Marx and Evolutionary Theory: Rethinking the Relationship Between Marx and Darwin’s Doctrines
For a long time, misunderstandings have persisted regarding the relationship between Marxism and Darwinian evolutionary theory. For instance, some scholars argue that Marx was deeply influenced by Darwin’s doctrines and was essentially a socialist Darwinist; [1] others contend that while Marxism and Darwinism differ in form, they are similar in substance; [2] even many Marxists tend to overlook the distinctions between Marx's theory and Darwinian evolution, placing the two on equal footing. This article attempts to use available materials to clarify Marx’s true attitude toward Darwin’s theory of evolution, thereby facilitating a more accurate understanding of Marxism.
I. Marx’s Affirmation of Darwinian Evolution
In November 1859, Engels recommended Darwin’s work to Marx. This was the first time Marx became aware of Darwin’s theory of evolution. In December 1860, Marx offered his first evaluation of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. He stated: "Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view." [1] This has been the primary evidence used by those who view Darwinian evolution as the foundation for the emergence of Marxism. In fact, the "basis" Marx referred to here signifies that Darwin’s theory provided new proof for historical materialism; it does not mean that historical materialism was established only after the theory of evolution emerged. Marx’s basic thoughts had already formed long before the publication of Darwinian evolution. In a January 1861 letter to Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote: "Darwin's work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One has to put up with the crude English method of development, of course. Despite all deficiencies, not only is the death-blow dealt here for the first time to 'teleology' in the natural sciences but its rational meaning is empirically explained." [2] Here, Marx affirmed that Darwin’s theory of evolution dealt a powerful blow to teleology, which was of great significance.
In truth, Marx’s affirmation of Darwinian evolution primarily resided in these two aspects. In Marx’s view, Darwin’s doctrine not only struck a blow against religious theology and teleology but also provided natural-scientific proof for historical materialism.
It should be noted that Marx fully understood the significance of Darwin’s theory. In an 1867 letter to Engels, he pointed out that when "demonstrating that modern society, examined economically, is pregnant with a new and higher form, I am only showing in the social sphere the same process of gradual transformation that Darwin established in natural history." [3] This provided the most direct justification for equating Marx and Darwin and their respective theories.
Marx passed away in 1883. At his funeral, Engels linked Marx with Darwin in his graveside speech, which played a major role in how later generations positioned the relationship between the two. Engels stated: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history..." [4] Since then, most Marxists have generally believed that Marx and Darwin completed similar work in their respective fields, and that their theories were parallel and complementary. However, this was not the case. Great differences existed between Marx’s theory and Darwinian evolution. Beyond affirming the positive aspects of Darwin’s doctrine, Marx raised more criticisms of it.
II. Marx’s Questioning of Darwinian Evolution
In 1862, Marx reread Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. This time, however, he remarked: "I am amused that Darwin said he applied the 'Malthusian' theory also to plants and animals, as though with Mr. Malthus the whole point were not that he does not apply the theory to plants and animals but only to human beings—and that with geometric progression—as opposed to plants and animals. It is remarkable how Darwin recognizes among beasts and plants his English society with its division of labor, competition, opening up of new markets, 'inventions,' and the Malthusian 'struggle for existence.' It is Hobbes’s bellum omnium contra omnes [war of all against all], and one is reminded of Hegel’s Phenomenology, where civil society is described as a 'spiritual animal kingdom,' while in Darwin the animal kingdom figures as civil society." [5] Here, Marx pointed out that Darwin’s errors lay in: 1. His mistaken application of Malthusian theory. 2. His failure to recognize the distinction between the natural world and human society.
Marx could not accept the view contained within Darwinian evolution regarding a "struggle for existence" between human beings. He did not believe that a cruel struggle for existence was the basic law of human historical development. In an 1869 letter, Marx wrote: "The struggle for existence in English society—the universal competition, the war of all against all—led Darwin to discover the cruel struggle for existence as the basic law of the 'animal' and plant kingdom. But Darwinism, conversely, considers this a deterministic reason for human society never to escape its own bestiality." [6] Marx was primarily targeting the views of Social Darwinists; he opposed the notion that a struggle for existence among humans—the "law of the jungle" in society—was naturally ordained.
Regarding the content of Darwin’s theory of evolution, it is based on natural selection, emphasizing the impact of natural selection on the transformation of species and suggesting that species evolution is completed through a long process of the survival of the fittest. Marx was dissatisfied with this evolutionary explanation; he favored more the evolutionary views of the French natural scientist Pierre Trémaux.
In analyzing the origin and evolution of organisms, Trémaux focused more on the influence of environmental factors, such as geological composition, on biological evolution. He believed that changes in the human living environment, such as migration from one place to another, could cause changes in humans themselves. Marx identified with this and believed it was an advancement over Darwin’s theory of evolution. In an 1866 letter to Engels, he said: "A very important work... this is Pierre Trémaux’s Origine et transformations de l'homme et des autres êtres (Paris, 1865). Despite all the defects that I noticed, it represents a very significant advance over Darwin... In Darwin, progress is purely accidental, while here it is necessary, based on the different periods of the Earth's development." [7] Although Engels had a very low opinion of Trémaux’s book, considering it "of no value, a pure fabrication in contradiction with all the facts," [8] Marx insisted: "The book, though written in a crude style and full of geological errors and poor criticism of historical documents, is, in general, a step forward from Darwin." [9] Thus, it is clear that Marx could not identify with Darwin’s views on human evolution. Based on his own research, Marx had his own theory of human social evolution.
