[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Wow LBird you've just gone and written a brill review, unfortunately my opinion – like your post – is ideologically biased and falls at the first hurdle. 

But 'ideology' is not a 'hurdle', to be either 'fallen over' or, perhaps you are suggesting, to be best avoided entirely.'Ideology' is the inescapable enabler, the horse which we ride, to jump the hurdles.I openly give the name of my horse, because I employ the proper scientific method in the horse race that is science.Those who refuse to name their horse are not actually running the horse race on foot, they are just pretending. Believe me, they're on a horse!Come on, Communist! We're in the lead!

Brian wrote:

Nevertheless, it clarifies it lot of the points you have been making over several months. Just hope when the review does appear in next months Socialist Standard it carries a disclaimer along the lines you are suggesting.

Well, I would expect the periodical title of Socialist Standard would give a clue as to the mount!But, yes, perhaps the reviewer will make explicit their particular hobby horse.Is your horse named 'positivism', Brian?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i think Lbird may be right…you ask the questions that will fit in with your answers and that is because of the ideas you already hold in your head…ideology.

It’s become clear since Einstein that this sequence really is the ‘scientific method’. Of course, this contradicts entirely the supposed basis of ‘science’(especially ‘physics’), from Newton onward, by which humans were supposed to have unmediated access to ‘reality’ through passive sense-based observation. That was the myth of positivism, that ‘physics’ produced a ‘truth’ which reflected ‘reality’. And this myth was supposed to provide the basis for all attempts to make other scientific disciplines more like physics, that is, more ‘objective’. Hence, in history, for example, von Ranke’s now notorious plea to historians, to stop moralising and “simply to show how it really was (wie es eigentlich gewesen)” (see Carr, What is History, p.. Of course, we now know that ‘morals’ can’t be removed from either history or physics (or, indeed, economics). Humans (and their ideologies, morals, beliefs, etc.) are at the heart of the scientific method. There is no simple ‘raw data’ to passively examine, not even in physics.So, to sum up the two methods, the mythical scientific method is:1 raw data2 neutral collection3 neutral presentation (ie. the ‘facts’)4 theories, implications, lessons drawn (the only ‘active’ stage)Based on this mythical method, some regard Piketty’s book as representing the third stage (ie. the ‘facts’ or ‘raw data’). Thus, anyone can read the ‘facts’ or ‘raw data’ and draw their own conclusions. For this bourgeois method, the ideology begins with the fourth stage, and thus the arguments are about which ideology is correct for interpreting the ‘raw facts’.It’s bollocks, comrades.The proper scientific method (and it always has been this, the positivists were pretending otherwise) is:1 raw data (ie. everything, everywhere, at every time)2 human social consciousness (including ideology and theories)3 selection from ‘everything, etc.’ based on human parameters4 presentation of pre-chosen ‘facts’ (allegedly ‘raw data’, but in reality ‘pre-cooked data’)5 implications, lessons drawn (the second ‘active’ stage)Now, we can see that Piketty’s book represents the fourth stage (ie. the ‘cooked data’). If one merely ‘accepts’ Piketty’s data, one is already being bullshitted. Criticism must start, for the scientific method, at stage 2. Piketty’s ideological beliefs must be consciously criticised, prior to reading his book, to allow the scientist to understand Piketty’s selection parameters, and thus why he’s actively picked some ‘data’ and (often unconsciously) rejected most of the other data (which is favourable to Communist ideology).As ajj has perhaps come to realise, “you ask the questions that will fit in with your answers and that is because of the ideas you already hold in your head…ideology”Piketty asked the questions (selected the ‘raw data’) that fitted in with his answers (to fit his preconceived ideas) that is because it’s the human condition (the ideas we already hold in our heads). Humans are social and cultural products, not simply sense-based registers of all external data.Piketty is a reformist, who selected from ‘everything’ (ie, the world we live in) the ‘facts’ that suit his reformist ideology. Not surprisingly, the conclusions that he draws are reformist solutions to reformist problems.No-one can read Piketty ‘un-ideologically’. The book is ideological, and one’s reading of it is ideological. The proper scientific method demands that we expose our ideologies, both in writing and reading, to others. As Einstein insisted, knowledge is relative to ‘the enquirer’ (conceived as a society, or perhaps for Marxists, a mode of production/social formation) As Communists, we can do this; but the bourgeoisie can’t. They have to maintain the pretence that they and their books are not ideological, and that they simply deal with the ‘real world’ of ‘hard facts’.It can’t be done in physics, and it can’t be done in economics.Human understanding, and thus meaning, are at the heart of science.The real world doesn’t present itself to humans unbidden.Piketty is a used-car salesman. Kick the tyres before buying, comrades.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Isn't he talking here about poor countries (rather than poor people within countries) …

