Science?

Science and materialism was on the rise in Marx's time. He was just trying to catch a ride. There a few people left to champion the materialism of Descartes, yet Marxists have failed to move on.

*Ya, and you know what, Yabby? It is far easier to be ignorant, and even a fool in this world, than it is to be aware and not one. So what's your point.*

My point is Groky, that it is even to delude yourself, as in your
case. Look around you and open your eyes. What political support
do you have at elections? 5 or 6 votes maybe?

The best that Marxists and the Trots can do is hide under the
green flag, which is a bit like false advertising.

You are 100 years out of date Groky, but like religious
true believers, you cannot face the reality of that.

I put it to you that all Marxists openly declare their position
at the next elections, standing for what you believe. See how
far you get

Gilbert Holmes,
materialism is another subject you clearly know nothing about!

Davidf,
Squeers has no puter connection at the moment but says that's a good question and that his immediate answer is "no". He adds he will explain why when Telstra gets its act together and time permits.

>Science and materialism was on the rise in Marx's time.
He was just trying to catch a ride. There a few people
left to champion the materialism of Descartes, yet
Marxists have failed to move on.
Posted by GilbertHolmes,

Can't wait for your book.

Sorry about the delay, only just back on line.
I humbly submit that:
First of all, by science I assume we mean empirical, methodological practice: scientific method that puts its faith in objective observation? Science is of course undergirded by its own philosophy, what has been called ‘transcendental’ or ‘critical’ ‘realism’, among other things. Science rarely acknowledges its metaphysical footings and thus we popularly place the same faith in it as we used to put in religion. In “that” sense I say Marxism is not a science. Marx was born in the age of reason, however, and was part of the movement away from religious hegemony that formed the ideology of feudalism. It is compellingly argued by some scholars that scientific rationalism is similarly the ideology of capitalism, that is the logical complement to economic fundamentalism.
As we’ve discussed above, Marx was a student of Hegel, indeed he was an acolyte and used the “same” dialectical reasoning, the only real difference being that Marx did not rationalise everything as descending from divine spirit, but saw humanity anchored in its material and species-being. This does not crudely reduce humanity to the “stars’ tennis balls” as the whole logic of dialectics is the “essence” of materiality; that which moves all phenomena. After Hegel’s method, Marx looked at human society as an organic whole “preponderated” from within. Human society was not an indifferent mass but had an essential “human” predilection. The idea is that capitalism has thwarted that “essential” tendency or “potential” (whose fulfilment is posited as creative adaptation to, and transcendence of, habitat and the vicissitudes of nature).
cont..

..cont

Humanity is denied its wonted progress, which however is harnessed as means of production. Our creative essence is both denied (at the level of the individual) and exploited (as a means of indifferent production) en masse. Human creativity, harnessed in this way, is used to produce goods (commodities) that function to palliate humanity for the life that is systematically denied it. That it fails miserably is surely attested to by the masses who are diagnosed as suffering a “mental illness” in any one year! This will be dismissed by the rationalists and the religionists at once, convinced of the merits of their respective world views--different sides of the same coin--and that life could not be other than it is. I would be surprised if anyone surprised we with their objections on this point, as I'm sure I've already analysed them.

But to return to the question. No it is not a science in the sense that it plots an infallible course for its object of study (but then, no such science exists). However it was and is an aspiring science in that it utilises human reason and empirical observation to identify the immanent dynamic of its subject (in Marx’s case human society as an organic whole) and plot its progress (which doesn't have to be linear). This is dialectics, as opposed to instrumental reason--which pseudo-objectively abstracts the subject under analysis. Marx was a "natural scientist" who saw humanity and human reason as intimately a “part” of natural phenomena, rather than “apart” from it. This kind of science is ancient and its loss still lamented by many great moderns who were not fans of Marx (Mure, Collingwood, MacIntyre). Whatever the achievements of modern science, its fatal (and I do mean fatal) flaw is its detachment from nature, including human nature.