April 1996: Article in The First Issue Of
International Struggle Marxist-Leninist (ISML) Journal

    This is the centenary of the death of Engels. In the issue of Alliance, in a small measure, we pay tribute to one of the founders of the conscious proletarian workers socialist movements. The article printed here was first presented to the Ischia meeting held in December 1995, on the island off Naples to commemorate Engels. The meeting was held under the auspices of "L'Uglianza" (Equality). (See Alliance 19).
    The article printed here, convey only a little of the flavour of this meeting. The entire proceedings are to shortly to form the first 2 issues of the new journal that was formed at this meeting, called INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE-MARXIST-LENINIST. (GO TO ISML SITE See: ).
    In the meantime this article shows a little of the wide ranging brilliance of Frederick Engels.

    FREDERICK ENGELS, died on August 5th, 1895. Engels speaking of the death of his friend, KARL MARX, had said in March 1883, that the world was shorter by a great head. Upon Engels' own death, the world was shorter by yet another great head. By his wishes, Engels' ashes were dispersed into the sea off Beachy Head, by Marx's daughter ELEANOR MARX AVELING. How are we, nowadays, a century later, to remember Engels?
    Like Marx, Engels made many lasting contributions to humankind. Like Marx, Engels was a man of action and a man of great theoretical erudition. For both Marx and Engels, theory was a part of practice. Both flung themselves without care for personal safety, into the practical battle. The history of the FIRST INTERNATIONAL testifies to their PRACTICAL success in welding together an army of the international working class. This success is seen in the fear registered in the international press and by statements from leading bourgeois state diplomats of the time.
    But we will here, concentrate on a small part of Engels' work - his contribution to the dialectics of science; and the analysis of the development of private property. Engels and Marx had divided their work through their partnership. As Marx was engaged in the analysis of the economics of capitalism, Engels had to specialize in other areas to keep the Communists at the THEORETICAL and intellectual head of the international workers.
    But First we dispose of a persistent accusation posed by some.     Engels and Marx formed a true partnership. It is alleged that Engels somehow parroted Marx's views. This bourgeois view of "intellectual property" certainly does not apply to these two geniuses.
    Communists recognize the role of both individuals, and of masses. Ideas do not arrive by themselves, but are posed and solved by individuals, who are 'real' men and women, and not abstractions. Whilst Marx and Engels were agents of history, both were also real humans who made their own vital contributions, both separately and together as a team. What evidence do we have, that tells us that BOTH these two put their own vital intellectual input into creating "Marxism"? What evidence tells us that both Marx and Engels together formed what then became known as Marxism?
    Firstly : Engels had provided Marx with a key insight, when both of them, were young men developing a new understanding of history. This was the recognition of the WORKING CLASS as a revolutionary force. Engels saw that the working class was a revolutionary class; one that suffered the class oppression of a ruling class, which owned and controlled the state. Engels' experience in Manchester, where he was a master in the factory system, helped him realize this. Engels points this out in "The Condition of England : II : "The English Constitution", in March 1844:     Engels' articles in this period, written before meaningful contact with Marx, reek of the class struggle:     SECONDLY Marx and Engels were partners in key early works.
    The works that laid the basis for the new understanding were written by both Marx and by Engels, separately and together. Undoubtedly both Marx and Engels, first separately, the together, had groped towards "Marxism" through the fog of LEFT HEGELIANISM. This group of philosophers developed from GEORG HEGEL, and his theory of history. Hegel thought that the "problem of history" was solved by an IDEA, OR A SPIRIT OF HISTORY AND THE STATE.
    This was an incorrect and Idealist solution. But Hegel incorporated into this incorrect solution a method of examination, one that recognized the supremacy of DIALECTICS. In shaking off Hegel's erroneous conclusions, Marx and Engels retained his methods. They ended their groping search in, the writing of "The Communist Manifesto". Along the way they jointly clarified the way forward.
    "OUTLINES OF A CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY", ("Umrisse zu einer Kritik der Nationalokonomie" by Engels, was published in 1844 by the journal 'Deutsche-Franzosiche Jahrbucher (German-French Yearbooks) under the editorship of Karl Marx and ARNOLD RUGE. In it, Engels identifies the problems of crises of over production; the rise of monopoly; the tendency to centralization of capital; and the polarization of society with its attendant class struggle; and the reactionary views of THOMAS MALTHUS . (3) All these strike key Marxist notes. In fact Marx declared it to be a : "Brilliant sketch" (4)
    Only then did Marx write "THE ECONOMIC AND PHILOSOPHIC MANUSCRIPT", of 1844. Meanwhile, Engels wrote the "CONDITION OF THE WORKING CLASSES IN ENGLAND"(September 1844-March 1845, published in 1845). This became one of the first "foundation stones of socialism". (5) Nonetheless, in the foreword printed to a re-issue some 20 years later Engels himself recognized only an embryo of what was to come :     Much at the same time they were beginning to work together.
