Comrade Harry,
I would say that part of the answer to your question is that an overall scientific
worldview among the masses of workers is necessary for working class and socialist
consciousness. A scientific worldview cannot be instilled based on consideration of
the history of human society alone, but rather must include a conviction of the
scientific nature of the natural world and some enthusiasm for the knowledge of modern
natural science replacing a religious or idealist worldview. Only with this full
scientific worldview will workers be convinced of a scientific understanding of
society and human history, and consequently a historical materialist and communist
standpoint toward social issues. One of the aspects of the Marxist conception of all
of this that imputes to it a superior philosophical understanding of the whole matter
is that dialectics is a profound insight into epistemology including that of the
natural sciences. That Marxism has discovered a fundamental logic of reality t!
!
hat even many highly successful natural scientists are not consciously aware of , but
which is reflected in their work.
So, the point is that Marxism relies on its superior understanding of science at a
philosophical level to persuade people of its superior understanding of science as
applied to human society in particular. It is part of legitimizing Marxism with the
masses of workers whom Marxism seeks to get to move and change the world.
Charles Brown
>>> Harry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/08/99 11:19AM >>>
Comrades,
I'm not too sure what this argument is about.
In my view, it doesn't matter whether we call the kind of reasoning
marxists apply in understanding what's going on around us and how to
intervene most effectively is called 'dialectical materialism',
'materialist dialectics', 'historical materialism', 'the materialist
view of history' or what have you. Nor does it matter whether we, or
Engels or Lenin, depart from exactly what Marx meant by it. What
matters is whether its application, in the form we apply it, leads to a
correct understanding and effective action (the test of whether our
understanding is correct).
I find the disagreement over whether the dialectic is applicable to 'the
natural world' or not puzzling. For those of us who don't actually work
in the 'natural sciences', obviously its application to the natural
world is going to be marginal, particularly in contrast to how we apply
it daily in understanding social phenomena and informing our practice.
I reckon if there's one thing we need to learn from the dialectic, its
the unity of theory and practice.
I don't know whether it's the case that Marx thought mid-19th Century
science adequate or not. But back in those days, 'science' had not yet
come against quantum phenomena, superstrings and whatnot. Without
pretending to understand this stuff, from what I read, one of the main
barriers to scientists' understanding it is a futile attempt to address
them mechanistically. Some scientists I've read (can't supply citation,
I'm afraid, but probably something in Scientific American or New
Scientist) seem to be on the verge of breaking with this, although they
may not know where to turn.
Evolutionary (punctuated equilibrium), geological and astronomical
phenomena seem to me to unfold in a dialectical way and if we can
understand such things dialectically, why should we hold back, whether
or not the giants from whose shoulders we gain a wider perspective
recognised it themselves?
YFTR,
Harry
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
