ingirumimus

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think we may agree more than you think: the laws you mention aren't laws in the scientific sense of the word; instead, they're a technique (dialectics) for investigating the world. I agree that it is a very powerful technique, that's what I meant when I said that Marxism is best thought of as a methodology than a science. You said it yourself when you called Marxism "an analytical tool". You can use it to do science, but its not a science per se

lol this is more or less what I was trying to say but much more clear and concise. I think you're absolutely right: Marxism is a methodology, and one that has to be applied differently at different places and times to be effective. Its a tactical mistake to think of it as a science

imo treating it as a science does more to hurt the purpose of Marxism than it helps

marx and engel's project was originally conceived as a science in the true sense of the word, in the way we would consider physics or biology to be a science. But forcing abstract, universal laws (something which is essential to science) onto human civilization and development is extremely difficult, if not impossible to do in a productive way. More to the point, even within a single mode of production, the actual conditions on the ground at any given point will differ enormously, so any general doctrine will either lead you in the wrong direction or be abstracted to the point of being useless. Therefore, its more useful to think of Marxism as a methodology, not a science. Treating it this way keeps you in tune with the needs of the current place and time, and less focused on what should be happening according to abstract laws.

In addition, treating it as a science has the negative side of downplaying the moral force of socialism. No one I've met is socialist because they've been convinced by Marx's syllogism showing the inevitable decline of capitalism and rise of socialism. Rather, when you get down to it, people are socialists because they believe it to be the only way to create an ethical society. It is this moral force that represents the single greatest strength of any left politics, tbh. Treating Marxism as a science necessarily means you have to devalue that aspect.

I think its worth pointing out that, as far as I understand it, the "scientific" part of Marx/Engel's project does refer directly to the scientific method. Their goal was to establish certain universal, empirically-derived (in other words, scientific) laws of historical development which could then be applied to understand the rise and eventual fall of capitalism. In fact, in one of his intros to socialism: utopian and scientific Engels actually mentions Darwin, as well as LaPlace, as precursors to their project. Which gets to the real differentiation they attempted to make between themselves and the "utopians": Its not that these socialists believed in some magical society where everyone always gets along, its essentially that they attempted to resist the development of capitalism, to slow it down and essentially "opt out" of it by establishing non-capitalism communes and projects within a broader capitalist economy. Marx and Engels attempted to surpass these socialists by demonstrating that human civilization followed certain laws of development (increasing productive abilities and organization, intensifying class struggle / simplifying class structures, etc.) which meant capitalism could not be "opted out" of or resisted, only eclipsed by a new mode of production. Which is all well and good, but leads to some difficult problems when you really start looking at the necessary conclusions. There are of course other aspects of Marx's work that are really admirable and useful, but their whole project of making a science of history or revolution seems like a false start

No he's gotta make it to inauguration at least, enough time for his abject failure to really sink in

all due respect, but just take the L man

Also love the take that anyone in power in America who proposes gun control is only concerned about disarming the working class, not maybe stopping children from getting slaughtered in schools. Like yeah mental health services would be great but also there is absolutely a connection between the number of mass shootings and the fact that America has more guns than people

Pretty much, although I don't think its so much that he's impressed by it so much as he's trying to impress on his hangers-on just how much suffering they've caused via the jihad. Paul is very bitter/ironic about the whole exchange, he's clearly not happy about having killed so many people. Which, as others brought up, is essentially the whole point of Dune Messiah

If you like the stuff about Paul and his prescience, you should read the second book! It takes a lot of those themes around foresight and power and spends more time fleshing them out, I thought it worked really well as a counterpoint to Dune.

Can't speak for the other sequels, but it seems like they get a bad rep

I mean, maybe at some level but certainly not enough to make one side worth supporting over the other. Like ElGosso mentioned, the best thing is going to be what minimizes suffering for normal civilians, and I don't think that supporting Russia is the best way to that goal

I hope I'm not intruding here but I used to be very into Debord and situationists (my username is actually a reference to one of his films, in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni). Its been a while since I read through all of society of the spectacle, but if you want another opinion on a passage I'd be happy to try to help

Love that this person demands everyone else have a phd to argue with them about a subject they clearly understand less than a middle schooler