[]

1.2 Science needs protection from pseudo-scientific swindlers

(Introduction to the first edition of brochure "Science needs protection", Volga Region book publishing house, cooperative "Tovarishch", Saratov, 1991, with changes and additions)    

"It is quite often asked why those who are commanded to be learned and patient by their ministry were so often ignorant and heartless. They were ignorant because they had studied for too long and were cruel because they felt their worthless pursuits becoming the scorn of wise people"        

Voltaire
"When heroes leave, clowns appear on the arena"

Heine
"Where the stupidity is the pattern, there is a mind that is insanity"

Goethe "Faust"
 


An unquenchable thirst for learning the world - this is the guiding idea that all through the ages has led mankind to take the truth against superstitious prejudices, hypocrisy and lies to awaken self-awareness of enslaved against its oppressors - to genuine freedom.

Through fires and torture of the Inquisition, through falsifications and prohibitions, through persecution and repression, science tirelessly breaks its own path forcing pseudo-learning retreating to twist and adjust, invent more shrewd ways of delaying its imminent death.     

Crushed by the labors of the great scientists’ idealism like an antiscientific confrontation is now compelled to marshal materialism.

To unmask this simple forgery, to fulfill our "unconditional duty" bequeathed by VI. Lenin on the protection of achievements of dialectical materialism calls upon the Soviet public.     

 The path of purging Soviet science from idealistic stratifications is impossible without revealing their origins. This circumstance prompts us to return in the 1920s and 1930s and to follow the course of the ideological struggle that has arisen in our science after the death of Lenin.

So, the work of academician V.F. Mitkevich, professors A.K. Timiryazev and A.A. Maksimov on the ideological front of the 20-30s was characterized by academic science "as the main danger on the theoretical front of those years," since their "concept ... was a peculiar perception in the materialist philosophy of positivism’s number of ideas... was a kind of revision of dialectical materialism." Great Soviet Encyclopedia. V. 16, M. 1974, p. 558.  

It would seem that the accusations are sufficiently thorough and is it necessary to return to an already resolved and closed issue?

The main opponent and exposer of "scientific reactionaries" was Academician A.F. Joffe. In his accusatory article "On the situation on the philosophical front of Soviet physics" Academician A. F. Ioffe wrote: "... I am sure that for anyone who will try to understand honestly the philosophical positions of modern physicists and philosophers with the criterion of Lenin it is obvious that A.K. Timiryazev, A.A. Maksimov, Academician V.F. Mitkevich, considering himself a materialist are actually a scientific reactionary. On the other hand, I.E. Tamm, Y.I. Frenkel and V.A. Fock are undoubted materialists. " The journal "Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 11 -12, 1937 p. 140.

"Covering a small group of reactionaries in physics who are close in their physical views to the German fascists, Maximov's article accuses all the rest of Soviet physics and all leading Western scientists - anti-fascists and friends of the Soviet Union - of idealism and anti-Soviet political attitudes." The journal "Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 11 -12, 1937, p. 142.

To assure ourselves of fairness of accusations advanced by Academician A.F. Ioffe against Academician V.F. Mitkevich and his associates in the involvement in the "scientific reaction", from the text of the article itself is impossible.

The absence of scientific evidence and abundance in the vocabulary of Academician A.F. Ioffe as arguments of words and phrases of non-discourse character, such as: "unworthy slander", "striking illiteracy", "monstrous in its absurdity", "physical ignorance", " overfree illiteracy", " half-educated scientist, "scientific Backwardness," and so on – all these testify to the inability of an opponent to refute the arguments of his opponents by scientific methods that is frankly reveal the weakness of his position. Moreover, the text reproaches the group of Academician V.F. Mitkevich in the adherence to the ether and Faraday-Maxwellian views and the denial of the latter by Academician A.F. Ioffe, on the contrary, speaks well for the materialistic views of his ideological opponents and reveals the idealistic nature of the attacks of academician A.F. Joffe. So for the investigation of the truth it becomes necessary to turn to other sources. Let us take, for example, the protocol’s stenograph of the VKP (b) faction’s meeting of the 8th All-Union Conference on Physical Chemistry of November 14, 1934. At this conference, Y.I. Frenkel said: "I find that the theory of dialectical materialism is not the crown of human thought that can satisfy the thinking humanity ... the dialectical method has no right to a leading role in science.
I'm anything but innocent in philosophy. What I read from Lenin and Engels can not replace my epistemological views. This is my opinion and I will not refuse it. " The journal "Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 11 -12, 1937 p. 172.
Denial of " doubtless materialist" by Y.I. Frenkel of dialectical materialism, it would seem that it would have called into question the validity of the accusations against Academician V.F. Mitkevich, professors A.K. Timiryazev and A.A. Maksimov. But forgery does not stop Academician A.F. Joffe. The main task is not to protect the "unquestionable materialists" of the Frenkel from the "scientific reactionaries," but to "shield" dialectical materialism from the encroachments of dissenters.

