Marxism a Pseudo-Science?

[miltonwasfried...man]

I have been reading some Popper and his belief on the conditions for a theory or method to be considered "scientific" otherwise known as the demarcation problem. He argues that in order to be truly scientific a theory must have a large degree of falsifiability, meaning that the theory must be able to be tested with the intent to prove it wrong. Thus he goes on to say that "Marxism" as a theory of history cannot be considered science as you cannot test it in any concrete ways. He also believes that the Marxist ability to answer and explain everything is a vice rather than a virtue because it is similar to the "faith" argument for God. So, in your opinion is "Marxism" a science or not?

[The Man]

Marxism, is in fact, a science.

Marxism is an ideology in which we analyze the world. We break it apart, and analyze it from multiple views. For example, to analyze, let's say, a Cup from a Marxist standpoint: we would realize that you can not only drink from it; but you can catch a fly with it, or even through it at someone. We acknowledge that things constantly change, and with that, human society.

Through Dialectical and Historical Materialism, we analyze human relationships with the means of production and how that has brought us to this stage of humanity.

All in all: Nature is constantly changing, and with that the bonds in which different classes have to the mode of production.

[Ocean Seal]

Marxism is a science, however. There are hypotheses that we can make and understand using Marxist theory. It is not just hindsight of saying that this happened because of this, this, and this. It is an analysis that we apply by observation of the world, similarities and differences across nations, time periods, and so on, and we see what that led to. It is pseudo-science to say that objects fall due to a gravitational field? No, it is based on observation and rigorous proof. Yes, Marxism, for many reasons cannot be as rigorous as physics, but it still is a science.

[NewLeft]

Marxism is not based on the scientific method..

[Hit The North]

Marxism is a science of society and no social science can meet the limitations imposed on the scientific method by Popper.


Marxism is not based on the scientific method..

Who's version of the scientific method are you referring to?

[La Comédie Noire]

Well it's a social science which deals with macro economic and society wide trends. It's really hard to make risky predictions for something like that. Though there have been cases where communists have gotten one wrong, including Marx himself.

Marxism is one of those ideas where although it's a very coherent theory, it's very hard to prove that it corresponds with reality.

[black magick hustla]

i dont think marxism is a "science" in the same way chemistry and physics are. i remember reading somewhere that what marx meant by "scientific" is not necessarily what scientists mean. marxism is "scientific" in the sense that it looks for concrete, and structural issues that drive men to do this and that, and has more or less a rigorous methodology.

[Rafiq]

Marxism, is in fact, a science.

Marxism is an ideology in which we analyze the world. We break it apart, and analyze it from multiple views. For example, to analyze, let's say, a Cup from a Marxist standpoint: we would realize that you can not only drink from it; but you can catch a fly with it, or even through it at someone. We acknowledge that things constantly change, and with that, human society.

Through Dialectical and Historical Materialism, we analyze human relationships with the means of production and how that has brought us to this stage of humanity.

All in all: Nature is constantly changing, and with that the bonds in which different classes have to the mode of production.

1. Marxism isn't an Ideology. Most Marxists 'hitch a ride' with ideologies like Communism or Socialism, etc., Because they represent the interests of the proletarian class, that of which we acknowledge is the only class capable of ending capitalism and pushing the human constraint forward.

2. That little 'Cup analysis' wasn't from a Marxist analysis, it was just talking about what you could do with a cup. A real analysis of a cup would be that it was produced, not because the producer made it because he wanted us to have a container to drink with, but because he would gain a profit from it.

3. The Real all in all is that: Human norms, culture, almost behavior, etc., were all strands from the mode of production. Matter Before thought, Facts before Ideas. That is the sociological wing of Marxism. But then you have the analysis of Capitalism, as well.

[Rafiq]

Well it's a social science which deals with macro economic and society wide trends. It's really hard to make risky predictions for something like that. Though there have been cases where communists have gotten one wrong, including Marx himself.

And what is that?


