• OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    “Science describes some material reality” “science describes some reality”

    You put dialectical materialism in the latter category?

    Also scientific testing+Marxism and bullshit idealist debates are not in any way similar in methodology

    • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Both Marxism and Community Activism would be some form of Sociology, no? Plus activism is a movement to install some idea, while the idea would be the result of the science.

      Unless the chart is saying that being more effective at activism is a science?

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        No, that is specifically idealist activism, not materialist activism. Also sociology is a science that follows similar methodology as “hard” sciences

        • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          But sociology describes ideas, not material properties, thus would fit in the middle column.

          Anyway, my point was that neither a system of government/economy nor pushing ideas are ways of describing the world. It’s the description aspect that defines the chart here, so I don’t think actions fit.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            But sociology describes ideas, not material properties

            This is a fundamentally idealist way of viewing sociology, although most sociology you’re exposed to is idealist in nature.

            Anyway, my point was that neither a system of government/economy nor pushing ideas are ways of describing the world.

            ??? What does that have to do with Marxism? I think the disconnect here is that you do not understand what Marxism is, you have only had second and third hand exposure to it.

            • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Perhaps I don’t know what Markism is. Is it a school of thought, or a subcategory of sociology? An Ought or an Is?

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Marxism and MLism as an ideology is fundamentally about studying the relationships between things through: looking at past history and current conditions, hypothesizing, and testing that hypothesis.

                • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Interesting. It seems like Marxism isn’t a science so much as a philosophy about sciences. You’re correct that it extends far fuether than I had assumed.

                  I do maintain that the chart is using incorrect language in describing it’s categories though. Many of them are describing something that could be part of study or the result of study, but not a science themselves. Toy destruction isn’t a science, but the destruction of toys could be part of one.

                  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    It seems like Marxism isn’t a science so much as a philosophy about sciences.

                    Conversely Marxism applied to politics is an attempt to apply that model as rigorously as possible given the constraints the people doing the method are under.

    • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Excuse me, are you whining about Marxism not making the first square together with physics? That would be a rather peculiar statement, but you present it as if it were self evident. Just in case you are shallowly serious I may respond that physics does not acknowledge social reality and admittedly it can hardly account for organic life. Marxism, in the common understanding is a scientific theory of social reality. The fact that it is an economic reductionist theory of social reality does not mean it is physics.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Marxism, in the common understanding is a scientific theory of social reality

        You’re talking about “the common understanding” which is ironic in the context of this discussion.

        The fact that it is an economic reductionist theory of social reality does not mean it is physics.

        I would agree with you if I shared your shallow understanding of the subject. Have you read anything rigorous about dialectic materialism or historical materialism?

        Also do you think social reality isn’t a material reality? That is a rather odd position to have?

        • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Material in the sense of the basic physical quantities like length and charge? No. You need to add a splash of ethnography in your materialism.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            basic physical quantities like length and charge

            You know that those are also social abstractions of complicated phenomenon too right? Or did you not read about what a social construct was because sociology is a soft science for girls? /s

            Also have you ever opened up Capital or Imperialism and looked at how many basic quantities they use when constructing their analysis?