SOCIALIST DARWINISM Evolution in German Socialist Thought From Marx to Bernstein Richard WeileartFOREWORD Few thinkers have Jet a more complex and ambiguous legscy than Charles Darwin, Unlike most scientific theories, Darwin's theory of evolution by rmeans of natural and sexual selection quickly broke fee ofits scientific moorings and drifted into the public domain. Politicians, socal and politcal philosophers, 8 wel as ideologues of every stripe and every level of sophistication rummaged rough Darwinism looking for scientific justification of their own views ‘Everyone wanted to share Darwin's prestige, and everyone seemed to find what he ‘was seeking Defenders of capitalism, aristocracy, imperialism, racism, male dominance, liberalism, democracy, and even (as Richard Weikart shows) ism all conveniently discovered that Darwin just happened to be on their [Nowhere was the battle of Darwinisms keener than in Germany, where the vietory of Prussian authoritarianism had lent political and social debate a decidedly theoretical cast. Both liberal and conservative opponents of the infant socialist movement argued that natural selection sanctioned a competitive Irierarchical society. They equated high social and economic satus with biological fitness inthe struggle for existence. To them, the contemporary social and political arrangements were natural, any attempt to change them unnatural, Science had spoken, this ending the discussion-~or so they thought. This view (with countless variations) has come dovm to us as Social Darwinism, an infelicitous term since any Darwinian inferences about social conditions might legitimately beso called . As Richard Weikart shows, socialists ‘too wrestled with Darwinism, of course claiming its authority for themselves. This “socialist Social Darwinism," which Weikart calls simply socialist Darwinism, has received relatively little attention in the scholarly literature. ‘Weikar’s book provides the frst detailed analysis of how German socialists (thekey figures in the European socialist movement) came to terms with modern biology. Their central dilemma ~ how to acknowledge man's animal nature ‘without closing off the visa of fundamental social and political change ~is still ‘with us today. To be sure, the voice ofthe old Social Democratic left has largely isappeared from political discourse in the West, but the nature/ourture dichotomy, so clearly laid out in Weikar's book, remains the subject of passionate debate Weikart shows that we cannot ficilely assume that the left must reflexively take its stand on nurture, rejecting Darwinian nature, Recently, the prominent animal-rghts activist, Peter Singer, has called for a new "Darwinian Jef," one that sill takes the side of the weak and holds out the prospect of progressive change. But such a socialism would finally abandon the ideal of Jnuman perfectbilty, “its [the let's] utopian ideas replaced by a cooly realistic view of what can be achieved."" Singer is picking up the threads of a debate ‘begun in the 1860s in Germany. Now, Richard Weikart has given us a finely ‘wrought intelectual history ofthe early stages ofthat debate, His book should be 765 to diseuss the enduring question of the required reading for anyone who biological constrains on human progress, Alfred Kelly, Hamilton College ENDNOTES 1. Peter Singer, "Darwin forthe Left,” Prospect (June, 1998).ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Fuss of all, 1 would like to thank the organizations and institutions that helped fund my work on this project, which began as a dissertation at the University of Iowa, The University of Iowa was my greatest benefactor, providing me with a University of lowa Fellowship, which allowed me to finish this work in timely fashion, A Fulbright Fellowship, together with the Gordon Prange Fellowship ftom the University of Iowa history department, he the requisite archival work in Germany. | am deeply indebted to many Hbraries and archives, but above all the University of Towa Library (especially the Inter-Library Loan division). The Friedrich-Eber Stiftung Library and Archive provided me a wonderful place to work while I was in Bonn in 192-93. Withnut their resources this work would have been much more difficult. The University of Bonn Library was also very helpful. 1 would also like to thank archives that I visited for shorter periods of time: the International Institute for Social History in Amsterdam, the Berlin ‘Staatsbibliothek (Potsdamerst), the University of Freiburg Library archives, the Em der DDR, and the Zentralbibliothek Zarich Finally, I would like to thank the two professors who helped me most in learning German history and intellectual history: Mitchell G. Ash and Allan t-Haeckel-Haus in Jena, the Archiv der Parteien und Massenorganisationen ‘Megill. The former directed my dissertation, and both have encouraged me @ ‘great dealin my scholarly work, for which Iam grateful. Tonly hope I an live up tothe high standards they exemplifyINTRODUCTION “What a foolish idea seems to prevail in Germany onthe connection between Socialism and Evolution through Natural Selection," wrote Darwin in consternation, supposing that his theory would be taished by the association.’ Socialist Darwinism seemed @ monstrous hybrid to him, and he was horsfed to learn that is ideas were and social being heralded by revolutionary socialists as support for their politic positions. Living in Down, England, on the accumulated wealth of his forebears and ist ideology? bis ov capitalist investments, he 1 tle sympathy for ‘The German socialists’ praise for Darwin and leading Darwinian biologists, however, was effusive, They considered his theory liberating, tearing down the last vestiges ofthe religious and static world views that had dominated society for so long.? Wilhelm Liebknecht expressed a typical view when he asserted at Marx's ‘eral, “Science is the Liberator of humanity. Natural science liberates us from Gog."* Immediately ater reading Darwin, both Marx and Engels had exulted that Darwin had finally banished teleology from nature, and this appealed to their ant- seligious outlook. “Though historians of scence have abandoned the view that science (including Darwinism) and religion have been in perpetual conflict or warfare, John Hedley Brooke—while himself rejecting the conflict thesis as overly simplistic—rightly warns against revisionists who overreact and paint too harmonious a canvas’ Many German socialists adopted Darwinism because ofits anti-religious implications, and Karl Kautshy, the leading Marxian theorist ofthe Second Inemational, was converted to materialism through Darwinian naturalism. Socialists zeal to. publicize ‘evolutionary theory was directly related to their antipathy for religion. Whateverhistorians of science may say in retrospect, nineteenth-century German socialists certtinly believed science and religion were in conflict, and they boldly enlisted science in their campaign agains religion Darwinism was also a welcome contrmation of socialists! developmental view of society, backed up by scientific evidence. Ofcourse, Darwinian biology was not the frst scientific theory to replace stasis with movement in nature® Kant and h century with their nebular Laplace had revolutionized cosmology in the eighteeat hypothesis, which had guined widespread approval by the early nineteenth century, 0 the universe was widely considered a product of eons of development rather then, f sudden creation. Especially through Charles Lyell’ influence, uniformitarian seology attained prominence inthe mid-nineteenth century. Once again, a theory of slow, gradual development replaced the formerly dominant catastrophic though Since Darwin and other scientists agreed that nature was not immutable, science~if extrapolated—seemed to offer hope for change, reform, and perhaps even revolution. Ironically, socialists admired leading Darwinists, such as Emst Haeckel and Thomas Henry Huxley, despite these biologists’ outspoken opposition and hostility to socialist doctrine. Socialist publishers and workers’ libraries regularly featured Darwinian fare, which constituted the most popular non-fiction reading material among workers” Darwinism attracted socialists so strongly because they saw in ita corroboration oftheir ideology. One reason evolutionary theory became popular so quickly in the late nineteenth century among both socialists and non- socialists was because it correlated with some aspect of many people's presuppositions and world views, imespective of its scientiic merits or problems. ‘The German socialists reception of evolutionary theory illustrates the mutual interpenetration of scientific and social thought in the late nineteenth century. Socialists were zealous to embrace the latest scientific theories and to parade them as ‘evidence that their vision of society was scientific. As heirs of Enlightenment rationalism, they accorded science great authority and believed that advances in science and technology could improve society and banish superstitions and fruitless3 speculations, Thus the socialists tried to appropriate Darwinism for their own purposes and considered it an important propaganda weapon. Though they often denied it in principle, their social outlook was sometimes colored by their understanding ofbology. ‘They were ultimately unable to extract themselves filly {rom the biologizaton of