Scientific socialism

Scientific socialism is the term first used by Friedrich Engels[1] to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered by Karl Marx. The purported reason why this form of socialism is "scientific socialism" (as opposed to "utopian socialism") is that it is said to be based on the scientific method, in that its theories are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes and/or falsification of elements of the theory.

Although the term socialism has come to mean specifically a combination of political and economic science, it is also applicable to a broader area of science encompassing what is now considered sociology and the humanities. The distinction between utopian and scientific socialism originated with Marx, who criticized the utopian characteristics of French socialism and English and Scottish political economy. Engels later argued that utopian socialists failed to recognize why it was that socialism arose in the historical context that it did, that it arose as a response to new social contradictions of a new mode of production, i.e. capitalism. In recognizing the nature of socialism as the resolution of this contradiction and applying a thorough scientific understanding of capitalism, Engels asserted that socialism had broken free from a primitive state and become a science.[2] This shift in socialism was seen as complimentary to shifts in contemporary biology sparked by Charles Darwin and the understanding of evolution by natural selection; Marx and Engels saw this new understanding of biology as essential to the new understanding of socialism, and vice versa.

Similar methods for analyzing social and economic trends and involving socialism as a product of socioeconomic evolution have also been used by non-Marxist theoreticians, such as Joseph Schumpeter and Thorstein Veblen.

Methodology

Scientific socialism refers to a method for understanding and predicting social, economic, and material phenomena by examining their historical trends through the use of the scientific method in order to derive probable outcomes and probable future developments. It is in contrast to what later socialists referred to as "utopian socialism"—a method based on establishing seemingly rational propositions for organizing society and convincing others of their rationality and/or desirability. It also contrasts with classical liberal notions of natural law, which are grounded in metaphysical notions of morality rather than a dynamic materialist or physicalist conception of the world.[3]

Scientific socialists view social and political developments as being largely determined by economic conditions as opposed to ideas in contrast to utopian socialists and classical liberals, and thus believe that social relations and notions of morality are context-based relative to their specific stage of economic development. Therefore as economic systems, socialism and capitalism are not social constructs that can be established at any time based on the subjective will and desires of the population, but instead are products of social evolution. An example of this was the advent of agriculture which enabled human communities to produce a surplus; this change in material and economic development led to a change in social relations and rendered the old form of social organization based on subsistence-living obsolete and a hindrance to further material progress. Changing economic conditions necessitated a change in social organization.[4]

Similar perspectives

Thorstein Veblen, the founder of evolutionary economics, believed that technological developments would eventually lead toward a socialistic organization of economic affairs. However, his views regarding socialism and the nature of the evolutionary process of economics differed sharply from that of Karl Marx; while Marx saw socialism as the ultimate goal for civilization and saw the working-class as the group that would establish it, Veblen saw socialism as one immediate phase in an ongoing evolutionary process in society that would be brought about by the natural decay of the business enterprise system and by the inventiveness of engineers.[5]

Veblen's methodology for analyzing economic developments is similar to that of scientific socialism and also contrast to neoclassical/classical political economy and utopian socialism; he believed that society and economics was constantly evolving and that this process affected the fundamental basis of established social relations.

Critique of the notion of socialism as a science

The argument that socialism—whether Marxist, Marxist–Leninist or its other forms—is a science is based on the concepts of dialectical materialism and historical materialism.[6]

The most one could say is that socialism has historically been an idea that finds expression in various scientific disciplines such as mathematical economics, sociology, and other like areas of study. Socialism and Marxism are thus better described as theoretical frameworks for understanding and analyzing the social, economic and political world rather than the natural or physical world.

Critique of scientific socialist methodology

The term also refers to an important philosophical difference between proponents of natural law, static human nature, and static equilibrium (such as classical liberals, libertarians, social liberals and some early socialist thought). Specifically, these philosophies are based on metaphysical conceptions of a "natural" order of liberty that exists irrespective of civilizations' material, technological and productive capabilities. While scientific socialists see economic laws and various forms of social arrangements as context-based (relative to their specific stage of human development), and thus relative to specific material conditions, these critics view them as static and absolute moral values.

The philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies characterized Scientific Socialism as a pseudoscience. He argues that its method is what he calls "historicism": the method of analyzing historical trends and deriving universal laws from them. He criticizes this approach as unscientific as its claims cannot be tested and, in particular, are not subject to being disproven.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Frederick Engels - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. 1880 Full Text
  2. ↑ Frederick Engels - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. 1880 Full Text
  3. ↑ Socialism and Modern Science, by Ferri, Enrico. 1912. From "Evolution and Socialism" (P.79): "Upon what point are orthodox political economy and socialism in absolute conflict? Political economy has held and holds that the economic laws governing the production and distribution of wealth which it has established are natural laws ... not in the sense that they are laws naturally determined by the condition of the social organism (which would be correct), but that they are absolute laws, that is to say that they apply to humanity at all times and in all places, and consequently, that they are immutable in their principal points, though they may be subject to modification in details. Scientific socialism holds, on the contrary, that the laws established by classical political economy, since the time of Adam Smith, are laws peculiar to the present period in the history of civilized humanity, and that they are, consequently, laws essentially relative to the period of their analysis and discovery."
  4. ↑ Frederick Engels. "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific". Marxists.org. Retrieved 2013-12-22.
  5. ↑ Wood, John (1993). The life of Thorstein Veblen and perspectives on his thought. introd. Thorstein Veblen. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-07487-8. The decisive difference between Marx and Veblen lay in their respective attitudes on socialism. For while Marx regarded socialism as the ultimate goal for civilization, Veblen saw socialism as but one stage in the economic evolution of society.
  6. ↑ The life of Thorstein Veblen and perspectives on his thought, Wood, John (1993) (in English). The life of Thorstein Veblen and perspectives on his thought. introd. Thorstein Veblen. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-07487-8. Part III Historical Materialism