Really?
"If political and economic theory could be reduced to axioms and theorems demonstrable through formal analysis, then we would all be in agreement."
Look around. This thread was about how surprisingly many people reject evolution, something that has an enormous objective scientific foundation in multiple fields.
Why should obvious evidence in any other field be any more universally accepted, particularly when so many have something to gain by rejecting that evidence?
The validity of a concept is not defined by how many people are willing to accept it. It never has been.
As far as the demented philosophies of history are concerned, get back to me when as many American university professors are teaching John Locke as they are Karl Marx.