Marxism is scientific

Why do you guys do this?

Because thinking that science is the only way to obtain knowledge is willful blindness, especially when there are things that can not be studied through the scientific method.

...

Science at that time had a broader definition. Even Christian apologetics would be considered a science. :^)

Can anyone link me to a reputable paper or article that goes over why people seem to think this is? I remain skeptical:

1. Science should uncover/reveal a truth about the physical world; uncover, not simply write down and claim it's true
2. Science should be based upon the scientific method and all that entails, including forming a hypothesis and conducting experiments to prove it

Does Marxism fulfill both of these?

The "science" of marxism in the way it was originally implied just meant "a systematic way of looking at things", it didnt literally mean science in the english definition as we understand it. Also as the dude above said, dogmatically thinking science will be able to explain everything everytime is naive. Science changes and evolves, so does marxism

Lol anyone against Freud or psychoanalysis has something they can't confront in themselves. That being said, a few of his conclusions are conjecture that we don't take seriously nowadays but you can't deny his innovation and genius. He's talking about people's minds, any attempt to catalog such things is gonna result in speculation of some kind.

so you've never used math or logic?

Science literally just meant a systematic collection of knowledge as opposed to just an unorganized collection of facts.

wew

Its Wissenschaften you anglophone cunt. Its both a translation issue and because Wissenschaften was a much broader term back in the day of Marx.

Oh, okay. That makes sense, ty comrades.

kek

kek#2

ALL his conclusions are arbitrary conjecture and can thus be summarily dismissed, as they have been within the modern field of psychology (except the one about cocaine solving everyone's problems, that was pretty much on point)

His real contribution was the pioneering of the study of individual internal lives as a serious subject of discourse, not the actual substantive insights made.

What can't you confront in yourself? Tell us about your childhood.

Can you prove this without creating a circular argument?

Modern psychology is also quite bad with its replicability crises.

Who are you quoting?

ya, but at least they're trying.

read popper

Porky economics is voodoo. Contemporary psychology attempts to be scientific, which Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis do not.

And since I'm already saying unpopular shit, dialectical materialism is basically religion.

...

You can immediately spot an agent of the bourgeoisie by his disdain for the revolutionary research of Lacan.

Freudposter never actually gives any insight when people dismiss psychoanalysis. He just shows up to sage.

Kek

Read Apo

...