Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:22:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Condit <tomcondit-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: M-G: Is marxism a science?


I will make one brief comment on Tonester's assertion that Marxism is a
"science".

Let's make a logical progression:

1. Marxism is a science.

2. People who practice sciences are scientists.

3. Tonester and Old Mole are Marxists.

THEREFORE:

4. Tonester and Old Mole are scientists.

Is this true? If the fourth statement isn't true, then one of the first
three must be wrong. I suggest that it is number one.

When Marx and Engels spoke of "scientific" socialism, they counterposed it
to utopian socialism. That is, they wanted to build a body of socialist
theory and practice which was grounded in material reality, rather than
simply in the dreams and aspirations of socialists. (This doesn't mean that
they didn't have immense respect for many utopian socialists, as Engels'
pamphlet "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific" makes clear.) They didn't see
it as the equivalent of physics or chemistry (as Engels' introduction to the
English edition of "Socialism, Utopian or Scientific" makes clear).

Old Mole



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---