Pannekoek and Darwinism – Nildo Viana

[This article is a preface to the book Marxism and Darwinism, Anton Pannekoek (2022), it can also be read in the original Portuguese here.

We publish this article for its value in understanding the life and ideas of A. Pannekoek, who was a genuine communist and internationalist all his life, although we would disagree with the author’s appraisal of Bolshevism, which we understand to have been a complex and contradictory, but ultimately revolutionary and proletarian movement.]

Pannekoek’s short book, Marxism and Darwinism, is an interesting work that can be interpreted in different ways. One of the most common interpretative problems is the historical decontextualization of the writings and authors. This is accompanied by other problems (both those that emerge from the period, and those of the interpreters and their idiosyncrasies, among various other determinations) and so a deeper understanding of certain writings ends up being hampered.

Our aim here is simply to clarify some elements of this text and thus facilitate the historical contextualization and, consequently, the correct interpretation of Pannekoek’s book. In addition, we will include a discussion of the book’s theme: the relationship between Marxism and Darwinism, both within the framework of Pannekoek’s discussion and beyond it.

The first point to highlight is the question of who Pannekoek is and in what context he places this work, as this is useful for those who don’t know the author and helps in the interpretative process and understanding of his analysis of the relationship between Marxism and Darwinism. We have already carried out a more in-depth analysis of Pannekoek’s intellectual evolution on another occasion (1). However, it is necessary for the reader of this work to keep this evolution in mind, even if only briefly, and so we will make a few notes on this. 

Anton Pannekoek was born in Holland in 1873 and joined the Dutch Social Democratic Party in his youth, but soon became an internal dissident. In this sense, we can say that the first phase of Pannekoek’s thinking as a militant and writer was as a dissident Social Democrat. At this time, Pannekoek questioned the dominant sectors of the party and some of his opponents (whom he problematically referred to as “anarchists”). Over time, he broke with social democracy and joined “radical socialism” (the group of those who broke with social democracy after 1914) (2). After the German Revolution, more specifically in 1920, as a result of the radicalization with the unfinished proletarian revolutions (Russia, Germany, Italy, Hungary), Pannekoek joined the current that came to be called “council communism”, and maintained this position until his death in 1960.

Pannekoek was also a natural scientist. He was a renowned astronomer, as well as writing about anthropogenesis and other topics considered a field of research in these sciences. That’s why for those who know Pannekoek’s biography, a book that deals with Darwin and Darwinism is not at all strange.

The historical context thus takes us back to 1912, when Pannekoek was a dissident social democrat. This helps us to understand his work and his statements. What does it mean to be a dissident Social Democrat? A dissident is a person who disagrees with a group, party, regime, etc. However, they don’t disagree with everything, because they do so within a framework of agreement. Thus, Jung, Adler and others were dissident psychoanalysts, which means that they didn’t completely break with Freud and psychoanalysis. A dissident is someone who disagrees within an agreement (3). Dissent can lead to rupture and this means the transition from partial to total rupture. At that point, one is no longer a dissident, but becomes an opponent or antagonist. Dissent can also be internal or external.

Internal dissent is when there is disagreement within an organization (party, church, etc.) and external dissent is when it occurs outside the organization. In the first case, there is dissent, which is disagreement within agreement, within the organization and which manifests itself internally. This is the case with the most extreme tendencies within social democratic parties and Liberation Theology within the Catholic Church. When these more extreme tendencies or internal dissidents leave the organization, they become external dissidents, if the break was only partial. This is the case of PSOL – Partido Socialismo e Liberdade (Socialism and Freedom Party), which left the PT – Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party), but which never made a complete break, and even supported it in electoral processes and other positions and actions. This is not the case with the PSTU – Partido Socialista dos Trabalhadores – Unificado (Unified Socialist Workers’ Party), as it was a stronger dissident within the party and was expelled, making it a total break (4).

Internal dissent is necessarily carried out by members of the organization. External dissent, on the other hand, is carried out by individuals outside the organization, but who have it as an intellectual reference and are supporters or sympathizers, but with critical elements in relation to it or its positions and conceptions. Just as some internal dissidents can become external when they leave the organization, others can be in the second case without having passed through the organization.

