Daily Archives: March 18, 2022

Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia, argue these authors

The advent of evidence based medicine was a paradigm shift intended to provide a solid scientific foundation for medicine. The validity of this new paradigm, however, depends on reliable data from clinical trials, most of which are conducted by the pharmaceutical industry and reported in the names of senior academics. The release into the public domain of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry sponsored clinical trials are misrepresented.1234 Until this problem is corrected, evidence based medicine will remain an illusion.

The philosophy of critical rationalism, advanced by the philosopher Karl Popper, famously advocated for the integrity of science and its role in an open, democratic society. A science of real integrity would be one in which practitioners are careful not to cling to cherished hypotheses and take seriously the outcome of the most stringent experiments.5 This ideal is, however, threatened by corporations, in which financial interests trump the common good. Medicine is largely dominated by a small number of very large pharmaceutical companies that compete for market share, but are effectively united in their efforts to expanding that market. The short term stimulus to biomedical research because of privatisation has been celebrated by free market champions, but the unintended, long term consequences for medicine have been severe. Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events, and does not share raw data with the academic research community. Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.

The pharmaceutical industrys responsibility to its shareholders means that priority must be given to their hierarchical power structures, product loyalty, and public relations propaganda over scientific integrity. Although universities have always been elite institutions prone to influence through endowments, they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society. But in the face of inadequate government funding, they have adopted a neo-liberal market approach, actively seeking pharmaceutical funding on commercial terms. As a result, university departments become instruments of industry: through company control of the research agenda and ghostwriting of medical journal articles and continuing medical education, academics become agents for the promotion of commercial products.6 When scandals involving industry-academe partnership are exposed in the mainstream media, trust in academic institutions is weakened and the vision of an open society is betrayed.

The corporate university also compromises the concept of academic leadership. Deans who reached their leadership positions by virtue of distinguished contributions to their disciplines have in places been replaced with fundraisers and academic managers, who are forced to demonstrate their profitability or show how they can attract corporate sponsors. In medicine, those who succeed in academia are likely to be key opinion leaders (KOLs in marketing parlance), whose careers can be advanced through the opportunities provided by industry. Potential KOLs are selected based on a complex array of profiling activities carried out by companies, for example, physicians are selected based on their influence on prescribing habits of other physicians.7 KOLs are sought out by industry for this influence and for the prestige that their university affiliation brings to the branding of the companys products. As well paid members of pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers bureaus, KOLs present results of industry trials at medical conferences and in continuing medical education. Instead of acting as independent, disinterested scientists and critically evaluating a drugs performance, they become what marketing executives refer to as product champions.

Ironically, industry sponsored KOLs appear to enjoy many of the advantages of academic freedom, supported as they are by their universities, the industry, and journal editors for expressing their views, even when those views are incongruent with the real evidence. While universities fail to correct misrepresentations of the science from such collaborations, critics of industry face rejections from journals, legal threats, and the potential destruction of their careers.8 This uneven playing field is exactly what concerned Popper when he wrote about suppression and control of the means of science communication.9 The preservation of institutions designed to further scientific objectivity and impartiality (i.e., public laboratories, independent scientific periodicals and congresses) is entirely at the mercy of political and commercial power; vested interest will always override the rationality of evidence.10

Regulators receive funding from industry and use industry funded and performed trials to approve drugs, without in most cases seeing the raw data. What confidence do we have in a system in which drug companies are permitted to mark their own homework rather than having their products tested by independent experts as part of a public regulatory system? Unconcerned governments and captured regulators are unlikely to initiate necessary change to remove research from industry altogether and clean up publishing models that depend on reprint revenue, advertising, and sponsorship revenue.

Our proposals for reforms include: liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymised individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results. With the necessary changes to trial consent forms, participants could require trialists to make the data freely available. The open and transparent publication of data are in keeping with our moral obligation to trial participantsreal people who have been involved in risky treatment and have a right to expect that the results of their participation will be used in keeping with principles of scientific rigour. Industry concerns about privacy and intellectual property rights should not hold sway.