And Academician A.F. Ioffe is developing a unique way of protecting him, widely used by his ideological heirs and at the present time: "If a really positive and negative electron connecting can create a light quantum and vice versa, then we have the following alternative," writes Academician A.F. Joffe, - we could assume the charge to be considered matter but then the matter must be algebraic rather than arithmetical, matter can be positive and negative, plus and minus can be mutually destroyed ...

If we proceed from the fact that matter can only be which is preserved and preserve arithmetically, then we can consider energy as the only one that does not disappear and is not created anywhere ... If the energy itself is physical matter then the representation about matter as the carrier of this energy and energy as one of the properties of this carrier disappears, the energy itself becomes then matter ... ". The journal "Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 4, 1934 p. 68.
Indeed, on the basis of the ideas’ development of the quantum-relativistic subconscious, Academician A.F. Ioffe sums up the "pondering the course of this development of physics" to the inevitable conclusion that the materialist views are inconsistent. Now when the goal has been achieved, Academician A.F. Joffe continues: "The 25 years of development of atomic physics have given so much vivid confirmation of materialistic philosophy that they should have led to the only possible methodological position, pondering the course of this development of physics to the position of dialectical materialism ...
In front of me here is the slogan "Long live the Union of Dialectical Materialists with Naturalists for Combating Idealism." I think not only in words but in fact we have already shown that we are striving for it. " The journal "Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 4, 1934 p. 68.   

The contradictions of conclusions in the first paragraph with the conclusion in the second are so obvious that there is no doubt that the hypocritical confusion introduced by Academician A.F. Ioffe, is intentional in nature.

If Academician A.F. Ioffe really tried to understand his own philosophical positions with the criterion of Lenin to which he calls others, otherwise than stupidity, absurdity and incompetence in philosophical thinking, according to the ideas of I. Newton, F. Engels and V.I. Lenin, it's impossible to name them.

Particularly towards to energy preached by Academician A.F. Ioffe, V.I. Lenin wrote: "After all, energy must have a carrier" - supporters of matter say. If energy is movement, then you have only moved the difficulty from the subject to the predicate but they have altered the question: is matter moving? The question is: is energy material? Is the transformation of energy outside my consciousness, regardless of man and humanity or is it only ideas, symbols, symbols, etc.? On this issue, the "energy" philosophy broke its neck, this attempt to "cover" the old epistemological mistakes with the "new" terminology.

Energy physics is the source of new idealistic attempts to think of motion without matter - on the occasion of the disintegration of particles of matter that were considered to be indestructible and the discovery of previously unknown forms of material motion. "

So in words and in practice Academician A.F. Ioffe showed how by substituting the "fundamental view of the philosophy of Marxism" (the definition of V.I. Lenin / author) about the corporeal substance-matter with the idealistic hoaxes of the quantum relativistic subconsciousness to lead "to the actual negation of dialectical materialism" pondering the course of this development of physics.

It was this way that triggered the decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B) of 25.01.31 "On the Journal Under the Banner of Marxism," which imposed a taboo on criticism of the philosophical inconsistency of the quantum relativistic subconscious and prohibited the consideration of problems of physical interactions on a mechanical-materialistic basis. BASES which adhered to the overwhelming majority of natural scientists whose views were defended by F. Engels and V.I. Lenin.

Exulting in a victory at this step, another one of the "unquestionable materialists" Academician S.I. Vavilov is an ex-president of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, wrote: "Metaphysical materialists, in fact, are defeated and first of all by practice, concrete results of new physics and complete practical infertility of their own conjectures. In the field of solving specific fundamental issues, mechanical physics has not yielded anything in the past 30 years. These enemies - the last Mohicans, long ago suffered a decisive defeat. " Vavilov S.I. Collected Works, vol. 3, ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1956 p. 35.