    The 'HOLY FAMILY, or The Critique of Critical Critique' ("Die Helige Familie, oder Kritk der kritischen Kritik"), was their first joint work. It sprang from the second meeting between Marx and Engels in September-November 1844, and was published in 1845. It dealt with the theories of CRITICAL CRITICISM as espoused by the brothers EDGAR AND BRUNO BAUER. This 'Critical Realism', followed Hegel exactly.
    It professed that history was a force of itself; it made history a Hegelian moving spirit. Marx and Engels attacked this, placing the proletariat as the moving force of any progressive battle. But, even now, Marx and Engels were not yet done with the load they had inherited from a 'wrong sided Hegelianism'. They had to turn the load right side up:     They did so in "THE GERMAN IDEOLOGY" A Critique of Modern German Philosophy According to its representatives Fuerbach, B.Bauer and Stirner, and of German Socialism According to its Various Prophets", (written 1845-1846; published posthumously). In putting "Hegel on his head"; Engels said, they had rescued dialectics and the DIALECTIC METHOD itself, from Idealism:     This work was written together. What did the "German Ideology" do? First of all as Marx said it served to clarify them in their newly emerged Communism. As Marx put it:     This self-clarification resulted in laying the major foundations of HISTORICAL MATERIALISM. In the "German Ideology", Marx and Engels proclaimed that history was the Unifying Science:     Later, both these two geniuses, would explore and detail the apparently self-evident truth, that:     The German Ideology interpreted history as formed by THE CLASS STRUGGLE. Furthermore, Marx and Engels insisted that the key to history was not the Spirit of History as Hegel thought, but the DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY :     Moreover the 'German Ideology' had no illusions about the nature of the State, and insisted that:     Engels wrote that Marx had written the bulk of "The German Ideology". Nonetheless it remains a joint work, a unity in which no one can dissect the work of one apart from the other. In this work, the foundations of historical materialism were laid down, by the two together. Marx would later say:     The fundamental debate in philosophy is the primacy of matter or mind. IDEALISM holds that first there is thought. In contrast MATERIALISM holds that first there is matter. Moreover Materialists in general observe the importance of change. The materialists thus tend to be DIALECTICAL in their thought, though this is by no means invariable. Dialectics implies change. The word itself, comes from the Ancient Greek search for truth by debate:     A universal battle between idealists and materialists can be traced in philosophy of ancient times, whether of Greek, Indian or Chinese societies. In each instance, the favoured philosophy of the time reflects the real underlying needs of the ruling class of the society. We will briefly show the development of Idealistic philosophies form a previously Dialectical view of the world, as the Greeks developed towards a money economy.
