I know that the letter was from Aveling.What about Gould's claim that
there was a correpondence between Marx and Darwin? Is this another
correpondence? or is Gould making up?
Mine
>Margaret Fay wrote about the letter to Darwin. It was from Aveling, not
>Marx.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
