Explain and discuss Marx and Engels’ contribution to the philosophy of social science

Marx and Engels were German philosphers who have had one of the largest effects on the subject through the influence of thier books, "The German Ideology" and "The Communist Manifesto", produced in the mid to late 19th century.
In the following essay, I shall explain the contribution made by Marx and Engels to the philosophy of social science. Through this explaination and discussion, I will endeavour to show that this contribution clarifies social science as critical theory. Because of this, social science can still survive as a concept, even if it is not science. I shall do this through examples of the dialectic of materialism – including the historical development of the dialectic of materialism and the division of labour. I shall also explain the scientific status of Marx and Engels’ account, including opposition posed by Karl Popper to this scientific status of the account. This essay will also include Marx and Engels' definition of social science.


Before we can begin to discuss Marx and Engels' contribution to social science, we must first look at how Marx and Engels define social science.
Social science is the study of human socical behaviour. By looking back at how we have evolved to our present social position, we can see what the next step in the evolution of human society will be and how it will come about. Marx and Engels explain how we have evolved to our present, capitalist society. They predict how we, as human society, will evolve to the communist society. They predict we will arrive at, through the historical development of the dialectic of materialism (to be discussed in detail below). It is, in short, the study of what makes us so sucessful as a species. In this sense, it could be said that social science is directly linked to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

It must be noted that social science is not, however, a study of history in the conventional sense of facts and figures. Instead it shows the changes in human society throughout the evolution of society. Marx and Engels emphasise that these changes will not be the same worldwide - indeed, Marx and Engels acknowledge that at the same time as Europe was in its feudal stages, many Asian countries were in a social state that Marx and Engels call the Asiatic mode of production. In addition, these changes will not happen at the same time - Marx and Engels predicted that Russia might skip straight from feudalism to communism - but the changes will be brought about by a revolution, signifing the end of that period of society.


The dialectic of materialism is an existentialist theory that deals with the development of society as opposed to an essentialist theory. Essentialism is the idea that life is determined by consciousness, whilst existentialism states that consciousness is determined by life. At the time of Marx and Engels, philosophy in Germany was philosophy according to Hegel, in other words essentialism. Hegel, whose influence was greatest in the 1880s, lived in Prussia claimed that history was the unfolding of God's nature. God was the superstructure, whilst the people on Earth were the substructure. Note that Hegel did not mean quite the same as Marx and Engels meant by superstructure and substructure. For Hegel, the superstructure is God, who's will is imposed on the Earth, affecting the substructure, which is the denizens of Earth. For Marx and Engels, however, the superstructure is the ideas that hold society together whilst the substructure is society itself. Whilst they are similar, they are not the same - Marx and Engels' version of the superstructure is changed by the substructure, but Hegel's superstructure changes the substructure.

Hegel's followers split into two groups: Right Hegelians who were conservative and supported Hegel's views and Young Hegelians, who were more radical. The Young Hegelians took Hegel's essentialist theories and used them to show that religion was the major source of alienation, that feeling that you are not in control of yourself. Religion, replacing God as the superstructure, was alienating to the people in the substructure, which remained the denizens of the Earth. As the preface of the book, "The German Ideology", Marx and Engels discuss the Young Hegelian philosophy through example of the gravity paradox.

Marx and Engels tell of a man who came up with the idea that people only drowned in water because they believed in gravity. Were people only able to rid themselves of this superstitious belief, they would be '...sublimely proof against any danger from water.' The man fought for all of his life against the illusory notion of gravity, noting that those who still believed in it were harmed most severely by it.

Marx and Engels finish this example by explaining that the man is an example of a Young Hegelian philosopher. Gravity, in this example, is supposed to be religion. The harm gravity is causing in the example is the alienation that the Young Hegelian philosophers believed was caused by religion.

The reason that this is known as the gravity paradox is that just as we cannot live without gravity - it is one of the facts of life - thier society could not function without religion. This is not to say that religion is necessarily a truth like gravity, but it is one of the things that helps people get through the day. Religion, in this case is the superstructure in the dialectic of materialism, meaning the ideas and beliefs that hold society together. As shown above, these ideas do not have to be true. In fact, Marx and Engels explain that the ideas are necessary lies to hold the substructure (the people in society) of the dialectic of materialism together. However, the historical development of the dialectic of materialism shows that if you change these necessary lies, you change the substructure of society which in turn changes the superstructure. This will then change the substructure, in a circular fashion.

Marx and Engels state that from the historical developent of the dialectic of materialism arises social science, that the dialectic of materialism generates a social science.


Marx and Engels' book "The German Ideology" is divided into three parts. In the first and most philosophically significant part, Feuerbach: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook, Marx and Engels argue against the common philosophies of the day. Amoungst these arguments, Marx and Engels give a definition of division of labour. He says that the division of labour states that there are two modes of production of anything material - forces of production which involves the means of production; the tools needed, and more importantly the labour required. The other mode of production is that of the relations of production which involves the relationship between the employer and employee in terms of ownership and power. Those who own the the factory and tools used for production of material goods are known as the bourgoisie, whilst those who provide the labour for this production of goods are known as the proletariats.
The book also states that we, as a species, have developed these two modes of production though social develpoment throughout history: the forces of production and the relations of production (between the employer and employee).

