1 Rudas, L.: Ueber einige Grundbegriffe der Mechanik und der Dialektik, and Rudas, L.: Dialektische Theorie der Kausalitaet. Unter dem Banner des Marxismus, Jahrg. IV, Heft 3, resp. Jahrgang III, Heft 6.

2 “As long as physics followed the road which was pointed out by Newton, the following image of physical reality prevailed: matter is real and is subject only to changes which can be conceived as changes in place, in space. Movement, space, and time are real forms. Each attempt to deny the reality of space is refuted by the phenomenon of inertia.

In Newton's system there was a third fundamental reality: forces which act between the material particles and which depend exclusively on the relative situation of these particles. These forces were integral properties of the particles and distributed in space according to an immutable law.

The physicists of the 19th century assumed that there are two kinds of matter, concrete matter and electricity. The particles of concrete matter act, according to the Newtonian law, upon each other by the force of gravity; the units of electricity, by the force of Coulomb, both inversely proportionate to the square of the distance. Besides that there was no definite opinion as to the nature of the forces which act between the particles of this or that matter.

The absolute space had no quality whatsoever. It was viewed as ‘the stage’ upon which the drama of the material particles plays. Accordingly Newton explained the movement of light in empty space with the hypothesis that light also consists of material particles which interact with the particles of heavy matter.

In such a way Newton assumed a third kind of material unit, which however greatly differed from the former two.“ (Einstein, quoted by Rudas, in Unter dem Banner des Marxismus Jahrg. IV, Heft 3, pp. 308–309. My translation. All following quotations, which originally appeared in German are translated by me. A. E.)

“In nature we deal with material bodies having finite dimensions, and not with material points. But we might look upon any body as composed of many material points, and we can reduce the difference in the mechanical properties of the respective bodies to the inequalities of forces with which these individual points act upon each other. Then the problem of the laws of motion of material bodies is reduced to the mechanics of the material points, as systems.

If so, there are no other material forces in nature except those between the material points. Each of the material points moves in conformity with the resultant of the forces which act upon it from all the other points of the universe. If we speak of a force which an entire body undergoes, we do not mean it literally; it is to be understood as an abbreviation. In reality only the individual points of the body are sources and points of attack of the forces. Because each force acts from a given (definite) material point A on a definite material point B.

Therefore all forces of nature might be arranged into pairs, if to each individual force we find the correspondent force, which is exercised by the second point B on the first point A, and if these two corresponding forces are—in keeping with the principle of the equality of action and reaction—equal in size but opposite in direction.“ (Planck: Einführung in die Allgemeine Mechanic, p. 105.)

3 “The material point has to be distinguished from the geometrical point; the latter is perfectly characterized by its place, whereas the first shows also peculiarities in the nature of its matter (Beschaffenheit). Indeed the material points have to be considered dissimilar both as to quantity and as to quality.” (Planck, Ibid., page 2.) This warning was disregarded by the orthodox mechanists.

4 Newton evaded the question why gravitation is a universal law. He maintained that it is a universal, although not an essential attribute of matter. (See Philosophia Naturalis, Vol. III, p. 4.) Because movement—that is its cause, force—is accidental and unexplicable from the viewpoint of mechanics, Newton refused to accept the theory of the conservation of energy. Bodies are systems of rigid atoms and by the clash of such atoms mechanical energy is lost. The sum total of force is in constant diminution, and therefore the world needs from time to time a divine impulse for its preservation. (Newton, Optica, p. 332.)

5 “In spite of the fact that it took the painful work of many centuries to make the image of a direct action through distance a living habit (of thought, A. E.) we have to succeed in stripping it off again if... this image has served its purpose.” (Planck “Das Prinzip der Erhaltung der Energie, p. 274.)

6 “... it is absolutely superfluous and incorrect to assume that each physical oscillation which originates from the periodical change of some magnitude, is a mechanical oscillation.” (Haas, A., Materiewellen und Quantenmechanik, p. 178.)

7 “One can not call this any more a dynamic world image, because the field here is neither produced by a factor (Agens) opposed to the field, nor does it act upon such a factor; it follows solely its own laws and remains in the state of a quiet continuous flow. It is at rest in continuity: even the nuclei of the atoms and the electrons are not—as last and unchangeable elements—pushed by the aggressive forces of nature to and fro, but are in continuous expansion and subject to fine, flowing changes.” ... “There can be no empty space; the assumption that the field leaves a place in space free is absurd.” (Weyl, H., Philosophie der Naturwissenschaft, p. 130–131.)

