Discussion: Marxism as a Science. Does it Matter? (hexbear.net)

submitted 3 months ago by Antiwork@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Read this: I don't want this to turn into a struggle session so please do not engage in such a way.

Does Marxism being "scientific" matter? Or does this need to want to cling to science to prove its legitimacy actually hinder its effect? I've been wrestling with this question for the past day and I still don't have a concrete opinion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] happybadger@hexbear.net 10 points 3 months ago

Only under dialectical materialism, the proper philosophy of the working class, is true science even possible

This I fully believe even if I don't consider Marxism itself to be a formal standalone science. Bourgeois science is inherently corrupted by bourgeois interests. The studies we choose to fund, the publication and interpretation of those results, the walled garden and hyper-competitive culture of academia- there are so many ways science as an idea is impossible to be realised through science as a bourgeois institution. Marxist revolution is a prerequisite to science being something universal, democratic, and liberating. Science should be something everyone can participate in and benefit from.