Thus, to say that Pannekoek was a dissident Social Democrat is to say that he disagreed with the party and its conceptions, but within a framework of agreement. He needed to go through certain experiences, both personal and historical, in order to make the break, initially partial, and then total (starting with the Russian and German revolutions). The text on Marxism and Darwinism was written during this period as a dissident Social Democrat.

This helps explain the short book we are presenting here. Pannekoek was a critic of social democracy, but still within it. In this sense, his critique lacked the radicalism of the later period (radical socialism) and even less so when he made a complete break with social democracy (and Bolshevism, its rebellious offspring) by becoming a council communist. Pannekoek had already entered into polemics, both national and international, and among them against Karl Kautsky, considered by some to be the great intellectual of social democracy and heir to Engels, as well as the greatest representative of orthodox “Marxism”. The polemic with Kautsky was over the question of strikes and “mass actions” in the context of the strikes in Belgium (5).

So, just as he criticized social democracy but didn’t abandon it, he criticized Kautsky but still respected him. This explains some elements of his text on Darwinism, because Kautsky was enthusiastic about Darwinism and considered it an important element to complete Marxism. And he was not alone in this position. Social democracy as a whole was permeated by the influence of the prevailing scientism and positivism of the time. The pseudo-Marxism of the time was strongly influenced by the hegemonic paradigm of positivism (6). Darwinism, in turn, was hegemonic in the context of biological and evolutionary discussions, having influence beyond the natural sciences, and served as a weapon to combat religion (7).

Thus, Pannekoek was not totally immune to this intellectual climate and the paradigms and ideologies that predominated at the time. In this way, social democracy’s positive reception of Darwinism also had an impact on his thinking. However, he wasn’t just a populariser either; instead, he was a dissident and that’s why his work still has an important significance today. We can say that Pannekoek was an ambiguous Marxist and still rudimentary. It was with the passage of time that he broke away from this ambiguity, as he deepened his intellect and underwent certain historical experiences and political militancy (8).It was in this context that he was able to get closer to the real content of Marx’s works.

Another important element is that in 1912 some of Marx’s important works had not yet been published, especially those in which he deals with human nature and the question of labor and historical development, especially The German Ideology and the Paris Manuscripts (in which he deals with alienated labor and labor as objectification, among other related elements). In this way, the idea of historical materialism was quite precarious, as the Preface to the book Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy basically remained as a synthesis and fragments in works such as the Communist Manifesto. This gap was filled by the problematic supplements of Engels (quoted by Pannekoek) and his “intellectual heir”, Karl Kautsky (9).

Kautsky was the great intellectual mentor of social democracy and sought to complement the misunderstood Marx with Engels, Kant and Darwin (10).In addition to Kautsky, various manuals and books introducing Marxism, dialectics, etc., were produced and had an impact on the militants of the time. In Pannekoek’s case, Kautsky’s book had a greater impact, especially as it had a chapter dedicated to the “ethics of Darwinism”. Some of the elements pointed out by Pannekoek are very close to those of Kautsky.

And what could we highlight from Pannekoek’s work on Marxism and Darwinism? First of all, Pannekoek’s critique of Darwin and Darwinism. This shows that, despite the influence of Kautsky and social democracy in general and their positive evaluation of Darwinism, Pannekoek was a dissident who had a more complex and critical analysis of this ideology. Pannekoek takes up Marx’s critique of Darwin, “forgotten” by social democracy, according to which the famous naturalist reproduces in the animal world the competition typical of the English society of his time, that is, of capitalism. At the same time, he shows the source of Darwin’s inspiration, also discussed by Marx, in the vulgar economist Thomas Malthus (11).

However, the criticism of Darwin is somewhat moderate. The same goes for Darwinism. Pannekoek uses this name and doesn’t explain its meaning, but it seems from the way it is used that he is referring to those who are supporters of Darwin’s theses, the Darwinists, and their conceptions, such as Haeckel. His moderation in the case of Darwinism is revealed in his criticism of bourgeois “Darwinists”, which implies that there were non-bourgeois Darwinists (and, here, he deals with the social democrats).

