A lot of people highlight Marxism's being a science to present it as objective, non-partisan. This is wrong. Any scientific outlook is also partisan.

Marx understood this. He is explicit that what he was attempting to put forward is a *partisan* *science* of the *proletariat*.

This is actually really important, as the question Marxism is always seeking to answer *in practice* emerges from it straightforwardly - "how can we advance the *objective* political and economic interests of the proletariat?"

If it were enough to present the workers with an objective view of reality - what this reduction essentially asserts as a logical end point - then we would have already won a long, long time ago. The "war of position" is an element of class struggle, but it isn't class struggle.

The other point I would make about scientific frameworks is that they operate within known and intended limits. The majority of criticism of Marxism only functions if you ignore the limits Marx states he's employing and what his methodology is intended to achieve.

So take the Marxist approach to history. As Marx correctly said, all history thus far is that of class struggle. Communism represents the end of class struggle and a necessary change in the manner in which history will develop. Marxism, in this specific sense, is self-abolishing.

This isn't to say that Marxism will have no utility at this point, but that it's utility will change. Unless one observes both the partisan nature and intended limits placed upon the method, then this cannot be understood and Marxism would be established as an idealism.