Why "Limits to knowledge" must become a central tenet of epistemology

 “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

“I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here. I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.” ― Richard P. Feynman

The core and primary reason for the authorship of this article is that practitioners of science do not often bear the concept of limits to knowledge in mind, and there is often a sense of hubris prevalent among practioners of science, most notably in various fields of social sciences, where scholars are ageing, and caught in a Eurocentric mould and warp, along with a high degree of skeptopathy leading to an excessive and unjustified feeling of infallibility. This is often tied to Eurocentrism as well, and our globalization of science movement hopes to yield more capacious interpretations of scientific concepts in the long term, particularly in the social sciences. This is of course not in the interests of science, and we believe that intellectual humility can lead to faster scientific progress, and can light and shine forth the torch of objectivity and rigour. Knowledge may be defined as an awareness, understanding, or information about a subject gained through learning, study, or experience. In philosophy, and it is often described as a justified true belief, which is a epistemological definition of thee term. Epistemology is a field which accomplishes the formal study of knowledge, focusing on its nature, origin, and limits in many cases, along with a study of truth propositions. The term epistemology is derived from two Greek words, namely “episteme”, which connotes knowledge, and “logos”, which means a formal field of investigation or study. There are foundational and empirical limits to knowledge, and we will discuss these briefly in this article.

Hubris has accelerated noticeably over the past couple of centuries, particularly after the dawn of the industrial and scientific revolution, torched by genuine and bonafide human achievements and progress. This has become particularly visible in the twentieth century, as technological progress accelerated rapidly. A lot more work need to be done on the limits to knowledge, and the concept must become much more tightly interwoven much more tightly into epistemology itself. We believe that this is a major weakness at present, and one reason for this is that researchers themselves are wary of immersing themselves in this issue. A formal and a comprehensive study of a large number of case studies can become a useful trigger or a starting point, and that is why we discuss a couple of them in this article. As such, we invite a large number of other independent scholars and thinkers to contribute their insights to this vital and crucial, yet sadly neglected field. Epistemology and the philosophy of science also must form a part and parcel of the globalization of science movement as the context of knowledge is studied much more foundationally and deeply, given the fact that much of intellectualism has been birthed and gestated based on the ground realities and experiences of the west. That at least has been our firm and unshakable belief over the past several years

What is knowledge?

Let us begin this article by defining what knowledge is. Knowledge in general terms, may be defined as the awareness, understanding, or information about a subject matter or a particular event (or a course of events that take place over time) that a person gains either through practical experience or practical education. Knowledge therefore encompasses both theoretical and practical understanding of an issue or a matter at hand. In the realm of philosophy, the study of knowledge is referred to epistemology. Therefore, as per the principles of epistemology, knowledge is defined as “justified true belief”. This definition is sometimes attributed to the ancient Greek thinker Plato In the dialogue Theaetetus, though it has been expanded upon, and derived ever since. However, in modern and in contemporary times, Edmund Gettier critiqued this concept, and proposed the Gettier case in this regard. By belief, we mean that the individual or person must believe the proposition to be true. By truth we mean that the belief must be true, and not false. By justification we mean that the individual must have a good reason or valid evidence for the belief, such as experience, memory, or logical reasoning

Knowledge can be categorized into several distinct types and classes. For example, propositional knowledge (or knowledge-that) refers to theoretical knowledge about facts and truths that can be expressed in declarative sentences. On the other hand, procedural knowledge (which is also known as knowledge-how refers to practical skills or abilities. Thirdly, knowledge by acquaintance refers to familiarity with a person, place, or thing gained through direct acquaintance or a rendezvous. Knowledge may also be classified into explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge refers to knowledge that is easily articulated, documented, and shared while tacit knowledge (less commonly referred to as implicit knowledge) refers to knowledge that is difficult to formalize, articulate, or share, often gained through extensive personal experience and long and tedious hours of practice. Knowledge is typically acquired through many different means and mechanisms, such as sensory perception, deep-rooted cogitation, reflection, and introspection, long-term and short-term memory, inference, direct and indirect testimony, wisdom, witness, direct experience as in the case of experiential knowledge, and formal education. Knowledge is the very basis and foundation for modern society, and scientific progress. We would all be nothing without it.

What is epistemology?

Epistemology is a very important branch of philosophy that studies knowledge, focusing on its nature, origin, and limits. The word is thought to originate from the Greek words episteme (which means knowledge) and logos (which means reason or study). This important field of study analyzes how knowledge is acquired and what makes a belief true instead of false. In Epistemology, knowledge is traditionally defined as justified true belief. In other words, in order to possess knowledge of a proposition, a person must believe it, it must be true, and the person must have adequate justification or a rational reason for holding that belief. The history of epistemology connotes the formalized philosophical study of knowledge production mechanisms across different eras and cultures, beginning from ancient Greek investigations into the nature of truth to more modern comprehensive debates that formally include science, logic, and social and cultural dynamics. The ancient Greek thinker Aristotle, building on Plato’s early ruminations and introspections on the topic of knowledge, emphasized empirical observation and abstraction that was derived from experience.

During the Middle Ages, epistemology probed and investigated the complex and multifaceted relationship between faith and reason with thinkers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas making important contributions. We also then had empirical and rational schools of thought. Rationalism, of logic and reasoning independent of past experience, or experiential knowledge was heavily promoted by thinkers of the likes of Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, and Baruch Spinoza in the immediate pre-modern era. On the other hand, John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume, advocated for empiricism or experiential knowledge. In all probability, the two cannot be mutually exclusive and build upon and complement each other in the manner proposed by Immanuel Kant in his work, critique of pure reason. We would likely do similarly otherwise, and we have also developed concepts such as that of fuzzy logic for the social sciences, and variable logic. Of late, new subfields such as analytic epistemology, naturalized epistemology, and social and formal epistemology, and the field as such remains highly vibrant and ever-evolving to meet the complex needs and requirements of the information age and the digital age, artificial intelligence, interdisciplinary and cross-cultural insights.

Limits to knowledge

The limits of knowledge as an epistemological concept refers to, and represents the fundamental boundaries of what can be known, fathomed, experienced, or proven by the faculties of the human mind, and by human cognitive processes. These limits are defined by empirical and sensory limits. Empirical limits to knowledge connote the boundaries of what can be known through sensory experience, observation, and scientific experiment. These constraints derive from the innate capacity of human senses such as touch, smell, hearing, sight and visions, etc, and the fact that human beings are able to perceive only a tiny band of the electromagnetic spectrum (visible light) and a limited range of sound frequencies. Sensory faculties also vary from species to species, and many other animals possess superior sensory abilities, at least in some respects. Humans cannot also perceive and fathom very small and very large objects without the use of external and artificial tools, and their efficacy too is limited by technological constants. Cultural biases, and confirmation biases too shape human worldviews, and scientists are not often spared from subjectivity and bias. Humans also often tend to extrapolate their own cultural conditions to other cultures, and these may lead to fallacious conclusions – That is why we launched our globalization of science movement in the first place. This issue has not been as widely studied, probed, or investigated as it deserves to be, but approaches and attitudes in this connection and regard must change with the times. Human brains must process data and information, and this process is often constrained by subjective filtering. Scientists also do not always evaluate all assumptions for scratch, and operate within pre-defined theoretical (and often non-neutral) frameworks. Thus, misinterpretations and erroneous interpretations of reality multiply as rapidly as valid interpretations. These factors often impede the speed at which knowledge can be acquired. Humans ability for logical reasoning too is not without bounds, as is their ability to comprehend absolute philosophical truths.

