24 March, 2018


Darwin, Marx & The Scientific Method – Is Marxism Science?

By Kumar David

Prof. Kumar David

Ringa Ranga Rajah, a London devotee of recently departed Ambalavanar Siva, complained bitterly last year when 14 March went by and I neglected Marx and Einstein. The former died on 14 March 1883 and the latter was born on 14 March 1879. I promised to make amends and this year Sundays 11 and 18 straddle the date. This is the first of a two-part essay; it looks at the last 200 years, the second part, next week, looks at the present. For starters I dug up Carlo Fonseka’s “Is Marxism Science?” (Sunday Island of 6 May 2012). I am in agreement with most of what Prof Carlo says except the last paragraph where I have a different take. Here is the para.

“Marxism is based on a synthesis of German idealist philosophy, English classical economics and French political theory. Accordingly, it will be assumed in this account of Marxism (Prof Carlo’s article is also in a 2008 Communist Party commemorative volume) that its essence comprises three elements; first, dialectical materialism which derives, paradoxically enough, from Hegel’s idealist philosophy. The second element is socio-economic analysis of capitalism which is based on English classical economics. The third element is a commitment to socialism of a particular form which comes from French politics”. [Carlo Fonseka, “Is Marxism Science?” Sunday Island, 6 May 2012].

This well-known view was first enunciated by Lenin. It has passed into the catechism of the Marxist fraternity and is regular fare in party schools. Rosa was more careful and latter-day Marxists such as philosophers Sartre and Althusser and historian Eric Hobsbawm have avoided it. It was ok to say 100 years ago, but epistemology has moved on. There is more to Marx than was then thought; a lot more than he himself suspected. This is not unusual in the history of science; Riemann’s geometry remained a quirk for 50 years after his death till General Relativity arrived; the sightings of Keppler, Copernicus and Galileo were strangely at odds with common sense (the Church had a point) until, as Pope and Fonseka remind us, “God said ‘Let Newton be’ and all was light”.

The genius of Marx is the astonishing rejuvenation that his thought has undergone in the light of subsequent sociology, historiography and economic upheavals. The Materialist Conception of History is now subsumed as self-evident in all political commentary, like arithmetic to a school boy. This is epistemological progress though in a subterranean kind of way.

My first grumble with the quoted passage is that it is not true that Marx simply took classical German philosophy and Hegel’s dialectic and “stood it on its head”; that he interchanged object and predicate and made it into a materialist instead of an idealist dialectic. That instead of ‘God made man in his Image’ Marx kind of ‘inverted’ it to ‘Man made god in his Image’, and so on. Althusser made all these points forcefully in For Marx.

The ‘inversion’ hypothesis is simply not what happened to the dialectic in Marx’s hands; such a rendering is gross simplification. Just sit down with any of the three volumes of Kapital, go to the library and pick up Hegel’s Logic (a simplified version, the fat three volumes are unreadable), and compare. You will find no inversion of categories, no “Unity of Opposites”, no “Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis”, no “Quantity Transforming into Quality”. None of this will you find in Marx. That he was profoundly influenced by that “mighty thinker” is not in doubt, but what he took away from Hegel was dynamics, interaction, process, movement, change. He took away the big picture, not piddling little mechanisms. Yes, Hegel was a systems-thinker, but Marx’s version belonged in another world. Marx had never heard the term ‘systems theory’ but what he did was link class, production, economy, surplus, state, war and social transformation into a process. Unknowingly, what he had done was to have founded modern scientific systems theory; he did it in political economy.

Darwin looked at species in relation to their habitat, food supplies, competition, survival, sexual selection and reproduction. This materialist approach to the natural world was enriched by the arrival of genetics. Then, the embedding of natural selection within ecology created a systems viewpoint. In modern times, systems theory has been synchronised with cybernetics, communications and computing. Systems theory seeks linkages, hierarchy (pivotal and lesser factors), likelihoods rather than strict determinisms, and probability of outcomes. These are central to Neo-Darwinism as well as to Marx’s (not Hegel’s) dialectic. For this reason, I call Marx the unconscious founder of systems theory which lies implicit and embedded in all his best writings. (I use a different font to emphasise the five key concepts of this essay).

The common way Darwin and Marx are identified is a trivial popularisation. They say Darwin held that species appeared, struggled and went extinct and that Marx saw something similar in society. The usual storyline: technology/production, class, conflict, overthrow, revolution. This analogy is too superficial. What is significant is; first, their common materialist exposition of how and why things happen; second, the research methodology that Darwin and Marx employed and their fusion of inductive and deductive cognition, essential for macro scientific theorisation.

From the days of the voyage of the Beagle in the 1830s to the end of his life Darwin was besotted with his specimens. He probed them, examined them and studied every detail of behaviour; he was an empirical scientist par excellence, his methodology was impeccable. Marx was like that. He poured over statistics, reports, parliamentary proceedings, trade and output numbers and shipping logs. This man who had made a name as an abstract thinker, for ever after the writing the Manifesto was an out and out empirical pedant. No abstraction could stand if it defied reality – we know of his struggle with the ‘Transformation Problem’ which he never solved, but more on that later.

Thus, next to materialism, the most important way Darwin and Marx were scientists was devotion to scientific technique: gathering and ordering data, rational deduction, scrupulous honesty and genius of insight. Their methodology was as flawless as Carlo Fonseka’s, Albert Einstein’s or any properly guided PhD student’s! It is not the trivial parallel between spurts in species evolution and social upheaval and change that is important. The crucial point is that both were practicing scientists.

This is the crucial stage of this essay but thanks to the Editor’s generosity I am allowed a few more words. Let me grumble twice more. Yes, Marx was intensely involved in classical economics. If German idealism (Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Schelling and Feuerbach) permeated his inner brain, Smith, Ricardo, Malthus (who he despised) and John Stewart Mill monopolised his frontal cortex. But here’s my point: Marx did not drink deep of the Labour Theory of Value (LTV) though you may think otherwise from Volume I. Again, there is more to Marx than he himself was aware of. Buried in the discourse on credit, interest and reproduction (investment) in Volume II, and the suffocating wrestling matches in Volume III, is a more profound theory of value.

Modern Marxist economists, Michael Heinrich for example, differentiate between LTV and the value-form in Marx:

I call Marx’s version the Money Theory of Value (MTV); which is what he was reaching towards. The journey was completed by others 100 years later. In passing, it banished the ‘Transformation Problem’ between value and price; the value of a commodity is the money price it fetches in perfect exchange and is equivalent to the ‘abstract’ labour it internalises. This ‘abstract’ labour can only be measured in money, in free exchange, in an ideal market, because the capitalist economy is saturated by money, the universal commodity. The money-value of a commodity, thus ascertained, is its true value and its only possible true value. I will stop here because it’s getting a bit esoteric. The point I am making is that Marx’s MTV is not the same as the LTV of classical economics.

My third grumble is about French revolutionary politics. Marx was a child of the European Enlightenment and fascinated by the Great French Revolution of 1789. He lived through the 1848 Revolutions which started in Sicily in January and Paris in February and engulfed 50 countries. But Marx did not derive any formulae whatsoever for socialism/communism from the 1848 events – in fact there were no programmes in 1848 to compare with the 1789 great bourgeois revolution’s Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, no taxation without representation, and so on.

Many “Marxists” are not even aware that the old boy never enunciated a programme for socialism/communism. Except for half a dozen tantalising aphorisms, he kept options open ended, as any sane person would do, so far ahead. (He knew he was far ahead of his time). Here are three of his oft quoted mottos.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (Gotha Programme).

“In place of class antagonisms, we have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” (Manifesto).

“In communist society each can become accomplished; society regulates the general production and makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic” (German Ideology).

I wager anyone a bottle of single-malt to fill just one page with quotes from Marx prescribing how a socialist society should be run. A state-controlled economy took the USSR from backwardness to power-house and then destined it to failure. China runs a state-directed economy with ample room for capitalist entrepreneurship. These are specifics about which Marx said nothing though today we ponder over options for different parts of world. I see no evidence for “socialism of a particular form which comes from French politics” in Marx. He sketched no future structures, instead reckoned that progress in technology (productive power) would upend class, abolish capitalism and make an equitable and prosperous future possible and likely. This is sane and rational; but historical conjecture is not the same as science.

