2449Another bottle of wine for our guest
- Feb 25, 2004Bradford comments;
Let me see if this wine taste bitter, errr better!!
"The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not
refute by logical methods the theories developed by "bourgeois"
economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating
the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally
demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the unsoundness of
their adversaries' ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical
methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It
has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the
absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology.
Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold
on the modern mind."
What the Nazis Borrowed from Marx
"The Nazis did not invent polylogism. They only developed their own
"Until the middle of the nineteenth century no one ventured to
dispute the fact that the logical structure of mind is unchangeable
and common to all human beings. All human interrelations are based
on this assumption of a uniform logical structure. We can speak to
each other only because we can appeal to something common to all of
us, namely, the logical structure of reason. Some men can think
deeper and more refined thoughts than others. There are men who
unfortunately cannot grasp a process of inference in long chains of
deductive reasoning. But as far as a man is able to think and to
follow a process of discursive thought, he always clings to the same
ultimate principles of reasoning that are applied by all other men.
There are people who cannot count further than three; but their
counting, as far as it goes, does not differ from that of Gauss or
Laplace. No historian or traveler has ever brought us any knowledge
of people for whom a and non-a were identical, or who could not
grasp the difference between affirmation and negation. Daily, it is
true, people violate logical principles in reasoning. But whoever
examines their inferences competently can uncover their errors.
Because everyone takes these facts to be unquestionable, men enter
into discussions; they speak to each other; they write letters and
books; they try to prove or to disprove. Social and intellectual
coöperation between men would be impossible if this were not so. Our
minds cannot even consistently imagine a world peopled by men of
different logical structures or a logical structure different from
Yet, in the course of the nineteenth century this undeniable fact
has been contested. Marx and the Marxians, foremost among them
the "proletarian philosopher" Dietzgen, taught that thought is
determined by the thinker's class position. What thinking produces
is not truth but "ideologies." This word means, in the context of
Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish interest of the social
class to which the thinking individual is attached. It is therefore
useless to discuss anything with people of another social class.
Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they
must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social
background, of their authors. Thus Marxians do not discuss the
merits of physical theories; they merely uncover the "bourgeois"
origin of the physicists."
I did not know that Marxist thinking was so like, so like, what is
the example I am looking for?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>