III. Marx and Darwin on Human Nature and Human Development
In 1871, Darwin published another representative work, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. In this book, while affirming that humans possess various animal characteristics, Darwin emphasized that human consciousness, morality, and religion were all results of the struggle for existence and natural selection. Darwin pointed out that many animals possess social instincts, which allow groups to live together and cooperate. In Darwin's view, social instincts are the result of natural selection, as only those animal groups with social instincts could prevail in competition with other groups, especially less cooperative groups of the same kind. The same applies to human social instincts. For the needs of the struggle for existence, the factors of human instinct for solidarity developed and became morality. Morality, in turn, is the foundation of human society’s existence.
According to Darwinian evolution, human development follows natural laws, and human nature is the result of natural evolution. There is no essential difference between humans and other animals; the only distinction lies in their biological structure. As a biological inheritance, human nature does not change significantly due to economic or social shifts. In Darwin’s conception, although human nature changes through continuous succession, such change occurs only slowly over generations.
Marx’s understanding of human nature differed greatly from Darwin’s; he emphasized the particularity of humans. Marx believed the greatest difference between humans and animals is that humans can engage in conscious practical activities; they can manufacture tools and use technology to transform nature, whereas animals can only depend on the natural world. In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx wrote: "Conscious life activity distinguishes man immediately from animal life activity. It is just because of this that he is a species-being." [10] That is to say, the reason a human is human is that they can perform conscious activities.
In The German Ideology, co-authored with Engels between 1845 and 1846, Marx further elaborated on the distinction between humans and animals. He pointed out: "Nature confronts man at first as a completely alien, all-powerful and unassailable force, with which men's relations are purely animal and by which they are overawed like beasts; it is thus a purely animal consciousness of nature... On the other hand, man’s consciousness of the necessity of associating with the individuals around him is the beginning of the consciousness that he is living in society at all. This beginning is as animal as social life itself at this stage. It is mere herd-consciousness, and at this point man is only distinguished from sheep by the fact that with him consciousness takes the place of instinct or that his instinct is a conscious one." [11] Here, Marx explains that it is conscious activity that allows humans to emerge from general animality and begin their own evolutionary course. This view was maintained throughout Marx's later intellectual development. He believed that the superiority of humans over other animals lies in the fact that humans can carry out conscious, purposeful practical activity.
In Marx’s view, humans are naturally social animals, possessing both biological and social characteristics. The "sociality" of humans Marx refers to here is similar to the concept of "social instincts" discussed by Darwin, yet their perspectives are diametrically opposed. In Darwin’s view, the instinct for social solidarity is the foundation of human society’s existence; Marx, however, believed that social existence determines human sociality—that is, human sociality is the product of specific socio-economic and political conditions. From these two different views, entirely different conclusions are drawn. According to Darwin, human sociality is the result of natural selection and can only change gradually within human society through that process. According to Marx, human nature can change in the short term through the transformation of socio-economic and political forms. If Darwin’s theory of evolution tends to support conservative arguments, then Marx’s theory undoubtedly supports a revolutionary perspective.
The reason Marx favored Trémaux’s theory of evolution more was also because Trémaux believed human nature could change frequently. In Trémaux’s view, if people moved from one place to another with a different geographical environment, they could adapt to the new environment and change themselves within just a few generations, with evolution or degeneration appearing quite rapidly. This was close to Marx’s view. Marx believed that if the socio-economic base of a people changed, their morality and culture would change accordingly.
It is evident that Marx’s perspective on human evolution differs significantly from that of Darwin. Proceeding from the study of the natural world, Darwin was more inclined to understand man as a part of the natural world; he believed there was no essential difference between humans and other animals. In his view, human society is the natural continuation and development of the animal kingdom, and human evolution follows natural laws, with this evolution being completed through a protracted process of natural selection. Marx, by contrast, focused primarily on research into the socio-political and economic aspects of human development, placing greater emphasis on the uniqueness of human existence and human agency. In Marx’s view, human society possesses its own laws of development. Through their own practical activity [8], human beings are not only capable of transforming the natural world but are also able to transform themselves by changing their social relations. That is to say, human beings possess subjective agency [9] within their evolutionary process.
Conclusion
In summary, although Marx affirmed the positive significance of Darwinian theory—noting that it struck a powerful blow against religious theology, dispelled teleology, and provided a natural-scientific foundation for dialectical materialism—he nevertheless maintained that Darwinian theory contained numerous flaws. He especially could not accept the conclusions reached by Darwin and the Darwinists within the realm of human society. Marx opposed the universal validity of "natural selection" and the "struggle for existence" when applied to the human social sphere; he argued that human existence possesses a particularity that precludes the direct transplantation of natural laws into human society.
Regarding the discourse on humanity, Marx’s theory and Darwinian evolution exhibit major differences. In Darwinian theory, man is rooted in the animal world and is merely a natural continuation of animal development; human evolution can only be completed through protracted natural selection. Marx, however, emphasized the distinction between humans and animals, highlighting human subjective agency and maintaining that people can transform themselves by changing the economic base of social existence. This analysis of humanity by Marx constitutes the philosophical foundation of his theory of social revolution.