Is political economy, and its critique by historical materialism and dialectical materialism, a bourgeois science?
One approach to the history of social science in Bukharin (N.I. Bukharin. "Introduction," Historical Materialism - a System of Sociology at "d." In the introduction) or Cleaver (H Cleaver. "Introduction," Reading Capital Politically) assert strongly that science in bourgeois culture is a cultural artefact, and that outside of proletarian political endeavour that bourgeois science predominates due to dominant ideology type theses. This effectively means that all scholarly activity, bar that of workers engaged in collective political action such as co-learning in the Stalinist/Maoist or Autonomist traditions, that all scholarly activity is bourgeois science. Including that of Marxists.
Given the categories outlined above: is political economy bourgeois science? Does this adequately reflect social reality or is this claim itself bourgeois science as political mystification? If it is a mystification at what point do the analytical categories break down and fail to reflect social reality adequately?