Why Marx Sucks
Karl Marx is one of the most influential political thinkers in history. He is widely loved by the academic left, and he started the most widely tried approach to government to grow primarily from the views of a single thinker. He’s also widely respected by most academics, including most philosophers. I find this odd, since, as a thinker, Marx absolutely sucks. How he approaches questions is deeply and fundamentally mistaken, and his overall positions are not just unjustified, but disproven over and over again. He doesn’t deserve the respect he gets. Since he also created what was, in practice, the most evil governmental system in history, people should really stop talking about his ideas as if they’re something to seriously consider.
Speculation can’t Answer Hard Questions
Marx follows the bad example of many other political thinkers of resting his views of politics on his views of human nature, and grounding his view of human nature in idle speculation. According to Marx, the true and final nature of humanity consists in contributing to the overall welfare of the community. Humans as producers for the communal good is supposed to define the true nature of humanity. Marx likes to pretend that this is grounded in the material conditions of individuals at the time he was writing and throughout history. Oddly, this isn’t inferred from their actual behavior, but from the behavior they would have if they were a product of the material conditions of their environment. He combines this with a smattering of history he thinks fits his view.
One obviously unscientific element of Marx’s position on human nature is that it’s untestable. “Alienation” is used to negate all evidence against his theories of human nature. If people aren’t acting like his account would suggest, this is just proof that their economic conditions are alienating people from themselves. All evidence of apparent error is treated as evidence in favor of a larger theory of history. The pervasive use of alienation allows it to explain virtually anything. People seem to progress in their beliefs in predictable ways. Instead of learning more, this is explained by changes in how the ideology of the ruling class perpetuates alienation over time. People seem to act as individuals making a variety of choices made in the moment. Instead, those choices are individual manifestations of how alienation plays itself out in a society governed by the ideology of its time. To fit the data, the variety of choices has to be ignored, or the account of the impact of ideology has to become so variable as to be worthless as an account of anything. No data is seen as a possible source of refutation, because all data can be fit in by ad hoc stories of various forms of alienation.
Marx doesn’t stop with human nature, though. He also has an account of human history that is highly speculative. He tries to explain all human progress as a function of the economic systems people are a part of. History actually consists of a huge number of events individuals engaged in for their own reasons. The societies, values, and relevant developments are haphazard in time and place. The growth to prominence of civilizations happened across the world at different points, and had very different religions and governments associated with them. It would be magical if all of this fit into any pattern. If it happened to match one a German guy came up with despite vastly limited knowledge of global history in the 1800s, that would be a miracle. Accounts of individual events require massive amounts of empirical data relevant to the time to develop even the smallest amount of worthwhile insight into its possible causes, and the context of that moment. Top-down history is just crazy as an idea, and doesn’t fit the data without a ton of creative re-interpretation by people more clever than Marx..
The empirical data, especially as presented, is very, very unpersuasive. The true appeal of his view lies in people’s draw towards his speculative account. Speculation, though, is a terrible source of ideas. Complex facts arise from complex histories, and details of those histories are vital to understanding any truths that hold for them. Ignorance filled in with stories is the hallmark of religion or, at best, bad rationalist philosophy. Whatever he wants to pretend to be, at heart Marx is a bad rationalist, not an empirical scientist.
Marx’s approach also drives his explanation of epistemology. Our role in the system is supposed to explain why we believe the things we believe. When we accept a philosophy, it’s because it’s the one the ruling class finds it valuable for a person in our role to have. When we follow a religion, it’s because it’s the religion that makes us accept our role in the system. Even when we accept a scientific theory, or basic principles of reason, this must reflect what the ruling class wants us to accept rather than any objective facts about the world. When scientists were slaughtered in the Cultural Revolution for accepting the Jewish and Capitalist views like the Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang, this wasn’t a deviation from Marx, but an accurate following of his views. These scientists were still beholden to a bad ideology, therefore their views must be nothing more than a reflection of this bad ideology. This stupid idea wasn’t just false, it was incredibly and predictably harmful.
Basic Observations Refute His Theories
Marx’s views of human nature fail horribly on any account that doesn’t presuppose his excuses. People are fairly selfish. We want things for ourselves, and we prioritize ourselves over others. Although they occasionally fight for their family or for their tribe, the primary concern of most people on a daily basis is ensuring their own happiness. This isn’t a complicated theory, it’s a basic observation of human behavior.
In addition, Marx’s view of history is incompatible with the actual facts of history around the globe. There has been no natural progression of economic approaches like the ones he suggests. Cultures have varied widely in their approaches, developed to their highest points at different times and with different economies, and moved from one approach to another in certain regions without any sense of a natural progression. History has had thousands of cultures with unique histories. There is no big story of human progress they all follow. Marx knew something of how things progressed in Europe during the period that lasted a while before he lived, and just assumed this must reflect history everywhere and for everyone. He engaged in bad history and bad science here. His account was unsurprisingly inaccurate.
Marx’s Predictions Failed
While his incompatibility with former facts is sad, his predictive failures also make his theories a scientific failure. Marx often claims that his views are grounded in observation, and testable by future predictions. Somehow, the premises of his arguments are people, and the material conditions in which they live, rather than propositions, which the rest of us are stuck with. Sadly, his predictions fail over and over again. Probably the most obvious predictive failure of Marx relates to the places that would embrace his philosophy in the future.This failure serves a refutation of both his views of history and of human nature, and therefore serves as an ideal demonstration of the inadequacies of his views.
According to Marx, Communism will arise from the culmination of Capitalism. The advancement of Capitalism will result in the complete alienation of the individual from their labor, and, therefore, of their true nature. This will result in the eventual rebellion of the working class against the bourgeois, and resulting development of Communist governments. Countries like America and Great Britain were supposed to be the origin of Communist movements. Instead, it was Russia and poorer countries in the East that embraced Communism. Those in the West who liked it were poorer countries in Central and South America who definitely hadn’t finished late stage Capitalism. Capitalism, meanwhile, has spread far and wide. Even countries like China, who used to call themselves Communist, are now Capitalist ones with only the elements of Communism modern lovers of Marx tend not to like. Marx had no idea where things were going. This would be sad for most people, but it’s absolutely devastating for someone who claims to know where history is going.
All in all, Marx sucks by any sensible standards. The basis of his views is bad speculation, the applicability of his views is grounded entirely on an hugely variable account of potential actions, rendering it hard to test, despite this, his specific predictions fail horribly, and, overall, his theory is clearly inconsistent with the facts. It’s hard to imagine a view that has a worse basis and a worse standard as an empirical theory. The psychology behind its popularity is fascinating, but the view itself is not. Marx was wrong. Not by a little bit, but by a lot. A huge lot. He deserves no respect as an academic, and only historical curiosity as an intellectual figure. He definitely doesn’t deserve the odd respect he actually gets.
Leave a Reply