Popper has further argued that historical materialism is a pseudoscience because it is not falsifiable. Popper believed that Marxism had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. When Marx's predictions were not in fact borne out, Popper argues that the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which attempted to make it compatible with the facts. By this means a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.

that doesn't mean, of course, that plan-based economy is impossible, or that the history science cannot be built on a correct scientific basis, it just mean that this basis is wrong

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

а зачем читать Маркса с идеологией? не надо. а как аналитик — он дядька мощный. и если бы его читали как аналитика, то советской революции бы не было, потому что не было достаточных условий для успеха. собственно, в итоге и вышел факап.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

probably; Freud works also contain many valuable ideas, and many of them was lately absorbed by Lorenz's ethology (but Rand books hardly contain anything valuable, I suppose); but I talked only about ideologies and ideologists, so called Marxism and Freudism and Randism.
also I should notice that it doesn't need to be zootechnician to understand in the beginning of 20th century that russia isn't appropriate for socialistic revolution; but the fuck up wasn't a logical result of this precondition; in the end, china in the middle of 20th was ever less appropriate than russia in the beginning of it, but there is no fuck up at china at all

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

в китае точно такой же факап и государственный капитализм: лажа в данном случае в том, что коммунизма не получилось.

а идеологии — с ними беда, это есть: они отчего-то стремятся весело мутировать в дикое говноболото.

(Reply to this) (Parent)