His criticism of Darwin is tempered, in part, by the fact that Pannekoek didn’t delve into the English naturalist’s theses or other conceptions of evolution. It seems that Pannekoek was unaware of the fundamental difference between Darwin’s conceptions of evolution, on the one hand, and those of Wallace and Bates, on the other. Darwin’s conception of evolution pointed to a struggle for survival within species and Wallace and Bates’, between species (12). In other words, the struggle for survival, in Darwin’s view, took place between species and also within them, which reveals the Malthusian influence, and which already justified and legitimized the application of this to human beings. The moderation of the critics, perhaps because they were unaware of this differentiation, is reinforced by the following statement by Pannekoek:

“Darwin considered it as such and for fear that his theory might shock the prevailing religious preconceptions, he purposely avoided applying it immediately to man. It was only after numerous postponements, and after others had gone before him, that he decided to take this step. In a letter to Haeckel, he deplored the fact that his theory would have to come up against so many prejudices and so much indifference, and that he didn’t have the prospect of living long enough to see it overcome these obstacles (p. 51).”

Here it seems that Darwin only applied his thesis to human beings later. However, in the first edition of The Origin of Species, he already touched on this subject, and removed from the sixth edition the section dealing with “sexual selection” applied to human beings. The reason for the removal was because of a passage in which he said that if he didn’t go into detail, the reasoning would seem superficial (13). In 1871, he published The Origin of Man, a work in which this application is more fully developed, and this was the reason for removing the excerpt from the sixth edition, since the “theory” had been confirmed and could not therefore be considered superficial. The sixth edition also contains religious references which were the result of pressure on him.

Pannekoek doesn’t seem to have had access to the draft of The Origin of Species, nor to his other works, such as the account of the voyage around the Beagle, or his letters (14). He quotes the letter above, but doesn’t show that he had access to others. As at the time Pannekoek wrote it, the habit (and even bureaucratic requirement) of listing sources and their data had not been established, we don’t know where he got this quote from (it could have been second-hand, for example, as there are no references).

In this way, Pannekoek saves Darwin from responsibility for “social Darwinism”, which is a mistake. Darwin himself was the first social Darwinist. And in doing so, he throws the responsibility onto what he calls “bourgeois Darwinists”. His criticism of bourgeois Darwinists presupposes the existence of non-bourgeois Darwinists (starting with some social democrats). Pannekoek doesn’t realize that Darwinism, like Darwin, is essentially bourgeois. This is because Darwin’s ideas are produced according to the bourgeois epistemology, revealing the values, conceptions, etc., of the ruling class, as well as its ahistoricism, reductionism and antinomism (15). Realizing this, it would also be clear that talking about “bourgeois Darwinists” (16)is a truism, because Darwinism is a bourgeois conception.

On the other hand, Pannekoek makes a misguided criticism of what he calls “bourgeois Darwinism”, which is, in essence, the only coherent and consistent Darwinian conception, and which takes Darwin’s ideas to their ultimate consequences (17). This can be seen in his disagreement with Haeckel:

“This reproach, that of being in league with the Red revolutionaries, caused Haeckel, its defender, great annoyance. He couldn’t stand it. Immediately afterwards, he tried to demonstrate that it is precisely Darwinist theory that shows the untenability of socialist claims and that Darwinism and Marxism “relate to each other like water and fire” (p. 56).” 

In this specific case, Haeckel is correct and Pannekoek is wrong. Marxism and Darwinism are like water and fire, one extinguishes the other. Pannekoek’s thesis on Darwinism therefore needs a brief analysis. Pannekoek’s argument about the relationship between Marxism and Darwinism is that the former deals with the animal, organic world, and Marxism deals with human society. And he draws a conclusion from this that also goes against some representatives of Darwinism and social democrats. For some, according to Pannekoek, Darwinism is restricted to the animal world and Marxism to the human world, and both are therefore correct in their field of analysis. He disagrees with this.

