A Critique of Darwinian and Marxist Theories of Human Evolution, Essay Example

Advancement in human knowledge under the auspices of natural, physical and social sciences, as described by some observers, has induced an unprecedented level of confidence in humanity’s ability to demonstrate a definite understanding of his environment in every sphere. Be it true of untrue, the consequence of this confidence is manifested in man’s increasing capacity to bring some of the laws of nature under its authoritative control. In the most apparent sense, this is highly commendable. But in hindsight recent events in the world have given humanity reasons to pause and re-examine the basis of this complacency. A case in point is the recent global economic and financial crisis that brought the leading capitalist economies down their knees, the least said about the sudden collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union the better. It is on this premise that this essay seeks to conduct a brief reversal into time with the aim of understanding some of the astounding theories put forward by the legendary scholars Charles Darwin and Carl Marx in their quest to put forward an academic account of the evolution that has brought humanity to where we are in our day and age. And above all where do we go from here.

After the Great Depression that took place in the early twentieth century, world leaders, policy makers, academicians and civil society recovering from the woes of the period resolved never to slide back into such a terrible state any longer. As always, the various schools of economic thoughts resolutely trumpeted what they believed to be the right approach required to forestall and manage economies prudently. Skeptics clearly wrote off Marxism and the socialist theories it stands for, whilst giving the capitalist theories the loudest praise and defense for the better part of the twentieth and early parts of the twenty first century. As the recent events have amply proven, capitalist and western policy makers were caught flat footed when the economic crisis set in. Bringing to the fore, what may be seen as a new phase in the human evolution process.

It is somewhat excusable to believe that when it comes to the question of human evolution, Darwin the father of evolution and Marx share nothing in common because they may appear to be like guns and roses. However, a closer examination of what both scholars came out reveals a common thread running through the works they both extensively did. It is known that the latter was actively engaged in championing the revolutionary cause of his communist socioeconomic theories but the turning point came in when a synergy appeared between both scholars thus presenting a remarkable turning point in the study of historical evolution. It should be acknowledged here that Marx’s companion Engels did draw useful inspiration from the work of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, which eventually did receive attribution in the submissions made by Marx and Engels.

Undeniably, Darwin has demonstrated a formidable grasp of the entire scope of teleology that highlights historical evolution beyond the conventional scientific domain. Fundamentally, as Marx came to acknowledge with some degree of reservation though, Darwinian theories presented a seamless flow that accounts for the unseen synchrony in the work of nature seeking to reconcile the best facets together (Bellamy et al 2008). In this context, Marx’s famous class struggle begins to get a place in the position of Darwinian contention that nature is preserved by a perpetual struggle for survival that eventually works out to meet the needs of the strongest species—of course this is a superficial assertion which will be developed as this essay advances.

At the core of the Darwinian argument is the emphasis on “natural selection” and the “modification” by “descent” process of material evolution. It is seen here again that a foundational argument espoused by Darwin is the acceptance of the fact that every form of nature has deep roots that goes back into history again every species is subject to a period of existence, transformation and eventual demise within the guiding framework of natural processes, it is this basic fact that reconciles Darwin to Marx (Bellamy, 1999). In other words, like Darwin, Marx argues that the advent of capitalism is not an accident of history but part of the ongoing facts of nature. Therefore, capitalism like an organism is bound to exist for a limited period of time, undergo all the transformations that it cannot avoid and eventually end up on the scrap heaps of history like every organism.

Marx has always maintained the conviction that there is no conflict whatsoever between history and nature. Marx, thinking in the Darwinian manner views man as a product of nature, that owes its existence to a dependence on nature, is always involved in the process of transforming nature to achieve an optimum curvature. However, a grey spot turns to surface on the position of these eminent scholars on this subject of natural evolution. Whilst Darwin contends that survival is deeper than existence and for that matter an organism needed special adaptive mechanisms that will work out as a strength that guarantees survival perpetuity, Marx turns to express some disquiet with this view point for reasons that he explains in his communist manifesto.

