Marxism=Science?

[Kami]

I've seen a few people make the claim that Marxism is Science, but it seems, to be frank, bullshit. Can someone perhaps enlighten me on this one?

[Tower of Bebel]

Marxism is scientific. It combines materialism with dialectics (though some would advise us not to believe that dialectics are scientific or even exist - see Rosa Lichtenstein). Marxism tries to offer a framework for understanding society, nature and humanity. Just like science marxism is a product of or social being and it tries to explore and discover the way society is built.

Also, science and marxism aren't timeless. Both develop over time (Engels claims it's because of the dialectics).

Examples of marxism as science are Capital, in which Marx explored capitalism and capital. There is also historical materialism in books like Engels' The origin of the family, personal property and the State.

If you want to read more on marxism as science you could also read Engels' Anti-Dühring.

[Renewed Revolution]

As Rakunin said, Capital is actually very scientific, and generally out of the reach of the average worker. It is full of equations and scientific conclusions and other such things.

[mikelepore]

Marxism seeks to determine general conclusions from world history, the laws of history, to express explicitly what they are, and to use them to solve practical problems. Even if we get some of the conclusions wrong, worst case, that might make it primitive science, in the sense that Ptolemy was primitive astronomy or Galen was primitive medicine, etc. It's still a scientific endeavor.

No one else even attempts the task. Academic sociology usually limits itself to noticing corrrelations, and academic anthropology usually limits itself to cataloging facts. They hesitate to say anything controversial about how class division of society has always caused many unnecessary problems and can be changed any time the people decide to do so.

[Hit The North]

Actually there are very few equations in Capital and those that are there are easy to understand.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I've seen a few people make the claim that Marxism is Science, but it seems, to be frank, bullshit. Can someone perhaps enlighten me on this one?

Marxism is the scientific application of observable history.

[Hit The North]

Actually it's a specific interpretation of observable history.

Does that compromise its claim to science?

[apathy maybe]

Actually it's a specific interpretation of observable history.

Does that compromise its claim to science?
Well, history isn't a science, so you could argue that...

However, Marxism is more then just interpretation of history, it also makes predications about the future and attempts to explain everything.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I've seen a few people make the claim that Marxism is Science, but it seems, to be frank, bullshit. Can someone perhaps enlighten me on this one?

what specifically is bullshit about it?

[Kami]

what specifically is bullshit about it?
It might be my ignorance of the subject, but the idea of attempting to "proove" marxism (or any other political philosophy, for that matter) by scientific meathod seems rather... odd.

[Luís Henrique]

Well, history isn't a science

History is a science.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Actually there are very few equations in Capital and those that are there are easy to understand.

Indeed. Why do people insist in making these absurd remarks about a book they haven't read?

Also, what have equations to do with being scientific? There are probably more equations in an Astrology handbook than in the whole of Marx's works - and yet Astrology is not a science.

Luís Henrique

[gilhyle]

The concept of 'science' is problematic for the dominant ideology of capitalist society so it is inevitably controversial as to whether Marxism is a science. The attempt to define science as based on the proving or disproving of hypotheses, as the consent of a scientific community, as based on the disciplined study of 'empirical' evidence etc. etc is all problematic and the philosophy of science reveals how problematic it is for the bourgeoisie - they know there is something different about 'science' from common sense and folk beliefs. However, since they will not base their concept of science entirely on the sociology (including historical sociology of science), because they want some element of validation in their concept of science (i.e. some sort of explanation of why science produces better beliefs than other ways of drawing conclusions), they mistrust the sociology of science because of its neutrality.

Marxism by contrast has an historical materialist conception of science, not a positivist concept of science and in this conception, Marxism is a science.

What is this conception - read Socialism Utopian and Scientific

[Invader Zim]

History is a science.

Luís Henrique

In your opinion. Studing it full time and and even taking into account supposedly 'scientific' paradigms, such as cliometrics, I see nothing 'scientific' about it.

[gla22]

It is science, not a scientific law but scientific theory. Whether it is correct is debatable, I think we've already seen many of Marx's suppositions proven wrong but parts of his writings still remain "scientific theory."

[Invader Zim]

Such a statement can only come from someone who has a total ignorance of Marxism.

What is it with noobs like you? You come onto the scene and suddenly think your the new Lenin, you think your limited skim-reading of some leftist rhetoric on the internet classifies your 'opinion' as something special.