The true goals of this decree were exposed by Professor A.A. Maksimov: "Confusion and falsehood ... are aimed at diverting the attention of the Soviet public from the basic question: do theoretical claims of modern physicists contain what Lenin called physical idealism ... The essence of the objections of the academician A.F. Joffe is that while trying to determine his attitude to dialectical materialism he did not understand or did not want to understand the latter and slipped into the position of defending a whole series of idealistic, anti-Marxist positions ... Academician Ioffe subjected a number of Lenin's fundamental principles to revision. He began to deny the existence of physical idealism, to reject the very term "physical idealism" and to defend Machism. " The journal "Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 11 -12, 1937 p. 160. "All this says only that the confusion of Academician A.F. Joffe is combined with a lack of directness, with cowardice, with a fear to speak directly and give a detailed argument in defense of the position on which he stands. " The journal "Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 11 -12, 1937 p. 167.

Returning to the fundamental disagreements of Academician V.F. Mitkevich and Academician A.F. Joffe, let us turn to the essence of the question.   

Academician V.F. Mitkevich insists on holding a discussion on the philosophical problems of physics about the nature of physical interactions. On this subject he writes: "As is known, there are two points of view on science that mutually exclude each other: the point of view of action at a distance (without the participation of the material medium / author) and the Faraday-Maxwellian view that all interactions in nature they are accomplished only in the direct participation of processes occurring in an intermediate environment.

The antagonism between these two points of view I have devoted in part or in full to a number of my speeches. At the same time, I formulated a question concerning the nature of the interaction of any two physical centers. This question, somehow diversifying its construction, I systematically asked my ideological opponents (A.F. Ioffe, S.I. Vavilov, Y.I. Frenkel, I.E. Tamm, V.A. Foka and others), who until recently also systematically evade a clear answer to it. " The journal "Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 11 -12, 1937 p. 154.

Academician V.F. Mitkevich and his supporters unequivocally define their position on this issue. So, academician V.F. Mitkevich writes: "From all the preceding it follows that the creation of a physical theory covering the widest range of phenomena is difficult and probably completely impossible on the grounds of denying the primary meaning of the medium and on the basis of objectifying action at a distance as the primary physical phenomenon.

Until now, the general physical theory does not yet exist in a complete form. But one can legitimately express that in the future physical thought will return to the fundamental views of Faraday and Maxwell, develop them by taking into account all new achievements and complete the construction of a general physical theory ... in any case, the Faraday-Maxwellian point of view on the question of direct Participation of the environment in all physical processes is the only conceivable guiding thread for the further successful development of modern physics ...

Me and for sure all the ideological opponents of the group headed by academicians A.F. Ioffe and S.I. Vavilov, object only to the erroneous methods of interpreting physical processes against those methods that lead to physical idealism, hamper the development of ideas that can correspond to the real nature of phenomena and therefore inhibit the further progress of physical science. " The journal "Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 11 -12, 1937 p. 146.

Let us now consider the views of a group of physicists headed by academicians A.F. Ioffe and S.I. Vavilov.

At the March session of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1936) V.A. Fock claimed: "... according to quantum mechanics, light and gravitational quanta can not even be strictly localized in space and time, so that it is not necessary to talk about the transfer of interaction from point to point through the intermediary medium". The journal "Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 11 -12, 1937 p. 150.

To the same conclusion, Academician A.F. Joffe on the basis of conclusions from the theory of relativity: "The way out of these contradictions was found by Einstein in the theory of relativity: at the same time, the ether was thrown out of physics into the same weedy basket of history." The journal "Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 11 -12, 1937 p. 132.

So, Academician V.F. Mitkevich argues that "the only conceivable guiding thread for the further successful development of modern physics" is the concept of "the participation of the environment in all physical processes" and insists on holding a broad scientific discussion on this fundamental issue. On the other hand, Academician A.F. Ioffe and his associates deny the participation of the corporeal substance - the material medium in the processes of physical interactions, based on the consequences stemming from the quantum and relativistic theories, and evade the discussion.

To resolve the conflict let’s turn directly to materialistic views on the substance of the issue under consideration.