Marx and Engels start thier explanation of the historical develoment of the division of labour at the tribal state of human society. There is a hierarchy of sorts where the best at whatever they do continue to do it. There is also an early concept of property, particularly in the form of slavery. Ancient civilisation arises from amalgamating tribes. Specialisation has advanced so that trades have begun - potters, smiths (blacksmiths in particular) and farmers to name just a few. Property grows with the expansion of trade. At the collapse of the Roman Empire, the feudal society begins. In feudal society, a lord will own a castle/ manor and a lot of land. In return for somewhere to live, serfs work the lands of the lord. Trade (and therefore property) has increased to such a level that military intervention is required to protect the merchants and traders. This develops into capitalism in the 18th century. Super specialisation starts with factories where instead of one person making a product from scratch, as was the case up until this point in time, several people, unable to make a complete product by themselves, operate various machines to make separate bits of the final product - without each person, the product could not be made. However the factory workers are so poorly paid that they might as well have been owned by the factory owner. This is a prime example of alienation casued by physical exloitation - the problem of surplus value, that is to say the difference between what the workers are paid for thier time and how much thier products are sold for.

Marx and Engels' dialectic of materialism states that in our 'natural' state we would live off nature as does every other animal. What sets us apart from the other animals is that we are not strong enough to survive as individual beings. The average human being could not kill a lion on his own. So to survive, humans become conscious. Together we plan to trap, kill and then of course eat the lion. In working together, humans begin to work against nature. Whilst a bird would make his home in a tree, a human would cut down a tree and build thier home out of it.

The newfound cooperative nature between humans means that if, for example, somone is good at making spears, they will be given the task of making spears. This is the beginning of specialisation and is called praxis (practical conscious actions that help us survive).

Due to thier success and efficiency at working against nature, nature changes. For example woodlands that were the humans' home have now become vast moors. Food that was easily found in the woods cannot be found anymore in the moorland. This change in nature forces human consciousness to change for the humans' survival - they need to develop farming to produce enough food for thier society. To begin with, the changes in nature are a direct consequence of humans, but eventually humans are able to dictate what the changes will be, for example, the woodlands becoming moorland was a direct consequence of human activity in the area, something the humans did naturally to survive. But now we have developed praxis that allows us to realise how to change nature ourselves by, for example, cross breeding two different species of grain to get a third, better grain. The more humans change nature, the more nature changes, causing humans to change and develop thier consciousness. This leads to development of technology, for example ploughs were developed for more effective faming to feed a growing population and iron swords were developed to replace the soft bronze ones which gave a tribe a bigger chance of survival. This in turn leads to further specialisation with regards to making and using technology. This brings about alienation, of which there are six forms. Firstly there is the alienation of having the choice to do something, but we don't have the opportunity to do it. Secondly there is the problem of specialisation where we become so specialised that we can no longer do anything else. This will be discussed in greater detail later. Thirdly there is the alienation of tedium. Humans have the capability to become bored which means that they are forced to do something interactive to quell the feeling of tedium. Fourth and fifth there is physical exploitation and the worker-employer relationship. The surplus value problem of physical exploitation discussed above is alienating in the sense that the workers' labour has been sold for more than they are being paid for it, making them means to the employer's end. Sixth there is the alienation of the bourgoisie. Despite the fourth and fifth points of alienation making it seem as though the bourgoisie are getting alot out of the alienation, they themselves are alienated since the free market's competition forces them to not only alienate thier workers, but forces them to use each other as means to thier own ends.

Marx and Engels' description of the dialectic of materialism and the definition of the division of labour appear to be directly connected. The dialectic of materialism not only acts as a way of explaining the division of labour, but is also a part of the division of labour itself, in that the development of human consciousness has been caused by humans fighting against nature. This fight has only been won by each human doing what he or she does best. This is because of the division of labour.

This shows that the dialectic of materialism holds quite a lot of significance for the division of labour, but is it necessarily central to it? If the dialectic of materialism were to be proven false, could the division of labour survive without it? The dialectic of materialism is the driving force of the development of human society. Without it, the stages of human social development could not take place, meaning that humans could not have developed thier unique consciousness. Technology, for which specialisation would have been needed, would therefore never have been created. Thus the dialectic of materialism must be central to the division of labour.

However, although the dialectic of materialism is central to the division of labour, is the division of labour central to the dialectic of materialism? What would be the consequence for the dialectic of materialism should the division of labour theory be proven to be false? The method by which human society changes from a familial society to a tribal society to an ancient society to a feudal society, and finally to a capitalist society would certainly be different, but the lack of division of labour would not necessarily stop the development of civilisation. Thus, whilst the dialectic of materialism is central to the division of labour principle, the division of labour is not central to the dialectic of materialism.


