Marx and the Ideology of Darwin (2010)

From the August 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx admired Darwin’s work but was critical of some of the conclusions drawn from it. The second of our three-part article on Marx and Engels and Darwin .

In Marx’s initial enthusiastic reading of The Origin of Species he had written to both Engels (19 December 1860) and Lassalle (16 January 1861) that it “contains the natural-history foundation of our viewpoint” and that “it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.” What could he have meant by these comments? He was certainly not saying that the Darwinian process applied to human society. After all, Marx had spent nigh on 20 years grappling with trying to understand social processes and arriving at the “guiding thread” of his materialist conception. It is unlikely that in the 18 months separating what he wrote in the famous 1859 Preface and his reading of Darwin’s Origin that he would have jettisoned his own hard won approach and replaced it with Darwin’s. So what was the connection with Darwin? It is unlikely to have been Darwin’s Malthusianism, as anything smacking of Malthus would have been contemptible to Marx. Perhaps a closer look at what Darwin meant by the phrase “struggle for existence” may help.

Darwin made clear in The Origin that he used this phrase in a metaphoric sense to cover a wide range of situations:

“I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large and metaphoric sense, including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny. Two canine animals in time of dearth, may be truly said to struggle with each other which shall get the food and live. But a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle for life against the drought, though more properly it should be said to be dependent on the moisture.”

(Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1859; Penguin edition 1968, p.116.)

And:

“Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life.” (ibid., p.117.)

This “large and metaphoric” meaning of the phrase “struggle for existence” includes more than the Hobbesian “war of all against all” or of “nature red in tooth and claw” of Tennyson, and refers to the necessity of all biological species to obtain their means of survival and reproduction from their interaction with the environment they inhabit, and that different biological forms have different kinds of interaction with their surroundings. Human beings, too, have to confront this problem of obtaining their conditions of existence. Indeed, in The German Ideology (1845) in which Marx and Engels first formulated their materialist conception, they state:

“The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions of their life, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.

The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus, the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself – geological, oro-hydrographical, climatic and so on. All historical writing must set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.” (Marx and Engels, Collected Works, volume 5, p. 31.)

In this process of obtaining their conditions of existence humans in particular construct and use tools as instruments of production, but so too, to a lesser degree, do other animals. Far more important for animals in this was the specialised development of parts of their body. And it was this aspect of Darwin’s “epoch-making work” (Capital, volume 1, Penguin edition, 1976, p. 461, note 6) that Marx referred to in the only comments published during his lifetime, and then only as footnotes in Capital, volume 1:

“Darwin has directed attention to the history of natural technology, i.e., the formation of organs of plants and animals, which serve as the instruments of production for sustaining their life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man in society, of organs that are the material basis of every particular organisation of society, deserve equal attention? And would not such a history be easier to compile, since, as Vico says, human history differs from natural history in that we have made the former, but not the latter. Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature, the direct process of the production of his life, and thereby it also lays bare the process of production of the social relations of his life, and of the mental conceptions that flow from those relations. . . . The weaknesses of the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism which excludes the historical process, are immediately evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions expressed by their spokesmen whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own speciality.” (Capital, volume 1, Penguin edition, 1976, pp. 493-494, note 4.)

Throughout his work, Marx always made a distinction between natural history and human history, and the difference between animals and humans in their relationship to their conditions of existence. Again in the German Ideology, he and Engels had written of this:

“[Men] themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.” ( p. 31.)

As soon as human beings start to produce their means of subsistence they must enter into certain kinds of relations of production, and these are not nature-determined as they are with other species. The earliest humans may have started out with nature given conditions, but the evolution of their biological structures made it both possible and necessary for them to move beyond this. This aspect of human beings was beyond Darwin’s viewpoint; he could not move beyond natural history.

Although Marx appreciated the scientific significance of The Origin, his critical perspective brought to the fore some of Darwin’s ideological assumptions, especially when applied to human society and the use made to justify capitalism as “natural.” In one of his last letter in which he mentions Darwin, writing to Laura and Paul Lafargue (15 February 1869) he wrote:

“Darwin is led by the struggle for life in English society – the competition of all with all, bellum ominum contra omnes – to discover competition […] as the ruling law of ‘bestial’ and vegetative life. The Darwinian, conversely, considers this a conclusive reason for human society never to emancipate itself from its bestiality.”

Marx’s interest in Darwin did not extend beyond The Origin, and there is no evidence that he read The Descent of Man or any other of Darwin’s works. However, there is no doubt that he appreciated Darwin’s “epoch-making work” and held Darwin in high regard. This is made clear when he sent Darwin, on 25 September1873, an inscribed copy of the second German edition of Capital: “Mr Charles Darwin on the part of his sincere admirer Karl Marx.”

Darwin (1 October 1873) sent a typically courteous but non-committal reply, and the majority of the pages remain uncut in Darwin’s library. And since the mid-1970s the myth that Marx wished to dedicate volume 2 of Capital to Darwin has been laid to rest.

