The following is more demonstration of dialectics as process of natural history :
Reason
and Revolt: Marxism and Science by Alan Woods and Ted Grant online @
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~zac/maindex.htm
CB
(((((((((((((
>>> Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/13/99 09:00AM >>>
You've convinced me, John!
I'm off to buy up big on E-Bay and Amazon - that should keep me in lager
and tabs whilst I observe the natural transformation of capitalism into its
one and only immanent other from my verandah.
Bugger decades of penury in the reading room, eh?
Cheers,
Rob.
>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] ---
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
