Chapter 25 Chapter 23 The Influence of Marx and Engels

In any study of revolution and the development of the concept of revolution in the nineteenth century, the ideas of Karl Marx occupy a prime place.Even those revolutions which occurred very early and were not influenced by Marx are usually interpreted today from a "Marxian" point of view.In the foregoing I have referred to Marx's concept of "permanent revolution" and to the fact that Marx was a pioneer in creating organized groups within nation-states and internationally that proclaimed their definite revolutionary goals .My intention in this chapter is not so much to explore Marx's ideas about revolution or Marx's revolutionary activities as to examine the specific theme of the views expressed by Karl Marx on scientific change and revolution in science, and to Marx's views on these subjects are compared and contrasted with those of Friedrich Engels.This topic is quite different from studies of Marx's influence on the interpretation of the history of science in the 20th century.

Anyone who pays attention to this problem immediately realizes that Marx was neither specially well educated in the traditional natural sciences, nor was he very concerned with these disciplines, nor with the technical content of astronomy, physics, chemistry, and geology.His education in the humanities included some knowledge of mathematics, but he never had any formal training in the subjects listed above—say, "high school" or college-level training.in his adulthood.He became interested in some aspects of the life sciences and read German including Georg.A considerable number of works by popularizers of science, including Büchner, Jakob, Mollerschot, and Karl Vogt.Although Marx criticized the "vulgar mechanical materialism" advocated by these people (see Schmidt 1971, 86), he was clearly influenced by Mollershout's view of nature that "nature is a cyclic process".Marx found that this conception of nature had much in common with Pietro Veli's thought; moreover, when Marx quoted Viry's words in Capital, he agreed with Viry's thought.

In light of the importance attached to the adjective "scientific" (which was used by Engels and all Marxists, especially Soviet orthodox writers, to describe so-called "scientific Socialism or "scientific" Communism), look at It is not pointless to look at the meaning Marx himself assigned to this adjective when he used it. The second part of The Theory of Surplus Value (which was a draft of the unfinished fourth volume of Capital) provides a clue (1968; see Marx, 1963-1971). In Chapter 9 (section 2), Marx compares Ricardo's and Malthus' economics. Ricardo, he says, "sees the proletariat as a machine, a pack animal, or a commodity" because from From Ricardo's point of view, "the proletarian only promotes production as a machine or a pack animal", or "because the proletarian is actually only a commodity in bourgeois production". Marx believed that this was not "a despicable act". "This is stoicism, this is objective, this is scientific". And, "so far as it is possible not to commit a crime against his science, Ricardo was always a philanthropist, and he was a philanthropist in practical life." Activists. "

The "Malthus priest" is quite different from Ricardo. "He also reduced workers to the status of pack animals for the sake of production, and even made workers starve to death and become bachelors."Moreover, says Marx, "when certain interests of the aristocracy are opposed to those of the bourgeoisie, or when certain interests of conservative and stagnant sections of the bourgeoisie are opposed to those of the progressive bourgeoisie,—in all these On every occasion, Pastor Malthus did not sacrifice special interests for the sake of production, but tried his best to sacrifice the requirements of production for the special interests of the existing social ruling class or ruling class group"."For this purpose," according to Marx, Malthus "falsified his own conclusions within the realm of science."Then, Marx asserts, "this is his scientific baseness, his crimes against science, not to mention his shameless and skilled plagiarism".Marx went on to say, "Malthus' scientific conclusions were fabricated in the eyes of the ruling class, especially the reactionary elements of the ruling class; that is to say, Malthus falsified science for the benefit of these classes".

Thus, the meaning of the word "scientific" used by Marx here seems to be "unbiased" and "genuine", and thus does not contain any direct connotation of a particular method of research or testing.Also, the term "scientific" does not seem to imply any particular limitation in topic or content.Marx makes this clear in the next fragment (Part II, Chapter IX, Section III); here Marx gives three examples "to demonstrate the scientific justice of Ricardo." In Marx's edited and published works I cannot find any account of the Scientific Revolution, or of revolutions in science in general, or of any particular revolution in any science. (However, there are numerous references to the Industrial Revolution and the revolutionary invention of machinery or industry.) Nor have I been able to find any analysis of Marx's approach or manner of progress in science, or even a listing of the main events in the sequence of scientific discoveries .But Marx makes an interesting discussion of the application of Darwin's theory of evolution to the historical development of technology and crafts—which seems to be the earliest suggestion of an evolutionary history in this field.