Newton wrote: "To admit that one body can act upon another through emptiness without the mediation of anything that would convey action and force from one body to another, seems to me so great folly and absurdity that I do not think that a competent person in philosophical thinking could ever do it. " Krylov. Collection of works. 7, M-L. 1936 p. 41. As we see, this problem has a long-standing origin and Newton's materialistic position on this question is unambiguous.

The outstanding achievements of material scientists at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries made it possible to come close to resolving the central problem of natural science and philosophy about the mechanical nature of physical interactions.

Attaching exceptional fundamental importance to the solution of this problem, F. Engels wrote: "Interaction is the first thing that appears before us when we consider moving matter from the point of view of present-day natural science. Natural science confirms what Hegel says, that interaction is the ultimate cause of things. We can not go beyond knowing this interaction precisely because there is nothing more to be learned from behind it. Once we have learned the forms of the motion of matter (for which we still lack a lot in view of the short duration of the natural science’s existence), then we have learned the very matter and this exhausts knowledge.

All the available to us nature forms a certain system, a kind of aggregate connection of bodies, and we understand here under the word body, all material realities, from the star to the atom and even the ether particle. In the circumstance that these bodies are in mutual connection, it is already that they act on each other and this is their mutual influence on each other and is precisely the movement ...

Every movement contains a mechanical movement, the movement of large and smallest parts of matter, the knowledge of these mechanical movements is FIRST (highlighted by F. Engels / author /) task of science. Therefore, it must be investigated first of all else ...   

   Whatever view to follow with respect to the structure of matter, there is no doubt that it is divided into a number of large, well-delineated groups with relatively different mass sizes, so that the members of the closest groups are regarded as infinitely large or infinitesimally small in the sense of mathematics. And nothing prevents everyone from assuming that in nature there must also be analogies for d3x, d4x and so on ...

When mathematics operates with real values, it also accepts this view without further ado. But as soon as mathematicians take refuge in their impregnable stronghold of abstraction, the so-called pure mathematics, all these analogies are forgotten ... The stupidities and absurdities with which the mathematicians explained so much, how much they apologized for this method, which leads in a strange way always to the correct results, surpass the worst, actual and imaginary fantasy of natural philosophy (for example, Hegelian), at the address of which mathematicians and natural scientists can not find sufficient words to express their horror. They forget that all the so-called pure mathematics deals with abstractions, that all its strictly speaking values are imaginary quantities, and that all abstractions taken to the extreme become nonsense or in its opposite. " F. Engels. The dialectics of nature. M. 1978, p. 236.

Affirming the materialistic methodology in solving the problem of physical interactions based on the concept of the participation of the material medium-ether, F. Engels welcomes the decisive progress emerging in the works of outstanding scientists in this direction: "... It was difficult to abandon the notion that there is something between the molecules of bodies Real. This is where the latest theories of Clerk Maxwell, Hankel, Renard, and Edlung come in accordance with the hypothesis advanced in 1846 by Faraday for the first time that electricity is a movement that fills all space, and, consequently, penetrates all the bodies of the elastic medium ... ,in other words, that electricity is the movement of ether particles and that the molecules of bodies participate in this movement.

In the underlying of all of their concept, decisive progress is noticeable: the notion that electricity is the movement of particles of the light ether permeating all the weighty matter affecting molecules of bodies. The ether theory gives hope to find out what is actually the real substratum of the electric movement which actually causes electrical phenomena for its own thing.
When we advance so far that we can give the mechanics of the ether, then, of course, much will enter into it which is now assigned to physics by necessity. " F. Engels. The dialectics of nature. M. 1978, p. 88.  

    However, this program was never implemented in its time in a form acceptable for physics. The reason for this was the falsification of the pseudoscientific fraudsters’ identification of dialectical materialism with mechanism and the consequent identification of the strictest ban on scientific research of physical interactions’ mechanical models.


"Metaphysical materialists," triumphed "the victory" over dialectical materialism, one of the leaders of pseudoscientific frauds, ex-president of the USSR Academy of Sciences, S.I. Vavilov - in fact they were defeated and first of all by practice, concrete results of new physics and complete practical infertility of their own conjectures. In the field of solving specific fundamental issues, mechanical physics has not yielded anything in the past 30 years. These enemies - the last Mohicans, long ago suffered a decisive defeat. "

But it is in this outright falsification and lies resides the main cause of the crisis in basic research! It was from this falsification that V.I. Lenin and F. Engels were warned. Of course it was impossible to do not know about this for this pseudoscientific swindler S.I. Vavilov.