8 “In the beginning of this century the physicists began to see the insufficiency of the dualistic theory which presumed two kinds of basic realities: on the one side the field, on the other the material particle. It is natural that there were attempts to imagine the material particles as belonging to the structure of the field, i.e. as places in which the field is unusually condensed.” (Einstein, Ibid.)

“As our concept of space and time becomes clearer the more we see that everything to which our theory of dynamics refers is connected in one unique system.” (Maxwell: Matter and Motion, p. 92.)

9 “The problem of interaction of the electrons and aether assumed another form than it had at the time of the theory of Lorentz, when the electrons so to say swam as strange bodies in the aether.” (Jordan: “Character der Quantenphysik. Die Naturwissenschaften, H. 41.)

“The specialty of quantum mechanics consists of the fact that it does not make a definite choice between two concepts which both can claim recognition (particles and waves), but that it reëstablishes the one after the apparent victory of the other and unites both into a higher synthesis.” (Born: Über den Sinn der physikalischen Theorien, Ibid., H. 6.)

“Typical for the most modern physics is that it eliminates the contradiction between concrete matter and waves, consequently between matter and light. ...” (Haas: Materiewellen und Quantenmechanik, p. 123.)

“The contradiction between matter and light (in the broadest sense of the word) was mitigated by the newest development of the atom theory. The most essential distinguishing characteristics of matter, before all the discontinuity and the presence of a quantity of motion are proper also to light, and vice versa, the properties of wave, characteristic of light are also true of matter. In modern physics matter and wave are not the basic concepts of different compartments of the science, on the contrary they present complementary traits of the absolute general and unified cognition of nature.” (Naturerkenntnis, Ibid., 178.)

10 “... Heisenberg and quantum mechanics as a whole, correctly emphasize the existence of mutual interaction in any actual process, but cannot by themselves tackle the problem it raises ... it is clear ... that the methodological root of the error lies in the undialectical conception of the relation between the general and the particular.” (Kolman, Science on the Crossroads, p. 87.)

11 Rudas uses as illustrations the theories of Nernst and Fermi on the energy and pressure at the absolute zero and of the Compton effect. This latter he considers as extremely important not only because it proves that motion is an immanent quality of matter and as such is indestructible, but also because it satisfies the law of the conservation of energy and movement in the event of the clash of one electron and one light-quantum and as such establishes proof for the law of causality. He uses Haas: Materiewellen, etc., p. 179 as reference.

“Any object, a stone, a living thing, a human society, etc. may be considered as a whole consisting of parts (elements) related to each other; in other words, this whole may be regarded as a system.”

(Bukharin, N. I., Historical Materialism, p. 75.)

12 “Necessity remains the degree of probability of expectation of the effects.” (Avenarius, Philosophie als Denken etc., paragr. 83.)

“The necessity lies in the world of conception and is only unconsciously and illogically transferred to the world of perception.” ... “The necessity thus lies in the nature of the thinking being and not in the perceptions themselves; thus it is conceivably a product of the perceptive faculty.” (Pearson, Karl, Grammar of Science, pp. 86–87, 179.)

13 “Mises ... proceeds from the principle that while dynamic laws govern the individual elements forming a manifold, statistical laws govern the manifold as a whole... statistical law is the law of the macrocosm, dynamical law the law of the microcosm.” (Kolman, Science on the Crossroads, p. 90.)

14 “We must note here that with remarkable naivete our Russian Machians change the question from the fundamental difference between the materialist and idealist arguments concerning causality, to the question of this or that formulation of the law. They follow the German empirio-critical professors, in believing that to say 'functional correlation,' the discovery of 'recent positivism' is to free us from the ‘fetishism’ of such expressions as 'necessity,' 'law' and the like. Of course, this is absurd and Wundt had a perfect right to ridicule such change of words (Phil. Studien, pp. 383, 388) which does not change things in the least.” (Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p. 128.)

15 “...man does not constitute an exception to all the rest of the world: whether he desires to scratch his ear, or accomplish heroic deeds, all his actions have their causes. ...” (Bukharin, Ibid., p. 36.)

16 The query is often made why Marx selects the economic process “arbitrarily” from a vast complexity of events in which the economic phenomena have infinite non-economical implications. The theory of historical materialism is the theory of the qualitative differences in the order of social events. It considers one of these, the economic process, as the basic one in which all other social processes have their roots and from which they differentiate.