Human critical thinking may also often be severely limited by brain capacity, available vocabulary, verbal intelligence, and less frequently social and cultural skills, and the ability to adapt too, and work in multicultural environments. We also then have the problem of induction, and the ability of sentient human beings to derive generalizations from large tomes of data. Humans cannot also make accurate predictions about the future based on existing data due to hindsight bias, and the problem of induction was discussed at length by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, and others. We also have the horizon of events problem, and there are valid cosmological boundaries as well. For example, conditions prior to the Big Bang or the internal subjective experiences of other human beings and other species, remain empirically unverifiable. For example, we cannot possibly know what Emperor Akbar ate on a certain day, or the precise time at which he ate. We also know that cats cannot taste sweet, or that dogs cannot see certain colours, but they are indeed limits to the accuracy and efficacy of experiments that expose or lay bare these facts. Time travel is not possible, and there are physical and cosmological limitations to time travel as well, though people have imagined time travel vividly in the past, most notable examples being HG Wells, Mark Twain, and Enrique Gaspar.

There are several other interesting concepts too. For example many sociologists and social scientists believe that the human being is born with an empty and neutral tabula rasa or a blank slate. However, some rationalists counter this view, stating that the human mind is not a blank slate, but is born with a degree of inherent structures, concepts, or truths that may exist independently of sensory experience, and are determined or derived genetically. Immanuel Kant too wrote about phenomena versus noumena; in other words, reality exists independently outside human perception, and we therefore have two distinct realms: namely phenomena (the world of appearances) and noumena (the world of things as they exist independently of the human mind). Humans may also suffer from overconfidence and hubris. Hubris represents an extreme, and a highly dangerous level of pride, arrogance, and overconfidence that leads to a person’s ultimate downfall. Hubris is not based on a simple miscalculation alone, but involves a mental, moral or cognitive superinflation where an individual believes they are above the rules, laws, or forces of nature. They may be blinded by their own past achievements and accomplishments, real or imagined, individual or cultural. A classic example is that of the archeologist and anthropologist Gregory Possehl, who is now deceased who was highly pompous and naïve in his interaction with the Author. Hubris inevitably and invariably leads to nemesis, and there are many examples from Greek mythology to illustrate this; we have the story of Icarus and Niobe, then the story of Arachne and King Tantalus.

Types of overconfidence include overestimation which is the act of judging one’s actual performance, skill, or other abilities to be higher than what they actually are. We also then have overplacement or the belief that an individual is more capable than others, and over precision – the erroneous and mistaken belief that a person’s observations are much more accurate than they actually are. We also then have the issue of skepticism versus skeptopathy, one that we have discussed at great length in our previous papers. Skepticism is a healthy, evidence-based approach of questioning claims, whereas skeptopathy is a term used to describe a pathological, irrational form of disbelief. There was a great deal of hubris in the early part of the twentieth century too. For example, the Titanic was marketed as being unsinkable. However, complacency led to several engineering blunders such as non water tight bulkheads (open top bulkheads), and a single layered hull on the sides. The steel was thought to be of inferior quality, and the riveting was not properly done. Limits to knowledge as often discussed in epistemological debates, but we believe that the time has now come to integrate it much more tightly with the field so that cardinal errors of omission and commission cannot occur, and so that the quality and reliability of scholarship is also escalated as a result. Examples of limits to knowledge include the mystery of time. How did time originate? How did time begin? How could something not have had a beginning? This is indeed mind-boggling, and shows that something exists that is beyond human conception of time, something that human beings cannot possibly comprehend. Some others talk about a fine tuned universe, and the strong and weak anthropic principle, though many different types of arguments have been proposed, both for and against. Narrow and shallow debates also alienate people, since communication must be both interdisciplinary and cross-cultural. It must also be deep and profound enough to account for practical realities.

The concept of God

The concept and general idea of God has intrigued man for aeons and millennia. Yet the concept of God continues to be ill-defined, and the term often means many different things to many different people, across, and within cultures. Some people speak of a religious God- with often varying and non-overlapping definitions across religions, others speak of a non-religious God, an agnostic, while yet others associate the term God with the sum total of nature; it is perhaps for this very reason that debates surrounding the term God remain highly opinionated and non-objective to this very day, even among academicians and scholars. In many, if not most religions, God is seen as the Supreme Being, creator, and ruler of the universe in monotheistic and polytheistic religions and belief systems. Yet there are religions without the concept of God, and at the same time, there are also people who believe in the pantheistic or natural concept of God without believing in any religion. In Western and Abrahamic views, God is viewed as the creator and ruler of all things, and as the eternal, all-powerful maker of all life and all forms of existence. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is also additionally seen as a personal, loving, and just judge who interacts with humanity. This concept is sometimes seen as a personal God. There are also monotheistic and polytheistic religions. In the case of the formers, there is only one God, while in the case of the latter, there are many or multiple Gods. An example of a polytheistic religion is Hinduism, though some say these are viewed as manifestations of only one God. The definition of God varies in eastern and other non-western perspectives. Many non-traditions, such as certain schools of Hinduism, view the ultimate reality as a formless, all-encompassing cosmic energy or spirit (like Brahman). Many other traditions define gods as multiple supernatural beings controlling specific forces of nature or different aspects of life. We had also discussed several uncommon definitions of the term God in our previous papers and publications. There is also an oversimplified God (Christian) versus evolution debate in certain western intellectual circles which we must deplore and condemn; we had also discussed concepts such as intelligent design, young earth creationism, theistic evolution, evolutionary theism previously on multiple occasions. Readers are requested to read these works.

Additionally and alternatively, Spinoza’s God is the concept that God and the physical universe are exactly the same entity, a philosophy known as pantheism. This idea mostly rejects the idea and concept of a religious God, and can be seen as being religion-neutral. This concept was first developed by the seventeenth century Jewish-Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, for which he was severely criticized within his own Jewish community. This view by and large rejects the traditional idea of a personalized God who sits in heaven with a long and flowing beard, judges people on the basis of their actions and good or bad deeds, or performs miracles. Other ideas such as that of a horned, mythical creature, spitting and drooling blood, are also highly unscientific, and must be deemed as such. On the other hand, Spinoza argued that God is the infinite, impersonal, and rational system of nature itself, and he called it Deus sive Natura meaning that the terms God and nature could be used interchangeably. This concept also once relied heavily on monism, the idea that everything in the universe could be reduced to one substance.

