Jukka Laari jlaari at
Wed Mar 22 09:26:47 MST 1995

On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, boddhisatva wrote:

>  Science is defined by observation first and foremost.

Really? Doesn't theoretical work and systematicity mean a thing? One
phycicist told few months ago how it goes with "real science": sometimes
even years of theoretical work, then experimentation, then lots of
analytical work on data, and then, much later, writing a report and

> 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
> canard.

That's true if one accepts the concept of science as it is used in
English speaking world: making a technical toy is more of science than,
say, trying to find out how and why there are economic crises every now
and then, or how and why some aesthetic form of perception comes instead
of another.

Marxism as such really isn't a scientific theory. Instead there are
several marxist scientific theories, for example in political economy, in
psychology, and in sociology - just to mention those I've heard of.

And, Boddhisatva, why are your dismissing marxist THEORY on
methodological and methodical base? Besides, isn't methodological monism
as general philosophico-theoretical idea a bit outdated nowadays?

Yours, Jukka Laari

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list