socal thought, which was so prevalent in late nineteenth- ‘century Germany. ‘On the other hand, though, socials receptivity to Darwinism was conditioned by their social thought. It is commonly recognized that religious and moral nthe late nineteenth century, philosophies influenced people's reactions to Darwin ‘but social thought also influenced how and to what extent Darwin's views were platable to his contemporaries. Socialists’ esteem for Darwin was based mare on his role in making biological transmutation an acceptable hypothesis, rather than on the specific evolutionary mechanism he proposed-natura selection through the srugele for existence * For many socialists~especially Marxists-the Malthusian population principle, on which Darwin had based his theory, was anathema, They, lke most of their contemporaries, used the term Darwinism very broadly to denote biological evolution in general, rather than the distinctively Darwinian mechanism of evolution. “More often than not, they objected to Darwin's theory of natural selection, especially ‘when applied to human society, since it contradicted their vision of social harmony and economic abundance, Social theory thus dictated the exten to which Darwinism ‘was accepted in socials circles. It also made them receptive to alternative theories, ‘of evolution corresponding more closely to their social outtook. [Not only socialists, but also Darwinists opposing socialism, were heavily influenced by thir social status and presuppositions. They were often as interested in rescuing Darwisism from its disreputable association with socialism as they were in destroying socialism, Since they marshalled scientific arguments to refute socialism, they forced socialists to distinguish more sharply between scientific and social theory than they probably would have done otherwise,trated, there was a tendency among late As Kurt Bayertz has rineteenth-century Socialists to synthesize intellectual concepts to construct complete ‘world views, and this included a synthesis of natural science and socialist theory Bayertz further argues thatthe tendency among socialists was to stress the unity berween nature end society and thus to natualize society? However, though this impulse was never entiely overcome, the leading theorists of the German Social ‘Democratic Party exhibited countervailing tendency to separate society from the natural realm because of their Marxian soi 5 theory, Thus sosialist Darwinisme= unlike socal Darainism-—was not the application of Darwinism to society so much as the socialist interpretation of Darwinism. It was the integration of socialism and Darwinism (and even more so non-Darwinian evolutionary theories) into a coherent world view, in which the socialist ideology usually remained the dominant force. Two main forms of socialist Dervnism develope in late nineteenth-century Germany: a non-Marxian and a Marxian variety. ‘The former emerged frst and ‘embraced the Darwinian theory of neural selection, including the application ofthe ‘Malthusian population principle to human society. The che proponents of this view, Friedrich Albert Lange, Ludwig Buchner, and Amold Dode (also Kart Katsky in the 1870s, before his conversion to Marxism), forthrightly applied Darwinism to society, but drew socialist conclusions ftom it. Lange and Buchner were leading voices in the socialist movement, though neither participated in the German Social Democratic Party (Lange died in 1875, the yeart was formed). Along with the botanist Dodel, they were among the leading popularizers of Darwinian theory in nineteenth-century ‘Germany, especially among socialists ‘The non-Manxian variety of socialist Darwinism was repugnant to Marx and his disciples, who vehemently rejected the validity of Malthus’ population theory. ‘They continually objected tothe application ofthe laws of natural science including ‘Darwinse) to social theory, since they insisted that hamans are qualitatively different fiom animals. Thus they denied Darwin's cleim that human evolution was fundamentally the same as animal evolution and that the development of social5 institutions could be understood in light of biological principles, such as natural selection “However, while formally distinguishing between natural and social laws, Marx and his followers didnot always find it easy to keep the two separate. Although Man's and Engel theory, they were both eager to point out parallels between Marxism and Darwinism le socal theory was developed prior to the publication of Darwin's sand to use Darwinian and scientific rhetoric to propagate thei ideas, Kautsky was an ardent Darwinist before converting to Marxism, but as he moved toward Marxism, his Darwinian social theory seceded into the backaround and became substiary to his Marxist social theory. Although he never entirely overcame his eaty views that placed society and history in a Darwinian framework (despite his later adoption of ‘neo-Lamarckian evolutionary theory), it was clear by the mid-1880s that Mardsm ‘was the driving force in his world view and Darwinism and natural science were ancillary. Eduard Bernstein, a leading theorist inthe Social Democratic Perty who later became famous for his revision, never attempted to bring Darwinism into Aiscussions of socal theory during his orthodox Marist phase. Even afte breaking ‘with orthodox Marxism, he maintained that natural science could not legitimately be applied to society. Nevertheless, evolutionary theory shaped the shetorcif nat the ‘content of his revision of Marxism, Thus, although Marxissincluding Mars—did not achieve complete consistency on this score, Manism did militate against the ‘Darwinizing of society, and Marxist theoreticians remained much more impervious 10 biological social theories than did other social theorists, including non-Marxan socialists. Socialists elsewhere in nineteenth-century Europe were eager to incorporate Darwinism into socilism, too. The Fabian socialists in Britain were excited about ‘evolutionary theory and felt an ainity with Darwinian gredualism, though they were repulsed by Spencers philosophy of individualism, Therefore they ignored the idea of individualist struggle in Darwin's theory and instead emphasized his discussion of animal and human sociability "? The anarchist Peter Kropotkin in Mutual Aid (1902)6 ‘was even more insistent thatthe struggle for existence was an eoneous concept; he ‘considered cooperation more important inthe evolutionary process." Many French socialists also dispensed with Darwin's strugale for existence in their zeal to link evolutionary theory and socialism, portraying Darwin as an advocate of the association for ft” among humans"? The Itlian socialist Enrico Feri, on the other hand, did not deem t necessary to rid Darwinism of the human struggle for existence in is attempt to harmonize socialism and Darwinism." ‘American socialists were also captivated by evolutionary theory, which, according to Mark Pttenger, dulled their revolutionary edge Pittenge's claim that ‘evolutionary theory adulterated Marxian historical materialism and caused socialists to conilate nature with society is remarkably similar to charges mistakenly levelled by ‘many socitlstsexpecially those of « more redica, revolutionary persuasion~st ‘Kautsky and other German socialist leaders (sometimes even Engels), They argued thatthe infiltration of evolutionary biological ideas into socialist thought in the late nineteenth century robbed Marxism ofits revolutionary edge in two ways. First, ‘Darwinism fostered a mechanical, non-dalectical materialism, which came to supplant the dialectical component of Marxism in German socials thought. The abandonment ‘of revolutionary praxis accompanied the disappearance ofthe dialectic on which it had been based. Secondly, Darwinism was a graduaist theory of evolution and accustomed people to think of change as slow, requiring eons. If this mode of thinking erept into socialist thought, it would enervate Marx's saltatory theory of social development "* Pitenger differs from these German erties by ascribing an important role to Spencer inthe shift away from Marxian revolutionary praxis. On. the German scene, though, Spencer was not nearly as influential as he was in Britain and the United States, and even Germans supporting laissez faire rarely appealed 10 Spencer's ideas. Socialists were not the ely ones trying to apply Darwinism to the study of society. Almost as soon as Darwinism reached Germany, biologists and social theorists started applying Darwinism to social development as well as to biological7 questions. The soil was well-prepared for this endeavor, having been cultivated by both the Enlightenment and its antithesis, the Romantic movement The E ightenment had emphasized the rationality of society, and what was more rational than natural science? Organie analogies of society also gained currency in the early nineteenth century through the influence of the Romantic movement. Darwinian social theorists were often able to weave these two strands together in ther attempt to create a science of society. ‘Apart from socialists, most of those wrestling with the connection between Darwinism and society were liberals, since conservatives were far less likely to ‘embrace Darwinism, and if they did, ther religious and moral persuasion made them unlikely to apply it to society. German liberals inthe 1860s