Bravo!
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:48 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION Subject: [Futurework] Half-time score: Darwin 1, Marx 0 It is perhaps strange that two of the most powerful minds of 19th century England never met, even though they were almost exact contemporaries and lived and worked not far from each other. I speak of Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and Karl Marx (1818-1883). The publication of their major works, Origin of Species (1859) and Capital (1867) was also very close. Karl Marx, of course, read everything and bought Origin as soon as it was published. He was bowled over by it because Darwin's theme of competition was so close to his own. Marx wrote to his friend, Engels, ". . . this is the book which, in the field of natural history, provides the basis for our views." He probably wrote to Darwin at the time, though no record exists. However, when Capital was published eight years later he sent a copy to Darwin, and inscribed it: "Mr Charles Darwin on the part of his sincere admirer Karl Marx". This time Darwin replied. "I heartily wish I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep & important subject of political economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of knowledge & that this in the long run is sure to add to the happiness of mankind." That was actually an extremely diplomatic reply because Darwin didn't read Marx's great work! He might have peeked at a page or two but most pages remained uncut when he placed in his library. Besides the theme of competition, they both shared another important one -- the importance of the environment. In Darwin's case it was the natural environment. As the number of life-forms increased (that is, more varieties of potential food) then this forced more and more specialization -- and thus more species -- to come into existence. And, within each species, individuals competed. 'Unfit' individuals who couldn't raise enough children to replace themselves died out. In Marx's book, it was the production environment, not the natural one, that forced specialization on society. In his time the environment was the industrial revolution. This was forcing at least two main classes into existence -- the workers and the capitalists (with their bourgeois hangers-on, the middle-classes). Furthermore, Marx maintained, the class gap would go wider and wider. The rich would become richer and richer, and the workers would become increasingly impoverished until finally they would either die out or be forced to revolt and bring socialism about. Unlike Darwin, whose evidence came from a wide variety of sources, Marx's main evidence came from one person, Friedrich Engels, a rich business owner -- and, paradoxically, a fox-hunting capitalist! -- who fed Marx with statistics of the working class in the factories of Manchester. Engels was a compassionate man -- we must give him credit for this -- and was saddened by the living and working conditions of factory workers. They were, of course, pretty awful in the early part of the 19th century because this was the first flush of the new breed of factory owners and industrial expansion. In fact, however, the living conditions and the economic prosperity of factory workers was already steadily increasing at that time. If Engles had thrown his statistical net much wider than Manchester and over a longer time span he would have discovered this. Consciously or unconsciously, Engels chose statistics from the worst factories and districts of Manchester and, already, the data were many years out of date. By mid-and late-century, as the industrial revolution swept into Europe, Marx's and Engels' ideas of increasing impoverishment seemed to be confirmed. Back in England, however, by late 19th century, ordinary workers' incomes were increasing at a smart pace. He and his wife were now buying new consumer goods as they appeared -- even though they took hard saving in those days -- and most working parents in the industrial cities were paying for their children to be educated. The workers were starting building societies in order to buy their own homes, and when they went on holiday and walked about in their Sunday-best clothes on the seaside esplanades, they would be mixing with the middle-class and the very rich. In England and Western Europe, the wealth and income gaps still existed, of course, but they continued to narrow down all the way through to the 1960s or '70s. Meanwhile, in the communist countries of central Europe where Marxist ideas were being seriously applied, an income gap between the powerful (the nomenklatura) and the ordinary workers had been increasing! Personal ownership of property-wealth didn't exist by law but, in effect, amply compensated for by personal leases by the privileged of second homes (dacha) in beautiful countryside and luxurious seaside holidays. But then, at around 1990 the communist system collapsed. At least it did in Russia and its satellite countries. In China, it has been more of a case of communism sliding into a revived form of Confucianism. At this stage we could say that Marx's political version of competition and environment has failed but that Darwin's had survived. However, all is not quite as it seems. We can't call it a victory for Darwin just yet. Since Russia and China have chosen free enterprise over communism, class division and income differentials seem to be growing again (both there and in the West). So we can't yet say that the score is Darwin 1, Marx 0. It must be considered a half-time result. In fact, Darwin's original ideas pack another big punch, quite as powerful as "survival of the fittest". Although it has been amply confirmed by scientific research in recent years, the public -- even the very well educated part of the public -- are largely unaware of its implications. Darwin's second idea is even more powerful than "survival of the fittest" in one respect. It has deep and specific social implications. It may even be the case that Marx might be correct all along -- even though he can no longer take credit for it! So I will call it a half-time score for now and write about the second half tomorrow. Keith Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
