You are misreading the point. The point was not about Marxists' sympathy
with Darwin's rejection of the offer. Of course, it was a nice behavior
that Darwin did not want to popularize himself, so let's give credit to
him. However, this was not simply an ethical concern or political
correctness for Darwin. Regarding the letter, we are not hundred percent
sure if Marx really wanted to dedicate second volume of Capital to fellow
Darwin. Unlike Gould's story, some suggest this letter was sent under the
influence of Aveling (son in law), so it was beyond Marx's intention. Even
if we assume that Marx was sincere, Darwin rejected the offer on the
grounds that he did not want to cause a reaction or bad reputation among
religious circles/ruling classes. Darwin was just a scientist. Certainly,
he did many big things to overcome religious convictions, but he was not a
political activist as Marx was. Despite the revolutionary nature of his
theory, some of Dawrin's investigations (brain size differences between
whites and blacks, men and women), were, sincerely or insincerely,
designed to fit the ruling class ideology and colonial policies in
Britain at that time.
Actually, Hobson, in _Imperialism_ goes into details of explaining how the
evolutionary theory in Britain at the turn of the century was promoting
scientific and cultural imperialism besides economic imperialism.
Mine Doyran
Phd Student
Political Science
SUNY/Albany
> 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)
>As one of the most boring books ever written, one which 99% of
>Marxist do not have the patience or even temper to read, should we
>not but sympathize with poor Darwin's rejection of this offer?