    Initially, primitive tribal society saw man and nature as inextricably linked. It's views had a certain materialist thrust, though of a crude and primitive type. This primitive materialism was based on a necessary sharp observation of a changing nature, of which humankind was a constituent part. The reality of limited resources, forced a material and dialectical view of life. The early philosophical school of MILETOS (represented by THALES, ANAXIMANDER, AND ANAXIMENES), became the acknowledged founders of European philosophy. They lived with no division between humans and nature:     But society developed productivity by the acquisition of tools. This led to the point where a class could emerge. This class did no actual labour. During the dissolution of the previous equality, roaring societal changes were seen which affected thought. HERACLITUS, recognised the force of the new slavery. There was an ever present terror of Attic peasants, of being turned from freeman into slave. Heraclitus also saw only a timeless and self regulating universe whose only laws are of eternal change and interpenetration of opposites:     But life was now more complex. Heraclitus saw life as becoming more abstract, more ALIENATED. This was driven by an increasing separation of theory and practice. These developments were fostered by the forces of COMMODITY PRODUCTION (ie production for MONEY NOT DIRECT BARTER EXCHANGE) on society:     Now a "separation" of humans from nature was theoretically possible to envisage. Human society became placed above; primary to; and separate from nature. This new perspective, placed mind above matter and nature. It favoured idealism. Tribal solidarity was replaced by individual loyalties and battles. Previous PANTHEISM was replaced by concepts of the soul. Such cults as ORPHEUS, offered a better life in a different world. They were:     Philosophy itself, had become possible by virtue of the existence of a leisured class of individual. Such a class meant the existence of surplus produce. This surplus was produced by slaves in mines, plantations and homes. Their misery was described by DIODOROS, (First century B.C) in silver mines in the Greek colonies:     This slave existence led to ever more complex theologies. These theologies dissolved the previous links between man and nature that had existed. Now a PLATO could arise, and expound and excuse brutality as a consequence of "JUDGEMENT". He lectured his pupil, Simmias, on how the IDEAL SOCIETY functioned in his Platonic Cave:     Plato was in total opposition to the materialists of Milesia. He followed PARMENIDES, who attacked Heraclitus. Parmenides believed in a static world, and one based on "pure thought". He calls the world of the senses, the "WAY OF SEEMING". He opposed to this, the world of the "WAY OF TRUTH". But the Way of Truth can only found by the MIND, REASON (LOGOS):     THE RULING CLASSES FAVOUR A STATIC VIEW. Change was therefore replaced by several, but once and for ever - ACTS OF CREATION. Life now depended on an unchanging immortalised, transformed man as God. ECCELISIASTES would later "up-date" Plato and Parmenides:     BUT MATERIALISTS STRUGGLE AGAINST THIS. Engels cites in opposition to this theology, the words of Mephistopheles in GOETHE's Faust:     After the victory of the "Gods", the DIALECTICAL and IDEAL world views confronted each other. The two world views had their proponents in the natural sciences.


    We will concentrate on how the dialectical method applies to the biological sciences. These, were bound to be especially affected by the prevailing philosophy, as biology writ large, is the study of humans in society.
    Biologists who adopted Idealist views were called VITALISTS. This implied something beyond understanding, a Vital Spirit or God, had breathed life into an otherwise inert body. The philosophical struggle was bound to assume a central place in biology and of course all sciences. Engels struggled to counter idealism in all the branches of science. In "DIALECTICS OF NATURE"; and in "ANTI-DUHRING", Engels wrote two compendiums of Marxism. He insisted after his studies that:

    Engels, starts with an underlying PRINCIPLE. "Dialectics" itself embodies CHANGE. So Engels does not list "Change" as a key "law" of dialectics. It is more than a law, it is a starting premise, a principle.
    ENGELS SAW THREE MAIN LAWS OF DIALECTICS in all branches of history and science. He expressed these laws of motion of the world, in the unfinished and posthumously published "DIALECTICS OF NATURE", as follows:     How do these general laws relate to biology?
     IDEALISM IN BIOLOGY takes two main forms -     Engels advised "pure" scientists to study dialectics. But he knew that scientists could and did, use other approaches. By these other routes, they would obtain finally, some correct answers. But he maintained that "conscious" dialectics made the attainment of this end knowledge far easier:     For Engels the central fact of change is key to understanding the world. Engels praises this idea in Greek science. For Engels, where modern science stands over Greek science, is in details and volume of information. But where the Greeks were still supreme was their "mastery of this material" :     But ideologies that supported change, were resisted in all spheres of thought under both feudalism; and in the self-satisfied bourgeois system. The resulting static view in biology generated theories like that in embryology of PREFORMATIONISM. Here, every foetus before birth, carried within itself its own foetus. This Chinese box "solution" obviously ignores any possibility of change.
    But IMMANUEL KANT opened the way to challenge the "immutability of nature". He achieved this, in 1755 with "Allgemeine Naturgeschicte und Theorie des Himmels". But Engels points out, that Kant's reasoning would have been for naught had it not been for the new science of geology that arose. As excavations produced enigmas like fossils, theologists tried to explain them. Geology unseated theology. This new geology:     CHARLES DARWIN and ALFRED WALLACE independently rejected a static biology. In adding "TIME", they adopted a dialectical view that all things change. This favoured the bourgeoisie in the first stage of their struggles against feudalism. Both Engels and Marx welcomed Darwin's theories. Though Darwin shrank from the enormous consequences of his own theory, fearing to publish for many years. Moreover he stressed repeatedly, and incorrectly, the SLOWNESS of change, assuaging the fears aroused by his theories.
