Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T21:48:22.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: A Reply to Mr. Mattick's Article on Marxism and the New Physics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Manfred S. Frings
Manfred S. Frings*
Affiliation:
Duquesne University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It will be recalled that Mr. Mattick stated that Marxism does not derive its social theory from physical theory, and that any attempt to do so is an aberration from marxism. It is maintained that Marx is not a determinist or indeterminist in the ususal sense of these terms. Furthermore, it was argued that ideologies are no longer decisive weapons and that Marxists put little trust in the dialectical course of history.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , July 1964 , pp. 289 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © 1964 by Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

∗ Received November, 1962. See Paul Mattick “Marxism and the New Physics,” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 29, No. 4, (October, 1962).

1 Marx borrowed the Hegelian dialectical principle but inverted it. With Hegel ideas are the effecting principle in history. With Marx it is the material world (i.e. relations of production) which is autonomous, being the social-economical condition in history.

2 K. Marx, Das Kapital, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1953, Vol. I, pp. 7 and 8.

3 Cf. Gustav A. Wetter, Der dialektische Materialismus, Seine Geschichte und sein System in der Sowjetunion, Freiburg, 1960, Teil I, Kapitel II, esp. pp. 38-41.

4 For a detailed analysis of the question of determinism in Marx’ thinking we refer to two outstanding and competent authors of works on Dialectical Materialism. The importance and quality of their works is clearly seen by the inflammatory reaction which they invoked among communists in Soviet Russia and East Germany:

G. A. Wetter, Sowjet Ideologie Heute, Frankfurt 1962, 2 Teil: Historischer Materialismus, pp. 150-160. Die Materialistische Geschichtsauffassung, pp. 162-205, cf. especially 5 b “Historical Determinism”.

G. A. Wetter, Der Dialektische Materialismus, Seine Geschichte und sein System in der Sowjetunion, Wien, 1960, Teil I, pp. 21-115.

I. M. Bocheński, Der Sowjetrussische Dialektische Materialismus, München und Bern, 1956.

5 K. Marx, Das Kapital, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1953, I vol. p. 8.

It has to be noted here that Marx holds that history is governed by laws like nature itself. Marx uses for this the word “Naturgesetz.” cf. G. A. Wetter, Sowjet Ideologie Heute, Frankfurt, 1962, p. 186.

6 F. Engels, (Herrn Eugen Dührings Umwälzung der Wissenschaft (“Anti-Dühring”), Moskau 1946, p. 138 ff.

7 F. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach und der Ausgang der klassischen deutschen Philosophie, Berlin, 1946, p. 35 ff.

8 M. E. Omeljanovskij, Dialekticeskij materializm i sovremennaja fizika (Dialectical Materialism and modern Physics) in “Kommunist”, 1956/5 pp. 72-87. It is asserted here that there are no waves and particles in reality but only their dialectical structure, i.e. they are uniform in their contradictory state, forming one whole.

9 The essential interpretations of quantum physics in Russia appear to be the following: D. I. Blochincev, Kritika filosofskich vozzrenjij tak nazyvaemoj. “Kopengagenskoj školy,” v fizike (Critique of the philosophical opinions of the so-called Kopenhagen School in physics) In: Filosofskie voprosy sovremennoy fiziki, pp. 358-395.

D. I. Blochincev, Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, Berlin, 1953 (Foundations of Quantum Mechanics).

M. E. Omeljanovskij, Filosofskie voprosy kvantovoj mechaniki (Philosophical Questions of Quantum Mechanics) Moscow, 1956.

M. E. Omeljanovskij, Dialektičeskij materializm i sovremnnaja fizika (Dialectical Materialism and the modern physics), 1956/5 pp. 72-87.

M. E. Omeljanovskij, O tak nazyvaemom sootnošenii neopredeleennostej v kvantovoj mechanike (On the so-called Uncertainty Relation in Quatum Mechanics) Voprosy filosofili (Philosophical Questions) 1954/1.

G. Ja. Mjakišev, V čeem pričina statističeskogo charaktera kvantovoy mechaniki ? (What is the reason of the statistical character of quantum mechanics ?) Voprosy filosofii, 1954/6.

Z. P. Vize (J. P. Vigier) K voprosu o teorii povedenija individual’ nych mikroobjektov (On the question of a theory about the behavior of individual micro-objects) Voprosy filosofili, 1956/6.

A. D. Aleksandrov, in: Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta, 1949/4, cited by M. E. Omeljanoskij, Protiv idealisticeskogo istolkovanija statističeskich ansamblej v kvantovoy mechanike (Against an idealistic Interpretation of the Totalities in Quantum Mechanics) Voprosy filosofili, 1953/2.

S. I. Vavilov, Filosofskie problemy sovremennoj fiziki i zadači sovetskich fizikov v bor'be za peredovuju nauku (The philosophical problems of modern physics and the tasks of Soviet physicists in their struggle for a progressive science) In: Filosofskie voprosy sovremennoy fiziki, pp. 5-30.

10 A. Vislobokov, O nerazryvnosti materii i dvizenija (On the indivisibility of matter and motion) Moscow, 1955, p. 106.