“Review Summary: Indic Kingship in Theory and Practice: Reconsidering Marxist Historiography (500 BCE- 1800 CE) by Saumya Dey”, Indica Today, July 12, 2026
“Karl Popper was a philosopher of science who tried to differentiate between true science and pseudoscience. Though other theories have replaced his ideas regarding scientific method, his “falsifiability” as an important criterion remains powerful. A scientific theory should be falsifiable, and this argument was his major criticism of Marxist ideas, including history. An all-encompassing theory that can be fitted to explain any fact is likely to be pseudoscience. This was his strong criticism of both Marxist theories and Freudian theories of psychology. This non-falsifiability presently applies to string theory, which is considered the current leading theory in physics.
Marxist history, which categorises every event in the world into the binaries of “exploiter” and “exploited” or “oppressor” and “oppressed,” is flawed and lacks a scientific understanding of history. The classical Marxist position holds that only economic production and means of labor divide people into a “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat”, with revolution that obliterates the former being the only way to achieve equality.
History is a subjective process in its entirety where the process of collecting facts from the past depends on the choice of the historian. Government records, as a source, may provide biased information regarding the events and individuals of that era. The historian’s worldview, ideology, or religion could influence the interpretation of the collected facts. Thus, history is never fully objective, and multiple interpretations of the same event or person can exist, depending on who is describing them and when. A distant future may be unkind to a contemporary historian who describes current events……”
Read full article at indica.today
