Marxist claims for a science of history are mostly pseudo-science and we must rush into the fray to challenge the failure of all parties to produce a science of history. The question was actually a…
Rewrite/repost from 2018
The left needs its marxist groups but they all need to reorient their thinking beyond the stale and counterproductive limits of older paradigms. If anything, the older left is the best safeguard against revolutionary change.
To start, marxism has a bad theory of history. This theory is demonstrably limited, indeed fallacious. No praxis can be based on a flawed theory, therefore any praxis that does isn’t going to work for a new social transformation. The bolsheviks used this theory and failed, they were so harebrained that they hardly count. Current marxists persist in all the details of this theory, and are not likely therefore to have a real opportunity. Why? Because marxism has a bad theory of history, and no praxis can be based on a flawed theory. If they get another chance they will end in the same hare-brained mess as before. Why? Because you can’t base a praxis on a false theory. Continue reading “Does socialism really need a science of history? the trap of theory”
A passage from World History and the Eonic Effect with a classic statement from Engels about man taking control of his own history. Unfortunately the marxist corpus taken as science is not sufficient for the task! The problem is immense! And economic history is only a subsidiary stream inside a larger dynamic.
Continue reading “Engels and human control of history…6.5.2 Theory and Ideology: Out of Revolution”