Gross experience is loaded with the tangled and complex; hence philosophy hurries away from it to search out something so simple that the mind can rest trustfully in it, knowing that it has no surprises in store, that it will not spring anything to make trouble, that it will stay put, having no potentialities in reserve. . . . Another striking example of the fallacy of selective emphasis is found in the hypnotic influence exercised by the conception of the eternal. The permanent enables us to rest, it gives peace; the variable, the changing, is a constant challenge. (Dewey, PP. 26-27)
Modern times have obviously proven Marx' assumptions of the self-destructive tendency of capitalism to be much more latent and controllable. The dynamic and destructive capitalist economy which 1) replaced exploitation veiled with religion with blatant exploitation and 2) destroyed its own means of preventing future crises has again become a more veiled form of exploitation and has proven to have a much greater capacity to prevent crises through human constructions such as the federal reserve board and government crisis monetary backing. Things such as these show capitalist society to be more tenacious than Marx thought. How does this effect his claim to scientific status? Marxism is still a very exact and penetrating critique -- but what level of science can it claim?
|
|
|
|
|
Favorites
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
BlinkList