Marxism: not a science

[BIXX]

While many have claimed that Marxism is a science, I have never heard anyone prove this claim, and I have began to doubt it.

Reason: Sciences are processes of discovery or study, for example, physics. Physics is the name we have given to the study of matter and energy, and as such we test claims and formulate hypothesis and models that demonstrate our understanding of the universe.

On the other hand, Marxism seems to be a "theory of being", much like Max Stirner's individualism. Just like individualism, it has its tenets that it rests upon. Unlike individualism, it does appear to be a theory of sociology (in the sense that Marxism is a certain theory of how society will move and how society will change), but I cannot bring myself to call it a science.

Thoughts? I would like to hear why people call it a science, and why others don't.

[ARomanCandle]

Well, it would obviously depend on how you define science and how you define Marxism.

Marxian economics seems to me to be, by far, the most explanatory and intelligible theory of economic phenomena.

The question hinges on whether you consider social sciences to be science.

[Loony Le Fist]

It's going to depend on what part of Marx's ideas you are talking about. I don't think anything under the heading of "Marxism" is really a science. But Marxist economics can be a helpful starting point for things. But economics in general isn't a hard science, despite what many adherents will tell you.

[motion denied]

Sciences are processes of discovery or study

Then 'Marxism' is a science.

formulate hypothesis and models that demonstrate our understanding of the universe

Then 'Marxism' is not a science.

Arbitrary hypothesis and models are found in Weber and Durkheim. Marx was more concerned with 'real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both which they find already existing and those produced by their activity'.

Is it a science? I don't know, I don't know if I even care, to be honest. Does it explain the movement and tendencies of society? Yes; and in this sense, historical materialism is insuperable.

EDIT: There is no "marxian economy", "marxian sociology" or "marxian whatever".

How does one separate so-called marxian economy from so-called marxian sociology? Marx knew only one science, the science of History.

[Fakeblock]

Marx knew only one science, the science of History.

Or rather the science of social relations.

Interestingly, I've heard the case made that the German Wissenschaft, used by Marx and Engels, doesn't have the same connotations as in English (where science is mostly associated with the natural sciences). Instead it refers more generally to a systematic study. As such, Marxism or 'scientific socialism' could be called scientific not necessarily because it uses the same method as the natural sciences, but because it draws its conclusions from a systematic study of social relations and history, as opposed to utopian socialism which had no basis in the existing world.

German speakers should feel free to correct me on this though.

[Homo Songun]

Hegel and other 19th century thinkers used the word 'science' in a specific manner, but since then Logical Positivism and others of their ilk have bogarted the word in the English speaking world. It suited their aims to narrow the word's meaning.

[Red Economist]

While many have claimed that Marxism is a science, I have never heard anyone prove this claim, and I have began to doubt it.

Because of how central the claim to 'science' is to making the case that communism is a product of historical development, I've taken an interest in this- but I'm still undecided on the issue.

According to Russell Jacoby in Dialectics of Defeat, Marxists generally divided down into the "orthodox" Marxists who believe it is a science (Orthodox Marxism/Social Democracy, Marxism-Leninism, etc.) and the "Unorthodox" Marxists who treat it as a philosophy ('western Marxists, such as the Frankfurt School. I think Gramsci may well be in this group). The latter generally reject the application of Marxism to nature.

The problem is that as an 'ideology', Marxism's claim to scientific status is not subject to "proof" in the current sense. Marxism is 'technically' a dogma because it begins with Dialectics and Materialism as assumptions reflecting the nature of reality. Rather, it is a philosophical proof in much the same way as the existence/non-existence of god. And the latter is somewhat central to rejecting 'idealism' in Marxist acceptance of 'materialism'.

The definition of science has changed over time to exclude philosophical reasoning and much of bourgeois ideology in science has become embedded as 'fact' rather than philosophical conjecture. So, Marxism would have been considered a 'science' in the 19th century, but not in west in the 20th.

In the 21st century, Post-Modernism is using the philosophical challenge to Positivist conceptions of science as a social construct and potentially re-opening the definition of science to reveal it's philosophical under-pinning. This has caused problems because it has been abused by people wanting to make the case for denying climate change and introducing intelligent design as a 'scientific' concept.

Within the Positivist definition of science, you can prove an individual hypothesis, but not an ideological system. Hence I'm undecided because it involves changing the definition of 'science'.

[Atsumari]

When I talk to some comrades, they seem to do a better job convincing me that it is a religion.

[Red Economist]

When I talk to some comrades, they seem to do a better job convincing me that it is a religion.

