Good one , John,
You have found even more examples than we did last time,directly from Marx, directly
of Marx expressing the opinion that dialectics has validity not only in human history
but in natural history.
Maybe Marx was wrong, but those who are arguing the other side should say that they
disagree with Marx as well as us.
CB
>>> "J.WALKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/13/99 07:07AM >>>
Hi,
>From what I've read it I think that Marx just presumes that the
dialective pervades both the physical natural world and its subset the
human social world. He had read the ancient writers as we know from
his dissertation (a work I haven't read, yet) and they certainly
thought that the dialectic was the vitalising force of the universe.
Everything was indeed in a state of flux before, including and despite
human society. If Marx steeped in this tradition was to object to this
assumption he would have had to make quite a strong case that his
personal theory was just a unique example of the action of the
dialectic which did not exist otherwise. As he did not do this it hard
to prove he objected to the evidence Engels and other were trying to
analyse to see if Marx's theory was truely scientific or merely yet
another example of an accidental discovery by some new genius to
manufacture 'as perfect a system of society as possible'. That is,
another form of Utopian Socialism.
Here are a few more quotes from Marx OWN writings on dialectics
existing in nature:
'All that exists, all that lives on land and under the water,
exists and lives only by some kind of movement. Thus the movement
of history produces social relations...' (The Poverty of
Philosophy)
In his postscript to Das Kapital he explains how he 'treats the
social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws
not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence,
but rather, on the contary, determining that will, consciousness
and intelligence' (Postface to the Second Edition of Das Kapital)
'In natural science is shown the correctness of the law discovered
by Hegel, in his Logic, that at a certain point merely quantitive
differences pass over by a dialectical inversion into qualative
disinctions. The molecular theory of modern chemistry ... rests on
no other law.' (Das Kapital, chapter 11)
'The weakness of the abstract materialism of natural science, a
materialism which excludes the historical process, are immediately
evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions expressed by
its spokesman whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own
speciality.' (Das Kapital, chapter 15)
'The law Hegel discovered, of purely quantative changes turning
into qualative changes, as holding good alike in history and
natural science' (letter to Engels, 22.6.1867)
'Darwin's book is very important and serves me well as a basis in
natural science for the class struggle in history. One has to put
up with the crude English method of development' (letter to Lassale
16.1.1861) Clearly it is the English metaphysics which is its
failure and presumably he hoped it would be recast with German
dialectics. A year earlier he said the same thing to Engels, ' this
is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our
view.'
No matter how much one pretends that Marx believed that human
thought was somehow beyond nature and therefore human society could
have a dialectical history whereas nature was purely static or
metaphysically evolutionary, he actually says:
'It is impossible to seperate thought from matter that thinks.
Matter is the subject of all changes.' (The Holy Family)
This is far from an exhausive survey and there are many more refences
which do not as easily transfer in to breif quotes. I think that the
Postface is the clearest example of the rise of interest in the issue
and Marx's implied position that his theory was equally applicable to
natural science, though clearly much more work had to be done on the
subject.
Are all these works just frauds?
Did the evil Engels, in his meglomaniacical grasp for fame and fortune
on the back of poor old Marx, slip all these quotes in to stengthen
his own perverted argument? Is there a secret, yet-to-be published
manuscript by Marx which will reveal his true position? Perhaps, 'My
Theories are Inapplicable to Natural Science.' !
Please do explain I would love to know.
John Walker
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
