Archive: Does socialism really need a science of history? the trap of theory

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 “Archive: Does socialism really need a science of history? the trap of theory”

  The dangers of Darwinian delusion

The scientific community has done an immense disservice to the general community. Against the views of better thinkers the views of Darwin took hold, soon exposed, but then recast as the hard paradigm. We cited Jacques Barzun from the 1940’s noting the problems of theory and then after the paradigm became hardcore and all the figures like Barzun disappeared. Dissent suddenly became a strategy of the religious right, as a menacing cancel culture took hold. Figures like Marx who saw the problem suddenly became converts. Marx should have dissented here and stopped the runaway train. But it didn’t happen.
The ID group in our century appeared in the religious right, and this was often useful critique of the problems of evolution, but the suspicion of theological bias was impossible to escape. And in any case ‘design’, which is resonant in nature, turns into a naturalist question, still unsolved. Theism just doesn’t work here.

Something that shouldn’t have happened did happen and when it collapses people will look back and ask how a whole cadre of professionals could be rigidly mesmerized by a pseudo-science of natural selection. Darwinists have corrupted the thought of a whole civilization, oblivious to the most obvious cautionary double-check. A myth as flimsy as the doctrine of the resurrection took over and created a bizarre religious ‘true belief’ syndrome. The damage done is immense and snowballs into tens of thousands of books written on false assumptions. Almost every profession has been confused here. The scale of the question is on the level of tragedy.
The ‘tough’ guys took over and made the theory into a kind of social Darwinist world view (already present in Darwin) and its connection to economic reasoning was invaluable as propaganda: what the need for ethics if natural selection as violent competition is so central in nature? Wrong again, but good for the economy, if you are a capitalist. The capitalists could care less. It’s good for business, so lie about it.

Darwinists are going to discredit a whole civilization and leave thousands in a state of hopeless confusion. One suspects the hidden control factor is indeed the hidden fiat of capitalist ideology.Too bad, fellows, if you cheat at science for ideological reasons, the result is….aha, not science

Those who see this boat heading toward the falls have learned the hard way that the cult believers are beyond reach. That Darwinism upholds a very drastic view with no evidence is a paradox of bad science, really bad science. It should be a matter of a thirty second warning the theory has no evidence, all in vein.

Source: Asked, why did you become a Darwin critic? – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Does socialism really need a science of history? the trap of theory

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”

Engels and human control of history…6.5.2 Theory and Ideology: Out of Revolution

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”