Karl Marx got it
started. Indeed, it was one of his most
successful ploys. He not only advocated
for a communist revolution, but argued that its proponents were special. Not only were the nicer than their capitalist
foes, they were smarter. They understood
the arc of history in a way the establishment did not.
Marx described himself and
his allies as the “intelligentsia.” They
were well-educated intellectuals. Rather
than motivated by greed, they employed their insights for the betterment of all
humankind. Thus, they, and they alone,
would mobilize the downtrodden to take their rightful place in a new world
order.
As Marx saw it, the working
classes were held back by a “false consciousness.” They had been fooled by the propaganda of
their bosses. Hence, if shrewd people,
such as himself, could make then see they were being exploited, they would rise
up in sure-fire rebellion.
Marx insisted that he was
scientific. He had studied history and
deciphered its logic. Thanks to his
brilliance—and realism—he discovered the material dialectic. It revealed that social classes invariably
compete for control of the means of production. Now it was the turn of the proletarians to
wrest power from the capitalists.
Progressives of every sort take
this as gospel. Their tactics have
varied, but the goal of obtaining social justice by putting ordinary workers in
charge has not. These erstwhile
reformers have no doubt that their prescription is correct and that victory is
preordained.
Never mind that Marx’s
predictions did not come to pass. The
workers in industrial nations did not become impoverished. The proletarian revolution never occurred. Socialist societies, in fact, never developed
into bastions of democracy. To the
contrary, they were uniformly totalitarian.
Worst of all, Marx never
anticipated the emergence of the middle class.
He did not understand that post-industrial societies would need to
become professionalized. A man of his
times, he could not see over the horizon to realize that the free market would
generate unprecedented wealth and freedom.
Marx can be forgiven his
limitations. But that does not mean we
should accept his flawed reasoning. In
science, investigators make predictions that they subsequently test
empirically. If these do not turn out as
forecast, they are set aside in favor of alternate hypotheses.
This, however, is not what
happened with regard to Marxism. Its
adherents refused to admit their errors.
They instead became apologists for what amounted to a secular
religion. Having bought the canard that
they are smarter than others, they expressed no regrets for their mistakes.
As an academic, I am constantly
amazed by the lack of historical perspective demonstrated by so-called
progressives. So convinced are they by
the Marxist orthodoxy that they do not take the time to verify it against what
occurred in the past. Were they to do
so, they would find the dialectic fatally defective.
I am also amazed by the ease
with which neo-Marxists insult the intelligence of their opponents. They do not listen to those who disagree with
them. Nor do they read their books. Instead, they dismiss them as boobs whose opinions
are not worth consideration.
The global warming
controversy is a prime example. Those
who question the extent of increased world temperatures, or their cause, are scorned
as “deniers.” They are said to be so
tiny a minority as to merit no notice.
That, in science, minuscule minorities, have often proved right, leaves
them cold.
Yet is this attitude
smart? Is it open minded? Liberal policies have been wrong about crime,
education, and welfare. Nor have they
been fruitful in international politics.
Why then would intelligent people now assume they are automatically
correct?
The truth is that liberals
are no cleverer than their rivals.
Franklin Roosevelt’s brain trust was a bust. John Kennedy’s best and brightest made a host
of miscalculations. Meanwhile Barack
Obama’s dulcet cadences could not disguise his simplistic understanding of the
economy and foreign relations.
Pretending to be smarter
than others can prevent one’s opponents from questioning half-baked ideas, but only
if these others are intimidated into believing they are inferior. They need not do so. The neo-Marxist intelligentsia is a
fraud. Their brilliance exists solely in
their imaginations.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment