>Marxism's objectivity is another matter, and a more difficult one. But
>since I question the absolute objectivity of the hard sciences, it's hardly
>a slight on Marxism to think it isn't any more objective than physics is.
>
I'm not sure from what you write what the problem is with objectivity.
I think in the case of Marx, objectivity was an important question, in, for example, his criticism of political economy, which was moving towards a subjective interpretation of value, whereas he wanted to argue that value was objective.
So in the subjectivist version, value (not distinguished from price) is what the buyer is willing to pay.
Marx by contrast seeks to abstract from the subjective intentions of buyer and seller to fathom an underlying objective value.
As to physics, I was not aware that it had abandoned its ambition to describe an objective world outside subjective investigation - only that Heisenberg had raised some difficulties in the way.
-- James Heartfield Sustaining Architecture in the Anti-Machine Age is available at GBP19.99, plus GBP3.26 p&p from Publications, audacity.org, 8 College Close, Hackney, London, E9 6ER. Make cheques payable to 'Audacity Ltd'. www.audacity.org