Knowledge and scientificity

As you may recall, in last week's introductory article, I briefly explained the difference between knowledge and scientificity. Today, I want to focus on this subject, open up the issue with a contemporary problem, and prepare a solid foundation for our future discussions.

It is well known that Marx built his famous theory on a triple foundation: first, the economic theory he derived from Scottish economists; second, the powerful philosophical structure he derived from the German philosophical system; and third, the structure he derived from the utopian socialist thought system that emerged in France.

When we consider two of these three pillars as knowledge and one as a system of scientific thinking and processing, we find the path Marx took to reach scientific socialism.

Specifically, although Adam Smith and David Ricardo, along with other Scottish economists, adopted the labor theory of value—which traces its origins back to John Locke, who lived in the late 1600s—the fact that we had to wait for Marx to clarify exploitation can only be explained by the process of turning knowledge into science upon a specific infrastructure.

The difference between the exchange value and use value of commodities appeared in Smith, and the difference between wages and the price of a commodity was seen in Ricardo; however, the inability to clarify the phenomenon of exploitation is the result of the failure to provide a scientific explanation for the formation of the phenomenon being experienced.

So, what do I mean by the expression that a scientific explanation could not be provided?

The inability to provide a scientific explanation means that the cause-and-effect relationship behind the formation of observed phenomena has not been seen or explained. For example, in the Ricardo system, it is observed that there is a difference between wages and the selling price of the commodity produced by labor power.

Ricardo, as a result of his inability to think abstractly, prefers to explain this difference through interest, which arises due to the time difference between production and sales periods. However, when one considers that both phenomena occur simultaneously in an abstract system of thought, the system of thought that Ricardo ties to time and interest collapses.

It appears that the system for scientificizing the phenomena experienced in the Ricardo system is flawed. It is clear that this error stems from a mistake in the intellectual or conceptual system. Therefore, the construction of the causality rule applied in the scientificization of knowledge must pass through a rigorous logical filter. In short, scientific thinking and reasoning is a very difficult task! However, the reason for not resorting to the scientific method is not difficulty, but rather, as will be explained below, ideology.

Let us leave this subject, which could lead us into much deeper discussions, and move on to why the French utopian thought system could not be transformed into a powerful systemic structure.

In fact, the mistake made from a scientific perspective by utopian socialists like Jean Charles Léonard de Sismondi—who, although Swiss, is often attributed to France due to his famous works on the history of Italy and France—and his followers is that they proposed a kind of voluntaristic system based on results rather than the operating mechanism of the capitalist system. The difference and superiority of Marx and his followers over the utopian socialists is that they look at the operation, not the results, in their system explanations. The difference between an observational approach and a scientific approach!

Although this is not a theoretical discussion environment, what is the reason I have entered such a field?

The answer to this question lies in the fact that in the discussion of social problems, both in our country and throughout the world, system logic is deliberately skipped, and people fall into the delusion that some politicians, bankers, workers, or perhaps even bosses (God forbid!) are acting erroneously.

Well, if this is the case, how do we answer this question: why are these people or segments driven into such a mistake, and why do they themselves fall into the negative situation being experienced? Is it reasonable to claim that all market actors or decision-makers make a mistake that will also put them in a negative situation? While such questions can be multiplied, let us close this question with the following sentence: No one in a system makes a mistake; everyone, politicians and citizens alike, makes decisions based on rational behavior suitable for their own self-interest within their capacities. Then, why are such inconceivable, illogical claims put forward and defenses made, as if sweeping trash under the rug?

Let me try to clarify this strange situation by taking an expression used by the most famous professors and writers during the recent crisis. The expression is as follows: "In 2008, a financial crisis occurred in the USA." There are three major lies or inaccurate statements in this sentence. First, the crisis did not occur in the USA, but in the most developed economy of capitalism. Because the USA is the most developed economy, the crisis emerged in that geography. Second, the crisis did not occur in 2008, but in the early 1970s, around 1973, and this process was accelerated by the 1974 oil shock. Third, a financial shock was experienced in 2008; there is no such thing as a crisis in the financial world, because the financial world is a world of indicators, while reality is experienced in the real markets. Indeed, the crisis was experienced in the early 1970s, and the financial process dragged this on until the 2000s. Unless a crisis is experienced in the real markets, a financial collapse does not occur. If this is the case, if we ask why it was explained by being squeezed into a fake world where images are formed rather than by its true cause, could the answer be to exonerate the system by holding bankers, the US FED system, and some politicians responsible for the crisis instead of the system itself!

Let us please think about the deep reason for being content with superficial appearances and not questioning causality when explaining phenomena and events as they occur.