    Darwin was right to fear that the Church would react adversely. But the bourgeoisie needed changes, as impatiently they had chafed under Church and feudal strictures. Having won power they grew nervous of change however. Capital now halted further erosion of the status quo, as further 'change, could unseat them. So a half-hearted endorsement of Darwinian change in biology was achieved. The early 'utility 'of a 'dynamic' biology became rapidly inconvenient to the ruling class. So 'static' versions of biological thought, were favoured again. This is seen nowadays also. Current theories of so called SOCIOBIOLOGY attempt to halt change, arguing that social relations reflect an underlying unchanging "human nature".
    In fact a key current thought in biology specifically vetoes change. The theory of Pre-formationism, was resurrected as the CENTRAL DOGMA, by geneticists. This states that all life is determined by an unchanging GENE OR CHROMOSOME.
    After Darwin, a single particle - the gene, was thought to be FULLY responsible for heredity. GREGOR MENDEL discovered, that under certain restricted and stable circumstances, inheritance of characters such as colour, length etc could be explained by this simple concept. But these particles were then supposed to be inviolate from change. It became a theory that allowed a simplistic 'biological' solution to complex biological but also to social problems. It became the bed rock of a denial of change. ERNST MAYR, a key modern day evolutionist admits this:     The bourgeoisie won their battle against the aristocracy in history and politics. In this they incorporated the "Central State", an idea from Hegel. But they now enshrined a mythical Unchanging State. Hegel's state was taken and 'frozen' into a motionless monotony. The bourgeoisie performed the same trick in science. Natural Science, used Natural Selection to clear the worst Theological obstructions. But having achieved that, the bourgeoisie called a halt. Now both Natural Science and the Historical Sciences became, to an extent, the legitimating servants of the bourgeoisie.     The special and difficult properties of living systems made the biological sciences the first and the last refuge of Idealists in science. But the constant arrival of new facts demanded explanations. The Idealists adopted interim solutions. These were "less indefensible" views of the world, which stopped short of a dialectical materialist explanation. This school of Mechanical Materialists would argue that categories were mutually exclusive. They would force things into simple boxes, not recognising that there were some things that defied this approach. Some things had properties that demanded two or more boxes to 'contain them'.
    In biology, this school argued that the body was no "special" thing, and could be understood by simple mechanical or chemical laws; it asserted that man is no more than a series of chemical reactions. People like RENE DESCARTES, consciously used this philosophy, to evade the veto of theology. They restricted their study of man to the skeleton, muscles etc; but excluded the brain; thus they rendered : "What was "Caesar's unto Caesar"! Thus human thought and society was completely left to Theology to explain.
    The movements of muscles and bones could be explained by 'simple' laws of mechanics. But the actions of the brain were not. This solution is BIOLOGICAL REDUCTIONISM. It was termed "VULGAR MATERIALISM" or "MECHANICAL MATERIALISM" by both Engels and later Lenin. BUCHNER, MOLESCHOTT & VOGT in the 18th century, believed thought was secreted by the brain, just as the kidney secretes urine, or the liver secretes bile. Lenin cited Engels :     It is true that biology is extremely complex, and this was probably a necessary stage of development. This over-simplification was perhaps necessary to enable details to be worked out. Biologists needed to dissect out, one by one, some very complex interactions. Engels points out that only after 'nit-picking' science was undertaken, could limits that had cramped Greek science, be transcended. Greek science, even with its correct - but naive dialectic view of change, had lacked "detail":     In explaining the limits of Greek science, Engels explains the DIALECTICAL MATERIALIST METHOD. Engels points out that the method entails Firstly; splitting complexity into component parts:     But Engels knew the inherent limitations of this "detaching" process. It ran the risk of a reductionism, of destroying the real and living, complexity of a problem. That is why a second step was needed. The Second step followed the initial 'dissection' and 'splitting'. It was necessary to re-fashion the complexity; to examine how the whole is affected by the part:     The reality of the WHOLENESS of the complexity recognises, more than just an assembly of isolated facts. Engels thought this was the limitation of even great Mechanical materialist thinkers of the Renaissance, like FRANCIS BACON:     Ignoring the complexity of the interpenetration of the opposites is the error that Mechanical Materialism had fallen into. Mechanical Materialism simply arrayed a factual assembly that lacked life. Simply shoving categories, ideas, notions, or things into ONE box - is bound to cramp science. Mechanical materialists thought life could be explained by analogies to simple levers and pulleys. They missed the point argued by Viscount Henry St.John Bolingbroke:     Dead things are distinct from the living, and have their own laws. And yet, despite this distinction between a dead "inorganic", and a living "organic" world, some properties of the living and dead are shared. A dialectical biology would recognise an organising principle in the body, one that transcends simple chemical laws; without invoking a supernatural explanations. This was expressed by a great embryologist, JOSEPH NEEDHAM, who in 1931 cited the work of WILHELM ROUX :     The battle between Idealism (An unchanging and rigid distinction between categories) and Materialism (An ever changing and interpretation of opposites) was evident in DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY. This was because embryonic development is a series of rapid changes. Thus embryologists were resistant to the mechanical and reductionist gene school of Mendelians.     The stark opposites of CHANCE OR NECESSITY have long bothered philosophers. As far as Ernst Mayr and the modern mechanical school of genetic evolutionists were concerned, DARWIN had resolved this dilemma for biology. Mayr observes:     By the TWO STEP PROCESS, Mayr means that the FIRST STEP is a random and chance aggregation, of new and old GENES. THE SECOND STEP is the "ordering" effect of NATURAL SELECTION.
    By this, Mayr means that the initial step in evolution is a chance throwing off of variation. But, says Mayr, following this is an ordering by Natural Selection. The First "Pure Chance" step, was critical for the Mendel and Morgan gene school.
    This abuts onto another long standing argument in biology - that of "NATURE" OR "NUTURE". Or put another way, is HEREDITY (OR THE GENE) PRIMARY; OR, IS ENVIRONMENT PRIMARY?
    In evolution, if things arise "by chance", they cannot arise by "instruction" from the environment. This theory, was favoured by the gene school of MORGAN. "THE NEW SYNTHESIS", then couples DARWINISM AND MORGANISM, into what is now, the dominant version of biological evolution. This proposes a very slow moulding of change, that is ultimately, only due to an unpredictable chance.
    Some historians and philosophers, argue that Marxists cannot accept theories of "pure chance". Apparently because to believe in "chance", they would have to jettison a supposed "Marxist" belief in DETERMINISM in life and society. This determinism, supposedly teaches that society "automatically" tends to socialism. In fact this "naivete", is a slanderous caricature of Marxist analysis.
    What does Engels make of the dichotomy between chance and necessity ? First he acknowledges that there is a potential opposition:     But Engels states that there is a clear and obvious role for both chance and necessity in nature:     But then, the labelling chosen, accidental or necessary, is a often a matter of convenience and arbitrary. Engels explains:     Moreover, to merely call something, that is currently inexplicable, as being due to chance; is a theological practice!:     Contrary to those who say Marxism equals Determinism, Engels explicitly attacks crude Determinism of a theological stripe:     So for Engels, the Either-Or stark choice is inappropriate for much of science; but this "advice" is usually ignored by science:     The best modern scientists understand this. SEWALL WRIGHT, a founder of the field of mathematical genetics, notes a dialectic and qualitative difference between the bare posited alternatives:     The posited alternatives of "pure determinism' and "chance" are inadequate to explain the multifaceted complexity of nature. "Pure Chance" is quite inappropriate for biology. This is shown by modern data, in the very specialty of evolution, that it is most touted. Most biologists accept that the first steps to life (regardless of the stimuli) somehow involved the aggregation of large protein molecules. How did these come together from simple amino acids? The molecules of the amino acids, force a constraint that channels "pure chance":     Fox shows that simple arithmetic, in theory, would predict that a truly random ordering of events, MUST result in 6 possibilities (See Figure-In hard copy version). But, in reality, using real molecules, experiments show that this total is not reached. Why? Presumably because there are molecular constraints:     Real life molecules similar to those that may have been responsible for the first life behave in starling manners that are not predicted by the biologists of Pure Chance. Proteinoid particles arise under the stimulus of heat. Then they "age"; showing "socialization" or "aggregation". Fox concludes about randomness:     Fox cites above many famous scientists. But actually, many other scientists have had their own "nagging doubts" about "Pure Chance". Even Morgan, a key individual in the "New Synthesis", once thought that "pure chance" was stretching things a bit far!:
Figure 1: CHANCE PLAYS CARDS. From Fox; Ibid; p. 88.
