We are living in a period of profound historical change. After a period of 40 years of unprecedented economic growth, the capitalist system is reaching its limits.
In place of growth we now face economic stagnation, recession and a crisis of the productive forces. Even leaving aside the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, there are between thirty and forty million unemployed in the advanced capitalist countries.
On the eve of the twenty-first century, humanity finds itself at the crossroads. The crisis of capitalism pervades all levels of life. It is not merely an economic phenomenon. It is reflected in speculation and corruption, drug abuse, violence, all-pervasive egotism and indifference to the suffering of others, the breakdown of the bourgeois family, the crisis of bourgeois morality, culture and philosophy.
How could it be otherwise? One of the symptoms of a social system in crisis is that the ruling class increasingly feels itself to be a fetter on the development of society.
Catholic Church
In its period of historical ascent, the bourgeois struggled against the old obscurantist outlook of the Catholic Church - the highest expression of the ideology of feudalism. Even before the bourgeois revolutions in Holland and England, this struggle was anticipated by the titanic battle waged by science against the Inquisition. Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, Galileo and Kepler represent the struggle of a new world outlook against the stranglehold of the past.
The French Revolution was anticipated by the ideas of the materialist philosophers of the Enlightenment. In its progressive phase, the French bourgeoisie was atheist and materialist. It fought under the banner of Reason. Only when the rise of the proletariat posed a threat to its rule, especially after the Paris Commune of 1871, did the French bourgeois suddenly rediscover the charms of Mother Church.
However, in the present epoch - the epoch of the senile decay of capitalism - all these processes have been thrown into reverse. In the words of Hegel: "Reason becomes Unreason." It is true that "official" religion is dying on its feet. In many parts of the world, the "official" churches are empty and increasingly in crisis. Instead, we see the proliferation of all kinds of sects and an epidemic of religious fundamentalism - Christian, Islamic, Jewish and Hindu, etc. In the United States, religious involvement has reached feverish heights.
This is a sign of the blind alley of society, which drives sections of the petit bourgeois insane. As the new century beckons, we observe the most horrific throwbacks to the Dark Ages.
This phenomenon is not confined to Iran, India and Algeria. In the United States - the most developed and technologically advanced capitalist nation (along with Japan) - we recently saw the "Waco massacre", and the ever more violent and frequent shootings of school students by one another. In other Western countries, we see the uncontrolled spread of religious sects, superstition, astrology and all kinds of irrational tendencies. All these phenomena bear a striking resemblance to what occurred in the period of the decline of the Roman Empire.
Let no one object that such things are confined to the fringes of society. Only fifteen years ago, the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, made a famous speech about the 'Evil Empire' (Russia) which he used to justify a program of production of the most terrifying means of destruction - enough to destroy the world many times over. In this speech he expressed himself thus: "In the world, Sin and Evil exist, and Holy Scripture and our Lord Jesus Christ command us to oppose them with all our might." The language and thought of the leader of the most developed capitalist country comes straight out of the Middle Ages. This is a dialectical contradiction of the first order. And it is not isolated.
When the first US astronaut, circulating the earth, was asked to give a message to humanity he chose the first sentence of Genesis: "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth."
It is no accident that in a number of states in the USA, schools are obliged to teach the 'creation' theory as opposed to evolution. Nor that evangelical crooks make fortunes out of radio stations with a following of millions.
Irrationality
Where does this all-pervasive irrationality come from? It is not unconnected with a feeling of helplessness in a world where the destiny of humanity is controlled by terrifying and seemingly invisible forces.
Just look at the sudden panics on the stock exchange, with 'respectable' men and women scurrying around like ants when their nest is broken open. These periodic spasms, causing a herd-like panic, are a graphic illustration of capitalist anarchy. And this is what determines the lives of millions.
Marx pointed out that the ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of the ruling class. In its heyday, the bourgeoisie not only played a progressive role in pushing back the frontiers of civilization, but was well aware of the fact. Now the strategists of capital are seized with pessimism. They are the representatives of an historically doomed system, but cannot reconcile themselves to the fact.
This central contradiction is the decisive factor which sets its imprint upon the mode of thinking of the bourgeoisie today. Lenin once said that a man on the edge of a cliff does not reason. It is an incredible fact that the boards of directors of giant multinational companies consult astrologers before taking big investment decisions. The only justification for this is that the results given to them by the professional economic witch doctors are not much better!
The longer this decrepit system based on chaos, greed and parasitism is permitted to continue, the greater is the threat to the accumulated social, economic and cultural gains of humanity.
Science and Society
Until quite recently, it appeared that the world of science stood aloof from the general decay of capitalism. The marvels of modern science and technology gave colossal prestige to scientists, who appeared to have almost magical qualities. The respect enjoyed by the scientific community increased in the same proportion as their theories became increasingly incomprehensible to the majority of even educated people.
However, scientists are ordinary mortals who live in the same world as the rest of us. As such, they can be influenced by prevailing ideas, philosophies, politics and prejudices, not to speak of sometimes very substantial material interests.
Most scientists sincerely believe that they are entirely open-minded. They have "no philosophy," but merely dedicate themselves to the objective consideration of "the facts."
Unfortunately, the facts do not select themselves. Heraclitus, that marvelously profound thinker of Antiquity, once said: "Eyes and ears are bad witnesses for men who have barbarian souls."
The Greek word "barbarian" meant "someone who did not understand the language."
Modern science furnishes an abundance of material which completely confirms Engels' assertion that "in the last analysis, nature works dialectically." And yet, at every step, scientists themselves draw entirely erroneous philosophical conclusions from their work.
At this moment in time, the work of many fundamental particle physicists is based on the search for a "theory of everything" - a "grand universal theory" (or GUT).
It is interesting to note that, one hundred years ago, scientists also believed that they had discovered all the basic laws of the universe on the basis of Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism.
Just as now, there were just a few questions to be cleared up, and we would really know all there was to know about the workings of the Universe. Of course, there were a few discrepancies which were troublesome, but they appeared to be small details which could safely be ignored.
However, within a few decades, these "minor" discrepancies proved sufficient to overthrow the entire edifice and effect a veritable scientific revolution.
For most of the present century, physics have been dominated by the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics which displaced the old classical mechanics. Nevertheless, in the beginning, the arguments of Max Planck and Albert Einstein did not have much of an echo among the scientific establishment, which clung tenaciously to the old views.
There is an important lesson here. Any attempt to impose a "final solution" to our view of the universe is doomed to fail. Hegel once said: "Truth is infinite: its finiteness is its denial."
Anti-Dühring
Dialectical Materialism sets out from the conception of an eternal, infinite, evolving, developing, ever-changing material universe. Therefore, nobody will ever possess a "theory of everything." To attempt this is to seek to place a limit on human cognition and development. However, all such limits are doomed to be overthrown. That is demonstrated by the whole history of science.
As Engels explains in his masterpiece Anti-Dühring: "A system of natural and historical knowledge which is all-embracing and final for all time is in contradiction to the fundamental laws of dialectical thinking, which, however, far from excluding, on the contrary includes, the idea that the systematic knowledge of the external universe can make giant strides from generation to generation."
The theories of quantum mechanics and relativity have had an important effect on the development of science and technology. However, they are no more the last word than were Maxwell's laws of electromagnetics which they (partially) displaced. One provisional theory replaces another provisional theory, until it, in itself, is superseded.
The development of science, and human thought in general, consists of an endless series of approximations, which penetrate deeper and deeper into the secrets of the material universe. This is the only "Absolute" - the never-ending process of human cognition in pursuit of knowledge of an infinite and ever-changing material universe.
From the standpoint of dialectical materialism matter and energy are the same. Engels described energy ("motion") as "the mode of existence, the inherent attribute, of matter." (Dialectics of Nature, p.92)
Einstein showed that light, long thought to be a wave, behaved like a particle, and was subject to the law of gravity. This was brilliantly confirmed in 1919, during an eclipse of the sun. Later De Broglie showed that matter, hitherto thought to consist of particles, must be accompanied by waves and to partake of their nature.
The argument which dominated particle physics for many years, whether sub-atomic particles like the electron were particles or waves was finally resolved by quantum mechanics which asserts that electrons can, and do, behave both like a particle and like a wave.
This assertion, in its day, caused a heated controversy. It went against the laws of formal logic, or, put another way, "common sense."
"But sound common sense," as Engels remarked, "respectable fellow as he is within the homely precincts of his own four walls, has most wonderful adventures as soon as he ventures out into the wide world of scientific research. Here the metaphysical mode of outlook, justifiable and even necessary as it is in domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the object under investigation, nevertheless sooner or later always reaches a limit beyond which it becomes one-sided, limited, abstract, and loses its way in insoluble contradictions." (Anti-Dühring, p.28).
