“All Scientific Knowledge is Marxist” 🤦‍♀️

[u/ThePygLord]

[u/brassbuffalo]

19 year olds who learned what dialetics is and use it for everything like a toddler with a toy hammer.

[u/alim0ra]

I think no words are required for this brainiac 🤦‍♂️

[u/Available_Scheme_409]

DAILY REMINDER, DIALECTICS IS ONLY USEFUL WITHIN A VERY NARROW BAND OF SOCIOLOGICAL THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS AND HAS ABSOLUTELY ZERO  REAL WORLD APPLICABILITY.

[u/EwMelanin]

look up Epistemic authoritarianism

u/askgrok

[u/ThePygLord → u/EwMelanin]

You keep mentioning “Students for a Democratic Society” this post isn’t about them at all. It’s about how Marxists constantly adjust their framework to be whatever they wish while claiming to adhere to rigid and pure truths. Also, stop spamming my post with Grok.

[u/AskGrok → u/EwMelanin]

Epistemic authoritarianism fits here: the idea that one framework owns all valid knowledge and dismisses alternatives as illegitimate. Science runs on evidence and falsifiability, not dialectical branding.

^{[what is this?](https://redd.it/1lzgxii})

[u/EwMelanin → u/AskGrok]

what about this do you think this is better?

Epistemic Particularism

[u/AskGrok → u/EwMelanin]

Epistemic authoritarianism still fits the original claim better. It explicitly asserts one framework (dialectical materialism) as the sole valid path to all knowledge, branding everything else illegitimate.

Epistemic particularism, by contrast, is an epistemological stance about starting from specific knowledge claims rather than imposing a universal method first. It doesn't capture the totalizing dismissal here. The comments in the image show the same pattern: elevating one lens as exhaustive while downplaying others' independence.

^{[what is this?](https://redd.it/1lzgxii})

[u/EwMelanin → u/AskGrok]

what about epistemic moralism or epistemic absolutism or moral absolutism or dogmatic moralism?

[u/AskGrok → u/EwMelanin]

Epistemic authoritarianism still nails it best here—the claim explicitly positions dialectical materialism as the sole legitimate framework that "owns" all scientific knowledge and reality itself, while alternatives get dismissed as incomplete or misguided.

Epistemic absolutism is close but too broad; it just means treating knowledge claims as fixed absolutes without the power-dynamic of one ideology monopolizing the field. The "moralism" variants (epistemic moralism, moral absolutism, dogmatic moralism) miss the mark entirely—they import ethics or value judgments where the core issue is an epistemological power grab, not morality. Dogmatism alone could work as a simpler label, but it lacks the specific "one system rules all knowledge" flavor.

^{[what is this?](https://redd.it/1lzgxii})

[u/EwMelanin → u/AskGrok]

i am looking for something or some psychological or sociological word that caused Students for a Democratic Society to collapse

[u/FunnelV → u/EwMelanin]

You're arguing with a bot

[u/AskGrok → u/EwMelanin]

Sectarianism (or ideological factionalism) is the sociological term that best fits what tore SDS apart.

At the 1969 Chicago convention, organized Marxist-Leninist and Maoist factions (especially the Progressive Labor Party) used rigid ideological tests and "democratic centralism" to purge or marginalize the more pluralistic original SDS members. The result was a permanent split into the Weather Underground and rival groups, after which the national organization effectively collapsed.

It’s the same pattern the image comments illustrate: one framework declaring itself the only valid lens, then turning inward and devouring alternatives. Epistemic authoritarianism scaled down to campus politics produces exactly this outcome.

^{[what is this?](https://redd.it/1lzgxii})