By Ron Guignard
Doug Lorimer ("Has history disproved Marxism?", GLW #146) objects to my definition of science (GLW #145). He offers one which could arguably include such subjects as astrology, phrenology etc. If you use such a weak definition when declaring it scientific, you bring Marxism no great kudos. That definition is designed to let in soft pseudo-"sciences" of sociology, psychology, etc.
Doug ignores the fact that I allowed for a weaker form of my own definition. This would let in all the genuine natural sciences. The strong form, as I pointed out, applies for much of the time until wider experience, finer measurement etc, show systematic inconsistencies that require a new paradigm. The difference in the practical world is sometimes negligible. The new paradigm may merely make the maths more elegant and take care of a few more decimal points. More often, it may open up whole new perspectives.
As to the non-predictiveness of anthropology, archaeology, anatomy, palaeontology, etc, does not the anthropologist predict certain social behaviours when certain cultural traits are observed?. Did not Schliemann predict that if he dug on a certain site he would find Troy?; does not the doctor predict that s/he will almost invariably find a live patient's heart beat by putting the stethoscope to the left of the ventral mid line of the pectorals?; does not the palaeontologist predict the whereabouts of oil?
I'll grant that it is over half a century since I did most of my readings in Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin (ugh!) and the then CPGB theoretician R. Palme Dutt (mostly before I joined the Party and no, I was not guided to read any Lev Bronstein!). So my memory of the specific work in which a particular prediction was made may be wrong.
However, the stirring opening sentences of the Communist Manifesto show us clearly that Marx was expecting a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism pretty soon. NB: 1848 was the "Year of Revolutions" in Europe.
Also, I remember (and this may have been through Eric Hobsbawm's tuition in historical materialism) that the breakdown of capitalism was inevitable. It was the aftermath that would be problematic (and probably dire) unless the proletarian revolution brought on the downfall. Eric would for sure have used Marx as source.
It was later than 1848 that Marx looked to Germany as the first home of the revolution, at a time when it was trying to nudge England out of the first place in the capitalist stakes, although well behind in imperialism.
I have no quarrel with Doug's summary of Marx's predictions which have come true. They merely apply logic to the fundamentals of the system and are brilliantly and simply outlined in the classic Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. But Doug's final paragraph amply aids my case.
He starts by asking "Why, then, hasn't capitalism been overthrown in the more highly industrialised countries? Why was the overthrow of capitalism confined to one country for 30 years?" He ends it, after saying something I shall take up later, by quoting predictions of Lenin and Trotsky. They both said that pro-capitalist forces would overthrow workers' power in the USSR if it (workers' power) did not spread to other countries.
Doug's second question implies that capitalism remained overthrown in the USSR for more than 80 years and that it was not until more than 50 years after capitalism had been overthrown in several neighbour countries that pro-capitalist forces overthrew workers' power in the USSR. Now, either workers' power in the USSR was overthrown very early in the piece, hence the overthrow of capitalism was confined only to one country ever, and for only a few years (until the NEP? until Stalin?), or Lenin and Trotsky were diametrically wrong in their predictions.
I equate capitalism, above, with the accumulation and reinvestment of profits based on the exploitation of those who work in the enterprise from which the profits are made but who are not empowered to determine the manner of its operation nor how its proceeds are used. I equate workers' power with their full empowerment over: the manner of operation of the enterprise and the way in which its proceeds are used if the enterprise is productive, ie not part of a state apparatus, eg army. Stalinism, Nazism and Italian fascism, all using different state mechanisms, conformed to the former.
After posing his two questions, Doug says, "The answer to that (sic) question involves a detailed critical review of the 20th century political and social history". This comment clearly shows that Marxism is not lawfully scientific in the important sense that I use. A physicist would never say "The answer to the question of the behaviour of a confined gas involves a detailed critical review of the behaviour of each molecule". Instead, s/he would say, simply, "PV=RT".
This is the law that governs the behaviour of confined gases in all but some special cases for which different laws are used. You may apply one or other of these laws (and know which to apply before you apply it) no matter how many molecules a volume of gas contains nor how individual their random motions.
Doug shows that the laws are not yet known that govern the behaviour of political and social history confined to humankind on planet earth. If they exist, no doubt they may be much more complex, but should still be expressible so as to predict correctly and in detail, rather than hit or miss in generalities more suitable to sociology or astrology.
Again I emphasise: unless the claim that it is scientific is based on my definition of science (including the weaker form I allow for periods close to paradigm change), Marxism can not boast, by its "scientific" nature alone, to claim clear supremacy over any other coherent theory of society.
All that said, I confess I still prefer Marxist analysis of current events, pending a real scientific theory of society.