Darwinism and the Religion of Scientific Materialism

The Post Chronicle ^ | Feb. 10, 2006 | Linda Kimball

[Lindykim]

Enrico Ferri (1856-1926), a prominent socialist of his day, was an Italian criminologist who for many years was the editor of Avanti, a socialist daily.  Writing in "Socialism and Religious Beliefs," he spoke of the all-important connection between Darwin's theory and socialism:  "I add that not only is Darwinism not contrary to socialism, but that it forms one of its fundamental scientific premises.  As Virchow justly remarked, socialism is nothing else than the logical and vital outcome partly of Darwinism and partly of Spencerian evolution."  (www.marxists.org/...)

Enrico frankly discussed how and why Darwinian socialism serves as an alternate religion:  "socialism is joined to religious evolution and tends to substitute itself for religion because it desires precisely that humanity should have…its own 'terrestrial paradise' without having to wait for it in a 'something beyond'…the socialist movement has numerous characteristics common…to primitive Christianity, notably its ardent faith in the ideal."  (ibid)

To wit:  Darwinian socialism (Marx's dialectical scientific materialism) is a secularized and distorted mirror image of the Christian teaching of divine providence.  In as the Biblical model teaches that man and history are moving towards the Kingdom of God, scientific  materialism preaches that man and history are evolving toward a terrestrial paradise created by Promethean humanists.  The notion that both history and man are evolving upward through successive stages is what British philosopher Mary Midgley termed the "Escalator Myth." When speaking of scientific materialism's creation account, Ferri candidly admitted:  "modern positive science…has substituted the conception of natural causality for the conception of miracles and divinity."  (ibid)  In other words, scientific materialists have reduced the personal Creator of the universe to the level of an impersonal animating force.  It's this 'force' into which Promethean materialists tap, thus using it as the source of both their power and authority.

David Horowitz had this to say about scientific materialism's theology and creation account:  "The victorious radicals had proclaimed a theology of Reason in which equality of condition was the natural and true order of creation.  In their Genesis, the loss of equality was the ultimate source of mankind's' suffering and evil…The ownership of private property became a secular version of original sin.  Redemption…was possible only through the Revolution that would abolish property and open the gates to the Socialist Eden---to paradise regained."  ("The Politics of Bad Faith" www.discoverthenetwork.com)

In the Promethean project, everything from the cosmos to all living things, culture, customs, etc. are subject to evolution.  The cosmos, or 'supreme being' is alive and in a constant state of transformative change.  In speaking of the cosmos, Lenin used explicitly religious terminology:  "We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth."  (Vladimir Lenin as quoted in Francis Nigel Lee "Communism versus Creation," pg. 28)

Even the convoluted double-speak so peculiar to the Left is itself founded upon the notion of evolution, which no doubt explains why truth is a stranger to them.  Dialectics (or more correctly: speaking in tongues) is what they call their snake-oil rhetoric. In Trotsky's words:  "Vulgar thought operates with such concepts as capitalism, morals, freedom…etc.  Dialectic thinking analyses all things and phenomena in their continuous change.  Dialectics…teaches us to combine syllogisms in such a way as to bring our understanding closer to eternally changing reality."  (The ABC of Dialectics, Leon Trotsky, http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky)

As double-speak indicates a need for secrecy, it comes as no surprise that dialectical materialism is likewise a hotbed of Gnosticism.  Christian Gnostics were people who, when they read Scripture, claimed an ability to receive 'secret' knowledge from it, knowable only to them.  Hence, they were practitioners of 'divination.'  Modern Gnostics on our USSC have claimed to receive secret knowledge through 'auras, penumbras, and emanations" during their readings of our Constitution.  Gnosticism, for obvious reasons, has a history of attracting megalomaniacs in search of secret knowledge to use as power over others.  Frederick Engel's reveals that dialectical materialism is rooted in Gnosticism when he says:  "An exact representation of the universe, of its evolution, of the development of mankind, and of the reflection of this evolution in the minds of men, can…only be obtained by the methods of dialectics."  (The Making of Utopian Socialism," Frederick Engel's, www.marxists.org)

In the theology of scientific materialism, Judgment Day is the Day of Revolution.  This is the day of redemption when, in the name of 'Absolute Science! Amen!" the evil bourgeoisie (Conservatives, Christians, white males, all heterosexuals, George Bush, Rumsfeld, etc) will be damned.  Likewise, all evil social institutions such as private property, traditional family, absolute moral laws, the Boy Scouts, Christianity, the concept of sin, and man's created condition as either male or female will be demolished, thus allowing equality of condition to prevail.  This is what the Left means when it rhapsodizes about 'peace.' 

In a brutal, but much deserved condemnation of Marx's dialectical materialism, David Horowitz wrote:  "In every revolutionary battle in this century, the Left has been a vanguard without a viable future to offer, whose only purpose was to destroy whatever civilization actually existed.  Consider:  If no one had believed Marx's idea, there would have been no Bolshevik Revolution…Hitler would not have come to power; there would have been no cold war."  (The Politics of Bad Faith)  Additionally, more than one-hundred million people would not have been slaughtered.

