This is an important and useful article but it fails to really get at the history here which can’t be resolved by leftists in a muddle over bolshevism. A work such as Grand Deceptions, towards the end goes into the suppressed history of this question and is debatably itself a diatribe on ‘Judeo-Bolshevism’. But the left can’t simply igrnore the facts here. Continue reading “The Return of “Judeo-Bolshevism””
I am not sure if Engels does justice to this interesting figure but in any case Engels is peddling the extreme form of ‘historical materialism’ that behind its bluster of theoretical pretense about the final causes of etc…
It is not clear what ambition to theory wrecked the project of Marx/Engels but their analysis is surely false and in part the reason the left, influenced if not dominated by marxism can’t find its way to a revolutionary dynamic.
The claims for the modes of production and exchange are simply nonsense and should have been called out long ago. To claim a law of history in any form is dubious but the version of Marx is especially open to challenge: is class struggle really the key? Theories of historical dynamics are a big thing, and none has succeeded. This whole strategy was to use ‘theory’ for propaganda and the result at this point has stultified the left.
t might help to grasp that marxism is based on pseudoscience and proceeds without challenge to muddle all efforts of leftists.The left needs a broader historical perspective without the colossal amateurism of ‘historical materialism’.
He added that, “the law according to which all historical struggles, whether they proceed in the political, religious, philosophical or some other ideological domain, are in fact only the more or less clear expression of struggles of social classes.
Scott thus betrays an affinity with Frederick Engels, that pioneer of scientific socialism. Engels wrote that, “the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in men’s better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.” He added that, “the law according to which all historical struggles, whether they proceed in the political, religious, philosophical or some other ideological domain, are in fact only the more or less clear expression of struggles of social classes.
We have been hard on Marx but his battle over economic theories is still fascinating and relevant in the confusion over equilibrium economics (which some marxists ended up adopting). I fear however noone has won the argument…those dratted theories….again…. Continue reading “Marx and Non-equilibrium Economics eBook”
The left doesn’t need a theory of economic determination in history just because it is fighting capitalism: what is needed is a broad and balanced view of culture and the vision to see that a transition to socialism can complete the evolution of modern social formations in a unification of socialist and democratic thinking…
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.
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”