[Part II next week will explore: Materialism, Psychology and Modern Physics]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0

    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2/

  • 2

    Excellent article by Dr Kumar David On Marx . Every politico of Sri Lankan has to read and understand politics of Marxism well place by KD.
    By that the Irrespective of his(KD) that theory of” Permanent” revolution of Trotskyism.

  • 3

    Russian chemistry professor Dmitri Mendeleev and German chemist Julius Lothar Meyer independently published their periodic tables in 1869 and 1870, respectively. This was existing knowledge arranged in a certain way. It got the soul later.
    Darwin observed patterns in living beings, collated these and laid the basis of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. The soul came later. We still have skeptics.
    Marxism is basically a collection of observations on human behaviour. It is a science but Marxist have buggered it!
    Kumar David refers to Carlos Fonseka. Carlos heart broke when Jaffna Library was set on fire in 1981. Years later a reborn Carlos said that the library was set on fire by ‘insiders’.

  • 2

    There is no one kind of science.
    Different scientific paradigms exist and their validity is contextual.
    Marxism is open to interpretation and change in constructive ways, and so is all science.
    But the question is not whether Marxism is a science.
    Rather than look at Marxism as a ‘science’ as we commonly know, it will make sense to see it as a scientific way of looking at humanity. That is why Marxists talk of ‘scientific socialism’ as opposed to ‘utopian socialism’.
    Social context changes constantly and it is scientific to update one’s understanding, develop theory to match reality and adopt practice accordingly– not quite the way the LSSP adapted itself to rising narrow nationalism in 1963.
    Prof. AKD is not bringing much credit to Marxism by reference to Carlo F’s definition. AKD may have forgotten the time, not very long ago, when Carlo F expressed rather irrational belief in rebirth etc.

  • 1

    Did you know that Charles Darwin never had even a first degree in science? He dropped out of a taxidermy course and enrolled in a theology degree course at Cambridge, with the help of one of his father’s friend. His interest in biology came from ignorant encounters with fossils during the search for Noah’s ark. He was married to his first cousin from the famous Wedgwood crockery family and produced many children who died young. One was a Down’s syndrome afflicted. Blindly believing in a so-called ‘theory’ (it was never proven by experiments!) is foolishness at the extreme. The man was a confused, ignorant fool blaming God for his personal misfortunes. Be enlightened. Be Buddhist to see the truth.

  • 0

    What is that Lenin’s view on Marxism ?
    “…….What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinks and leaders of oppressed classes fighters for emancipation .During the lifetime of great revolutionaries the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and to hollow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation ” of the oppressed classes and with the objects of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting it revolutionary edge and vulgarinsing it.
    Today, the bourgeoisie and OPPORTUNITS within labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. ……..They omit ,obscure or distort the revolutionary side of this theory ,its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie….”State and Revloution.by Lenin.

    The view of Marx has to restudy in import of which that shifting for New World by without exploitation man by man .
    The according Marx to state is organ of class rule, an organ for the OPPERSSION of one class by another ,it is creation of ‘order’, that legalese and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflicts between the classes.
    The many writing of Marx best author no one other than V.I. Lenin. That is how Marxism enrich by Leninism.

  • 0

    Interesting article. However, I would hesitate to call Marx a scientist, even if portions of his methodology resembled that of the scientific method. The focus of science is on natural, not man-made phenomena. The language of science (physics, chemistry, biology) is ultimately mathematical because mathematics is the best way to describe recurring patterns with precision. An economy, on the other hand, is a man-made creation. Take the money supply, for example. You can describe certain aspects of it (rate of money creation, velocity of money, etc.) mathematically, but there is no correlation in the natural world. The author makes a good case for Marx treating data with what can be deemed a statistical approach. While the same approach is used to analyze scientific data, the problem falls squarely within the domain of mathematics, not science.

    Regarding Darwin, the focus of his research was evolution. The best evidence for evolution lies in genetics. As genes evolve, so too do organisms. Man-made economies “evolve” in proportion to basic inputs: land, labor, and capital. They are also impacted by political and other factors, such as war, which dictate how inputs are utilized. The author is correct to state that evolution in either case leads to a system, whose dynamics can be modeled mathematically.

    The author is correct to state that Marx gets a bad rep today. This is not necessarily due to the failure of Communism, but the dominance of capitalism.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.