/lit/ - Literature

>>20584183
first of all, if you were serious about your position you should be a postmodernist, not a commie. you should be aware that you have no reason to believe that your perspective is any more likely to be accurate than any other, that your ideological outlook is the product of circumstances outside your control, and that your only move toward liberation from dogma would be radical deconstructivism or negative dialectics or whatever.
And then, there clearly are different kinds of discourses that don't function the same in terms of when they consider something 'true' and what they take 'being true' to mean. The scientific method is not propaganda in the same way agitprop is. There is such a thing as an honest practice of truth-seeking, trying in an infinite motion to figure out which map correspond to the territory of the real, and there are traditions that practice this and traditions that try to build dogmas that can't be called into question by new evidence.
Scientific socialism has, from its point of genesis, been of the second kind, as you can plainly see from the circular reasoning that allows for only a single valid level of analysis, namely class struggle. For an ideal communist, there would nothing you can do to convince them that the reason you disagree with them isn't due to the material conditions that have shaped your consciousness, so in other words it's an unfalsifiable axiom.