The reason why this concept must be mentioned at least in passing in this context is that Spinoza’s ideas profoundly shaped the Enlightenment and modern philosophy, and many scientists latter commented on it. Most notable is Albert Einstein’s endorsement of Spinoza’s concept In the early part of the twentieth century. Carl Sagan also viewed this concept favourably, and so did many other scientists, all of whom rejected the traditional idea of God. Paradoxically enough, Richard Dawkins issued a disclaimer stating that the contents of his books did not apply to Spinoza’s definition of God, and Christopher Hitchens touched upon the issue as well. It is difficult to critique Spinoza’s God from a purely epistemological standpoint. However, they have been some religious criticism. However, refer our argument on the mystery of time, and several other arguments put forth in our book discussing the existence of God, both for and existence. Clearly, there are several issues and paradoxes at play, both epistemological and philosophical and naïve and hardnosed approaches may not work; correlate with our observations on the limits to knowledge.

What is atheism?

Atheism as a broad concept refers to the absence of belief in a God, a creator, or a supreme being or entity. A more vulgar manifestation of God is referred to as a deity. People who subscribe to atheism are known as atheists. Atheists reject the belief that any God or deities exist, and believe that man is the sole architect of his destiny. The term “atheism” is derived from the ancient Greek word atheos, meaning “without gods”. There are many types of atheism. One primary classification is implicit and explicit atheism. Implicit atheism means not holding a belief in God without explicit or active rejection, while explicit atheism refers to a more assertive form of rejection in any divine being or entity. Atheism may also be sub classified into positive and negative atheism. Negative or weak atheism refers to a mere absence of belief in deities, whereas adherents of positive or strong atheism vehemently and vociferously assert the firm claim that no God exists. The British philosopher John Gray in his 2018 book, “Seven Types of Atheism”, outlined seven distinct categories of atheism. These categories are new atheism which connotes and represents a form of militant and outspoken critique of religion popularized by thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, secular humanism which subscribes to science, reason and ethical naturalism as a tool for societal progress, scientism which turns science into a dogmatic religion used to engineer human advancement and holds an oversized view of the advancement of science, political religion which uses religion as a political tool, atheism with a strange or a paradoxical faith in science, the atheism of God haters as represented by Marquis de Sade or Ivan Karamazov, atheism without progress and atheism with silence.

Atheism without progress is championed by philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer and George Santayana who reject both God and the myth of human progress, and hold cynical views of the world. The atheism of silence on the other hand has been propounded by literary figures such as Joseph Conrad, and finds mystery in the universe without needing to provide any meaning to life or to existence. There are other terms too. For example, agnosticism holds that the existence of God is unknown or cannot be known. A large number of ordinary people including scientists, intellectuals and philosophers fall into this category. There are many variants of agnosticism, including strong and weak agnosticism. The idea of agnosticism was proposed and championed by thinkers such as Thomas Henry Huxley and Immanuel Kant. Antitheism is a virulent hostility to religion and religious beliefs, with a firm belief that a belief in God or religion is outright dangerous, and impedes human progress. A example of an antitheism is Christopher Hitchens. Pragmatic or apathetic atheism holds the view that the existence or non-existence of gods is irrelevant to daily quotidian life, and is therefore unimportant for the most part. Hemant Mehta and others study the intersection between religion, society, and culture, and there are many different shades and hues of thinkers with many different viewpoints; all this goes on to show that there are many unresolved issues and many dogmatic, ossified, and ideologically driven viewpoints. Ignosticism or theological noncognitivism holds the position that the term “God” is meaningless because it lacks a coherent, testable definition. Proponents of this position hold that that it is futile to discuss whether God exists until a clear definition is provided. We subscribe more or less to this school of thought.

Atheism existed in the ancient world, and in ancient India, the Charvaka school rejected supernatural claims and the doctrine of karma, advocating for materialism alone. In ancient Greece philosophers such as Diagoras of Melos severely criticized religious myths. Epicurus on the other hand, argued that even if gods existed, they were detached and uninvolved in human affairs. During the Islamic golden age, thinkers such as Al-Ma’arri openly criticized religion. During the European dark and middle ages, atheism was associated with heresy and blasphemy, and it was only during the renaissance and enlightenment, that the spirit of inquiry were rekindled and retorched. During this period, open atheism emerged, and some open atheists were Jean Meslier, Baron d’Holbach, and others. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution which was published in the middle of the nineteenth century provided a natural explanation for human origins, triggering atheistic ideas in many thinkers. Charles Darwin himself, however, did believe in a Christian God for the most part. Karl Marx went as far as to call religion “the opium of the people, and the sigh of the oppressed creature” while Friedrich Nietzsche famously pronounced God to be dead. State atheism emerged in Communist states which severely curtailed the open practice of religion, with Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge even banning it altogether. In the early part of the twenty first century, the new atheism movement emerged, and was championed by Richard Dawkins and evolutionary biologist, Christopher Hitchens, a journalist and social critic, Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, Daniel Dennett, a philosopher and a few others. Some of these thinkers even argued that religion was toxic and dangerous, and the root cause of most violence in the world.

The New Atheism movement however faced strident criticism from a wide range of critics, including philosophers, theologians, sociologists, cultural anthropologists, and even many secularists. The primary criticisms centered on the movement’s aggressive tone, lack of philosophical depth, cultural naivety, and the adoption of political stances. Many note that proponents of the new atheism movement essentially engage in a Christian centric debate, do not distinguish between God and religion, etc. The idea and notion of God is vague and ambiguous and it is not possible to critique something which has been imprecisely defined; there are many different religions, and some do not subscribe to God at all. Critics such as Michael Ruse, who himself was an agnostic argued that the “Four Horsemen” lacked formal training in theology or philosophy, leading to shallow and over-simplistic arguments. The movement was also widely accused of “scientism”—the dogmatic belief that science is the primary source of truth and knowledge, at the expense of ethics, literature, and metaphysics. We had also argued that religion has personal, societal, political, social and cultural functions in society, and that is impossible to wish religion away with a magic wand, or dismiss it derisively. Centuries of atheistic thought have barely made a dent on religion, and religion continues to hold a sway on billions of people in different parts of the world. Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan also criticized some atheists for being extremely dogmatic, arrogant, and pompously naïve, arguing that absolute certainty about the non-existence of God is yet another form of dogma. Some even argue that dogmatic atheism which represents an absolute belief that God does not exist, along with an unwillingness to consider alternative evidence or arguments, mimics and replicates religious and theological dogma in many ways. Critics allege that some dogmatic atheists even shifts their stance from “I do not believe” to “I actively know God does not exist, and the matter is closed.” This is a form of rigid and dogmatic naivety, mirroring the rigid, unyielding mindset found among many fundamentalist religious groups.

