Karl Marx's Study of Science and Technology, 1996 (original) (raw)
Related papers
KARL MARX AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
This paper argues that Marx's theory of historical materialism was heavily influenced by contemporary British philosophers of science. Marx wanted to create an actual science of society, and deliberately followed the method prescribed by John Herschel and William Whewell, who were deeply impressed by Newtonian mechanics. They claimed the distinctive feature of Newton's theory was his use of a vera causa (true cause), which is a cause verified by empirical evidence that is also sufficient to explain all related phenomena. Marx followed their method and began with a true cause which can be verified. From this premise, Marx argued to a productive force which drives the development of societies. The force which causes societal change is the same force that compels people to satisfy their needs. Namely, the material conditions of life that people find themselves in. Consequently, it is quite proper to regard Marx as the Newton of sociology.
Marx's Metascience: A Dialogical Approach to his Thought
I. Introduction. The works of Karl Marx are among the most influential works in the history of social sciences. Despite the fact that they were written in the 19th century and ailing communist regimes in the 20th century claimed that there political systems and ideology were based on his theories, Marx’s works are still today widely read and quoted by social scientists and philosophers. Following the increased polarisation of Western societies since the 1980s, particularly in the last decade, interest in Marx is rising and the number of university courses that deal with his thought is increasing. The works of Marx are wide ranging in scope. He wrote poems, studied mathematics, published philosophical and political articles and books that dealt with political economy. In this book, we will concentrate on those aspects of Marx's texts that relate to what we prefer to call theories of science or ‘metascience’, i.e. the epistemics (ontology and epistemology) of the texts in question and the historiography of science which we will find in the texts. Concerning epistemics we will highlight problems such as: a) the dialectical world view of Marx and his inversion of Hegel's philosophy (the relationship between humanity and nature, human essence, determinism and process-ontology); b) Marx's 'project' or disciplinary aims, referring to the motives of his theoretical practice and its relation to political activity; c) Marx's critique of the dominant philosophy (i.e. in Germany Hegelianism) and political economy; d) Marx's view of the existing sciences, referring to their philosophical premises as well as the relationship between science and society; e) Marx's criteria of science and his view of 'ideal' science. We will approach these five main topics by looking at some of his main works as they appear chronologically and we will do it in two main steps. In the following second chapter we will highlight Marx's early writings and at the end of it we will concentrate on his and F. Engels's work German Ideology. The works that we concentrate on in that chapter are to be characterized as a metacritique of the political philosophy of Hegel, the Young Hegelians and political economy. The third chapter covers, with reference to German Ideology, the Works which Marx wrote in 1857/58 and after. Interpretation of Marx's writings is a hermeneutical and practical problem. Objectivist (R.J. Bernstein 1983, pp. 8-16) interpretations tend to claim to understand what Marx "really meant". Two approaches of this kind are quite usual. On the one side, we have internalist approaches which either attempt to find the origin of Marx's theories within the sphere of theoretical practice (i.e. his work is seen as a transformation or synthesis of some other theoretical systems, c.f. the philosophy of Aristotle, Hegel, Young Hegelians and political economy) - or we have internalist approaches in the form of teleological interpretations that see Marx's academic career and works inevitably ending and aiming at particular works (c.f. Althusser's and Balibar’s (1998) 'reading' of Marx's works through Capital). On the other side, we have externalist interpretations that reduce his work to external factors such as political practice or the 'world view' of certain social group or classes (c.f. G. Lukács) that Marx came into contact with or worked with. We do not adhere to these methodological canons. Our point of departure is that Marx's work must be seen as a result of his practical context in which his political 'project' (in the wider existential sense) is most interesting. His political 'project' (i.e. his act of relating himself to interests of social groups and contexts etc.), must however be understood as nothing more than our abstraction and does not imply any theory of its inner structure of necessity. Marx's 'project' and theoretical problematique at particular time in his development is an 'open' project and an open problematique that has the potential of being formed differently according to his active interiorization of his practical situation and shifting contexts. The practical situation consists both of theoretical and philosophical traditions that he in an active way bases his thought on - and social interests and forces which he attempts to join. Accordingly, we would like to approach the development of his thought as a process of ‘structuration’ in which he actively structures his thought (see A. Giddens (1993) for a discussion of the concept of structuration and J. Coopley et.al. (2001) and R. Bhaskar (1978 and 1979) for arguments for critical realist methodology). Furthermore, as Marx's work is a result of an open project our own understanding is only a 'fusion' of our horizons and interests on the one side and Marx's horizons on the other side, as they appear to us. This does not mean that we claim to impute meaning in Marx's work. We are only sticking to Our hermenutical position which is dialogical (see H.-G. Gadamer 1977). Knowledge and understanding is a matter of praxis.
Introduction to the Special Issue on Marx & Marxism
Biographical (and bibliographical) accounts of Marx mirror the making of Marx as Marx. This making and remaking appears in various social and historical contexts. Marx's own making sprang from ongoing events, controversies, and conflicts of his time. Classics, such as Marx, are continuously constructed and (de-) reconstructed. Terrell Carver presents this making of Marx as Marx. Unlike the biographer's view, Marx was forward-looking and action oriented. According to Carver, Even when he was presenting himself to readers, and reviewing his life to date, he was forwardlooking and action oriented in relation to his presumed audience, rather than backward-looking over something 'done' and therefore 'to be known', which is the biographer's eye view.
Another Marx Early Manuscripts to the International (Introduction)
2018
the project of a ‘second’ MEGA , designed to reproduce all the writings of the two thinkers together with an extensive critical apparatus, got under way in 1975 in East Germany. Following the fall of the Berlin wall, however, this too was interrupted. A diffi cult period of reorganization ensued, in which new editorial principles were developed and approved, and the publication of MEGA2 recommenced only in 1998. Since then twenty- six volumes have appeared in print – others are in the course of preparation – containing new versions of certain of Marx’s works; all the preparatory manuscripts of Capital; correspondence from important periods of his life including a number of letters received; and approximately two hundred notebooks. ! e latter contain excerpts from books that Marx read over the years and the refl ections to which they gave rise. ! ey constitute his critical theoretical workshop, indicating the complex itinerary he followed in the development of his thought and the sources on which he drew in working out his own ideas. these priceless materials – many of which are available only in German and therefore intended for small circles of researchers – show us an author very different from the one that numerous critics or self- styled followers presented for such a long time. Indeed, the new textual acquisitions in MEGA 2 make it possible to say that, of the classics of political and philosophical thought, Marx is the author whose profi le has changed the most in recent years. The political landscape following the implosion of the Soviet Union has helped to free Marx from the role of fi gurehead of the state apparatus that was accorded to him there. Research advances, together with the changed political conditions, therefore suggest that the renewal in the interpretation of Marx’s thought is a phenomenon destined to continue.
Throughout all his life Karl Marx wrote angrily about capitalism. By use of a dialectic approach he was convinced that the working class had to unite and make a social revolution and thereby free them selves from exploitation. Marx himself was in many ways a dialectic person as we try to show in the note. So in some sense he became one with his scientific methodology.