Did Karl Marx Do Science?

Karl Marx is widely recognized for his contributions to the development of modern social science, particularly in the realm of economics and sociology. However, when examining Marx’s works, such as "Capital", one cannot help but question whether his contributions amount to scientific discourse. This article explores the critical analysis of Marx’s intellectual contributions and their classification within the scientific framework.

Marx’s Intellectual Legacy

At Marx’s funeral in Highgate Cemetery, Engels declared that Marx had made two significant discoveries: the law of development of human history and the law of motion of bourgeois society. These discoveries set the stage for the Marxist theory and provided a profound analysis of the capitalist system at the time. However, these assertions need to be critically examined within the context of scientific inquiry.

Economic Critiques of Marx’s Works

While Marx’s ideas are integral to the field of economics, as someone with a background primarily in this domain, I have focused primarily on his seminal work, "Capital". My personal experience with Marx’s texts and analyses leads me to conclude that his theories, while influential, do not meet the standards of rigorous scientific inquiry.

Do Marx’s Theories Qualify as Science?

When you read Marx directly, and not through the lens of secondary sources, it becomes evident that his concepts are neither scientific nor worthy of substantial discussion. The weak and misguided ideas detailed in "Capital" could certainly fit within 300 pages. Yet, Marx’s purposeful expansion of the book to over 2,000 pages suggests motives beyond the pure pursuit of academic rigor. For instance, it has been speculated that Marx’s extensive writing was a means to extend Engels’ financial support, as Engels had been paying for Marx’s work to be completed.

Apart from economic motivations, the academic scrutiny of Marx’s works, particularly his calculations and theories, reveals significant flaws. Engels, in his capacity as editor, had to address a plethora of calculations that Marx had incorrectly presented, further undermining the scientific integrity of the work.

Marx’s Role in Social Science

From an academic perspective, Marx is considered one of the foundational figures in modern sociology. He has been cited as one of the three masters of the 19th century, alongside Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud.[261] Marx is also acknowledged as one of the three principal architects of modern social science, along with émile Durkheim and Max Weber.[262] His work notably contributed to the development of scientifically justified ideologies, emerging in the wake of European secularization and significant developments in philosophies of history and science.

Karl L?gstrup considered Marx and S?ren Kierkegaard to be the two greatest Hegelian philosophical successors.[264] In contemporary sociological theory, Marxist sociology is recognized as one of the main classical perspectives, with figures like Isaiah Berlin emphasizing Marx as the true founder of modern sociology.[265]

Marx in the Broader Academic Landscape

Beyond his contributions to social science, Marx’s influence extends into philosophy, literature, and the arts. His ideas have sparked numerous debates and have been integral to numerous academic disciplines. Engels refers to Marx’s work as a monumental achievement, highlighting its significant role in shaping the field of sociology.

Conclusion

While Marx’s contributions to social science and philosophy are undeniable, his works do not necessarily fit the strict definition of scientific inquiry. The extensive critique of his flawed theories and calculations underscores the limitations of his approach. What remains is a complex legacy that continues to inspire and challenge scholars and thinkers across various disciplines.