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
Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
It was just Vol. II which he offered to Darwin. Which other book would you say is a literary masterpiece? 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: 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: 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
Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
Once again I took it for granted everyone knew it was only Vol. II which Marx offered to Darwin. On boredom, I would add it is not something which we experience during tedious work only, but when we have "nothing to do". It is also a time when we do more than we realize; in the broken bits of thought we have, we are actually thinking about new possibilities, or trying to resolve issues/difficulties. So boredom is good for you; it is also an alternative to the "do it" mentality of our society. 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)
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: 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: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
Ricardo Duchesne wrote: It was just Vol. II which he offered to Darwin. Which other book would you say is a literary masterpiece? Here we are talking about a book which was never written (Vol. II). Had it gotten to the point where the dedication had been relevant, it would presumably have appeared with all its footnotes (which, as Jim observes, are one of the glories of Vol.I). The first four chapters of Vol. II (the most finished part) are, as I said before, a masterpiece all by themselves. (I know no other work -- econ, novel, play, poem; history -- which makes the repetition of a single tautology incorporate so much of the world.) It's impossible even to guess what Vol. III, finished, would have looked like. But then I always have taken delight in what Northrop Frye calls "encyclopedic works" -- Herodotus, Milton, Byron, Browning, Gibbon, Pound, K. Burke, Swift's *Tale of a Tub* -- even Korzybski's *Science and Sanity* and Freud's *Interpretation of Dreams*. Carrol
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Darwin's dilemma (fwd)
There is some confusion below. Obviously, Darwin's ideas were quite progressive judged against his own circumstances charecterized by religious convictions in Britian at that time. However, Darwin was not a revolutionary or marxist. This is partly because Darwin could not entirely break away with the morals of the British ruling class of his time. In terms of evolutionary theory, he was closer to Spencer and Malthus (inevitability of limits), rather than to Marx. In fact, there is no evidence of influence from Marx to Darwin, except the fact that Engels and Marx discovered in evolution a revolutionary potential for their materialist conception of history.Accordingly, some lovers of Darwin see Marx's historical materialism consequential of Darwin's evolutionary theory. In my view, this is an over-statement which assimilates Marx to Darwin, while we should assume the contrary as Marxists. If we read Engels, we get a slightly different picture. Engels' speech at the funeral of Marx compares Darwin to Marx by still maintaining Marx's distinctiveness: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of human nature in human history" WHEN MARX DIED: COMMENTS IN 1883 edited by Philip S. Foner (NY: International Publishers, 1973). Darwin was not happy with the idea of socialism, and was in fact critical of people trying to revolutionize evolutionary theory. Darwin was still loyal to the ideology of the ruling class. He always wanted to maintain his cool scientific position avoiding political contraversy over socialism: "When his theory was connected with socialism and later with democratic movements in Germany, he wrote,"What a foolish idea seems to prevail in Germany on the connection between Socialism and Evolution through Natural Selection." An analogous dissociation from publicly controverted issues about beliefs emerges from a letter to Edward Aveling, who lived with Marx's daughter Eleanor and had declared publicly in 1879 that he was an atheist and became a militant political agitator in several antireligious organizations. Aveling asked for Darwin's permission to dedicate to him an exposition of his ideas, _The Student's Darwin_, to be published by an avowedly antireligious publishing house of Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh which bore the subtitle: "International Library of Science and Freethought/II." Darwin politely declined, saying, 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) Also I have read somewhere (where I don't specifically remember now) that the reason why Darwin returned Marx's Capital (vol II) was not only because he did not understand the political economy side of it, but also because he did not want to disappoint the religious circles he was personally involved in (relatives, friends, etc..). Furthermore, Marx's request to dedicate Capital to Darwin seems to be done under the influence of son in law Aveling for entirely different purposes (so Stephen Gould makes up a little bit, I guess, about this correspondence part) I was told when I was into those issues some time ago: To the person requesting info on the Darwin-Marx connection -- there was a short exchange of letters in 1873, following Marx's dispatch of a complimentary copy of the 2nd German edition of Kapital to Darwin. Darwin wrote back a short, perfunctory response saying he appreciated the copy but that he was not sure he could understand "political economy (he understood Malthus and Adam Smith quite well, however). Anyway, that was the end of the exchange (a later letter from Darwin in 1880 was thought to be a response to Marx's request to dedicate another edition of Kapital to Darwin, but it later turned out to be in response to a request from son-in law Edward Aveling to dedicate to Darwin a popularization of evolutionary theory for students. If you want more details on the Darwin-Marx relationship, wrote a relatively short article in 1992, as part of a symposium from the Field Museum in Chicago, and published in MATTHEW H. NITECKI AND DORIS V. NITECKI, History and Evolution (Albany, State UYniv of New York Press, 1992): pp 211-239. If you want a LOT MORE detail check out the excellent book by PAUL HEYER, Nature, Human Nature and Society (Greenwood Press, 1982). -- Gar Allen Professor of Biology Washington University Mine Doyran Phd student Political Science SUNY/Albany So what's
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)
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)
