Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Naokotani wrote

This isn't a bad read, but it's a gross oversimplification of marxism. Marxism didn't stop with Marx and this pretty much ignores the work of Lenin, Gramsci, and many many other serious marxists. Moreover, it takes a pretty two dimensional view even of mid 19th century marxism. It's not like marxists haven't noticed that Marx's predictions haven't come true...

What was scientific about Marx was that he studied political economy using a Hegalian method of analysis. He used that method make predictions about society, some proved to be correct others not. Lenin refined the method and predictions some proved correct others not. That's how science works.

Marx was fully aware that he didn't know everything. And I think its disingenuous to suggest that he thought his was the true science and he knew everything. If that were the case why would he write that people “make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”

This shows that he was conflicted by the overwhelming complexity of the problem and his compassion and desire to right the wrongs of 19th century capitlism. He was aware that he only saw part of the picture and as likely to do harm as good, but felt compelled to act just the same.

What the above article does a fine job of outlining is a very simplistic way of thinking that marxists are prone to. There is no doubt that many marxists fall into a sort of dogmatism, not because there is really anything wrong with marxism, but because humans like simple solutions and silver bullets. They also like to feel like they are on the right side of history and one of the "good guys."

3