Competing interests: McHenry and Jureidini are joint authors of The Illusion of Evidence-Based Medicine: Exposing the Crisis of Credibility in Clinical Research (Adelaide: Wakefield Press, 2020). Both authors have been remunerated by Los Angeles law firm, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei and Goldman for a fraction of the work they have done in analysing and critiquing GlaxoSmithKline's paroxetine Study 329 and Forest Laboratories citalopram Study CIT-MD-18. They have no other competing interests to declare.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned, externally peer reviewed

Schafer A. Biomedical conflicts of interest: A defense of the sequestration thesisLearning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2004;30:8-24.

Go here to see the original:

The illusion of evidence based medicine - The BMJ

Dubai is a city that traffics in hope and optimism, but above all, it serves as a model for the concept of rationality. Despite the push-and-pull forces that tries to move policy in opposite directions, the moral compass of the city has been that of rationality, the highest calling that one can answer.

This mode of thinking adores facts, and when the domain of facts cannot be reconciled, there is only one variable that overcomes it; patience.

Rationalism is one of the words that have developed a slippery coating. In its purest sense, the construct of rationality is about how we gain knowledge, through deductive reasoning and the power of the mind.

Conjuring numbers

Of course, a priori knowledge of facts are a prerequisite for this kind of knowledge base to be formed and harnessed. It is in this context that when we look at real estate research reports for 2021, one variable jumps out - No one can seem to agree upon the number of units that have been delivered for the year.

Estimates abound from 17,000 homes to 36,000; what is astonishing in this regard is that the Dubai Land Department has already released this data in the public domain. It Is puzzling to see the narrative of oversupply still engulfing the landscape, when the price and rental rise has clearly put to bed the notion that any such oversupply would exist.

Combine that with the Dubai Urban Plan of 2040 which calls for a near doubling of the population from current levels, and the picture that emerges is one of a need to rapidly urbanize even further. Middlemen who rely on data have been equally perplexed by this wide disparity of numbers. In some sense, their job has been made more challenging because of the erroneous figures that continue to emanate from the analyst community.

Go by the facts

The recent release of Ejari data for 2021 further buttresses the claim that industry watchers already knew; rents have risen for the most part across the board despite the headwinds of Covid, and these numbers fly in the face of the oversupply narrative.

There is an infinite number of potential interpretations and opinions about which way the market can move. This is but natural and serves the foundation of a marketplace. What clouds judgment is when the domain of facts get eroded by numbers that are empirically wrong.

Macro supply stats have been one variable that the analyst community has broadly gotten wrong time and again since 2008. The narrative of oversupply that has taken over has in the past year been irrevocably challenged by the facts on the ground, as prices and rents moved higher in response to the demand curve that has shifted upwards.

The empiricist movement in philosophy paved the way of rationality by observing the facts on the ground, and determining whether they were incongruous to observable events. In Dubai, policymakers have adopted the same approach, as have long-term investors and the middlemen that harness them.

The blueprint of the citys future, carved out in not only the Urban Plan, but in the successes of its past and the resultant wealth creation that has accrued for those who have been willing to wait is a simple one. But for the most part, remain incongruous to what most of the analyst community has stated in the past few years.

Price variables

Price and business cycles move in variable direction over time under a number of variables that act and exert pressure on it. Over the longer term, cities that are successful do not get there with a pall of oversupply hanging over it. Nor do they succeed with chronic levels of undersupply.

Rather, the only axiomatic claim to extract is that for cities that have the right ingredients in place, asset and wealth creation are the inevitable consequence of the long-term trajectory of growth. Against this backdrop, commentaries that profess otherwise are part and parcel of the conversation that society has with itself. Nowhere in this conversation can facts be distorted for a prolonged timeframe.

The good news is that this form of rationalism not only emerges triumphant ultimately, but more importantly, can be learned. An increase in rationality is not something that you choose or not choose. The implication is clear: you have to work at it.

