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