Marx And Darwin Similarities

While Marx and Darwin agree on the origin of the forces that drive historical change, and the role of change, they disagree in their views on the overall progression of history. Both Marx and Darwin agree that history is composed of reactions, that it progresses due to reactions to or against the current status. In the case of Marx, these reactions are reactions against the current status quo. It is the serfs against their feudal lords, the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, the oppressed against their oppressors. History, in the words of Marx, is not only characterized by this change, it is fueled by it. It is an inevitable consequence of having power that it will be lost. The transaction, this change in power from the oppressors to the

Marx’s concept of class struggle and Darwin’s concept of the struggle for existence are very similar. In the case of Darwin, the struggle refers to the competition between an organism and nature. Looking specifically at the struggle as it exists between two different organisms, we get a model of change akin to Marx’s. While the struggle for existence is an overall struggle to survive, which is defined as being able to not only exist but to procreate, the struggle between two organisms is a struggle over resources. Darwin goes on to say that the struggle between two organisms of the same genus are the most severe, as they “fill nearly the same place in the economy of nature” (On the Origin of Species, p. 84). This struggle leads to the elimination, or at least the crippling, of the weaker organism. The struggle inevitably ends in such a way, with one organism winning out, taking control of the available resources, over the other. To see it as Marx does, the only change that needs to be made is the clarification on what the resource is. While Darwin discusses natural resources, such as food and water, that the organisms fight over, Marx’s theory concerns the human struggle over the societal resource of power. It is the struggle for power, for a voice, that is the class struggle. In fact, the evolution of the bourgeoisie, the

Marx’s theory holds a definitive end, the arrival of communism. It is a natural progression of history and the only response to society as it stands. While there may be other steps along the way, the end is clear, because the fall of the bourgeoisie “and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (Marx, p. 27). Marx is so assured in his belief of communism and the fall of the bourgeoisie because he views history in a cyclic nature. There is society, then there is the revolution, and finally a new society, risen from the ashes of the old. Until once again the oppressed rise up against their oppressors, continuing until the arrival of communism. There is an established pattern to history, a repetitive nature that goes beyond the simple framework that Darwin proposes. Darwin has no claims about the end of change, there is no definitive goal for existence to move towards outside of existence. Rather, Darwin’s theory rests on the idea that nature will progress randomly, but it will progress. Take Darwin’s example of the bee. If there was an absolute end, if an organism evolved towards a perfect existence, how would a bee exist? Its defense mechanism results in its near immediate death, which does not seem to be beneficial to the organism’s fitness. According to Darwin, natural selection “adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of