From: Dwayne Monroe
-clip-
As many others have said, among the *hard* sciences* physics has been one of the most successful.
Nuclear weapons began as theoretical models describing the relationship between matter and energy. The Manhattan Project verified and refined these ideas to our dismay. The cause and effect chain between idea and act is clear.
*Capital* is a very important work (to say the least), which describes the workings of the dominant system and presents an elegant theoretical model.
Can we say that theories produced by Marx and others in the humanities or social sciences possess the same precision and predictive power as those employed by the physicists?
Is there, in other words, an equivalent Manhattan Project-esque success (so to speak) demonstrating the usefulness of *soft* science theories?
^^^^^^^
CB: I agree on the high precision and predictive power attribution to the physics of nuclear weapons, but very importantly nuclear weapons have ANTI-usefulness for humanity. They are extraordinarily anti-use values.
So, physics has developed an understanding of things-in-themselves with respect to this area, but it has drastically failed the standard of making things-in-themselves into things-for-us. This is an monstrous misuse of science.
Having said that, the main practice of the theory of Marxism is the Russian Revolution and progeny. No other social science has so changed the world based on its interpretation of the world.
Marxism is hard social science based on this. The issue of less precision , I'll discuss later , if you wish, because I gotta go.
^^^^^^
If the answer is no, this may be the difference Chomsky's talking about and the reason he uses, in the interview posted, *smart ideas* in place of *theory*.
...
This is a question posted for debate not a statement of belief one way or the other. I'm curious to learn what examples can be offered and in what ways my premise is flawed.
DRM