Marx critique de Darwin PDF

This article needs additional citations for verification. Influences on Karl Marx are generally thought to have been derived from three sources, namely German idealist philosophy, French socialism and English and Scottish political economy. Immanuel Kant is believed to have had the greatest influence marx critique de Darwin PDF any philosopher of modern times. Kantian philosophy was the basis on which the structure of Marxism was built—particularly as it was developed by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

By the time of his death, Hegel was the most prominent philosopher in Germany. His views were widely taught and his students were highly regarded. His followers soon divided into right-wing and left-wing Hegelians. Marx’s view of history, which came to be called historical materialism, is certainly influenced by Hegel’s claim that reality and history should be viewed dialectically. While Marx accepted this broad conception of history, Hegel was an idealist and Marx sought to rewrite dialectics in materialist terms.

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. In this brief popularization of his ideas, Marx emphasized that social development sprang from the inherent contradictions within material life and the social superstructure. This notion is often understood as a simple historical narrative: primitive communism had developed into slave states. Ludwig Feuerbach was a German philosopher and anthropologist. Feuerbach proposed that people should interpret social and political thought as their foundation and their material needs. He held that an individual is the product of their environment and that the whole consciousness of a person is the result of the interaction of sensory organs and the external world.

What distinguished Marx from Feuerbach was his view of Feuerbach’s humanism as excessively abstract and so no less ahistorical and idealist than what it purported to replace, namely the reified notion of God found in institutional Christianity that legitimized the repressive power of the Prussian state. In direct contrast to German philosophy, which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life process. Marx did not study directly with Hegel, but after Hegel’s death he studied under one of Hegel’s pupils, Bruno Bauer, a leader of the circle of Young Hegelians to whom Marx attached himself. However, Marx and Engels came to disagree with Bauer and the rest of the Young Hegelians about socialism and also about the usage of Hegel’s dialectic. From 1841, the young Marx progressively broke away from German idealism and the Young Hegelians.

Marx’s early writings are thus a response towards Hegel, German idealism and a break with the rest of the Young Hegelians. Marx stood Hegel on his head in his own view of his role by turning the idealistic dialectic into a materialistic one in proposing that material circumstances shape ideas instead of the other way around. In this, Marx was following the lead of Feuerbach. 1845, when Marx was starting to settle his account with Hegel and the Young Hegelians in his writings, he critiqued the Young Hegelians for limiting the horizon of their critique to religion and not taking up the critique of the state and civil society as paramount. Political economy predates the 20th century division of the two disciplines of politics and economics, treating social relations and economic relations as interwoven.

Marx built on and critiqued the most well-known political economists of his day, the British classical political economists. From Adam Smith came the idea that the grounds of property is labour. This practical and theoretical distinction was Marx’s primary insight and allowed him to develop the concept of surplus value, which distinguished his works from that of Smith and Ricardo. Rousseau was one of the first modern writers to seriously attack the institution of private property and therefore is sometimes considered a forebear of modern socialism and communism, though Marx rarely mentions Rousseau in his writings. In 1833, France was experiencing a number of social problems arising out of the Industrial Revolution. A number of sweeping plans of reform were developed by thinkers on the left.

Proudhon participated in the February 1848 uprising and the composition of what he termed the first republican proclamation of the new republic. However, he had misgivings about the new government because it was pursuing political reform at the expense of the socio-economic reform, which Proudhon considered basic. In one of his first works, The Holy Family, Marx said: « Not only does Proudhon write in the interest of the proletarians, he is himself a proletarian, an ouvrier. His work is a scientific manifesto of the French proletariat ». However, Marx disagreed with Proudhon’s anarchism and later published vicious criticisms of Proudhon. But the greater part of its leading basic principles, especially in the realm of economics and history, and, above all, their final trenchant formulation, belong to Marx. What I contributed — at any rate with the exception of my work in a few special fields — Marx could very well have done without me.

What Marx accomplished I would not have achieved. Marx stood higher, saw further, and took a wider and quicker view than all the rest of us. In late November 1859, Engels acquired one of the first 1,250 copies of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species and then he sent a letter to Marx telling: « Darwin, by the way, whom I’m just reading now, is absolutely splendid ». These last four weeks, I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin’s book on natural selection.

Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis on natural history for our view. Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. I am amused at Darwin, into whom I looked again, when he says that he applies the « Malthusian » theory also to plants and animals. In his splendid work, Darwin did not realize that by discovering the ‘geometrical progression’ in the animal and plant kingdom, he overthrew Malthus theory ». Having read about darwinian evolution along with Marx, German communist Wilhelm Liebknecht later said that « when Darwin drew the conclusions from his research work and brought them to the knowledge of the public, we spoke of nothing else for months but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries ». Engels as « a very important advance over Darwin ».