> Jon, I know I'm adhering to formal logic here , but would you show me
> in
> what you quoted where it says Communists say they are INFALLIBLE ?
>
> Just to save a little time, it is not the case that the assertion "the
> fall
> of capitalism is inevitable" is equivalent at all to the proposition
> "Communists are infallible".
>
>
> Nor is it the case that the assertion ""The teaching of Marx is
> all-powerful
> because it is true. It is
> complete and harmonious, providing men with a consistent view of the
> universe, which cannot be reconciled with any superstition, any
> reaction, any defence of bourgeois oppression" is equivalent to the
> proposition " Communists are infallible".
If I looked hard enough, I could probably come up with quotes using the word "infallible," but what I meant by using it was what is illustrated in the Lenin quotes I gave: the idea that there is something about Marxist theory that enables one to forecast the future and use it as a guide to political practice that is immensely superior to anything else available. Claims of this sort have been made by a lot of Marxists ever since the Marxist movement began, and the Bearded One himself was not averse to suggesting the like now and then.
What I maintain is that Marx's thought, while it has many good points, is nowhere near this reliable. Marxists have been predicting the "inevitable" fall of capitalism about as often as wacko Christians have predicted the Second Coming of Christ, despite the fact that they have never been able to give a convincing theoretical case that the capitalist system contains the famous "fatal contradictions." And calling "the teaching of Marx" "all-powerful" is just silly.
Of course, one can reply that such statements are just bits of harmful exaggeration on Lenin's part, meant to serve some sort of agitational or propagandistic purpose. As a very intelligent person, he presumably knew better in his heart of hearts. (On the other hand, despite his intelligence, he may have convinced himself of his own propaganda, as intellectuals often do.) But what does it say about a political theory that its virtues have to be exaggerated to such an extent to make an impression on the workers, who, according to that same theory, should be straining at the leash to overthrow the system?
Once one digs a sufficiently deep grave and buries all of this over-the-top hagiography of Saint Karl the Superhuman Genius, he becomes a mere human being, another philosopher/political theorist with a lot of interesting ideas to be considered and evaluated as one evaluates any other thinker. That's all I'm suggesting.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A gentleman haranguing on the perfection of our law, and that it was equally open to the poor and the rich, was answered by another, 'So is the London Tavern.' -- "Tom Paine's Jests..." (1794); also attr. to John Horne Tooke (1736-1812) by Hazlitt