It has all the things science fiction does (attempts to predict the future, large scale social dynamics scenarios, etc), plus a hint of what science used to look like in the public perception at that time.
It's kind of provocative. That line of thinking implies science fiction authors need to be more science and less fantasy (exactly what Asimov himself did by starting to more textbooks and less characters).
Of course it will never exist.
Marx however never tried to make exact scientific predictions in the lines of psychohistory. He made behavioral philosophical predictions (so did Adam Smith and many others, and all sorts of people of various political alignments still do).
It's a nitpick. I definitely don't want to discuss semantics related to "isms".
Did Asimov flirted with communist ideas? I definitely think he portrayed similar ideas in Foundation, but I cannot say he endorsed them. Take the idea of individuals being able to shape the history (as opposed to the state being the vehicle for change). That is definitely not communist thinking.
Governments and global businesses certainly do try and use futurologists and influence the direction of future society through techniques such as "psychological nudging" and control of information etc. The most obvious is climate modelling, where they try and project what climate change will do and how to deal with it. The roll out of AI in the early 2020s reeks of a planned PR operation, although the results have not always been what was expected. The design of the Covid lockdowns was the result of strategic planning from tabletop wargaming exercises for various pandemic scenarios, also producing mixed results.
Now instead of the Foundation series' Hari Seldon, we have the WEF's Yuval Noah Harari, who is set up as some kind of scientific oracle for our past and future.
