06-07-2006, 08:58 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Marxist Inquisition: Beyond Apologists the Truth
S. Aravindan Neelakandan
June 1, 2006
Based on the principle of falsification Karl Popper has evaluated Marxism as a pseudoscience like astrology1. But Marxist pseudoscience goes far beyond astrology, for Marxism forms the basis of a power structure that has expansionist tendencies and it is a closed ideological system.
When the discoveries of sciences disturb the theses that form an integral part of their power structures, such closed ideological systems that form the bedrock of power structures, react with ruthless violence which commences passively in suppression which goes on to attain orgasmic peak in inquisitions. The behavior of Marxist state towards the scientists, (whose disciplines Marxist theoreticians came to regard as heresies against Marxism), has been tone of he most vividly documented yet not very well discussed inquisition that happened in the modern era.
Usually the apologists belonging to different Marxist Parties all over the world tend to explain the Marxist inquisition as the result of Stalinism, which according to them is a deviation from the Marxist Leninist course of scientific socialism. Particularly Marxist apologists of Trotsky school market this line of explanation. However at the extreme end of the spectrum there still exist many Marxist groups that firmly believe Marxist inquisition itself to be a capitalist/imperialist propaganda myth. This is particularly true in many parts of the developing countries where questioning the 'scientific nature' of Stalinism can be as dangerous as apostasy in Islamic countries. The purpose of this article is to show how Marxism in its very theoretical structure contains an exclusive and closed approach to studying the universe, an approach, which it shares with the dogmatic mindset attributed to medieval church. This approach when integrated itself with the state power naturally evolves into an inquisition.
Ideological prelude:
Karl Marx himself proclaimed that "Natural sciences will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science, there will be one science."2 The 'science of man' Marx talks about is of course Marxism. A rule has thus been set here that would dictate how the natural sciences should travel so that they can 'incorporate into themselves' Marxism, 'the science of manâ. This in itself is not much different from the medieval church stand on natural sciences wherein the goal of natural sciences is to show by studying the physical universe the glory of its Creator. In Marxism the Creator is replaced by equally unscientific and mystical historical dialectics.
The paradigm shift in physics that happened with the evolution of Quantum Mechanics is of more fundamental nature than that of Copernican revolution that happened centuries ago. Science historian Helge Kragh says,
"The new physics that arose in the early years of the twentieth century was not a revolt against a petrified Newtonian worldview, something analogous to the revolt of Galileo against Aristotelianism. By 1905, the mechanical worldview had been under attack for more than a decade, and for this reason alone, there never was much of a clash between Einstein and Newton." 3
But that was in the fast secularizing western world where the reigning powers had no vested interest in the Newtonian worldview, as say, the medieval church had in the geocentric worldview. Not so for the theoreticians of Marxism then and for the Marxist state that would subsequently become a reality in 1917. Marxist State had a strong vested interest in the Newtonian worldview and the way they reacted to some of the paradigm shifts in modern science matches exactly the way medieval church reacted to the Galilean revolution.
This would also explain why V.I.Lenin the chief exponent of Marxist revelation took such an active interest in the developments of natural sciences, carefully monitoring their impacts on his Marxist dogma. Lenin viewed with contempt the paradigm shift that was happening then in physics. In fact, he gives his 'valued' opinion on those scientists and philosophers of science like Bogdanov, Wilhelm Ostwald, Poincaré, Le Rey and Berman. While philosopher of science, Berman is "absurd", physicist Poincaré is "full of fancy", and Duhem's Theory of Physics contains "falsity". Perhaps physicists world over consider the period of the exposition of theory of relativity and the analysis of paradoxes that lead to the development of Quantum physics as a period of great renaissance but for Lenin this period is one of, "a temporary deflection, a transitory period of sickness in the history of science, an ailment of growth."
More importantly, Lenin gave specific instructions as to in which direction science should progress. He says, "...One school of natural scientists in one branch of natural science has slid into a reactionary philosophy, being unable to rise directly and at once from metaphysical materialism to dialectical materialism. This step is being made, and will be made, by modern physics; but it is making for the only true method and the only true philosophy of natural science not directly, but by zigzags, not consciously but instinctively, not clearly perceiving its 'final goal', but drawing closer to it gropingly, hesitatingly, and sometimes even with its back turned to it." 4 (Italics added)
Fortunately for Lenin, he did not live to see the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics but unfortunately for Soviet physicists and biologists the Party and its theoreticians did see the flowering of Quantum Mechanics and Neo Darwinism. And thus started an ordeal, which packed in decades, the horrors of centuries long medieval inquisition.
The Purges: Lenin already made it clear that intellectuals who stood in the way of the implementation of the Marxist theory would be killed mercilessly whoever they might be. When Maxim Gorky complained of persecution of the intellectuals, Lenin wrote back to him wryly,
"Really and truly you will die if you don't break away from this situation with the bourgeois intelligentsia." 5
The so-called Stalinist purges had actually started thus during Lenin's times and had their roots strongly embedded in the fertile soil of Marxist dogma. Even during the Second World War eminent Soviet scientists like V.I.Vernadsky had asked for closer cooperation with the Western scientists and many hoped that intellectual life would become liberal and more decent after the war.
However it was not to be so. Already in 1936 the dean of the physics faculty of Moscow University was arrested and physicists who used Political authority to settle academic problems increasingly filled the faculty. In 1947, an article on the epistemological problems in quantum mechanics (by Moisei A. Markov of the Physics Institute of the Academy of Sciences) was published by a Soviet journal. Marxist philosopher A. A. Maksimov attacked it because the article was based on Bohr's complementarity principle. Subsequently in 1948, the editor of the journal was removed and the Copenhagen school's interpretation of quantum mechanics was decreed as anathema to the Marxist dialectical materialism and banned from the Soviet physics curriculum for the next one decade.6
The 1948 conference on biological sciences saw the triumph of Lysenko the notorious pseudo-scientist. Soon a conference on physics too was to be organized by the Party and physicists panicked that their field too might soon be the victim of ideological cleansing. Surely enough Sergei Kaftanov, the minister of higher education in the Stalin's regime, had complained in a letter to Deputy Premier Klimenti Voroshilov that, "Physics is taught in many educational establishments without any regard to dialectical materialism. . . . Instead of decisively unmasking trends, which are inimical to Marxism-Leninism, some of our scientists frequently adopt idealist positions, which are making their way into higher educational establishments through physics. . . . The modern achievements of physics do not receive consistent exposition on the basis of dialectical materialism in Soviet physics textbooks. . . . The role of Russian and Soviet scientists in the development of physics is treated in a completely inadequate way in textbooks; the books abound in the names of foreign scientists." 7
'Shoot them later'
The organizing committee for the conference saw physicist being accused of spreading cosmopolitanism and idealism. Iakov Frenkel was vehemently attacked for his explicit position on the irrelevance of dialectical materialism to the problems of physics. The draft resolution talked of as the duty of Soviet Physics to destroy "mercilessly every hint of cosmopolitanism, which is Anglo-American imperialism's ideological weapon of diversion." 8The draft resolution accused the leading physicists thus; Lev Landau of "groveling before the West"; Peter Kapitsa of advocating "open cosmopolitanism"; Iakov Frenkel of "uncritically receiving Western physical theories and propagandizing them in our country." Fortunately, however the aforesaid conference never took place. The reason was the stiff resistance from a team of physicists working in secrecy to build the Soviet nuclear weapon. According to the independent and highly agreeing accounts of the event by Lev Artsimovich a high ranking Soviet official and Gen. V.A. Makhnev, head of the secretariat of the Special Committee on the Atomic Bomb, it was on account of the bitter reaction from these physicists, (Kurchatov among them), that Stalin grudgingly cancelled the conference resolving that he could 'shoot the physicists later' when they had finished their work . 9 It is indeed an irony of history that the power lust of a dictator saved Soviet physics from the purges designed for other sciences in the dogmatic realm of Marxist Holy Empire.
