Dialectical Materialism and Science (Maurice Cornforth)

Dialectical Materialism and Science
Author	Maurice Cornforth
Written in	1949
First published	London, England
Type	Pamphlet
Source	https://library.memoryoftheworld.org/#/book/a92b5ddc-6608-47f2-b55a-d28083a4f5bb

Note: Minor edits to this text has been made to comply with Prolewiki's Policy of using Statesian English. Capitalizations of headers and the beginnings of paragraphs have also been edited.

Note

This booklet is based on a report given to a conference of British Marxist scientists in London in June 1949. The original report has been amplified and corrected in the light of the discussion which there took place, and additional material has been added. What follows is to a great extent a collective effort. I am alone responsible for the form in which it here appears; and, in particular, for any mistakes that may be found in it; but it could not possibly have been written without the help of a number of comrades and it represents the summary of many discussions.

Maurice Cornforth

London, August 1949

Forward

This little essay, so masterly in its grasp of its subject, so lucid and vigorous in expression, clears up one of the major problems of our time. When we Marxists have fully assimilated it we shall be so much the more fit to carry the burden of leadership which history must soon lay upon our shoulders.

No history of philosophy, no history of science, can be successfully written independently of the history of society, for the basic categories of science are in the last analysis determined by the structure of society. In a class-divided society no ruling class has ever pushed its thought to the point which would undermine its own position. Social categories thus penetrate the natural sciences, explaining an essential feature of their constitution and explaining also the causes of their distortion and decay.

From this it also follows that the development of science, not only in its applications but in the most intimate recesses of its theory, is a political question. To speak like Aristotle: science is by nature a political matter.

This is a burning question of our day, one that is in itself difficult to understand and where understanding is clouded by passion. For this reason one welcomes an essay combining topical urgency with the serenity of science. Short works written in this mood have before now exerted a powerful action on events. One cannot suppress the hope that this booklet may be found useful not only in our own country but beyond.

Benjamin Farrington

I - The Crisis of Bourgeois Science

Modern science is the creation of the bourgeoisie. It is one of the most typical products of bourgeois society. And it carries the mark of its bourgeois origin in its methods and in its ideas. It is the means for understanding and controlling the processes development of capitalism.

To say this is at once to imply a method of criticism of science. It is to say that the science of the past and present is not pure science but the science of a class, and to be criticized as such.

But it is not to deny the achievements of science.

Basic Conceptions

The great development of modern science took its origin in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. At the foundation of this development was (a) the radical criticism of the dogmas which had hardened in the middle ages and circumscribed the whole previous development of science. The great initial discoveries of the sciences, whether those of Copernicus, Galileo or Harvey, all proceeded from this basis, which was expressed philosophically in Bacon's first aphorism:

"Man, as the minister and interpreter of nature, does and understands as much as his observations on the order of nature—either with regard to things or the mind—permit him, and neither knows nor is capable of more."

At the foundation was (b) the experimental method, which aims at discovering the laws governing particular classes of phenomena by means of controlled experiments and the use of perfected instruments and apparatus, particularly instruments and apparatus of measurement.

The experimental method was not the creation of modern science. On the contrary, it had been employed by the Greeks. But with modern science it was first used on a wide scale, intensively developed, applied in all spheres of investigation as the fundamental method of scientific investigation—replacing mere observation and speculation about the causes of observed facts.

And (c) there was rapidly built up a mechanistic conception of nature, as a system of bodies eternally, or since the creation of the world, going through the same cycle of movements according to fixed laws.

This mechanistic conception reached its zenith in the Newtonian mechanics. The application of the bourgeois conceptions of mechanism—and their power and fruitfulness—is likewise shown, for example, in Harvey's discovery, which overthrows the old Galenic ideas by regarding the heart as essentially a pump, which pumps the blood around the body.

Successive Development of the Sciences

What, then, has been the character of the achievements of bourgeois science in the period of its rapid and flourishing development since the seventeenth century? These achievements can be summarized under three heads.

(a) There has been achieved what Engels called "the successive development of the separate branches of natural science"—the evolution of the different sciences one from another, and their differentiation one from another as distinct " disciplines "Apart from mathematics, astronomy, and mechanics, which were already in existence", writes Engels, "physics becomes definitely separated from chemistry (Torricelli, Galileo . . .). Boyle put chemistry on a stable basis as a science. Harvey did the same for physiology. . . . Zoology and botany remain at first collecting sciences, until paleontology appeared an the scene—Cuvier—and shortly afterwards came the discovery of the cell and the development of organic chemistry. Therewith comparative morphology and physiology became possible. . . . Geology was founded at the end of the eighteenth century. . . ."

In this process, which, as Engels says, must be "studied further in detail", the successes scored in one field of science create the possibility for the establishment of the scientific investigation of new fields. The whole process exhibits its own internal logic of development, which unfolds on the basis of the development of the productive forces of capitalist society, which at one and the same time present new problems for science to tackle and provide the technical means for tackling them.

This successive development and differentiation of the sciences, which proceeds right to our own day, and will continue, has, however, its negative side. This is shown in the tendency to the separation of the sciences and to overspecialization, which continues to operate despite the establishment of intermediate sciences, such as physical-chemistry, biochemistry, etc., and which today results in "the unity of science " being posed as a major unsolved problem by bourgeois philosophy of science.

Achievements of Analysis

(b) In all the successive fields of science the major achievements have been achievements of analysis—the analysis of the phenomena of nature into their parts or elements. This essentially means the demonstration of how things work, in the sense of the demonstration of how the action of the parts produces the action of the whole.

One of the greatest achievements of scientific analysis is the atomic theory, which regards all bodies as made up of atoms. On this basis it was demonstrated, for example, how chemical compounds are formed—as when atoms of oxygen and hydrogen combine in the proportions of one atom of oxygen to two of hydrogen to form water. Again, the basis of the solid, liquid, and gaseous states of matter was demonstrated: the differences between these states depend on nothing else but a change in the distances separating the atoms or molecules of the substance in question. Again, it was shown that heat is nothing but the movement of the atoms, which increases as the temperature rises, so that when a solid body is heated it becomes liquid, and then turns into a gas. Thus a flood of light is thrown on the properties of bodies, and on what happens to them under various conditions, by the discovery that bodies are made up of atoms.

Such analysis, achieved by scientific investigation, proves a powerful instrument for man's control over nature, in as much as knowledge of the parts and how they function gives power of control, and—as Engels pointed out when he described how "things in themselves" become "things for us"—power to make a thing for ourselves, " bringing it into being out of its conditions and using it for our own purposes into the bargain. . . ."

Two Kinds of Analysis

It is worth noting in this connection that there are at least two kinds of analysis practiced by science.

(1) There is the kind of analysis which demonstrates how a process on a macroscopic scale is constituted out of processes on a microscopic scale. This is exemplified in the atomic theory in physics and chemistry, in the cell theory in biology, and also in Marx's economic analysis of commodity production. It is the kind of analysis which investigates the elementary processes which go to constitute a more complex process, and has resulted in some of the most outstanding and permanent discoveries and achievements of science.

Thus the atomic theory investigates the fundamental processes taking place in and determining the course of physical and chemical changes. The cell theory in biology shows how the growth of the organism is a process of the multiplication and differentiation of cells, and investigates in the cell the basic processes of metabolism. Again, Marx's Capital affords an example of the same kind of analysis in the sphere of economics. It was on the basis of an analysis which revealed the fundamental, elementary economic processes of the circulation of commodities in capitalist society that Marx was able to demonstrate the laws of motion of capitalist society.

(2) There is the kind of analysis which postulates that the production of a certain end-result is controlled by the action of various factors.

This kind of analysis occurs, of course, throughout the whole field of science, whenever it is asserted that a certain result depends upon the values of a number of variables—for instance, the dependence of the volume of a gas on the temperature and pressure, or where such factors as specific gravity, specific heat, valency, etc., etc., are sorted out. Again, this type of factor analysis is exemplified in biology, when factors of nature and nurture are distinguished as influences affecting the development of the organism; or in economics, when factors of supply and demand are distinguished as influencing prices.

In fruitful scientific work the two kinds of analysis are combined. However, in many departments of bourgeois science strong tendencies arise to separate the second kind of analysis —factor analysis—from the first—analysis of fundamental processes. For example, in his fundamental economic analysis Marx demonstrated the law of value, i.e.: "The magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labor socially necessary, or the labor-time socially necessary, for its production." Then he was able to analyze various factors which cause commodities to exchange at other than their values. But bourgeois economics altogether neglects the analysis of the fundamental processes of the circulation of commodities, and confines itself to attempted analysis of factors governing the production and exchange of commodities. Such analysis is superficial and leads to-falsification of the phenomena investigated.

The same thing happens in bourgeois genetics. A number of factors are said to constitute the genotype of the organism, which combine with environmental factors in determining the fate of the particular organism. But this analysis is separated from any fundamental analysis of the processes of growth, of heredity, and of the interaction of organism and environment.

Tendency of Analysis to Become Metaphysical

The achievements of scientific analysis in bourgeois science have their negative side, which is expressed in the tendency of analysis to become metaphysical. This tendency is bound up with the tendency in bourgeois science to conceive everything mechanistically and hence to conceive of analysis as the investigation of mechanism.

If one is presented with some mechanism—a watch, for example—and wants to know how it works, one must take it to pieces, find out what parts it is made of, how they fit together, and how they operate on one another: in this way one demonstrates how the watch works, its mechanism.

If the task of analysis is conceived of exclusively after this analogy or model, then its aim is to demonstrate how the phenomena of nature are made up out of a number of separate parts, and how the processes of nature result from the external or mechanical interactions of these parts one on another. In this way the conception of nature is dominated by the conception of the machine. This domination of the machine over the people who make it, who thereby fail to understand the nature of their own handiwork, has long been manifest in bourgeois science.

What is a machine? Marx showed that "all fully developed machinery consists of three essentially different parts, the motor mechanism, the transmitting mechanism, and finally the tool or working machine ". The machine is a man-made assemblage of parts, such that if a motive force is applied and they are set in motion, the operation of the machine produces certain results.

The parts are essentially separable If no motive force is applied, if the motor is not set in motion, nothing happens. If the transmitting mechanism is disconnected from the tool, again nothing happens.

Hence if nature is conceived of after the model of the machine, then nature is conceived as made up of so many separable parts in interaction, whose motion always results from some impulse from outside.

The outcome is a metaphysical scheme—an analysis of nature, which fails to regard nature as a complex of processes but sees it rather as a complex of separate and distinct things, each with its own fixed nature independent of everything else, and which fails to discover the real, inner driving forces of change.

From this there follows, too, a tendency towards mechanist "reduction" or "leveling down", in which it is attempted to reduce the unique qualities or forms of movement of the whole to the sum of the separate motions of the parts. That a process is constituted out of its parts does not mean that nothing exists but those parts and their separate movements. To say this is to turn science into metaphysics, and to assert that the world consists of certain "ultimate" elements, which are the "ultimate reality"—or which are, at all events, the limits of knowledge.

The metaphysical tendency of analysis shows itself in factor analysis when the factors which are distinguished are rigidly conceived each apart from the others, separate and independent. And sometimes this leads to postulating whole sets of separate and distinct entities corresponding to the factors which are distinguished. When a number of separate factors are distinguished as controlling a certain end-result, it is postulated that each separate factor must represent the operation of some separate thing.

This is the procedure in bourgeois genetics, for example. Corresponding to the various factors which are distinguished as constituting the genotype of the organism are postulated sets of material particles—the genes—which are said to be strung out along the chromosomes in the cell like beads on a string. For each separate factor there is postulated a separate entity.

The result of this procedure in the case of factor analysis is that the factors are postulated as something given and largely uncontrollable. This is exactly what has happened with genetics, with the genetic constitution of the organism, when first a number of separate hereditary factors are distinguished and then each factor is transformed into a fixed and separate thing. The result of such metaphysics is that, from being an instrument for the more effective understanding and control of natural processes, analysis becomes the very opposite. It becomes rather an expression of what men conceive to be the limitations of their action than an instrument for enlarging their powers of action.

Evolution

(c) The third achievement to be noted is the advance of bourgeois science from the static conception of nature as the eternal repetition of the same kinds of processes, in which the same kinds of things keep on repeating the same kinds of movement, to the evolutionary conception.

Evolutionary ideas took possession of one field after another: for example, in the theories of the origin and development of the solar system, and likewise of the stars and of the galaxy; in geology, which traces the history of the evolution of the earth's crust; in another way in chemistry, with Mendeleyev's periodic scheme of the elements; in biology, with the theory of the evolution of organic species; and in various conceptions of the stage-by-stage evolution of human society.

It was in this connection that Engels noted the profound importance of three great discoveries of bourgeois science, namely: "the discovery of the cell as the unit from whose multiplication and differentiation the whole plant and animal body develops", the discovery of the law of the transformation of energy, and the Darwinian theory.

These discoveries, he pointed out, transformed the conception of the interconnection of natural processes and led to the recognition of nature as "an historical process of development".

Engels likewise pointed out that the introduction of evolutionary ideas was a further blow towards the emancipation of science from theology.

In the seventeenth and the first part of the eighteenth centuries, he points out, "science was still deeply enmeshed in theology. Everywhere it sought and found its ultimate resort in an impulse from outside that was not to be explained from nature itself. . . . Copernicus at the beginning of the period writes a letter renouncing theology; Newton closes the period with the postulate of a divine impulse ". But the evolutionary theories removed the necessity of explaining the world by a divine impulse from outside, by "explaining the world from the world itself".

The advance to evolutionary conceptions of nature was connected with the rise of industrial capitalism and the industrial bourgeoisie, which supplanted the earlier manufacturing and mercantile phase. It was the harbinger and concomitant of the industrial revolution. Society entered upon a period of exceptionally rapid change, which invaded the consciousness of both philosophers and scientists.

As Caudwell put it: "Now the bourgeois philosopher sees nature through rapidly changing economic categories, and hence sees changing nature. He sees the change in nature. . . . The interest of scientists is now directed to change in nature, and the Darwinian theory emerges, which is a theory of change in nature explained by the categories of the bourgeois society of the industrial revolution, with its laisser-faire policy."

The conception of evolution was integrated with the liberal conception of progress characteristic of the industrial bourgeoisie. And it was a genuine discovery of science, representing most important insight into natural processes, for which the ground had been prepared by the materials amassed and the methods of investigation established by earlier science, but which supplanted earlier conceptions.

At the same time, evolutionary ideas were hampered by the limitations inherent in even the most progressive bourgeois outlook.

Dialectical Materialism—A Scientific Generalization

The achievements of bourgeois science—the successes of scientific analysis in field after field of investigation, and the discovery that in every field nature is a process of historical development—prepared the ground and provided the materials for the great scientific generalization embodied in dialectical materialism.

Thus Engels could already write in 1885: "The revolution which is being forced on theoretical natural science by the mere need to set in order the purely empirical discoveries, great masses of which are now being piled up, is of such a kind that it must bring the dialectical character of natural events more and more to the consciousness even of those empiricists who are most opposed to it. . . . Natural science has now advanced so far that it can no longer escape the dialectical synthesis. . . . Nature is the test of dialectics, and it must be said for modern natural science that it has furnished extremely rich and daily increasing materials for this test, and has thus proved that in the last analysis nature's process is dialectical and not metaphysical."

It is precisely in the analysis of the processes of nature into their parts and elements, and in the discovery of the real interconnections of nature and of the laws of change and development, that there is demonstrated the dialectical character of nature's process. From this point of view the conceptions of materialist dialectics are the crowning generalization of a whole epoch of scientific advance and the point of departure for new advances.

The Revolutionary Character of Dialectical Materialism

But if the ideas of materialist dialectics are a generalization the basis of which was prepared by the achievements of bourgeois science, that does not mean that the philosophy of dialectical materialism is simply a summary or record of those achievements. On the contrary, this generalization was, as Zhdanov has pointed out, a genuine new discovery, of transforming, revolutionizing significance for philosophy and for the sciences.

The main thing is that dialectical materialism gives generalized philosophical expression to the outlook of a new class, the revolutionary proletariat. This outlook assimilates into itself the most advanced achievements of bourgeois science and bourgeois philosophy. But it is a new outlook, which transforms both science and philosophy. It discovers and brings out the underlying dialectical connections and the dialectical motion of the processes of nature and of history, thus introducing into the sciences what Engels called "the dialectical synthesis" and at the same time ridding them of the limiting, hampering conceptions of bourgeois thought and bourgeois methodology.

What are the new, revolutionary features of dialectical materialism?

(1) It is the complete victory of the materialist outlook, establishing the principles of a complete and absolutely consistent materialist approach in all spheres of thought.

"This means", said Engels, "that it was resolved to comprehend the real world—nature and history—just as it presents itself to every one who approaches it free from preconceived idealist fancies. It was decided relentlessly to sacrifice every idealist fancy which could not be brought into harmony with the facts conceived in their own and not in a fantastic connection. And materialism means nothing more than this."

This materialism involves at one and the same time the criticism of both the idealist and the mechanist preconceptions which penetrate bourgeois thought in the sciences. The categories of materialist dialectics provide precisely the method to comprehend the processes of nature and history as they really are, free from the falsification introduced by idealist and mechanist ideas.

(2) Dialectical materialism ends the philosophical systems of the past, in which it was attempted to erect a philosophy standing above the sciences, dictating its conclusions to the sciences, or claiming to produce a more true and complete account of the world and of human thought and activity than could be achieved by the sciences.

In her book on science in the seventeenth century, Martha Ornstein calls the philosophers "the propagandists of science ". This is true, in the sense that what the bourgeois philosophers have done is to abstract the idealist and mechanist categories of interpretation used in bourgeois science in its various stages of development, and elaborate these into rigid systems, thus obtaining a generalized expression of the preconceptions of bourgeois science and hardening them into dogmas, into hard and fast systems claiming to be eternal truth. And at the same time the inventors of philosophical systems have claimed to go beyond the sciences: they have claimed to reveal the ultimate nature of the reality which science deals with and to reveal the nature of spiritual reality inaccessible to science—the nature of God and of the human soul.

In opposition to all philosophical systems, Engels wrote: "Modern materialism is essentially dialectical and no longer needs any philosophy standing above the sciences. As soon as each separate science is required to get clarity as to its position in the great totality of things and of our knowledge of things, a special science dealing with this totality is superfluous. What still independently survives of all former philosophy is the science of thought and its laws—formal logic and dialectics. Everything else is merged in the positive science of nature and history."

(3) This means that with dialectical materialism philosophy for the first time becomes scientific, in the sense of being firmly based on the sciences. And the philosophical generalization which is based on the sciences is at the same time a guiding method for the sciences, an instrument for the further advance of science.

"Marxist philosophy", said Zhdanov, "as distinguished from preceding philosophical systems, is not a science dominating the other sciences; rather is it an instrument of scientific investigation, a method, penetrating all natural and social sciences and enriching itself with their attainments in the course of their development."

The ideas of dialectical materialism are generalized from the attainments of the sciences, and continually enriched as the sciences advance. And the point of this generalization is that it is something that can be set to work. Dialectical materialism is a guide to the grand strategy of future scientific advance, a weapon of criticism against mechanism and idealism in the sciences, and an instrument for the interpretation of scientific results and their integration in the materialist conception of nature and history.

Bourgeois philosophy, which sets up systems above the sciences, by so doing robs the sciences of adequate philosophical i guidance.

This was commented on by Caudwell, when he said of the theoretical outlook of bourgeois science: "That is not to say science has no theory; it is impossible to have any practice without a theory, but science's theory is the minimum theory possible, a theory which is empiricist and opportunist because it springs directly from practice. It is not a theory which has been evolved to meet the needs of a man's whole life in society, including his scientific speculation. It is a specialized theory designed only to meet the needs of a man as a scientist and not as a man with blood in his veins who must eat, labor, marry, and die. This limitation is pointed out with pride by modern scientists. It leaves room for God, they explain."

Dialectical materialism, which ends philosophy standing above the sciences, provides the sciences with their philosophy, creates a philosophy which penetrates the sciences. This is its strength; and this is one of the things about it which those imbued with the traditions of bourgeois science can least stomach.

Frustration of Science

But the achievements of bourgeois science, which prepared the basis for dialectical materialism, have at the same time had the effect of throwing bourgeois science into a condition of chronic, permanent crisis.

This was already perceived by Engels, when he said: "But the scientists who have learned to think dialectically are still few and far between, and hence the conflict between the discoveries made and the old traditional modes of thought is the explanation of the boundless confusion which now reigns in theoretical natural science and reduces both teachers and students, writers and readers, to despair."

The crisis of bourgeois science may be studied under three aspects. It manifests itself in three principal ways.

(1) Firstly, there is the organizational side. Science has developed from the stage in which it was carried on by private individuals using home-made apparatus to the stage in which it is carried on in large institutions, involving the co-operation of whole research teams, with technicians and assistants, involving heavy finance, elaborate organization, including publishing houses and journals, and complicated and expensive equipment.

This has proceeded together with the growth of industrial capitalism into monopoly capitalism. And it has meant that as science has developed into a great social institution, so it has fallen more and more under the control of the great monopolies and of the imperialist state machine. Science has become subject to the dictates of the capitalist monopolies in their scramble for profits and drive to war.

This means that the very organization of science under monopoly capitalism carries with it the disorganization of science, the frustration of science, and its distortion into those directions demanded by the interests of the monopolies. Scientists as individuals become the servants of monopoly capitalism, have to work as the monopolies direct, and are subject to all the economic and political hazards of capitalism in its declining days.

It is only as the outcome of the struggle for socialism that this frustration and distortion of science can be overcome. Socialism means the free, planned, and unfettered development of science in the service of the people.

Crisis of Ideas

(2) Secondly, there is the aspect of the internal, theoretical crisis of science—the crisis of scientific ideas. The essence of this crisis in all fields is precisely that stated by Engels—"the conflict between the discoveries made and the old traditional modes of thought".

The great achievements of bourgeois science, its penetrating analysis of nature, its discoveries of the interconnections of natural processes and of their laws of movement, have come into collision with its traditional modes of thought—its narrow mechanism and empiricism. The further theoretical development of science demands, as Engels put it, the dialectical synthesis. But this would be to carry theory far beyond the limits imposed on it by the bourgeois outlook. Hence the crisis of ideas in science.

Just as the development of the productive forces reaches a point where it can continue only by bursting through the fetters of the capitalist social relationships, so the development of the sciences, which in the last analysis reflects the development of the productive forces, reaches a point where it can continue only by bursting through the fetters of the ideas which reflect the capitalist social relationships.

The task of breaking these fetters belongs to the new, rising social force, the working class. In its struggle the working class gives rise to its political party, the Communist Party, armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism. And the task of leadership in the sphere of the sciences, too, devolves upon this Party.

The entire tendency of the discoveries of the sciences is to reveal with growing comprehensiveness and clarity the dialectical laws of motion and interconnection in nature and human society, and thus to break through the traditional mechanistic materialism and narrow empiricism of the scientists and to confirm the outlook of dialectical materialism. It is this which Lenin underlined in the case of physics, when he wrote: "Modern physics is in travail; it is giving birth to dialectical materialism."

But this tendency does not suit the bourgeois outlook, and contradicts it. Hence arises a counter-tendency in bourgeois science. It turns back from its own achievements, gives up the vantage grounds which have been won and suffers a theoretical collapse.

