Marxism and Falsifiability

[Perikles]

The Marxist interpretation of human society focuses on an analysis of class dictating the evolution of society. Under the doctrine of ‘historical materialism’ Marx argued that changes in class structure and control over the modes of production caused society to change from feudalism to capitalism and that eventually will lead to socialism and then communism. However, is this standard Marxist interpretation of human society unfalsifiable? From my viewpoint it seems that any events that happen could be interpreted in a Marxist doctrine, and no event could occur that would change people on this forums mind on the righteousness of the doctrine.

So I am interested to hear: do you think that the Marxist interpretation of history is falsifiable, and if so, what ‘evidence’ would be needed or what event would need to happen in order to prove historical materialism false? Or, if on the flip side, you accept it is unfalsifiable then why does not change your views on society (or if it does how does it change it)? Thoughts?

[Rooster]

I don't think you can falsify an interpretation without falsifying evidence. Are you asking if class struggle as the motivator of social change is wrong?

[Perikles]

I am wondering what evidence it would take, to falsify the idea that class struggle determines the course of history, including the assertion that overthrow of the Capitalist class and progress to socialism then to communist is inevitable. I hope that clarifies my admittedly confusing opening post.

[RGacky3]

No Marxism is an analysis of Class annalysis, Marx never said that class was the end all and be all of history, he said it was one part of it, and that it influenced and was influenced by other parts of society, he said class analysis was a very important part of economics that others before him missed, and that class analysis effects economics, and economics effects society and vice versa.

[RGacky3]

The fact that class struggle has a huge impact on history and societies is basically an accepted aspect of anthropology and history.

Who controls what, who has power over the surplus, and so on is generally one of the starting points determining the logic of a society.

Its very interesting if you study ancient societies how that turns out, I'm very insterested in ancient babylonian/assyrian/sumerian societies, and how they shifted from relatively democratic societies to autocratic societies to monarchial societies and back, much of it had to do with control of resources/land/capital and the control of the surplus.

early on sumarian society was relatively democratic, mainly due to the fact that land was not short, you had a society that was relatively democratic, the priests mainly functioned for religious and medical purposes, and societies were run by councils of elders and community councils, (Btw this was not some short period peple estimate it being over 1000 years).

What made Babylonian society what it was, was ultimately people managing to take control of fertile land and create a class system and the increasing power ot the temple, since the temple became a way to settle land disputes, it went from being simply a religious institution to being a kind of central bank and distributer of surplus, with war came slavery as well, as slavery became a better method of production Kings became very important, origionally kings were mainly military leaders.

Then you have the begining of small scale industrial production, in which farmers who were not tennants on peoples land or had not enough land for themselves could produce something else. This surplus if industry and commodities give rise to international trade, merchants, and so on and so forth.

Of coarse there isn't consensus on the details of societal development, but all the theories focus a lot on class analysis.

[RGacky3]

Actually interestingly all forms of primitive democracy, almost to a tee, was combined with a form of primitive communism.

[Red Economist]

Karl Popper's principle of 'falsifiability' is not compatable with 'historical materialism' because of Marxism's heavy determinism leads to a verification bias. if there is evidence that capitalism causes socialism/communism, socialism and communism 'must' happen within a strict adherence to marxist theory.

it is potentially quite easy to 'falsify' communism in this respect; A good place to start is Fukuyama's End of History i.e. the collapse of Communism means that Capitalism must therefore by the Final/Highest Stage of human history. a more general criticism of the practice of communism was not actually the 'realisation' of Marxism original intentions would be enough to falsify communism, providing you supply another explanation of why communists took power in the first place.

e.g. "Communism happened in un-developed countries that were feudal or had just come out of feudalism. therefore communism is a transition between feudalism and capitalism". this has evidence in so far that Communism was a phenomena that specifically orignated in asia (Russia and China) and spread outwards, but never got into developed capitalist countries. There is an Anomaly by which it is possible to falsify this argument: San Marino, a small and independent state in the Italian peninsula had a communist government from 1978-1990 (I think).