Because of the nature of Marxist ideology as 'dogma', this is a fair accusation. Yet, at the same time liberalism conception of "natural law" is also quasi-religious (e.g. the market is always right, human beings are always rational, liberal societies are always free, etc). "human nature" is more or less a secular conception of the soul.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

In the case of Karl Marx, the obstacles preventing us from appreciating his thought are reinforced with several extra protective layers. ‘Marxism’ is not just a doctrine, but a tradition, not just a set of theoretical notions, but the life activity of large numbers of people. These men and women have invested their entire lives in fighting for what they thought were the theories of Marx, convinced they were struggling for the emancipation of humanity from exploitation and oppression. Their theory was an attempt to give a coherent account of what was happening in the world, including their own activity. It is a very painful business for them to cut a path through the misconceptions on which they had based their efforts. Not surprisingly, many find it much easier to ditch the whole thing.

When I accuse ‘Marxists’ of burying Marx, I don’t mean to condemn attempts to develop older ideas to take account of new situations and events – of course, that is legitimate. I am talking about the process whereby Marx’s essential insights were obscured and denied.

Each generation of ‘Marxists’ inherited a set of ideas and defended it against its critics. As these opponents were, in general, utterly ignorant of what they purported to refute, their attacks only helped to shore up the prejudices of the ‘Marxists’. Particular prominent figures in the movement became accepted as ‘authorities’, quotations from whose works would decide the issue in the event of dispute.

When Marxism became the doctrine claimed by large organisations, a canon of ‘orthodoxy’ was established. Anybody appearing to contradict standard texts or interpretations was perceived as an enemy. As happened to Jesus of Nazareth, too, the ideas of ‘orthodox Marxism’ became bound up with a massive state structure. Soon, orthodoxy was protected by state power, with all its sanctions of isolation, exile, violence and death.

That is why, if we want to find out what Marx’s ideas have to say about the contemporary world, we can’t do it just by reading his books. We have to retrace the path by which the tradition came into being, to find out how and where Marx was buried. I am certainly not the only one today trying to re-examine this history. Some people want to ‘reconstruct Marxism’. Others are also trying to discover and correct the distortions which are now so evident. Each of these people must base their work on his or her own experience. Some of this work is useful, but I think little of it digs very deep.

In this chapter, I try to retrace my own steps and attempt to find my way back to Marx’s actual ideas. Let me repeat, I am not looking for the ‘genuine’, ‘pure’, ‘perfect’, ‘original’ Marx, who will provide us with the ‘correct’ answers – such a person never existed. I want to establish what were Marx’s real ideas, in order to see what they have to say about our present predicament.

Even in their lifetimes, Marx (1818-1883) and Engels (1820-1895) were dismayed to see their fundamental notions buried under the myth of infallibility. Marx would have been utterly hostile to the statement of Plekhanov (1856-1918) that ‘Marxism is an integral world outlook’. In fact, only a fraction of Marx’s original plan for his work was ever completed. By the time of his death, bourgeois society was already entering a new stage. A large and important part of his writings remained as unedited and undeciphered manuscripts, unknown even to Engels.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...nni/smith2.htm

I've found this to be extremely useful. The reason why I've posted this is because it highlights the dogmatism in the history of Marxism, helping to shed light on the argument of whether it is a science or not. Do not forget to distinguish between wissenschaft and science in the English sense of the word.

Oh and http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...nni/smith4.htm covers Marx, Marxism and science in greater detail.

[RedMaterialist]

Prediction is supposed to be a fundamental aspect of science. Mendeleyev predicted that chemical elements would be discovered to fill in the blanks in the Periodic Table (Mendeleyev himself was a reactionary conservative according to Trotsky); Einstein's theories predicted that time is relative (which is now used to calibrate cell phone satellites), and also predicted the existence of black holes, not to mention the possibility of the atomic bomb.

Marx predicted that capitalist crises would continue every 7-10 years until a catastrophic crisis. The big one came in 1929. Marx didn't predict that capitalism would be able to survive by having the state prop up effective demand with trillions of dollars in spending. Even with Keynesianism capitalism still goes into crisis every 10 yrs or so : 2008, 2001, 1991, 1982, 1980, 1974, etc. If Marx is right, another crisis will come in 2015-17.

Marx also predicted a worker's revolution, which occurred, not in England, but in Russia in 1917. He didn't see that the revolution would be "betrayed."

He predicted mass unemployment; continued and increasing inequality of wealth. Real unemployment is probably at 20% and .01% of the population in the U.S. owns about 80% of the wealth. Supposedly 500 people own more wealth than 2/3 of the rest of the people on the planet, combined.

He predicted capitalism would lead to the total commodification of society. Who can deny that practically all human relations have become commodities? Even the bourgeois economists now admit that people are "human capital." Everything is for sale.

