[AndrewC]

Interesting the twists of the internet.

This

Try this link on the Darwin-Marx question, if you haven't seen it yet.

leads to this

Further Reading:

Colp, Ralph Jr. 1982. The myth of the Darwin-Marx letter. History of Political Economy 14(4): 461-482.

Dawkins, Richard. 2000. There's more to books than titles. http://archive.workersliberty.org/wlmags/wl61/dawkins.htm

Which leads to this

by way of

I won't go on and on. If any readers were persuaded by Clive Bradley's ill-informed attack on The Selfish Gene, may I invite them to do what he apparently did not: struggle manfully past the title and actually read the book.

---

Back to the contents page for this issue of Workers' Liberty

Back to the Workers' Liberty magazine index

[ Home | Publications | Links ]

[CarolinaGuitarman]

That's funny, I don't believe that Dawkins is a Marxist. I know he's off the deep end politically, but Marxist is a whole different ballgame.

This is from a review of one of Dawkin's Books, from a Socialist Party website.

"Dawkins is an honorary member of the Rationalist Press Association, and it's safe to say he is no socialist, though he did come out publicly against the recent Gulf War."

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/sep04/bookssep.html

In fact, he has been accused by some on the left of holding scientific views that promote genetic determinism. His politics may be left-leaning, but his science is just that, science. What other people do with the science, using it in places that it doesn't attempt to explain, like economics, is not the fault of the scientist.

Kinda like Darwin, who was a respectable, free market Whig. This whole attempt to portray Darwin as some kind of proto-Marxist is not just absurd, but deeply ironic.