ingirumimus

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think we may agree more than you think: the laws you mention aren't laws in the scientific sense of the word; instead, they're a technique (dialectics) for investigating the world. I agree that it is a very powerful technique, that's what I meant when I said that Marxism is best thought of as a methodology than a science. You said it yourself when you called Marxism "an analytical tool". You can use it to do science, but its not a science per se

lol this is more or less what I was trying to say but much more clear and concise. I think you're absolutely right: Marxism is a methodology, and one that has to be applied differently at different places and times to be effective. Its a tactical mistake to think of it as a science

imo treating it as a science does more to hurt the purpose of Marxism than it helps

marx and engel's project was originally conceived as a science in the true sense of the word, in the way we would consider physics or biology to be a science. But forcing abstract, universal laws (something which is essential to science) onto human civilization and development is extremely difficult, if not impossible to do in a productive way. More to the point, even within a single mode of production, the actual conditions on the ground at any given point will differ enormously, so any general doctrine will either lead you in the wrong direction or be abstracted to the point of being useless. Therefore, its more useful to think of Marxism as a methodology, not a science. Treating it this way keeps you in tune with the needs of the current place and time, and less focused on what should be happening according to abstract laws.

In addition, treating it as a science has the negative side of downplaying the moral force of socialism. No one I've met is socialist because they've been convinced by Marx's syllogism showing the inevitable decline of capitalism and rise of socialism. Rather, when you get down to it, people are socialists because they believe it to be the only way to create an ethical society. It is this moral force that represents the single greatest strength of any left politics, tbh. Treating Marxism as a science necessarily means you have to devalue that aspect.

I think its worth pointing out that, as far as I understand it, the "scientific" part of Marx/Engel's project does refer directly to the scientific method. Their goal was to establish certain universal, empirically-derived (in other words, scientific) laws of historical development which could then be applied to understand the rise and eventual fall of capitalism. In fact, in one of his intros to socialism: utopian and scientific Engels actually mentions Darwin, as well as LaPlace, as precursors to their project. Which gets to the real differentiation they attempted to make between themselves and the "utopians": Its not that these socialists believed in some magical society where everyone always gets along, its essentially that they attempted to resist the development of capitalism, to slow it down and essentially "opt out" of it by establishing non-capitalism communes and projects within a broader capitalist economy. Marx and Engels attempted to surpass these socialists by demonstrating that human civilization followed certain laws of development (increasing productive abilities and organization, intensifying class struggle / simplifying class structures, etc.) which meant capitalism could not be "opted out" of or resisted, only eclipsed by a new mode of production. Which is all well and good, but leads to some difficult problems when you really start looking at the necessary conclusions. There are of course other aspects of Marx's work that are really admirable and useful, but their whole project of making a science of history or revolution seems like a false start

we aren't trying to create a utopia you don't have the right to feel good about things when there are bad things in the world

So which is it? Or are we destined to just feel bad all the time forever because there's always going to be bad things

I appreciate the fervor but this is a very childish take. revenge for revenge's sake is not only definitely not a moral good, but also often tactically counterproductive. I also would say that probably most of the oppressed are not longing for revenge but liberation, which are emphatically not the same thing. I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but (as an example) I have not seen or read anything since october 7th that suggests that Gazans are eager for revenge itself. In fact portraying the oppressed as foaming at the mouth for revenge seems like it aligns well with Israeli colonialist narratives about Palestinians

No he's gotta make it to inauguration at least, enough time for his abject failure to really sink in

all due respect, but just take the L man

Oh I see, thanks for clarifying, I think I misunderstood your point about ontological uncertainty, that makes a lot of sense

Nothing is pre-determined per se

I don't think too hard about how everything that happens is inevitable, but that is the logical conclusion

These seem to be saying the exact opposite of each other - if everything is inevitable, it is therefore pre-determined.

As for the relation between the physical (chemical, biological, etc) processes of the brain and consciousness, you're absolutely right that the latter necessarily arises from the former, but that does not mean that our consciousness is reducible to just those processes. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon and, even if we were able to trace all the physical processes of the brain, we would still not be able to entirely explain our subjective experience.

For scientific socialism, I think relying too much on a deterministic outlook creates a very sterile, complacent ideology. Look at the pre-WWII communist parties of Europe, who were positivistic determinists par excellence. They believed wholeheartedly in the inevitability of a socialist revolution, and look where that got them. I think a more productive view would be to embrace the inherent unpredictability of human action, our capacity to break out of a given historical moment. Nothing is guaranteed or pre-determined (however probable), and it is precisely because of that fact that our actions are meaningful, that praxis is a worthwhile endeavor.

I hope this doesn't come off as too critical, I appreciate you sharing your views comrade

ok so where is the line between what's been pre-determined and what hasn't been? Or is everything that is to happen already guaranteed to happen, down to the smallest possible action?

the above quote is very clearly anti-determinist: we may act within a web of social-economic conditions, and may have our actions altered by said conditions, but we still actively choose within those conditions