I think the issue with "science" is less 19th vs 21st-century meanings than the German (& French) vs. English senses of the words. What is intended by "Wissenschaft" cannot be reduced to the English word "science."
Second, I would be wary of treating "Marx" as a unified bearer of meaning. The actual Marx was quite clearly capable of changing his mind, seeing the errors in his own logic, etc. He was also quite capable of being inconstant in his opinions and his reasoning. He offered up around 6-7 different notions of "ideology," for instance. So to say he thought x or y or z about science and the critique of political is a dicey proposition.
You too John, fascinating stuff as usual. My dumb, probably slightly insulting, opinion: Marx is with few others (Stirner?, the unhinged anti-prophet and assorted objectivist derivatives) the nearest thing to a prophet we have in modern times. And it's first hand, so incredibly engrossing I concur. But that means there is an almost theological dept in reading him. So everything goes, or almost.
I enjoyed Losurdo for example, where Marx is this universal theorist of social change and emancipation, in all directions, even sexual if I remember well, anti-colonial and so on. If you read Marx himself he actually is pretty specific and with scientific aspirations, like you say, and I mean in the modern sense.
I think the issue with "science" is less 19th vs 21st-century meanings than the German (& French) vs. English senses of the words. What is intended by "Wissenschaft" cannot be reduced to the English word "science."
Second, I would be wary of treating "Marx" as a unified bearer of meaning. The actual Marx was quite clearly capable of changing his mind, seeing the errors in his own logic, etc. He was also quite capable of being inconstant in his opinions and his reasoning. He offered up around 6-7 different notions of "ideology," for instance. So to say he thought x or y or z about science and the critique of political is a dicey proposition.
You too John, fascinating stuff as usual. My dumb, probably slightly insulting, opinion: Marx is with few others (Stirner?, the unhinged anti-prophet and assorted objectivist derivatives) the nearest thing to a prophet we have in modern times. And it's first hand, so incredibly engrossing I concur. But that means there is an almost theological dept in reading him. So everything goes, or almost.
I enjoyed Losurdo for example, where Marx is this universal theorist of social change and emancipation, in all directions, even sexual if I remember well, anti-colonial and so on. If you read Marx himself he actually is pretty specific and with scientific aspirations, like you say, and I mean in the modern sense.
yeah!
"I'm Right, They're Wrong." Me vs. pretty much my entire generation.