You're just another naive fool who hasn't discovered his own views aren't original yet.



What is it with noobs like you? I ask the same question of you, you take a typically right-wing individualist approach to history, which also implies a complete ignorance of Marxism. This thread is in learning, and designed for ignorant question; you should respect that fact and try not to be such an overpoweringly obnoxious arse.

[Kami]

Such a statement can only come from someone who has a total ignorance of Marxism.
I did not make the statement from knowledge of Marxism, but my knowledge of science. It needs to make use of the scientific meathod; it doesn't mean it's not true or reasonable if it's not science, just that you'll discredit yourself by claiming it is.



What is it with noobs like you? You come onto the scene and suddenly think your the new Lenin, you think your limited skim-reading of some leftist rhetoric on the internet classifies your 'opinion' as something special.

Listen here, fucktard. I never made any claim to be a political genius, I stated that the claim of "science" didn't make sense to me, and asked people to explain it.
And how, exactly, do you get off with calling me a noob?


You're just another naive fool who hasn't discovered his own views aren't original yet.
Sorry, gagfluff, but you've got your head rather far up your own arse. I'm perfectly aware my views aren't original, but I see no need to regurgitate tired old dogma, like a particular arsehat I could mention.

[el_chavista]

I think Marxism is an attempt to make history a real social science. gla22 wrote "I think we've already seen many of Marx's suppositions proven wrong", will you show me some examples?

[AGITprop]

Marxism is science because it studies the historical and social role of the economy.

It analyzes the the movement of history through class antagonism.

[bezdomni]

Marxism takes a scientific approach to questions of history and society - but it is by no means a complete theory, nor is it consistently correct. Marx himself got most things right, but a few (very important) things wrong. A few wrong predictions or paradigm shifts since the time Marx was writing, however, does not discredit Marx any more than Newton is discredited by Relativity Theory.

[Oswy]

There's no reason why Marxist history cannot be considered science. This is especially the case when we realise that science itself is not the hard and fast phenomenon which it is popularly understood to be.

All science involves interpretation.

[Marsella]

Marxism has a scientific method.

I mainly hear claims that Marxism is science, ironically, from those whom treat it as a dogma.

'The living breathing science of Marxism-Leninism has guided as to the path of liberation for blah blah blah...'

'You are wrong because the science of Marxism-Leninism shows that a party is needed to guide the masses etc'

From that point of view, it is bullshit because it is arguing that 'We are right because we have science. We won't use science, but we will repeat and repeat that we have science just in case you forget.'

I don't think I have to remind you what group argues from that point of view. Essentially it is attempting to argue from an authoritative point of view but is down right dogmatic.

However, I do see comrades occasionally actually using a scientific method, looking at the material conditions, backing it up with proof (statistics or otherwise). I think ComradeRed is the best example on this site of someone who approaches Marxism as a science (not as a set of ideals which he then gathers evidence to prove) but as someone whom 'gathers ideas' or reaches a conclusion after the science. RS2K has the materialistic approach.

But what happens when you use a scientific method, which then proves that some of the ideas which Marx and Engels were wrong? Does that mean you are not a Marxist?! (By golly gosh!)

See, that is why it is difficult to say that Marxism is a science - because Marx and Engels held certain views regarding the conditions of their days - which are often labelled Marxism.

And when someone makes such an argument that they are labelled a heretic! Even though they used a scientific method!

And it gets even more stickier when you say that Marxism-Leninism (Trotkyism or Stalinism) is a science, or that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (form of brain damage) is a science. Those ideologies have conflicting views! So by following the logic that Marxism is a science, we should be able identify which are correct and which are not.

Wrong. They are political views concerning the particular periods they were developed in (which makes it even more silly to 'apply' them today.) We can certainly assess whether they 'worked' or whether they are applicable today but trying to measure the 'correctness' necessarily involves an standard by which you measure them (Reagan is correct by conservative standards, but not by leftist ones).

So, whilst I think the approach which Marxism holds - i.e. look at history as one of a historical struggle between contending classes - is a correct approach, I am wary of saying that Marxism is a science because (1) it leads, ironically, to an unscientific and dogmatic approach and (2) what Marxism is, is not actually homogenous.

[Malakangga]

marxism is the real social science and scientific too.

[Tower of Bebel]

Marxism has a scientific method.

I mainly hear claims that Marxism is science, ironically, from those whom treat it as a dogma.

