Reminder that Marx's socialism is not "scientific" like physics or chemistry, the term is used mainly to contrast with utopians, who try to impose some ideal on the revolution without grasping communism's class based nature.
>>2529800Reminder that utopian socialism had its roots in Christianity, and scientific socialism explicitly renounces religion, morality, and humanity (The ideal.)
>>2529829>utopian socialism had its roots in Christianityproof?
>>2529833Idealism.
>>2529834All the earliest socialist authors we're Christians/Spiritualists and heavily influenced by it. Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet, and Robert Owen. Even Thomas More, who coined the term Utopia, can be seen articulating a kind of "socialism without class antagonism" in his story, replete with the social gospel and slavery.
Marx's use of 'scientific' means EXACTLY like physics and chemistry. It is easy to understand why.
As we go further back in time, most things were explained via religion/spirituallity/superstitions etc. For example, in most ancient cultures, the planets and stars are associated with deities. As science progressed, the sphere of influence of these idealisms shrunk further and further. By the time Marx was writing, these idealisms had human society and human thoughts as their last bastion (consciousness, the 'spirit' etc). So Marx simply thought human society should be analysed scientifically as well.
The infinitesimally small, elementary world (atoms etc) = physics
a collection of atoms, and their behaviour = chemistry
those collections of atoms get into more complex and bigger structures = biology
animals = part of biology
humans are animals, study of human organs etc = part of biology
humans themselves now are like elementary organs, or atoms of the human societal whole. So why should human history and human society, which is simply the most elevated form resting on nest 'sciences', not be as equally scientific as the 'lower, nested forms'?
>>2529834>>2529837the communist manifesto already touches on this
material easily obtained by a google search does not warrant sources every time
this is an imageboard, not a peer-reviewed journal
propbably not related to the discussion here but I will say it anyway:
it pisses me off how woke postmodern types use 'its just a social construct' to sort of imply there is nothing inherently 'REAL' about said thing. social contructs are a subset of biology.
we do not call bees building honeycombs as just 'bee social constructs', 'bee society stuff'.
>>2529858I think you are, infact, retarded.
Utopianism and Marxism are both teleological and assume that history is a linear progression toward more "advanced" societies, the definition of "advanced" being quite nebulous and open to interpretation. But the actual historical record does not reflect any such pattern, history is not linear, societies don't change because they are moving toward some greater end purpose, they change because of natural cause and effect. Some societies grow into vast empires that battle for world domination, other societies remain small neutral outliers or bystanders caught in the middle, some societies become more egalitarian, other societies become more authoritarian, empires collapse, smaller societies get assimilated or wiped out by genocide or disease or natural disaster, one day a society might be a social democracy the next day it could be a fascist dictatorship. You can't predict the future, human civilization is a very complicated affair with an inordinately huge number of factors at play and it's not determinate and it's not guided by any singular driving force, it's a natural phenomenon like the weather or biology.
>>2529862what is wrong in what I said? You know that biology is not just 'everything is encoded in the DNA, nothing ever changes dooood'
>>2529845>All the earliest socialist authors we're Christians/Spiritualists and heavily influenced by itsurely youre thinking of engels comparing his own socialism to that of the early christians:
<The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers’ socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/>>2529857>the communist manifesto already touches on thisno it doesnt. another anon making things up in his head then shamelessly vomiting it out at us.
>>2529829>scientific socialism explicitly renounces religion, morality, and humanity (The ideal.)according to marx, humanism in itself is against idealism, while communism is just the positive concept of humanism as man in-and-for himself:
<Here we see how consistent naturalism or humanism is distinct from both idealism and materialism, and constitutes at the same time the unifying truth of both. We see also how only naturalism is capable of comprehending the action of world history […] In the same way atheism, being the supersession of God, is the advent of theoretic humanism, and communism, as the supersession of private property, is the vindication of real human life as man’s possession and thus the advent of practical humanism, or atheism is humanism mediated with itself through the supersession of religion, whilst communism is humanism mediated with itself through the supersession of private property. Only through the supersession of this mediation – which is itself, however, a necessary premise – does positively self-deriving humanism, positive humanism, come into being.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htmthis is identical to proudhon's notion of God simply being humanity, or what thomas paine writes, that christianity is just a form of humanist atheism. so once again, the brazen, arrogant know-it-alls who bluster into threads actually know nothing of what they speak.
>>2529863> linear progression Marxism is about progression, but it does not enforce linearity at all.
If anything from Marx and Lenin, it is clear that they think of history as a non-linear system of highly coupled-variables which can be seen as absolutely progressive in the large scale, but not on a year-to-year basis.
>>2529869whats the difference, exactly?
>>2529871google linear vs non-linear and learn for yourself
>>2529864Comparing a "social construct" to a physical form constructed by a society, implying there is a material form to a social superstructure, is incredibly dishonest.
>>2529865>surely youre thinking of engels comparing his own socialism to that of the early christians:No. I was thinking of what I said
<Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet, and Robert Owen.Were all Christians whose belief in the gospel influenced their "socialism" can be regarded distinct to the scientific socialism of Marx and Engels because of, among many other things, its religious basis.