and 1870s were generally ‘concerned with freedom--including economic freedom-~and national unity, the twin ‘goals of the Revolutions of 1848 in the German states. They were thus generally sympathetic with laissez-faire economics and nationalism. They also supported tiltarism, especially in the wake of Bismarck’s success in unifying Germany through blood and iron, and many encoureged imperialism and racial competition as well.” ‘When it came to applying Darwinism to society, most Darwinian biologists and social theorists in Germany applied the struggle for existence to society as an inevitable law ensuring competition and progress by eliminating the weaker, less fit members of society. It included both individual economic competition within societies and collective competition such as wars and netional economic rivalries. These social Danwinist ideals were preached by leading biologists, ethnographers, geographers, sociologists, economists, and even theologians, such as Emst Haeckel, Wilhelm Preyer, Friedrich von Hellwald, Friedrich Ratzel, Albert E, F, Schaflle, Ludwig Gumplowicz, Max Weber (in the 1890s), and David Friedrich Strauss. Social ‘Darwinism was a vibrant movement in late nineteenth-century Germany, despite numerous voices of protest,"® Socialists in late nineteenth-century Germany were thus engaged in incorporating Darwinian or non-Darwinian evolutionary theories into their world8 ‘views in a hostile intellectual environment. Many biologists and social 1 10 demonstrate the committed to Darwinism regulrly summoned Darwinian biolo impossibility of socisism, ‘Thus the very persons revered by socialists for striking ‘against the status quo of religion and aristocracy were arrayed against them in social theory. Socialists had to conftont their social Darwinist arguments, while retaining the elements of evolution dear to them, Just ike most German liberal social scientist in the nineteenth century, Marx 1 However, by and his followers wanted to construct @ nomothetic social scien raving a distinetion between the human and animal realms, they opposed the reduction of social laws to natural laws that was so characteristic of abstract materialism and postvism. Like nec-Kantianism~an important ideology ofthe late ninetenth century that was a response to and rejection of both Hegelian idealism and plilosophical materialsm-Mandsm created a dualism to avoid the reductionist tendencies of both monistic idealism and monistic materialism. However, as ontological materialists, most Marxists blured the natural sciencelsocial scence ichotomy toa far greater extent than most neo-Kentians (especially the later ones), ‘who rejected « nomethetic model of socal scence in favor ofan ideographic model“? ‘The persons covered in this stady were leading theorists and propagandists in the German socialist movement who grappled with the problem of synthesizing Darwinism and socialism, I have omitted some significant socialist leaders, such as Ferdinand Lassale, because Darwinism was not particularly significant in their ‘thought. I have included some figures less important tothe socialist movement-- Lange and Buichner-since they were so iniunta in promoting Darwinism in socialist ranks, ‘The other leaders covered~Marx, Engels, Bebel, Kautsky, and Bernstein~ ty socialism, not only in Germany but in the whole worl, and all interacted significantly ‘were some of the most important leaders and thinkers in late nineteenth-c with evolutionary theory. In this work I will use the term Danwinism to mean the theory of evolution stressing natural selection as the primary-though not exclusive-mechanism8 ssary 10 accounting for change, just as Darwin himsef had theorized. It is distinguish between Darwinian and nor-Darwinian theories of evolution, since both forms were widely debated and discussed inthe fate nineteenth and early twentieth ‘centuries. Socialists were not the only ones leaning toward Lamarckian and other ‘nor-Darwinian explanations for evolution inthe late nineteenth century, for mamerous ‘non-socialist biologists questioned the role of natural selection inthe evolutionary cialists were enamored with Lamarck’s stress on the inheritance of process?" S acquired characteristics, because it was more consistent with their vision of social progress”? They, along with some liberal biologists like Oscar Hertwig, hoped for peaceful progres through environmental (e,, economic and social) transformations ‘with abundance for all, rather than Darwin's conception of evolution (and perhaps progress) through competition brought on by population pressure and scarcity > ‘The connections between socialism and evolutionary theory in the late nineteenth century help iustrate thatthe religious, political, and social philosophies ‘that people held not only influenced whether or not they were receptive tothe idea of biological evolution, but also disposed individuals who did adopt evolution to some particular form of evolutionary theory. It is import to grasp this, for much of the recent literature on social Darwinism emphasizes the distance between scientific and social thought. According to this view, scence and its heroes, particularly Darwin, share no responsiilty forthe social applications oftheir theories, since the social and political implications are not inherent nthe science, Strangely, this view has received ‘widespread currency despite the fact ‘demonstrated the social nd economic influences on the construction of Darwials many Darwin scholars have ably theory" The current emphasis on the varieties of social Darwinism has undermined the formerly dominant view that Darwinism did tend toward particular social views, i.e, Inisez faire, racism, and militarism. Thus Darwinism could supposedly be interpreted in ways consistent with all sorts of politcal and social ideologies and never developed into a coherent doctrine of social Darwinism.**10 What often vtites these analyses is that they-like many writers in the nineteenth century-—fa 1 distinguish between strict Darwinism and non-Darwinian evolutionary theories, Thus they nepect to ask if the reason that evolutionary theory could be applied to society in so many different ways was because there were diferent evolutionary theories. My research suggests that Darwinism (and Lamarckism as ‘well did lend support to specific socal views ater all, even iit did not ental them. The relationship between evolutionary theory and social thought in the late ineteenth century was complex, tobe sure, but there were many correlations between specific biological theories andthe social and politcal positions of their proponentsu ENDNOTES 1, Darwin to Dr. Scherzer, 26 December 1879, in The Life and Letters of (Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (NY, 1919), 2:413, 2. A good treatment of Darwin's social and political milieu is Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin (London, 1991) 3. Kurt Bayertz, "Naturwissenschaft und Sozislismus Tendenzen der Naturwissenschaft-Rezeption in der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung des. 19. Jahrhundert," Social Stdies of Science 13 (1983): 355-96 4. Quoted by Friedrich Engels, "Das Begrabnis von Karl Mars," Mars-Engels Werke (hencefon MEW, Bern, 1959), 19.338; see also Peter Jickel, "Die ‘Wiraung der philosophisch-naturwissenschaftichen Arbeiten von Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und den Folvern der deutschen Sozialdemokratie auf die Arbeiterbewegung, (1870-1900)," (dss, University of Dresden, 1972), 86. 5. John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge, 1991), 2-5, 32-33, 42; David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, eds, Introduction t0 God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter bepween Christanity and Science (Berkeley, 1986), 1-18 (see aso ch. 14 on Darwinism) 6, On the introduction of historical thinking into biology in the pre-Darwinian period, see Wolf Lepenies, Das Ende der Naturgeschichte. Wandel kultureller Selosiversuinalichteten in den Wissenschaften des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1976), 52-77, 115-130, 7. Hans-JosefSteinber, “Lesegewohnheiten deutscher Arbeiter,” in Belge 2ur Kulturgeschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, 1815-1918, e4, Peter von Raden (Frankfurt, 1979), 264.68, 277 8. Edward Aveing, "Charles Darwin und Kerl Marx: Eine Parallel," Die ewe Zeit 15,2 (1896-1897). 751; Kurt Bayertz, "Darwinismus als Ideologie. Die Theorie Darwins und ihr Vethaltnis zim Sozialdarwinismus,” in Darwin und die Evolutionstheorie, ed, Kure Bayertz etal (Cologne, 1982), 109. 