Angelus Novus wrote:
> [CLIP]
> Charles Brown:
>
> > For Marx, there is only one science the science of
> > history
>
> Charles, how on earth is a "science" of history even
> possible? Please do not take this as a rhetorical
> question. I think one can do useful analytical,
> scholarly historical work, but there are no "laws" of
> history. Using the word "science" makes exaggerated
> claims for scholarly historical analysis.
One source of my thought here was a statement quite a few years ago by Paul Sweezy that there could be no "Science of Socialism" because socialism was the realm of freedom. Crudely put, molecules do not decide through collective discussion how they will relate to each other! (This raises some philological questions re Engels's reference to the necessity for study if socialism is to be a science - but that is for another post.) If there were a science of socialism, then it would make perfect sense for the professional "scientists" (i.e., the Politburo) to dictate social action according to their understanding of the scientific laws. Any process dependent on human activity is going to vary from any pre-established "laws of motion." On examination, most proposed "laws of history" are merely empirical generalizations - which are not the same at all as what Marx spoke of (in one of the prefaces of Capital*) as the "method of abstraction." It is only because capitalism is, in fact, a system, a whole, with the 'parts' internally related, that it can be studied scientifically as other social systems (past and present) cannot be.
The decisions of Odysseus as to the distribution of activity within his _oikos_ were only externally related, if at all, to decisions by other lords of Ithaca on their _oikoi_. The swineherd's labor was in no way affected, let alone determined, by labor of swineherds on other _oikoi_. There could be no political economy of Ithaca.
[This is sloppily formulated, but it will have to do for now, and should at least provide a basis for further discussion.]
Carrol