Skip to comments.The Darwinian foundation of communism
Posted on 06/10/2009 8:33:46 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The Darwinian foundation of communism
by Jerry Bergman
A review of the writings of the founders of communism shows that the theory of evolution, especially as taught by Darwin, was critically important in the development of modern communism. Many of the central architects of communism, including Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Engels, accepted the worldview portrayed in the book of Genesis until they were introduced to Darwin and other contemporary thinkers, which ultimately resulted in their abandoning that worldview. Furthermore, Darwinism was critically important in their conversion to communism and to a worldview that led them to a philosophy based on atheism. In addition, the communist core idea that violent revolution, in which the strong overthrow the weak, was a natural, inevitable part of the unfolding of history from Darwinistic concepts and conclusions...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
SpamSpamSpam strikes again.
Next time post some of the 19th century Christian arguments in favor of slavery and segregation.
Thanks for the ping!
Really? I didn't realize that Odinite occult thinking had anything to do with Darwin.
==It was also the main foundation to Hitler’s Master Race thinking.
Are you sure they weren’t the liberal Christians who rushed to accept Darwinian evolution at the time?
Thanks for the link. Time to study up.
Most of the basis for Communist ideology was founded in Rosseau’s book Du Contrat Social, Principes du droit politique (The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right) almost a century before The Origin of the Species was published.
But don’t let me stop you, I know.. tell a lie often enough and all.. .
Even if this were true (which IMO it is not), it is the argument known as guilt by association.
It’s not a serious argument. It is a logical fallacy and has no bearing on the scientific validity of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory.
The only way to disprove evolutionary theory is through science.
They put anyone who taught Evolution through natural selection in Siberia or killed them.
An appeal to consequences logical fallacy wrapped up in wrong headed historical revisionism.
Par for the course with Creationists. Lies wrapped in ignorance.
It's the Swedish chef, cooking spam. Bork, bork, bork!
It is like arguing that Newtonian physics is wrong because the Nazis used principles of it to bomb London.
So far, there is no historical record of Darwin advocating the systemic annihilation of tens of thousands as was done in the name of the church
Excellent analogy. Not to mention that idiots and criminals do heinous things and invoke the Bible as justification.
Thanks for your faithful postings in this subject area. I don’t get on these threads a lot, but I do notice you posting them. :-)
Good going... and maybe some people will get the message...
There ya go talking like a witch again. LOL
Well, I do float.. :->
There is a historical record of Darwin's opposition to eugenics. (And while we're at it, to slavery.)
Personally I interpret a number of his comments as opposition to abortion.
Just for my own personal notes, do you have those you can quote? I would love to have those..
Learn how to read, dreamer. The article is talking about Stalin’s formative period, at which time he was a FULL-ON Darwiniac. True, he later abandoned Darwinism in favor of Lysenko. But then again, he did so at a time when the entire world of Evos were abandoning Darwood in favor of other godless evolutionary theories (indeed, it got so bad for Derwood that Huxley referred to that time period as the “Eclipse of Darwin”).
When Stalin ruled the USSR, and for decades after, learning or teaching the theory of evolution through natural selection would get you arrested, sent to Siberia or shot.
The Communists recognized that Darwin's theory was antithetical to their political philosophy.
Lysenko and his Lamarkism was not ascendent anywhere but the USSR, and there it was purely for political/ philosophical reasons, not because of any scientific findings.
I assume this means that you have scientific validation of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory that does not rely on logical fallacy? I'm interested. What is it?
"The only way to disprove evolutionary theory is through science."
Let's see your scientifically valid proof of evolution that does not rely on logical fallacy.
==Lysenko and his Lamarkism was not ascendent anywhere but the USSR, and there it was purely for political/ philosophical reasons, not because of any scientific findings.
Of course not, but Darwood’s atheist creation myth was being pummeled by his fellow Evos throughout the West. And thus, the Evos began their search for a new God-denying theory that would establish the “fact” of evolution. Lysenko, crackpot Commie-Evo that he was, was part of this search.
The following review of Peter Bowler’s book, The Eclipse of Darwinism, does a good job summing up the abandonment of Darwin by the Evos of the time:
We tend to think of the monolithic triumph of Darwinism in the wake of the publication of _Origin_, but as Bowler shows the theory of Darwin was under assault by the end of the nineteenth century, before the rise of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. In fact, the acceptance of the fact of evolution—and the rapid conversion of most scientists—was not matched by a similar assent to natural selection. Further, the absence of a genetic argument and the treatment of inheritance in terms of blending was a major problem. By the time of the sixth edition Darwin’s claims bordered on incoherence, as a strain of Lamarckianism reentered Darwin’s thinking. This was only the beginning, and by the beginning of the twentieth century claims for theistic evolution, orthogenesis, Lamarckianism flourished even as the rediscovery of Mendel produced genetics and the mutation theory. It would be some time before the real triumph of Darwinism occurred, by the middle of the twentieth century, and yet one wonders if a similar cycle must greet the harderning of the paradigm that we now see.