For many years there has been a legend in the historical literature that Karl Marx had wished to dedicate Capital to Darwin, and had written to Darwin asking for Darwin's own consent, but Darwin had refused his homage.It is now clear that the draft of a letter by Darwin refusing the honor was addressed to Marx's son-in-law, Edward Aveling, and not to Marx himself.Marx did send Darwin a paperback copy of the first volume of Capital.This volume remains with other volumes in the Darwin Library.It tells us a wonderful story.In the upper right corner of the title page of the book is inscribed:

Mr. Charles Darwin his sincere admirer Karl Marx London, July 16, 1873 Modena Villas Maitland Park Marx's decision to send Darwin a copy of Das Kapital, with its own inscription, was apparently made some time after the publication of the book, since the book sent to Darwin was not the first edition of 1867, but the 1872 edition. the second edition of .Darwin did not read the entirety of Marx's work.When I visited Darwin's Dunn's home (Kent), I found that the book was only turned to page 105 (out of 822 pages).Also, we have no basis for Darwin's opinion of Marx's writings (he may have had some).

Darwin was not mentioned in the first edition of Capital, published in 1867, eight years after Marx's publication (1859).Darwin and the theory of evolution first appear in two footnotes in the first and second editions (which may explain why Marx sent one of his books to Darwin after the second edition appeared).It is only in these two footnotes to Capital that Marx explicitly mentions Darwin directly.In one of the footnotes (Volume 1, Chapter 14, Section 2; see the Chinese translation of "Das Kapital" <People's Publishing House, 1975> Vol. 1, p. 379), Marx cites Darwin's A passage about the natural organs and tools of labor.In another footnote (Chapter 15, Section 1, Volume 1. See the Chinese translation of "Das Kapital", Volume 1, p. 409), he once again mentioned the organs of animals and plants and "natural crafts".But, as we have seen, in the latter footnote, Marx argues that the history of crafts should be written from an evolutionary point of view.Marx was generous and unreserved in his praise of Darwin in other writings.In a letter to Engels dated December 19, 1860 (Padover 1978, 359), just a few months after publication, he mentions that he had read "Darwin's Natural Selection" "Origin of Species") book".He praised the book as "providing a natural history basis for our view of 'historical materialism. - Translator) in a letter to Lassalle on January 16, he reiterated the same point: "Darwin's work (that is - the translator) is very meaningful, and I can use this book as a The natural scientific basis of the historical class struggle." In this letter, Marx stresses the importance of Darwin's "first death blow to teleology in natural science".And Darwin "had expounded its 'teleological' rational sense empirically".In a letter to Engels on December 7, 1867, Marx spoke of a "process of transformation in society" similar to that "demonstrated by Darwin from the point of view of natural history".

A few years ago, Marx said in a letter to Engels (June 18, 1862; Padover 1978, 360): "I re-read Darwin, and it amused me that Darwin said he took Malthus The theory of this theory is also applied to plants and animals. In fact, in Mr. Malthus, the whole mystery is precisely that this theory is not applied to plants and animals, but only to human beings. confronted".Marx developed this idea further in The Theory of Surplus Value (1963-1971, 2:121).He quotes (London, 1860, p. 45): "The next chapter will examine the struggle for existence in the whole world of life, which is the inevitable result of a high multiplication according to geometrical progression. This is Application of the doctrine of Malthus to the whole animal kingdom and to the whole vegetable kingdom".Marx commented that Darwin obviously "did not see that he discovered geometric progression in the animal kingdom and plant kingdom, which refuted Malthus' theory".Because "Malthus's theory is based precisely on his opposition of Wallace's geometric progression of human reproduction to the imaginary arithmetic progression of animals and plants".Thus, "Darwin's writings" "also have naturalistic refutations of Malthus's theory in detail (not to mention Darwin's fundamental principles)".

However, we should not overly praise and believe Marx for his unique insight in evaluating the value and significance of Darwin's theory of evolution.In a letter to Engels dated 7 August 1866, a year before Capital was published, Marx praised another "very important work" (Pardover 1978, 360-361).The new book is "still a very significant step forward from Darwin," he said.At that time, he was preparing to send the book to Engels, so he may also have a clear idea of ​​its main content.The book, he said, "has a more meaningful and informative application than Darwin's in its application to history and politics." The book Marx highly praised was Bee Tremo's The Origin and Variation of Man and Other Organisms. (Paris, 1865).The judgment of history does not coincide with Marx's praise.For example, Tremo is not included as an entry in the recently completed sixteen-volume Dictionary of Biographical Biography of Scientists.Moreover, in authoritative works on the history of biology and evolution (such as Bodenheimer, Carter, Eisley, Fothergill, Mayer, Nordenskold, Radell, Singer, etc.), even No mention of his name.Also, there is nothing in the international Documentation of the Critical History of Science compiled and published by George Sutton, myself, and our subsequent editors from 1913 to 1975 that specifically discusses the life of Tremo or a separate scholarly paper or monograph on a contribution to science.As lawyers say, "res ipsa loquitur" (things speak for themselves).Why was Marx so interested in Tremo that he considered Tremo's work better than Darwin's?One reason for this is that Tremo, like Herbert Spencer, clearly believed in progress, unlike Darwin.Marx explained to Engels (ibid.): "While in Darwin progress was purely accidental, here it is inevitable and is based on the various stages of the development of the earth."

