From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org>
If I looked hard enough, I could probably come up with quotes using the word "infallible,"
^^^^^ CB: No you wouldn't find them because they don't exist. That is not a Leninist or ML position. What you are announcing is a typical anti-communist, suburban myth. The quotes below have been elided and distorted slanderously often in the manner you do it here, so as to make out Communists as unthinking religiousioses. But I always find that we are just as thinking and unreligious or more than the one's claiming we are that.
Just like here. You are not being precise in your analysis of this language. I just pointed out to you that you drew an unwarranted inference about the quotes you adduced, that they don't say Communists say they are infallible. You reply there is such a quote. That's a superstitious belief you have about Communists. Not one based on actual quotes you have read, but on word of mouth or all the anti-Communist myths floating around in an America still full of hangover lies from the Cold War.
In other words, it is you who exhibits more the style of thinking of an uncritical, religious thinker, not we Marxists.
In my experience, Marxists are more critical in their thinking than anti-Marxists. That does not imply that Marxists are perfectly critical, just comparatively more critical and materialist than anti-Marxists in general.
Actually, there is a famous quote by Lenin in which he specifically says nobody makes no mistakes; the thing is to try not to make irremedial mistakes. In other words, "Leninism" is exactly the opposite of what you say, i.e. a claim of infallibility. Shhhhsshh.
^^^^^
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.
^^^^^ CB: Yes, Marxists _do_ , of course, say that Marxism is immensely superior to other theories to guide practice, _not_ "forecast the future" . There's nothing in the classics about "forecasting the future". Saying Marxism is superior to other theories is not at all to say that Marxists are infallible.
If a Darwinian said that Darwin's theory is superior to other contradictory, biological theories, that wouldn't imply that Darwinists are infallible. For one thing any given Darwinist or Marxist could misapply the theory.
^^^^^
What I maintain is that Marx's thought, while it has many good points, is nowhere near this reliable.
^^^^^^ CB: Reliable for what ? It's more reliable than other theories. Name another theory that is more "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."
^^^^ CB: You comparison of "about as long" is pretty clearly way off , since ,as we know some Christians have been making their predictions for about 2000 years, and the Marxists have been making predictions for about 150 years.
Then there's the slight matter you overlook, that unlike the vast majority of other theories, including Chrisianity, _there have been_ Marxist revolutions that got up to changing 1/3 of the lands and people of humanity (!) and that only 70 years after The Manifesto. In terms of social sciences, this has got to be one of the most astonishingly substantially fulfilled "predictions" ever, if not _the_ most fulfilled. I don't know if you are a social scientist, but I am, and I am impressed with Marx's predictive record.
Of course , there is a big ebb now. But in terms of historical time scales, Marx's prediction on the inevitable end of capitalism is epochal, and we are nowhere near the end of the time in which Marx's words and prediction are clearly meant to be applied. In other words, Marx isn't to be taken as meaning if the end of capitalism has not come by 150 years after the Manifesto or Capital, the "deadline" is missed. We are still within the time period that he would have predicted the change would take place. Not only that, as I say, there has already been a first phase of confirmation of Marx in the enormous territory and populations removed from capitalism in the first wave of Marxist revolutions. That was quite an historical appetizer.
In terms of the history of "prophets", Marx has got to be one whose propheciees came sooner after he made them than any other.
^^^^^^^^
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?
^^^^^^
CB: Your comments here are so presumptive. That Lenin didn't really mean it, that you are right that Marx's predictions haven't come true, so obviously Marx's theory isn't true, and all-powerful. But when we look at the broad sweep of history, Marxism's prediction seems very much in the hunt. The first surges to its ending were so "big" so fast. Ebb and flow is well within the Marxist understanding of all processes. Engels even specifically says that the first socialist revolutions can be defeated.
Think about it this way. Which would you bet on ? Capitalism will last foreever . Capitalism will have system ending crises within the next 100 or 150 years .
"All powerful" reminds of "All-power to the Soviets". "Allpowerful" doesn't have the religious connotation for Lenin that you are imputing to it. That is part of why you presume that Lenin didn't mean it. He meant it in an atheist and materialist sense , of course, much more down to earth than what you impute. And yes, theory and practice are always united for Marxists. So, he is speaking to lift the mass of workers' confidence that they have a powerful theory that makes the success of their political struggle more likely. They _did_ have a very powerful theory. Lenin did not lie to the workers,nor exaggerate the virtues of Marxism to them.
For Marxists, good theory does not guarantee success, and Lenin didn't claim that. Lenin never promised anybody a rose garden.
^^^^^^^
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.
^^^^^ CB: This is such a tired, old suburban critique of this stuff.
Actually, Marx was something of a genius, but all Marxists think of him as a human being, not superhuman. That would be an unMarxist understanding of Marx. Our attitude toward Marx is like the attitude of physicists to Einstein. You confuse the respect of scientists for a great scientist with religious hagiography. You ignore that central to Marx's teaching is atheism, practical-CRITICAL activity. Marx declares that the premise of all criticism is criticism of religion.
There aren't a lot of other thinkers who are his equal. On that, no, we don't put a lot of thinkers on the same level. Do physicists put a lot of thinkers on the same level with Einstein ? Can you name one thinker who is Marx's equal ? I certainly can't think of anybody whose historical predictions have been fulfilled as much as Marx's, especially in our epoch.