Haunting continuities:
⢠Chaos theory, a capitalist degeneration
⢠Secular humanism, conspiracy to protect
US imperialism
Today too, Marxism sees in the emerging trends of science capitalist decadence and conspiracy. To the ideological proponents of Marxism the primary function of science has to be to confirm the dogmas of Marxism. Lest science fails to do this it summarily gets labeled as mathematical fantasy or capitalist reactionism. 'Living Marxism' is the monthly review journal of Revolutionary Communist Party (UK), which also has a 'Marxist review of books' section. Reviewers of science books in this column John Gibson and Manjit Singh make a scathing attack on Stephen Hawking's 'A brief history of time' as ending with 'speculation replacing anything that could be described as science.' They go on to give the readers a grave warning that, in popular science books like 'A Brief History of Time' distinction between " philosophical view and what is a scientific thesis is muddled." and more importantly, according to the Marxist reviewers, "And even more dangerously, particular philosophical views are masquerading as scientific propositions through the applications of particular mathematical models to nature." 10
Or in other words the problem is that Penrose and Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking are dangerous, because they are presenting particular philosophical views as scientific propositions to gullible readers. What a cultural degeneration from the good old days of Stalin and Lenin when we could have disciplined physics from straying into reactionary falsehoods and bourgeois mathematical fantasies and could have made it walk the path of 'only true philosophy of natural sciences gropingly, hesitatingly, and sometimes even with its back turned to it.'! The science of Chaos may be a fast developing scientific discipline for many. Yet it is not so, as per the Marxist blue print for the evolution of sciences. John Gibson and Manjit Singh make it clear that Chaos theory is 'a lot of speculative mathematical model building' and why has this science become very popular now? It is because of the socio-economic determinism that rules the evolution of capitalist societies.
"The stagnation of modern society imposes limits on the practical challenges facing science and the potential for carrying out experiments. This is turning much of today's scientific inquiry into mathematical model-building." 11
Applying chaos theory to study the problems in economics is thus "unscientific nonsense" and "a symptom of capitalist desperation". For a leap from this ideological reaction to purging the scientists studying chaos, the only thing needed is state power.
Har Dayal Bens a leading intellectual and author belonging to Communist Party of Canada (Marxist Leninist) has the choicest of swear words for the secular humanists. In their official book on the problems of India (published in five Indian languages and also in English,) 'secular humanism' is identified as the most dangerous protector of American imperialism and the right wing forces of USA aiming at de-stabilizing the developing countries.12
Conclusion:
Not everyone accepts the Copenhagen school interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Not everyone accepts natural selection as the sole mechanism for evolution. Not everyone agrees the extent to which chaos theory should be applied in the realm of social sciences. But these are areas where debates and free inquiry are needed and they have to be academic and scientific in their spirit and nature. They can happen only in a democratic atmosphere. The problem with Marxism, just like other Abrahamic religions, is that it has a rigid stand on many defining open-ended problems of science. And when science deviates from the Marxist worldview science is termed as 'speculation', 'fantasy' and worse, motives of vested class interests are attributed to scientists. It is similar to creationists attributing conspiracy motives to teaching evolution. But unlike creationists Marxist fundamentalists have perfected the art of using specialized academic jargons and a newspeech. And in many developing countries they being close to political power, their capacity for devastating science and progress of human knowledge is as grave as, if not far greater than that of creationist fundamentalists.
__________
References:
⢠1. See for example, Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1963, pp. 33-39
⢠2. Karl Marx, "Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844", Marx, Engels Collected works, Vol 3. Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1975.
⢠3. Helge Helge, Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century, Princeton University Press, 1999, Chapter 1
⢠4. V.I.Lenin, Materialism and Empirico-Criticism, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976. Vol.14 [All quotes of Lenin are taken from this work. Particularly relevant is Chapter 5.]
⢠5. Letter from Lenin to Gorky dated Sep.15.1919, from the Library of congress archives on the net.
⢠6. Loren R. Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972), p79.
⢠7. A. S. Sonin, "Soveshchanie, kotoroe ne sostoialos," Priroda, 1990, no. 3, p. 99.
⢠8. Ibid. p. 91.
⢠9. Letter from I. Zorich, Priroda, 1990, no. 9, p. 106.
⢠10. John Gibson & Manjit Singh,â Science or speculationâ, The Marxist review of books, Living Marxism, November 1991.
⢠11. John Gibson & Manjit Singh, 'Chaos Theory, The science of despairâ, Living Marxism, December 1989.
⢠12. Har Dayal Bens, "The manifesto of brave martyrs", 1985, Peoples Canada Publishing house, pp. 157-163 (Trans. from Tamil)
⢠Web resource: David Holloway quotes the references 6,7 & 8 in his article 'How the bomb saved Soviet Physics.â The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nov-Dec 1994. It is available online at the URL: http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1994/nd9...94Holloway.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...articleID=10532<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
S. Aravindan Neelakandan
June 1, 2006
Based on the principle of falsification Karl Popper has evaluated Marxism as a pseudoscience like astrology1. But Marxist pseudoscience goes far beyond astrology, for Marxism forms the basis of a power structure that has expansionist tendencies and it is a closed ideological system.
