Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 9:16:13 EST
From: boddhisatva <foucault-AT-eden.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: stalin/Marx




		To whom.......,


	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
canard.  

	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.




	peace




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

     ------------------