I would say that practically every day confirms Marxism's predictions. The difference between Marxism and physics, chemistry, etc., is that there is a massive education and propaganda system in place to deny the reality of Marxism. It took a 100 yrs for Darwin to be accepted in the U.S. It will be even longer for Marx.

[Das war einmal]

It's going to depend on what part of Marx's ideas you are talking about. I don't think anything under the heading of "Marxism" is really a science. But Marxist economics can be a helpful starting point for things. But economics in general isn't a hard science, despite what many adherents will tell you.

This. It's astounding that many economic schools are even considered decent studies. The whole 'invisible hand of the market' theory is laughably wrong and the whole Austrian school is basically idealistic in nature.

[Ritzy Cat]

Marxism is not a science.
It is political philosophy. I debate even calling political science itself just because of the connotations associated with the word.

Science is biology, chemistry, geology. Acquiring knowledge on properties of the world through experimental hypothesization. Properties being the unchangeable mechanisms of how the world works, which humans cannot change. We "discover" these ideas, not "create" them, as Marx did his own. Although I guess even that could be debated. We could argue that Marx analyzed the past to formulate historical dialectics through examination and experimental observations. His work is not presented as such though. It's more so philosophical and economical analysis, neither of which I consider "science".

Marxism could be a social science perhaps. But it'd perhaps be an idea under a social science like sociology. It wouldn't be a science in itself.

[Das war einmal]

Still even if it's not hard science, marxism, economy or philosophy in general shouldn't be placed in categories. Thats a metaphysical view on the subject of science.

[Strannik]

It seems to me, that Marxism contains at least one scientific hypothesis - that ideological structure of stable human society must always be in accordance with it's mode of production. This is similar to Darwin's hypothesis, that species evolves according to it's environment. If it can be shown that theory of evolution is science then the same should be true for Marxism.

[Dodo]

I am going to read this article soon

MARXISM AS SCIENCE:
HISTORICAL CHALLENGES AND THEORETICAL GROWTH - Michael Burawoy

but I'd like it if someone else did before me and wrote their take on it. It is an academic paper, so it is probably a "scientific" take on Marxism's scientificness.
Also you might come across good references.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Marx wasn't interested in making his thoughts fit into the scope of the natural sciences.

The idea that Marxism is even scientific in the natural science sense of the word is... nonsense.

http://marxmyths.org/john-holloway/article.htm

[Dodo]

Marx wasn't interested in making his thoughts fit into the scope of the natural sciences.

The idea that Marxism is even scientific in the natural science sense of the word is... nonsense.

http://marxmyths.org/john-holloway/article.htm

Oi, thats one hell of an article we need a whole thread on. I remember Alan Woods fiercely defending the Engelsian position whereas this seems to attack it.

[Dodo]

And one more thing. I am going to write a thesis on stagnation of Turkish economy and its roots in the Ottoman empire in the 19th century.
I am going to make this analysis as a "Marxist" and I will make a Marxian analysis. But what does that even mean?

Rigid application of historical materialism? Is Marxism=Historical Materialism, or is it the dialectical approach to concepts?
There are problems in both cases for me right now. A rigid application of historical materialism goes in the face of all "scientific" analysis which dealt with failures of Marxist "theory". Whereas dialecticians argue that Marxism IS NOT A THEORY of society, it is a critique of science, it is negative and not "positive".
What does that imply for looking at history?
That I should use contemporary everything available(historical materialism, neo-classical theory, New institutional economics, structural functionalism...etc whatever) to analyze the agrarian roots of Ottoman capitalism? Or should I stick to core concepts in Marxism? Alienation, historical materialism, critique of political economy(Marxian economics) ?

I guess I should make a thread about this.

[Thirsty Crow]

On the other hand, Marxism seems to be a "theory of being", much like Max Stirner's individualism.

If any of the Marxisms out there is any such thing, it needs to be scrapped.

The point about the insistence on the scientific is that a section of the working class undertaking the study of social relations and social life cannot afford itself the luxury of ideological (self) manipulation and deceit. In order to change the world, you've got to get to know it, and here not all procedures are equally productive.

EDIT: of course, that doesn't mean that historically hordes of self-proclaimed Marxists hadn't twisted their thinking into either ideology or soothing fairy tales preventing them from openly and soberly assessing both their own practice and the (then) current state of things.

EDIT no. 2:

Hegel and other 19th century thinkers used the word 'science' in a specific manner, but since then Logical Positivism and others of their ilk have bogarted the word in the English speaking world. It suited their aims to narrow the word's meaning.

Yeah, if we're going by anything Hegel wrote on science, we'd end up with naked mysticism. So any narrowing down is more than welcome. And the hate the logical positivists with their verificationism get is damn weird considering the fact that bourgeois apologia actually found this approach not in their best interest when trying to castigate Marxism.