56 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
social life into a single whole. Behaviouralists, on the other hand, are interested in increasingly fragmented micro-analysis which emphasizes a narrow single aspect to the exclusion of others. They arc delighted when a link is discovered between capital and carbuncles: "Capital made Marx more vitriol on the bourgeoisie^'8 but they cannot discover how ludicrious their delight is! Every behaviouralist is master within his own narrow field of research and it is no wonder that often the study of one conflicts with that of another. This manipulation of facts by different behaviouralists for different conclusions is what Easton calls "hyperfactualism"4 and instead he puts forward a "general theory" which he claims "resembles the theory of motion in physics or life in biology."8 But still the difference persists. Easton is concerned with the political process, Marx with the social process. Easton only describes how a political system functions. Marx tells us why it so functions. Easton is completely silent, but Marx is fully outspoken on the very vital question: the nature of political system.
Theory v. Commitment
Another point of difference springs from their respective attitudes to science. To the behaviouralist, the first and foremost criterion of scientific study of society is absolute neutrality or non-commitment to values on the part of the social scientists. Just as a physical scientist observes natural phenomenon without being a party to it and the truth he discovers or invents remains the same irrespective of his belief or faith, so also social scientist must not allow his own value judgment to creep into his research^ thereby polluting its objective sanctity. To Marx, the social scientist must be committed to values, but his commitment must not be subjective but must be backed by an objective and scientific theory of society. To the behaviouralists, social scientists will supply intellectual weapons, but will withdraw in times of their application. To Marx, social scientist cannot evade responsibilities once he has discovered his truths. The behavourali-ists want to remain fixed in their ivory tower of research and speculation while the Marxists prefer constant travels from the realm of thought to the realm of action and vice versa. Behaviouralism, if the claims are right, is only a science (it does not require much effort to prove as we will do, that it is not), whereas "Marxism is both a scientific doctrine and a revolutionary ideology."6 Hence the famous dictum of Marx:
"the philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it"7.
Is Marxism a science? It is too complicated a question to suggest any ready-made answer. Even the Marxist thinkers, not to speak of their opponents, differ widely. We can simply ignore the thesis of Max Eastman who ascribes to Marxism the title "religion in new form"8, whereas even the staunchcst of the modern critics of Marx find at least some elements of science in his thought. Bottomore thinks that "Marxism is an empirical study of the historical and social facts, but not a science. At the most it is a science of socialism, an analysis of the existing socialist