     Consequently, S.I. Vavilov and others like him went on about the reactionary obscurantists in order to inflict a "decisive defeat" on dialectical materialism quite consciously.
Exposing the falsification of pseudo-scientific swindlers, V.I. Lenin wrote: "What is the essence of this crisis? During the first two-thirds of the nineteenth century, physicists agreed with each other in all essentials. "

Further V.I. Lenin quotes positivist Abel Ray whom according to V.I. Lenin, "one can not be suspected of wanting to "slander" the idol of our Machists": "They believed in a purely mechanical explanation of nature assumed that physics is only a more complex mechanics, namely molecular mechanics." It was a contradiction only with the methods of reducing physics to mechanics, about details of the mechanism. Today, the spectacle which the physico-chemical sciences showed us seems quite the opposite.

Extreme disagreements have replaced the former unanimity and the differences are not in details but in basic and guiding ideas. If it were an exaggeration to say that each scientist has his own special tendencies, then it must be stated that like art, science, especially physics, has numerous schools, the conclusions of which often diverge and sometimes are directly hostile to one another ...

     Therefore it is possible to see what is the significance and what is the breadth of what has been called the crisis of modern physics.

Traditional physics up to the middle of the 19th century accepted that a simple continuation of physics is sufficient to obtain the metaphysics of matter. This physics gave its theories an ontological significance. And these theories were entirely mechanical. The traditional mechanism represented beyond the results of experience, beyond the results of experience, real knowledge of the material world. It was not a hypothetical expression of experience, it was dogma. "

"Here we should interrupt the venerable" positivist," writes V.I. Lenin. It is clear that he is drawing us the materialistic philosophy of traditional physics, not wishing to name the trait (i.e. materialism) by name. Umist materialism must seem metaphysics, dogma, going beyond experience, etc. Not knowing the materialism, the umist Rey has absolutely no idea about dialectics, about the difference between dialectical materialism and metaphysical materialism in the Engels sense of the word. Therefore, for example, the ratio of absolute and relative truth is absolutely unclear to Ray. "

"Critical remarks against the traditional mechanism," Ray continues to quote V.I. Lenin," which were made in the second half of the nineteenth century, undermined this premise of the ontological reality of the mechanism. This critique affirmed the philosophical view of physics which has become almost traditional in the philosophy of the end XIX century. In this view, science is nothing more than a symbolic formula, methods of marking (designation, repérage, creation of signs, marks, symbols) and since these methods of marking are different in different schools, a conclusion was soon made that it is marked at the same time only the pre-created (façonne) by man for notation (or symbolisation).
Science became a work of art for amateurs, a work of art for utilitarians: points of view that naturally began to be interpreted everywhere as a denial of the possibility of science. Science, as a purely artificial means of influencing nature, as a simple utilitarian technique, has no right to be called a science, if not to distort the meaning of words. To say that science can not be anything other than such an artificial means of influence means to deny science in the present meaning of the word.

The failure of the traditional mechanism, or rather, the criticism to which it was subjected, led to the following proposition: science also collapsed. From the impossibility of sticking to a simple and exceptionally traditional mechanism, we concluded that science is impossible. "

"Consequently," V.I. Lenin notices - philosophically the essence of the "crisis of modern physics" is that the old physics saw in their theories" real knowledge of the material world," that is, reflection of objective reality. The new trend in physics sees in theory only symbols, signs, marks for practice, i.e. denies the existence of an objective reality, independent of our consciousness and reflected by it. If Ray had kept the correct philosophical terminology he would have to say: the materialistic theory of knowledge, spontaneously adopted by the old physics, gave way to the idealistic ...

The essence of the crisis of modern physics is the breaking of old laws and basic principles, in rejecting the objective reality outside consciousness, that is in the replacement of materialism by idealism and agnosticism. "Matter has disappeared" - this is how one can express the basic and typical difficulty of many private problems that created this crisis. "

     In the question of the cause of crisis in the field of philosophy and natural science, Engels naturally stood on the same lines as V.I. Lenin:

"For some time now," writes F. Engels, "philosophical, especially natural-philosophical systems grow like mushrooms after rain, not to mention countless new systems of politics, political economy and so on. Just as in the modern state it is assumed that every citizen is capable of judging all those issues on which he has to voice his voice; Just as political economy is based on the assumption that every buyer is also an expert on all those goods that he has to buy for his life, like now it is considered that in science one should also adhere to the same assumption. Everyone can write about everything, and "freedom of science" is understood precisely as a person's right to write especially about what he did not study and to give it out as the only strictly scientific method. And Mr. Duhring is one of the most characteristic types of this cheeky pseudo-science, which nowadays comes to the fore everywhere and drowns out all the rumbling of his lofty gossip. Venerable idle talk in poetry, in philosophy, in political economy, in history, lofty gossip from the pulpit and rostrum, lofty gossip everywhere, lofty gossip with a claim to superiority and thoughtfulness...

