I've made the point many times that the problem with Marxism is that it isn't scientific enough.

How can we make Marxism more scientific?  This is a huge project, and there are many directions to pursue in the process of attaining this extremely difficult goal.  But there is one aspect of the problem that absolutely must come first:

The first thing that Marxists must learn, if they are going to get anywhere at all, is this: Marxists must learn to live with other Marxists.

Emo Philips joke: 

'Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”  He said, “But nobody loves me.”  I said, “God loves you.  Do you believe in God?”  He said, “Yes.”  I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”  He said, “A Christian.”  I said, “Me, too!  Protestant or Catholic?”  He said, “Protestant.”  I said, “Me, too!  What denomination?”  He said, “Baptist.”  I said, “Me, too!  Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”  He said, “Northern Baptist.”  I said, “Me, too!  Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”  He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”  I said, “Me, too!  Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”  He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”  I said, “Me, too!  Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”  He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”  I said, “Die, heretic!”  And I pushed him off the bridge.'

Philips is talking about the "narcissism of small differences" - a concept popularized by Freud, who based it on the earlier work of Ernest Crawley.  It is the ideas that are most similar to our own that are most difficult to tolerate.  That's how it is among Christians, among Muslims, and among Marxists as well.  

But the ability to be comfortable among people with whom you have theoretical disagreements is the absolute prerequisite of a scientific community.  

This is not to say that theoretical differences do not matter.  On the contrary - it means the very opposite of that.   It means that theoretical differences do matter.  This is how they matter.  The person who cannot live with theoretical differences is the person for whom theoretical differences do not matter, i.e., the person for whom theoretical differences are worthless.  Therefore, such a person will attempt to eradicate all theoretical difference.  The person who genuinely values theoretical differences will strive to maintain them, and appreciate them.

Some theoretical physicists are string theorists.  Others are not.  Some theoretical physicists think that string theory is simply a mistake.  Many people in universities are string theorists.  The debates amongst the physicist community over the topic of string theory are not merely theoretic and scientific - many of these people's jobs are on the line - and opportunities for an academic career are getting narrower and narrower.  As a result, tensions can be quite high.  Resentments can be bitter and intense.  And yet no one is worried that physicists are likely to murder each other over their respective positions vis-a-vis the search for a grand unified theory.  That's because physics is a real science.  These are serious people.

Marxists are not.  They have proven that, again, and again - first as tragedy, then as farce.  And so no one takes Marxism seriously.  Nor should they.  Until they can learn to develop a capacity for a genuinely critical theory, with the continual potential for actual critical thought, Marxists will be nothing but worthless frauds.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... )  But it hard
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more

The American Ontology

Image
I subscribe to the American Ontology, which can be stated as follows: An entity can be said to exist, if and only if, and to the extent that, it is, or pertains to, a celebrity. Places, material objects, and animals exist to the extent that they are the places, material objects, and animals of celebrities.  Events don’t happen unless they happen to celebrities.  Entire regions of the world don’t exist, because they don’t contain celebrities.  The American Ontology can be seen as a logical consequence of Berkeley’s famous esse est percipi : to be is to be seen.  And therefore, the more seen something is, the more it is .  Everyone else can be dismantled, and used for spare parts. In turn, the American Ontology has its own logical consequences: celebrities only exist because of their relation to other celebrities.  For instance: Jordyn Woods is famous (i.e. existent) because she was living with Kylie Jenner.  Kylie Jenner is famous because she is the sister of Kendall Jenner. 
Read more