No último programa o Prof. Olavo comentou sobre as fraudes intelectuais de Karl Marx, vou postar uma parte do material que tenho aqui...
(Karl Marx and the Critical Examination of His Works - volume I, pp. 46-49)
"How Marx Used the British Parliamentary Blue Books
In his book Labouring Men (1964, reissued in paperback 1986, pp. 245-46) the Marxist historian, Professor E.J. Hobsbawm, remarks on a paper by J.R Tanner and F.S. Carey published by the Cambridge Economic Club, May Term, 1885. The title of this paper is "Comments on the Use ofthe Blue Books made by Karl Marx in Chapter XV of 'Le Capital' " i.e. the French edition of Marx's major work.
A French edition of Volume One of Marx's Capital was produced in separate parts between 1872 and 1875 and as stated on the title-page it was "Completely revised by the author." This French edition, Marx claimed, "possesses a scientific value independent of the original and should be consulted even by readers familiar with German." (Karl Marx: A Biography, Moscow, Second revised edition, 1977, pp. 402-3).
What Professor Hobsbawm finds "interesting" in Tanner and Carey's paper, from which he quotes a few phrases, is "the tone of denigration rather than the content of this work." He does not say that Tanner and Carey make a series of detailed comparisons between the original Blue Books and statements for which Marx claims the authority of these Govemment Reports. Neither does Professor Hobsbawm give, or refer to, a single, specific example from the list of comparisons made by Tanner and Carey between Marx and the Blue Books. Yet he suggests that the two authors were "unfair" in their attitude to Marx.
As stated by Tanner and Carey, however, near the beginning oftheir paper: "The writers ofthese pages first examined Marx's references to derive fuller information on some points discussed in 'Le Capital' than that contained in the text, and then being struck as they went on with accumulating discrepancies, they determined to settle if possible the scope and importance ofthe errors so plainly existing. It was soon clear to them that the differences were not the result of inaccuracy solely, that they were too vital to be included in any list of errata and addenda; indeed throughout the inaccuracies showed signs of a distorting influence."
Some ofthe examples of Marx's method of work given by Tanner and Carey, together with textual evidence, are as follows:
Pages 7-8: "There is another class of cases in which reference to the Reports shows that quotations from them have often been conveniently shortened by the omission of passages which would be likely to weigh against the conclusion which Marx was trying to establish. We print below an extract from Marx, ... with the suppressed passage restored:- ... In this case, not only is the italicised passage omitted, but the quotation is allowed to run on continuously, and the existence of the omitted passage is not indicated in any way."
Pages 8-9: " 'Le Capital' chapter XV also contains instances of another kind of misrepresentation more serious than any that have been yet quoted. It consists in piecing together fictitious quotations out of isolated statements contained in different parts of a Report. These are then foisted upon the reader in inverted commas with all the authority of direct quotations from the Blue Books themselves. For instance:- ... By this method of constructing evidence he [Marx] is led into what almost amounts to falsification. Thus:- ... Another instance occurs on the same page:- ... The remainder ofthe paragraph, though put within inverted commas, is fabricated from a number of isolated statements selected at random from no. 217 and 220."
Page 10: "In Marx' s treatment of the influence of the sewing machine, however, he uses the Blue Books with a recklessness which is appalling, and uses them to prove just the contrary ofwhat they really establish. This will be most conveniently exhibited by printing in parallel columns a passage from Marx, and an abstract of three of the references to the Reports on which it is ostensibly founded. ..."
Based on the results ofthis detailed examination of various particular cases, the general conclusion arrived at by Tanner and Carey is that: "The detailed comparisons we have made may not be sufficient to sustain a charge of deliberate falsification against the author of 'Le Capital', especially since falsification seems so unnecessary; but they certainly seem to us to show an almost criminal recklessness in the use of authorities which warrants us in regarding other parts of Marx's work with suspicion."
Evidence of the way in which Marx falsified the sense of Gladstone's budget speech of 1863, by piecing together selected parts of sentences which appear in reports of the speech and omitting words preceding and intervening, is given later in the present work. This account is based on publications by David Felix (1983) and Chushichi Tsuzuki (1967). Attention is also drawn to some respects in which "Marx uses and distorts [Adam] Smith's views for his own polemical purposes." (Michael Evans, opocit. (Note 5), May 1984, p. 144). According to Professor Raddatz, Marx's system of making extracts is highly indicative of his mental makeup. He did not in some instances copy out or translate correctly passages which he extracted - by a sort of polemical method of collation he created an atmosphere of antipathy; by this method he infused into these extracts precisely what he needed later for an aggressive system of argumentation - based on these
"sources". (Fritz Jo Raddatz, Karl Marx: A Political Biography, 1979, p. 147.)"
He [Engels] used the same deception in handling one of his main sources, Dr J.P.Kay's Physical and Moral Conditions of the Working Classes Employed in the Cotton Manufacture in Manchester (1832), which had helped to produce fundamental reforms in local government sanitation; Engels does not mention them. He misinterpreted the criminal statistics, or ignored them when they did not support his thesis. Indeed he constantly and knowingly suppresses the facts that contradict his argument or explain away a particular 'iniquity' he is seeking to expose. Careful checking of Engels's extracts from his secondary sources show these are often truncated, condensed, garbled or twisted, but invariably put in quotation marks as though given verbatim. Throughout the Henderson and Chaloner edition of the book, footnotes catalogue Enge1s's distortions and dishonesties. In one section alone, Chapter Seven, 'The Proletariat', falsehoods, including errors of fact and transcription, occur on pages 152, 155, 157, 159, 160, 163, 165, 176, 168, 170, 172, 174, 178,179,182,185,186,188,189,190,191,194 and 203.