‘evolutionists in an awkward position’
Man does that bring back memories! I dated this gymnist once and she could ....
Hey, am I on the right thread?
Yeah, them Darwin rascals done ruint my love life !
They said ‘twas wrong to marry kin - for some kinda “genetic” folderol : bad jeans gettin’ passed along.
What’s wrong with havin’ a patch or two - or three on hand-me-down jeans ? Shoot ! Long as they halfway fit, and don’t ride up in the...well. You get what I mean.
Dang Darwin ! Cousin Louise was some kinda ...shapely.
Had all her own teeth,too.
Christian Abolitionists formed the Republican party specifically to end slavery. Where were the atheists?
I guess someone also needs to point out that The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 and The Origin of the Species was first published in 1859.
|Between mother and son. (Note that sexual relations between father and daughter are prohibited by Lev. 18:6 and 21:2-3)||Leviticus 18:7-8|
|With stepchildren.||Leviticus 18:8, 17|
|With an aunt.||Leviticus 18:12-14|
|With sister or half-sister.||Leviticus 18:9; Deut. 27:22|
|With half-sister and stepsisters.||Leviticus 18:11|
|With daughter-in-law.||Leviticus 18:15|
|With your sister-in-law.||Leviticus 18:16|
|With your granddaughter.||Leviticus 18:10|
|With your step-granddaughter.||Leviticus 18:17|
Woops...last reply was meant for you.
Perhaps the bible was inspired upon the subject of human slavery. Is there, in the civilized world, to-day, a clergyman who believes in the divinity of slavery? Docs the bible teach man to enslave his brother? If it does, is it not blasphemous to say that it is inspired of God? If you find the institution of slavery upheld in a book said to have been written by God, what would you expect to find in a book inspired by the devil? Would you expect to find that book in favor of liberty? Modern christians, ashamed of the God of the Old Testament, endeavor now to show that slavery was neither commanded nor opposed by Jehovah. Nothing can be plainer than the following passages from the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus. "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-men forever. Both thy bond-men, and thy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bond-men, and bond-maids."
--Robert Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses
Careful -- you're going to get GGG all hot and bothered with that kind of talk....
In the early 19th cent. ardent opponents of industrial society created a wide variety of protest theories. Already what is generally known as utopian communism had been well launched by the comte de Saint-Simon. In this era a number of advocates gathered followers, founded small cults, and attempted to launch communistic settlements, particularly in the United States. Most notable among such men were Robert Owen, Étienne Cabet, and Charles Fourier.
Maybe Darwin was influenced by H.G. Wells and traveled in time, since Wells wasn't born yet either.
Charles Darwin, in his book “The Descent of Man”:
“At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla” (1874, p. 178).
Great guy, that Darwin.
More at Apol. Press, “Was Darwin a Racist?”
“A review of the writings of the founders of communism shows that the theory of evolution, especially as taught by Darwin, was critically important in the development of modern communism. Many of the central architects of communism, including Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Engels, accepted the worldview portrayed in the book of Genesis until they were introduced to Darwin and other contemporary thinkers”
—That’s a neat trick, considering that most of Marx and Engels’ Communist work was published before Darwin published anything on Darwinism.
“His denial of God, and his knowledge of Darwin, inspired Marx to develop his new godless worldview now known as communism.”
—Origin of Species was published in 1859. The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848.
The article continues to fall apart from there.
Well, Darwin, one of the atheists, wrote countless heartfelt letters in opposition to slavery and contributed money to organizations to fight slavery during the past few decades of his life. While on his way to America aboard the Beagle, he was nearly thrown off the ship when he protested the pro-slavery arguments by the Creationist captain. And while in America he even jumped between a slave-master and a slave to stop a beating. So, that’s where Darwin was.
As a first point of logical non-sequitor, the generative work for communism is the Communist Manifesto, by Freidrich Engles and Karl Marx. It was published in February of 1848. Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859. For the home schooled reader, Darwin came 11 years LATER than Communism.
