consistency as Newton's Laws of Gravitation, Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
One can never be certain that researches in social science represent reality or are simply figments of the researcher's manner of conceiving the study. Therefore there has been a constant debate in the field over whether any given study is subjective or objective.
When we consider the contribution of Karl Marx to the field of sociology, some of these concerns become central issues. Marx was immensely erudite, from a life of constant study and writing, and the best education that 19th century Germany could offer - the Universities of Bonn, Berlin and Jena (Kamenka, liv, 1983). In spite of being one of the most controversial figures in human history no one today denies the brilliance of his thought. Like Sigmund Freud, many of his specific theories or predictions have been disproved or severely criticized, but his influence has been immense.
The difficulty of trying to fit Marx into the discipline of sociology is that he was much more than a disinterested scholar trying to divine the origins and laws of man's social behavior. Marx was a prophet of a quasi-religious, albeit atheistic, cult. The consuming passion of his entire life was revolution. He would have been no more content to limit himself to a life of writing scholarly papers for sociological journals than a great athlete would enjoy being a permanent spectator.
A glance at the Manifesto of the Communist Party of 1848 reveals a man too caught up in the certainty of his own pronouncements to embody the caution and precision of language of a scientist (Kamenka, 203).
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". Is this statement based on an exhaustive study of every known society? Certainly there is much truth to it when we consider the history of Europe, and Marx cites many examples from history to back up his argument...