Marxism and scientism

One of the key foundation points of The Last Revolution is the context/history of ‘scientism’ in the nineteenth-century gestation of Marx/Marxism: Google: scientism and a good study, Science and scientism in nineteenth-century Europe By Richard Olson. The complexity of this subject is considerable and our text merely points to the influence of scientism on Marxism/communism. Marxism thrived under this regime (as ideology or propaganda as theory?) and then by the twentieth century founded in its multiple exposes and/or historical realizations (Bolshevism). The latter study sees the connection to Darwinism/Social Darwinism but is slightly reticent on the issue of natural selection: it our view that is the core ‘scientistic’ myth of the Darwinian ideology.
A further aspects the idea of a science of history which has many nooks and crannies and an almost complete universe of fallacies and bad theories. The Lst/Rev adopts a new approach, one designed to focus on simple chronologies to keep the student well away from useless efforts to apply causal physics to history. This approach steps backward into what probably would be required for such a science: an evolutionary model, in a new sense, and not a theory but an empirical history as evolution taken as a discrete/continuous sequence effect, with (probably, our guess) a form of directionality, perhaps teleology. We make no hard claims there, but use this hypercomplext structure as a warning to stick to empirical histories. A system operating in a timed frequency is preposterous, but the evidence is there: judge as ye will.
The point here is that to found a socialist project on a science of history is always going to fail, best to stay low. Instead of the historical inevitability of Marx’s progression of epochs of production, a clearly brittle ‘theory’, we have the ‘core free agency of historical agents in the modern transition’, as they mediate the emergent political field of source ideas, e.g. democracy, socialism,… :the eonic macro effect seems to field these core starting points and leaves them to human realization. Thus socialism and democracy come into conflict/harmonization as the field attempts to reconcile the two into a unity: this idea appears directly in the early socialists, picked up by Marx. This was the ‘real democracy’ suggested by those first socialists. Behind Marx’s failed historical theories stands a cogent analysis of the capture of democracyy by the bourgeois state. Marx is original in his key insight into the problematic of unchecked capitalism, which is as much a modern innovation as the rest, but in the same way in need of resolution or harmonization into a new form of social economy: this project surely failed because no one could handle the mystery of markets until the twentieth-century debates on that. As a matter of fact, Marx, the critic of capitalism, admired it even as he foresaw correctly the dangers to come. Let us note (a la the eonic effect) the strange appearance of Adam Smith in such a timely moment, and that if anyone had actually followed his account the whole history of capitalism might have been far different.
We must wonder if modernity is not a fault unaccomplit: A series of potentials realized in fragmentary form.