Do the Cretin Science types want to credit Darwin with time travel so that his work might have influenced the founding fathers of Communism? That is one plausible deduction from this outlandish Cretin Science claim. The other is to credit Marx and Engles with being psychic.
The second point illustrating the absolute absurdity of this new piece of Cretin Science illogic is history. Outside a narrow audience of intellectuals and biologists, Darwin's Theory had its greatest initial public influence in its MISapplication in the “Social Sciences” as “Social Darwinism.” Dating to the mid 1870’s or so and during the peak of “Robber Baron Capitalism”, Social Darwinists justified the accumulation of capitalistic wealth and power in the hands of a few and the particular wealth of a few nations as “survival of the fittest.”
If you think Darwinian thought spurred “Godless Communism”, you might look at its misapplication in Andrew Carnegie's book The Gospel of Wealth (published in 1889). Carnegie, buying Spencer's Social Darwinist view that the fittest are those that accumulate great wealth, of course thus defining himself as about the most fit man in America, then reconciles that with a Christian vision by pointing out the special obligation of unusually fit people to share their wealth with others. As at least some know, Carnegie put his money where his mouth was. Since the Carnegie Foundation is still in the business of giving today, a more correct view of Darwin might be that he is the origin of the modern Christian flavor of capitalism derivative of Adam Smith as elaborated upon by the likes of Herbert Spencer and as manifest in the good works of an Andrew Carnegie. Now as to any influence upon the Soviet expression of Communism, I would point out that that is still roughly 40 years in the future.
And, I would also point out that the non-godless among the left usually claim Christ as the first Communist. They have been doing so for a long time.
But the biggest absurdity is this business is the inclusion of Stalin in the list. Stalin was a ruthless architect of state power, not an “ism.” Anyone that thinks otherwise knows little of both Communism and history. But more importantly, from the 1930’s Lysenko was Stalin's “official” biologist/cum evolutionist and Lysenko had his own bizarre and distinctly non-Darwinian theory of evolution. The theory is actually quite involved but is probably best known for advocating “inheritance of acquired characteristics.” Lysenko's view of evolution, given power by proxy from Stalin, kept Soviet advances in biology 40 years behind the west (much as Cretin Science retards its followers). And the domain of Darwin's Theory is biology, not political system, governmental structure or pop social science.
Were Communists aware of Darwin's Theory and did the more intelligent and educated among them think it a superior scientific theory to Lysenko's absurdities? The answer is yes. They were aware of and influenced by Newton's Theory of gravity too. Some forty plus years after Spencer did some of them misapply Darwin's Theory to communism in the same way that the Social Darwinists did to capitalism? Probably. Certainly I have seen no shortage of godless politicians quote from the Bible as well.
The important point is that Darwin's Theory also has nothing to say about religion except to those that are made insecure by its existence as a challenge to their narrow view of the Bible and how it should be interpreted. If you are in this category, perhaps your time would he better spent in examining why your faith is so weak.
As to the pseudo science that constitutes Cretin Science, I say once again this stuff is an embarrassment to your intellect, knowledge, and integrity.
Born in 1818, Marx was baptized a Lutheran in 1824, attended a Lutheran elementary school, received praise for his ‘earnest’ essays on moral and religious topics, and was judged by his teachers ‘moderately proficient’ in theology (his first written work was on the ‘love of Christ’)8-10 until he encountered Darwin’s writings and ideas at the University of Berlin. Marx wrote tirelessly until he died, producing hundreds of books, monographs and articles. Sir Isaiah Berlin even claimed that no thinker ‘in the nineteenth century has had so direct, deliberate and powerful an influence upon mankind as did Karl Marx’.11 Marx saw the living world in terms of a Darwinian ‘survival-of-the-fittest’ struggle, involving the triumph of the strong and the subjugation of the weak.12 Darwin taught that the ‘survival of the fittest’ existed among all forms of life. From this idea Marx believed that the major ‘struggle for existence’ among humans occurred primarily between the social classes. Barzun13 concluded that Marx believed his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin’s, and that,
‘like Darwin, Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life. … both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development. Again, the measure of value in Darwin is survival with reproduction—an absolute fact occurring in time and which wholly disregards the moral or esthetic quality of the product. In Marx the measure of value is expended labor—an absolute fact occurring in time, which also disregards the utility of the product. Both Darwin and Marx [also] tended to hedge and modify their mechanical absolution in the face of objections.’14