'The living breathing science of Marxism-Leninism has guided as to the path of liberation for blah blah blah...'

'You are wrong because the science of Marxism-Leninism shows that a party is needed to guide the masses etc'

From that point of view, it is bullshit because it is arguing that 'We are right because we have science. We won't use science, but we will repeat and repeat that we have science just in case you forget.'

I don't think I have to remind you what group argues from that point of view. Essentially it is attempting to argue from an authoritative point of view but is down right dogmatic.

However, I do see comrades occasionally actually using a scientific method, looking at the material conditions, backing it up with proof (statistics or otherwise). I think ComradeRed is the best example on this site of someone who approaches Marxism as a science (not as a set of ideals which he then gathers evidence to prove) but as someone whom 'gathers ideas' or reaches a conclusion after the science. RS2K has the materialistic approach.

But what happens when you use a scientific method, which then proves that some of the ideas which Marx and Engels were wrong? Does that mean you are not a Marxist?! (By golly gosh!)

See, that is why it is difficult to say that Marxism is a science - because Marx and Engels held certain views regarding the conditions of their days - which are often labelled Marxism.

And when someone makes such an argument that they are labelled a heretic! Even though they used a scientific method!

And it gets even more stickier when you say that Marxism-Leninism (Trotkyism or Stalinism) is a science, or that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (form of brain damage) is a science. Those ideologies have conflicting views! So by following the logic that Marxism is a science, we should be able identify which are correct and which are not.

Wrong. They are political views concerning the particular periods they were developed in (which makes it even more silly to 'apply' them today.) We can certainly assess whether they 'worked' or whether they are applicable today but trying to measure the 'correctness' necessarily involves an standard by which you measure them (Reagan is correct by conservative standards, but not by leftist ones).

So, whilst I think the approach which Marxism holds - i.e. look at history as one of a historical struggle between contending classes - is a correct approach, I am wary of saying that Marxism is a science because (1) it leads, ironically, to an unscientific and dogmatic approach and (2) what Marxism is, is not actually homogenous.


Science also isn't homogenous. Marxism should constantly be developed and refreshed, just like science. The only problem is the word 'marxism'; as today it also consists of so many competing political currents and views that indeed this 'science' does contradict itself on various occations.

Dialectical-materialism is better IMO.

[shamrock123]

How does Marxism relate to modern scientific ideas like those promoted by Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker (sociobiology)?

[gla22]

I think Marxism is an attempt to make history a real social science. gla22 wrote "I think we've already seen many of Marx's suppositions proven wrong", will you show me some examples?

There are things Marx didn't predict. The huge expanse of globalization and imperialism and the massiveness of petite-bourgeoisies. This obviously changes the situation. I also don't see socialism as the inevitable next step in social order, i think it is the preffered step however not inevitable.

[Oswy]

How does Marxism relate to modern scientific ideas like those promoted by Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker (sociobiology)?

At the risk of trying to reduce historical materialism to a sentence or three, Marx argued that to understand human societies we have to approach them as a scientist would. He identified the force of production (and reproduction) as the central and fundamental process in maintaining the existence of human life and relationships. Humans have to produce food, clothing and shelter, among other things, in order to exist and how the production of such things is organised is crucial to a proper understanding of human societies and human history; Marxist ideas and explanations of society all spring from this premiss. Marx's materialism in historical analysis makes his much better placed to fit conventional scientific paradigms than other, less grounded, approaches.

[Kami]

Thanks to the replies; I'm still somewhat skeptical, but I see where you're coming from at least ^^

[Die Neue Zeit]

There are things Marx didn't predict. The huge expanse of globalization and imperialism and the massiveness of petite-bourgeoisies. This obviously changes the situation. I also don't see socialism as the inevitable next step in social order, i think it is the preffered step however not inevitable.

Speaking of petit-bourgeois elements, you may be interested in commenting on this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html

BTW, are you in the US?

[gla22]

yeah I'm in the U.S. The class system is constantly changing however the basic premises of Marxism are there and stand true even if revision is necessary.

[AGITprop]

There are things Marx didn't predict. The huge expanse of globalization and imperialism and the massiveness of petite-bourgeoisies. This obviously changes the situation. I also don't see socialism as the inevitable next step in social order, i think it is the preffered step however not inevitable.

Lenin did predict Imperialism though.

And, to say that it is only the preferred step is accurate from a workers and Marxists point of view.

