Karl Marx Essay, Research Paper

When George M. Trevelyan states, “that the analogy of physical sciences has misled many historians,” he is talking about the comparison between physical sciences and the reality that history can never really be a true science. Physical science is inevitable and can be proven through data and experiment. There is nothing on the planet that can prove history through data and experiment. When physical science occurs, there is a cause and affect that concurs with the meaning of the happening and why it happened. Many historians get misled by the fact that history has no “practical utility”.(230). In other words, you can not make anything of substance form the knowledge of history. Even though there can be evidence of why things in history have occurred, there are no facts to prove it will happen again and when it will happen again. With history not being able to be accounted for Trevelyan, says, ” History can educate the minds of men by causing them to reflect on the past.”

Macaulay would agree with this statement. He would agree that too many historians are trying to be perfect through the science realm of history, when in fact it is inevitable. Instead Macaulay would prefer to depend on “Reason and Imagination”. Macaulay feels as though history has to be stated with a reason and transferred down to having substance through imagination. A great historian, is one that has a great imagination to past down the details of the past and rededicate those images to reflect on the truth of the past without damaging the product by adding farce tales of their own. Macaulay knows that the past can never be brought to life as fully as the actual occurrence, but he also understands that a great historian can conjure up a picture to retell it like it just happened. Macaulay knows history is not a science for the simple fact that he states,” No picture is exactly like the original; nor is a picture good in proportion as it is like the original.”(76).

On the other hand Buckle might disagree with Trevelyan, and counter with his theory that history can be compiled and researched to predict a cause and affect. Buckle feels there have not been enough historians trying to combine their knowledge to predict the future upbringings the world has to offer. By cataloging dates, inventions, laws, speeches, all could help historians understand the cause and affect of history. He feels as though the more you know and the more data you intake will help you not only be a better historian, but also a better predictor of the future. Bury feels that history as a literature has hindered man’s thoughts. Bury would like to believe that people are part of history at all times as well as having an effect on the future cycle of the world. Bury does not feel as though the science of history can be accomplished, but instead it is a linear passage that changes as time goes on, and we are part of that linear progress.

When you deal with the controversy as to whether history is science or literature you must look at major themes which can help decipher the importance of each theory. Dealing with facts in the controversy we see through Trevelyan that facts are important for the knowledge of history but even though, these facts can not determine the future by cause and affect. On the other hand Buckle might see facts as the key ingredient to determining the future and ask if certain things that happened in the past were inevitable, and may occur again. Buckle believed that the compiling of these facts was the important part to his theory. Facts were there, but they were in different categories that compiled history. At the same time laws may be a concern in the fact that laws play a major part of shaping of a historical event and or occurrence. Buckle felt as though laws have a cause and affect on different people and portions in history. By studying laws you can pin point what might happen if a certain law is passed or vetoed. Believing in these laws would concur that laws make history a certifiable science, and not just literature. Imagination also plays a major role in the controversy. Imagination of ones philosopher is the main ingredient in making a good historian. Trevelyan, states that imagination without story telling is one of the most creative ways to get a recurrence of history. The best way to recycle history is to imagine what really happened, and who ever does this the best will have a better understanding of history. The last key ingredient to this controversy is objectivity. Most historians and philosophers have a good understanding for the way history should be told. When a philosopher just uses his imagination and does not exaggerate the truth then the history can remain authentic. Even though imagination can never be labeled a science it is great for the argument of history to be preserved through literature.

Michelet and Carlyle conception of history differ in that Michelet believes in the imaginative portion of history. He feels as though a person can hear the story of history, but if he/she can not imagine the depths of the history then history has been tarnished. On the other hand Carlyle takes a more scientific approach and figures history can be better explained by ‘Experience’ being recorded, and the more of this data ones has the better chance of understanding history he/she will have.

Section III

When speaking on Marx there are many things that established him to be one of the best historians. Marx had a great appreciation for the laborer. Marx felt value came from the labor and a person product and value came from his/her labor. Bourgeoisie people were not part of this labor union, which gave them less value. Value is therefore essentially a social, objective and historically relative category, It is social because it is determined by the overall result of the fluctuating efforts of each individual producer. Most of these kind of people only cared about the cash flow instead of the man to man relationship of the working class. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and other works that broke with the tradition of appealing to natural rights to justify social reform, invoking instead the laws of history leading inevitably to the triumph of the working class, not the bourgeoisie.

318