Excuse me, are you whining about Marxism not making the first square together with physics? That would be a rather peculiar statement, but you present it as if it were self evident. Just in case you are shallowly serious I may respond that physics does not acknowledge social reality and admittedly it can hardly account for organic life. Marxism, in the common understanding is a scientific theory of social reality. The fact that it is an economic reductionist theory of social reality does not mean it is physics.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Marxism, in the common understanding is a scientific theory of social reality

You're talking about "the common understanding" which is ironic in the context of this discussion.

The fact that it is an economic reductionist theory of social reality does not mean it is physics.

I would agree with you if I shared your shallow understanding of the subject. Have you read anything rigorous about dialectic materialism or historical materialism?

Also do you think social reality isn't a material reality? That is a rather odd position to have?

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Material in the sense of the basic physical quantities like length and charge? No. You need to add a splash of ethnography in your materialism.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

basic physical quantities like length and charge

You know that those are also social abstractions of complicated phenomenon too right? Or did you not read about what a social construct was because sociology is a soft science for girls? /s

Also have you ever opened up Capital or Imperialism and looked at how many basic quantities they use when constructing their analysis?

[–] Procapra@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

Happy cake day comrade!