Is Marxism a pseudo-science?

are you retarded?

I hope this thread doesn't get anchored because I want to give some thoughts on this. Maybe in a few hours.

He has a point. The counterpoint is cockshott.

I am going to need some sauce for this

iirc Esteban Malto cited in this is the original source (but it's in Spanish)
thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/the-marxist-theory-of-economic-crises-in-capitalism-part-one/

No shit, but reactionary the way we use it is just a slander term for right wingers. It's like centrists using SJW when describing right wingers, both terms are specific only to one political group.
Marx is literally just economics being used to justify communism. He can't be a pseudo scientist without economics themselves being false.

Marxism isn't a science in the sense we use the word today. Anyone who claims it is is an idiot.

As far as I'm concerned, Marxism is a "science" in two senses:
- In the sense used by the German idealist tradition. Marxism strives to be a totalizing system in some sense. Through its own proper methodology, it offers an explanation of social existence of mankind.
- In distinction with "Utopian" views of socialism, which propose grand schemes for socialist societies without inspecting the material forces that will bring us forward.

One, neoclassical economics is definitely a pseudoscience, and that's what liberal world views are based on. So if nothing else, they are definitly wrong.
Two, Marxism has proven to be a useful analytic tool to look at society. It's based on empirically confirmed notions of the law of value. It is certainly not pseudo-anything, and it can contain in it a science, even if the entire philosophy is not about making empirical claims.

This is correct.

Gover Furr address this issue of 'history as a pseudoscience' in the first 10 minutes of this discord lecture.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=9-k8X_3e0mM