These thoughts have been posted on Twitter, left as comments on others blogs and websites, occasionally on my own, but have not been unified into one big piece for some time.
Time to rectify that.
Yes, Marxism is a pseudoscience.
NOT because it's within economics. Economics is a science, albeit arguably the least scientific of the social sciences, outside behavioral economics, which is actually doing some scientific, empirical work.
But it's a pseudoscience above all because it's based on a crappy philosophical theory that is pseudoscientific when edited, folded, spindled and mutilated to be the basis of a theory in ANY scientific field.
That crappy philosophy, of course, is
Hegelian dialectic as developed by Fichte. The idea that one person presents an anthesis to another's idea? Yes, individual people work that way. The idea that waves of history operate in
thesis-antithesis-synthesis? Bullshit. Bullshit as a philosophy let alone anything more.
First and behind this all is that it's wrong in being based on Continental idealism in general and German forms of that in particular. Just because all your nouns get capitalized doesn't make it profound when stated in English. (Sidebar: Perhaps this is why Marxism never got the same footing in the Anglosphere as on the Continent, and ditto for both areas of Europe's extensions. And, to the degree it did catch on, it has been through further filtrations beyond the original that have in general moved beyond even the likes of the Frankfurt School on the Continent.)
Second, Marxists, changing the "idealism" of Hegelian dialectic into "
materialism" doesn't make it any sounder as a philosophical theory or any less pseudoscientific when used as the basis for any scientific theory.
Marxist, and Hegelian, dialectic, are both pseudoscientific, or worse. Really, per Wolfgang Pauli, it's "
not even wrong."
In addition, Fichte somewhat, and Marx even more, seemed to be guided by 19th century
positivism, which is also not even wrong. Positivism is, by and large, a direct forerunner of today's scientism, which is also not even wrong. And, even to the degree it might be true in the "hard" sciences, while I laud behavioral economics, individual as opposed to group behavior will never reduce to positivistic laws in economics or other social sciences.
Positivism, and the scientism that follows on it also has another fatal error embedded within it. As the likes of Steven Pinker today show, both operate from a progress-based theory of history, perhaps fueled by seeing evolution, as put on a scientific footing by Darwin, as progress-based. (Just as he generally, though not always fully, rejected Social Darwinism, so did Darwin respond to would-be progress-theory interpreters of evolution.)
And, the classical economics with which Marx was trying to work? Beyond its general assumption of a rational homo economicus, which behavioral economics has crushed to death, it's ultimately based on Adam Smith's Age of Enlightenment era idea of a "wind up the universe like clockwork" Deist divinity's "rational hand" guiding all.
Uhh, no.
And, no, Smithians, while you're here, the claim that the rational hand is NOT Deist theology at end is untrue. I've blogged about that before, too, and there's clear traces in Smith.
So, while economics today isn't pseudoscience, one can argue that it was 150 years ago, and that Marxism is therefore pseudoscience squared.
I do want to thank Andrew Stewart of Washington Babylon, on Twitter,
for prodding me to put this together, starting with my disagreement with
his take on the 1619 Project, as noted in my update to
my original piece. And I could tell it was Stew, not Ken Silverstein, by the first response.
As to the claim behind our Twitter back-and-forth that was the final impetus for this piece?
Uhh, no, not all racism issues, not even in modern, capitalist times, reduce to socioeconomic class ones. I told Stew that and provided
links from
this blog — stuff that led to me and Doug Henwood arguing and him eventually blocking my old primary Twitter account. (The likely last straw for Henwood, per that second link, was me saying Reed was either mendacious or an idiot when he called New Mexico one of the whitest states in the nation.)
Let me go further, though.
Empirical counterexamples are always the best final weapon for undercutting bad theory, and I have two from today.
Two instances of how racism indeed affects social class, but, although it might have indirect effects on economic standing, does not directly focus on economic standing let alone directly target it.
 |
| This Marxism I fully endorse! |
I'm taking about the race-essentialist Zionism that drives not only the Likud bloc but almost all political thinking in Israel and the Indian caste system, that, cross-pollinated with Islamophobia, is seeing a resurgence as we speak in India from the BJP and its Hindutva allies.
And old Chinese racism against Europeans pre-dates European forms of modern capitalism (but don't forget that China invented paper money way back in the Tang Dynasty!) and was culturally based.
And, I know Stew knows (or should know) all of this, though he, Henwood, Adolph Reed and others would likely differ in interpretation. That's their problem, not mine.
I am some sort of socialist. I might even become some sort of pre- or post-Marxist Communist some day, though I doubt it. I'll never be a Marxist, though.
Related to that? I am, in a small bit, some sort of post-capitalist. Anti-capitalist, though? Never. That's in part because that phrasing might imply support for the Marxist dialectical system.
Now, that said, I know that many people call themselves "Marxists" as a signifier of generic social rebellion, or a generic protest against capitalism or other things. In other words, many people think "Marxist" has a certain je ne sais quoi, from what I can tell.
Sloppy usage is not excused at this site, though.
If you're an anarchist anti-capitalist, but not actually a Marxist, then call yourself an anarchist. Ditto if there's some other "ism" you fit into more than Marxism.
==
I have gotten strong push-back on Twitter from friendly fire!
The biggest objection is that Marxism as a theory is political philosophy, and thus not a science. I content that it was established as a theory of economics first and foremost and that economics is a social science, ergo, like any other social or hard science, the theoretical framework as well as individual experimental or other allegedly empirical elements can be examined to see whether they're pseudoscience or not.
Erik Weissengruber accepted my premise, but said that, on the actual empirical / experimental side, Marxism
actually was panning out. That said, that piece is predicated on the labor theory of value being true.
Per Wiki, there's the additional issue, and I stand partially guilty on Twitter responses, that
Marxian economics can stand separate of Marxism.
So, as I update, and incorporate thoughts from others on Twitter, and what they provoke within me, I will work to focus on Marxism the big picture, not Marxian economics. Besides, to the degree I hold fast and prove fast that Marxism is pseudoscience, the economics falls with it, ultimately. And, somewhat contra Wiki (and referencing a goal of mine to use Zionism peddler Jimmy Wales' site less and less), even among more heterodox (from Marxism) Marxian economists, I don't think it can stand TOO independent of Marxism. I mean,
this week's Existential Comics from Corey overlaps Marxism and Marxian economics. Those who claim it can, per my note at the tail end of the original post, are probably using the word "Marxism" too loosely.
First, Marxism is more than political philosophy. And I know that philosophers always get nervous about scientific turf-field creepage. But, political science is a science, a social science. And, history is at least halfway between the humanities and the social sciences.
So, I think it's a legitimate critical essay to call Marxism pseudoscience, and not just individual outshoots of it, like the labor theory of value in Marxist hands.
If one doesn't accept that political science is an actual social science, then we're at a linguistic-usage fork in the road. And, by the time of Marx's death, per the
history of the field, I think we can distinguish political science from older political philosophy. Per my reference to positivism, I think people like Marx were making a conscious effort for that distinguishing.
And, at the same time, re my friendly critics, I have talked in the past about "philosophism" as a philosophy-driven counterpart to scientism.
