The article mentions Marx as useful for diagnosis but not for prescription and then seems to make the same mistake. The problem with political science is that

The article mentions Marx as useful for diagnosis but not for prescription and then seems to make the same mistake. The problem with political science is that it isn't a science. It has certain language to express complex social systems but it sucks at prescription. We can look at the ravaged path produced by a complex dynamic system and attribute some apparent motivations and maybe we're kinda right but it's still very difficult to then start making causative statements. And still more difficult to endeavor to engineer such a system to a certain end. It isn't just answering, "what are we really trying to solve"? Or "how are we going to solve it"? The problem is that there isn't just one question or one answer. There are hundreds of possible questions, and then you have to agree on a answer in theory, and then you have to agree on a implementation, and then you have to have a system that is capable of the implementation. It's madness and there is no evidence we have a political system that is capable of such feats.