Formal Logic
How can "common sense" accept that an electron can be in two places at the same time? Or even move, at incredible speeds, simultaneously, in an infinite number of directions?
For formal logic, based on the so-called Law of Identity (‘A’ equals ‘A’) and Law of Contradiction (‘A’ does not equal ‘not A’), such a proposition would indeed be monstrous. For everyday purposes, these laws hold good. But for more complicated calculations, involving, for example, huge distances, or extremely high speeds, or infinitely small particles, they prove incapable of explaining things. They simply break down.
To deal with such phenomena, a dialectical approach is required. Let us again quote Engels:
"But the position is quite different as soon as we consider things in their motion, their change, their life, their reciprocal influence on one another. Then we immediately become involved in contradictions. Motion itself is a contradiction: even simple mechanical change of place can only come about through a body at one and the same moment of time being both in one place and in another place, being in one and the same place and also not in it. And the continuous assertion and simultaneous solution of this contradiction is precisely what motion is." (Anti-Dühring, p.135,)
The idea that an electron can be a wave and a particle which can be simultaneously in one place and somewhere else is a brilliant confirmation of dialectics as elaborated, not only by Marx and Engels, but by Hegel, and even by Heraclitus.
In 1927, Werner Heisenberg advanced his celebrated "uncertainty principle", according to which it is impossible to determine, with the desired accuracy, both the position and velocity of a particle simultaneously. The less uncertain a particle's position, the more uncertain its momentum, and vice versa. (This also applies to other specified pairs of properties).
The difficulty is establishing precisely the position and velocity of a particle which is moving at 5,000 miles per second in different directions, is self-evident. However, to deduce from this that causality in general does not exist is an entirely false proposition.
The rejection of the old mechanical determinism of Laplace and others was correct and necessary. But to carry this to the point of denying causality altogether is a finished recipe for abandoning science and rational thinking altogether.
In his book "The Strange Story of the Quantum", Banesh Hoffmann does not hesitate to affirm that "strict causality is fundamentally and intrinsically undemonstrable. Therefore, strict causality is no longer a legitimate scientific concept and must be cast out of the official domain of present-day science." (Op.cit., p.150,)
No wonder the same author exclaims on the same page: "It is difficult to decide where science ends and mysticism begins." Indeed it is. For once we deny causality, the universe becomes an entirely arbitrary and random affair. The whole basis for rational thought disappears and the door is opened for the most monstrous mysticism and irrationality.
It is interesting to note that many prominent scientists radically disagreed with Heisenberg's interpretation of the phenomena under consideration. Among them were not only Einstein, but also the principal pioneers in the field of quantum mechanics, Max Planck, Louis de Broglie, and also Erwin Schroedinger whose celebrated equation was crucial to its development.
As an attempt to justify the rejection of causality, it is alleged that "the observer creates the result of his observation by the act of observation." (B. Hoffmann, op.cit., p.155). Heisenberg and Niels Bohr claimed that a photon or an electron materializes in a given spot only when it is measured. By what precise mechanism this is supposed to occur remains a mystery. We are just supposed to accept the claim that observation itself has a decisive affect on objective processes as an article of faith.
Dialectical materialism sets out from the objectivity of the material universe, which is given to us through sense perception. "I interpret the world through my senses." That is self-evident. But the world exists independently of my senses. That is also self-evident, one might think, but not for modern bourgeois philosophy!
One of the main strands of twentieth century philosophy is logical positivism, which precisely denies the objectivity of the material world. More correctly, it considers that the very question of whether the world exists or not to be irrelevant and "metaphysical." These arguments were brilliantly answered by Lenin in 1908-9 in his book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism:
"If color is a sensation only depending upon the retina (as natural science compels you to admit), then light rays, falling upon the retina, produce the sensation of color. This means that outside us, independently of us and of our minds, there exists a movement of matter, let us say of ether waves of a definite length and of a definite velocity, which, acting upon the retina, produce the sensation of color. This is precisely how natural science regards it. It explains the sensations of various colors by the various lengths of light waves existing outside the human retina, outside man and independently of him. This is materialism: matter acting upon our sense organs produces sensation. Sensation depends on the brain, nerves, retina, etc., i.e. on matter organized in a definite way. The existence of matter does not depend on sensation. Matter is primary. Sensation, thought, consciousness are the supreme product of matter organized in a particular way. Such are the views of materialism in general, and of Marx and Engels in particular." (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol.14, p.55).