Becoming more rational is a long process that demands patience and discipline, and over time, weeds out the speculators and false information carriers. It is something that may have a variable result in the medium-term. Over the long-term horizon, there is hardly anything more important.

Sameer Lakhani

The writer is Managing Director at Global Capital Partners.

Read more:

Dubai property market is in firm control of supply and demand - Gulf News

Meadow sees the breakdown of any genuine sense of community among evangelicals as representative of the breakdown of community life all across America, at every level. For this he blames the Lockean philosophical tradition, with its emphasis on property rights and self-sovereignty, to which he opposes an ethic of solidarity with fellow citizens. But the authors of other books in my collection have found the source of contemporary political disorder in a more recent and insidious doctrine, that of neoliberalism, with its scorn of government and worship of private markets.

In Teacher Education Policies in the United States, a chapter in the book Navigating the Common Good in Teacher Education Policy, Barbara Bales explains that over a 25-year period beginning in 1992, the federal government systematically usurped oversight of teacher training from local school districts around the country and concentrated it at the federal level. The most jarring transition commenced in 2001, with the advent of the George W. Bush administration and the punitive neoliberal policies that characterized the No Child Left Behind Act and its audit-based accounting system. Bales quotes from a paper by education professor Ken Zeichner, who asserted that teachers had become instruments to further the spread of global capitalism in its current forms and lend support to elements of the current system such as free markets and trade agreements, economic rationalism, increased surveillance of workers, and greater privatization of public services. In his book For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America, Charles Dorn, a professor of education at Bowdoin College, lambastes American universities for the corporatization of higher education, which he holds responsible for a crisis that includes soaring tuition costs, limited student learning, the decline of the humanities, increasing class stratification, and the unmaking of the public university. In From Commodification to the Common Good: Reconstructing Science, Technology, and Society, philosopher of science Hans Radder notes that since the commodification (i.e., patenting) of academic research, which he vehemently opposes, is part of a widespread pattern of profound social and economic development (in particular the rise of neoliberal doctrines and politics), there is no easy answer to the question of whether it can be stopped. Still, he says, the recent, more widely acknowledged criticisms of neoliberalism may be a sign of forthcoming change.

Here is the original post:

Fanfare for the Common Good - The New Republic

After Graces death, Tommy went with Johnny Dogs and baby Charles in a wagon to the Black Mountains. There, he sought the advice of gypsy matriarch Madame Boswell. He told her he was giving the sapphire away and asked whether or not she would take it. His wife was wearing it on the night she was shot, he told the wise woman, and he blamed himself. You want me to tell you this jewel is cursed and then her death wont be all your fault? she asked. If I believed in priests, Tommy said, I would confess and ask for forgiveness, but all I have is you, Madame Boswell. She said that the sapphire was indeed cursed, she could feel the curse burning through her hand. Tommy left the stone with her, and she shouted after him that from now on, he would be blessed with good fortune.

Its a great scene that, at the time, was marked by ambiguity. Was Madame Boswell lying to land herself a valuable jewel, or did she really feel the stones curse? Did Tommy truly believe in the curse, or did he just need an explanation for Graces murder that absolved him of guilt? In season six, that ambiguity was replaced with certainty. The sapphire was indeed cursed, Esme Shelby-Lee tells Tommy. Madame Boswell (renamed Barwell here, perhaps to avoid insult to the real-life Boswell gypsy tribe) gave it to her daughter Evadne, who put it around the neck of her seven-year-old daughter Connie, who immediately started coughing and was dead before morning.

The sapphire was thrown into the river and Evadne duly cursed Tommy Shelby, that if he should ever have a daughter, she would also die at that age. Her childs grave was marked by a cross bearing the inscription: Connie Barwell, seven years old, died of a cursed stone not forgotten, and then in red, what looks like the words Vengeance will come.