However, Engels compared Marx with Darwin, and only with Darwin, in his speech delivered at the grave of Marx in Highgate Cemetery in London on March 1, 1883.He said: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of the organic world, Marx discovered the law of development of human history."Engels repeated this comparison in the preface to the fourth edition (1891) of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State.He praised Lewis Henry Morgan's "Ancient Society" (1877), noting that "this work [that is, Engels's "Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"" is based on this work. "Engels especially reminded people to pay attention to Morgan's important discovery that "the original matriarchal clan is the stage before the patriarchal clan of all civilized peoples", and believed that it "has significance to primitive history, just as Darwin's evolutionary theory is to biology." It has the same meaning as Marx's surplus value theory for political economy" ("Selected Works of Marx and Engels", People's Publishing House, 1972, Vol. IV, pp. 13-14). In a paper written for the first volume of "Das Kapital" In a book review (December 1867, quoted in Schmidt 1971, 45), Engels emphasized that what Marx "tried to establish as a law" in social relations The same gradual process of change that Darwin established in natural history. Schus also said, "Science is a historically active for Marx.revolutionary force. "However, in the preface to Volume II of Marx's Capital, Engels compares Marx to Lavoisier, not to Darwin. The same comparison between Marx and Darwin is found in a book by Marx's son-in-law, Edward Aveling.Aveling published two companion volumes: Marx for Scholars (1892) and Darwin for the People (1881).In the introduction to The Scholars' Marx, Aveling writes: "Marx did to economics what Darwin did to biology" (p. viii).Both of these great men made "a generalization never before seen in the disciplines to which they were devoted" (p.iX).Moreover, each of these generalizations "revolutionized not only that discipline but, in fact, the whole of human thought and the whole of human life."Since the book was written in 1892, Aveling had to note that Darwin's generalizations were "more generally accepted than Marx's."The reason, he argued, was that Darwin's writings "affected our intellectual life rather than our economic life" and could therefore be "accepted equally by believers in the capitalist system as well as by its enemies". Friedrich Engels Regarding the sciences that people usually know and are familiar with (that is, physical science and biological science), Marx did not write many articles or works, but Engels had a considerable say in these sciences, their development and revolution.One of his most familiar works is "Anti-Dühring" (its other title is "The Revolutions in Science by Herr Eugen Dühring").According to the author (1959, 9), this work, published in German in 1878 (second edition in 1885, third in 1894), was by no means "the fruit of some inner excitement" of various sciences, Rather, it's the opposite; it's the result of the author's anger at "the laws of economics, world-modelism, etc."Dühring claimed to have discovered these laws, and Engels found that they, like Dühring's "proposed laws of physics and chemistry", were characterized by their "false or obsolete" (1959, 12).Before analyzing Engels' treatise on revolution in science, we must recognize the fact that the German title of the book does not use the word Revolution, but Umwalzung: Herrn Eugen Duhrings Umwalzungder Wissenschaft.Whether or not Umwalzung was synonymous with Revolution—a question to be explored below—Engels used the word in an ironic sense.He certainly did not think that Dühring really caused a revolution in science.In fact, the whole title is clearly a parody of Dohring's attack on the American economist Henry C.A polemical work on Carey's thought: The Changes Carey Introduced in Political Economy and Social Science (1865), although this was not one of the three books Engels primarily refuted.Engels scoffed at Dühring's claims in the Course of Philosophy (1875), and wrote: "We do not yet understand what this philosophy promises to reveal to us, in its own powerfully transformative movements, of revealing external nature. and all the earth and heaven of inner nature" (1980, 134; 1959, 198). We have long seen that in Germany in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries there was a tendency in Germany to replace the Latin word "revolution" with the German synonym Umwalzung. Engels used both words almost as if they were interchangeable. It is not apparent from his writings that he really preferred the term Umwalzung to the term Revolution. A look at his Dialectics of Nature shows how he uses the two terms. Dialectics of Nature 1 Most of the articles or fragments in the book were apparently written between 1872 and 1882, and are considered to contain his most mature thoughts on science. The work was never completed and was not published until 1927 (Engels 1940, xiv). The opening paragraphs describe the great change that took place in the 15th and 16th centuries, "the greatest, progressive change that mankind has never experienced [diegrosstepprogressiveUmwalZung;" (Engels: Dialectics of Nature, People's Publishing House, 1971, p. 7). At that time, "natural science was also developing in a general revolution, and it was itself thoroughly revolutionary. "So not only does the work begin with revolution, but in subsequent passages the new German word Umwalzung and the older French word Revolution are apparently used interchangeably. Then Engels ( Ibid. 8, 9) compared the significant difference between "revolutionary science" revolutionare Naturwissenschaft]" and "conservative nature".Although Engels begins in this way, the rest of Engels' overview of the history of science ("Introduction") makes no mention of the great innovations as revolutions.Thus, Kant "opened the first gap in this rigid view of nature" (ibid., 12), Ryle "brought reason into geology for the first time" (ibid., 13), "physics has a huge Progress... "in" 1842, a landmark year in this branch of the natural sciences" (ibid., 14), and in chemistry "amazingly rapid development" (ibid.), etc. This The only possible exception to the rule is Cuvier, whose "theory of the many revolutions of the earth is revolutionary in words but reactionary in substance" (ibid., 13). However, Engels here is likely to mean Cuvier used the actual word "revolution" when talking about "the geological revolutions that the earth has