Conscious Idealism
And Heisenberg? Even as a student, Heisenberg was a conscious idealist, who admits being greatly impressed by Plato's Timaeus (where Plato's Idealism is expressed in the most consistent way), while fighting in the ranks of the reactionary Freikorps against the German workers in 1919. Subsequently he stated that he was "much more interested in the underlying philosophical ideas than in the rest," and that it was necessary "to get away from the idea of objective processes in time and space."
In other words, Heisenberg's philosophical interpretation of quantum physics was very far from being the objective result of scientific experiment. It was clearly linked to idealist philosophy, which he consciously applied to physics, and which determined his outlook.
The reactionary consequences of this subjective idealism which attempts to place a limit on human cognition, denies the objectivity of physical phenomena such as the movement of photons and electrons, and attempts to deny the existence of causality in general, was shown by Heisenberg's own evolution. He justified his active collaboration with the Nazis on the grounds that "There are no general guidelines to which we can cling. We have to decide for ourselves, and cannot tell in advance if we are doing right or wrong."
Schroedinger ridiculed the assertion of Heisenberg and Bohr that, when an electron or photon is not being observed it has "no position" and only materializes at a given point as a result of the observation. Take a cat and put it in a box with a vial of cyanide, said Schroedinger. When a Geiger counter detects the decay of an atom, the vial is broken. According to Heisenberg, the atom does not 'know' it has decayed until someone measures it. In this case, therefore, until someone opens the box and looks in, the cat is neither dead nor alive!
By this anecdote, Schroedinger meant to highlight the absurd contradictions caused by the acceptance of Heisenberg's subjective idealist interpretation of quantum physics. The processes of nature take place objectively, irrespective of whether human beings are around to observe them.
The denial of causality, the idea that all actions are random and have no cause, is, likewise, entirely false. To accept this would be to deny all of science and, further, to make all meaningful predictions impossible.
Yet this is clearly not the case.
Quantum Mechanics
Scientists continue to make predictions which are verified by observation and experiment. That includes the field of quantum mechanics, "uncertainty" notwithstanding.
While it is not possible to predict with accuracy the behavior of individual photons or electrons, it is possible to predict with great accuracy how enormous quantities of particles will behave.
There is nothing new in this. What are known as "mass random events" can be applied to a very wide field in physical, chemical, biological and social phenomena, from the sex of babies to the frequency of defects on a factory production line.
The laws of probability have a very long history. For example, the "law of great numbers" establishes the general principle that the combined effect of a large number of accidental factors produces, for a very large class of such factors, results that are almost independent of chance. This idea was expressed as early as 1713 by Bernoulli, whose theory was generalized by Poisson in 1837 and given its final form by Chebyshev in 1867.
The assertion that we cannot know the precise causes, or predict the precise position and velocity of an individual electron is, in reality, a philosophical commonplace, devoid of all content. To attempt to search for a precise account of all the co-ordinates and impulses of each individual particle would be to go back to the crude mechanical determination of Laplace. That is, in reality, a fatalistic concept which reduces necessity to the level of mere chance - i.e. if everything is governed by a kind of eternal decree, then everything is equally arbitrary, whether we call it necessary or not. As Engels puts it: "There is no question of tracing the chain of causation in any of these cases: so we are just as wise in one as in another, the so-called necessity remains an empty phrase, and with it - chance also remains what it was before." (Dialectics of Nature, p.291).
As a matter of fact, if it were possible to establish all the causes of the movement of sub-atomic particles, the investigation of these in the case of just one election would be sufficient to keep all the scientists in the world busy for several lifetimes, and still they would not get to the end of it.
Fortunately, that is not necessary. While we are unable to precisely "fix" the position and momentum of a given particle, which therefore may be said to have a "random" character, the situation changes radically when a large number of particles are considered. And here, we are dealing with truly vast numbers.
When we toss a coin in the air, the chance that it will land "heads or tails" may be put at 50:50. That is a truly random phenomenon, which cannot be predicted.
However, the owners of casinos, which are supposedly based on a game of "chance" know that, in the long run, zero or double zero will come up as frequently as any other number, and therefore they can make a handsome and predictable profit.
