Chomsky on "theory" from Barsamian interview,was "no social science theories"

[Dennis Breslin]

> >
> >This _was_ Marx's core theory of socialism -- that it was undiscussable
> >(under capitalism) except in the most cursory way. That's perhaps the
> >main thing that distinguishes Marxism from liberalism -- Marx's disdain
> >of prophecy & promises.
> >
> >Carrol
>
> That's not a theory in the sense that Chomsky means, which is an
explanatory
> and predictive theory that tells you about the nature and behavior of some
> phenomena. Btw, although Marx repeatedly _said_ that one couldn't talk
about
> communism, he didn't mean it. For example, he "knew" that it would be a
> nonmarket, and indeed ultimately a nonstate form of economic coordination,
> and he heaped vitriol and scorn on fools who, like myself, doubted these
> propositions. As indeed do you, Carrol.
>
> jks
>

What Carrol claims is just that, a claim.  What Marx wrote wasn't a theory
but an argument and a contested one at that.  But I wonder how Chomsky
positions his own work in linguistics - is it impossibly untheoretical
because
its a branch of social science or avoids the problem because its not social
science at all?

Dennis Breslin