In season six, episode three Gold, vengeance did come. Tommys seven-year-old daughter Ruby died of tuberculosis, after hearing voices, seeing visions and speaking the Romani words for the devil. Ruby died from a curse laid in retaliation for Tommy having passed on an already-cursed sapphire to the Barwell family. Evadne Barwell (still listed under the familys original name of Boswell on IMDb), is credited as appearing in the next two episodes of season six, played by actor Gwynne McElveen.

If viewers chose to, they could dismiss all this talk of curses and jewels, and simply believe that Grace was shot by a foe, and that Ruby and Connie both died of TB and the sapphire had nothing to do with any of it. Tommy felt guilt over Graces death and needed something to blame that wasnt himself, so he seized on the idea of the cursed stone as an explanation. Tommys mind almost says as much when he had a vision of Grace holding the sapphire in season five and she gave voice to his greatest fear: It wasnt the blue stone, Tommy, it was you.

None of that dull rationalism though, would be very Peaky Blinders. This is a drama that believes in gypsy superstition, so why shouldnt we believe it too? The stone was cursed, and that curse killed Grace, Connie and indirectly, Ruby.

Go here to see the original:

Peaky Blinders: Ruby Shelby, Connie Barwell and the Cursed Sapphire - Den of Geek

Before the rise of the Nazis, Germany with its powerful workers movement and mass social democratic and communistparties was home to a flourishing Marxist intellectual landscape. Marxist evening schools, party magazines, and scholarly journals fed a vibrant culture of debate that, while primarily the domain of intellectuals, far surpassed any left-wing milieu since then in both quantity and quality.

After 1945, Marxism was officially canonized as Marxism-Leninism in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in the East, while in West Germany it was banished during the 1950s and survived only on the fringes of society. Marxism held on only in the form of the critical theory of the Frankfurt School and a handful of Marxist intellectuals scattered across the country. One of those intellectuals was Leo Kofler(19071995), an important but unfortunately often overlooked intellectual pioneer of the postwar German left.

While Ernst Bloch once praised his work as a direct successor to Gyrgy Lukcss pathbreaking classic, History and Class Consciousness, Leo Kofler generally had little luck with the more than thirty books and pamphlets published during his lifetime. For example, the mythical year 1968 was almost over by the time his manifesto, Perspektiven des revolutionren Humanismus (Perspectives of Revolutionary Humanism), was published by the renowned Hamburg publisher Rowohlt. Yet the West German extraparliamentary opposition (Auerparlamentarische Opposition, APO), then at its height, apparently had little use for his political and theoretical pamphlet, since practically no one referenced it or discussed it extensively after its publication.

Today, readers would be hard-pressed to find much trace of his public reception beyond a handful of rather distant and critical reviews in mainstream newspapers. This could be blamed on the flood of socially critical literature being published at the time, in which so much was overlooked and later forgotten, or on Koflers occasionally all-too-intricate writing style, which differed from his thrilling oratory style. One could also attribute it to the old-fashioned style that characterized his demeanor and that he happily affirmed in provocative fashion. Yet more than anything else, Koflers obscurity is the product of a profound alienation between the different generations of the political left.

The young protest generation of 1968, and especially its West German branch, was not free of illusions and hubris. One example was the way in which they perceived themselves as truly new, failing to grasp that they stood in a long tradition of protest against social democratic reformism on the one hand and Stalinism on the other.

Leaving aside the first isolated predecessors of the 1930s and the 1940s, the history of the New Left began in the middle of the 1950s not only but also in West Germany. Around this time, a network and milieu of groups and individuals, newspapers, and periodicals formed. Social democrats disappointed and radicalized by their partys accommodation and integration into the system; democrats dissatisfied with the postfascist restoration; communist dissidents inspired by destalinization and the rise of national liberation movements in the Third World; and left-socialists and -communists who had been politically homeless since the 1930s and 1940s all sought to break out of the Cold War superpower binary and pursue a third way or, as they put it, go back to Marx.

