Darwin's theory is based on the fact that biological organisms must physically reproduce themselves, by some form of sexual reproduction, and this process, which we now understand, as a result of the study of genetics, means that those genes that produce certain favoured characteristics are passed on, whereas those that produce unfavourable characteristics are not, because members of the species with them tend to die out more quickly.
Marx and Engels' theory is similarly based upon the fact that, in order to reproduce himself, Man must consume, and to consume, beyond the most primitive human societies, he must produce. Where Marx and Engels' theory differs from that of Darwin, is that biological organisms do not consciously change the material conditions in which they exist – clearly they do change those conditions, but not consciously – whereas Man, and the social organisms he creates, does consciously change those conditions.
As Engels puts it in his Letter to P.V. Lavrov,
“The essential difference between human and animal society is that animals are at most gatherers whilst men are producers. This single but cardinal distinction alone makes it impossible simply to transfer the laws of animal societies to human societies. It makes it possible that, as you justly remark, “Man waged a struggle not only for existence but for enjoyment and for the increase of his enjoyments ... he was ready to renounce the lower enjoyments for the sake of the higher.” Without contesting your further deductions from this, the further conclusions I should draw from my premises would be the following: – At a certain stage, therefore, human production reaches a level where not only essential necessities but also luxuries are produced, even if, for the time being, they are only produced for a minority. Hence the struggle for existence – if we allow this category as valid here for a moment – transforms itself into a struggle for enjoyments, a struggle no longer for the mere means of existence but for the means of development, socially produced means of development, and at this stage the categories of the animal kingdom are no longer applicable.”
What is the driving force then, in this process? It is that Man is driven to produce to meet his needs, and, in the process, is driven to produce by the most advantageous means available to him at the given time and location. As both describe, in fact, where the material conditions are so conducive for Man to meet his consumption requirements, there is little incentive to be inventive in devising means of raising labour productivity. So, the Native American tribes, were able to meet their needs from the large land areas they lived on, and from the fertile land, and ample supplies of bison, and other animals. In Europe, however, Man is led to develop settled agriculture, and to develop industry.
The underlying law of Darwin's Theory of Evolution is then the Law of Natural Selection, whereas the underlying law of Marx and Engels' theory is The Law of Value. Both operate as natural laws, and form the scientific basis for analysing the process of change and diversity. As Marx explains The Law of Value, is such a natural law, in his Letter to Kugelmann,
“Every child knows that any nation that stopped working, not for a year, but let us say, just for a few weeks, would perish. And every child knows, too, that the amounts of products corresponding to the differing amounts of needs demand differing and quantitatively determined amounts of society’s aggregate labour. It is self-evident that this necessity of the distribution of social labour in specific proportions is certainly not abolished by the specific form of social production; it can only change its form of manifestation. Natural laws cannot be abolished at all. The only thing that can change, under historically differing conditions, is the form in which those laws assert themselves.”
No comments:
Post a Comment