Darwin and Marx

Josue Franco

Mrs. Mueller

English 100, MW 8-10AM

October 28, 2003

 

Darwin and Marx

I need a breath of fresh air, but I can’t go outside for I’ll to be bombarded with ash and ember. Then the question arises, were else am I going to get fresh air? I can’t continue to flavor the recirculated air that fills each artificial void, or can I? I have been trained to contemplate that fresh air is outside, but not this time; fresh air is whatever I want fresh air to be!

Both, Charles Darwin and Karl Marx, struggled with the compelling forces of the world. Both shunned for forming a so-labeled, outrageous thought for it questioned the foundation of the ruling elites. In Natural Selection, Darwin samples nature and cites specific examples to form the idea of natural selection or evolution and questioning the existence of God. On the other hand, in The Communist Manifesto, Marx evaluates the historical struggles between elites and masses to develop the idea of class struggle leading to a utopian world. Without a doubt, both concepts called for an upheaval of the current order, but the radical passion that consumes Marx’s literature is absent from Darwin’s piece. Investigation into both, Natural Selection and The Communist Manifesto, is demanded. I sense a connection between the two, but first I must expose the theories, the fresh air that filled the minds of Darwin and Marx.

What are the implications of variations on the struggle of existence? The question is paramount and must be answered in order to explain Natural Selection. It is clear, the web of life does exist. The chain, or the order in which a creature consumes another, is absolute. But, is the chain molded in the hands of man or nature? Darwin contends that a “mutual relationship” is apparent among all organisms, that each organism is dependent upon another organism. It comes down to the following simplified model: I want beef, beef comes from cow, cow needs plant, and plant needs water and sun to grow. It is much more complex though. Darwin mentions the idea of domestication, variation through human selection. Natural selection is somewhat eliminated, and “the whole organization becomes in some degree plastic” (Darwin 438). The “whole organization” or the sequence in which something lives or dies is now “plastic” or human controlled. Oh no! Nature… “she…” is no longer in command. How divine is the human hand? Leave Nature alone to continue the work, and it takes “thousands of generations,” but give the job to man, and it’s rather instant.

Variations, can either be good or bad. I’ll run through the bad first. Suppose, as Darwin did, that a creature which is afforded the remarkable feature of white fur. The problem is that this creature resides in a forest of green and brown. Shall the creature live long? In accordance with Darwin, the answer is no. The creature shall be snatched and torn to pieces the moment is ventured off into the open. The variation in coat color did not agree with the surrounding environment, therefore, the creature, which gained an unfavorable trait for that specific environment, was eliminated. The elimination of the creature, rid the remaining population of a “black sheep” or in this case an undesired color of fur. Darwin is clear and concise and supports his thoughts with empirical examples. For the good; instead of an environment of the lush green and brown wood, how about the Arctic tundra? I believe that is a winner. The “preservation of favorable variations and the rejections of injurious variations” (Darwin 438), is called Natural Selection.

It would be interesting to note the approach man has on selection. “Man can act only on external and visible characters; nature cares nothing for appearances” (Darwin 439). The science of the late 1800s limited what man could accomplish in manipulation. Darwin goes so far as to mock man, “How fleeting are the wishes and efforts of man” (Darwin 440)! To me, his comment could indicate two separate concepts. He wanted to appeased the masses, even though evolution is obvious, humans will never be able to replace Nature, which he personified as some sort of higher being. Or, Darwin issued a challenge to the scientific establishment to find the hidden truth of animals. “If it [Natural Selection] be a true principle, banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure” (Darwin 449). If I had to chose, I would go with the second concept, that he did issue a challenge because he knew there had to be more since he passion of science prescribed it. From his statement, it is clear that he questioned an automatic creation from the hand of God, but the statement starts with “if,” that “if” is a trap door to escape prosecution.

What is the effect of capitalism on inter-class relations? The “modern bourgeois,” categorized as the “industrial millionaires:” the capitalist, the richest of the rich, those who rise up each morning and shout “Carpe Diem!” Karl Marx despised such individualistic contemplation. The Industrial Revolution of the 1800s brought about the machines, the machines that would perpetuate the downward spiral of the poor. Free trade, hailed as gift from Scotland for the rest of the world, Marx considered that “it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (Marx, 225). Free trade, in all of it’s marvel, could not survive without crushing those of meager earnings. But the poor cannot be considered the single suffers of free trade! Each individual and corporation participating in free trade understands that sooner or later, the crushing wheel of capitalism will run them over. I can either fear it, reject it and denounce it, as Marx did, even though he would not admit fearing it, or I can accept it and continue racing from the well oiled wheel. The hostile nature of capitalism promotes clashes between classes.