If you understand how we got where we are in history at this point, and how capitalism is in a downwards spiral and understand historical materialism, you will also see that socialism is the only possible progressive road after capitalism, but I'd have to agree, it is not inevitable. We are not determinists, and we cannot rely on this mystical idea that socialism is pre-ordained.

[Illus]

yeah I'm in the U.S. The class system is constantly changing however the basic premises of Marxism are there and stand true even if revision is necessary.
Well Marx did say that class relations were like that, because the nature of Capital was to constantly reinvent itself, to make labor more uniform and thus more productive, thus the average rate of profit (that is, the total amount of profit as a percentage of the value of fixed and circulating productive assets) increases significantly, and a 'superfluity of capital' emerges.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Marxism is only a science if you play fast and loose with the word "science". At its core, it's essentially an economic theory, and Economics is not science, in the sense of a (mostly) impartial observation of empirical evidence. If you give ten different economists the same sets of data they will come up with ten different conclusions; it reminds me of the saying "statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics". Economics has always been about using vague theory and assumption, gathering data that supports said assumption and hammering it home, while ignoring or disregarding the data that may or may not contradict it. I guess claiming that their own personal area of expertise is a "science" just makes their own prizefighting that much more credible :lol:. If you're going to say Marxism is a "science", you might as well say that Austrian "praxeology" is a "science" as well.

As far as dialectics are concerned, you can use them to "prove" just about anything.

[gilhyle]

Economics is not science, in the sense of a (mostly) impartial observation of empirical evidence. .

On this standard, there are no sciences.....the suggestion that any of the physical sciences is a process of impartial observation of emprical evidence is completely naive and contradicted by any detailed reading of the history of any actual science......read any history or philosophy or sociology of science and you will come across the relevant analysis quite quickly.

[Oswy]

On this standard, there are no sciences.....the suggestion that any of the physical sciences is a process of impartial observation of emprical evidence is completely naive and contradicted by any detailed reading of the history of any actual science......read any history or philosophy or sociology of science and you will come across the relevant analysis quite quickly.

Quite. The popular view of science as being founded on a universal consensus of indisputable philosophical and methological ground rules is very wide of the mark.

[mikelepore]

This kind of thread tends to be too general. When somebody says they're doing something scientifically, or arranging information scientifically, they need to specify -- and if they fail to specify then their skeptics needs need to ask them -- Exactly what principles or conclusions or hypotheses are you talking about? How did you verify that they are correct? How are they applied in practical use?

[pelemans]

Marxism is not science but it is scientific.
to say Marxism is scenic is the same to say that newtownism is scenic. They both contributed to science but at it self it is not a science. Marxism has added to economics, sociology, philosophy and history.

[Pogue]

Bollocks. A science? What fucking use is that. Its theory, a truth. Basically, make everyone equal. Dialetical materialism is useless to us. It serves no purpose. It does shit for the average person. All words on a page. Endless debates about Hegel and fuckwit and what loo roll Engels used - useless, boring, complicated intellectual bullshit designed to let the intelligentsia argue more. The same way many 'Christians' have shat upon Jesus's teachings, 'Marxists' shit upon Marx's teachings. Redistribute the wealth, unite across borders, end the tyranny of capitalism. Simple.

[gilhyle]

Marxism is not science but it is scientific.

I disagree with this. In my opinion, 'Marxism' is a (rather inadequate) term for what is actually a distinct communal theoretical discipline....namely revolutionary science.

Oh I forgot to respond to H-L-V-S......no actually I didnt.

[Pogue]

Shit, you got me there

[ComradeRed]

I've had some free time in the past 15 minutes, so I thought I'd just add my two cents here...


However, I do see comrades occasionally actually using a scientific method, looking at the material conditions, backing it up with proof (statistics or otherwise). I think ComradeRed is the best example on this site of someone who approaches Marxism as a science (not as a set of ideals which he then gathers evidence to prove) but as someone whom 'gathers ideas' or reaches a conclusion after the science. RS2K has the materialistic approach. Yes, but note how Leninists react almost allergically to statistics and data.

Marxism ought to be treated as it is: a paradigm. In other words, a tool shed of useful "tools" to analyze history.

But this requires actually analyzing history!

Leninists have seemingly been concerned about "What we'll do once we take power!" This is a rather utopian approach, considering capitalism isn't dead (well, Lenin asserted America has been on its death bed for the past century or so).