9. Bayertz, "Naturwissenschaf," 355-94, esp, 364-66, see also James Farr, “Marx sand Positivism,” in 4ffer Marx, ed. Terence Ball and Jemes Farr (Cambridge, 1984), 24, 10. Greta Jones, Social Darwinism and English Thought: The Interaction besween Biological and Social Theory (Sussex, 1980), 69-77 IL Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: | Factor in Evolution, ed, Paul Avtich (NY, 1972) 12. Linda L, Cla, Social Darwinism in France (University, AL, 1984), ch. 5 13. Enrico Feri, Socialism and Modern Science (Darwin-Spencer-Mars) (NY, 1904) 14, Mark Pittenger, American Socialists and Evolutionary Thought, 1870-1920 (Madison, 1993), 3-8, 248 15. Dieter Groh, ‘Negative Integration und revolutiondrér Atentisoms, Die deutsche Sovialdemokratie am Vorabend des Ersten Welthrieges (Frankfurt, 1973),2 57.58, 186-87, 209, Roger Fletcher, Revisionism ani Empire: Socialis Imperialism in Germany, 1897-1914 (London, 1984), 17, Karl Korsch, "Die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung, Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Karl Keutsly," Archiv far die Geschichte des Socialtomns und der Arbeiterbewegung 14 (1929): 181, 201-5; Erich Matthias, “Kautsky und der Kautshyanismus. Die Funktion der Ideologie in der deutschen Sozilderokrate vor dem ersten Weltkrege,” Marcismusstudien 2 (1957) 160, 185, 192, Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Maraism: lis Rise, Growth and Dissolution, trans. P. 8, Falla (Oxford, 1978), 2:56-57, 113; Hans-losef Steinberg, Sozialismus und dewsche Sostaldemotratie. Zur Ideologie der Partei vor dem I. Weltkrieg (Hanover, 1967), 56-58; Massimo Salvadori, Karl Kautsky and the Socialist Revolution, 1880-1908, trans, Jon Rothschild (Londoa, 1979), 23; Dick (Geary, "Marx and the Natural Sciences: The Case of Karl Kautsky,” ia Jnvernationale Tagung der Historiker der Arbeiterbewegung. Sonderkonferen: (1983). Mareismus tnd Geschichiswissenschaft (Vienna, 1984), 405; Dick Geary, Karl Kautsky (Manchester, 1987), 11, 86, 94-95, 106, 111; Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History ofthe Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950 (Boston, 1973), 42. 16. Gunter Mann, "Mediziisch-biologische Ideen und Modelle in der Gosellschatislebve des 19, Jahshuaderts," Medizinhstorisches Journal 4 (1969) 5 17. James J, Sheehan, German Liberalism m the Nineteenth Century (Chicago, 1978), passim; Theodore S, Hamerow, The Social Foundations of German Unification, 1838-1871, vo. |: Ideas and institutions Princeton, 1969), 135-80, On ‘the connection between liberalism, science, andthe sotal sciences, see Woodruff. Smith, Politics and the Sciences of Culture in Germany, 1840-1920 (NY, 1991), ch. 1 18, Richard Weikar, "The Origins of Socil Darwinism in Gemany, 1859-1895," Journal of the History of Ideas $4 (1993): 469-88, 19, W. D. Smith, Politics, passim, Wolf Lepenies, Between Literature and Science: The Rise of Sociology (Cambridge, 1985), 1 20. Wileim Windelbund, a ne0-Kantian, formulated the nomotheticideosraphic distinction. On neo-Kemtianism, see Thomas E. Wiley, Back fo Kant: The Revival (of Kantianism in German Socal an Historical Thought, 1860-1914 (Dewoit, 1979), and Klaus Christian Kotnke, The Rise of Neo-Kantianism: German Academic Philosophy beoween Idealism and Positvisn, trans, R. 3. Holingéale (Cambridge, 1991). 2i, Peter Bowler, The Eelipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories inthe Decades around 1900 Balimore, 1983), Bowler underemphasizes too much the extent of the reception of natural selection among biologists, see also The Non Danvinian Revoluton: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth (Bakiimore, 1988) 22. Gerald Runkle’ claim tht Marist ll over the world” were disenchanted with Lamarckism and enthusiastic for Weismanns theory is certainly not ue of German Marxists, see Runkle, *Marcism and Charles Darwis," Journal of Politics 23B (0961) 113; Davi Jorasy’s denial that any conection between Mardis and Lamarckism existed before 1917 is unpersuasive, see The Lysenko Affair (Cambridge, MA, 1970), 231 and passim. 2, Paul Wendling Darvnism anc Socal Darwinism in Imperial Germany: The Contribution ofthe Cll Biologist Oscar Herwig (1819-1922) (Snatgat, 1981), - 12, 15-16, 254-71 24, Sivan S. Schweber, ‘Darwin and the Political Economists: Divergence of Cctaracter" Jounal of the History of Biology 13 (1980) 195-289, Rober Young, “Darwinisen Is Social” in The Darwinian Heritage, ed. David Kohn (Princeton, 1985), 609-38; John C. Greene, "Darwin as a Social Evolutionist," in Science, Ideology and World View: Essays n the History of Evotutonary Ideas Berle, 1961), 95-127, Janes Moore, "Socializing Darwinism Historiography and the Forunes ofa Phrase,” in Science ar Potts, ed, Les Levidow (London, 1986), 38> 80, Sivan. Sehweber, "The Wider British Context in Darwin's Theorizing.” in The Darwinian Heritage, e. Kohn, 37-38; Desmond and Moor, Darvin, Eliot Sobor, "Darwin on Natural Seecson- A Philsopbial Perspective." in Tie Darwin Heritage 4. Kon, 869. See so Richard Weikan, “Laissez Fire Soil Davis and Individualist Competition in Darwin and Huxley," The European Legacy (forthcoming 1998), and Weikart, "A Recently Discovered Darwin Letter on Social Darwinism” as 86 (1998) 699-11 35. Rober C. Bumistr, Social Darwinion: Scence ae Myth in Anglo-American Social Though (Philadelphia, 197), Jones, Social Darwinisn, Donald C. Bellon, “Social Darwinism’ Revisited," Perspectives in American History n.s. 1 (1984): 1- 128, Clark, Social Darwinism, Aled Kelly, The Descent of Darvin: The Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860-1914 (Chapel Hill, NC, 1981), ch. (6, Gertrude Himmeifarb, "Varieties of Social Darwinism,” in Victorian Minds (NY, 1968), 314-32; Peter J Bowler, Charles Darwin: The Man and His Influence (Oxford, 1990), 196-98; Howard E, Gruber, Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scenic Creatvity, 2nd e. (Chiao, 1981), 70, 240-4, ames Allen Rogers, “Darwinism and Social Darwinism," Journal of the History of Ideas 33 (1972): 280; ‘Howard L. Kaye, The Social Meaning of Modern Biology: From Social Darwinism to Socobiology (New Haven, 1986), 119, Alexander Aland, Ir, Human Mature: Darwin's View (NY, 1985), 19-23. A more recent work that ably argues a more comncing postion is Mike Hawkins, Sota Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).CHAPTER KARL MARX'S AMBIVALENCE TOWARD DARWINISM ‘Upon reading Darwin's Origin of Species forthe frst time in December 1860, Mare triumphantly proclaimed to Engels, "Although developed in a coarse English ‘manner, this isthe book that contains the foundation in natural history for our view.*! (Over a year later Mars read Darwin's Origin again, but this time was not nearly so ‘enthusiastic. Darwin, he complained, views the natural realm as a reflection of contemporary English society I s remarkable how among beasts and plants Darwin rediscovers his English society with its division of labor, competition, opening up of ew markets, “discoveries” and Malthasian "struggle for existence.” It is Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omnes, andi is reminiscent of Hegel inthe Phenomenology, where cl (bargerliche) sockety figures 5 "spritual animal kingdom, while with Darwin the animal kingdom figures as civil (burgerliche) society? It rankled Marx that Darwin had derived the concept of the struggle for existence ‘rom his arch-enemy Thomas Robert Malthus. The shift in Marx's opinion of Darwin between 1860 and 1862 did not reflect any change in Marx’ views on nature or society, but merely indicated that he viewed Darwin from two different angles. Just ‘as Marx considered the bourgeoisie a progressive force in its time, so he regarded Darwin's theory progressive and an advance over previous scientific theories. John ‘Spargo later recalled that inthe late 1860s Marx had said, "Nothing ever gives me greater pleasure than to have my name linked onto Darwin's. His wonderful work ‘makes my own absolutely impregnable. Darwin may not know it, but he belongs to the Social Revolution ”® ‘elements that Marx considered flawed. However, lke the bourgeoisie, Darwin's theory contained‘Thus Marx was neither an uncritical admirer of Darwin nor a completely hosile critic, However, various factors converged inthe late nineteenth and twentieth ‘centuries to leave the filse impression that Marx was more the admirer than the eiic ‘of Darwin's theory. Mare contributed to this misunderstanding through his inffequent published statements concerning Darwin, all of which were laudatory. In Capital he referred to Origin of Species as an “epock-making work,* while none of his criticisms of Darwin were disclosed until the publication of his private correspondence and Direct communication between Mare ‘and Darwin, both genuine and counterfeit, further reinforced the image of Marx as a Darwin devotee. In 1873 Mare sent Darwin the second German edition of Capital. On the title page he inscribed, "Mr. Charles DarwitvOn the part of his sincere admirer/(signed) Karl Marx/London 16 June 1873/1 Modena Villas! Maitland Park."® Darwin, who reed German with lificulty, left most ofthe pages uncut and made no pencil marks inthe book, as was his custom when reading, However, he wrote a polite but non-committal letter to Marx on 1 October 1873 thaaking him forthe gif.