Science, Knowledge, and the Reproduction of the Social Capacity for Labour

  • Lothar Laesker


The social effect of science, especially those applications which have profoundly changed social life, are arousing great interest in problems of its development. Which laws or regularities, it is asked, make scientific results possible? We know from experience that the application of these results is inevitable. This is not only an economic interest in science; but economy forms the basis in this respect, as in many others, and from the applications in material production all other effects are derived. Thus the question arises of how science becomes a productive force. A satisfactory answer can be found only if consideration is given to how science has emerged by differentiation from an originally uniform social practice. This process of differentiation began many thousand years ago with the first forms of the separation of manual work from brain-work and with the beginning class society. This process, however, is not completed; there are important arguments in favour of the significance of those periods in the history of science in which differentiation processes dominate rather than the application of ready-made sciences. In order to illustrate this thesis special attention should be devoted to the first decades of the 19th century, because they seem to represent a period of changing predominance: the development of modern science initiating from the 16th century arrives at a process of maturity reaching a high level in the 2nd half of the 19th century.


Productive Force Material Production Labour Power Social Reproduction Objective Meaning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    For instance W. Lefevre inquires into this historical context, in: Naturtheorie und Produktionsweise, Darmstadt, Neuwied 1978.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    On these problems see: Marx, K.: Das Kapital, vol. 1, in: Marx/Engels: Werke, vol. 23, pp. 356ff., pp. 382f.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    For instance Schlick, M.: Allgemeine Erkenntnislehre (1925), Frankfurt/Main 1979 (Repr.), in particular pp. 324ff.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Popper, K.R.: Objektive Erkenntnis. Ein evolutionaerer Entwurf, Hamburg 1964, pp. 57ff.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tarski, A.: Papers, reprinted in: Logik-Texte, ed. by K. Berka und L. Kreiser, Berlin 1971; Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den Sprachen der deduktiven Diziplinen, pp. 356-359; Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten Sprachen, pp. 445–559; Grundlegung der wissenschaftlichen Semantik, pp. 350–356.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    For gegenstaendliche Wahrheit11 cf. in: Lenin, W.I.: Materialismus und Empiriokritizismus, in: Werke, vol. 14, Berlin 1964, pp. 96 und 132ff.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marx, K.: Thesen ueber Feuerbach, in: Marx/Engels: Werke, vol. 3, p. 533.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The works by Reaumur and Buffon are quoted by Jacob, F.: Die Logik des Lebenden. Von der Urzeugung zum genetischen Code, Frankfurt/Main 1972, pp. 82ff.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quesnay, F.: Oekonomische Schriften, vol. I, ed. by M. Kuczynski, Berlin 1971.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cited in: Jacob, Die Logik (ref. 8).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hegel, G.W.F.: Enzyklopaedie der philosophischen Wissenschaften, ed. by F. Nicolin and 0. Poeggeler, Berlin 1966, pp. 283 f.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Darwin, Ch.: Ueber die Entstehung der Arten durch natuerliche Zuchtwahl, ed. by J.V. Carns, Stuttgart 1876.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    In the advanced form as the theory of reproduction in: Das Kapital, vol. I and II (ref. 2, 24 ).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Watson, J.D.: Molecular Biology of the Gene, 2d ed. by W.A. Benjamin, New York 1970.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lewontin, R.C.: The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York, London 1974.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marx, K.: Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, Berlin 1953, pp. 425ff.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ibid., pp. 61ff.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marx, K.: Das Kapital, vol. 1 (ref. 2), p. 85f f.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    This reversal in the case of the theory of knowledge is discussed by J. Piaget: Die Entwicklung des Erkennens I, dazu: Das mathematische Denken, Stuttgart 1972, p. 271.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dijksterhuis, E.J.: Die Mechanisierung des Weltbildes, Berlin, Goettingen, Heidelberg 1956, pp. 269ff.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bernal, J.D.: Die Wissenschaft in der Geschichte, Berlin 1961, pp. 265f f.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marx, K.: Das Kapital, vol. 1 (ref. 2), p. 391ff.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marx, K.: Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, in: Marx/Engels: Werke, vol. 13, p. 18.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marx, K.: Das Kapital, vol. 2, in: Marx/Engels: Werke, vol. 24, pp. 62f.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    For the biological aspect cf. Waddington, C.H.: The Strategy of the Gene, London 1957, p. 109.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marx, K.: Kritik des Hegeischen Staatsrechts, in: Marks/Engels: Werke, vol. 1, p. 267.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lothar Laesker

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations