the Science of Marxism

We have this preconceived notion that science is people in lab-coats running experiments and running numbers and performing tests. This happens to be a poor representation of science. Science contains arguments built off of previously agreed upon points. Now certainly these arguments within science are arguments are based on facts and conditions. Unlike the mainstream political discourse, where facts are built around emotion and cherry-picked data to serve ideologies both conservative and liberal. If we were treat history — and as an extension, politics — as a science, we could transform the direction the conversation about our political situation.

Every science starts with a premise that the focus of study is a structure and not random chaos. This is how we now define science. For example, in order to study biology you have to assume life has a definite structure, built on definite laws and principles (even if we do not know all of these things beforehand) as we begin to dissect them.

Marxism for society and history, like biology does for life, believes in a structure and not random chaos. Marx came up with scientific examples based on the work of his predecessors (like Hegel). For example, history moves in such a fashion, that there first is the thesis, an idea, and then comes the antithesis, the idea that opposes the thesis, which results in the synthesis, the result of the ideas. For example, the American Civil War: the thesis could be seen as the Union, the antithesis could be seen as the Confederacy, and the synthesis would be a reunited United States with years of reconstruction. This thesis/antithesis/synthesis model was of old, but Marx and Engels observed that dialectical materialism would not only formulate how the world works but the actions taken to revolutionize it. Marx said, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”1

The Marxist models have proven to be useful in analyzing society and predicting events such as the globalization of capitalism.2 This is why Marxists are often correct in class analysis in comparison to so-called experts of the bourgeoisie. The Marxists have scientific tools, the “experts” have to make sense of a series of unrelated ideas.

Marxism is a science, a science of history, politics and society. It is not just some idea that Marx and Engels came up with. It’s a tradition that has its basis in philosophy, sociology and the like. Just as the Ancient Greeks studied philosophy and science together as one discipline, now we can again study philosophy and science as one discipline utilizing the scientific methods given to us by Marx and his successors.

1“Theses on Feuerbach” (1845), Thesis 11

2“Communist Manifesto” (1848), Chapter 1

“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.”

It is important to remember that this predated globalization of McDonalds and Walmart by nearly a century.