These social democratic dissidents represented many thousands in the years 195459. Among them were figures such as the former trade union theorist Viktor Agartz, the young left-wing Catholic Theo Pirker, the journalists Gerhard Gleissberg and Fritz Lamm, and the left-socialist jurist Wolfgang Abendroth. Leo Kofler, as a sort of wandering preacher in community colleges, trade unions, and student groups, introduced quite a few of them to the foundations and intricacies of an undogmatic Marxist theory reuniting the severed threads of freedom and socialism and anticipating many of the questions that Marxism would take up in the 1960s.

He had already founded a philosophy of praxis in the 1940s with his fundamental methodological work on Die Wissenschaft von der Gesellschaft (The Science of Society) and his writing on the relationship between history and dialectics, in Geschichte und Dialektik, published in 1955. Koflers philosophy of praxis argued for a renewal of Marxist thought in the spirit of what we now call Western Marxism beyond the vulgar materialist understanding of Marxism of the likes of Karl Kautsky or Joseph Stalin.

In his 1948 Zur Geschichte der brgerlichen Gesellschaft (On the History of Bourgeois Society) his most well-known work during his lifetime that exhibits interesting parallels to, as well as differences from, the school of British Marxist historians Kofler had traced the historical roots and paths of radical democracy and socialist conceptions of freedom. A few years later, at the beginning of the 1950s, he put forward the first systematic ideological critique of Stalinist theory and practice in the German-speaking world. For structural reasons, he wrote, Marxism-Leninism tended toward a vulgar materialist and undialectical indeed, almost anti-dialectical understanding of Marxism that was deeply anti-humanist, as it degraded the concrete humans to be emancipated into mere appendages of a new, bureaucratic ruling stratum.

As it also did elsewhere, the social and political upsurge pursued by the first generation of the New Left would ultimately fail in divided Germany. Exacerbated by the 1956 ban on the Communist Party in West Germany and the treason trials against Wolfgang Harich in East Germany and Viktor Agartz in the West in 1957, the communist and left-socialist milieu was permanently marginalized and repeatedly divided. The defeat of this socialist left also prepared the ground for the Social Democratic Party of Germanys (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD) final retreat from any form of political or programmatic anti-capitalism, completed at its Bad Godesberg party congress in 1959. Together, these events culminated in the kind of lasting alienation between the political generations that could also be observed in neighboring European countries, even if it was not nearly as severe and long-lasting as in Germany.

The heavy burden that the failure of this first New Left left behind at the beginning of the 1960s can be seen in both political as well as theoretical debates. Even if the inventive power of the 1968 generation was impressive, it often reinvented the wheel. What Wolfgang Abendroth tried to diplomatically teach his young listeners during the revolt, Leo Kofler expressed in considerably blunter and harder-to-digest terms.

Even as a spectator of the movement, for Kofler 1968 nevertheless represented a world-historical new beginning. He was also keenly aware of everything that had transpired since the mid-1960s. While applying the final corrections and revisions to the new edition of his monumental Zur Geschichte der brgerlichen Gesellschaft in early 1966, he inserted the following formulation: An opposition that pushes for democratization is becoming visible in the people and the intelligentsia. The fateful question for Germany is whether they will be able to carry it through.

Like Herbert Marcuse, Leo Kofler was, with his heart and mind, fully on the side of the young generation. Unlike Marcuse, however, he was too much of an old left-socialist to turn into a simple apologist for the antiauthoritarian awakening. With a caustically sharp tone and frequently trenchant critique, he used every available opportunity for intraleft contestation, for the struggle between two lines within what he had for a decade been calling a progressive or humanist elite.

Whether dissident Communists battling against the half-measures of destalinization or oppositional social democrats and trade unionists fighting against bureaucratization and integration into the system, radical democratic citizens or socially engaged Christians they all became, willingly or not, an independent sociological layer, under the historically novel conditions of a bureaucratically blocked workers movement. They were an amorphous elite composed of progressive elements of socialist and nonsocialist origin, a formless mass with strongly heterogeneous and fluctuating tendencies heterogeneous in its social and political composition, its social and political views, and its habitus.

