I've heard this before however I disagree. In fact I would argue that most of the people I really admire don't put mathematics on a pedestal but instead treat is as just another human endeavor and as such can be compared with other human endeavors.
Even a soft, humanities subject like political philosophy, can, unexpectedly, be a topic for mathematical study, e.g. Arrow's theorem.
You're right not to believe in policing disciplinary boundaries.
I think the problem here is more that you haven't demonstrated just how Marx's thought resembles linear logic, so the idea might seem a little crazy, maybe a product of an idée fixe. If it's not something mathematicians would be impressed by (in terms of rigour or depth), and not something Marxists care about (in terms of philosophical implications) it's not going to lead anywhere.
> It's bona fide political philosophy and/or political economy.
It’s above all a description of development of science.
Why not?
Axiom of choice, choosing the right thoughts to have versus to speak.
If you don't understand, you don't want to. It's a perpetual type of terror that often has nothing to do with reality, but you can never be sure.
I'm aware but idk how this is relevant.
> If it's not something mathematicians would be impressed by (in terms of rigour or depth), and not something Marxists care about (in terms of philosophical implications) it's not going to lead anywhere.
I don't care? I'm not trying to impress anyone and I don't care what Marxists care about.