Scientific/skeptical inquiry into revolution

[thewire]

I've actually always wondered how this is possible. Being an academic/collegiate type of individual it always seemed like studying revolution seemed a little bit like predicting history, in that different perspectives on as to the why, how, where, and when of various historical revolutions are constantly changing and evolving and are in an way subject to the day to day whims of various academic/contemporary philosophical fashions.

I guess my problem with the analysis of revolution is that it is often a vague-predictive type of science and not a definitive true or false type.

[tuwix]

The best way to check out a researcher is to check out effects of his work. In terms of Marx many of his predictions were incredibly right. He predicted that capitalism cirices will be cycilical. True. He predicted that capitalists will engage states int wars for profit. True. He predicted that so-called "democracy" will be rule of bourgeoisie. True although now bourgeoisie is called corporations.

[darkblues]

db

[thewire]

So just because someone predicts or speculates something and it turns out to be true it makes him more credible? Screams confirmation bias/hindsight 20/20 to me. If you were to make a point about marx being correct about his predictions I would be more inclined to bring up his theories on the exploitation of labor or his philosophy into sociology as a whole, which was way ahead of his time and what makes marx still incredibly relevant in sociology classes as he is considered one of the "fathers of sociology" along with the other french dude who made inquiries.

[thewire]

increasingly i consider a dialectic between event and crisis, with the former under-researched and under-theorised and the latter i am increasingly weary of.
lol leftist inside joke, nice