One can not now take in the hands of almost any theoretical book on natural science without having received such an impression from reading it that the naturalists themselves feel how strongly this disorder and confusion reign over them, and that the philosophy currently in circulation does not give absolutely no way out. And here there is really no other way out, no other possibility, except a return in one form or another from metaphysical thinking to dialectical thinking. "

Aware of all the disastrousness for science and civilization of the disorder and confusion in the basic questions of natural science and philosophy, from which F. Engels warned, V.I. Lenin "created the greatest work "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism," the value of which is invaluable. It is in the light of this work that we must consider the issues of determinism and indeterminism, the difference between micro- and macrophysics, the foundations of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity," wrote the outstanding scientist and encyclopedist John Bernal.
In the development of the Engels critique of fashionable idealistic trends, Lenin continues: "A number of writers who want to be Marxists have taken a real campaign against the philosophy of Marxism this year. In less than six months, four books were published, devoted mainly and almost entirely to attacks on dialectical materialism.

These include, first of all, "Essays on (it should have been said: against) the philosophy of Marxism", SPB., 1908, a collection of articles by Bazarov, Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, Berman, Gelfond, Yushkevich, Suvorov; Then books: Yushkevich - "Materialism and critical realism," Berman - "Dialectics in the light of the modern theory of knowledge," Valentinova - "Philosophical constructions of Marxism."

All these people can not but know that Marx and Engels have called their philosophical views dozens of times with dialectical materialism. And all these persons united in spite of sharp differences in political views are hostile to dialectical materialism, claim at the same time that they are Marxists in philosophy! Engels's dialectic is "mysticism," says Berman.
Engels' views are "out of date", - in passing, as something self-evident, Bazarov throws, - materialism turns out to be disproved by our brave soldiers who proudly refer to the "modern theory of knowledge", to "modern philosophy" (or "new positivism"), to "The philosophy of modern natural science" or even "the philosophy of natural science of the XX century." Relying on all these supposedly new teachings, our fighters of dialectical materialism fearlessly negotiate to direct fideism, but they immediately lose all courage, all respect for their own convictions, when it comes to the direct definition of their relationship to Marx and Engels.
In fact, a complete renunciation of dialectical materialism, i.e. of Marxism. In words, there are endless evasions, attempts to circumvent the essence of the matter, to cover up their retreat, to place one of the materialists in the place of materialism in general, a resolute refusal to directly analyze the countless materialist statements of Marx and Engels. This is a real "rebellion on the knees," according to the just expression of one Marxist. This is a typical philosophical revisionism, for it is only the revisionists who have earned themselves a sad glory by their deviation from the basic views of Marxism and their fear or their inability to openly, directly, decisively and clearly "pay off" with abandoned views.
However, in the Essays on the "philosophy of Marxism" there is one phrase that is similar to the truth. This is Lunacharsky's phrase: "maybe we are mistaken, but we are looking for it". That first half of this phrase contains an absolute, and the second - a relative truth, I will try with all the thoroughness to show in the book's proposed attention to the reader. Now I will only note that if our philosophers spoke not on behalf of Marxism but on behalf of several "searching" Marxists, they would show more respect to themselves and to Marxism.

As for me, I am a "seeker" in philosophy too. Precisely: in the present notes, I set myself the task of finding out what the people have gone mad about, presenting in the guise of Marxism something incredibly incoherent, confused and reactionary. "

Consequently, the accusations of Professor A.A. Maksimov in pseudoscientific fraud and unscrupulousness of Academician A.F. Ioffe is fair and indisputable.

As one would expect "undoubted materialists" - the heirs of A.F. Joffe of the Academy of Sciences surpassed his teacher: "Development of modern physics have led to the collapse of the notion of