On the same day he sent his inscribed copy to Darwin, Marx also sent one to Herbert Spencer, another giant of 19th century thought, perhaps even more widely read by others than even Darwin. But apart from the long forgotten Italian criminologist, Enrico Ferri, who wrote Socialism and Positivism (1894; English edition 1905), who else has attempted a Darwin-Spencer-Marx link up?

Ed Blewitt

Next month (concluding article): Had Engels read Darwin’s The Descent of Man? The first part appeared in the June issue.

Socialism Will Forge Ahead (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is obvious to the students of Socialism that the material conditions engendered by the war will have much to do with advancing or retarding the well-being of mankind. The situation in which the various nations will find themselves at the cessation of hostilities cannot now be gauged with any degree of accuracy, and, therefore, it is only within certain limits that we may venture to speak of the future.

In the piping times of peace the forces of mass production are throttled by narrowing markets, and therefore do not produce to their capacity, but when the dogs of war are at their heels the flood-gates are opened and in certain branches of capitalism everything is accelerated.

The discovery and utilisation of more and better means of producing commodities simply means, other things remaining the same, that we shall, at the end of the war, have unemployment on a larger scale than we had before. So long as the system of ownership and control is not changed nothing accrues to the advantage of the working class, and our masters have not the slightest intention of renouncing their class privileges or foregoing their right to exploit those who are dispossessed.

There is, however, one thing that our rulers will be unable to prevent, and that is the enlightenment of their victims as to the cause of their sufferings. The exigencies of the conflict will help to bring into the open, clear of all camouflage, the basic cause of class antagonisms and convey both to the working class and the capitalist class a full understanding of what the situation demands: both sides will then know what to do.

Enrico Ferri, in his book “Socialism and Positive Science,” can be quoted here: —

 “Political life will have no fresh birth except through the development of the Socialist Party, because when the historical figures of the patriots and the personal reasons for differences between the representatives of the various political shades have disappeared from the political arena, the formation of a single individualist party will become necessary. The historical duel will then be fought and the class struggle will then unfold on the political arena all its beneficient influences, not in the paltry sense of of pugilism and outrages, malice and personal violence, but in the grand meaning of social drama. With all my soul I desire that this conflict may be solved for the sake of the progress of civilisation without bloody convulsions; but historical fatality has initiated it, and it is given neither to us nor to others to avoid or retard it.

  “As a result of all we have just said, these ideas of political Socialism, because they are scientific, dispose to personal tolerance at the same time as to theoretical disagreement. That is also a conclusion of scientific psychology in the philosophical domain. Whatever may be our personal sympathies for such or such representative of the radical fraction of the individualist party (as also for every honest and sincere representative, of no matter what scientific, religious or political opinion), we ought to recognise that there is not by the side of Socialism any party organically connected with it. We must be on one side or the other—individualist or socialist. There is no intermediate situation, and I am more and more persuaded that the only useful tactic for the formation of a Socialist Party that will live, is precisely this theoretical independence and the refusal of every ‘alliance’ with the partiti affini, who only constitute for Socialism a ‘false placenta’ for a foetus unlikely to live.”—(Page 148.)

The political truce between the Labour Party and the Government is likely to meet with increasing opposition from the rank and file of the former. Many of the Labour Leaders will be discredited because of the actions they are compelled to do owing to the circumstances in which they find themselves. A Socialist policy is called for, but they cannot deliver the goods.

Read the following from the Daily Express, of June 12th : —

CALL-UP GIRLS SACKED.

From Hilde Marchant.

Hundreds of girls between 20 and 21 who have registered for employment under the new order, have been sacked. Mr. Ernest Bevin, Minister of Labour, describes this as “disgusting.”

The Ministry has sent inspectors to try to reinstate the girls, but they have no powers over employers who wish to get rid of them. 

“All we can do is appeal to their decency to keep these girls in jobs until they are needed,” an official said yesterday. 

Girls are already being called up on the first registration, but to spread them out smoothly, the call-up is slow. Each case has to be investigated. In the meantime, some are being sacked as “dead” labour. 

There was one case of a large lingerie factory. Most of the girls were within the registration age. 

They were given notice, for they were still learning their trade. Older women were brought in, but when clothes rationing was announced many of these were sacked. 

These are girls in clerical jobs who have been told they are under notice, and have to teach older women their jobs. The girls are sent on the dole, for it will be some time before they can be called up. 

The Ministry of Labour says it can do little but appeal to the patriotism of employers. Meantime, many hundreds of girls are being thrown on to a floating labour population, with no work to do.”

What I wish to call the attention of the reader to is the fact that Mr. Ernest Bevin is unable to do more than appeal to the patriotism of the exploiters of the working girls.

We will give him credit for the best intentions and say he would reinstate the girls if he could, but he can’t in face of the opposition of employers.