In order to deal with the issue that dialectic of materialism generates a social science, we must first undertand what what social science is, and how it differs from empirical science. Empirical science is science by experimentation, as opposed to science by observation.

Social science is different from other sciences in the sense that whilst the others deal with everything in the physical world, social science deals solely with humans. In order to understand this, we can first look at the history of human evolution according to Marx and Engels. They noted that animals live on nature, whilst humans live in conflict with nature. However, they reason that early humans must have once lived purely off nature much as animals do. However, in order to survive, humans were forced to live together in tribes. Over time, humans developed a consciousness of the fact that each winter the weak and old humans were more likely to die. Faced with such harsh reality and not having any knowledge of diseases that are commonplace in winter, for example influenza or pneumonia, one would start worshipping the winter in an attempt to stop it decimating one’s tribe. This would eventually develop into worship of a god of winter. Chance causes the humans to begin changing their environment, treating nature as a malicious being and thus taking the view of “humans versus nature”.

By changing their environment, humans remove some dangers to themselves, but more often than not create new ones, for example, by creating pesticides we rid the fields of crop eating bugs, but we created a new problem - CFCs which destroy the ozone layer. This change in nature leads to a change in human consciousness. Further changes lead to further development of human consciousness. To improve the efficiency of the tribe or society, specialisation in certain roles such as farming and production of the newest technology (e.g. ploughs) is vital. This specialisation leads to castes and slavery, where the certain caste members or slaves do specific work.

This society of slavery turns to a feudal society where one person owns the land and everyone who lives on the land works on it. This is an early form of owning the means of production which becomes more pronounced as the industrial revolution takes over - factories have the means of production, but the workers have the labour needed to produce the materials.  This division between employer and employee starts the capitalist bourgoise and proletariat classes, which brings us to Marx and Engels’ world; the end of the nineteenth century and the height of capitalism. At this point, there are two main classes: that of the proletariat, the working class and that of the bourgeoisie, the ruling class. At this time, and indeed to this very day, the bourgeoisie own the mode and means of production which are operated by the proletariat, who hold nothing of value except their labour.

What we see is that the material circumstances we find ourselves in (as a society of humans and not as single individuals) dictate our consciousness and how we react to nature and each other, unlike the popular belief that our consciousness dictates the material circumstances. This is the dialectic of materialism.


In his book, written in 1962, "The Enemies of the Open Society, volume 2: Hegel, Marx and the Aftermath", Karl Popper argues that Marx and Engels' social science is not science at all, since the social science cannot be falsified. His view of science is one of falsifiability - that you make a claim or an observation and then say what would happen if the claim were to be proved to not be true. For example, one might make the claim "This water boils at 100oC". But if upon boiling the water, one finds that it does not boil at 100oC, then one changes the claim to "This water does not boil at 100oC". If the water only boils at 100oC sometimes but does not boil at the same temperature at other times, one would go on to discover what affects the difference in boiling point. So if one finds out that what affects the water's boiling point is its height above sea level, then one changes the claim to read: "This water boils at 100oC at sea level, but boils at 98oC at 54 feet above sea level". But even this can still be falsified, since one can go on to find out whether there are any other factors that could affect the boiling point, such as purity of water.

Karl Popper believes that Marx and Engels' social science is only an observation of what has happened in the past, and as such, is not a science since observations of past events by definition cannot be falsified. Science, according to Popper, cannot be used to say what will happen for certain, only what is probably going to happen. Through further empirical experiments and observations, one can increase the likelihood of successfully predicting what will happen, but it can never be certain.

However, Marx and Engels have several ways of responing to Popper at thier disposal. Firstly, they could say that not all science is necessarily falsificationism, and they do not mean science in the same way as Popper does, which means that Popper's argument that social science is not science cannot stand. Secondly, they could admit to being wrong with thier definition, social science is not science after all. Thirdly, Marx and Engels can argue that the historical development of the dialectic of materialism is the same brand of science as Charles Darwin's evolution from his book "Origin Of Species", which, incidentally, was released the same year as "The German Ideology". If Darwin's theory of evolution is science with dialectic as its method, then Marx and Engels' social science is science too. Finally, Marx and Engels could say that social science shows that there are laws regarding the historical development of the dialectic of materialism, but the conditions for these laws can change. This could mean that Popper's argument that science is always falsifiable is true and that Marx and Engels' social science is a science since they could say what happens if thier prediction doesn't occur. However, in any case, social science may survive as a concept even if it is not a science because Marx and Engels have clarified it as critical theory.


The discovery of both forms of the dialectic of materialism, the historical development of dialectic of materialism and the divison of labour, lead to the creation of a social science. Marx and Engels believe that they have created a science of history, and like most scientists they predict that what thier observations of what has repeatedly occurred is likely to happen again, under very similar circumstances. This is known as social science. The scientific status of Marx and Engels' account is rejected by Karl Popper as a psuedo-science. It may be argued that whether or not social science is in fact science is irrelevant. What is important, however, is that social science can survive as a relevant and useful concept. They do this by clarifying it as critical theory. This, therefore, is thier significant contribution to the philosophy of social science.