Ironically the fallacious ‘economic interpretation of history’ has proven to be a stumbling block to dealing with capitalist strain of social history. We have proposed a non-theoretical marxism that sees the larger dynamic of world history beyond economic forces (cf. the eonic effect). Historical materialism is a poor theory which would do better as a descriptive framework of observations instead of the ponderous dogma of Marx has mostly been easy target practice for promoters of capitalism…
The most important of Marx’s influences on people working in social sciences is, I think, his economic interpretation of history. This has become so much part of the mainstream that we do no longer associate it with Marx very much. And surely, he was not the only one or even the first to have defined it. But he applied it most consistently and most creatively.
Source: globalinequality: Marx for me (and hopefully for others too)
In an another post today, scroll down, we have pointed to the failure of marxism in the realm of theory and practice. And yet marxists are as wedded as ever to the confusions of Marx and now are attempting in some quarters to a revisionist Marx who understood ecology all along, when every indication of the history of bolshevism suggests an industrialism with Marx’s implied blessing that is blind to ecological concerns. Continue reading “the new myth of marx the ecologist…//Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature – John Bellamy Foster – Google Books”
Without commenting on this article as a whole we note our critique of stages of production theory from Marx and warn that no automatic transition to socialism will occur in some scheme of laws of the type proposed in marxism. Continue reading ” Neo-socialism: the need for definitions…Noone on the left knows what they are talking about”
What a hopeless foundation for attempts to create a new society! We have critiqued Marx’s claims for science, but the quagmire of philosophic inderterminacy is an equal liability. Hegel and the source of dialectic make a fascinating historical exploration, but how on earth did making sense of this set of enigmas become the foundation for attempts to lead beyond capitalism? The result has been the whole garbage of dialectical materialism, material dialectic, and claims for a foundational science (with Hegelian whispers) that doesn’t exist. It is a failed strategy. To try and repeat it is lunacy. And the public won’t listen.
Schopenhauer made the claim/jibe that everyone who studied Hegel was confused for life and lost the power of thought. It seems so when reviewing marxism.
The crisis of capitalism requires something practical and free of attempts at the critical moment to be distracted by the subtleties of philosophy dressed up as scientism, and vice versa. The result here is that marxists have no clear program and no practical plan of action. And every student of the subject ends up confused.
Their theories contributed to the downfall of bolshevism and turned the idea of communism into an arcane mystery that must be elucidated by a cadre of experts who in fact are as confused as the plebs with their theories are designed to control the working class with a priestly arcana.
The american rebs, in their bourgeois democratic finery, at least produced a successful revolution, however limited. Their troopers needed no theory to grasp the basics of a new republican, soon democratic, sort of, politics. If they had had to study something as arcane as marxism we would never have had the american experiment.
In the second part of his new introduction to The Revolutionary Philosophy of Marxism, Alan Woods explains some of the fundamentals of the Hegelian dialectical method and how these apply to both the natural world and human society. He also details how Marx masterfully applied the dialectical materialist method to his study of capitalism, and in so doing laid bare its inherent contradictions.
Source: Introduction to the Revolutionary Philosophy of Marxism – part two
We noted that the issue of transitional socialism, instead of the cockeyed idiocy of bolshevism, should be easy and relaxed…The left, dominated by marxism, has made the whole q…
Source: Marx’s ‘stages of production’ theory was a myth of ‘evolution’: the ‘end of history’ requires free agents… – Darwiniana
The failure of darwinism was most eerily foreseen at once by Marx who saw the ideology behind darwinism the moment he reckoned with the ‘theory’. But the history here has been muddled and Marx himself clearly retreated from his instant clarity to the kind of marxist darwinism foisted on the left by the tide of falsely understood materialism and secular humanism. That’s all over now.
That natural selection not only can’t produce ‘evolution’ but can actually ‘undo’ it by degrading complexity (if that is what Behe is saying in his new book) should be…
Source: How is it biologists let the religious right eat their lunch?? – Darwiniana