I don't think one can draw comparisons between Marxist and Darwinian thought.  
About the only thing they have in common is that Capital and Origin were 
written at about the same time.  However, beyond that, Darwinism is scientific 
and therefore testable by experimentation and observation.  While Darwin may 
have got some things wrong, what he proposed about the evolution of living 
things is generally held as true.  Marxist thought, on the other hand, is 
ideological.  It proposed an ideal system, which if followed, would lead to an 
ideal non-competitive society in which workers owned the means of production 
and everybody would benefit.

We like to point at the Soviet Union as an example of Communism at work.  That 
is not what is was.  Most of its reality was that of a vast gulag operated by a 
huge bureaucracy under the thrall of a supreme leadership headed, through most 
of its history, by Stalin.  China is cited as another example.  Yet it is not 
communist in the sense that Mao Tse Tung, Chou En Lai and other of its founders 
envisaged it.  If it is anything, it is a supreme example of state capitalism.

Nevertheless, I don't think we should throw Marx away.  While Marxism may 
become repression and brutality at the nation-state level, something very much 
like it can work at the small scale communal level.   I think of the 
agricultural communes people I know established in parts of Canada or the 
cooperatives I saw in Costa Rica, examples of people owning their means of 
production and working to the common good.

Ed

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Keith Hudson 
  To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, ,EDUCATION 
  Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:47 AM
  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
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to