Marxism is one of those ideas where although it's a very coherent theory, it's very hard to prove that it corresponds with reality.

It's very easy to prove it corresponds with reality. The very fact we are typing on this computer through the internet is proof.

[The Man]

2. That little 'Cup analysis' wasn't from a Marxist analysis, it was just talking about what you could do with a cup. A real analysis of a cup would be that it was produced, not because the producer made it because he wanted us to have a container to drink with, but because he would gain a profit from it.

My point is that I looked at the cup from all angles. That's a main point of Material Dialectics.

[Rafiq]

My point is that I looked at the cup from all angles. That's a main point of Material Dialectics.

No, it's not.

[Rocky Rococo]

It's a philosophical methodology and an economic analysis. While it nicely fit the 19th century usage of the term "science", that term has taken on modern connotations that aren't truly applicable to Marxism.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's a philosophical methodology and an economic analysis. While it nicely fit the 19th century usage of the term "science", that term has taken on modern connotations that aren't truly applicable to Marxism.
What are these modern connotations?
In what way does Marxist critique of political economy diverge from the scientific method, and which scientiifc method?

Why are you people so vague?

[Hit The North]

There's an interesting essay by John Holloway on The Tradition of Scientific Marxism (http://marxmyths.org/john-holloway/article.htm)that might help the OP and others to develop their understanding of these issues.

[o well this is ok I guess]

It's really annoying to hear people complain about their sociology classes simply because they can't grasp the idea of antipositivist science.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wouldn't most of the criticisms in from the OP's example be true of Evolution as well. In fact aren't those the claims made by Creationists against Evolution?

Like any social theory, it can not be definitively tested because you can't really seperate variables - you can't create a country where there is only workers and capitalists and not other factors, etc. So a lot of the theory is necessarily vague and in broad strokes. This is why, in Capital, for example, he explains the theory and then follows it with historical examples and shows how all the different variables and subjective factors come into play. It's like knowing the theory of gravity and knowing that if you have a round boulder on top of a steep hill, it will fall to the bottom if pushed - we don't know exactly where it will end up or what path it will take, but we can make educated guesses.

[black magick hustla]

It's really annoying to hear people complain about their sociology classes simply because they can't grasp the idea of antipositivist science.

but nobody else calls that science except themselves. i think it is useful, but i think some people try to grasp to the whole man with a white coat image because it gives you legitimacy in some circles.

[Kenco Smooth]

Wouldn't most of the criticisms in from the OP's example be true of Evolution as well. In fact aren't those the claims made by Creationists against Evolution?
.

I think Popper did also used Darwin's work as an example of non-scientific research. He placed extremely tight limits on what could be science.

[Invader Zim]

What word does Marx use for 'science' in the German language texts? Is it 'Wissenschaft'? If so the word broadly translates as 'science' but actually is a broader term that, as I understand it (perhaps wrongly), doesn't really translate into a single English word.

[Sputnik_1]

If we consider the human history we know to be mostly true than it's hard not to notice the corectness of Marx's theory. It's also kinda not a good moment to try prove him wrong or not scientifical as his predictions on capitalism came true and even most obtuse right wingers have to admit it.
Of course it's not same as chemistry or physics, but it doesn't make it any less scientifical.

[Invader Zim]

If we consider the human history we know to be mostly true than it's hard not to notice the corectness of Marx's theory. It's also kinda not a good moment to try prove him wrong or not scientifical as his predictions on capitalism came true and even most obtuse right wingers have to admit it.
Of course it's not same as chemistry or physics, but it doesn't make it any less scientifical.

Hmm. Historical materialism is certainly a highly useful tool in the arsenal of the historian as a prism through which to view the ebb and flow of past events. However, it doesn't explain everything, and indeed in some cases such examinations have been examined and proven to have produced faulty results. For example Eric William's highly influencial work Capitalism and Slavery (1944), which was book which challenged the existing narrative of the causes of the abolition of the slave trade, which had hitherto been placed at the door of a few kindly alturistic British abolitionists, and took a Marxist perspective and placed abolitionism as having primarily an economic basis.

