There is some confusion below. Obviously, Darwin's ideas were quite
progressive judged against his own circumstances charecterized by
religious convictions in Britian at that time. However, Darwin was not a
revolutionary or marxist. This is partly because Darwin could not entirely
break away with the morals of the British ruling class of his time. In
terms of evolutionary theory, he was closer to Spencer and Malthus
(inevitability of limits), rather than to Marx. In fact, there is no
evidence of influence from Marx to Darwin, except the fact that Engels
and Marx discovered in evolution a revolutionary potential for their
materialist conception of history.Accordingly, some lovers of Darwin
see Marx's historical materialism consequential of Darwin's evolutionary
theory. In my view, this is an over-statement which assimilates Marx to
Darwin, while we should assume the contrary as Marxists. If we read
Engels, we get a slightly different picture. Engels' speech at the
funeral of Marx compares Darwin to Marx by still maintaining Marx's
distinctiveness: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in
organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of human nature in human
history...." WHEN MARX DIED: COMMENTS IN 1883 edited by Philip S. Foner
(NY: International Publishers, 1973).
Darwin was not happy with the idea of socialism, and was in fact critical
of people trying to revolutionize evolutionary theory. Darwin was still
loyal to the ideology of the ruling class. He always wanted to maintain
his cool scientific position avoiding political contraversy over
socialism: "When his theory was connected with socialism and later with
democratic movements in Germany, he wrote,"What a foolish idea seems to
prevail in Germany on the connection between Socialism and Evolution
through Natural Selection." An analogous dissociation from publicly
controverted issues about beliefs emerges from a letter to Edward Aveling,
who lived with Marx's daughter Eleanor and had declared publicly in 1879
that he was an atheist and became a militant political agitator in several
antireligious organizations. Aveling asked for Darwin's permission to
dedicate to him an exposition of his ideas, _The Student's Darwin_, to be
published by an avowedly antireligious publishing house of Annie Besant
and Charles Bradlaugh which bore the subtitle: "International Library
of Science and Freethought/II." Darwin politely declined, saying,
Dear Sir, - I thank you for your friendly letter and the enclosure. The
publication of your observations on my writings, in whatever form they may
appear, really does not need any consent on my part, and it would be
ridiculous for me to grant my permission for something which does not
require it. I should prefer the part of the volume not to be dedicated to
me (although I thank you for the intended honour), as that would to a
certain extent suggest my approval of the whole work, with which I am not
acquainted" (taken from a science list serv, Robert Young)
Also I have read somewhere (where I don't specifically remember now) that
the reason why Darwin returned Marx's Capital (vol II) was not only
because he did not understand the political economy side of it, but also
because he did not want to disappoint the religious circles he was
personally involved in (relatives, friends, etc..). Furthermore, Marx's
request to dedicate Capital to Darwin seems to be done under the influence
of son in law Aveling for entirely different purposes (so Stephen Gould
makes up a little bit, I guess, about this correspondence part)
I was told when I was into those issues some time ago:
>To the person requesting info on the Darwin-Marx connection --
>there was a short exchange of letters in 1873, following Marx's dispatch
>of
>a complimentary copy of the 2nd German edition of Kapital to Darwin.
>Darwin wrote back a short, perfunctory response saying he appreciated
>the
>copy but that he was not sure he could understand "political economy (he
>understood Malthus and Adam Smith quite well, however). Anyway, that
>was
>the end of the exchange (a later letter from Darwin in 1880 was thought
>to
>be a response to Marx's request to dedicate another edition of Kapital
>to
>Darwin, but it later turned out to be in response to a request from
>son-in law Edward Aveling to dedicate to Darwin a popularization of
>evolutionary theory for students.
> If you want more details on the Darwin-Marx relationship, wrote
a
r>elatively short article in 1992, as part of a symposium from the Field
>Museum in Chicago, and published in MATTHEW H. NITECKI AND DORIS V.
>NITECKI, History and Evolution (Albany, State UYniv of New York Press,
>1992): pp 211-239. If you want a LOT MORE detail check out the
>excellent
>book by PAUL HEYER, Nature, Human Nature and Society (Greenwood Press,
>1982).
-- Gar Allen
>Professor of Biology
>Washington University
Mine Doyran
Phd student
Political Science
SUNY/Albany
>>So what's Foster's point? That natural selection is not 100%
>>scientific because it defends a "particular class position"? Tell me
>>a theory of the 19th century that has been as solid and as true as
>>this one: after all these years the theory still stands intact
>>(except for minor revisions).
>You didn't follow John's post carefully. The "particular class position"
>is
>not a reference to the theory, but Darwin's personal situation. He came
>from privilege circles, where religious convictions against materialism
>were still strong. In order to make his findings public, he had to break
>with his class.
>Louis Proyect
>(The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
