Is Marx's Communist Manifesto Scientific?

Short discussion of the scientific validity of Marx's Communist Manifesto according to Karl Popper's requirements for science.

The Manifesto is an interesting document that clearly outlines Marx' views on capitalist society and historical development. The Manifesto is very exact and penetrating. It outlines the historical development of the productive forces of society and the dynamics of class antagonisms. The main question which I have of the Manifesto stems from K. Popper's criticism of Marxism as non-scientific.

Marx plainly states that historical materialism is as quantifiable as the natural sciences while the philosophy, religion, and political facades associated with historical development are the ideal and abstract ambiguities associated with political economy. This differentiation puzzles me.

Modern times have obviously proven Marx' assumptions of the self-destructive tendency of capitalism to be much more latent and controllable. The dynamic and destructive capitalist economy which 1) replaced exploitation veiled with religion with blatant exploitation and 2) destroyed its own means of preventing future crises has again become a more veiled form of exploitation and has proven to have a much greater capacity to prevent crises through human constructions such as the federal reserve board and government crisis monetary backing. Things such as these show capitalist society to be more tenacious than Marx thought. How does this effect his claim to scientific status? Marxism is still a very exact and penetrating critique -- but what level of science can it claim?



Since Marxism is more a critique of capitalist society and only very rarely a predicative tool, how does it fit in to Popper's definition of science. In other words, when Marx makes predictions, such as capitalism being the last stage of society in which class antagonisms will exist -- his prediction is of the eventual destruction of capitalism and eventual implementation of communism. He does not predict that capitalism will fall in 20 years or 50 years or 100 years, although he does predict the fall in the near future.

How does this effect Popper's criticism of Marxism as not scientific when nothing has technically been disproven and cannot be disproven unless another form of social production comes into existence? It obviously weakens Marxism's claim to science, but how can Popper claim that Marxism has probably been disproven?

Trending Now

© High Speed Ventures 2011