zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. e12e+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-10-12 14:39:55
Where can I read more about this neo-Marxist ideology, that apparently borrows from Marx (certainly pro-science) to somehow become anti-science?
replies(1): >>mgamac+Sb
2. mgamac+Sb[view] [source] 2022-10-12 15:28:27
>>e12e+(OP)
Wait you think Marx was pro science? He denied the supernatural, but like all ideologies reality is secondary to dogmatism. Don't forget he was routed in Hegel.

See Lysenkoism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Marx's ideas were refined by Antonio Gramsci who offered social Hegemony as a means to achieve the utopia. To the extent that science is a sense-making part of society it must be taken over by pro-marxist/communist forces. It's the only way to assure the success of marxism.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.93001...

replies(1): >>skyyle+eI
◧◩
3. skyyle+eI[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-12 17:44:46
>>mgamac+Sb
Using Lysenko as evidence that Marx was anti-science is kinda weird.

Stalin had thousands of Lysenko's critics imprisoned, I dunno how Marx would feel about that, but I have a feeling it wouldn't be particularly positive.

What does Hegel have to do with anything here? Adam Smith was also "routed in Hegel"...

replies(1): >>eurlei+XI
◧◩◪
4. eurlei+XI[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-12 17:48:07
>>skyyle+eI
>Adam Smith was also "routed in Hegel"...

Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations when Hegel was 5 years old, and died when Hegel was 19, and hadn't published anything yet.

replies(1): >>skyyle+xO
◧◩◪◨
5. skyyle+xO[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-12 18:14:46
>>eurlei+XI
I had it the other way around, neat!

Lysenkoism still isn't evidence that Marx was anti-science.

[go to top]