> No. But unlike you, Marx had some - dare I say - faith in the
> capacity of humans to act collectively to make a better world. And
> capitalism provides the basis for that action. The "historical task"
> may make itself known only retrospectively, after such a
> transformation has been accomplished. But of course if you have a
> passive and fatalistic view of history and politics then that sense
> will be lost on you.
It seems to me, for reasons I've given, that Marx's "science" is grounded in foundational assumptions about "being" in general and "human being" in particular that constitute it as an understanding of history as the development of subjectivity, in particular as "stages in the development of the human mind." As Marx analyzes it, capitalism initially promotes but ultimately fetters this development. The positive contribution includes the development of subjects with the developed capabilities and will required to create the "new forms of production" from which all barriers to full development have been removed. This analysis requires specific ideas about the "end" the development is to realize since these determine the "means," including the kind of subjectivity developed within capitalism, with "the rigidity of a law." Thus it includes the development of the capabilities required to "appropriate" the means of production created within capitalism, means that themselves objectify the development of mind achieved within capitalism (this is why developed minds are required to "appropriate" them).
I think the analysis is badly flawed, but I don't see how Marx's "science" of capitalism can be treated as independent of these ideas.
Ted