It is interesting to note how those who apparently think they are not of the working class consider the Government should act when some of the wage slaves take advantage of the fact that their services are at present in demand. The Daily Sketch had a letter in the other day which illustrates the point: —

  “Sir,—I see four men have been fined £5 each for gambling in an air-raid shelter when they should have been at work in a factory. All were of military age.

  I also see that Mr. Bevin is creating a flying squad of 100,000 men for the building trade—picked workers, exempt from military service, with a “guaranteed week,” one day’s holiday every six weeks and week-end leave with free rail passes every eight weeks.

  Is it not time this ridiculous squandering of public money was stopped?

  Remark heard in a public-house: “Oh, we go a bit slow during the day, as if we work too hard there would not be so much overtime pay.”

  Can nothing be done to bring the wage of the factory and munition worker more in keeping with that of the man in the Forces? Is it not time that we conscripted labour?

Sybil Tufnell 

Sunninghill.”

The lady evidently, unlike the Government, does not rely upon an appeal to patriotism; her wish is plain: she wants the Government to become dictatorial and conscript labour in order to compel the workers to work more cheaply. If someone asked the Government to conscript all employers and compel them to run their business for a soldier’s pay the request would be looked upon as absurd, but there are many members of the “middle class” who will no doubt agree with the lady and consider her letter worthy of the sincere attention of Mr. Bevin’s department.

While the war is going on the Government is assuming ever-increasing powers over the means of life: the ruling class are pooling their interests and heading for State capitalism.

In order to run State capitalism in their interests the ruling class will be tempted to curtail political democracy, because under State capitalism the intelligent section of the workers will in ever increasing numbers not only perceive more clearly how they are exploited, but also how it is possible to put an end to the exploiting process. We must stand ready to oppose any attempt to restrict present-day political privileges.

It is our duty as Socialists to continue our work of education, time and tide are with us from now on.

The encouragement we are now receiving is the logical outcome of present-day developments. Let us be worthy of the job we are called upon to accomplish and do our utmost to get those who incline a willing ear to understand that the only economic foundation of a peaceful world is Socialism.

Charles Lestor

Enrico Ferri on Socialist Tactics. (1905)

Enrico Ferri

From the August 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is the essence of the great and fertile innovations of the revolutionary method of Marx and Engels, as distinguished from Utopian sentimental Socialism, and from Anarchism? It consists solely in the substitution of the genetic method, the investigation of causes, for the old empirical, symptomatic method, in harmony with the scientific doctrine of transformation or natural evolution.

In medical practice, as is well known, up to the middle of the nineteenth century, before the clinical methods of observation and experiment were tried, diseases were diagnosed and treated only by their symptoms, their outward manifestations. The discoveries of Pasteur, for example, and his followers, of microbe germs that caused infectious diseases, led to the replacing of the symptomatic cures, which were powerless against such plagues as cholera and typhoid fever, by the elimination of the causes for the purpose of preventing disease. And surprising results were obtained in this way. It is infinitely better to build water-works for a city suffering from typhoid fever than to increase the number of physicians for the treatment of the diseased, or to open public dispensaries and reduce the price of medicines.

In the treatment of the infectious disease of exploitation and misery, Marx and Engels have, therefore, said: It is useless to continue that empirical and symptomatic treatment, that more or less modern and rational charity, these social reforms for the so-called “amelioration of the condition of the working class”, and the like. It is necessary to eliminate the causes of poverty, and these are in the last instance found in the monopolization of the means of production and distribution as private property, that reaches its climax in that period of civilisation which is characterised by bourgeois capitalism. Against this rising tide of economic slavery, human misery and injustice, little bourgeois reforms from “soup kitchens” to “charity balls”, from laws on “female and child labor” to “boards of arbitration” or “Sunday rest”, are useless as the use of Anarchist violence, individual or collective, against this or that capitalist, this or that “economic tyrant”, this or that “political tyrant”, is senseless.

The work of the revolutionary method is much more tedious, tiresome and complex. We must combat and eliminate the fundamental causes of poverty, instead of the more or less apparent symptoms. And as the elimination cannot be accomplished by one stroke of collective or individual violence, nor by social reform legislation, nor by a dictator’s decree, we must form a clear and energetic proletarian mind and redeem it from ignorance and servility. Ideas travel in human boots, and proletarian evolution does not proceed spontaneously, nor does it descend from the providential heavens of government action. It rather takes shape partly through the natural agency of economic and political phenomena and partly through the pressures of the proletarian mind itself which struggles by legal means for the realisation of its revolutionary aims.

These aims are called revolutionary and cannot be called otherwise. Not that they preach the building of barricades or personal assaults, but because they aim at the complete transformation of the foundations of society, instead of limiting, weakening and entangling themselves in reforms which leave the basis of private property untouched, and which the ruling classes have always granted, not for our benefit, but in their own interest, for the purpose of retarding the progress of the revolutionary ideal.

Enrico Ferri in "Il Socialismo."