Dogmatic trends in marxist sociology

Abstract

The research program of theoretical pluralism would imply for sociology, to confront marxist with nonmarxist sociology. This seems useful only if both sociologies are refutable in principle. However, certain principles of marxist sociology prevent the refutation of its most fundamental hypotheses. This is shown in analyzing an often cited book by E. Hahn.

The “basis” of marxist sociology is historical materialism. Thus, if hypotheses from marxist sociology are falsified, historical materialism is falsified too. Hahn maintains-without presenting any empirical evidence-that historical materialism has found the solution of all problems and thus cannot be refuted. Marxist sociology, however, is-according to Hahn-falsifiable. This statement and the thesis mentioned before are inconsistent, for if historical materialism is true, marxist sociology-which follows from historical materialism-cannot be wrong. But even if there would be no inconsistency, the following situation would be possible: Marxist sociology proves entirely wrong, but historical materialism (the “basis” of marxist sociology) will not be abandoned.

Furthermore, Hahn maintains that by means of empirical research (observation and experiment) the central hypotheses of marxist sociology cannot be tested, namely the “essence of appearances.” But he is at a loss for arguments; so every hypothesis can be immunized against falsification by declaring that it describes the “essence” of certain “appearances.”

One further strategy of immunization Hahn introduces, is the rule that in an explanation only marxist laws may be used. So it is not possible to confront marxist and nonmarxist hypotheses. This rule eliminates a very effective kind of criticism, namely the confrontation of inconsistent theories.