Well, here's the quote again, fuller:

Piketty, Capital, p. 71, wrote:

To sum up, …the principle mechanism for convergence at the international as well as the domestic level is the diffusion of knowledge. In other words, the poor catch up with the rich to the extent that they achieve the same level of technological know-how, skill, and education…

[my bolds, were '…' last quote]Once again, I can't find any evidence within the chapter for this summary assertion by Piketty.Perhaps it's one of his own fish which got away. Lousy choice of tackle, method, pond, and furthermore poor execution of those choices by Piketty?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

A serious question from me now to those who have read the book.

I’ve got one, too, for those further into the mire than me, so far. I’ve read to the end of chapter one, where I found:

Piketty, Capital, p. 71, wrote:

…the principle mechanism for convergence…is the diffusion of knowledge. In other words, the poor catch up with the rich to the extent that they achieve the same level of technological know-how, skill, and education…

I’m baffled by this conclusion by Piketty. I can’t find any evidence in the chapter for this assertion.Within the UK, the proletariat is better formally-educated than ever before, and yet they haven’t ‘caught up with the rich’.From what I’ve already read in reviews, Piketty argues that the world wars were the context of ‘convergence’ (ie, the rich paid more in money than the poor (who paid in lives, though), and so there was ‘convergence’), so what does he mean by this strange assertion, above?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

What facts on the ownership of wealth would you select from your ideological point of view and how would you present them?

[my bold]Well, first of all, I'd point out that to concede that the rich 'own' the wealth that they've stolen from us, is a big ideological mistake.It's like conceding that, having stolen a TV from someone's house, that the burglar now 'owns' the TV.What's more, it allows every worker who 'owns' a TV, to feel some identity with someone who also 'owns' things, like a multi-national conglomerate, a shipping line, a string of car factories…We'd be better pointing out, from the start, that 'wealth' is the 'property' of all, and 'ownership of wealth' is an ideological construct aimed at undermining Communist ideas, and that the discussion should be about 'facts on the theft of wealth', not about its 'ownership'.Once we've established that, we could soon establish that Piketty's method ignores the vast majority of 'social products' that the rich have stolen, beyond the physical and monetary assets that he focusses on.You know far more than I do about 'economics', ALB, and you're better suited to point out what Piketty has 'selected through bias' and what 'figures should be rejected'.As for the FT, aren't they capitalists, who select what they want, too? I don't trust a word that they say! But that's because I'm a Communist, not because of their dodgy data arguments.Or do you subscribe to the 'real raw data, open to all, objectively' thesis? I don't, I'm afraid. But that's the basis of our 'scientific' disagreements, too, so I won't pursue it further, here.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Piketty wrote a book called 'Sharks' in which he discussed the eating habits of sharks. He left out entirely their reproductive habits. Does that disqualify his description of the eating habits of sharks?

But this is your ideological opinion, YMS.In my ideological opinion, he wrote a book called 'Sharks' and discussed only the eating habits of nice, cuddly pussy cats.

