4 ms·
> It's well-understood by Marxists how the mode of production determines the cultural superstructure[1] (and vice-versa). It's not "understood," it's a sociolo
by mieseratte 7y ago
> It's well-understood by Marxists how the mode of production determines the cultural superstructure[1] (and vice-versa).
It's not "understood," it's a sociological theory. Hardly hard science.
- zajd 7y agoWho said anything about hard science? Just because something is well-understood by a group of people doesn't mean it has to have some sort of scientific basis to have any validity.
- kortilla 7y agoWell at that point, who gives a shit? It offers no predictive capability like real models. Might as well talk about how it’s well understood by the Scientology community that it’s indicative of a required audit.
- zajd 7y agoPeople who believe it give a shit. Same with any economic/political/social framework where there is no way to do "hard" science. Marxist economic frameworks are no different from the alternative economic frameworks our own leaders use to make decisions. Regardless, there are plenty of predictions that Marx/Marxists made over a hundred years ago that have stood up under scrutiny (and plenty others that haven't), there's a reason the economist is printing articles like this: https://www.economist.com/britain/2017/05/11/labour-is-right-karl-marx-has-a-lot-to-teach-todays-politicians https://www.economist.com/britain/2017/05/11/labour-is-right... I personally don't believe economics is a "hard science", but I still see the value in exploring the ideas and judging different theories on their own merit, even if we can't do double-blind studies to "prove" anything.