Social Scientist. v 4, no. 39 (Oct 1975) p. 67.

Graphics file for this page

certain cases these influences helped them to arrive at views that won them international recognition."4 Further, he says, "if we admit the legitimacy of asking fundamental questions about the nature of things of which man is a part, the approach represented by dialectical materialism— science-oriented, rational, materialistic—has some claims of superiority to available rival systems of thought, claims it is appropriate to receive with respect."8

The volume covers debates ranging over relativity-physics, quantum mechanics, resonance chemistry, cybernetics, cosmology, the origin of life, and physiology. These topics which are covered in separate chapters in the book are considered by the author as an "initial sketching out of what is the largest, most intriguing nexus of scientific-philosophical-political issues in the 20th century". Graham's work is not a blatant anti-soviet, anti-communist study of this ^ost intriguing nexus'. His treatment is scholarly though biased in favour of his own philosophical position of critical realism. This becomes evident when he asserts that "materialism, like its denial, is a philosophical position based on assumptions that can neither be proved nor disproved in any rigorous sense"8. Whilst his criticisms, disagreements and suggestions regarding Marxist philosophy of science are influenced by this belief in realism, he does not subscribe to the anti-Marxist notions prevalent among Western "Marxiologists."

Marxiologist and Critical Realist Bias

One of the intellectual exercises in which the Western "Marxiolo-gists" indulge is that conception of dialectical materialism is not present in Marx and is indeed foreign to his thought and it is En gels who is responsible for bringing in the natural sciences in the Marxist thought. Graham rightly maintains that such "Marxiologists" have erred in implying that Marx was interested only in human nature and not in physical nature. He sums up this debate in the following words: "It is one thing to say that Marx never committed himself to finding dialectical laws in nature to the extent to which Engels did; it is quite another to say that such an effort contradicted Marx's thought, particularly when Marx is known to have supported the effort on several occasions".7 The facts of Marx's support to Engels's effort are well documented. Engels read the entire manuscript of his Anti-Duhring to Marx, who presented no objections and even contributed a chapter himself for inclusion in the book. Engels started working on Dialectics of Nature in 1873, ten years before Marx's death and their correspondence illustrates that Marx fully shared Engels's interest. Marx also made references to the dialectical character of natural processes in Capital.

Many writers in the West have commented that while Engels in Anti-Duhring maintains a postivistic position, that is, all knowledge must be composed of verifiable data derived from nature, in Dialectics of Nature he maintains a metaphysical dialectical position. Graham does not subscribe to such anti-Marxist rubbish and maintains that.

Back to Social Scientist | Back to the DSAL Page

This page was last generated on Wednesday 12 July 2017 at 18:02 by
The URL of this page is: