Knives asked in Social ScienceSociology · 9 years ago

Karl Mark's Contributions?

I'd like to know what contributions he made to the field of Sociology.

2 Answers

  • Sienna
    Lv 7
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Well put it this way. Last century over 100 million people were killed by governments attempting to implement his social theories.

    In sociology, he is commonly referred to as one of the founding fathers, along with Weber and Durkheim. But surely a criterion for being considered so, is that his theories should not be blatantly false. The important thing is, Marx considered himself first and foremost an economist. Yet it was the economics departments who were the first to reject his theories. In short, they are riddled with self-contradictions, logical fallacies, and just plain errors. For example, his entire theory was predicated on the idea that class is the moving force of history. Yet when he got to Volume 3 of Capital, and started on the chapter in which he was to define class, he stopped and, thirty years later, he died without ever defining it. Why? Because the theory is wrong. People don't act in huge monolithic lumps with solidary interests. Class could never be defined without constantly sub-dividing down into smaller and smaller groups, ultimately to the individual worker. And any classes would comprise *competing* interests, not *solidary* interests.

    In the 1870s his theory was demolished by Menger in "Karl Marx and the Close of his System". But the total explosion came in 1921 when Mises wrote "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth". This proved that socialism is not possible in theory, let alone in practice. This is because it entails abolition of the markets for capital goods, without which *there could be no economic calculation*. The result must necessarily be planned chaos, mass starvation and political totalitarianism. But the Marxists, steadfast in their ignorance, never got it. The disastrous results of socialism were not some kind of strange coincidence, some kind of hitch in the implementation of an idea that was "good in theory". No. The very idea is rotten to the core. It must *necessarily* reduce the population, and civilisation, to the level of a barter economy. The only reason it was able to survive as long as it did was because the socialists soon abandoned key parts of their platform, and because it was kept alive by the surrounding markets that it wanted to abolish.

    Abandoned by the economists, Marx's influence lived on in departments such as history, philosophy and sociology - characterised by their economic illiteracy: indeed they are truculently proud of it. Basically his contributions were nothing but a whole jumble of fallacies and errors that virtually characterise the modern humanities:

    - the idea that society is essentially unworkable, and that we need unlimited government to tell everyone what to do, even down to the tiniest detail, like what light-globe you can have in your house

    - the idea that the process of wealth creation, and human co-operation, is essentially zero-sum; a process by which some rip off others, rather than mutually beneficial

    - the idea that employment is intrinsically exploitative

    - the idea that profit is an immoral quantity; and that by identifying profit we have identified a misallocation of resources. The opposite is true. (Absent government intervention) profit arises only from serving the most urgent needs of the masses and without it, all production would be transformed into a senseless and wasteful jumble and billions would starve.

    - the idea that government can, by legislative fiat, allocate scarce resources to their most urgent and important social ends. The opposite is true. Without profit and loss, governments have no means of economic calculation. The only possibility is that massive waste that we witness governments do every day.

    - the idea that there is no such thing as economic science; there is only "ideology"; there is no possibility of rational knowledge, there is only sectarian class-based conflict in which one lives at the expense of another

    - the idea that socialism is a possible and desirable social goal. (It is not possible even in theory and therefore any question of its desirability does not arise).

    20th century neo-Marxism (Frankfurt school; critical theory; gender, class, race and all that) derived a whole new set of garbled fallacies based on the old, thus shaping the modern humanities. The great irony is that here is an industry of parasites who live at the expense of the productive working class producing "goods" that no-one would voluntarily pay for!

    While capitalism created the wealthiest societies in the history of the world, and even the poorest of the poor live at standards even kings of old could not parallel (cars, mobile phones, televisions, anti-biotics, plentiful food, etc. etc. etc. ) the neo-Marxists never ceased to vilify it as the most vicious and disastrous plague in the history of the world - while enjoying its benefits.

    Source(s): "Socialism" by Ludwig von Mises
  • 9 years ago


Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.