® The significance of Marx sending ‘an autographed copy of Capital to Darwin fades in light of the fact that Marx also sent Herbert Spencer @ copy atthe same time.” Marx never expressed any intrest in Spencers ideas, many of which were anathema to him, especially in the field of economics. Marx was probably more interested in circulating his ideas among prominent intellectuals of English society than in honoring the recipients of his book. ‘One motivation behind this was that Capital had hardy received any attention in the [British press and no English translation was in the offing. Conventions of politesse ‘could account for Man's designation of himself asa "sincere admirer" of Darwin, ‘though inthis case there i really no reason to doubt Marx's sincerity. ‘In the mid-twentieth century numerous scholars connected Marx with Darwin by explaining that Marx wanted to dedicate an edition of Capltal to Darwin, The alleged dedication implied that Marx esteemed Darwin highly and suggested 2 parallelism between the two thinkers. The evidence forthe intended dedication was" alleter ftom Darwin dated 13 October 180 that was found in the Marx archives and in which Darwin refused the dedication ofan unnamed book * Before the mid-1970s only a few scholars expressed any misgivings about the alleged dedication, but some een detective workin the 1970s produced new evidence that controverted the traivonal tale of Marn’sdeicaton to Darwin? Based onthe contents of Darwin's 13 October 1880 fete, Margret Fay and Lewis Feuer suggested that it was not ‘witen to Marx at al, but eather to the biologist Edward Avelng, who, as Man's son-in-law, had possession of some of Man's correspondence in the lat nineteenth century. Aveling must have inadvertently placed a leer Darwin sen him among Mare’ corespondence, After Fay and Feuer published their findings, alter fom Avelng to Derwin was discovered among Darwi's papers, clinching the cae. 1a this Jeter Aveling requested permission to dedicate his book, The Students Darwin, to arin, Thus a MarcDarwi lnk on which many scholars had relied disinteprated."? Engels and other soi in the ate nineteemh century propagated the inege of Marx as the Darwin ofthe socialsciences, Marx encourage this in 1867, when hh counseled Engels o draw attention to the correlation between hs socal views and Darwinls theory in a review of Capital that Engels was to write for a German newspaper Shlomo Avines, dismissing the Marx-Darwin ink a a myth that Marx helped create and Engels propagated, asserted tat in this case Marx was concerned primarily with eating interest in is book and catering o the newspaper editors Darwinist views? However, even if his is rue~asit seems to be-Marx thereby demonstrated that he felt no dishonor in being associated with the name of Darwin. In his speech at Man's graveside, Engels again compared Mars to Darwin: "As Darwin discovered the law of evolution of organic nature, so Marx discovered ‘the law of evolution of human history"'* Among the smll group gathered for Marx's funeral were two biologists, Ray Lankester and Edward Aveing anda chemist, Car Schorlemmer" While ter presence may have helped prompt Engels to inclde his remarks on Darwin, there can be litle doubt that Engels was sincere, Only four18 ‘months prior to Mary's death Karl Kautsky requested that Engels contribute a lead. article on Darwin to his new socialist journal, Die newe Zeit, since Engels had promised Bernstein an article on Darwin."® Engels declined, but only because of time pressure, not from lack of interest."* After Man's death the parallelism between Darwinism (loosely defined) and Marxism received further emphasis by two of his sonsin-law, Edward Aveling and Paul Lafargue, as well as by the leading Marxist theorist of the Second International, Karl Keutsky.”” Mara's Initial Acceptance of Darwin's Theory Aer discounting all the misinformation and hyperbole, we are stil conronted ‘with the realty that Marx greeted Daron’ theory with enthusiasm, publicly praised Darwin, and only selectively criticized his theory. There were aspects of Darwin's theory that resonated with Mar’ ideas, and Marx immediately recognized them ‘Wielm Lieblnecht, who ftom 1850 to the beginning of 1862 spent much time with ‘Marx in London, claimed that Marx knew about and recognized the importance of Darwin's work before the publication of The Origin of Spectesin 1859. This is highly doubt, since Darwin kept his theory confidential until 1858, and it was not widely circulated until the publication of Origin. Marx leamed of Darwin's theory by December 1859 at latest, when Engels set him a fivorable report on Darwin's work; ‘Marx waited 2 fll year before reading it himself Liebknecht may have been engaging in hyperbole when he claimed that after Darwin published his theory, for months the conversation among us [Manx and his circle of frends) was about nothing other than Darvin and the revolutionary force of his scientific conquests." Whether Licbknecht exaggerated or not, there must have been some ‘conversations, ince Marx expressed keen interest in Darwin's theory in the 1860s Almost a month after his inital letter to Engels about Darwin, Marx highly recommended Darwin's Origin to Ferdinand Lassa" By June 1862 Marx had read (Origin a second time, and the same year he attended a series of lectures by Thomas19 Henry Huxley on evolution. Friedrich Lessner testified that he and many German ‘workers in London attended lectures on natural science by Huxley, John Tyndall, and ‘August Wilhelm von Hofmann, "Here again it was Karl Marx who urged us to do so and he himself occasionally attended them."*” In unpublished manuscripts written between 1861 and 1863, Marx referred to Darwin favorably and called Origin an excellent work" Despite Darwin's silence on human evolution in the 1860s, Marx credited him with having proved human descent from the apes.* In 1868 Ludwig ‘Buchner sent Marx a copy ofthe second edition of his Sechs Vorlesungen iber dle Darwin'sche Theor'e (Six Lectures on the Darwinian Theory), and although eritial ‘of some aspects of the work, Marx expressed pleasure that it informed him about developments in Darwinian theory in Germany: Many’ receptivity to Darwin's theory of evolution was not based on any previous propensity toward theories of biological evolution. As a young studeat in FRerln, he had embraced Hegelian idealism with its stress on the evolution of Geist (mind or spirit), but ths id not entail an acceptance of biological evolution, despite the Hegelian view that nature was a reflection or manifestation of the developing Geist. Hegel rejected the trensmutation of species as naturalistic and non-ilectical, insisting that all metamorphoses in nature occur in dialectical stages as a result of changes i the Concept or Idea underlying nature, He asserted, "Its totally vacuous to conceive of the species as evolving litle by little in time" He completely repudiated the notion that nature cannot make leaps * As Manx worked his way from Hegelian idealism tothe materialist conception of history in the years 1843-1845, he showed no inclination to embrace the transmutation of species. In the "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts” of 1844 he attacked the concept of creation, which he believed to be based on 2 false assumption ofthe nonexistence of humans and nature at some point in time. Man's refutation of creation inthis passage was based on his own assumption that humans and nature are self-existent and self-created, The proot he adduced for his assumption seems rather circular20 Tnasmuch as the entire so-called world history is for the socialist nothing other than the ereation ofthe human through human Ibor and ‘the development (Werden) of nature forthe human, he has therefore the stking, incontrovertible proof of his self mediated birth, of his process of coming into existence ** “Marx also appealed to natural science as evidence for the selEexistence of the world He remarked that geology had dealt a fatal blow to the idea ofthe ereation of the earth, since it portrayed the formation ofthe eath as a process, and Mare considered this equivalent with the self-ereation (Selbstezeugung) of the earth. While emphasizing the development of the earth as evidence against creation, Mar dd not ‘embrace evolution in the biological realm. Instead he asserted, "Spontaneous ‘generation is the only practical refutation of the theory of eeation."** ‘Marx was not at all out of step withthe leading scientic developments ofthe 1840s. In his remarks on geology, Marx probably had in mind Charles Lye’ theory of unformitarianism, which Lyell had published in 1830-33 in Principes of Geology: However, despite Lamarck and afew other mavericks in the scientific community ‘who had edvanced theories of biological evolution by the mid-nineteenth century, few scientists considered evolution a feasible hypothesis. Lyell himself rejected the ‘transmutation of species and endeavored to refute Lamarck in Principles of Geology. ‘Another problem with theories of biological evolution in the early nineteenth century from Man's point of view was that most of them were tinged with idealism, ‘Although Marx used some scientific arguments, his denial of creation was based more on his religious views. He consistently denied the existence of a non- ‘human supernatural crestor. The sel-production or self- Since Wiliam Pale’ argument fom design was still popular in England among those belcving in creator, Marx rejoiced to Sind a champion who could demolish this ‘argument. Darwin hd broken fee from the formerly dominant cestionst mode of thinking (or creationist epsteme in Gillespie's terminology), which tended to be ‘deat an saw mind, purpose, or design in nature. He insisted on purely natraisic ‘explanations based on the operation of laws of nature, aot conscious purpose or divine forethought™* At the same time, as Marx noted, Darwin provided an explanation for the appearance of design in nature. Darwin continued to use the metaphor of design and the language of natural theology, while undermining its contra tenet. °° Since Marx had rejeted Hegelian idealism in favor of a materialist position, nature could have n inherent purpose in his world view ®* Purpose ean only