This progressive humanist elite (the term elite was not intended judgmentally; today we would perhaps say multitude) led a sort of pariah existence on the margins and in the niches of social organizations (parties, associations, cultural and religious communities) between all the camps. It stood socially and ideologically at odds with the traditional front lines of socialism and nonsocialism. It was full of contradictions, volatile, socially powerless and yet it is there and not without significance. According to Kofler, a real renewal of the socialist left, a return to health of revolutionary humanism could only succeed if this progressive elite reflected on its humanist sensibility and became a mediator between the old and new milieus.

This, in turn, would only succeed if they united the powerless academic left, the world of highly developed abstraction, with the powerful trade union movement (that world of vulgar practicality (which places itself against the sting of class struggle) on a new foundation. Yet both of these worlds, critical and oppositional according to their origin, barely come into contact, they go their own ways, he wrote in 1968. The consequence is obstinate practicality over here and complacent intellectualism over there, both sides observing each other suspiciously as though through glass walls, yet not influencing each other.

That was not the only unreasonable demand for the New Left in 1968. That Kofler was guided by the theories of Gyrgy Lukcs, above all his aesthetic theories, was already bad enough for the neo-vanguardists. That he was also critical or even hostile to the psychology of Sigmund Freud and bluntly insulted the Frankfurt School of Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno as Marxo-nihilists made him just as suspect to the younger generation, as did his downright pushy insistence that socialist humanism provided the main target for the rampant structuralist anti-humanism at the time.

Perhaps he demanded too much of the new movement, which in fact had already begun to fall apart by 1969. Yet these were and here Koflers originality seems to have been widely underestimated the unreasonable demands of a New Left fellow traveler, not a bourgeois or Communist critic. His ambitious attempt at an alternative social philosophy to that of the Frankfurt School had no chance with the generation of young intellectuals. Yet the idea that Kofler had nothing to say about the new phenomenon of welfare state capitalism is not borne out by his work. Starting in the 1950s, he was one of the first Marxists after World War II to grapple intensively with an analysis of the contradictions and pitfalls of a capitalism that promised prosperity for all.

His analysis, carried out in his works Staat, Gesellschaft und Elite zwischen Humanismus und Nihilismus (State, Society and Elite between Nihilism and Humanism), Der proletarische Brger (The Proletarian Citizen), and Der asketische Eros (The Ascetic Eros) and taken up again in Perspektiven des revolutionren Humanismusturned its gaze to the unprecedented integration processes of late bourgeois class society. Kofler saw this neocapitalist society as having transitioned into an epoch of deliberalization and spiritual demoralization (decadence) that did not want to be reminded of its early bourgeois promises of emancipation and, indeed, had become downright nihilistic.

The world, he wrote in the late 1950s,

only remains useful for the bourgeoisie, bearable for profit, otherwise it has become empty and meaningless. The leftover freedom is no longer the freedom to realize ideals and uplift humans whoever wants to do that becomes suspect! but rather the freedom of competition, of the jungle. Essentially, everything is achieved, there was history, but in the future there wont be any more.

This social stasis, condensing into a sort of cynical, nihilistic Weltschmerz and revealing a pessimistic concept of man, drove even its leftist adversaries piece by piece into a theoretical anti-humanism that isolated them from the one thing that could carry out a real transformation of society: the broad majority of working and thinking people.

According to Kofler, neocapitalism doubtlessly had quite a bit to offer its people: political freedom, more income and free time, more security and fewer taboos (including those of a sexual type). Yet at the same time, these new freedoms and possibilities shackled the individual more than ever to a form of society that was irrational in its principles. Hunger had indeed disappeared, but not deprivation. Consumption was possible, but only through asceticism before and after the consuming: Doing without in order to be able to afford something and affording something with the consequence of doing without afterward belong to the most self-evident forms of behavior of our time. What appeared to be de-ideologization was in fact total ideologization: individual rationalism was merely the epiphenomenon of collective irrationality, the democracy of the market the obfuscation of the despotism of the factory and the office.