Beyond this your walking into a Major minefield because 'falifiability' challanges the scientific method and therefore conventional notions of 'truth'.:scared:

the principle of 'falisifiability' isen't used very much by scientists because they are also just as deterministic and hence have the same verification bias. effectively ANY anomally in a theory is enough to falisfy it. since most scientific theories have anomolies, it is very destructive to scientific knowledge.

See 'Science Wars' in Wikipedia
(note Poppers attack at the begining, taking out "Truth, probability or even belief in scientific theories").

also have a look at criticisms of 'Falsifiability'.

(don't quote me on this as I'm not a scientist, but as an example) mercury's orbit isen't circular. this would 'falsify' Newton's theory of gravity DESPITE the fact it holds for most situations.

In practice Newtons theory works for much simpler phenomena (observable on Earth) with Einstien's theory of relativity covering more complex phenomena (observable where gravity bends 'space-time', which is what scientists say affects Mercuries orbit round the sun).

if you have a marxist who argues that 'anomolies' are perfectly normal part of science, or simply that communism is desirable regardless as to whether it is possible, Falsifiability falls down as a line of reasoning.

hope this anwzers your question.:)

[Blake's Baby]

... I am interested to hear: do you think that the Marxist interpretation of history is falsifiable, and if so, what ‘evidence’ would be needed or what event would need to happen in order to prove historical materialism false? Or, if on the flip side, you accept it is unfalsifiable then why does not change your views on society (or if it does how does it change it)? Thoughts?

Problems with Popper have been outlined above, and I do suggest you look at them.

Evidence that could exist that the Marxist schema is flawed, and thus Marxism could be 'falsified': the only one I can think of is if capitalism gave way to another form of class society that was also an exploiting formation, this would demonstrate that the transition from capitalism to socialism wasn't the only historical transition possible at this stage of human development.

Otherwise, I can't see anything that would falsify Marxism. As socialist revolution is not 'inevitable' (I don't know who told you it was) the lack of the overthrow of capitalism at present in no way falsifies Marxism, any more than the existence of tables falsifies the Law of Gravity. Even if the proletariat never overthrows capitalism, that doesn't invalidate Marxism. But a transformation to another form of class society would.

[RedGrunt]

No Marxism is an analysis of Class annalysis, Marx never said that class was the end all and be all of history, he said it was one part of it, and that it influenced and was influenced by other parts of society, he said class analysis was a very important part of economics that others before him missed, and that class analysis effects economics, and economics effects society and vice versa.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." The Communist Manifesto


He said economics and the mode of production effects everything else in society and when you see great shifts(ideological- base and superstructure) in society it had its root in the economics.

[RGacky3]

Its a dialectic, he says the effect each other, he calls economics the main base of society and hte rest the super structure, but its not like economics alone is the decider.

[Dean]

From my viewpoint it seems that any events that happen could be interpreted in a Marxist doctrine, and no event could occur that would change people on this forums mind on the righteousness of the doctrine.

Evolution suffers from the same dilemma. While they are both theories, the body of evidence to prop up Marxist theory - which is far more lucid if you actually read Marx himself - is so uncontroversial to be just as reliable as evolution in terms of the value of the theory.

For instance, it is argued in Marxist theory that wealth and prosperity allow humans to transcend basic subsistence problems and instead turn to more nuanced problems, i.e., the acquisition of liberty and real individualism that is defined by spontaneous social relations, rather than social relations of power.

Basically, the notion is that humans are chained to specific problems - the need for food, shelter, and health, and then the drive for favorable living conditions including congregation and entertainment. Humans who lack these important needs, or have a deficit of these wants compared to other humans, will be constantly striving to achieve subsistence, or decent conditions. This will control them and disallow them from being (socially) free.

I don't see how this is controversial. Perhaps it is hard to falsify these theories, but it's not clear to me how that is very important when the basic dynamic is so self-evident.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marxism can't be falsified insofar as it is confirmed implicitly in human practice. Human, sensuous practice is a prerequisite of language as well as Marxism, and only on this basis do we even get to questions of knowledge of the world, where both societies and claimed knowledge can be overthrown practically and hence not simply falsified but superseded in practice.