(Only in hard copy)

    This arises in a sense of out of the first law. If after all categories are not wholly demarcated form each other, if indeed "opposites interpenetrate", then how do they change into each other? Engels is clear that certain transitions, into their opposites are not YET explicable. This is particularly difficult to work out for biological systems:     But this law could be clearly seen in Engels' day, in physics and chemistry:     Engels noted, that Hegel saw this was a critical law for nature, citing Hegel's application of this law to chemistry. Here the addition of even a single atom makes all the change necessary to transform compounds. Thus Engels discuses in Detail the transformation series of the carbon compounds.
    Not only is the mere fact of changes of compounds into another than explained, but Engels makes one other point. The knowledge of the series and the links of component parts of these series, allows the prediction of as yet unknown properties of this series. Thing such as the boiling points etc. Needham felt that it would be possible in biology, to find comparable laws to those of chemical and physical processes, if complexity was respected:     Modern day biology has examples that show this Law.     This law follows from the Second Law discussed above. Is all change then cyclical, does one category lead to another and then back again? This 'simplicity' and obvious un-truth is avoided by recognising this law. When one state of a category passes into another, it does so by encompassing the previous state and rendering it changed at a higher level. This is a development that carries the potential for itself also to be changed. But in this further change and development, it is "SUBLATED". It :     This means that there is a link to the old, a logical connection that carries with that connection, the possibility of a reversion to a form of the older state. But because nothing s ever the same exactly, this reversion is actually a going forward, it is "reversion" - but to a changed and different "old state"; where the old is itself transformed:     To clarify that the negation of the negation is not simply a subtraction, not a simple deletion, but is a different process, Engels states:     CLEARLY THEN THERE ARE NO SIMPLE EXPLANATIONS that can be offered in the abstract, without any study, by simply parroting a mantra-like phrase, "Negation of the negation":     Many then and now, accuse Marxists of parroting such "Dialectics" as a "Universal Solution", applicable from a tin-can! But these are not Marxists! They are a parody of Marxists:     Non-Communist embryologists recognise the power of dialectical thought. As C.H.Waddington put it:     Engels shows the relevance of dialectical materialism to all branches of science. The complexity of life defeats simple minded solutions. But thus far Engels has largely been shown to understand the laws of dialectics at an overall theoretical level. The application of these laws to the development of Humans and towards the development of society, is where Engels further demonstrates his genius.
    We now briefly examine Engels' view of the development of early society.
    To do that justice, it must be shown how Engels' view of this contrasts with that of Darwin. Arguably Darwin was the greatest natural scientist of his time and beyond - yet Engels transcended even this specialist in his own field.     A comparison of these two giants of human history is very revealing. In fact had Engels so chosen, what an amazing natural scientist he would have been. His vision and breadth transcended even Darwin. That this is true can be shown briefly. Overall the difference between the two, is the difference between a conscious dialectician and an unconscious dialectician. Engels had pointed out that most scientists could perform good work despite an idealist philosophy, but that conscious dialecticians would avoid mistakes.     Both Marx and Engels had exposed the REVEREND MALTHUS as a proponent of the bourgeois order, and his theories as incorrect. But when CHARLES DARWIN took his public stand, he claimed it was on the basis of Malthusian theory. Nonetheless, Marx and Engels did not then reject the dialectic core of Darwinism. Instead they put it into context. They paid tribute to Darwin's recognition of change. But they also pointed out the trick that was being played. This argued from events in human society to nature; and then, wished to lift back from nature to human society. Thereby "proving" biological inevitability!:     This is very pertinent today. Eldredge and Grene, in 1992, exactly echoed Engels' view of 1886, referring to the popular school of thought, known as SOCIOBIOLOGY:     Engels sees a more complex reality of nature, than Darwin. To depict it accurately, "prejudiced and one sided" views, must be avoided. These are either an "All Harmonious Nature"; or an "All Struggling Nature":     This difference then is an example of the Law of the Interpetration of Opposites. The differences between Marx and Engels on the one hand; and Darwin on the other, were bound to stem from an "unwilling" dialectical approach on the part of Darwin. This can be seen in their different views on the early passage from ape to man.     