Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
I strongly think so too, but i spying on him. there is something fishy there.. Mine Michael Perelman wrote: > I think that Gould is wrong. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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] > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1
Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
It has been established long ago that Marx did not offer to dedicate Capital to Darwin. Check Louis Feuer's article in the Journal of the History of Ideas, (some time in the 1970s). Rod Hay Carrol Cox wrote: > Ricardo Duchesne wrote: > > > > 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? > > I read *Capital* (Vol.I) several years before I became involved in > any kind of political activity whatsoever. At the time it had no impact > on my politics, but I thought it was one of the most beautiful books > I had ever read. I didn't read Vols. II & III until after I had become > deeply involved in marxism, and the first four chapters of Vol. II, > taken as an independent unit, seemed and seem to me a literary > masterpiece. > > Carrol -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
I think that Gould is wrong. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
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]
Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
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]
Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
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?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
At 09:22 AM 5/8/00 -0700, you wrote: >>Has anyone else here read R.P. Wolff's lovely litearry appreciation of >>Capital, Moneybags Should be So Lucky? > >Yes... > >If Wolff is correct in his assessment of what Marx is trying to do in >chapter 1, volume 1, then all I can say is that Marx failed--that Wolff is >perhaps the first and only reader to understand him... please explain. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
>Has anyone else here read R.P. Wolff's lovely litearry appreciation >of Capital, Moneybags Should be So Lucky? Yes... If Wolff is correct in his assessment of what Marx is trying to do in chapter 1, volume 1, then all I can say is that Marx failed--that Wolff is perhaps the first and only reader to understand him... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
Has anyone else here read R.P. Wolff's lovely litearry appreciation of Capital, Moneybags Should be So Lucky? Also, SS Prawer has a nice book on Karl Marx and World Literature, which is an old-fashioned (i.e. pre-Theory) lit critter's approach to Cpitala nd a lot more. As someone who has worked on translating Marx (never published) and in fact on translating Capital, I think i am qualified to say that Marx writes really fine German philosophical prose. He's not a writer of the caliber of Heine or Nietzsche--that is, of the very highest rank--, but his literary accompliahment would win him a place in German literature even if none of his views could be supported. Isaiah Berlin has a nice literary appreciation of the Manifesto in his little bio of Marx. All that said, I can imagine that Darwin, presented with any part of Capital, would have found it uninteresting, and if he had found it interesting, would have been horrified. Darwin was desperately respectable. Wallace, as LP pointed out a while back, was another story. --jks In a message dated Mon, 8 May 2000 11:40:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << At 09:57 AM 5/8/00 -0500, you wrote: > > > 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? since when do we let mere boredom stand in our way? Boredom seems part of life and work, something that everybody (except the very rich and some dilettantes, that is) cannot avoid. Boredom seems part and parcel of necessary labor, something that won't be abolished for a long time. Some might say that without boredom, we couldn't appreciate non-boredom, but I wouldn't go that far. I don't find CAPITAL to be boring at all, especially because I read the footnotes, where Marx lets down his hair (i.e., his scientific pretensions) and lets his venom and wit flow. In any event, the boredom involved in CAPITAL should be compared to the boredom of the normal academic treatise with its excessive pedantry and caution. In terms of the benefits received from digging through its tedium, CAPITAL wins hands down. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine >>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
Jim Devine wrote: >At 09:57 AM 5/8/00 -0500, you wrote: >> > > 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? > >since when do we let mere boredom stand in our way? Boredom seems >part of life and work, something that everybody (except the very >rich and some dilettantes, that is) cannot avoid. Boredom seems part >and parcel of necessary labor, something that won't be abolished for >a long time. Some might say that without boredom, we couldn't >appreciate non-boredom, but I wouldn't go that far. > >I don't find CAPITAL to be boring at all, especially because I read >the footnotes, where Marx lets down his hair (i.e., his scientific >pretensions) and lets his venom and wit flow. In any event, the >boredom involved in CAPITAL should be compared to the boredom of the >normal academic treatise with its excessive pedantry and caution. In >terms of the benefits received from digging through its tedium, >CAPITAL wins hands down. I have to admit that while I love vols. 1 & 3 of Capital, I found vol. 2 pretty excruciating. Are there others, aside from our reflexively hostile anti-Marxist, who agree? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
At 09:57 AM 5/8/00 -0500, you wrote: > > > 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? since when do we let mere boredom stand in our way? Boredom seems part of life and work, something that everybody (except the very rich and some dilettantes, that is) cannot avoid. Boredom seems part and parcel of necessary labor, something that won't be abolished for a long time. Some might say that without boredom, we couldn't appreciate non-boredom, but I wouldn't go that far. I don't find CAPITAL to be boring at all, especially because I read the footnotes, where Marx lets down his hair (i.e., his scientific pretensions) and lets his venom and wit flow. In any event, the boredom involved in CAPITAL should be compared to the boredom of the normal academic treatise with its excessive pedantry and caution. In terms of the benefits received from digging through its tedium, CAPITAL wins hands down. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
Ricardo Duchesne wrote: > > 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? I read *Capital* (Vol.I) several years before I became involved in any kind of political activity whatsoever. At the time it had no impact on my politics, but I thought it was one of the most beautiful books I had ever read. I didn't read Vols. II & III until after I had become deeply involved in marxism, and the first four chapters of Vol. II, taken as an independent unit, seemed and seem to me a literary masterpiece. Carrol
Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
> 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?
Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
I definetly agree.I think we should get the best out of Darwin to see what is potential for Marxism. Developing a materialist conception of nature is necessary for understanding the "historicity" of human nature. While doing that, however, Marxists should be careful not to assimilate Marx to Darwin. Instead, we should reject Darwin's assumptions about the biological inferiority of blacks and women. I have seen weird books named "Marx and Social Darwinism",which are misguided comparisons of Marx to Darwin for the purposes of Darwinizing Marx in the direction of biological determinism. I don't know Foster in details. I was just wondering about his views on the relationship of Darwin's ideas to the British ruling class of his time (if he has any)... Mine >While John Bellamy Foster acknowledges Darwin's concessions to social >Darwinism, the main stress is on the importance of developing a >materialist view of nature in defiance of the essentialist and teleological consensus of the mid 1800s. That being said, I agree strongly with Robert Young that social Darwinism has had an unfortunate influence on Marxist thought. In "Marxism and Anthropology", Maurice Bloch states that Karl Kautsky read Herbert Spencer before he read Marx and never seemed to have totally renounced the former, as evidenced by articles written in the German Social Democratic press filled with evolutionist notions inappropriate to Marxism. The same is true of Plekhanov, whose "Materialist Conception of History" tends to treat indigenous peoples like dinosaurs who became extinct because they were ill-adapted to their environment (actually, as Gould points out, dinosaurs were well-adapted to their environment but got creamed by some kind of deus ex machina event, like a comet). The most troubling symptom of this uneasy relationship between Marxism and social Darwinism is the key role played by Lewis Henry Morgan in Marx's Ethnological Notebooks and Engels' Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. While Morgan was sympathetic to the American Indian, he essentially viewed them as dinosaurs. This view led him to become a forceful spokesman for residential schools for the Indians, which were sadistic attempts to "civilize" the Indian. Children were beaten if they spoke their native tongue and forced to do menial work in order to "teach" them about the superior value of wage labor. Hunting and fishing were viewed as barbaric activities. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: Re: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
While John Bellamy Foster acknowledges Darwin's concessions to social Darwinism, the main stress is on the importance of developing a materialist view of nature in defiance of the essentialist and teleological consensus of the mid 1800s. That being said, I agree strongly with Robert Young that social Darwinism has had an unfortunate influence on Marxist thought. In "Marxism and Anthropology", Maurice Bloch states that Karl Kautsky read Herbert Spencer before he read Marx and never seemed to have totally renounced the former, as evidenced by articles written in the German Social Democratic press filled with evolutionist notions inappropriate to Marxism. The same is true of Plekhanov, whose "Materialist Conception of History" tends to treat indigenous peoples like dinosaurs who became extinct because they were ill-adapted to their environment (actually, as Gould points out, dinosaurs were well-adapted to their environment but got creamed by some kind of deus ex machina event, like a comet). The most troubling symptom of this uneasy relationship between Marxism and social Darwinism is the key role played by Lewis Henry Morgan in Marx's Ethnological Notebooks and Engels' Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. While Morgan was sympathetic to the American Indian, he essentially viewed them as dinosaurs. This view led him to become a forceful spokesman for residential schools for the Indians, which were sadistic attempts to "civilize" the Indian. Children were beaten if they spoke their native tongue and forced to do menial work in order to "teach" them about the superior value of wage labor. Hunting and fishing were viewed as barbaric activities. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