This tendency has revealed itself in all fields of science. It revealed itself first, not in the natural sciences but in economics, where the class interests of the bourgeoisie were most nearly and most immediately affected. Classical English political economy established the scientific foundations of the analysis of commodity production and discovered the law of value. But it was left to Marx to follow up this achievement by the discovery of | surplus value and the law of motion of capitalist society. As for bourgeois political economy, it collapsed into mere apologetics of capitalism and could not follow up its own initial achievement.

In sociology the same process was repeated after the publication of Morgan's Ancient Society in 1877. By his discovery of the gens, Morgan discovered the key to the scientific understanding of, as he expressed it, " the lines of human progress from savagery through barbarism to civilization", the origin of the family, private property, and the state. This achievement was immediately recognized and followed up by Marx and Engels It could not be followed up by bourgeois sociology, which has suffered the same collapse as bourgeois economics.

In biology the same process was repeated after Darwin. Bourgeois biologists have, for the most part, turned their backs upon the materialist teachings of Darwin concerning the evolution of living organisms and there emerged the trend known as "neo-Darwinism".

"Even when Darwin's teaching first made its appearance, it became clear at once that its scientific, materialist core, the theory of the evolution of living nature, was antagonistic to the idealism that reigned in biology", writes Lysenko. "Darwinism as presented by Darwin contradicted idealist philosophy, and this contradiction grew deeper with the development of the materialist teaching. Reactionary biologists have therefore done everything in their power to empty Darwinism of its materialist elements. The individual voices of progressive biologists . . . were drowned by the chorus of anti-Darwinists, the reactionary biologists the world over.

"In the post-Darwinian period the overwhelming majority of biologists—far from further developing Darwin's teaching— did all they could to debase Darwinism, to smother its scientific foundation. The most glaring manifestation of such debasement of Darwinism is to be found in the teachings of Weismann, Mendel and Morgan, the founders of modern reactionary genetics."

It was left to Soviet biologists to reinstate and continue the achievements of Darwinism and to expose the theoretical collapse of bourgeois biology.

In physics, once again, the same process is being manifested. Unable to undertake the materialist theoretical generalization of its own discoveries concerning the electron, the atomic nucleus, the quantum of action, bourgeois physics has collapsed into formalism, into various varieties of the theory that "matter has disappeared", and into idealist cosmological speculations.

All along the line bourgeois science suffers this same theoretical collapse. Its own discoveries contradict its own traditional modes of thought and it proves unable to carry them forward. Its practice collapses into empiricism and narrow specialization. Its theory dissolves into fragments: it despairs of any general theory of science, of positive knowledge of reality, and takes refuge in ad hoc hypotheses, in formalism and idealist speculations.

As a result there is to be found no clarity of fundamental ideas in any department of science today, and it is rent with controversy in all spheres. Such is the real situation of bourgeois science. This situation is disguised only by the enormous output of particular, specialized studies, accumulating in an unmanageable number of specialized journals. But this very empiricism and specialization is only one of the symptoms of the profound crisis of ideas. At the same time, the true situation in the sciences is hidden from laymen by the pontifical pronouncements of certain scientists in the popular press and over the radio, when they come forward in the character of experts, though it is often only a case of the blind leading the blind.

The way out of this crisis is by the application in science of the categories and methods of dialectical materialism. This, of course, is by no means an easy job. And it is worth pointing out that there is a revisionist way of seeking to apply dialectical materialism in science, as well as a Marxist way. The revisionist way is uncritically to accept the particular formulations being made by bourgeois science and to try to dress them up in a dialectical materialist terminology. The Marxist way is by the i method of criticism and self-criticism.

Two Trends in Science

(3) Thirdly, with the triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union, and with the division of the world into its socialist and capitalist sectors, the crisis of bourgeois science begins to assume the aspect of the conflict of two trends of science—of science in the capitalist world and of science in the socialist world. The trend of science subjugated to monopoly capitalism is opposed by the trend of science planned and organized in the service of the people. Bourgeois science is opposed by Soviet science, guided by the ideas and methods of dialectical materialism.

II - Materialism Versus Idealism

III - Dialectics Versus Metaphysics