Does Marxism being "scientific" matter? Or does this need to want to cling to science to prove its legitimacy actually hinder its effect? I've been wrestling with this question for the past day and I still don't have a concrete opinion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] xiaohongshu@hexbear.net 20 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The scientific approach of Marxism is what makes socialism a practicable endeavor as opposed to a utopian/idealistic approach to socialism.

It is no coincidence that Marxist-Leninist movements remain the only form of socialist movements that have succeeded in establishing socialist states (Actually Existing Socialism) while surviving the endless onslaught of bourgeois counter-revolutions over decades.

Let’s put it this way: suppose you want to build a plane. How would you go about it without even understanding the fundamental theorems of physics? The chances of you bumping into constructing a functional, flyable airplane without any serious understanding of physics is so low that it might as well be a miracle.

Or consider it this way: let’s say you want to design a Covid vaccine (or a vaccine against any other pathogens). How would you even begin to contemplate such endeavor without first understanding how viruses work, how they interact with the host cells and how the immune system works?

Without a scientific approach, you might as well be practicing alchemy or superstitions and pray that you luck into the outcome you want.

Same with socialism. How do you even attempt to organize an anti-capitalist labor movement within a capitalist system without first studying how capitalism works? How do you even devise tactics and strategies that could position your movement in a hugely advantageous position in 10-20 years, against a vastly more powerful opponent from the bourgeois side?

Think Mao’s land reform - a significant advance in theory that resolved the contradictions between the feudal relations of peasantry to their land, and the need for a revolutionary proletariat class that did not really exist in early 20th century China. Mao’s land reform unleashed the revolutionary potential of the peasantry that ultimately led to the defeat of the nationalist KMT, who at the time vastly outnumbered the communists in military strength and command of resources.

Mao could not have thought about this without a deep understanding of Marx and Lenin, and through the application of the scientific approach of historical and dialectical materialism to the specific context in China. This was an actual, tangible outcome that came from the application of theory that guides practice. Socialist China is a real and actually existing place - not a fantasy!