The thesis, while influencial and the genesis off maor re-appraisal and fresh debate among historians until the present day, has largely been debunked because the thesis does not fit the facts that have emerged from newer studies over the last 60 years. Detailed studies, such as that of Seymour Drescher whose Econocide (1979) conclusively showed that slavery was, in fact, more profitable than ever at the time of abolition as opposed to less. Other historians have since examined the issue of abolitionism as an extension of changing religious and social attitudes, tied to the massively influencial evengelical movement which had been growing since around 1780/90 and really began to pick up steam. The great petitions which had been sent to Parlaiment were dominated Wesleyan methodists whose church had long preached abolitionism and Christian activism.

[Tim Finnegan]

What word does Marx use for 'science' in the German language texts? Is it 'Wissenschaft'? If so the word broadly translates as 'science' but actually is a broader term that, as I understand it (perhaps wrongly), doesn't really translate into a single English word.
Yeah, I've been told that "science" in Marx seems to refer to something more like "rational inquiry" than to science as such. Is that accurate? If so, Popper is pretty much pissing in the wind here, which I suppose is basically par for the course when it comes to him and Marxism...

[Thirsty Crow]

Yeah, I've been told that "science" in Marx seems to refer to something more like "rational inquiry" than to science as such. Is that accurate? If so, Popper is pretty much pissing in the wind here, which I suppose is basically par for the course when it comes to him and Marxism...
The German term might be regarded as an umbrella term, which also encompasses some more strict, closer to the model of natural sciences, forms of scientific endeavour. So, no, nothing can be deciseively concluded in such a way.
Though, if I might add, doesn't the example provided by Invader Zim testify to the falsifiability of a certain aspect of Marxism, rendering Popper moot?

[Invader Zim]

Though, if I might add, doesn't the example provided by Invader Zim testify to the falsifiability of a certain aspect of Marxism, rendering Popper moot?


I don't think so. What Drescher and William's were engaged cannot, in my view, be seen as an exercise in discovering absolutes. They lack the ability to actually return to the period to observe and chart events as they actually unfolded. So it isn't falsifiable in the strict sense. Rather we can say that the evidence uncovered by subsequent surveys, testing the thesis, suggests that William's position is inaccurate based on the evidence examined - so for all practical purposes it must be read in the light of what came after it and revised, even 'disproved', it - but not disproved absolute sence. It isn't like an experiment that you can repeat over and over again testing a thesis. For example, it isn't like dropping objects of different mass to test and measure the effects of gravity.

[Sputnik_1]

Hmm. Historical materialism is certainly a highly useful tool in the arsenal of the historian as a prism through which to view the ebb and flow of past events. However, it doesn't explain everything, and indeed in some cases such examinations have been examined and proven to have produced faulty results. For example Eric William's highly influencial work Capitalism and Slavery (1944), which was book which challenged the existing narrative of the causes of the abolition of the slave trade, which had hitherto been placed at the door of a few kindly alturistic British abolitionists, and took a Marxist perspective and placed abolitionism as having primarily an economic basis.

The thesis, while influencial and the genesis off maor re-appraisal and fresh debate among historians until the present day, has largely been debunked because the thesis does not fit the facts that have emerged from newer studies over the last 60 years. Detailed studies, such as that of Seymour Drescher whose Econocide (1979) conclusively showed that slavery was, in fact, more profitable than ever at the time of abolition as opposed to less. Other historians have since examined the issue of abolitionism as an extension of changing religious and social attitudes, tied to the massively influencial evengelical movement which had been growing since around 1780/90 and really began to pick up steam. The great petitions which had been sent to Parlaiment were dominated Wesleyan methodists whose church had long preached abolitionism and Christian activism.

I'm not trying to say it's infallible. After all nothing in science is :/ Just think of relativity that is being questioned because of quantum mechanics. Of course, history is completely different and probably even more unpredictable (or is it? :O ) Anyway, i see your point but that's not what i was trying to say.