This is useless and unscientific.

The problem with my approach is twofold. One, most of the time is spent gathering data. Two, one needs to know a bit of math to analyze the data meaningfully. Both are rather unromantic to social scientists...but it is the most scientific approach. You get your data, then you analyze it.

Or you set up a model, write it in the form of equations, make predictions, then test it.

Or you observe some phenomena, and you try to explain it.

That's science. Unfortunately it usually requires a lot of math...or in my experience, it does.


Marxism is only a science if you play fast and loose with the word "science". At its core, it's essentially an economic theory, and Economics is not science, in the sense of a (mostly) impartial observation of empirical evidence. If you give ten different economists the same sets of data they will come up with ten different conclusions; it reminds me of the saying "statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics". Economics has always been about using vague theory and assumption, gathering data that supports said assumption and hammering it home, while ignoring or disregarding the data that may or may not contradict it. You're making a stupid mistake here, which can be examplified thus: "All fish are trout".

You say Marxist theory is at its core an economic theory, which is wrong but beside the point of your poor logic. You then go onto assert that economists can't predict anything. Therefore Marxist theory is useless.

In other words:
P1) Marxism is an economic theory.
P2) Economic theory is crap (unscientific) because economists can't get predictions right...
C) Marxism is unscientific.

However, P2 is incorrect...Modern economists are unscientific, Marxism is distinct from the marginalist voodoo which you correctly criticize.


If you're going to say Marxism is a "science", you might as well say that Austrian "praxeology" is a "science" as well. Not quite so fast, sparky.

Praxeology, like dialectics, is solely a word game.

Marxism, on the other hand, is a set of tools used to analyze social phenomena.

Marxism is not a "theory" in the sense that gravity or evolution is a theory. Marxism is a collection of theories, in the sense that classical mechanics is a collection of theories.

There are some tools that are economic ("law of surplus value", "law of accumulation", etc.). There are some others that are sociological (class struggle, etc.).

But Marxism is nothing more than just that, a collection of analytic tools. When I say "analytic tools" I mean tools which can be used to analyze.

Not everyone who claims to be a Marxist understands this point, or tries to portray Marxism differently. Leninists are notorious for this.

They, however, do not speak for Marxism.

[Led Zeppelin]

But Marxism is nothing more than just that, a collection of analytic tools. When I say "analytic tools" I mean tools which can be used to analyze.

Not everyone who claims to be a Marxist understands this point, or tries to portray Marxism differently. Leninists are notorious for this.

They're notorious for it because unlike you they actually use those analytic tools to do something in practice, instead of using them solely for mental masturbatory purposes, like you and other Orthodox "Marxists" do.

[Hit The North]

That's science. Unfortunately it usually requires a lot of math...or in my experience, it does.

How much math is in Das Kapital?

[ComradeRed]

They're notorious for it because unlike you they actually use those analytic tools to do something in practice, instead of using them solely for mental masturbatory purposes, like you and other Orthodox "Marxists" do. Leninists have either assumed they have already secured power, or are about to overthrow capitalism (then secure power).

Like Newton, I feign no hypothesis. This is an unjustified assumption that we are in such a state.

Why? Well, now we'll need to use some sort of "toolkit" to analyze social phenomena... :lol:

I am not saying, as you are insinuating, that this use of such tools "replaces" activism. I'm asserting that to know what to do, one needs to know what has happened...this is one of the two foundational principles of Western science: causality!

So what to do? It's trivial, study history, study the current situation, make hypotheses, test them, modify your "toolkit" as needed and discuss such modifications with other Leftists for feedback, etc. This is, of course, in addition to activism.


How much math is in Das Kapital? About a dozen equations, and some more numbers.

Not that much, really, and when there is math, it's more like:

"The rate of profit is the amount of profit divided by the cost of production, or the return the capitalist sees to the cost he pays for producing goods."

That sort of thing, it's straightforward and not really anything beyond a rudimentary word problem.

So barely any at all!

[Led Zeppelin]

Leninists have either assumed they have already secured power, or are about to overthrow capitalism (then secure power).

Like Newton, I feign no hypothesis. This is an unjustified assumption that we are in such a state.

I agree with you and I'm a "Leninist", by your description.

So you're wrong about all Leninists assuming they have already secured power, or are about to overthrow capitalism.

In fact, anyone who believes that is an idiot, in my opinion.