Probabilities
The same is true of insurance companies which make a lot of money out of precise probabilities, which, in the last analysis, turn out to be practical certainties, even though the precise fate of individual clients cannot be predicted.
"Quantum mechanics having discovered precise and wonderful laws governing the probabilities, it is with numbers such as these that science overcomes its handicap of basic indeterminacy. It is by these means that science boldly predicts. Though now humbly confessing itself powerless to foretell the exact behavior of individual electrons or photons or other fundamental entities, it can yet tell you with enormous confidence how such great multitudes of them must behave precisely." (B.Hoffmann, op.cit., p.152).
Incidentally, these instances, taken from the most different fields, are very good examples of the dialectical law of the transformation of quantity into quality.
The development of quantum physics represented a real revolution in science, a decisive break with the old stultifying mechanical determinism of "classical" physics. (The "metaphysical" method, as Engels would have called it). Instead, we have a much more flexible, dynamic - in a word dialectical - view of nature.
Beginning with Max Planck's discovery of the infinitesimal existence of the quantum, which at first appeared to be a tiny detail, almost an anecdote, the face of physics was transformed. Here was a new science which could explain the phenomenon of radioactive transformation and analyze in great detail the complex data of spectroscopy. It directly led to the establishment of a new science - theoretical chemistry, capable of solving previously insoluble questions. In general, a whole series of theoretical difficulties were eliminated, once the new standpoint was accepted.
Nuclear Fusion
The new physics revealed the staggering forces locked up within the atomic nucleus. This led directly to the exploitation of nuclear energy - the path to the potential destruction of life on earth - or the vista of undreamed-of and limitless abundance and social progress through the peaceful use of nuclear fusion.
Here was a mighty advance for science. Yet the human mind - contrary to the prejudices of idealism - is innately conservative. This revolution in science was accompanied by the most primitive and reactionary philosophical conclusions.
"Natural scientists," wrote Engels, "believe that they free themselves from philosophy by ignoring or abusing it. They cannot, however, make any headway without thought, and for thought they need thought determinations. But they take these categories unreflectingly from the common consciousness of so-called educated persons, which is dominated by the relics of long obsolete philosophies, or from the little bit of philosophy compulsorily listened to at the University (which is not only fragmentary, but also a medley of views of people belonging to the most varied and usually the worst schools), or from the uncritical and unsystematic reading of philosophical writings of all kinds. Hence they are no less in bondage to philosophy, but unfortunately in most cases to the worst philosophy, and those who abuse philosophy most are slaves to precisely the worst vulgarized relics, of the worst philosophies." (Dialectics of Nature, p.279).
Thus, in his conclusion to a work dealing with the quantum revolution, Banesh Hoffmann is capable of writing: "How much more, then, shall we marvel at the wondrous powers of God who created the heaven and the earth from a primal essence of such exquisite subtlety that with it he could fashion brains and minds afire with the divine gift of clairvoyance to penetrate his mysteries. If the mind of a mere Bohr or Einstein astound us with its power, how may we begin to extol the glory of God who created them?" (B.Hoffmann, op.cit., p.194-5).
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example. The whole of modern scientific literature is thoroughly impregnated with such mystical, religious or quasi-religious twaddle. This is a direct result of the idealist philosophy which a great many scientists, consciously or unconsciously, have adopted.
Geometry
The laws of quantum mechanics fly in the face of "common sense" (i.e. formal logic), but are in perfect consonance with dialectical materialism. Take, for example, the conception of a point. All traditional geometry is derived from a point, which subsequently becomes a line, a plane, a cube, etc. Yet close observation reveals that the point does not exist.
The point is conceived as the smallest expression of space, something which has no dimension. In reality, such a point consists of atoms, - electrons, nuclei, photons, and even smaller particles. Ultimately, it disappears in a restless flex of swirling quantum waves. And there is no end to this process. No fixed "point" at all. That is the final answer to the idealists who seek to find perfect "forms" which allegedly lie "beyond" observable material reality.
The only "ultimate reality" is the infinite, eternal, ever-changing material universe, which is far more wonderful in its endless variety of form and processes than the most fabulous adventures of science fiction.
Instead of a fixed location - a "point" - we have a process, a never-ending flux. All attempts to impose a limit on this, in the form of a beginning or an end, will inevitably fail.
Thus, for centuries, scientists have tried in vain to find the "bricks of matter" - the ultimate, smallest particle.
Alan Woods
Home | Back to Science & Technology