exist were there is consciousness, and Marx had rejected any form of consciousness outside ofhumans. In Origin Darwin dd not dea! with human evolution and thus did not yet raise the issue of teleology in human history. As Marx noted, Darwin had rmerely abolished it fom the natural realm. However, sie Marx believed that humans could engage in conscious, goal-directed activity, teleology inhuman historym4 7 is on human was still possible in Mane’s world view. However, despite his emph praxis and purposeful creative activity a times Marx explicitly rejected teleology in human history. In The German Ideology Marx and Engels argued that history is merely & sequence of generations inheriting and modifying materials and the forces of Production without any inherent purpose in the development "” Nevertheless, teleology pervades many of Marx's discussions of social evolution ® Darwin's rejection of teleology in nature provided Marx with @ weapon against idealism and a butess for his materialism. He rejoiced that Thomas Henry Huxley seemed more materialistic in 1868 than previously, since Huxley asserted that wwe cannot escape materialism in the way we reason and think, However, Manx lamented that Huxley left a back door open to escape the consequences of his materialist views, Huxley took refuge in Humean skepticism concerning cause and effect to argue that one may believe what one wants in regard to the thng-initseté Since Marx was thus criticizing Huxley for not embracing ontological materialism, al the arguments claiming that Mars's materialism was not ontological fll to the ground, The use of materialism exclusively asa method, which was Huxley's postion, ‘was apparently not satisfactory to Marx's mind.” Besides its ani-teleological implications, other aspects of Darwin's theory struck a responsive chord with Marx. Although he did not explain in his liter to Engels how Darwin's theory served asa foundation in natural sience for their view, he id elaborate sightiy in his eter to Lassalle. ‘There he stated, ‘Darwin's work is ‘very important and suits my purposes as a foundation in natural science of the historical class struggle.” Thisis still not very explicit and has engendered various ‘explanations. One possibilty is that Marx was drawing a parallel between the strugale for existence in nature and the class struggle in human society, There is a vague resemblance between the two, since both explain development through contradictions"! However, Marx never specifically mentioned the struggle for existence in this letter and later criticized Darwin for his view of struggle in nature25 | Marx was comparing the class strugale tothe struggle for existence, he was not ‘equating them, and it was ony leting idea in any case.“ ‘A more plausible explanation is that Marx was not thinking specifically of the strugale for existence asthe foundation for his views, but that he was reacting to the Darwinian theory es a whole, The most obvious parallel between Darwin and Marx ‘was that both endeavored to dismantle the fixed categories that dominated the thinking of their era, Of course, some scientists before Darwin had attempted to historiize natural science and biology, but they had not yet earried the day.“ By denying that species ae fixed entities with evidence and a theory tat gradually gained ascendancy, Darwin overthrew one of the linchpins of Lynnaean biology. Marx similarly rejected fixed laws that dominated bourgeois political economy. Thus Darwin was a compatri in destroying te static world view of bourgeois society and substituting a world in fax. Another similarity berween Mare and Darwin was that they both embraced historical progress. They wrote about historical developments and phenomena that ‘were moving forward to eve higher planes, Darwin did this despite himself, since his own theory dispensed with the necessity of progress and denied that there was any criterion for it. In most of Origin Darwin successfully avoided the rhetoric of progress, but he could aot bring himself to completely eschew references to promress, improvement, higher and lower organisms, good and bad tats, ete, Inthe next to the last paragraph of Origin Darwin asserted, "And as natural selection works solely by and forthe good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection“ Darwin's rhetoric of progress probably eased Marx's acceptance of his theory, However, Marx would later eitcize Darwin because he had ‘no explanation forthe necessiy of progress Of course, Darwin di not think there was anything to explain,26 Marx's Criticism of Darwin ‘Upon reading Darwin again in 1862, Marx was not nearly as laudatory as he had been previously. It disturbed Marx thet Darwin credited the bourgeois political ‘economist Malthus with providing the critical idea for his theory of natural selection In reporting on hs impressions to Engels, Marc wrote, ‘With Darwin, whom I have looked at again, it amuses me that he says he applies the *Malthusian” theory also to plants and animals, as though with Mr. Malthus the joke did not consist in that it did not apply to plants and animals, but only to humans-with the geometrical progression-in opposition to plants and animals Jn an unpublished manuscript Marx reiterated the charge that Darwin filed to recognize that his theory controverted Malthus’ population principle by showing that the geometrical progression is valid not ony in human society, but also inthe plant ‘and animal realm, Marx dubbed Darwin's theory “the natural-historicl refutation’ of Malthus.” Setting Darwin's theory in opposition to Malthus may have assuaged Marx's ‘ief that his enemy was honored in Origin, but it was clearly a case of faulty reasoning, Malthus’ population theory stated that humans have the tendency t0 reproduce at a geometrical rate (2, 4,8, 16,32, etc), while at best the food supply can only increase at an arithmetic rate (2,3, 4, 5, ete). Thus, Malthus conciuded, in the absence of any intervening restraints, human population inerease continually ‘outstrips the food supply, with misery and privation the natural result, Marx ered because he did not notice the difference between tendency and actuatty in the Malthusian equation, Malthus did not believe that human populations actually increase geometrically, and he emphatically did believe that plants and animals (the food supply) have the ondency to reproduce faster than arthmetically. Darwin was not refuting nor misconstruing Malthus at all, since Malthus asserted that it "is the constant tendency in all animated life to increase beyond the nourishment prepared forit. The race of plants and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive Jaws, and man cannot by any efforts of reason escape from it Since Darwin's theory of natural selection as the mechanism causing the evolution of species was based on Malthus’ population theory, Marx was less inclined to accept its validity. Mars publicly manifested animus for Malthus by calling ‘Malthus doctrines "petiferous" and by accusing him of plagiarism in formulating his population theory? Further, in Capital Marx erroneously claimed that Malthus had taken monastic vows of celibacy, when in realty Malthus was maried and had three children Marx provided # more substantive ‘eiticism in Capital, however, by the assumption that hs law of overpopulation was an identifying Malthus’ er ‘eternal law of nature rather than a historical law valid only in capitalist society. Marx believed that each mode of production had its own distinct population laws and was not ruled by some etemnaly-valid abstract law. Marx did, however, leave the door ‘open for the Darwinian strugale for existence in nature by adding, "An abstract law ‘of population exists only for plants and animals."*" In this passage Marx is thus not accusing Darwin of fallacious reasoning for applying an abstract population principle tonature Iithis correspondence both before and after writing Capital, however, Marx ‘was critical of Darwin's reliance on Malthus and on other economic ideas in formulating his theory. In 1869 Marc reiterated a point he had made ina letter to Engels in 1862, when le wrote to his daughter and son-in-law: From the struggle for existence in Enplish society-the war of all against all, bellum ommium contra omnes--Darwin was brought to discover the struggle for existence as the ruling law of animal and plant lie? ‘Man's criticism of Darwin for reading socal conditions into the natural realm was not ‘nad hoe argument. Marx had recognized long before Darwin's theory appeared that social thinkers sometimes translate their views of society into interpretations of nature, In the 1840s Marx and Engels had objected to some socialists depiction of2 nature as idyllic, full ofharmony and happiness. They protested that nature could also be construed as capitals if one emphasized competition among organisms or as @ ‘adal monarchy if one looked atthe heavens. It seemed to them that by selective use ‘of evidence one could justify just bout any social arrangement as natural ® ‘Marx was not amiss in his insistence that Darwin was viewing nature through the lenses of British bourgeois economy, and this does not mean Malthus alone Silvan Schweber has demonstrated that Darwin relied directly and indirectly on ideas from political economy in developing his explanation forthe divergence of characters. Darwin's explanation was derived from H. Milne-Eéwards, who presented the concept of the "physiological division of labour* in his Dntroduetion d la zoologie sénérale (1852). Milne-Edwards admitted that he appropriated this idea from political economy, and it reflects the views of Adam Smith.