----- Original Message -----
From: "Cian O'Connor" <cian_oconnor at yahoo.co.uk>
A scientific
> theory is to the world, as a map is to the landscape.
> A simplification, but a useful one because it has a
> predictive power. I'm not convinced that you can say
> any of those things about marxism. Nor do I think it's
> necessary to attempt to do so. Why does Marxism have
> to be a science?
>
==========
Marx created a pretty darn good map of societies; it's a mistake, imo, to want it to be a science. On this score Marx-ism is no better or worse off than Lockean-ism or Libertarian-ism and it's precisely because people argue interminably about the issues connected with those different social maps that makes us zoon politikon rather than homo sapiens sapiens. That Marx wanted us to traverse the path from the former to the latter and offered some enticing suggestions on how to do it is what can and should motivate all of us, whether we care or not about the intricacies of his hypotheses on the falling rate of profit or the labor theory of value etc.
"It is the moral radicalism of Marx which explains his influence; and that is a hopeful fact in itself. This moral radicalism is still alive. It is our task to keep it alive, to prevent it from going the way which his political radicalism will have to go. 'Scientific' Marxism is dead. Its feeling of social responsibility and its love for freedom must survive." [Karl Popper--The Open Society and its Enemies]
Moral radicalism is political radicalism.
Ian