Marx cannot have been unaware of the weaknesses, indeed dishonesties, of Enge1s's book since many of them were exposed in detail as early as 1848 by the German economist Bruno Hildebrand, in a publication with which Marx was farniliar. Moreover Marx himself compounds Engels's misrepresentations knowingly by omitting to tell the reader of the enormous improvements brought about by the enforcement of the Factory Acts and other remedial legislation since the book was published and which affected precisely the type of conditions he had highlighted.
In any case, Marx brought to the use of primary and secondary written sources the same spirit of gross careIessness, tendentious distortion and downright dishonestly which marked Engels's work. Indeed they were often collaborators in deception, though Marx was the more audacious forger. In one particularly flagrant case he outreached himself. This was the so-called 'Inaugural Address' to the International Working Men's Association, founded in September 1864. With the object of stirring the English working class from its apathy, and anxious therefore to prove that líving standards were falling, he deliberately falsified a sentence from W.E. Gladstone's Budget speech of 1863. What Gladstone said, commenting on the increase in national wealth, was: 'I should look almost with apprehension and with pain upon this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power if it were my belief that it was confined to the class who are in easy circumstances.' But, he added, 'the average condition of the British labourer, we have the happiness to know, has improved during the last twenty years in a degree which we know to be extraordinary, and which we may almost pronounce to be unexampled in the history of any country and of any age. Marx, in his address, has Gladstone say: 'This intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power is entirely confined to classes of property.' Since what Gladstone actually said was true, and confirmed by a mass of statistical evidence, and since in any case he was known to be obsessed with the need to ensure that wealth was distributed as widely as possible, it would be hard to conceive of a more outrageous reversal of his meaning. Marx gave as his sources the Morning Star newspaper; but the Star, along with the other newspapers and Hansard, gives Gladstone's words correctly.
Marx's misquotation was pointed out. Nonetheless, he reproduced it in Capital, along with other discrepancies, and when the falsification was again noticed and denounced, he let out a huge discharge of obfuscating ink; he, Engels and later his daughter Eleanor were involved in the row, attempting to defend the indefensible, for twenty years. None of them would ever admit the original, clear falsification and the result of the debate is that some readers are left with the impression, as Marx intended, that there are two sides to the controversy. There are not. Marx knew Gladstone never said any such thing and the cheat was deliberate. It was not unique. Marx similarly falsified quotations from Adam Smith.
Marx's systematic misuse of sources attracted the attention of two Cambridge scholars in the 1880s. Using the revised French edition of Capital (1872-75), they produced a paper for the Cambridge Economic Club, 'Comments on the use of the Blue Books by Karl Marx in Chapter XV of Le Capital' (1885).30 They say they first checked Marx's references 'to derive fulIer information on some points', but being struck by the 'accumulating discrepancies' they decided to examine 'the scope and importance of the errors so plainly existing'. They discovered that the differences between the Blue Book texts and Marx's quotations from them were not the result solely of inaccuracy but 'showed signs of a distorting influence'.
In one class of cases they found that quotations had often been 'conveniently shortened by the omission of passages which would be likely to weigh against the conclusions which Marx was trying to establish'. Another category 'consists in piecing together fictitious quotations out of isolated statements contained in different parts of a Report. These are then foisted upon the reader in inverted commas with alI the, authority of direct quotations from the Blue Books themselves.'
On one topic, the sewing machine, 'he uses the Blue Books with a recklessness which is appalling ... to prove just the contrary of what they realIy establish.' They concluded that their evidence might not be 'sufficient to sustain a charge of deliberate falsification' but certainly showed 'an almost criminal recklessness in the use of authorities' and warranted treating any 'other parts of Marx' s work with suspicion'."
Se Karl Marx era um charlata de marca maior, como você qualificaria algo como "interpretação marxista da história"?
A dúvida não é saber o valor que um impostor como Karl Marx tem para a filosofia ou para a ciência. A dúvida é saber como justificar cadeiras e diplomas elicerçados sobre uma fraude. Tudo isso, é claro, pago com o nosso dinheiro.
"Se Karl Marx era um charlata de marca maior, como você qualificaria algo como "interpretação marxista da história"?" (Toth)
Nem é preciso levantar o fato do charlatanismo nesse caso.
A "interpretação marxista da história" se fundamenta num conceito que é destruído pelo seu próprio autor. É a doutrina/lei marxista de interesses de classe: sua classe determina sua consciência, seu pensamento. Você pensa da forma que seus "interesses" forçam você pensar; você pensa de acordo com seus “interesses” de classe.
Mas o próprio Marx vem e anula essa lei quando afirma que "alguns membros da burguesia se unirão às classes emergentes”. Marx constrói e aniquila o conceito de classe no mesmo documento (Manifesto). Isso sem contar a contradição fundamental do seu pensamento: Karl Marx, um burguês, descobriu uma lei que só poderia ser descoberta por um proletário (paralaxe cognitiva).
E o pior, os maiores crimes da humanidade foram justificados por essa tolice.
"A dúvida não é saber o valor que um impostor como Karl Marx tem para a filosofia ou para a ciência. A dúvida é saber como justificar cadeiras e diplomas elicerçados sobre uma fraude. Tudo isso, é claro, pago com o nosso dinheiro."(Toth)
A universidade brasileira é templo "da paralaxe cognitiva" (copyright Olavo), do charlatanismo diplomado, da "improvisação das soluções já refutadas" e da "revivescência de velhos erros rebatidos e apresentados com novas roupagens" (copyright Mário F. dos Santos).