Page - 55 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

thematerialist view of history 55 MaxAdler’s insights,especiallyhiscriterionofisolatinghumanistphenomena andhiscategoryoflawfulness(Gesetzmäßigkeit),andwantedtointegratethem intohisposition.Hisaimwastoformulateaunifiedtheorythatcouldexplain naturalandsocialphenomena,whilesimultaneouslytakingintoaccounttheir specific characteristics.At theoutset, Bauer considered theparadigmofnat- ural sciencesas theonlycorrectmodel foracquiringscientificknowledge.He stressedtheimportanceofbasingsocialscienceontheconceptual framework andmethods of the hard sciences. For him, thiswas the only approach that could approximate thedegreeof precisionandcertainty associatedwith the natural sciences and therefore guarantee objective results. Nonetheless, one shouldrefrainfromclassifyingBauerasanadvocateofnatural-scientificreduc- tionism. In his statements, he frequently cited the differences between nat- ural sciencesandsociology: according tohim, theyconsistedof their varying degreesofaccuracy.OfMarx’sworks,heheldCapital inparticularlyhighregard and argued that it embodied a prime example of social science.Marx’s spe- cial achievement, inBauer’s view, lay in the fact thathedefined thematerial premisesofsocialconditionsandformulatedobjective lawsofsocialdevelop- ment.Hence, the author ofCapitalhadbuilt amodel for the social sciences thatapproximatedtheidealof thenaturalsciences. This begs the question: onwhat premise did Bauer base his judgement? Bauer regarded theMarxianmethod–which, according to him,was funda- mental to the scientificity of his system – as the essence ofMarxism.23 He referred to thismethod as the ‘materialist viewof history’ or ‘economic his- toricism’. He substantiated his high opinion thus: not only did themethod explain the tendencies of social development; it also provided amethodolo- gicalapparatus, i.e. ameansof interpretingconcretesocio-political situations andstructuralchangesinrelationtogenerallaws.ForBauer,however,itwasnot justahistoricalmethod;hebelievedthatbothHegelandMarxhademployeda techniqueonparwiththemathematicalnatural sciences.Forhim,Hegeland Marx’sgreatestachievementwasthattheyhadexpandedtheremitsofapplied natural sciences tosocial science.Bauerwentastepfurtheranddrewaparal- lel betweenMarx’s andDarwin’s respectivemethods.According tohim, their theories differedonly in termsof their fields of research.WhatBauerhad in mind in this instancewasundoubtedly themethodological approach: in this 23 BothDetlevAlbers andAlfredPfabiganhavenoted this fact, althoughneither tookany particular position on it. Let us therefore stress that reducingMarxism to amethod was an unjustified simplification, given thatMarxism contains a complete viewof the developmentofclasssocieties,andthusatheoryofeconomicformations.SeeAlbers1985, p.78;comparePfabigan1977,pp.42–3.