Marx is direct and outlined how the modern bourgeois will bring about its own destruction. He proposed that the modern bourgeois would bring about its own destruction since it had failed to shed class antagonisms after the feudal revolt. The mechanization of production and draw of resources from non-indigenous resources creates a universal interdependence among nations. For interdependence to occur, nations would craft their constitution to support free trade and competition. “Like a sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up” (Marx 227), Marx gives life to the bourgeois, characterizing it as a single being. The prime problem is the “epidemic of overproduction.” The bourgeois produces too much and is forced to do three things to stabilize itself. First, the destruction of productive forces, meaning an reduction in labor and capital. The next step is the conquest of new markets. I am reminded of the recent United States invasion of Iraq and handing out of patronage to corporations with ties to top officials in the government. The final step is an exploitation of old markets, either foreign with increased tariffs or domestic through an increase taxes or decrease in spending. The preceding step lead to the creation of the proletariat.

Oh, it doesn’t end at the creation; the “incoherent” proletariat must now galvanize! Due to new methods of production and huge competition, the low-middle class is pressured to join the proletariat. The bourgeois struggles with the remaining aristocrats and those few with counter views, and calls for a unionized proletariat, their political weight. Armed and educated at the cost of the bourgeois, the proletariat must erase national borders and integrate across the globe. “It (the bourgeois) is unfit to rule, because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him” (Marx 233). Halt! “The history of society is a history of struggles between exploiting and exploited” (Encarta 2001). The revolution shall now commence!

I must decree! At first and second glance, Marx’s Manifesto seemed quite insane. But those first two glances were plagued with the common definition of “fresh air.” I need to escape from the entire world and enter a state of mind void of all outside influence. Total escape is all but impossible, for a hint shall remain since the air remains in the blood even after it has been expelled from the lungs. The idea of a class revolution is plausible but Marx went wrong at one juncture. He wanted instantaneous change, relative to geological time. Impossible! Man’s molding hand is a factor, but nature must be taken into consideration. Marx stated that the bourgeois needs to conquer new markets in order to augment itself, however, during the 1800s, around the publication of The Communist Manifesto, the United States was just beginning to realize its full potential. How can the proletariat unite when the entire proletariat has not be realized? Meaning, not all the available resources and markets were tapped and therefore these virgin segments were unaffected from past sentiments. Had Marx controlled his passion as he was “careful to define his terms” (Jacobus 220), he could have come to such a conclusion; with a sizable amount of time, a classless construct would be in place.

Darwin’s concept is a little less foreign to me. I researched and read on Darwin during the seventh and eight grade. I have carried the following quotation with me since that time: “A man who dares wastes one hour of time has not yet discovered the value of life.” Darwin’s Natural Selection was clear and made sense the first time I read it, “despite the complexity” the “writing is fluent, smooth, and stylistically sophisticated and keeps the reader engaged” (Jacobus 437). I favored Darwin, for I understood Darwin. His literature made me question the existent of God. “Darwin did not help, blowing apart the first book of the Bible” (The Economist, 12/31/99). Of course not! But Natural Selection blinded the “orthodox theological opinion” (Encarta 2001):

The reaction to the Origin was immediate. Some biologists argued that Darwin could not prove his hypothesis. Others criticized Darwin’s concept of variation, arguing that he could explain neither the origin of variations nor how they were passed to succeeding generations. This particular scientific objection was not answered until the birth of modern genetics in the early 20th century. (Encarta 2001)

I am not surprised to know that people still refute Darwin’s thoughts. But I am not! For science explains the unexplainable. If something can’t be explained, then be sure to realize that someone is reflecting on it, attempting to explain it.

Charles Darwin and Karl Marx are phenomenal individuals! Both felt as I do: constrained. Through all opposition both ventured out on a limb, without fear of total rejection. Marx had nothing to lose, due to the fact that he lived in squalor. However, Darwin lived an an affluent life because he was born an aristocrat, could have lost it all. Both ideas presented are true, with a slight variation to Marx’s, it will preside within me. Darwin’s is right on the nose, and has been swirling in my mind for sometime, but an in-depth examination has reinforced some thoughts.

The ash and ember is beginning to rescind. What has sprouted from the ashes? Question the unquestionable. Comprehend the incomprehensible. I have nothing to lose and the world to gain! Fresh air hasn’t tasted so good.

Works Cited

“Darwin, Charles Robert” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. CD-ROM. Seattle: Microsoft, 2001.

Darwin, Charles “Natural Selection” Rpt. in A World of Ideas. 6th Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002.

“God.” The Economist 12/31/99, Vol. 353 Issue 8151, p111, 1p

Jacobus, Lee, A. A World of Ideas. 6th Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002.

“Marx, Karl” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. CD-ROM. Seattle: Microsoft, 2001.

Marx, Karl “The Communist Manifesto” Rpt. in A World of Ideas. 6th Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002.