YMS wrote:

I employ a team of ideology elves, who hammer at books all night when I'm not looking so I can awaken fresh as a daisy to some ready made conclusions each morning.

Yes, you do. The 'ideology elves' are the ruling class's thinkers, like Piketty. They hammer away, but you really are not looking, are you?Why not employ a different set of elves, like comrades here, and join them, and then we can all consciously 'hammer away' at building our own 'books and conclusions'?I notice you haven't answered my question about your chosen ideology? If you're a reformist, that's fine by me, we can agree to disagree. But then we'll know why we disagree, and realise that it's nothing to with 'raw data' or the need to only read what's written by Piketty (as opposed to 'reading into' what he didn't write).I know from our discussions about 'scientific method' that you seem averse to asking questions about ideology, both others' and your own, but we can't avoid it, from a Communist perspective, at least.If you're not a Communist, fair enough.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Just to damp us all down with the towel of overworked metaphor: would you criticise a book on the hunting methods of sharks because it doesn't discuss their reproductive methods?  Criticising works for topiics not covered is a fruitless method.  I'm sure Piketty doesn't discuss Hungarian realist cinema in the 1920's, how can we trust a word he says if he doesn't cover Hungarian realist cinema in the 1920's?

But the book's titled 'Hungarian realist cinema in the 1920s'.Surely we're entitled to point out that he's actually written about Japanese Kabuki theatre in the 17th century?I think you underestimate the problems with 'raw data', YMS. It's precisely the gaps, 'the topics not covered', that is at the heart of criticism. Reformists ignore, misidentify, throw away, or even fail to notice, the real issues. 'Real issues' are defined by one's ideology. If you're not a Communist, fine. Ignore the fundamental importance of the gaps in Piketty's book, but you can't criticise Communists for pointing out those gaps.You seem to take the label on the tin as gospel. Some of us are a bit more worldly-wise.What ideology do you employ to understand Piketty's book, YMS?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Anyway, L. Bird, read on and see, even if he's not fishing in the same pond as you, if he's not catching some of the same fish.

Of course, I’ll carry on reading Pikettys’ book – at the very least, I’ve bloody paid for it, so I’m going to read it!But, I’m inclined to agree with Alan’s points:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

And if you want to use the fishing metaphor …he trawled for his data, and all the catch that isn't suitable for what LBird says to back Piketty's own ideological position which would mean a very different conclusion to a tax, has been thrown back.

Every ideology contains parameters of selection: of what to keep, and of what to throw away, from someone else’s ‘raw data’. But this ‘raw data’ has already been pre-selected by the author’s ideological parameters. So, as well as our own ‘selecting and rejecting’, we have to be aware that a ‘selection and rejection’ has already happened, before we get to someone else’s ‘raw data’. Thus, some ‘raw data’ we would have ‘selected’ has already been thrown away, before we even get the chance to decide. We all have an ideological framework (conscious of it or not), and we are compelled to choose our ‘fish’. And the ‘fish’ that are presented to us are already only a subset of all the fish in the ocean.Piketty, as Alan says, has already thrown away (or failed to even ‘observe’ for catching in the first place, as ‘fish’ as a species are defined by the ‘fisher’) many valuable ‘facts’ or ‘raw data’ that we would recognise as important.

ajj wrote:

And what of his catch…it is being used as bait to lure the bigger fish …people ..on to all their political hooks. And this is all to be put to one side because Piketty produces data…

This point by Alan is a brilliant criticism.Since we recognise that ‘raw data’ is the human product of ignorance, definitions, selection and rejection prior to its status as ‘raw data’ (in fact, it’s already ‘well-cooked data’, data is never ‘raw’ for humans), we have to face the issue of why Piketty ignored, defined, selected and rejected the ‘raw data’ favourable to a Communist stance.And he did. Piketty’s book obscures the case for Communism, rather than builds for it.There might be some ‘facts’ we can extract from his ‘raw data’, but those ‘facts’ will have to be inserted into a different narrative, a different ideological framework, to make sense of them, to give the ‘facts’ meaning. If one employs a reformist ideology, which matches Piketty’s reformist ideology, then the ‘facts’ will make ‘reformist’ sense, and reinforce a ‘reformist’ outlook. One won’t move to a Communist viewpoint from reading Piketty. Perhaps Stuart’s views embody this reformist development.

