Some Philosophical Heft For The Defense Of Capitalism

The failure of Marxism is obvious both in its practice and its intellectual underpinnings. 10 minutes of observation on a playground or the equivalent in a library will provide ample evidence that socialism and humans don't mix.

But committed socialists are adept at a particular kind of argument: the facile, intellectually soft but impressive-sounding diatribe. it can be difficult to wade through their bullshit and attack the logical and philosophical failings of the most destructive and murderous political philosophy in history.

A "Right Side" to History? The Failure of Marx's Predictions About Capitalism, Part 1

One of the most common phrases to be heard from those on “the left” is the assertion that someone or some public policy is or is not on “the right side of history.” It has almost become a mantra by those who disagree with, hate or are fearful of ideas and policies proposed by those generally characterized as being politically on “the right.”

The notion behind it is that “history” moves in a particular direction, toward some set of specific goals and societal forms, with each step in the historical process representing a “higher” and “better” stage or level than the preceding ones at which “society” has been operating.

Another thing that is useful to point out is that Marx was a profoundly stupid political observer. Dude...where is the socialist paradise? I thought it was supposed to be here already!

A "Right Side" to History? The Failure of Marx's Predictions About Capitalism, Part 2

Karl Marx and Frederick Engel’s Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. The first volume of Marx’s three-volume, Das Kapital (Capital), was published in 1867 (the other two volumes were edited and published after Marx’s death in 1883 by Frederick Engels). Marx was convinced that those middle decades of the nineteenth century were the twilight years of the capitalistic epoch of industrialization. His writings make it clear that he believed that the socialist revolution was right around the corner in his own lifetime.

From the perspective of 2017 – almost a 170 years after The Communist Manifesto went to press – his view of the nineteenth century seems as nothing more than wishful thinking by an anti-capitalist revolutionary who wanted to believe that the “worker’s state” was just over the horizon. There is not much excitement in being a “scientific socialist” (nor are you likely to draw many followers) if your pre-vision of the future on the basis of your theory of historical development leads you to believe that the socialist revolution is coming – but only 200 years in the future!

Go ahead...I'll wait.

&topic=world_news"> posted by CBD at 02:15 PM

| Access Comments