™* Interestingly, in the conly two passages in which he mentioned Darwin in Capital, Marx expounded on Darwin's theory ofthe physiological division of labor and the specialization of plant and animal organs as parallel to the specialization of tools in manufacturing * By raving attention in Capital to the similarities between Darwin's view of evolution in nature and his own view of economic evolution, Marx seemed to be drawing on ‘Darwin's theory in support of his social views, a move he declared illegitimate when others engaged in it, Marx latched onto the evonomic ideas Darwin had read into nature and transposed them back into economics. Darwin read numerous writings of politcal economists during the time he was formulating his theory. He became acquainted with Adam Smith's economic views by reading a secondary work on Smith in 1838.°° In 1840 he perused J. R. MeCulloet!s Principles of Political Economy and Bernard Mandevile's Fable ofthe Bees. In 1847 he read Sismondis Political Economy and the Philosophy of Government, but be considered this work poor, probably because it espoused government intervention in the economy.*? This reading list does not prove that Darwin integrated politcal economy into his theory, but it shows that he was interested and actively engaged in thinking about it, Further, Darwin compiled2» notebooks on metaphysics and morals, including economics, as an integral part of his research on biological evolution, Most importantly, some influences of politcal economy are evident throughout Darwin's Origin. Darwin referred repeatedly to the “economy of nature." Within the context of this economy plants and animals competed for places where they could abtain their physicl needs.** ‘Mares dissatisfaction with Darwin's account of the economy of nsture, specifically the struggle for existence, climaxed in his flirtation with Pierre Trémaux’s theory of biological evolution, Trémaux, virally unknown today, even among historians of science, wrote Origine et transformations de thomme et des autres tres (1865, Origin and Evolution of Man and Other Organisms). After reading Trémaux in 1866, Marx excitedly reported to Engels that itis "a very important work,” and Marx was elated to discover an indeed "a very important advance over Darwin. ‘evolutionary theory that dispensed with the Darwinian struggle for existence and natural selection, ‘Trémaux based his entire theory of evolution on the following law: ‘THE PERFECTION OF BEINGS (ETRES) IS OR BECOMES PROPORTIONAL TO THE DEGREE OF DEVELOPMENT (ELABORATION) OF THE SOIL ON WHICH THEY LIVE! And ‘the soil isin general all the more developed (élaboré) as it belongs to.a more recent geological formation ® ‘Trémaux thus rejected selective competition within and among species to explain speciation in favor ofa strictly environmental approach ®' Not only did he see the ‘environment as the primary source of change in biological organisms, but he also ‘emphasized the preponderant role of one segment of the environment~the soil~on evolution, although he admitted thet climate and other influences could play a role, to0, One facet of Trémaun’s work thet particularly impressed Marx was its ability to explain evolution as a necessary, lawful process, He reported to Engels that Trémaux is able to explain both progress and degeneration as necessary30 developments, while in Darwin's theory they were purely the products of chance. He exulted that Trémaux had demonstrated as a “necessary law" that species would remain fixed for iong periods of geological time, thus explaining paleontological gaps? Marx's enthusiasm for Trémaux did not immediately abate even after Engels ‘wrote him twice that Trémaun’s theory was nonsense and was replete with geological inconsistencies, mistakes, and unsupported conjecture. Marx came to Trémaux's defense after receiving the first letter from Engels by pointing out that Cuvier rejected biological evolution and, although he was able to-refute the inadequate formulations of contemporary evolutionary theories, it tumed out that he was wrong in his static view of species, He further claimed: ‘Trémauy's fundamental idea about the influence of the soil. is, in ry view, an idea that only needs to be uttered to gain for itself once and for all permanent acceptance (Biirgerrech) in science, and this quite independently of Trémaux's portrayal. ‘This statement confirms Marx's willingness to accept a scientific theory based not on ‘empirical evidence, but on the compatability of that theory with his world view. Even after Engels wrote him a second time criticizing Trémaux, Mare still insisted to his friend Ludwig Kugelmann that Trémaux was an advance over Darwin However, he dropped the subject in his correspondence to Engels and after October 1866 Trémaux's name disappears from Marx's writings. He probably came to recognize that his initial enthusiasm over Trémaux’s theory was even more misplaced than his originally uncritical acceptance of Darwin's theory. Marx's adoption of Trémaux’s theory signalled discontent with Darwin's ‘concept of natural selection and the struggle for existence. Even more problematic in Marx's eyes, however, were the attempts by various Darwinists and social thinkers 10 apply the Darwinian struggle for existence to society. Marx condemned this as circular reasoning, since Darwin modelled the struggle for existence on bourgeois ‘economy. The result was that Darwinists were merely resurrecting the Malthusian31 population principle that was embedded in Darwin's theory. Marc specifically criticized the philosopher Fredsich Albert Lange for this sort of reasoning in the second etition of Die Arbeiterfrage (1870, The Labor Question), which Lange had sent to Marx. Despite Lange's socialist sympathies and his praise for Marx, Marx considered Lange's work ignorant and devoid of content, because he subsumed social development under the srugale for existence © Marx argued in another place thet, Darwinists used their circular reasoning to justify a human society that had not risen above its animal state. ‘The Relationship of Nature to Society: ‘Natural and Social Laws ‘Marx was not a natural scientist nor was nature a central concern of his, He ‘remained consistently anthropocentric in is thinking, research, and waiting. As an economic and social theorist, his primary interest in nature revolved around its relationship to humans. For this reason, most of Mare's studies in natural science ‘focussed on technology or the human control of nature to full physical needs. Besides works on technology and physical science, in the 1860s Marx read ‘numerous works by British and German scientists on anatomy, physiology, histology, ricrobiology, ané pethology, in addition to the Darwinian literature already mentioned above, He also read Lyells work on Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (1863), In 1864 he told Engels that since he always followed in Engels footsteps, he would probably now read alot of anatomy and physiology in is free time." Wilhelm Liebinecht claimed that Mans avidly followed developments in natural science and spoke about Jakob Moleschot, Justus Liebe, and Huxley as much ashe did about David Ricardo and Adam Smith ‘Marr's interest in Darwinism and biology waned inthe 1870s, butt was never totally absent. In 1875 he exulted that the physiologist Moritz Traube in Bertin had produced an artificial cell that had no nucleus, but could grow, since this lent support to the idea that primitive cells may have arisen through spontaneous generation. Marx32 hailed Traube's discovery asa "great step,” but in reality it was a giant misstep, since all Traube hed observed were chemical substances expanding by osmosis In 1870 Engels moved to London, where he researched and wrote some manuscripts on natural science posthumously published as Dialectics of Nature. With Engels constantly studying natural science end living in close proximity to Mare, it seems reasonable to assume that he discussed these matters with his best fiend. Marx was sill expressing interest in biology atthe close ofhis life Justa few months before he ied, he asked his daughter to bring him one ofhis books on physiology.”