ajj wrote:

I already said very early…won't make much difference if Piketty is read or not…the people who count will come to their own conclusions (and have done), about capitalism for themselves…

I think I agree with Alan here, too. I don’t think I would recommend Piketty’s book (based upon what I’ve read, so far) for those, already Communist, to learn, or for reformists to move towards Communist ideas. I’d only say to comrades, if you’re wondering what all the fuss is about (like me), then read it and form your own conclusions, but otherwise, since none of us can read everything, just read various reviews on the net, and especially the views of comrades here.Again, to quote Alan:

ajj wrote:

These absurdities should be head-lined, not relegated to a brief mention in passing while we concentrate praise on his diligence in interpreting the archives. It is not a caveat but a core criticism to Piketty.

Hear, hear!If we suggest that workers should taste cod, but then tell workers to look to a fisherman who catches poisonous pufferfish for their consumption, raw and untreated, it is a culinary mistake (and probably a criminal act).To say nothing of a political error.

SocialistPunk wrote:

This question is to those who are reading Piketty's book. Does he at all suggest why the rich seem to be getting a lot richer?

Perhaps, like Franz von Werra, that’s one of the ‘fish’ that merely ‘got away’ from Piketty’s tackle, methods, taste and choice of pond.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'm with Lbird on this one…

Christ! Someone supporting something I've written! Ta, Alan!

ajj wrote:

i'm sure a member said once that Stuart's political position shifts with whoever he is reading at the time…

Well, to be fair, this is exactly what Stuart said his method consisted of:

stuartw2112 wrote:

You'll never learn anything new if you don't first empty your cup. Read it as a totally gullible fool, a sycophant, a dupe. Then you'll absorb the ideas that are actually there rather than the ones you first thought of.

I think that calling it 'The Beezer Method' shows its essential worth. Comic-book philosophy.

ajj wrote:

I am sure if from the reviews i read if Piketty supported the concept of common ownership and production for use, my judgement on his book would be very different too…BUT he doesn't …

This is the key point, which should be stressed for any comrades intending to read Piketty's book: Piketty is not a revolutionary or a Communist/Socialist or a Marxist.Piketty's book is full of information, some relevant, some not, and much is absent. One's pre-existing ideology will provide the categorisation parameters for which box of those three, that one fills with which 'data' from Piketty.The idea of reading Piketty without one knowing one's own ideology (which will give those parameters which will sort the 'data') is downright ignorant. Unless one likes one's reading to be like reading The Beezer.No, read critically, and read whilst concious of one's own critical parameters, comrades. There's no other way.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

stuartw2112 wrote:

One concluding remark before I go off to spend my time more productively, I'll pick up Alan's jibe about my right-wing libertarian ideas, and this has relevance for LB too. If you haven't seriously entertained the idea that maybe Hayek and right-wing pro-market thinkers are right, or that they might not have a point somewhere – I mean seriously entertained the idea, even if only for a day or two – then, seriously, you don't have the remotest idea what you're talking about. Not a clue! TTFN

I'd agree with this. In fact once a certain idea becomes on that we personally cherish we should purposfully look for things that undermine it. To do otherwise is to fall prey of wishful thinking or religous thinking. Confirmation bias is a very real phenomena and one that constantly needs to be countered.

This sounds like good advice, DJP. I take it you're now off to read Lakatos, Feyerabend, Popper, Kuhn…As for Hayek, I'm well aware of his 'ideas'. I was thirty-five years ago, at the height of Thatcherism.At least my Communism is conscious 'wishful and religious thinking', but your knowledge of the philosophy of science is truly 'blind faith'. Anyway, take your own advice well, comrade.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

One concluding remark before I go off to spend my time more productively, I'll pick up Alan's jibe about my right-wing libertarian ideas, and this has relevance for LB too. If you haven't seriously entertained the idea that maybe Hayek and right-wing pro-market thinkers are right, or that they might not have a point somewhere – I mean seriously entertained the idea, even if only for a day or two – then, seriously, you don't have the remotest idea what you're talking about. Not a clue! TTFN

Wow!!!Talk about revealing… Hayek and the market…Wow!!!Now I know why we disagree so strongly…

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

LBird: that's not critical thinking, it's blockheadedness. You'll never learn anything new if you don't first empty your cup. Read it as a totally gullible fool, a sycophant, a dupe. Then you'll absorb the ideas that are actually there rather than the ones you first thought of.

'Blockheadedness'? That's a bit strong, from someone who suggests their reading method would involve them reading 'The Beezer' and absorbing its ideas at face value.To be serious, though, you've fallen for the myth of 'objectiveness' in science, stuart.One can't 'empty one's cup'. The contents of one's 'cup' determines how one understands what one reads. If you don't know your own 'cup contents', you'll be bamboozled by what your read.And your reaction on this thread to (gosh!) Professor Piketty, suggests you're a bit star-struck.He's a bullshitter. An academic bullshitter. And a pro-capitalist bullshitter.I think your passive cup, having 'absorbed', is now full of bullshit, stuart.Blockheadedness seems much more preferable to shitheadedness.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

This is an ideological statement, and one that we Communists do not share.

Really, I'd have thought that the idea that class power, as expressed through state and social mechanisms to enforce and create the economic mechanisms would be presicely the communist acocunt: a counter to the fetishist idea that 'the economy' or 'the market' is a thing in itself.

Not to the exclusion of the exploitative mechanism, though, YMS, which was my point. It's not the factors you quote, as does Piketty, and with with I agree, but his ignoring of exploitation.An act of omission on his part, rather than commission. Sometimes, it's what they don't say!

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

As for LBird, what could be more tedious and pointless than going through the book with a fine-tooth comb…

Some would call it 'reading closely and critically', stuart.Surely you don't merely accept anything written by academics? You imply you're not 'sycophantic'.

stuartw2112 wrote:

…angered…colossal achievement…wonderful book…

Sounds suspiciously like 'love' to me, stuart, never mind 'sycophancy'!Perhaps you need a bit of training in 'tedium and pointlessness'… otherwise known as 'critical thinking'.But… if you're happy with Piketty, good luck comrade. We've just drawn differing conclusions from his work.

[LBird]

More guff from Piketty, I’m afraid.All academics pay lip service to the notion of ‘the theory-ladenness of observation’. That is, we can’t understand ‘data’ outside of a pre-existing ‘theoretical’ (and we’d argue ‘ideological’) framework. Theories, models, concepts and frameworks are an inescapable part of selecting and interpreting data.But, here we have an academic, a professor, no less:

Piketty, Capital, p. 33, wrote:

…I sometimes appeal to theory and to abstract models and concepts, but I try to do so sparingly, and only to the extent that theory enhances our understanding of the changes we observe….I try to show that this minimal theoretical framework is sufficient…

Sometimes…sparingly…only to the extent…minimal…He’s bullshitting, comrades.In fact, like any other human, Piketty is “always…constantly…extensively…maximal” employing theory and ideology. When he denies this, it’s because he’s hiding it.Don’t fall for the bourgeois myth of passive observation of ‘data’, comrades, or the erroneous notion of the conservative method of induction that ‘theory emerges from data’.Einstein had it right, a century ago: “It’s the theory that determines what we observe’.Be aware of your own theory, comrades, and try to glean Piketty’s (unspoken) ideology from between his words.

[Author]

Posts