The principle difference between these two geniuses here reflects the Law of Transformation of Quantity Into Quality. Here it is obvious that Darwin played the leading role in showing the evolutionary transformation from ape to man. He identified this in his later works, after he had collected an enormous wealth of data. It was during this period that the fossils of Neanderthals were being unearthed. Both Engels and Darwin followed this process with intense interest. It was of course Darwin, who first identified the critical step for ape to man transition was adopting the upright posture. Darwin put as follows:     Darwin was followed by Engels who paraphrased him :     Of course Darwin recognised the importance of this for tools by which man developed language and the brain developed. Again Engels followed him here. But Darwin is always pointing out the CONTINUITY between animals - apes and man. Engels points out the DISCONTINUOUS. Thus take LANGUAGE. Darwin always tries to point out, to EMPHASISE that animals have inner language:     Yet modern day experiments with chimps demonstrate that there is a barrier, that even these highly intelligent species have not breached. This is an illustration of The Law of passing from Quantity into Quality. This was appreciated by Engels: The key issue identified by Engels that was ignored by Darwin was the ROLE OF LABOUR ITSELF. The role of social beings, in the production of the subsistence of life. This allowed the relationship of humans to their environment to be put rather more correctly than is done by Darwin. Marx had also indicated that there was a primary role of labour:     It was by controlling nature, that society developed. As soon as humans emerged from a state of total dependence on nature, into even a minimal control over nature, the old relationship between man and nature was shattered. There was victory, but there was also ecological change:     "Deep ecologists", do not understand scientific discovery, and reject any systematic study. They discredit any "development" at all, as being intrinsically evil. These 'ecologists' obscure the contradiction that had to historically exist, between ANY human activity (eg. clearing land) and the state of an 'unspoiled Nature'. But both Marx and Engels showed, only by truely understanding history can we return to communism. History shows that progress in society depends ultimately on technological progress and change. Communists will take this message and apply it, so that society belongs to those who will use technology for humankind, not for individual personal profit.     Franz Mehring says that:     We can agree that this man, who in the words of a contemporary in the First International : "Stuttered in twenty languages", ultimately spoke one language-

the language of international FRATERNITY and SOLIDARITY.
    But what are these  great historical figures anyway?
    Let su give the final words to FREDERICK ENGELS himself - a co-founder of Historical  Materialism - OF MARXISM:


1. Marx & Engels Collected Works [Henceforth M&E CW]: 'The Condition of England: II: The English Constitution'; (March 1844); Vol 3; London; 1975; p. 497.
2. First Published "Rheinische Zeitung"; December 1842. M&E CW
Vol 2; New York; 1976: "The Internal Crises" p. 373-374.
3. Noted by W.B.Bland : "Engels and The Condition of The Working Class in England; UK; 1995.
4. Cited : Franz Mehring "Karl Marx"; Ann Arbor; 1973; p.94.
5. Mehring F; Ibid; p. 105.
6. Engels; Cited Mehring; Ibid; p. 104.
7. " " ' '
8. Engels Preface to 2nd edition: "Anti-Duhring"; M&E CW VOL 25; ibid; p.11 .
9. Marx 1859; Preface to 'A Contribution to the critique of Political economy'; cited Vol 5; M&E CW: Preface; p.xv
10. Marx and Engels "German Ideology"; Vol 5; M&E CW; p. 28-29.
11. "German Ideology" Vol 5; M&E CW p.31.
12. "German Ideology" Vol 5; M&E CW; p.74.
13. German Ideology" Ibid; Vol 5; p. 53-54
14. "German Ideology"; M&E CW; Ibid; Vol 5; p. 90
15. Marx K Preface to:"A Contribution to The Critique of Political Economy"; January 1859; Selected Works"; Vol 1; London; 1934; p. 357.
16. Engels: Preface to 2nd Edition "The Housing Question"; CW M&E Vol 26; 1990; Moscow; p.427
17. CC CPSU(B):"History of the CPSU(B)- A Short Course";Moscow; 1939; p.106.
18. George Thomson:"The First Philosophers-Studies in Ancient Greek Society," Southampton; 1955; p.156; 160.
19. Thomson; Ibid; p.278.
20. Thomson, Ibid; p. 282.
21. Thomson, Ibid; p.235.
22. Diodoros,Cited by Thomson, Ibid , p.243.
23. Plato, Cited By Thomson ,Ibid , p.243.
24. Cited by Thompson, Ibid, p.293.
25. Ecclesiastes 9.
26. Goethe Faust; Part I scene 3 Cited by Engels; in Introduction "Dialectics of Nature"; M&E CW Vol 25; Moscow; 1987; p.331
27. Engels,"Additions to Anti-Duhring"; M&E CW Vol 25; Ibid; p.633.
28. " "
29. Engels; M&E CW Vol 25; "Anti-Duhring" [Hereafter AD]; Moscow 1987; p.21.
30. Engels; Preface to 2nd Edition "AD" 1885; Ibid; p.14.
31. F.Engels: "Introduction To Dialectics of Nature"; M&E CW Vol 25; Moscow 1987; [Hereafter DON]; Ibid; p.322.
32. Engels; Ibid; "Introduction DON"; p.324.
33. Ernst Mayr: "The Growth of Biological Thought . Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance," 1982; Cambridge Mass; p.12.