Other related concepts

Reincarnation refers to a philosophical and religious concept that the nonmaterial components of a living being (such as consciousness or a soul) begins a new lifespan in a different physical form or body after biological death. Thus, the soul is immortal, and in some cases, eventually merges with a supreme God or being. Such claims are however mostly untestable, and therefore mostly fall beyond the boundaries of legitimate science. There are varying claims and counter claims made by various religions, and Christianity and Islam reject the concept of reincarnation altogether. Hinduism however, talks about a continuous cycle of birth, death, and rebirth is known as samsara, which is driven by karma or action. Hinduism also states that the soul or atman is eternal and it continuously transmigrates through various life forms until it achieves moksha, a state of liberation where the individual soul unifies with the ultimate reality or Brahman. Other religions make different claims, and Buddhism for example, denies the existence of a permanent soul while talking about karma and nirvana at the same time. Sikhism and Jainism on the other hand, derive most of their concepts heavily from Hinduism. Since there are so many claims and counterclaims, everything must be taken with a generous pinch of salt, but formal, neutral, and non-partisan mechanisms must emerge to evaluate such claims. We look forward to more research being carried out in this regard, and new frameworks and paradigms emerging. Universities can play a crucial role here – including Western and American universities simply because they are better equipped at present, and we look forward to a new generation of scholars and researchers emerging.

Some research has already been carried out at the University of Virginia by Dr Ian Stevenson and Dr Jim Tucker, though more and more perspectives may be necessary. Claims made by Shanti Devi of India, James Leininger, and Ryan Hammons of the United States and others have also been investigated. An absolute commitment to the truth must be their motto and mantra, along with what we have always called “objectivity in mindset”. Cross-cultural, dialectical and inter-disciplinary approaches must also be applied wherever necessary. Various outcomes must be borne in mind and welcomed, including the possibility of fraud, (negative results must also be welcomed because they produce salutary lessons for science) and continuous validation and revalidation of results would also be required. Similar to reincarnation, out of body experiences (including near death experiences) have also been claimed (Such as the case of Pam Reynolds who was a famous American singer and song writer) leading to floating sensations, and visual and auditory distortions. However, most mainstream scientists are skeptical of such claims. Even claims made by astrologers, palmists, soothsayers, psychics, numerologists and others deserve to be much more thoroughly probed and investigated. Even if such claims are eventually falsified, they add fundamentally and foundationally to the body of human knowledge by holding out a warning to such practitioners and to society in general. As always, we must bear in mind the fact that many things are unknowable. For example, the question, “At what time did Emperor Akbar eat dinner on a certain day, and what did he eat on that particular day?” are probably unanswerable. Therefore, there are indeed limits to knowledge. We look forward to theoretical and foundational inputs here, by a wide variety of other scholars.

There have also been many psychics throughout the ages. One of them was Edgar Cayce. As an American clairvoyant and mystic who made supernatural claims, he was a foundational figure in the modern New Age movement. He often allegedly went into a trance, answered complex questions, and soon gained a large following. However, criticisms of him abound, and many researchers, including Martin Gardner, are highly skeptical of his claims more so because, Cayce made many claims which ran contrary to established scientific facts including claims of Atlantis and Lemuria. Another highly controversial; figure was Wolf Messing who attained a cult like following in the former Soviet Union as a hypnotist, and self-proclaimed psychic and telepath. Criticisms of Wolf Messing abound, and it is even alleged that his memoirs were ghostwritten by Mikhail Khvastunov, who was a highly controversial and polarizing figure. Other notable and highly controversial figures include Sylvia Browne, a popular author and television guest who also claimed to be a medium, John Edward, another controversial television personage who claimed to be a medium, Jeane Dixon, a famous American astrologer, Uri Geller, a psychic, and many more. Shamans have also routinely claimed to communicate with the dead, and with other spirits, though their claims have not been systematically verified. Many people have claimed to expose paranormal claims, and some such examples have been Harry Houdini who also testified before American Congress against fraudulent claims, Derren Brown who exposed many scams, Joe Nickell, a full time paranormal investigator, Michael Shermer who was the founder of the Skeptics Society and editor-in-chief of Skeptic magazine., Susan Blackmore, Joseph and Sanal Edamaruku of India, Basava Premanand of India, the world-famous and class-leading James Randi and many more. As previously noted, dialectical approaches are required, unbiased investigations are required, and the principle of absolute neutrality. This is because one kind of bias legitimizes every other kind of bias. The field of “limits of knowledge” must become a major, vital and dynamic subfield within epistemology, and must be given the attention sand focus that it so richly deserves. Scholars and researchers from all walks of life must participate and contribute to such endeavours. We must also bear in mind the fact that negative outcomes and negative results can richly contribute to epistemological theory, and knowledge of this vital subfield of epistemological theory must be vitally imparted and disseminated to scholars and practitioners of science so that hugely improved and enlarged scientific output can result in many walks of science.    

Causes for and stages in the decline of political and academic Marxism

 “It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.” — William Shakespeare

“Destiny is no matter of chance. It is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.” — William Jennings Bryan

The causes for the decline of political and academic Marxism have been many, some of which were acknowledged and widely discussed, and some others not, and these include the following. The first event, which in some ways set the ball rolling for other events was the collapse of the former Soviet union in 1991 which itself was inexorably tied to events in eastern Europe such as the collapse of the Berlin wall in November 1989, and the execution of the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu along with his wife Elena Ceausescu a month later. Communism was also associated with totalitarianism elsewhere, and other allied and associated horrors, a prime example being Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in the 1970’s. We also had inevitable economic stagnation including the failure of twenty-first century socialism in Venezuela and elsewhere much more recently, intellectual stagnation and repression of dissent and individual liberties, failed prophecies such as the envisaged universal triumph of communism over capitalism, suppression of the human spirit including entrepreneurial and creative instincts, rise of the welfare state, the rise of trickle up bottom up models and inclusive development models and capitalism with a human face which made many aspects of communism obsolete, acknowledgement of market failure by public economists and the rise of public utilities and services, the rise of internet and instant communication, globalization, the rise of service based economies, the rise of information technology, the rise of artificial intelligence, the rise of renewables and sustainable development models which made scarcity based economic planning largely irrelevant, and the ongoing inevitable decline of academic Marxism which will become the logical culminating point.

