One of the other criticisms commonly leveled against DHM by those ensconced in the bourgeois knowledge regime is that it is dogmatic and objectivist, or even that it purports to be totalizing in its knowledge claims. However, DHM understands itself to be a science in the broad sense of Wissenschaft—meaning a reliable method and form of knowledge in general—and makes a more minimal claim: it is possible to distinguish between more or less accurate accounts of reality.24 This does not require omniscience or some form of total and absolute understanding of the real, including perhaps predicting the future. Wissenschaft is, instead, a histori- cal process of collectively developing tools of analysis, testing them in real- ity, and modifying them based on experience. As a Wissenschaft, DHM is founded on the primacy of practice, not the dogmatic preeminence of theory or the rigid objectivism found in positivistic bourgeois sciences (let alone the God-like omniscience that anti-Marxists sometimes project on it).

felt relevant. i agree Hegel is not that useful for would-be-revolutionaries. Cockshott i disregard due to hitlerite tendencies. not a serious guy.