What if Marx had Dedicated Das Kapital to Darwin?

JF Ptak Science Books LLC  Post 741  Blog Bookstore

It’s a kind of intriguing question in the world of “what ifs”--even though the thought had been taken seriously for years, the issue has been (for decades) safely put to sleep in misty mythtime, except in the minds of some creationists and conservatives.

The issue came up again for me while reading I.B. Cohen’s Revolution in Science (Harvard 1985) in the “Influence of Marx and Engels” chapter, where the idea of the dedication gets resurfaced. Leaving aside the whole aspect of Das Kaptial and the thought of Karl Marx (1818-1883), I’d just like to concentrate on the Darwin-Marx “connection”.  One thing is for sure:  Marx thought a lot of Darwin (1809-1882), particularly in the way that he could use aspects of Darwin’s theory (On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, the title changing in the sixth edition in 1872 to simply The Origin of Species.) to bolster his own thought.  Marx thought Darwin’s theory to be “very important” dealing a death blow” to “teleology in the natural sciences”.  He was particularly interested in Darwin as it was, in his mind, “the natural history foundation for our viewpoint [of historical materialism], “serv[ing] as a …basis for the class struggle in history”. 

 

The business of the dedication is slightly knotty, as there is supporting correspondence that seems to support it all.  Darwin did receive a letter and he did respond, but it related to Marx’s son-in-law Edward Aveling’s (1849-1898) book The People’s Darwin (1881).  The issue is dealt with often and elsewhere on the web, so I won’t go into it here, except to say that the issue of Darwin being the dedicatee of Das Kaptial has been put completely to rest as untrue. 

 

It is interesting to read Darwin’s very thoughtful, old-school  thanks-but-no-thanks response to Marx (found at Friends of Darwin)

Dear Sir:
   I am much obliged for your kind letter & the Enclosure.— The publication in any form of your remarks on my writing really requires no consent on my part, & it would be ridiculous in me to give consent to what requires none. I shd prefer the Part or Volume not to be dedicated to me (though I thank you for the intended honour) as this implies to a certain extent my approval of the general publication, about which I know nothing.— Moreover though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family , if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.— I am sorry to refuse you any request, but I am old & have very little strength, and looking over proof-sheets (as I know by present experience) fatigues me much.
   I remain Dear Sir,
      Yours faithfully,
         Ch. Darwin

By 1865 Marx moves on a bit, finding a new champion in the natural history world, Pierre Tremaux, whose Origine et transformations de l’homme et des autres êtres (1865) which he found to be “a very important advance over Darwin”.  I have no idea what Marx was thinking with Tremaux, except that history has forgotten the1865 work and its author.  M. Tremaux has disappeared; Darwin continues to prove out as fantastically correct. 

 

All quotes from Cohen’s revolution, pp 344-347