There is no evidence that my thoughts are not grounded in matter. Hi Guitarman! There's no denying that organic nature has a basis in the physical, i.e., in the material. But what "proof" can you show that the material/physical is "all that there is" in organic (i.e., biological) nature?
I meant to ping you to post #138 on this thread, but my fingers got itchy to hit the post button before my ping list was fully composed.... Truly I'm interested in your thoughts regarding the matters discussed therein.
" But what "proof" can you show that the material/physical is "all that there is" in organic (i.e., biological) nature?"
I didn't say I had proof. I said there was no evidence.
As for the Marx quotes, the first three have nothing to do with natural selection. The " bellum omnium contra omnes" comes from Hobbes, and was well known to political theorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellum_omnium_contra_omnes
The quote about how the manufacturing process “simplifies, improves, and multiplies the implements of labor, by adapting them to the exclusively special functions of each detail laborer.” could have come out of Adam Smith.
The quote starting with, "Darwin in his epoch-making work on the origin of species, remarks, with reference to the natural organs of plants and animals:..." is an example of Marx using a well known scientist in an attempt to add scientific credibility to his claims. The quote is again about how things that are specialized for a certain function are more variable. Let me see, where have I head about division of labor and specialization before... oh, that's right, Adam Smith.
"Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one..."
There is no law of evolution that shows a directive force controlling the evolution from one stage to the *next*. This quote doesn't express natural selection or Darwin's views at all.
"...indubitably, inherently evoking an evolutionary process, whether it be of the Marxian or the Hegelian type."
But it was in no way a DARWINIAN type.
"Now it’s true that Darwin could have had no way to anticipate that Marx would later appropriate his theory in support of his own economic/social theory in the manner he did. But to me, that’s entirely beside the point: It is clear that Marx did make this appropriation."
He also misunderstood it so badly that his concept of evolution has almost no resemblance to Darwin's.
"For the two men share common presuppositions about the fundamental structure of reality: that it is essentially materialist, determinist, mechanistic — both men are firmly planted in the Newtonian universe — and wholly subject to the workings of natural law..."
Why are you blaming Darwin then? Blame Newton. :)
Your endeavors are appreciated, but I fail to see where they connect evolution as understood by Darwin with what Marx actually proposed.