's impossible for unfalsifiable statements/ideas to be empirical.

Ah, fuck m8, you're telling you took the Popper criticism hook, line, and sinker? Or perhaps this is you reading Marx's critique of political economy to be moral adages again and, thus, wholly subjective.

Marx clearly makes an empirical claim regarding capitalism, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and the labor theory of value. If prices have no connection to labor values and the rate of profit does not, in fact, have a tendency to fall that can be empirically observed, Marx was fucking wrong.

If so, I won't be around to pick up words and phrases without context, trying to reconstruct Marxism on the flimsiest of bases, finding refuge in the little whimsies of lit-crit--I'll be gone. Thankfully, Kliman and the TSSI group are doing very promising work, Michael Heinrich's New German Interpretation looks to be a fresh take on the method and study of the critique of political economy (though, at odds with Kliman, to a degree), and Paul Mattick Jr. has made convincing arguments against orthodox understandings of the recent crisis that mean Marx's actual analysis is still quite useful in evaluating empirical claims, if only for the time being.

>At no point did I say it was an all-encompasing solution of a book. You set up an easy strawman there, buddy.

So you're telling me you recommended a book you either don't understand or thought was wrong without the appropriate warning to the one who asked you? I simply assumed you recommended it without much comment because you thought it was right. But, ah! I guess empirical claims aren't that important.