Marx and darwin

Where have we been?
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:50 am

Marx and darwin

Postby ryu » Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:58 am
This man claims that communism is based on Darwinism...I should note that the communist manifesto was made before Darwin's work and he rejected Marx's letter as seen here:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26356
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Marx and darwin

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:05 am

Stalin preferred Lysenkoism to Darwinism, which makes that whole paper silly and not worth debunking.

"When the Soviet Union Chose the Wrong Side on Genetics and Evolution" ... HojYVol.99

All Marx was saying was that Darwin cleared the way for "non god" scientific theories. Here is the full Marx quote.

"Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained."

Karl Marx To Ferdinand Lassalle 1861.

True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Marx and darwin

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:14 am

Well!!! That looks like one pitch..... and one home run.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:08 pm
Custom Title: Yes that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Marx and darwin

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:26 am

More to the point, the Communists explicitly rejected Darwinism

But of course the link in the OP is just another instance of anti-Darwin blood libel by way of guilt by alleged association.

Usually it's with Nazis (who did talk about "natural selection" a little bit along with their other stuff).
This time it's with Communists (who did not).
Scientists don't know everything, therefore my favorite flavor of stoopidz is true.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Marx and darwin

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:23 pm

Most of the political philosophy of this era derives from Darwin as well as others in this age of "Enlightenment". Abdul made point of the connection of Nazism to this. Both the Nationalist and Communalist ideas derived from different interpretations on the approaches originating in speculating against ANY government: Anarchy. This itself was derived from the general revolution of scientific inquiry that lead to doubt about some moral assumption of nature. Does nature impose morality or is it indifferent to it? And to the prior status of most 'governments' before this, the assumption that some 'God' had imposed what is or is not 'moral' was beginning to unravel in light of a nature that was beginning to be interpreted as uncaring of our concern.

To the Communists, declarations of 'ownership' rights was at odds if nature has no preferential concern for individuals to assert control of property external to FORCE itself. This was correct. But the Nationalists, taking the later philosophy of those like Spenser or Nietzsche, if on assuming that nature has no actual moral compass, then we have to RECREATE an illusion of it, even if it is just a lie.

The different takes were influenced as much too by Darwin for these because if we are evolved by this nature, some viewed that this proved the invalidation of people as an appropriate arbiter of "right and wrong" through authorities. Only 'Force' appeared valid in some form or another. To the Communists, they took from Darwin, if anything, that religion itself is an arbitrary property derived by those in authoritative power trying to delude us into maintaining some specific belief in a God only to enslave. To the National Socialists, they took from Darwin the essence of survival of the fittest to mean that to BE 'fit' requires using the nature of competition of species to care ONLY for ones own regardless of some compassionate 'truth' lacking in nature because, the history of those who at least appear to dominate, are the ones EMBRACING some localized lie.

Regardless, even if Darwin was supposedly some origin of discontent that derived any philosophy that lead to harm, the 'ownership' of these sources is simply Nature itself, not the person(s) who discovered them.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Return to “History”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest