>>13362155what even is science? It's the impartial experimental process. Marx had no experimental data, so that's a NO on science. For a modern marxist, let's analyze the fundamental predictions of marxism.
1: capitalism will transition to socialism, just like feudalism transitioned to capitalism
this one is a big fat NO. The countries that turned red were all underdeveloped, agrarian, poor, pseudo-feudal countries - russia, china, vietnam, etc. Cuba wasn't quite feudal but it def wasn't a fully developed capitalist system either, with banks or a stock market.
2: Socialism will be better for the proletariat than capitalism: Another failure. While industrial work was fairly hellish under capitalism in the 19th century, by the time of the russian revolution, it had significantly improved. Ford invented saturdays off, and stalin took away sundays off in 1929 for a continuous work week until 1940. Even putting the countless atrocities of socialist states aside, a soviet citizen's life was considerably bleaker than an american's, and forget about anything as decadent as two consecutive days off in any east asian socialist state.
verdict: no, socialism is not scientific in any way, particularly marxism.
As far as communism, you can actually honestly say that some small communes have had considerable success. I personally don't know enough to confidently talk about the success rate or longevity, so I'll leave it at that.