! ‘An interest in and knowledge of natural science and Darwinian theory does not imply anything about whether or how Marx utilized his views of nature of biological evolution to formulate his socal and economic views. The dispute over ‘Mar’ use of Darwin hinges on the question of how Marx related nature to society ‘Many have argued thet Mares appropriation of Darwin and biology was superficial and opportunistic, having litle impact on his economic and social thought.” However, other commentators, including most of the leading figures in late rineteenth-century Marxism, have contended that Darwinism was an integral component of Marxist theory.”” We can gain clarity on Marx's positon about the relationship of nature to society by first asking whether Manx believed natural laws ‘were applicable to society, If not, then the case is closed and the laws of nature expressed in the Darwinian theory have nothing to do with social theory. However, ifthey canbe applied to society, then we must ask how and to what extent Before 1860 Marx distinguished between two forms of laws: natural and historical. The former were eternal laws having universal validity, while the latter ‘were transitory and varied according to the stage of historical development, "a evelopment determined by productive forces"”* The natural law theories of the carly nineteenth century were shaped in the eighteenth century under the influence of the Newtonian world view, which was applied not only to the cosmos, but to human affairs. Economics, morality and other spheres of human endeavor were subsumed ‘under unvarying laws just as physies and astronomy had been.2 ‘Mars opposed the dominant school of politcal economy for insisting that their economic categories and laws were eter, natural laws” He claimed that the rystery of present poitial economy consists simply in transforming transitory social relations belonging to «determined epoch of history and corresponding with a given stat of material production, into etemal, general, never-changing laws, natural laws, as they cll therm" “Manes materials conception of history countered this dominant natural aw mentality by conceiving of the mode and relations of production as constantly undergoing transformations caused by changes in the forees of producton.”” Laws pertaining to human society are thas historia, ot natural, for Marx, He believed thatthe theory of natural law was an ideology jusiffing oppression. He reproached governments for explaining away social problems as the result of natural laws, such a5 using the ‘Malthusian popultion principle to rationalize the existence of poverty and widespread suffering.” According to Marx, Thomas Hobbes was guilty of advocating a risanthropic form of materialism, since he made humans and nature subject to the same laws” After reading Darwin in 1860, Marx abandoned his distinction between natural and historical las, not because Mam's economic and socal views changed, ‘but because he now conceived of naturel laws in a different ight. Darwin, by ‘undermining theft of species and introducing greater Bx into the natural work, demonstrated that some natural categories and laws were historical rather than permanent, Marx reflected this new understanding of matral laws by subsuming both ‘of is former categores~natual laws and historical lawsunder the general rubric of natural laws. To maintain his previous distinction he then subdivided natural laws into “eternal laws of nature” and "historical natural laws "®? ‘The shift in Marx's terminology concerning natural laws is evident already in his unpublished manuscripts of 1861-63. For the fist time Marx applied the term “natural” to economic laws that were valid only within @ particular stage of historyFa ‘He stated that natural laws of bourgoois production exist, but they differ from the natural laws ofthe ancient, feudal and Asiatic modes of production.®" The closest ‘Marx had come before 1860 to calling economic laws natural was when he refered to thern as “the inherent organi las of politcal economy" in 1853 The term organic laws, though, cared much greater connotations of development than the ‘expression natural laws. In anther passage in the manusripts of 1861-63 Marx prised the eighteenh-century physiocrats for viewing certain forms of production as “physiological forms of sociey* that are subject to the natural necesity Wiaturnonwendighei) of material laws. Although Marx had previously used the term necessity (Nonwendighit in his explication ofthe materialist conception of history, in his preDarwiaion days he did not use the term natural necessiy Warurnoowenctighey,® In Capital Marx continued to emphasize that economic laws are transitory, while referring to them as natural laws. He wrote about the "natural laws of capitalist, production,” but also argued thatthe capitals relations of production were not products of natural history, but of human history.“ The Malthusian population principle was one ofthe “historical natural laws of capitalist production." Presumably the law governing the division of labor in a community of India, which operated "with the inviolable authority f a natural aw," was also ahistorical, not eternal, natural Jaw Marx even designated the evonomic law of supply and demand as a “natural law of capitalist production," but he considered it @ despotic rule that organized ‘workers could break or weaken.™ It was not carved i stone {In addition to using the rubric natural law for laws of both natural and social science, Mar also drew anslogies between nature and society” In the forward 10 (Capital, Marx averod that society isnot afxed crystal, but an organism constantly inthe process of transformation. It would be easy to read more int this metaphor than Marc intended, especially since «few pages earlier he had sready compared his study of capitalist society to the study of natural procesesin physics, chemistry, and35 anatomy "Inthe epilogue (Naciwor) 0 the second edition of Capital Marx quoted approvingly tom a reviewer of his book who remarked thet, while the old pottcal economist viewed economic laws as anglogous to physical and chemical aw, Marx depicted them as coresponding more tothe evolutionary laws of biology” The reviewer had good grounds to make this judgment, since Marx himself had written in the preface to the Sst edtion that he wes presenting "ihe development (Enicklung) ‘ofthe economic formation of society asa process in natural history." Marx thus Jeet strong support to those who sought parallelism between hs dea and Darwin’. Despite Mare’ refusal to apply las of nature to society, there are several passages in Capitan which e seemed apply Darwsian laws to humans and social development. Marx asserted, for example, that "the principle of matural selection that ruled so almightly among them {rural workers)" only permitted the strongest to survive” In another passage Marx discussed the origin of castes and guilds, which “follows the same natural law that rules the differentiation of plants and animal into species and sub-species"” Marx also compared competition among commodity producers withthe Bellu omninon contra omnes in the animal kingdom ® Unless Marx was inconsistent~and inthis case he was note must have meant that these ‘Darwinian laws only applied to society at certain stages, Read in isolation, however, ‘these passages do not make this clear and seem to imply that Darwinian laws eve ‘nivrsal vldity for human society. Although he never publicly endorsed Trémaun’s non-Darwinian evolutionary theory, Manés transitory preoccupation with it in 1866 caused him to blur the distinction between nature and society that he elsewhere maintained. In Trémaux’s sew the laws of evolution through geological transformations explained aot only natural science, but also history and polities His search for an evolutionary mechanism began with investigations concerning human evolution, and this was a central concer in is book. He held th developments suchas religion, wars, politcal institutions, and nationalities renee ofthe soil responsible for socal36 Even though this reliance on natural nuences to explain social developments appears to contradict the materialist conception of history, Mark accepted Trémaux’s ida that and politcal aplication [Trémaux is] much more important and richer than Darwin, ature could have a profound influence on human society: "In the historical For certain question, tke nationality, et., here alone a natural bass is] found." He also quoted approvingly Trémaun’s statement, "Outside ofthe great laws of nature, the projets of men are nothing but calamities, as witnessed by the efforts of the czars to make the Polish people Muscovites."®® Thus Marx evinced determinism in hk developments, despite the fact that this conflicted with hs insistence elsewhere that naff that left open the possibilty that laws of mature could help explain socal economic developments could account for all ofthese socal insiutions | In addition to viewing economic laws as natural laws, perhaps partly because oft, after 1860 Marx began to emphasize much more than before that some laws 1 las are those that are based on some unchanging human traitor relationship, While applicable to human society are immutable. The frst category of unchanging so laws of production vary historically, all forms of human production have ertain ‘unchanging laws or relationships." In an unpublished manuscript of 1861-63 Marx asserted, "Labor isthe eternal natural condition of human existence," and in Capital be called labor an "eternal natural necessity" independent of all forms of society”? (Other than the rather obvious truism that humans must work in every form of society, ‘Marx did not specify in Capital wat laws of society would be unchanging Ina letter to Ludwig Kugelmann in 1868 Marx again defended the idea that ‘there are eternal laws holding sway over the afsirs of people. He explained “Netural laws cannot at all be abolished (aufgehoben). What can be altered in historically ferent circumstances is only the form in which each aw operates” The specifi law Marx was discussing was the necessity of distributing social labor in certain proportions, which is valid in all social forms. The vagueness ofthis law reinforces the idea that Marx was unable to formulate any specific immutable laws applysg to