We begin this article with an interesting twist, and reminisce about our much publicized letter to the Frontline magazine, which is the last bastion of old school intellectualism in India, and a holdout of academic Marxism. We use the term concurrent and post facto because the entire ideology of Marxism in all its avatars, manifestations and incarnations is in its last legs, though its decimation and obliteration is by no means complete. It appears to be on the radar and the horizon though, as there are early warning signs that academic Marxism, it last sole survivor appears to follow suit, and disappear into the annals of history. This can happen fairly quickly if one were to go by the fact that the British Empire toppled and crumbled in just three decades, all of it in a wholly unpredicted way. As already pointed out, the Frontline magazine is perhaps the last bastion of old school intellectualism in India, and a holdout of academic Marxism. It at least was until recently, or not too long ago. Maybe they have changed with the times due to editorial board changes or otherwise, but patterns are hard to discern, and their approach remains sporadic and inconsistent for the most part. Let us now reminisce about our letter to Frontline magazine, which is not exactly known for being at the vanguard of intellectualism. This was of course not always that way before its leftist takeover- the author has been reading that magazine since 1984/85. Not too long ago, we had written a letter to the Frontline magazine, which read as follows:

To the editor, Frontline Magazine, Hindu group of publications

Dear Sir,

Greetings of the day! I hope this letter finds you in the best of health and spirits. You might be aware about me and my publications. In case you are not, please find my profile attached with a complete list of publications. I have been following the Frontline magazine for many decades now. As I matter of fact, I remember having purchased the second issue of your magazine dated 16th of December 1984, and then having hunted down the very first issue as a souvenir. Much as I appreciate and admire your magazine in parts, I cannot but fail to notice that it is somewhat left-leaning in orientation. While you may have taken a principled stand to combat the menace and the treat of the far-right, you will perhaps agree with me that academic Marxism is not only outdated, but the right and the appropriate way to fight the far right is only through objective neutrality. Anything else is not only anathema, but will only throw up counter reactions and encourage the far right even more. For example, your appear to support Dravidian nationalism in many basis including a tacit support for the Dravidian Harappa hypothesis which from my viewpoint is untenable. I have also written extensively about the perils and follies of Marxist historiography from a non-religious perspective. I will even go as far as to say this: “One kind of bias legitimizes every other kind of bias”. This should be the social sciences equivalent of “Every action will have an equal and opposite reaction”. The issue is two-fold. Firstly, you will lose public trust and self-respect. Secondly, the right will have something to shout about. Hope you will take all this into consideration while writing your future articles. Some members or erstwhile members of your management also appear to be outdated, like former editor N.Ram, and there is plenty of scope for via media approaches, both in the ambit and purview of economic theory and culture. I do hope you will take all this into consideration,

Warm regards,

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

The above letter is self-explanatory and needs to elaboration or further explanation. The Frontline magazine is absolutely the last holdout of mid nineteenth century school of Indology. Though not directly associated with it, it endorses it due to a marriage of convenience which is open, self-evident and transparent The mid-Nineteenth century saw the systematic rise of Indology or academic India studies including the formal and institutionalized study of Indian history, languages, and culture particularly in Germany by Max Muller and others, though in a somewhat warped and Eurocentric way. These endeavours eventually led to other fields of study such as comparative philology and Indo European studies. These endeavours are associated with the mid Nineteenth century school of Indology, which is utterly obsolete in some ways, and is perhaps even on its last legs. Many Indologists of the period may however had the best of intentions, and the field itself was built upon the foundation laid by earlier British orientalists such as Sir William Jones in the late eighteenth century.

In India, Marxist thought and Marxist historiography predominated the intellectual milieu after its independence. There was also a weird marriage of convenience between colonial Indologists and Marxist historians. We had even disparagingly and sarcastically called it the colonial Marxist – Imperialist school of Indology. Marxist did not create any templates or interdisciplinary models for the study of Indian history, or did not challenge old shibboleths comprehensively or satisfactorily. Some of the paradigms and frameworks they advocate and peddle are utterly obsolete for the most part such as the postulated 1500 BC Aryan migrations from Central Asia into India which must be criticized o multiple grounds, the bucolic and peripatetic Aryan theory which must also be criticized on multiple grounds, the illiterate post-Harappan India hypothesis which is also untenable, the Dravidian Harappan hypothesis which must again be countered in multiple grounds, among several others, to name a few. Everything needs to be constantly evaluated and reevaluated including all assumptions, but this is not always done. In many fields of study, historiography and Indology included, more and more research is built upon shaky foundations and unproven assumptions, with the status quo rarely completely challenged. That is why we had published some papers and publications including, but not limited to, “The Marxist catastrophe: The decline and fall of Marxism in the social sciences and academia” (2025), “The long and rocky road to self-extermination: The inevitable decline, fall and demise of Academic Marxism” (2025), “The degrowth delusion: Why technology and sustainable development models alone will solve the world’s environmental woes in the long-term”, etc, besides our multiple publications on twenty-first century historiography which had challenged Marxist orthodoxy and dogma. Interestingly, the delinking of Dravidian nationalism with mainstream western scholarship is also not complete, and has not progressed satisfactorily. Scientific and objective (i.e. non-ideological) constructs of history is so important to birth a rational outlook and a scientific temper among India’s denizens and elsewhere- but we are only still taking baby steps in this direction at present, not making significant or praiseworthy strides in this connection and regard.

Harvard university professor Michael Witzel who is an Indologist and Sanskritist along with his collaborator Steve Farmer exposed author N.S. Rajaram in a widely followed article entitled “Horseplay in Harappa,” published in the adoresaid magazine in 2000. They exposed Rajaram and his collaborator, Natwar Jha, attempts to fabricate archaeological evidence by creating an obviously bogus horse seal. They also claimed to have read the Indus script as Vedic Sanskrit. Eminent Indian Marxist historian Romila Thapar has also written extensively for Frontline magazine, critiquing the communalization of history and the ideology of Hindutva which she views as being narrow, sectarian and majoritarian. She also extensively critiqued Hindutva theories such as the Out of India theory, the Indigenous Aryan theory, and the Vedic Harappan theory. So far, so good. We have never had it this good. All wicked ideologies and perverse misrepresentations of history must be exposed for what they are. Likewise, the Marxist historian KN Panikkar published a seminal essay entitled “Outsider as Enemy” in the same magazine critiquing the politics of rewriting history engineered by the Sangh Parivar and the Hindu right wing. Marxist historian DN Jha also wrote several articles critical and challenged the claim that the cow was always sacred in ancient India. He also challenged the claim that a Ram temple existed beneath the now demolished Babri Masjid mosque. DN Jha’s however, may have his own biases and prejudices. Marxist historians glorify the Islamic period, Asoka, and put down the Gupta period and the Vedic period. DN Jha and some other Marxist historians wanted the birth anniversary of Akbar to be celebrated, but this proposal was rejected by the congress party. Scholarship must be self-contained and self-correcting.

As we have repeatedly observed, “One kind of bias legitimizes every other kind of bias.”. Hindutva must be marginalized through better awareness, not given a reason to exist. We must also annotate Frontline magazine’s tacit and direct support to Dravidian nationalism, which is deplorable and condemnable in the twenty-first century. More nauseatingly and disgustingly, Marxist historians also followed the same pattern, and have never bothered or cared to challenge antiquated intellectual and academic dogmas. The Frontline magazine has provided a platform for Dravidian nationalist writers such as R Balakrishnan who supported the Dravidian Indus theory, or posited and postulated direct links between the Indus valley civilization and Tamil Nadu using bogus and pseudo scientific claims– claims that we have admonished and critiqued severely and comprehensively. The Frontline magazine is the worst possible affront on objectivity and scientific temper, and this must be critiqued and admonished at all costs. The Frontline magazine has also published supposedly groundbreaking and sensationalized claims surrounding Tamil Nadu’s postulated hoary Iron Age as far back as 3300 BC on flimsy and unattested grounds, that claimed to upend the traditional timeline of South Asian and global metallurgy completely and turn it on its head. If Tamilnadu, why not Karnataka, Kerala or Andhra, we may ask. Don’t we smell a rat here? Of course, the standard old theory is that the Hittites pioneered and originated Iron smelting, but more recent evidence points to a more complex pattern of development including Iron smelting breakthroughs made in pre-Hittite Anatolia. Claims have also been made for parts of Africa. All claims must be critically evaluating including those made by Frontline which must be brought under the scanner – no bogus and ideologically driven claims must be left unspared. As already noted and observed Marxist historians – and even Michael Witzel for that matter – did not bother to counter and challenge other ideologies besides Hindutva.