34. Engels; "AD"; Ibid; Vol 25; p. 22.
35. Lenin, "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism", Moscow 1967, p.227.
36. Engels "Introduction AD"; Vol 25; Ibid, p.21.
37. Engels "Introduction AD"; Vol 25; Ibid, p.22.
38. Engels "Introduction AD"; Vol 25; Ibid, Ibid, p.22.
39. Engels "Introduction AD"; Vol 25; Ibid, p.22.
40. Cited Keith Thomas. "Man and the Natural World" Suffolk, 1984; p. 35.
41. Needham Joseph "Order And Life",London, 1968; p.19-20.
42. Mayr, Ibid, p.86.
43. Engels; "DON"; M&E CW; Vol 25; Ibid; p. 498.
44. Engels; "DON"; M&E CW; Vol 25; Ibid; p. 498.
45. Engels; "DON"; M&E CW; Vol 25; Ibid; p. 498-9.
46. Engels; "DON"; M&E CW; Vol 25; Ibid; p. 499.
47. Engels; "DON"; M&E CW; Vol 25; Ibid; p. 499.
48. Engels; "DON"; M&E CW; Vol 25; Ibid; p. 500.
49. Cited by Mayr, Ibid. p. 57
50. S.W.Fox, "The beginnings of life and behaviour";
In "Behavioral evolution and integrative levels."
Ed G.Greenberg and E.Tobach. New Jersey, 1984. p.83.
51. S.W.Fox, The Beginnings of Life and Behaviour.
"Behavioral evolution and integrative levels."
Ed G.Greenberg and E.Tobach. New Jersey, 1984. p.83.
52. Fox, Ibid, p. 100.
53. Fox, Ibid, p.100
54. Engels; "DON"; M&E CW; Vol 25; Ibid; p 357
55. Engels; Engels; "DON"; M&E CW; Vol 25; Ibid; p.357-358.
56. Engels; "DON"; M&E CW; Vol 25; Ibid; p.358-359.
57. Needham J; "Order and Life"; Ibid; p.21 . .
58. Engels; "AD"; Ibid; Vol 25; M&E CW; p.131.
59. Engels; "AD"; Ibid; Vol 25; M&E CW; p. 129.
60. Engels; "AD"; Ibid; Vol 25; M&E CW; p. 125-126.
61. Engels; "AD"; Ibid; Vol 25; M&E CW; p. 131
62. Engels; "AD"; Ibid; Vol 25; M&E CW; p.131-132
63. Engels; "AD"; Ibid; Vol 25; M&E CW; p. 131
64. Engels; "AD"; Ibid; Vol 25; M&E CW p. 131.
65. Waddington Cited by Sapp J; "Beyond the Gene Cytoplasmic Inheritance and the Struggle For Authority in Genetics;" New York; 1987; p. 167.
66. Engels; "DON"; Vol 25; Ibid; p. 583-584.
67. N.Eldredge & M.Grene, "Interactions-The Biological Context of Social Systems" New York,1992. p.14.
68. "Dialectics of Nature", Engels Ibid. p.307,
69. Charles Darwin:" The Descent of man. Part 1. Chapter 2. Mental Powers"; London 1871; Reprint Impression Anastaltique; Bruxelles; 1969; p. 141.
70. Engels "Part Played By Labour In Transition From Ape to Man"; In "DON" ; Ibid; Vol 25; p. 452.
71. Darwin, "Descent of Man"; Ibid; p. 53.
72. Engels, "Part Played By Labour etc"; Ibid; Vol 25; p. 453- 455.
73. Karl Marx Capital Vol 1, 1974; p.173-4.
74. Engels, Frederick: "Part Played By Labour In Transition from Ape to Man", In Engels Dialectics of Nature", Moscow, 2nd Ed, 1972. p.181.
75. Mehring; "Karl Marx"; Ibid; p. 95.
76. Engels: "Letter to Starkenberg"; In Reader In Marxist Philosophy" Eds Selsam and Martel; International Publishers New York; 1963; p.203.

ML Review     |     Alliance ML     |   WB Bland Archive    |    Albania Society