Kofler pioneered a critique of bourgeois freedom in late consumer capitalism that avoided the then-predominant ideological pitfalls of an allegedly administered world, of a one-dimensional society or even an integral statism, without ignoring the social phenomena at the root of these misleading units of ideology. Postwar capitalism, restrained by the welfare state, was also, first and foremost, a class society an antagonistic form of society shaped by exploitation, injustice, and domination, in which some have what others do not.

There was still lord and servant, bourgeois elite and the wage-earning class, and consent had still not abolished coercion something only a few critical thinkers acknowledged back in the 1960s and 70s. Today, however, in the age of the war on terror and weaponized globalization, this has become undeniably clear. Thus Kofler described, in a way that was both old-fashioned and forward-looking, the class society we all live in, and reflected on what it meant for perspectives of emancipation.

He challenged many left-wing currents as well as certain interpretations of the Marx renaissance at the time, a challenge that has by and large been ignored. That applies to Koflers view of the questions of social psychology, his critical and productive discussion of certain Freudian theorems, and his argument for conceiving a new, contemporary Marxism, by thinking through and combining the theoretical ideas of Lukcs and Marcuse.

His critique of the structurally bureaucratized workers movement targeted, in different ways, both of its main currents: social democracy integrating itself into the bourgeois state with its merely ethical socialism as well as the socialist bureaucracy of the Communist movement with its incapacity for destalinization. This did not contribute to Koflers popularity; neither did his early ideological criticism of the Frankfurt School, which he had already developed by the mid-1960s, a decade before Perry Andersons famous critique of Western Marxism. This was especially true of his attempt to conceptually combine Western Marxism with a radical socialist humanism and thereby lay the epistemological foundations for a Marxist philosophical anthropology.

With his theory of society, Kofler drew on the early bourgeois, radical democratic ideals of freedom, equality, and solidarity turning them against the limited bourgeois, purely political form of freedom as well as the limited actually existing socialist freedom conceived merely in socioeconomic terms. He understood the socialist project to mean a comprehensive emancipation. Oppositional demands for freedom, progress, democracy, and self-realization, for a classless society in the common interest and for self-realizing individuality, must be undergirded by a conceptual orientation to humanity and an anthropological epistemology from a Marxist perspective.

We humans are, as Terry Eagleton once put it, cultural beings by virtue of our nature, which is to say by virtue of the sorts of bodies we have and the kind of world to which they belong. And where human beings stand, as it were, between nature and culture, human nature will indeed be changed through human culture but not eliminated. Forty years before Eagleton, this was also Koflers understanding. For him, this is fundamentally justified by the fact that it is the human brain and thus human culture that distinguish humans nature. It lies in the essence of this human nature that it is structurally dependent on ones fellow human beings and the forms of work and activity mediated by them. This practical, active work and its accompanying social forms of relation are creative and inventive in nature.

Koflers often misunderstood groundwork of a Marxist philosophical anthropology understands itself literally as the science of the unchanging preconditions of human changeability. It sees itself as a form of metatheory and auxiliary science that has no desire nor ability to be a guide for action but rather only shows why there was and will be a specifically human history at all, and why change in humans and their social conditions is fundamentally possible, if not concretely predetermined in its content.

Kofler provides us with a criterion for what humanitys self-realization can be, and thereby also precisely for what emancipation cannot and must not be. What practical significance such a discussion of anthropological concepts of man has is perhaps only truly clear today, in light of a neoliberalism rooted in a structural social Darwinism and the contemporary challenges of biological and neurological sciences intervening in human nature, along with the ever more obviously dysfunctional relationship between humanity and nature.

Read more here:

Leo Kofler Was a Marxist and a Revolutionary Humanist - Jacobin magazine