>according to marx, humanism in itself is against idealism, while communism is just the positive concept of humanism as man in-and-for himself:The 1844 manuscripts where written when Marx was only 22 years old, and not even published until 1933. No self respecting Marxists would take them seriously as a transcendental representation of Marx's own views, which of course changed through out his life. The humanism of Marx's early writings, is ethical theory, and fundamentally incongruous with the "scientific" theory argued in Marx's later works.
>>2529829Why would you think I disagree with that?
>moralityIt rejects moral
ism insofar as it provides no explanatory power, not that individuals can't have morals (impossible).
>>2529863Marx never attempted to predict the future much less be a determinist.
>>2529891>Why would you think I disagree with that?I wasn't implying you did, I agreed with the position in OP, and wanted to add my
own further articulation, I probably could have added more context to make it sound less contrarian.
>It rejects moralism insofar as it provides no explanatory power, not that individuals can't have morals (impossible).People also have emotions, but nobody is arguing class should be sublated simply because it makes them mad. Whether or not individuals
have morals is irrelevant to whether or not moralism should be taken seriously, I use the two terms interchangably myself as I've never needed to defend "having morals" not that I mean to imply people don't think things are or are not moral.
>>2529889>umm actually i know marx better than himselfyou know nothing - and marx never changed his views on communism in his life, which is why "critique of the gotha program" (1875) doesnt contradict the 1844 manuscripts. but since youre a genius, you could surely cite a work from marx to rebuke… marx?
>>2529891Marx's ideas were definitely more scientifically-grounded than his utopian predecessors, but it was still a teleological view, the idea of history as a class war with a definitive outcome. Like other intellectuals of his era, Marx had a very optimistic vision of the industrial future and made the assumption that human social progress would reflect human technological progress, that the technology of the Industrial Revolution would inevitably lead to a more egalitarian and free society and the end of class warfare. He didn't account for the possibility of technology being used by the ruling class to create a dystopian future, he couldn't have envisioned all of the ways that this new technology would be used as a tool of control and oppression and domination by the ruling class - things like the surveillance state or nuclear weapons or coordinated radio/tv/internet propaganda campaigns, etc.
>>2529800>Marx's socialism is not "scientific" like physics or chemistryYou're right, it's as more complete than physics and chemistry. As it can explain nature ,history, society and thought itself.
>>2529914>with a definitive outcomeYou didn't read him.
>He didn't account for the possibility of technology being used by the ruling class to create a dystopian futureLol, even in one of his letters he mentions how technological advancements are used to spread bourgeois ideology more easily.
>>2529931Lmfao.
>>2529914>le revolution hasnt happened cuz le ruling class brainwashed le massesyou sound stupid and american
>>2529942What's funny? The natural sciences are partial; Marxism is a more complete science because it integrates the natural and social sciences and goes beyond them to explain their interconnection and historical development.
>>2529972The revolution is happening right now, has always been happening, will always be happening. History is an eternal chaotic struggle, not a linear narrative with a beginning or ending.
>>2529829Gee I wonder (((who))) could be behind """"""scientific"""""" socialism
>>2529972You sound dumber than an American
>>2530168Not according to the OP
>>2529914People will sit there and tell you that you're wrong even though that's exactly what happened. The technological advances even got flipped around to be used for mass murder rather than workers seizing the means of production. The times they got close they ultimately chose social democracy which posits an intellectual ruling class.
>the workers can only achieve a trade union consciousness on their ownMarx's positivist, Hegelian foundation became the thing that aged the worst out of all of his theory, except maybe some of the chauvinist shit he wrote during the Franco-Prussian war. He believed that the democracy would set the stage for socialism, which influenced Engels educating his students on social democracy. Instead, it ended up being reactionary.
>>2529889Repeat the Althusser garbage you've absorbed by osmosis (a guy who admitted he didn't read Marx) all you want but the points made in it reappear in Capital in concepts like commodity fetishism. Nobody reads so they think can get away with just making shit up. Marxism as a "system" doesn't appear in the manuscripts, but there is no proof he did a 180 on that and decided the workers should be slaves for an intellectual ruling elite manager class, placated with retarded propaganda pictures of great men in front of red flags, or writing Stalin happy birthday cards.
Science as in the scientific process, not science as in the aethetic
>>2530166Isaac newton of course duh
>>2529858>it pisses me off how woke postmodern types use 'its just a social construct' to sort of imply there is nothing inherently 'REAL' about said thingThat's called a strawman.
>>2529863if-then statements are not teleology
>>2530378>Marx's positivist, Hegelian foundationu wot?
>>2530553>if-then statements are not teleologyIf they are outside of an infinite while loop then yes they are.
>>2529914Wheres your black flag?
>>2529800its also scientific insofar as
the analysis of capitalism, of history and of political economy is done scientifically (using the scientific method)
socialism aim is to rationally (and democratically) plan human labor and its production in society, so its a scientific approach to society and politics
Unique IPs: 14