1. It has a completely simplistic economic theory based on the supposed conflict of bourgeoisie and proltariat.
2. It predicted that this conflict would make the proletariat poorer and poorer when in fact it did the complete opposite (in fact systems erected on Marxist ideas made people poorer - when it wasn't murdering them).
3. It was an entirely simplistic and arbitrary attempt to apply Hegelian dialectic to the economy: utterly senseless but done to give a spurious veneer of "objectivity" to arbitrary ideological theorizing.
4. It is ludicrously reductive and deterministic in its understanding of the relation between economics and culture/ideas (overly deterministic in general - although some later Marxists tried to correct this to some extent)
5. It has a completely arbitrary theory of "surplus value" driven entirely by ideology (as is the whole theoy)
6. It naively assumed that you could have a "dictatorhip of the proletarat" that would then "whither away" into a communistic paradise. Complete naivity about the exercise of power and the fallibility of human naure which Leftists obtusely blamed on having the wrong economic system.
7. The implementation almost inevitably involved centralized direction of production which (as economists alredy predicted in the 1920s) abysmally failed to strike a workable equilibrium between demand and supply (as well as stifling freedom, innovation, and creativity).
8.Finally, one can't overlook the complete failure of its adherents to turn the theory into a practical reality that isn't murderous and/or an authoritarian/totalitarian nightmare.
The last point about failing to translate into a workable practice is perhaps the most damning.
"the dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question".
No comments:
Post a Comment