When the discoveries of sciences disturb the theses that form an integral part of their power structures, such closed ideological systems that form the bedrock of power structures, react with ruthless violence which commences passively in suppression which goes on to attain orgasmic peak in inquisitions. The behavior of Marxist state towards the scientists, (whose disciplines Marxist theoreticians came to regard as heresies against Marxism), has been tone of he most vividly documented yet not very well discussed inquisition that happened in the modern era.
Usually the apologists belonging to different Marxist Parties all over the world tend to explain the Marxist inquisition as the result of Stalinism, which according to them is a deviation from the Marxist Leninist course of scientific socialism. Particularly Marxist apologists of Trotsky school market this line of explanation. However at the extreme end of the spectrum there still exist many Marxist groups that firmly believe Marxist inquisition itself to be a capitalist/imperialist propaganda myth. This is particularly true in many parts of the developing countries where questioning the 'scientific nature' of Stalinism can be as dangerous as apostasy in Islamic countries. The purpose of this article is to show how Marxism in its very theoretical structure contains an exclusive and closed approach to studying the universe, an approach, which it shares with the dogmatic mindset attributed to medieval church. This approach when integrated itself with the state power naturally evolves into an inquisition.
Ideological prelude:
Karl Marx himself proclaimed that "Natural sciences will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science, there will be one science."2 The 'science of man' Marx talks about is of course Marxism. A rule has thus been set here that would dictate how the natural sciences should travel so that they can 'incorporate into themselves' Marxism, 'the science of manâ. This in itself is not much different from the medieval church stand on natural sciences wherein the goal of natural sciences is to show by studying the physical universe the glory of its Creator. In Marxism the Creator is replaced by equally unscientific and mystical historical dialectics.
The paradigm shift in physics that happened with the evolution of Quantum Mechanics is of more fundamental nature than that of Copernican revolution that happened centuries ago. Science historian Helge Kragh says,
"The new physics that arose in the early years of the twentieth century was not a revolt against a petrified Newtonian worldview, something analogous to the revolt of Galileo against Aristotelianism. By 1905, the mechanical worldview had been under attack for more than a decade, and for this reason alone, there never was much of a clash between Einstein and Newton." 3
But that was in the fast secularizing western world where the reigning powers had no vested interest in the Newtonian worldview, as say, the medieval church had in the geocentric worldview. Not so for the theoreticians of Marxism then and for the Marxist state that would subsequently become a reality in 1917. Marxist State had a strong vested interest in the Newtonian worldview and the way they reacted to some of the paradigm shifts in modern science matches exactly the way medieval church reacted to the Galilean revolution.
This would also explain why V.I.Lenin the chief exponent of Marxist revelation took such an active interest in the developments of natural sciences, carefully monitoring their impacts on his Marxist dogma. Lenin viewed with contempt the paradigm shift that was happening then in physics. In fact, he gives his 'valued' opinion on those scientists and philosophers of science like Bogdanov, Wilhelm Ostwald, Poincaré, Le Rey and Berman. While philosopher of science, Berman is "absurd", physicist Poincaré is "full of fancy", and Duhem's Theory of Physics contains "falsity". Perhaps physicists world over consider the period of the exposition of theory of relativity and the analysis of paradoxes that lead to the development of Quantum physics as a period of great renaissance but for Lenin this period is one of, "a temporary deflection, a transitory period of sickness in the history of science, an ailment of growth."
More importantly, Lenin gave specific instructions as to in which direction science should progress. He says, "...One school of natural scientists in one branch of natural science has slid into a reactionary philosophy, being unable to rise directly and at once from metaphysical materialism to dialectical materialism. This step is being made, and will be made, by modern physics; but it is making for the only true method and the only true philosophy of natural science not directly, but by zigzags, not consciously but instinctively, not clearly perceiving its 'final goal', but drawing closer to it gropingly, hesitatingly, and sometimes even with its back turned to it." 4 (Italics added)
Fortunately for Lenin, he did not live to see the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics but unfortunately for Soviet physicists and biologists the Party and its theoreticians did see the flowering of Quantum Mechanics and Neo Darwinism. And thus started an ordeal, which packed in decades, the horrors of centuries long medieval inquisition.