I am not saying, as you are insinuating, that this use of such tools "replaces" activism. I'm asserting that to know what to do, one needs to know what has happened...this is one of the two foundational principles of Western science: causality!

So what to do? It's trivial, study history, study the current situation, make hypotheses, test them, modify your "toolkit" as needed and discuss such modifications with other Leftists for feedback, etc. This is, of course, in addition to activism.

Fair enough, but what kind of activism do you do exactly?

I ask because I remember that you were stage-ist for quite some time, believing that socialism/communism could only come about when "the time came", as if by some natural progression, and that therefore any activism was pointless.

[Oswy]

The potential for history to be science (as the latter term is conceived in the English-speaking world at least) stands better comparison to those fields which are concerned with study of the past, such as palaeontology, or concerned with observation and explanation of processes based on that observation (rather than experimentation), such as certain kinds of astronomy.

Science isn't synonymous with mathematics, rather mathematics is a tool useful (by degree) in some sciences. Likewise, while predictive power is often cited as a strong element in what counts as science, this is actually the case in some fields more than others; physics and chemistry have strong predicitive powers, climatology and seismology are more restricted and some sciences, such as the already cited palaeontology, are more concerned with explaining how things have happened, and not predictive in any substantive way.

If we take the German term used for science, wissenschaft, then history fits science even more obviously; wissenschaft means something to the effect of 'systematic investigation and an associated coherently organised body of knowledge'.

[trivas7]

I've seen a few people make the claim that Marxism is Science, but it seems, to be frank, bullshit. Can someone perhaps enlighten me on this one?

After having read Marx, this is for you to decide. Personally, if it's not scientific -- what would be the point?:confused:

[cenv]

The problem I see with calling Marxism "scientific" is that there's no way to disprove Marxism. I'm no scientist, but I don't see how something can really be a scientific theory if it's impossible to disprove it. Either way, I think there are much more convincing arguments in favor of Marxism than claiming that it's some sort of objective science.

[gilhyle]

Marxism is not a theory, it is a discipline........try disproving 'physics' and see how far you get. Physics contains lots of theories, some of which you can disprove and some of which you cant, but you cant disprove 'Physics;. Or try disproving 'engineering' you might disprove that a bridge can be built over a certain chasm or a building cant be built in a certain shape. Similarly you might 'disprove' (i.e argue forcefully) that revolution is not possible in a certain environment, but you can neither disprove that bridges cannot be built or that revolutions cannot happen.

[Die Neue Zeit]

They're notorious for it because unlike you they actually use those analytic tools to do something in practice, instead of using them solely for mental masturbatory purposes, like you and other Orthodox "Marxists" do.

To be fair, it's a real shame that ComradeRed doesn't use the words "Trotskyist" and "Marxist-Leninist" instead of plain "Leninist" (thus putting revolutionary Marxists - albeit of the "Leninism of Lenin" strain - into the same for-reductionists-and-revisionists bin as conventional Trots and M-Ls :glare: ). :(

BTW, ComradeRed, how are you doing? I realize that this isn't your cup of tea, but we revolutionary Marxists emphasize processes in our analysis, and not cheap math or head-in-the-cloud statistics that don't connect with workers. ;)

[trivas7]

The problem I see with calling Marxism "scientific" is that there's no way to disprove Marxism. I'm no scientist, but I don't see how something can really be a scientific theory if it's impossible to disprove it. Either way, I think there are much more convincing arguments in favor of Marxism than claiming that it's some sort of objective science.

This exactly was Popper's criticism of Marxism, but I think it nonsense. In like manner the theory of evolution too is unfalsifiable.

[cenv]

This exactly was Popper's criticism of Marxism, but I think it nonsense. In like manner the theory of evolution too is unfalsifiable.
Good point, but there is lots of evidence for evolution. Although I'm a Marxist, I don't see any objective evidence in favor of Marxism.


Marxism is not a theory, it is a discipline........try disproving 'physics' and see how far you get. Physics contains lots of theories, some of which you can disprove and some of which you cant, but you cant disprove 'Physics;. Or try disproving 'engineering' you might disprove that a bridge can be built over a certain chasm or a building cant be built in a certain shape. Similarly you might 'disprove' (i.e argue forcefully) that revolution is not possible in a certain environment, but you can neither disprove that bridges cannot be built or that revolutions cannot happen.
Marxism itself contains a lot of hypotheses... many of which aren't disprovable.