All theories must also be vetted and ratified, wherever required, possible and relevant against theories of diffusion in cultural anthropology such as British diffusionism promoted by Grafton Elliot Smith and W.H.R. Rivers (of course this school of thought is widely considered to be obsolete), German-Austrian diffusionism proposed and championed by scholars like Fritz Graebner and Wilhelm Schmidt, and American Diffusionism led by Franz Boas, which viewed culture as a complex mosaic of innumerable traits gathered from various origins and woven into new contexts. Frontline’s iron age theories would apparently fail this test. Why didn’t Harappans also develop iron smelting during their heyday since the Indus valley was located and situated between West Asia and South India? Clearly, the Frontline magazine is politically motivated, and is imposing its own ideology. They are not acting in the interests of science, society or the education system. We also have excessive and ideologically driven bowdlerization of history such as work by Audrey Truschke, an American historian of South Asia and a Professor of South Asian History at Rutgers University, on the Mughal emperor Aurangazeb, also published in Frontline. While all forms of objective analysis and inquiry are welcome, balance and ideological neutrality are important – rigour must also be coupled with balance, harmony and objectivity – the interests of science, society and the education system must be borne and kept in mind. While Hindutva is openly communal and partisan, does the Frontline magazine adhere to lofty standards of objectivity and neutrality?

Causes for the decline of political and academic Marxism

Let us now enumerate and revisit the various and multiple causes – apparently the neatly orchestrated and multi tiered chain of events – complex causation and cause and effect chains – that led to the decline of political (also economic) and academic (read: intellectual) Marxism in many or most circles, and that will precipitate its downfall and descent into oblivion in due course. Many proponents of Marxist theory cannot be bothered though, blinded by dogma as they are.

1. Collapse of the former Soviet Union and ripple effects

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, was the result of a combination of various factors such as inevitable economic stagnation, technological stagnation, intellectual dogma and rigidity, and the downstream consequences of Mikhail Gorbachev’s late-1980s reforms including the much touted and much celebrated glasnost and perestroika following earlier loosening of economic and intellectual rigidity by Brezhnev and others. Other triggers included the protracted and long-standing Soviet-Afghan War, simmering nationalist movements, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and a failed coup by hardliner communists in 1991 that ultimately brought democratic forces to power. Likewise, the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989 was brought about by years of economic stagnation, the rise of civil resistance movements such as the rise of the trade union Solidarity in Poland in 1980, and the events in the USSR during the second half of the 1980’s. Of course, the opening of the Austria-Hungary Border in August 1989 allowed a large number of East Germans to escape to the West, leading inevitably to the weakening of the communist East German regime, and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The brutal execution of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife Elena by rebel squads, occurred on Christmas day 1989, after a hastily conducted trial. This effectively ended the communist regime in Romania.

2. Association with totalitarianism elsewhere

Though it may not have been originally intended by Marx and Engels, most communist counties such as the Soviet Union most notably under Stalin, China most notably under Mao Zedong, and Romania most notably under Ceausescu became highly authoritarian and eventually totalitarian due to a combination of factors such as single party monopolies, total state control and monopoly of the economy, suppression of dissent through censorship, propaganda, executions and purges among other things. The Khmer Rouge regime of Kampuchea under Pol Pot is considered one of the most brutal in human history because it systematically orchestrated the Cambodian Genocide, killing an estimated two to three million people—around a quarter of the entire Cambodia’s population—through brutal and unimaginable in just under four years between 1975 and 1979. Most other communist states were also authoritarian to various degrees, most notable examples be China under Mao Zedong and Romania under Nicolae Ceausescu.

3. Economic stagnation including the failure of twenty-first century socialism

While achieving some early success in many fields, most communist nations eventually fell behind other nations both economically and technologically. Some Marxist leaders including those in India acknowledged this, and referred to Marxist political structure as “Marxist capitalism”. Their solution was socialism, including what they called twenty-first century socialism. Critics however alleged that this was simply old wine in a new bottle, and that the distinction between old school socialism and twenty-first century socialism was either not clear, or non-existent. The term was popularized by the initially highly popular Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and others in the early 2000s, and this political and economic model aimed to avoid the authoritarian errors of twentieth-century Soviet communism, by introducing some democratic structures, but few (or inadequate) checks and balances. It sought to combine democratic electoral politics with radical wealth redistribution, heavily, state-directed economies, stifled entrepreneurship. This model was eventually adopted across parts of Latin America in various hues and colours and various modifications and came to be known as the “Pink Tide”. In India, it was also supported by N. Ram of the Frontline magazine, and other communist leaders. Hugo Chavez died of cancer in 2013, and was replaced by Nicholas Maduro, who eventually became highly unpopular. This model eventually faced severe challenges, most notably in Venezuela, alongside other nations such as Ecuador and Bolivia. Venezuela has once been extremely wealthy and oil rich, and was the envy of the whole of Latin America. One problem was that Venezuela spent too heavily on social welfare schemes, and once all prices collapsed in a cyclical fashion as they almost always do, such expenditures became unsustainable. Price controls and mindless and reckless nationalization of private enterprises did not help too, and Venezuela soon descended into a cesspool of turmoil and despair further aggravated by authoritarianism under Nicholas Maduro. There was a flight of both capital and human resources, which made a mockery of the political and economic model.

4. Intellectual stagnation

It is a well-known and widely acknowledged fact that most communist regimes systematically repressed intellectuals (especially dissenting and non-confirming ones, including those who questioned government policy, the tenets of Marxism, or held contrarian views) because their capacity for independent, critical thought which in the view of administrators and establishments directly threatened the state’s monopoly on what they perceived to be the truth and ideological conformity of individuals was well. In many communist counties, all cultural, scientific, and educational output was often modulated to fit the view of the governing state. Even science was sometimes not spared, and an example to illustrate this point was Lysenkoism in the former USSR. In several communist countries retraining or reeducation camps were common along with purges and gulags. More moderate enforcements included surveillance and eavesdropping. In communist China people were forced to wear uniforms, and this practice was adopted by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was well. In Cambodia, under Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge people wearing spectacles were targeted, and self-education was banned, with only minimal education and functional literacy being allowed. The regime fantasized an communist agricultural utopia, and doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors were persecuted and killed. Some crimes perpetrated by communist states were documented in the book (originally published in French), “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression” by Stephane Courtois, Andrzej Paczkowski, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Margolin, and other European academics writers. The book was widely read and cited, though it faced criticism from some quarters.

