> I wrote: >>The Popperian biz about predictions is silly anyway. No
> social science can survive the Popper test. Maybe that's one reason
> why the philosophy of science people rejected it years ago. <<
>
> JKS: > Well on the strict version of falsificationism, that there must
> be a crucual test in which the theory stands or falls, no scientific
> theory can survive if you are willing to make enough changes
> elsewhere. Thsi was Quine's point and Duhen's, but Popper actually
> picked it up pretty quick. <
>
> WS doesn't seem to have picked it up. That was my point. Thanks for
> allowing me to clarify it. I was criticizing WS's application of
> the "Popper [falsification] test," not Popper himself.
Marxism is a social theory, for lack of a better term, but it isn't a kind of theory whose main interest lies in simply observing, describing, and making predictions about the world, from which observers are apart (which is the most common image of natural science many people have, though natural science doesn't always work like that). Marxism is like feminism and other social theories born out of social struggles, with a view to changing the lot of the oppressed for better and, if possible, abolishing the causes of oppression. So, it's more like a politically interested perspective that opens a field of inquiry that is otherwise closed -- closed by oppression.
Feminists come in various varieties, there isn't much theoretical agreement among them except a shared interest in improving the lot of women and abolishing gender inequality and oppression if possible (though even political agreement on particular policies, movements, etc. among feminists cannot be assumed). Some feminists made some predictions, some of which may be true, others may be false, and yet others may have been once true but no longer so. The fact that some of the things -- even many things -- that some -- even many -- feminists have said are false doesn't make feminism false; the fact that other things said by feminists are true doesn't make feminism true. Either you think gender inequality and oppression exists and is a problem, or you don't, and as long as you do, the feminist perspective and its field of inquiry is relevant. The same goes for Marxism.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>