This Darwinian position is further troubling to Marx because, the whole idea is built on what he thinks is a faulty foundation that success in survival is based on the ability to make use of any advantage one has over another person no matter how little that advantage may be (Bellamy, 1999). It is this belief that creates the contention for Marx as he lambasts capitalism for justifying exploitation against the masses by a few wealthy capitalist. Marx sees this survival instinct built on a desire to extend exploitation beyond its natural limits in the quest for survival.

Darwin’s natural selection process concedes furthermore that human survival is also very intolerant of variations that do not in anyway aid survival.  In other words, an organism is more inclined within the sphere of nature to as it were prune off any variation that does not phenomenally augment his survival process in the competitive arena described by Darwin. Marx may be okay with the variation defect in justifying the uprising of the masses in the process of toppling capitalist power. Why? Because exploitation as a survival mechanism is very injurious; therefore as a variation in the natural process poses a threat to survival as opposed to enhancing human survival.

Another dimension to the natural survival process very popular with Darwin has to do with the place of technology in perpetuating survival. For Darwin technology represents another way by which man is engaging in the quest to bring nature to its control or make it reasonably adaptive enough to support his survival. It represents every facet of man’s engagement of technology for survival. As in the days of Marx and Darwin technology is intricately associated with production. By connection, production features prominently in Marx’s discourse over a considerable period of time. Marx views production as a factor in every form of social development—indeed labor surfaces here as yet another principal cornerstone of the social development process that is so dear to Marx’s discourses. Marx is quoted as saying that labor represents “the productive organs of man.” Everything concerned with social development is premised on production. Production through labor is what dictates the social relations in Marx’s class struggles.

A group of intellectuals with allegiance to the Straussian school of thought have reasons to doubt the soundness of the postulations contained in the Darwin belief of “natural right” for what they consider to be gross shortcomings. Among the several reasons that motivates them to reject the “natural right” argument is that, on the first platform, the natural right idea gives needless premium to reductionism which ultimately leaves no room for the teleology that explains natural ends. Closely connected to this contention is that, at the core of this argument is a gradual creeping of historicism that is overly obsessed with a lack of recognition for eternity of natural kinds. Put together, Straussian’s view the natural right to be too problematic to be entertained.

It is also very conceivable to infer that for good reasons Darwin’s natural selection is tantamount to a position of a dynamism in the conception of natural law; thus forming the axis upon which Darwin’s evolution theory revolves. Darwin has repeatedly shown in his work that he does not quarrel any form of nominalism which explains why the theory of natural selection is able to reconcile the glaring conflict that kind of puts nominalism against realism. It is also possible to draw an important inferential analysis from Darwin’s theory that every form of biological existence is not in conflict with biological natural processes. Consequently, every form of existence is the product of the process of natural selection. There are other moralists who have a serious problem with the natural selection, putting forward the argument that the theory fails to make a clear distinction between vice and virtue in the natural selection conception.

Another important dimension to the Darwinian evolution discourse is what it says about transitional monism all within the universal framework of what it has to say about Parmedean positions. To begin, it will be prudent to acknowledge the pioneering role played by Parmenides in the development of a single perception of monism dating back to Ancient Greek civilization. It was built on the argument that in the most absolute sense “fundamental substance” is just indivisible and immutable. But Heraclitus on the other hand put forward a counter argument built on the view that what is considered absolutes are wrought fundamentally with changes and contradictions.

It is interesting to note that overtime, the work of Darwin tends to exhibit a subtle divergence from might be seen as an absolute place for any of the above stated theories. The trouble with Darwin’s position is that it has suffered more misinterpretation than Darwin intended to do. What is also evident is that these misinterpretations have eventually set an entirely new agenda for the discourse that is already put forward. The survival of the fittest being the most potent illustration of the point. It can be seen that the natural selection process stated is somewhat not excluding the possibility of mechanically propelled selective processes that favors the fittest species.

Reference

John Bellamy Foster, Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature, London, New York: Monthly Review, 1999

John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, Richard York, Critique of Intelligent Design: Materialism versus Creationism from Antiquity to the Present, 2008

G.A. Cohen, Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence, Princeton and Oxford, 2000.