Below, from the last time we argued this, is a direct quote from Marx explicitly
evincing his conviction that dialectics apply in natual science, and spitting directly
on those who deny that he had that conviction.
CB
Yes, Chris, the direct quotes from
Marx supporting our (I assume I can
say we agree on this) position are mounting
up. It seems to be about 10 to 0 by my
count. Here's another one.
In the Chapter entitled "Rate and
Mass of Surplus-Value" page 309
of International.
"The possessor of money or
commodities actually turns into
a capitalist in such cases only
where the maaximum sum
advanced for production greatly
exceeds the maximum of the
middle ages. Here, as in
natural science, is shown the
correctness of the law discovered
by Hegel (in his "Logic"), that
merely quantitative differences
beyond a certain point pass into
qualitative changes."
If that doesn't prove our case,
I don't know what would. This
is Marx (not Engels) using the
general term "natural science"
(in general) and saying one
of the three laws that Andy
likes to mock applies to
"natural science".
Then there's a footnote on
chemistry.
"The molecular theory of modern
chemistry first scientifically worked
out by Laurent and Gerhardt rests on
no other law. "
Charles Brown
>>> Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/11 5:03 PM >>>
Another passage from the famous Volume 1, showing the continuity of Marx's
reasoning between the natural sciences and the human sciences.
This time the second footnote to Chapter II, imposing the criteria for
judging a chemists analysis, on the unfortunate Proudhon who was discussing
justice and commodites:
(again I assume Marx in the 1860's saw chemists as at the leading edge of
science)
"Proudhon begins by taking his ideal of justice, of 'justice eternelle',
from the juridical relations that correspond to the production of
commodities: thereby, it may be noted he proves to the consolation of all
good citizens, that the production of commodities is a form of production
as everlasting as justice. Then he turns round and seeks to reform the
actual production of commodities and the actual legal system corresponding
thereto, in accordance with this ideal. What opinion should we have of a
chemist, who instead of studying the actual laws of the molecular changes
in the composition and decomposition of matter, and on that foundation
solving definite problems, claimed to regulate the composition and
decomposition of matter by means of the 'eternal ideas' of 'naturalite' and
'affinite'? "
Here sound analysis in chemistry in used as a yardstick for exposing
idealism in human science.
I submit further that the style of scientific analysis in both is
dialectical.
Incredible!
Chris Burford
London
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