Marx owed a major debt to Darwin for his central ideas. In Marx’s words: ‘Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history. … not only is it [Darwin’s book] a death blow … to “Teleology” in the natural sciences but their rational meaning is empirically explained’.15 Marx first read Darwin’s Origin of Species only a year after its publication, and was so enthusiastic that he reread it two years later.16 He attended a series of lectures by Thomas Huxley on Darwin’s ideas, and spoke of ‘nothing else for months but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries’.17 According to a close associate, Marx was also
‘ … one of the first to grasp the significance of Darwin’s research. Even before 1859, the year of the publication of The Origin of the Species [sic]—and, by a remarkable coincidence, of Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy—Marx realized Darwin’s epoch-making importance. For Darwin … was preparing a revolution similar to the one which Marx himself was working for … . Marx kept up with every new appearance and noted every step forward, especially in the fields of natural sciences … .’18
Berlin states that after he became a communist, Marx detested passionately any ‘belief in supernatural causes’.19 Stein noted that ‘Marx himself viewed Darwin’s work as confirmation by the natural sciences of his own views … ’.20 Hyman included Darwin and Marx among the four men he considered responsible for many of the most significant events of the 20th century.21 According to Heyer, Marx was ‘infatuated’ with Darwin, and Darwin’s ideas clearly had a major influence not only on him and Engels, but also on both Lenin and Stalin. Furthermore, these men’s writings frequently discussed Darwin’s ideas.22 Marx and Engels ‘enthusiastically embraced’ Darwinism, kept up with Darwin’s writings, and often corresponded with each other (and others) about their reactions to Darwin’s conclusions.23,24 The communists recognized the importance of Darwin to their movement and therefore vigorously defended him:
‘The socialist movement recognized Darwinism as an important element in its general world outlook right from the start. When Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, Karl Marx wrote a letter to Frederick Engels in which he said, “ … this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view”. … And of all those eminent researchers of the nineteenth century who have left us such a rich heritage of knowledge, we are especially grateful to Charles Darwin for opening our way to an evolutionary, dialectical understanding of nature.’25
Prominent communist Friedrich Lessner concluded that Das Kapital and Darwin’s Origin of Species were the ‘two greatest scientific creations of the century’.26 The importance of Darwinism in the estimated 140 million deaths caused by communism was partly because:
‘Clearly, for Marx man has no “nature”. … For man is his own maker and will consciously become his own maker in complete freedom from morality or from the laws of nature and of nature’s God. … Here we see why Marxism justifies the ruthless sacrifice of men living today, men who, at this stage of history, are only partly human.’27
Halstead adds that the theoretical foundation of communism
‘ … is dialectical materialism which was expounded with great clarity by Frederick Engels in Anti-DÃ¼hrÃ¼ng and The Dialectics of Nature. He recognized the great value of the contributions made by geology in establishing that there was constant movement and change in nature and the significance of Darwin’s demonstration that this applied also to the organic world. … The crux of the entire theoretical framework, however, is in the nature of qualitative changes. This is also spelt out by Engels in The Dialectics of Nature, “a development in which the qualitative changes occur not gradually but rapidly and abruptly, taking the form of a leap from one state to another”. … Here then is the recipe for revolution.’28
Conner adds that communism teaches that by ‘defending Darwinism, working people strengthen their defenses against the attacks of … reactionary outfits, and prepare the way for the transformation of the social order’, i.e. a communist revolution.29
See my last reply
OK, let's start with the most basic question. What is evolution?
The term evolution means change in the gene pool of a population over time. I and countless others have done experiments where we have witnessed such change in response to change in environmental conditions. It is pretty standard fare for biology students.
I assume you have never done such experiments, so let me ask you this: Have you ever had a drug-resistant infection? Do you get a new flu shot every year? These phenomena also support the notion that organisms evolve in response to their environments. The changes that make bacteria resistant to drugs that were formerly effective against them are accomplished via changes in the DNA.
The number of papers relevant to your question has probably has reached the hundreds of thousands by now. These rely not on "logical fallacy" but scientific evidence developed consistent with the scientific method.
I hope this is helpful ... am sorry that I just dont have time to write a lot more.
Lies wrapped in ignorance.
Which doesn't bother the spammer one iota.
Sorry, GGG, but once again you are reading something into the quote that is not there.
It is a prediction of a future outcome. It does not say that this would be a good thing (or a bad thing). Darwin does not say that he wants this to happen, only that he predicts it will happen.
As for the language, it was not politically incorrect in his day to refer to "savage races." It was common parlance.
Painting Darwin as a racist is preposterous. He was an ardent abolitionist, way ahead of his time on racial issues.
One thing both the Capitalists and the Communists agreed upon at that time was that Darwin's theory was philosophically antithetical to Communism.