5. Failed prophecies

According to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, all human societies evolve naturally and logically through distinct historical stages driven by class struggle with full fledged communism being the eventual outcome. This unfortunately did not come to pass, and it was instead communism that collapsed. According to Marx and Engels, there would be an inevitable revolution of the proletariat or the working class which would overthrow the bourgeoisie or the capitalists, and establish a classless society. Before the ultimate goal and state of communism, Marx argued and believed that society would pass through several economic stages, such as primitive communism associated with pre-historic tribal societies, slave societies associated with private property, feudalism with structured and hierarchical land and property ownership, and capitalism. The penultimate stage and state would be capitalism which would soon be overthrown and replaced by communism. Under capitalism, which Marx and Engels both saw as evil, there would be market competition which Marx and Engels both saw as wasteful, and the ownership of the means of production owned by the greedy and exploitative capitalists who would in turn be aided by the petit bourgeoisie.

6. Suppression of the human spirit

Marxism and communism also were infamously associated with suppressing the human spirit and freedom of expression. Dissent was rarely tolerated, and dissenters were frequently incarcerated. In Cambodia, under Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, freedom of marriage was also banned, and couples – who had not known or met each other previously were married off in mass ceremonies as per government diktat. Entrepreneurship – a basic human urge and instinct, was effectively banned, thereby even impinging on people’s right to earn their own livelihoods as per their talents, beliefs and convictions. It may be noted that several cultures and communities have entrepreneurship running in their blood, and most loathed and abhorred communism in any form. Only some corporates had benefitted from socialism and protectionism, such as Indian auto companies who produced shoddy products before 1991. Can such paradigms sustain? Also, government owned companies were infamous for their lethargy, sloth and inefficiency, barring some recent efforts of public sector units in India to reform, and change with the times.

7. Rise of the welfare state and social security systems

Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say famously supported laissez-faire economics and a minimal to no role to be played by the government save infrastructure, basic services and education. Even as late in the 1920’s Herbert Hoover famously declared, “The business of America is business”. Classical economists believed that supply created its own demand, over production was impossible, and that there was always an invisible self-regulating hand at play. For example, if a baker profited or benefited from an economic transaction, the whole economy benefitted. The old school dogma was famously overturned in the aftermath of the Great Depression by John Maynard Keynes and others, and we have since seen the rise of the welfare state, a concept that did not exist in Karl Marx’s time. A welfare state is a system of government where the state protects and promotes the economic and social well-being of its citizens by promoting facilities such as high-class education, unemployment benefits, old age pension, medicare, hospitalization insurance, food stamps and other forms of social security. Some states even provide housing and other benefits. A welfare state operates on the principle of public responsibility for those who cannot naturally and logically sustain or support themselves through the mechanism of the free market. Such measures also help bring about a fair modicum of economic stability to individuals, compensate for factors beyond their control, and help in social mobility as well. However, this may lead to higher taxation and unsustainable fiscal deficits in some cases. However there is still a great deal of conceptual confusion as many terms are used interchangeably, loosely, and carelessly, particularly in the west. We look forward to some change in this area particularly after the dust has settled down. There is also an acknowledgement by economists of market failure in some cases, and the rise of public utilities and services. Public goods are non-rivalrous and non-excludable, and there is also a free rider problem. This has caused the government to step up, and offer a wide variety of public services. However, case by case and context by context evaluations would almost always be required and there can neither be dogma, or a one size fits all bill. Furthermore, labour laws were non-existent and working conditions squalid, abysmal and inhuman during Karl Marx’s time which must have horrified, dismayed and petrified him. A lot has changed since then, and everything must be evaluated against the back drop of the changed circumstances of the twenty-first century. However, hire and fire systems and employment will systems are rampant to this day, and this is something that needs remediation, given the fact that employers and employees seldom have equal bargaining power, if at all. We have written extensively on this issue in the past, and have even dedicated an entire paper to it.

8. Rise of trickle up and bottom up economic models

We also have seen the rise of trickle up and bottom up economic models in some cases, and we will always argue that these will continue to remain necessary for the foreseeable future in many parts of the developing world particularly. These may also be called inclusive development models or capitalism with a human face. This is already a reality in some parts of the world given that many Indian states and many African nations have begun to invest heavily in agricultural productivity. However many nations and economic planners continue to borrow or import models slavishly from the western world or western hemisphere into contexts and situations for which they are ill-suited, and for which they were not even birthed, designed or gestated in the first place. We look forward to meaningful changes and course corrections in this vital and all important area, so that nations and denizens particularly from the developing world can profit and benefit from it.

9. Rise of the internet and instant communication

The history of the internet initially and originally began as a military research project during the Cold War and later and eventually evolved into a global network that transformed modern society in hitherto unimagined and fundamental ways. Its military origins hark back to the 1960’s culminating in the development of the ARPANET in 1969. The TCP/IP protocol was invented and standardized by Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn in 1983, and this proved to be yet another vital breakthrough. However, the birth of the modern worldwide web took place between 1989 and 1991 after Tim Berner-Lee developed HTML and HTTP. The internet had become a global phenomenon by the mid 1990’s, and it has fundamentally changed the way we live and communicate. The mobile phone revolution began in the early 1990’s, and the smart phone revolution began after 2007. This also led to the emergence of social media including sites such as Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram, along with many more. Since information now travels instantaneously across the globe, international borders have mostly broken down, and the ability of the government to restrict and channelize information is somewhat unthinkable. A notable exception is North Korea where access to the internet is severely restricted.

10. Globalization

Some researchers and scientists talk about deep history globalization which occurred several thousands of years ago, when the Indus valley, Egypt and Mesopotamia traded with each other. True though it may be, this term has not lapsed into popular parlance, and remains an outlier for the most part. Even though later trade routes and networks such as the ancient Silk Road and sixteenth century colonial exploration and expansion by major European colonizing nations connected distant continents like never before, modern globalization the way most people understand the term is defined by much deeper, more rapid, and institutionalized economic integration. More recent globalization as a process accelerated in the early to mid nineteenth century, driven by the first and later the second Industrial revolutions, mechanical self-propelled transportation such as the steam locomotive, steam ships (and later the automobile) , and colonially induced trade networks. The process of globalization of course accelerated with the advent of the internet and smart phones along with what we may call the digital revolution, and this phenomenon is but a couple of decades old. Most Marxists around the world (India included) oppose modern globalization because they view it not as a natural step in human civilizational progress, but as the expansion of global capitalism at the expense of traditional and orthodox communism. This is in spite of the fact that globalization has benefitted developing nations greatly, and dented the hegemony and suzerainty of western powers. A strange paradox there, and a position that is not entirely data driven. N Ram of the Frontline once claimed that Jawaharlal Nehru was his favourite and ideal prime minister- that is an opinion to which he is democratically rightfully entitled, but all points of view must also be eventually backed up and validated with as much diverse economic data as possible- N Ram also said that India’s experience since 1991 has been subpar, but again we need data driven validation (diverse and wide ranging economic wide data backed up by valid and comprehensive social science research techniques), and not dogmatically adopted and pursued positions. This observation of course applies to all ends of the ideological spectrum.

