By revealing the basic laws of social development, Marxism raised history to the
level of a genuine science capable of explaining the nature of every social system and
the development of society from one social system to another. That was a tremendous
victory for scientific thought.
Bourgeois sociologists, economists and historians could not refute the materialist
conception of history, nor oppose to it a theory acceptable to the majority of bourgeois
scientists. Yet many bourgeois scientists obstinately repudiate historical materialism.
Why? Because it refutes the “eternity” of the capitalist system. For if the transition of
society from one system to another takes place in accordance with objective laws, then it
must follow that the capitalist system is bound to give way to another, more progressive
social structure. And that is something not only the capitalists, but the scientists dependent on them materially and spiritually find it hard and bitter to acknowledge.
Never in the history of class society has the ruling class believed in the inevitable
doom of its system. The slave-owners felt sure their system would last for ever, for had
it not been established by divine will? The feudal lords who superseded them likewise
believed their system had been established by divine will and for all time. But they were
forced to give way to the bourgeoisie, and then it was its turn to seek comfort in the illusion that capitalism was “eternal” and “unassailable”. And many learned sociologists
and historians, reluctant to break with capitalism, try in every possible way to refute the
fact that the development and change of social systems follow intrinsic laws that do not
depend on the will of the ruling classes and their ideologists.
Hence, bourgeois ideologists wage war on the Marxist conception of history not because it is wrong, but precisely because it is true.
This is something I'm struggling with personally — the culmination of my experiences, observations, and information disseminated to me have led me to start believing that Marxism/historical materialism is... well, correct. That it is based in scientific fact, that it is the most logical conclusion when presented with the evidence provided, that there's no other sound interpretation. I've never such a strong belief in something sociopolitical before, I've always tried to keep a healthy level of doubt and an open mind so I could build myself a newer conclusion based on further experience. Yet, this feels like the end of the road, like there's nothing more to be concluded, like if you disagree, you just don't have a proper understanding, and I don't know how to reconcile that. I feel so strongly as though this is the "truth" because of what I've experienced, yet I lack the skills to convey why. Got me feeling like a zealot spouting complex conspiracies.
In my experience, the important thing to realize is the unconscious psychological and social factors that lead us to adopting a belief system. We like to portray ourselves (contrasted with others) as passionlessly evaluating the sum total of the evidence following it unquestioningly, but I don't find that a particularly compelling or accurate description.
So I think in terms of a weak sort of fallibilism, where yes, I do think what I think, but I also note that I'm just some guy who is just as open to cognitive bias and social influences as anyone else. I think that is a very helpful way to mitigate notions that I am smarter or more honest or braver than anyone who just couldn't arrive at the same conclusions as me.
Thank you, Comrade. It's very easy to forget we're just as subject to those unconscious social factors around us as everyone else, and you can never be sure that you're approaching something unaffected.
By revealing the basic laws of social development, Marxism raised history to the level of a genuine science capable of explaining the nature of every social system and the development of society from one social system to another. That was a tremendous victory for scientific thought.
Bourgeois sociologists, economists and historians could not refute the materialist conception of history, nor oppose to it a theory acceptable to the majority of bourgeois scientists. Yet many bourgeois scientists obstinately repudiate historical materialism. Why? Because it refutes the “eternity” of the capitalist system. For if the transition of society from one system to another takes place in accordance with objective laws, then it must follow that the capitalist system is bound to give way to another, more progressive social structure. And that is something not only the capitalists, but the scientists dependent on them materially and spiritually find it hard and bitter to acknowledge.
Never in the history of class society has the ruling class believed in the inevitable doom of its system. The slave-owners felt sure their system would last for ever, for had it not been established by divine will? The feudal lords who superseded them likewise believed their system had been established by divine will and for all time. But they were forced to give way to the bourgeoisie, and then it was its turn to seek comfort in the illusion that capitalism was “eternal” and “unassailable”. And many learned sociologists and historians, reluctant to break with capitalism, try in every possible way to refute the fact that the development and change of social systems follow intrinsic laws that do not depend on the will of the ruling classes and their ideologists.
Hence, bourgeois ideologists wage war on the Marxist conception of history not because it is wrong, but precisely because it is true.
I mean you do see the parallels between the bolded portion and the religious type reasoning he alluded to right?
This is something I'm struggling with personally — the culmination of my experiences, observations, and information disseminated to me have led me to start believing that Marxism/historical materialism is... well, correct. That it is based in scientific fact, that it is the most logical conclusion when presented with the evidence provided, that there's no other sound interpretation. I've never such a strong belief in something sociopolitical before, I've always tried to keep a healthy level of doubt and an open mind so I could build myself a newer conclusion based on further experience. Yet, this feels like the end of the road, like there's nothing more to be concluded, like if you disagree, you just don't have a proper understanding, and I don't know how to reconcile that. I feel so strongly as though this is the "truth" because of what I've experienced, yet I lack the skills to convey why. Got me feeling like a zealot spouting complex conspiracies.
In my experience, the important thing to realize is the unconscious psychological and social factors that lead us to adopting a belief system. We like to portray ourselves (contrasted with others) as passionlessly evaluating the sum total of the evidence following it unquestioningly, but I don't find that a particularly compelling or accurate description.
So I think in terms of a weak sort of fallibilism, where yes, I do think what I think, but I also note that I'm just some guy who is just as open to cognitive bias and social influences as anyone else. I think that is a very helpful way to mitigate notions that I am smarter or more honest or braver than anyone who just couldn't arrive at the same conclusions as me.
Thank you, Comrade. It's very easy to forget we're just as subject to those unconscious social factors around us as everyone else, and you can never be sure that you're approaching something unaffected.
Fundamentals Of Marxism-Leninism
Long live the eternal science of Marxism-Leninism.