By the turn of the century, Marx's idea (the religion of scientific materialism) had crossed the Atlantic where it then began to metastasize in America.  It was not long before it began to bear rotten fruit.  By 1932, William Z. Foster, head of the Communist Party USA stated:  "Class ideologies…will give place to scientific materialist philosophy…the American Soviet government will…further the cultural revolution (by doing) the following: schools, colleges, universities will be coordinated…under the National Department of Education…studies will be revolutionized…cleansed of religious, patriotic…ideology…students will be taught…Marxian dialectical materialism; general ethics of the new socialist society.  Science will become materialistic…God will be banished from laboratories as well as from schools." ('Toward Soviet America," by William Z. Foster, 1932)

So now its America's turn to be sacrificed upon the altar of Promethean narcissism, for having learned nothing from his corpse-littered past, bloody-handed Prometheus continues to doggedly pursue his fantasy of a terrestrial paradise—in the name of 'Absolute Science! Amen!"

Copyright Linda Kimball 2006 About the writer:  Linda is a writer and author of numerous published articles and essays on culture, politics, and worldview.

[hosepipe]

Excellent work in #138.. worthy of, well ... YOU...

Only a Marxbot or Darwinbot could get around it..
Both of their "faiths" can jump over logic.. thats what faith does.. Supplies answers for where there is no logical answer.. Any second reality needs that, a "bible".. its completely logical.. First reality needs a bible too in a world that requires faith..

Really, humans are suckers for a good story.. and Marx and Darwin supply a rich Soap Opera of drama.. just waiting for competent Drama Queens.. BOTH missing the greatest drama of all..

Pity too.. but the goats MUST be separated from the sheep.. its very important for Zero reality.. when bibles and human language are obsolete.. Where reality is not a thing to be grasped..

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" 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.

[PatrickHenry]

The specialization of labor wasn't a new idea. It goes back to David Ricardo, who was influenced by Adam Smith, well before Marx and Darwin. Ricardo described the specialization of labor in a pin factory, explaining how each specialized worker resulted in more production. Nothing communistic about it (although Marx would probably view it as an example of labor "exploitation").

Marx developed his "labor theory of value" a key factor of his economics (an idea which Ricardo rejected), and this was before Darwin published Origins. So if Marx later referred to specialization of labor, and made a Darwinian reference, that's certainly interesting (and news to me), but it wasn't a new idea, and -- like Darwin's work -- it has nothing to do with communism.

It's nice that you've found a reference, but ... you haven't shown a conceptual linkage between evolution and communism. As I've said before, "to each according to his needs" is the opposite of natural selection.

Darwinian evolution is compatible with free enterprise and uncontrolled markets. If Darwin had preceded Adam Smith, we probably could show a connection between those two. (In fact, it's been suggested that Darwin was influenced by Adam Smith.) But there is no conceptual connection between Darwin and Marx.

[PatrickHenry]

Ping to 143.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

The more I think about it, the context of the above quotes that allegedly link Marx and Darwin is not clear. It should be remembered that much of Kapital is a condemnation of capitalism. When Marx speaks of the "bellum omnium contra omnes", he is describing the way things are under capitalism . The same with 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.” If these are supposed to be examples of Darwinian economics, they are negative examples, from a Marxian standpoint. These are economic conditions to be fought against for Marx.

Darwinian evolution, when properly understood by a Marxist, is much more conducive to capitalism.

[PatrickHenry]

Darwinian evolution, when properly understood by a Marxist, is much more conducive to capitalism.

Creationists agree. As I've pointed out earlier, the Institute for Creation Research has this article posted at their website:
Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism.

The article's (rather leftish) abstract says this:

A review of the writings of several leading "robber baron" capitalists shows that many of them were influenced by the Darwinian view that the strong eventually will overcome the weak. Their faith in Darwinism helped them to justify this view as morally right and completely natural. As a result, they thought that their ruthless (and often unethical or even illegal) business practices were justified by science, and that Darwinistic concepts and conclusions were an inevitable part of the "unfolding of history," and for this reason were justified.

I's rather difficult to see how Darwin can be blamed for both capitalism and communism at the same time. The answer is simple: Darwin's work is incompatible with communism. Slam dunk.

[betty boop]

In fact, it's been suggested that Darwin was influenced by Adam Smith.

And clearly, Marx was also. Marx cites him repeatedly in Das Kapital -- along with Ricardo and J. S. Mill. And Darwin himself. So, what do you make of that?

[ml1954]

Another Linda Kimball thread? Yawn. The last one wasn't very entertaining I have better things to do.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So, what do you make of that?"

He was discussing the nature of capitalism in Kapital (as he saw it); it's not surprising that he would quote people who supported capitalism in the process.

[betty boop]

The answer is simple: Darwin's work is incompatible with communism. Slam dunk.

And Darwin's work is also incompatible with capitalism -- to the extent that capitalism involves a system of voluntary cooperation, which goes entirely out of the schema of "natural" behavior. Which even Marx acknowledges: Marx thinks that cooperation subverts and distorts the natural interests of the human person, and that if there are any "battles to be won," they are to be won -- as Darwin suggests -- through "the war of all against all." That is, by means of conflict.

What a happy worldview!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" And Darwin's work is also incompatible with capitalism -- to the extent that capitalism involves a system of voluntary cooperation, which goes entirely out of the schema of "natural" behavior."

Voluntary cooperation is natural. It happens all the time in the animal world, and it happens all the time with humans.

"as Darwin suggests -- through "the war of all against all."

You mean as Hobbes said. As I already posted, Hobbes is the originator of this phrase. It is the basis of his Leviathan, and was well known by political theorists in the 19th century. Also, when Marx used it, he was describing capitalism, not how things would be under communism. Lastly, the fact that there is a severe struggle within nature for survival is a true statement. The fact that Darwin quoted this (from De Condolle, who got it from Hobbes) only means he was describing biological reality. Do you disagree that there is a severe struggle for existence in nature?

[balrog666]

What a load!

[ml1954]

capitalism involves a system of voluntary cooperation, which goes entirely out of the schema of "natural" behavior.

I don't remember Adam Smith ever saying anything like that. In fact, quite the contrary.

[betty boop]

Do you disagree that there is a severe struggle for existence in nature?

Yes, I do disagree. It seems to me that the gift of life is perfectly gratuitous. And is made as perfect as mortal things can be made, through a process of cooperation, not via struggle or conflict.

But then, I am not a materialist, physicalist, atheist, or reductionist monist in basic persuasion. So go figure. And try to have some fun while you're doing that.

[PatrickHenry]

BB, I fear that you are wasting your considerable talents on this truly hopeless task of trying to show that Marxism depends on and is compatible with Darwin's work. Hopeless.

1. Marx formed his main ideas before 1859, when Darwin published Origins. For example, Marx wrote:

Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
Wage-Labour and Capital (1847)
Manifesto of the Communist Party [with Engels] (1847-48)
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)
(Okay, that last one was 1859, but Origins was published in November of that year, so I doubt that Marx read Darwin, then wrote a book and got it published in the same year.)

2. The concepts don't mesh: Marxism's "to each according to his needs" is the opposite of natural selection. You've never responded to this point, but I think it's an insurmountable barrier to your project.

3. The Institute for Creation Research blames Darwin for the "evils" of capitalism -- not communism. He can't be responsible for both, can he?

The systems of Marx and Darwin are truly in conflict. The world of evolving species is strikingly similar to the free enterprise system, and it's just as strikingly dis-similar to any form of communism. They're just different.

What in the world are you trying to accomplish? And why?

[betty boop]

I don't remember Adam Smith ever saying anything like that. In fact, quite the contrary.

As to this "contrary" business: I'd be most glad to see your cites. Meanwhile, we weren't talking about what A. Smith said, but the way he was interpreted by Marx. Marx thought Smith was pretty good, BTW. But in Marx's view, he just wasn't quite smart enuf to draw the proper conclusions from his own statements. Marx comes along to "correct them," you see....

If you want to open this discussion to include an evaluation of the work of Adam Smith according to Karl Marx, I'd be completely open to that development.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Yes, I do disagree."

Then your feelings are completely at odds with the evidence from biology. The struggle for existence was noted in biology, by creationists, before Darwin ever published. This isn't a *materialist* world view. It's a fact (to anybody who observes nature).

"And is made as perfect as mortal things can be made, through a process of cooperation, not via struggle or conflict."

But it doesn't work that way. Remember, we are talking about the natural world. Organisms have come up with innumerable ways to devour other organisms. There are wasps that lay their eggs into caterpillars and other insects. When the eggs hatch, the young eat the host alive. There are far far more organisms that are born than reach maturity. Predators tear apart their prey, often leaving their victims screaming in pain. The list is almost endless of the struggles and conflict in the natural world. I am stunned to hear someone, who is apparently intelligent, say there is no conflict in nature. Absolutely stunned.

[betty boop]

The systems of Marx and Darwin are truly in conflict. The world of evolving species is strikingly similar to the free enterprise system, and it's just as strikingly dis-similar to any form of communism. They're just different.

But, dear PH, Marx was not a "communist." That word as far as I know was not introduced into the English lexicon until well after his death: Communism was a twentieth-century phenomenon, not a nineteenth-century phenomenon. But it claimed its roots in Marx.

I think just as Marx "appropriated" Darwin, so similarly, Lenin "appropriated" Marx. And thus Darwin into the bargain.

But you're right: Marx was devoted to the explication of the similarities between "the world of evolving species" and the "free enterprise system." May I remind you, that's the only question you tasked me to research in the first place. And I think I fulfilled my mandate from you. Unless you want to move the goalpost. Again. :^)

[ml1954]

Meanwhile, we weren't talking about what A. Smith said, but the way he was interpreted by Marx.

Did I miss a reference to Marx in this statement?....And Darwin's work is also incompatible with capitalism -- to the extent that capitalism involves a system of voluntary cooperation, which goes entirely out of the schema of "natural" behavior.

[PatrickHenry]

BB, we are total disagreement. I can't imagine what you're up to, or what the goal is, but I don't want to quarrel with you. I'm dropping out of this one. You haven't "won" the debate. All you've done is wear me out, and I like you too much to persist.