11. Rise of service based economies

The rise of service-based economies occurs when a nation’s economic output shifts from agriculture and manufacturing to services. Some economists refer to this process as structural deindustrialization, which implies that the share of manufacturing as a percentage of gross domestic product generally declines. Some other economists refer to this as post-industrial societies, and this process generally comes about due to rising incomes (refer Engel’s law), manufacturing automation, and other factors. In countries like India, the service sector accounts for over 30% of the GDP, and the figure is expected to rise in the years to come. The service sector comprises and consists not only of information technology and technology based services which form and intrinsic part of a knowledge economy, but also other sectors such as hospitality, travel, and tourism. However, many Marxist intellectuals discounted the importance of the service sector, and did not take it seriously. Centrally planned economies were also ill-prepared and ill-equipped to take advantage of the rise of the service sector, and integrate it meaningfully into their economic development models. This is also because centrally planned economies were often too rigid to handle the vitality and the dynamism of the services sector.

12. Rise of information technology

The rise of the information technology era refers to the defining economic and technological shift of the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries. It marked the transition from the traditional industrial age to the modern and contemporary information age, transforming societies immensely in the process. The information technology era began with the mainframe era of the 1950’s and 1960’s, the personal computer era of the 1970’s, and 1980’s, and then the internet based era of the 1990’s and 2000’s. Marxist planners and Marxist thinkers and intellectuals did not however, did not anticipate this shift, and were completely caught off-guard. It would also naturally been extremely difficult for centrally planned economies to incorporate information technology- a sector that works best, and is handed best in the private sector – into their centrally planned models. Naturally, communist states got left behind, and by the mid 1980’s even many newly industrializing nations of Asia such as Japan and South Korea began to overtake communist nations both economically and technologically. This in a way, spelt the death knell for many communist nations.

13. Rise of artificial intelligence

The rise of Artificial Intelligence refers to the ongoing and most disruptive phase of the information age. It marks a shift from computers that simply follow pre-written instructions known as computer programs to systems that are able to learn, reason, and adapt from data dynamically and recursively. This field was born out of Alan Turing’s work in the 1950’s, and the name was coined at the Darmouth conference in 2956, but it has made giant strides ever since. This field also coincides with the rise of machine learning and deep learning, both of which have become extremely vital fields in today’s technological landscape. Of late, generative AI has become highly popular along with large language models. The launch of ChatGPT by OpenAI in 2022 revolutionized artificial intelligence, bringing natural language processing to the mainstream public. Virtually none of these technologies came from communist nations, whose structures would have simply been too rigid to produce the level of critical thought that would have been so necessary to create such technological marvels.

14. The rise of renewables which made scarcity based economics largely irrelevant

Of late, there have been deep rooted concerns over global warming, and these concerns have led to the rise of sustainable development models. Technologies such as wind and solar energy have become extremely popular- they are becoming extremely cheap and affordable too due to new technologies such as perovskites and cadmium telluride based solar cells. Coal and thermal energy and dying in many parts of the world, and some even believe that the era of the internal combustion engine is coming to an end. Some Marxists peddled socialism as the solution for global warming, but such appeals mostly fell flat. Technology is the solution obviously, but Marxists have barely contributed to technological solutions in this regard – much of the research is driven by private companies.

15. Decline of academic Marxism

We have written extensively against what we would like to call the “ideological dead end” of academic Marxism. we had published some papers and publications including, but not limited to, “The Marxist catastrophe: The decline and fall of Marxism in the social sciences and academia” (2025), “The long and rocky road to self-extermination: The inevitable decline, fall and demise of Academic Marxism” (2025), “The degrowth delusion: Why technology and sustainable development models alone will solve the world’s environmental woes in the long-term”, etc, besides our multiple publications on twenty-first century historiography which had challenged Marxist orthodoxy and dogma. These include papers such as historiography by objectives, the core principles of twenty-first century historiography, anthropological historiography, qualified historiography and investigative historiography. We had also argued that academic Marxism has transitioned from a once-vibrant framework for social critique into a rigid, dogmatic system based mostly on Eurocentric paradigms that are ill-equipped to handle the realities of a multipolar world. Marxist historiography also force fits concepts such as class struggle and oppressor versus oppressed paradigms, and ignores human agency and cultural aspects into an analysis. It is also teleological and deterministic in some ways, and posits and origin in history at ground zero, or the start of the revolution of the proletariat. Some Marxist historians also prohibit or condemn winnowing the past for glory, which is seen as bourgeoisie nationalism. While non-objective approaches must be avoided, this rule applies to all practitioners of history. This willy nilly leads to a narrow, limited and a potentially flawed and biased analysis of historical events, and non-objective approaches leave a very bad example for others to follow. We also argued that the intellectual arm of Marxist thought has hit an intellectual roadblock because it is heavily constrained by over-theorization based on the principles of economic and political Marxism and refuses to adapt to modern socio-economic realities and a post-communist world. Readers are required to read these papers in their entirety, given the fact that an extensive critique of Marxist historiography has been offered. Therefore, its demise is impending and imminent within the coming decades. This is effectively the last arm and leg of Marxism, and with it, reviving Marxism as a cogent and coherent discipline could become a tall order and an uphill task– i.e. exceedingly challenging and difficult.

In the context of India, we had even observed that old school Marxist “intellectualism” has become somewhat of a joke: Their motto and mantra is: Do nothing useful, contribute nothing to nation building or to international scholarship, criticize, criticize, criticize, yet offer no constructive criticism, block or impede all meaningful progress. That is the sad state of affairs, but that is unfortunately the way it is. It is dying on its own, but that is only because the older generation is dying off. They were probably effective in an age where corruption was rampant, and they considered it their bounden duty to expose it, but that age is now over. The Author showed his worked to a left-leaning institution (his work on the need to globalize science, and develop science in India and other developing countries. He also wrote about the need to modernize pedagogy and education). They refused to review it meaningfully or objectively, calling it “sloganeering” – nothing can be farther to this than the truth. While there may be variations, and no straitjacketing works in some cases, it only shows what low level they can stoop to, and how obsolete and out of touch with reality they have become. They obviously want to save their moribund ideology from total annihilation, extinction and obliteration. They attempt to do it feebly and ineffectually, but it is highly unlikely that they will even be successful. Clearly change is required – a paradigm shift is required in much of the social sciences. We had written extensively on this as well, and other scholars and intellectuals must bite the bait and light the torch in due turn. If you can’t reform them, sideline them, marginalize them, or destroy them in the interests of science, society, the education system, and civilizational progress. They are also as politically affiliated as right wing proponents.