Marx and the philosophy of history

Abstract

The argument of this paper is that the essential difference between the philosophy of history of the young Marx and of the mature Marx is one of method and, hence, of the logical status of his conclusions. The young Marx argues the case for his view of history on the basis of an analysis, derived from a Hegelian model, of the structure of the world. The method of argument is metaphysical, and, hence, its consequences, if. valid, would be necessary. The mature Marx argues the case on the basis of an analysis, conceived as an analogy of Darwin's model of evolution of the factual course of history. The method of argument is empirical, and, hence, its consequences, if valid, cannot be 'necessary', although it might be claimed they have a scientific certainty, or at least a high degree of probability.