The Purges: Lenin already made it clear that intellectuals who stood in the way of the implementation of the Marxist theory would be killed mercilessly whoever they might be. When Maxim Gorky complained of persecution of the intellectuals, Lenin wrote back to him wryly,
"Really and truly you will die if you don't break away from this situation with the bourgeois intelligentsia." 5
The so-called Stalinist purges had actually started thus during Lenin's times and had their roots strongly embedded in the fertile soil of Marxist dogma. Even during the Second World War eminent Soviet scientists like V.I.Vernadsky had asked for closer cooperation with the Western scientists and many hoped that intellectual life would become liberal and more decent after the war.
However it was not to be so. Already in 1936 the dean of the physics faculty of Moscow University was arrested and physicists who used Political authority to settle academic problems increasingly filled the faculty. In 1947, an article on the epistemological problems in quantum mechanics (by Moisei A. Markov of the Physics Institute of the Academy of Sciences) was published by a Soviet journal. Marxist philosopher A. A. Maksimov attacked it because the article was based on Bohr's complementarity principle. Subsequently in 1948, the editor of the journal was removed and the Copenhagen school's interpretation of quantum mechanics was decreed as anathema to the Marxist dialectical materialism and banned from the Soviet physics curriculum for the next one decade.6
The 1948 conference on biological sciences saw the triumph of Lysenko the notorious pseudo-scientist. Soon a conference on physics too was to be organized by the Party and physicists panicked that their field too might soon be the victim of ideological cleansing. Surely enough Sergei Kaftanov, the minister of higher education in the Stalin's regime, had complained in a letter to Deputy Premier Klimenti Voroshilov that, "Physics is taught in many educational establishments without any regard to dialectical materialism. . . . Instead of decisively unmasking trends, which are inimical to Marxism-Leninism, some of our scientists frequently adopt idealist positions, which are making their way into higher educational establishments through physics. . . . The modern achievements of physics do not receive consistent exposition on the basis of dialectical materialism in Soviet physics textbooks. . . . The role of Russian and Soviet scientists in the development of physics is treated in a completely inadequate way in textbooks; the books abound in the names of foreign scientists." 7
'Shoot them later'
The organizing committee for the conference saw physicist being accused of spreading cosmopolitanism and idealism. Iakov Frenkel was vehemently attacked for his explicit position on the irrelevance of dialectical materialism to the problems of physics. The draft resolution talked of as the duty of Soviet Physics to destroy "mercilessly every hint of cosmopolitanism, which is Anglo-American imperialism's ideological weapon of diversion." 8The draft resolution accused the leading physicists thus; Lev Landau of "groveling before the West"; Peter Kapitsa of advocating "open cosmopolitanism"; Iakov Frenkel of "uncritically receiving Western physical theories and propagandizing them in our country." Fortunately, however the aforesaid conference never took place. The reason was the stiff resistance from a team of physicists working in secrecy to build the Soviet nuclear weapon. According to the independent and highly agreeing accounts of the event by Lev Artsimovich a high ranking Soviet official and Gen. V.A. Makhnev, head of the secretariat of the Special Committee on the Atomic Bomb, it was on account of the bitter reaction from these physicists, (Kurchatov among them), that Stalin grudgingly cancelled the conference resolving that he could 'shoot the physicists later' when they had finished their work . 9 It is indeed an irony of history that the power lust of a dictator saved Soviet physics from the purges designed for other sciences in the dogmatic realm of Marxist Holy Empire.
Haunting continuities:
⢠Chaos theory, a capitalist degeneration
⢠Secular humanism, conspiracy to protect
US imperialism
Today too, Marxism sees in the emerging trends of science capitalist decadence and conspiracy. To the ideological proponents of Marxism the primary function of science has to be to confirm the dogmas of Marxism. Lest science fails to do this it summarily gets labeled as mathematical fantasy or capitalist reactionism. 'Living Marxism' is the monthly review journal of Revolutionary Communist Party (UK), which also has a 'Marxist review of books' section. Reviewers of science books in this column John Gibson and Manjit Singh make a scathing attack on Stephen Hawking's 'A brief history of time' as ending with 'speculation replacing anything that could be described as science.' They go on to give the readers a grave warning that, in popular science books like 'A Brief History of Time' distinction between " philosophical view and what is a scientific thesis is muddled." and more importantly, according to the Marxist reviewers, "And even more dangerously, particular philosophical views are masquerading as scientific propositions through the applications of particular mathematical models to nature." 10
Or in other words the problem is that Penrose and Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking are dangerous, because they are presenting particular philosophical views as scientific propositions to gullible readers. What a cultural degeneration from the good old days of Stalin and Lenin when we could have disciplined physics from straying into reactionary falsehoods and bourgeois mathematical fantasies and could have made it walk the path of 'only true philosophy of natural sciences gropingly, hesitatingly, and sometimes even with its back turned to it.'! The science of Chaos may be a fast developing scientific discipline for many. Yet it is not so, as per the Marxist blue print for the evolution of sciences. John Gibson and Manjit Singh make it clear that Chaos theory is 'a lot of speculative mathematical model building' and why has this science become very popular now? It is because of the socio-economic determinism that rules the evolution of capitalist societies.
"The stagnation of modern society imposes limits on the practical challenges facing science and the potential for carrying out experiments. This is turning much of today's scientific inquiry into mathematical model-building." 11
Applying chaos theory to study the problems in economics is thus "unscientific nonsense" and "a symptom of capitalist desperation". For a leap from this ideological reaction to purging the scientists studying chaos, the only thing needed is state power.
Har Dayal Bens a leading intellectual and author belonging to Communist Party of Canada (Marxist Leninist) has the choicest of swear words for the secular humanists. In their official book on the problems of India (published in five Indian languages and also in English,) 'secular humanism' is identified as the most dangerous protector of American imperialism and the right wing forces of USA aiming at de-stabilizing the developing countries.12
Conclusion:
Not everyone accepts the Copenhagen school interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Not everyone accepts natural selection as the sole mechanism for evolution. Not everyone agrees the extent to which chaos theory should be applied in the realm of social sciences. But these are areas where debates and free inquiry are needed and they have to be academic and scientific in their spirit and nature. They can happen only in a democratic atmosphere. The problem with Marxism, just like other Abrahamic religions, is that it has a rigid stand on many defining open-ended problems of science. And when science deviates from the Marxist worldview science is termed as 'speculation', 'fantasy' and worse, motives of vested class interests are attributed to scientists. It is similar to creationists attributing conspiracy motives to teaching evolution. But unlike creationists Marxist fundamentalists have perfected the art of using specialized academic jargons and a newspeech. And in many developing countries they being close to political power, their capacity for devastating science and progress of human knowledge is as grave as, if not far greater than that of creationist fundamentalists.
__________
References:
⢠1. See for example, Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1963, pp. 33-39
⢠2. Karl Marx, "Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844", Marx, Engels Collected works, Vol 3. Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1975.
⢠3. Helge Helge, Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century, Princeton University Press, 1999, Chapter 1
⢠4. V.I.Lenin, Materialism and Empirico-Criticism, Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976. Vol.14 [All quotes of Lenin are taken from this work. Particularly relevant is Chapter 5.]
⢠5. Letter from Lenin to Gorky dated Sep.15.1919, from the Library of congress archives on the net.
⢠6. Loren R. Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972), p79.
⢠7. A. S. Sonin, "Soveshchanie, kotoroe ne sostoialos," Priroda, 1990, no. 3, p. 99.
⢠8. Ibid. p. 91.
⢠9. Letter from I. Zorich, Priroda, 1990, no. 9, p. 106.
⢠10. John Gibson & Manjit Singh,â Science or speculationâ, The Marxist review of books, Living Marxism, November 1991.
⢠11. John Gibson & Manjit Singh, 'Chaos Theory, The science of despairâ, Living Marxism, December 1989.
⢠12. Har Dayal Bens, "The manifesto of brave martyrs", 1985, Peoples Canada Publishing house, pp. 157-163 (Trans. from Tamil)
⢠Web resource: David Holloway quotes the references 6,7 & 8 in his article 'How the bomb saved Soviet Physics.â The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nov-Dec 1994. It is available online at the URL: http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1994/nd9...94Holloway.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...articleID=10532<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->