foucault at eden.rutgers.edu
Wed Mar 22 07:16:13 MST 1995
I find the chracterization of Marxism as a science overly broad at
best. Science is defined by observation first and foremost. Marxism is only
distinct in what it seeks to observe.
Marxism as a philosophy, a theory, is simply another chimera, as are
all theories. However, Marxism is not a scientific theory because it lacks
rigorous tests of repeatability and logic because of the subject matter with
which it deals. Predictive value, insofar as it concerns human history, is a
Now, if Marxism were to reduce human interactions to representative
icons and variables, it would still be a canard, and would quack only
slightly less loudly. Furthermore, the analytic "rigor" of philosophy and
law/politics are really just the discussion over how many heads, and how
large the wings of the chimera.
Naturally all this is usefull - the very stuff of the humanities -
but it's not science. Stalin doesn't follow from Marx, Stalin follows from
Mr. and Mrs. Stalin's blessed union as the earthquake from the butterfly.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism