Scientific nature of political economy depends on intensity of class struggle?

[know2b]

Marx says:


Since 1848 capitalist production has developed rapidly in Germany, and at the present time it is in the full bloom of speculation and swindling. But fate is still unpropitious to our professional economists. At the time when they were able to deal with Political Economy in a straightforward fashion, modern economic conditions did not actually exist in Germany. And as soon as these conditions did come into existence, they did so under circumstances that no longer allowed of their being really and impartially investigated within the bounds of the bourgeois horizon. In so far as Political Economy remains within that horizon, in so far, i.e., as the capitalist regime is looked upon as the absolutely final form of social production, instead of as a passing historical phase of its evolution, Political Economy can remain a science only so long as the class struggle is latent or manifests itself only in isolated and sporadic phenomena.

See here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

The underlined part confuses me. It seems to imply that this very book would have suddenly become unscientific if a revolution had started while Marx worked on it.

Does the scientific nature of political economy depend on the intensity of class struggle?

[Zanthorus]

Marx identifies political economy with bourgeois political economy, hence why he calls his 1859 work a contribution to the critique of political economy, and why the subtitle of Das Kapital is, again, critique of political economy. Since political economy is identified specifically as the ideology par excellence of the bourgeoisie, it makes sense that they would want, as far as possible, to make it justify the existence of capitalism, rather than investigating the actual conditions of social reproduction, as the latter might have the disturbing effect of showing that capitalism is untenable. So as the modern class struggle comes into existence, the bourgeoisie is, according to Marx, forced to turn political economy away from the scientific method in order to justify itself. But since Marx is not doing political economy, or at least not political economy as he defines it, then the scientificity of Das Kapital would supposedly remain uneffected by the existence of modern class struggle, since it was not produced out of any ideological need to defend capitalism.

[know2b]

He calls it a critique but he also undertakes to study capitalism in his work. So he does do political economy but he does it properly and scientifically, unlike those he critiques.

[ZeroNowhere]

He calls it a critique but he also undertakes to study capitalism in his work. So he does do political economy but he does it properly and scientifically, unlike those he critiques.Essentially, yes:

Political economy can only be turned into a positive science by replacing the conflicting dogmas by the conflicting facts, and by the real antagonisms which form their concealed background.-Letter to Engels, 1868.

However, as regards the quote you're asking about, it's important to look at the context. He doesn't say that political economy qua political economy cannot be a science due to class struggle, but rather only that it must cease to be a science in those cases where, "the capitalist regime is looked upon as the absolutely final form of social production, instead of as a passing historical phase of its evolution." That is, the class struggle and the investigation of the nature of the proletariat and the capital relation illustrate that capitalism is transitory (contradictory and based on social relations, containing within it a class which may overthrow it), and not necessarily eternal, and, if it were to avoid the insight that capitalism is transitory, political economy would have to cease to be a science, as the capitalist conditions could no longer be "really and impartially investigated" without abandoning this conclusion. In other words:

http://digg.com/story/r/The_Scientific_method_Vs_The_Creationist_method_PI C_2

The quote also implies, however, through the "in so far," that it is possible for political economy to move beyond this horizon, and therefore remain a science; as Marx put it originally, it must replace conflicting dogmas with conflicting facts, and a knowledge of real antagonisms and contradictions within capitalism; for example, the class struggle, originating from the capital-relation.

[ckaihatsu]

A little shorthand I use for this kind of thing is to simply distinguish between empirical *objective* reality -- (related to the objective, a-humanity *natural* world) -- and our humanity's less-than-always-exacting *social* reality. Visual aids follow....


Worldview Diagram

http://i45.tinypic.com/111to46.jpg


Worldview diagram

http://i45.tinypic.com/1olg8y.jpg