experienced many times, rather than saying that Cuvier used the words and phrases of revolution both in terms of its connotation and extension. By comparing these opening paragraphs of the completed Introduction to the Dialectics of Nature with some preliminary historical commentary (ibid., 162-287), it may be possible to shed some light on Engels' view of Umwalzung and Revolution. usage of two words.In these historical notes, when Engels wrote "the greatest revolution "diegrosste Revolution" that the earth has never experienced", and said "natural science was also born and formed in this revolution "indieser Revolution"" And when "is the "revolutionar" of a complete revolution] (ibid., 172), he uses the word Revolution instead of Umwalzung.One wonders whether Engels changed the first Revolution to Umwalzung in his final draft because he did not want to use the word so closely four times in a row.However, it is obvious that Engels wrote only diegrosste Revolution in the draft without any further qualifying adjectives; but in the final draft he not only replaced Revolution with Umwalzung, but also changed diegroste Revolution to die grosse progressive Umwalzung (ibid. , 7).It seems that an Umwalzung is something radical, fundamentally subversive or radical change, so a modifying adjective may be needed to specify whether it is a necessarily progressive change.For Engels, a Revolution would never need an adjective to embody or express its progressive character. A sentence in "Anti-Dühring" shows that it is more difficult to make a meaningful distinction between Engels' usage of the words Revolution and Umwalzung.Engels wrote in this book: "When the revolutionary storm [der Orkander Revoluttion] swept across France, Britain was undergoing a relatively calm but not weakened change" eine stillere, aber darum nicht mindergewaltige Umwalzung "" ("Marx and Engels Selected Le, People's Publishing House, Vol. III, p. 301). This transformation "Umwalzungj" means "manufacture industry has become modern large-scale industry, thereby revolutionizing the entire basis of bourgeois society. "revolutionierten" (ibid.). As usual, here "Revolution" (Revolution) is used to refer to the French Revolution, and Umwalzung is used to refer to the diein-dustrielle Revolution (Industrial Revolution) that Engels often said-although its influence is described by the verb revolutionierten. And, about a page later, Engels (in reference to Robert Owen) talks about the dieindustrielle Revolution (Industrial Revolution). Marx also generally used this term. Engels in his own writings Also wrote Revolution of the bourgeoisie and Umwalzung of the bourgeoisie, Revolution in production and Umwalzung in production (the latter was used six to one compared to the former). Regardless of the title of Engels' work, "The Revolutions in Science by Herr Eugen Dühring" says little about revolutions in science, and it does not present a fully developed picture of how science has progressed. A consistent theory.Throughout this book, the word "Revolution" occurs only twice in reference to science.It first appears in the preface to the second edition (1885).In this preface, Engels talked about "the necessity to systematize the large amount of accumulated, purely empirical discoveries, which will force a revolution in theoretical natural science" ("Selected Works of Marx and Engels", People's Publishing House, Volume III page 53).Engels once again used the concept of "revolution" when discussing production in the third part of the book.He said, "The technological foundation of large-scale industry is revolutionary."Engels quoted a passage from Marx's "Das Kapital" to illustrate this point.In that passage Marx discusses "machines, chemical processes and other methods".According to Engels' generalization, science has enriched "the technical basis of modern industry"—"it also constantly revolutionizes the division of labor within society, and constantly transfers a large amount of capital and a large number of workers from one production department to another" (ibid., 333-334).One might notice that in this second example, only the revolutionary impact of science is referred to, not revolutions in science. In the preface to the second edition, in a passage preceding the one we mentioned above, Engels used the word Umwalzungsprozess when he said that "natural science itself is in the process of such a great transformation"—— This seems further evidence that Revolution and Umwalzung are interchangeable when used to describe processes of change rather than traditional political revolutions (ibid., 53).Afterwards, when mocking Dühring, Engels (ibid., 261-262) used the verb Umwalzen to describe the laying and transformation of the deeper foundations of the so-called "science", which is actually for anyone, even for the Berlin "Volksche Zeitung". As far as the editorial department is concerned, it can be done", and believes that "we only need to say that eating is the basic law of life for all animals, and we have implemented a revolution in the entire zoology". It is therefore difficult to conclude that the concept of a scientific revolution, even one that is literally expressed, was fundamentally important to Engels.Even in a fragment on "great discoveries" and progress made in the natural sciences - it is in Engels's published pamphlet on Ludwig Feuerbach ["Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy" - and there is no mention of "revolution" "neither Revolution nor Umwalzung", and, in Engels' many writings on Darwin's great adaptation and transformation of biological thought, Nor is the term or concept of revolution used.In discussing Lavoisier (in Engels' preface to Volume II of Capital), the phrase "chemical revolution" is not mentioned.Nevertheless, Marx was clearly well educated in many aspects of science and was concerned with issues concerning the history of science (cf. R.S. Cohen 1978, 134-135). The quotations we have made above and some other discussions prove that Engels fully realized the revolutionary power of science.There are many instances where he realized that revolutions had actually occurred in science, and had many important insights about scientific revolutions.He recognized, for example, that one of the results of the scientific revolution was a revolution in terminology (although he has never been able to develop a treatise on this subject).But there is no evidence that he ever thought seriously about the theory or revolutionary process of scientific progress, or wrote even two consecutive paragraphs on the subject.