A Philosophy or a Science

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I've heard some here call there version of marxism a science. Is that really accurate? If you mean it in the way that political science and certain accepted strains of psychology is "scientific" than it works i guess. But it still makes more sense for it to be a philosophy. The word science seems too concrete (although in reality it is really just a string of related hypothesi) for a continuing debate on political and social restructuring.

[Kenco Smooth]

If it's a science it's an absolutely dead one. I really don't see what people who obsess over attributing that term to their beliefs are aiming at.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

If it's a science it's an absolutely dead one. I really don't see what people who obsess over attributing that term to their beliefs are aiming at.

They're implying that their beliefs are facts set in stone.

[Myrdin]

A belief to be upheld, a science to be put into practice.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

A belief to be upheld, a science to be put into practice.

What does that even mean?

[Zukunftsmusik]

They're implying that their beliefs are facts set in stone.

on the contrary, they imply that their "beliefs" are "set in water" - that they change with new realisations which contradict their (former) view - at least that's what they should mean.

even "science" isn't set in stone. Marxism isn't a "science" in a traditional sense, because it deals with the totality of society - it's not purely sociology, economy etc, it crosses those borders.

I'm also hesitant in claiming that marxism is a science, but the way Marx and Engels used the term, was mainly in opposition to what they called utopian socialism, where they (M&E) based their view in the really existing society, instead of creating an "ideal" society detached from the real world (utopianism).

[Caj]

Marxism isn't a science; it's a scientific mode of analysis.

[Rafiq]

If it's a science it's an absolutely dead one. I really don't see what people who obsess over attributing that term to their beliefs are aiming at.

What constitutes as a "dead" scientific paradigm? Something which isn't as popular in academia anymore? So, Kenco, is objective truth defined by the magnitude in which it is popular or accepted? Christ... Marxism isn't an ideology, it is not a framework for "belief". Marxism and Communism are not interchangeable terms.

[Rafiq]

What does that even mean?

It means absolutely nothing.

[Kenco Smooth]

What constitutes as a "dead" scientific paradigm? Something which isn't as popular in academia anymore? So, Kenco, is objective truth defined by the magnitude in which it is popular or accepted? Christ... Marxism isn't an ideology, it is not a framework for "belief". Marxism and Communism are not interchangeable terms.

Dead meaning that the framework can't even muster a dozen scientifically minded individuals who interact on questions that are immediately open to empirical solution. Science isn't a property of an idea like falsifiability, it's a practice carried out by individuals.

And I never said anything about truth or falsehood. Of course that isn't a result of popularity.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Marxism isn't a science; it's a scientific mode of analysis.

I'm curious on how and why you set up this as a distinction

[NGNM85]

Marxism has it's metaphorical fingers in a number of pies. It straddles philosophy, sociology, economics, etc. It can be scientific, but it is not a science.

[freehobo]

It's a social science. i.e., not a science.

[Caj]

I'm curious on how and why you set up this as a distinction

Because Marxism isn't a field of science itself but a paradigm for objectively analyzing and understanding a particular field of science, namely social science. To call Marxism a science is analogous to calling, say, Darwinian evolution a science, when, of course, Darwinian evolution is not a science itself but a framework for understanding the science of biology.

[Ocean Seal]

Marxism is a method of analysis, that is all that can be said about Marxism. It is a consistent way to assess things that in 140 years that capitalists do not hold a candle to. If it is not scientific then why has a comprehensive critique of it not been released that does little more than moralize the situation or fixate itself on irrelevant sections. Where is the critique to Marx's Labor Theory of Value? Where is the critique to historical materialism?

[NGNM85]

Because Marxism isn't a field of science itself but a paradigm for objectively analyzing and understanding a particular field of science, namely social science. To call Marxism a science is analogous to calling, say, Darwinian evolution a science, when, of course, Darwinian evolution is not a science itself but a framework for understanding the science of biology.

That's pretty good, but I'd disagree with you on a few points. Marxism actually cuts across several sciences; economics, and sociology, as well as history, and philosophy. Marxism also has an ideological componant, which is another key reason why it cannot be a science. Sciences are value-free.

[Caj]

Marxism actually cuts across several sciences; economics, and sociology, as well as history, and philosophy.

I agree, that's why I said social science, which I would say encompasses, among other things, economics, sociology, political science, and history.


Marxism also has an ideological componant, which is another key reason why it cannot be a science. Sciences are value-free.

By some definitions, I suppose, but I use Marxism in the same way that some people use "Marxianism," to denote a purely objective scientific framework.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

It's clear that if you call Marxism a science, you obviously do not understand Science. Marxism is a political, economic and sociological analysis of our world. Science is the systematic study of the natural and physical world, regardless of "his/her or our". The former is based on what humanity as a species has created and how that relates to existence and the latter is based on existence itself.

[Rafiq]

That's pretty good, but I'd disagree with you on a few points. Marxism actually cuts across several sciences; economics, and sociology, as well as history, and philosophy. Marxism also has an ideological componant, which is another key reason why it cannot be a science. Sciences are value-free.

Marxism is not ideological. There is no "ideological component". Communism is not "a part" of Marxism.

[Rafiq]

It's clear that if you call Marxism a science, you obviously do not understand Science. Marxism is a political, economic and sociological analysis of our world. Science is the systematic study of the natural and physical world, regardless of "his/her or our". The former is based on what humanity as a species has created and how that relates to existence and the latter is based on existence itself.

Apparently social science does not exist.

[blake 3:17]

I think it's more an Art than a Science.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Apparently social science does not exist.

Apparently not mentioning something invites unproductive posts, as opposed to good natured corrections.

Anyway, to add to my previous post, Marxism isn't a social science or science
(I believe that there is a thread which discusses this too).

It includes various categories considered to be social sciences such as anthropology, sociology etc, it uses a scientific method of analysis and it also contains philosophy. Therefore it must be something else entirely.

"Marxism is an economic and sociopolitical worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry based upon a materialist interpretation of historical development, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis of class-relations within society and their application in the analysis and critique of the development of capitalism." This describes the various topics that it covers. It's just too broad to be