>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.

There's nothing "infallible" about the praxis of scientific, dialectical-/historical-materialist socialism, squeers. Here is where you and I part company on these matters... But in fact, Marx and marxism are very clear too about the limitations of triumphalist bourgeois "empirical", "rationalist" science, compared to the superior dialectical process variety -- which even bourgeois science today is more and more forced to acknowledge in having to recognize the basic import of emergent, non-linear phenomena, for example. Of course, you cover that; but you also demonstrate a typical petit-bourgeois prejudice against class-struggle AFAIC, evinced in your support for these bourgeois thinkers you name and apparently adhere to.

>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?

More than that -- taking into account all the dirty tricks of your type in trying to limit that influence. But the fact that you fixate on mere numbers in the liars game of statistics, leaving out the all-important context of it all says everything about your superficial hyper-hypocritical approach to everything said here.

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

Anyone can call themselves a marxist. Even police 'agents provocateurs' regularly do so. But the socialist future WILL be "green" for that matter -- while all that the capitalist hucksters can do, really, is come up with "carbon futures trading" swindles and little windfarms on other people's land and the like. There is no "green" future for humanity under capitalism, that's for sure.

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You are 100 years out of date Groky, but like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

How old is capitalism in its many guises then, huh? Going on 600-800 years, is it now? However, the innate social logic of trade and commerce as well as the good of the communal weal stretch back as far back as the very formation of human society itself, don't they..?

So lose this stupid loser of an argument, Yabbermouth. It was stale even before you were born.

>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

About as far as the local police-military deathsquad, eh..?

Let's talk about "level playing fields" instead. As if you would even grasp what that means.

Dear Grok,
I'm not sure what you mean by this:
<There's nothing "infallible" about the praxis of scientific, dialectical-/historical-materialist socialism, squeers>
but it's not what I said in any case.
Marx's dialectics was uncannily accurate in its plotting of capitalist production (and for mine its insight into the denigration of the human condition), but even he never claimed it was infallible; he and Engels acknowledged they couldn't possibly factor in unforeseen contingencies or complexities that might have a baring.

"According to the materialist conception of history, the determining element in history is 'ultimately' the production and reproduction in real life. More than this neither Marx nor I has ever asserted. If therefore somebody twists this into the statement that the economic element is the 'only' determining one, he transforms it into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase. ... There is an interaction of all these [contingent] elements, in which, amid all the endless hosts of accidents ... the economic element finally asserts itself as necessary"

The means of production was identified as the major influence on historical development, not the only one.
Revolution was posited as the only response to capitalism because it will never relinquish power willingly, and because freeing human potential was dependent on emancipation from the whole paradigm in which it is exploited.

Well jeeze, squeers: it just sounds like you're contradicting yourself now. Which is it, then..? Is marxism claimed to be "infallible" by anybody, or isn't it? Or just not by Marx himself? Let's be clear.

And since I'm wasting a precious reply responding to that, I will take the time & space here to start pointing out that the likes of Yabby consistently refuse to reply to our obvious and true counter-arguments concerning the endless and heinous crimes of the capitalists (since the 'Blame-Game' appears to be the only one that interests most of the anti-communists here). Which will never end as long as these oligarchic elites remain in power -- owing to the very nature of their criminally-exploitative system. Yabby must be conscious of this dishonest strategy of his -- since he is so consistent at it; but then, so are most of the other Reichwingers here, tho' perhaps to a lesser degree.

There is something very wrong with people who fixate ONLY on the real or supposed failings of others -- while consistently side-stepping the inconvenient fact that they are, if anything, even MORE guilty of the same said crimes.

This is beyond hypocrisy. In fact, AFAIC: it appears to be an agenda.

Dear Grok,
it's not for me to say what anybody else thinks. I only say that the evidence suggests Marx didn't see historical materialism as infallible.
For myself, I've spent my life studiously avoiding falling into any kind of belief system. I hope to remain a thorough-going sceptic for the rest of my days (except in the unlikely event infallible knowledge should come my way).
BTW, I don't support the thinkers I named; I was only pointing out that they are among a cohort that believe dialectics is superior to conventional science. I'm inclined to agree.
As for class struggle, I don't see how I've given you the impression I have a "prejudice against" it?
Sadly, there is no sign of a class struggle in Australia and the US etc.. (the working classes are off shore, out of sight and mind) Apart from this being ideologically suppressed, I don't think Marx foresaw the extent to which capitalism would co-opt the working class, with welfare for instance, or for how long it would maintain it. Of course it's all unravelling now.
I would go so far as to say that political dissent of the last fifty years has actually served to strengthen capitalist hegemony; all the agitation, over identity politics etc., has been readily accommodated in the superstructure (at no capitalist cost, which is of course indifferent to the cost in terms of social mores) and created the mollifying illusion, in the vacuous minds of many (even on the left), that we actually have some agency, control or quality of life under this totalising dispensation.

I'm glad you're optimistic, Grok. I'm not.

An impassioned discussion on science Squeers, with interesting and well thought out points. Well done!

"It is compellingly argued by some scholars that scientific rationalism is similarly the ideology of capitalism."

I largely agree with those scholars. Reductionist science has tended to focus on how the individual entity interacts with its surrounds. Cartesian duality (very different from yin/yang duality by the way) splits nature into human consciousness and an entirely physical and reducible marerial world. Newton supported that idea of a mechanistic, physical universe. Darwin stressed the competition between distinct organisms as the single driver of evolution, Freud said we are selfish, Smith said economics was about separate, selfish people competing with one another.

Reductionist science focusses on materialism and 'separatism' as compared to 'spiritualism' (for want of a better word) and collectivism, or some kind of middle way between the extremes.

Looking a little more at materialism, descartes split between the obviously non-material human mind and everything else messed us up, and Marx bought into it. The split is much deeper than Descartes realized. As modern physics is helping us see, it runs through all of nature.

Not only did we mess up there. With the split of cartesian duality, we also had an essential separateness, but as Confucius would surely have told us, there is not only separateness between the poles of being and non-being, there is also connectedness. Ha.

Grok, "Can't wait for your book."

I am humbly hoping that you would all like to read my new article that went up on OLO today. Its called Diversity and Self-Reliance vs Specialization and Trade. Its about free-trade/protectionism.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11202