Thus, Pannekoek disagrees with the “bourgeois Darwinists” for seeing an antagonism between Marxism and Darwinism and disagrees with others, such as some social democrats, for conceiving that both are correct, but for analyzing different phenomena. In relation to this second position, Pannekoek states that there is indeed a differentiation between the organic world and human society, but that the latter emerges from the former, maintaining similarities and differences in relation to the latter. In the organic world, Pannekoek argues, Darwin is correct when it comes to the organic world, which is really driven by the struggle for survival. Pannekoek makes some reservations and cites Kropotkin’s conception of the importance of solidarity in the evolutionary process (18). He also states that Marx is correct in his analysis of society. However, according to him, despite the difference in phenomena, they are not entirely separate. The struggle for survival also manifests itself in the human world, but in a different form.

Pannekoek supports a whole conception according to which human beings also come from the animal world and are gradually differentiated, generating a process in which the struggle is maintained, but modified by technical development, as well as by language and thought. The struggle for survival is fundamentally social. And therein lies the fact that the fittest or strongest is not the winner, but the wealthiest. Social competition differs from animal competition in that it is not physical strength, which guarantees supremacy in the organic world, that is the decisive element, but the possession of the means of production and, in capitalism, money.

Pannekoek points to an overvaluation of technique, which he identifies mainly with “instruments” (another translation renders this term as “tools”, but this is a narrower definition and therefore less appropriate, as it makes thinking even more limited and poor). Undoubtedly, in view of the fact that some of Marx’s works have not been published (although those that have been published are enough not to fall prey to such an interpretation, such as Capital, The Misery of Philosophy, among others), and the influence of social democracy and the simplistic and hegemonic interpretations of the German thinker, this makes a certain sense. In any case, Pannekoek could have moved on to a deeper reading and interpretation of Marx. The emphasis on instruments is a reductionism and impoverishment of Marxist analysis. The concept of productive forces is much broader and richer (it even includes labor power) and it is the mode of production that is fundamental, especially the relations of production.

Leaving aside Pannekoek’s misunderstanding, let’s move on to the main issue, which is his conception of the relationship between Marxism and Darwinism. He says:

“Here we see that Marxism and Darwinism are not two independent theories, each applied to its own special field, without having anything in common with the other. In reality, the same principle underlies both theories. They form a unity. The new course taken by men, the replacement of natural organs by instruments, means that this fundamental principle manifests itself differently in the two domains; that of the animal world which develops according to Darwin’s principle, while among the human race Marx’s principle is applied (p. 88).”

The idea of the “same principle” between Marxism and Darwinism is a colossal misconception. And, more curiously, Pannekoek doesn’t go into any depth about this principle (if he did, he would be forced to see the radical difference between the two) and so it may seem that it really does exist. The supposed “common principle” would be the idea of the struggle for survival, which Darwin applied to the organic world and Marx to the social world.

The idea of struggle has antagonistic meanings in Marx and Darwin. The struggle in Darwin is for survival, in which the fittest survive, due to the process of inheritance, and the less fit perish, in a competition that exists in the natural and human world (and therein lies Pannekoek’s criticism of Darwin). The struggle, in Marx, is the class struggle (and the question of classes barely appears in Pannekoek’s discussion, and is sometimes accompanied by the appearance of the individual or even the “race” or species). The idea of struggle in Darwin is a law of nature that cannot be escaped. The idea of struggle in Marx is a social and historical, i.e., transitory, phenomenon which has arisen and will cease to exist. It is not a dogmatic principle, a “law”, but an observation of what has happened and continues to happen in human history (19). In Darwin there is a naturalization and eternalization, in Marx there is a historicization.

Thus, there is a fundamental distinction in the idea of struggle between the two authors. Furthermore, the Darwinist conception of the struggle for survival was criticized by Marx and several later Marxists (20). The idea of a struggle for survival bypasses the idea of solidarity, which exists in the animal world, as well as the other determinations of the evolutionary process, which is the result of Darwinist reductionism, typical of the bourgeois epistemology.

Pannekoek made a limited critique of Darwin and Darwinism, not realizing that he was starting from the bourgeois epistemology (an element that he couldn’t discuss at that time and within that context, but which he could address and recognize in another, more inaccurate language and without the same meaning, because it would make it possible to see the radical difference between the two conceptions, as is the case with the use of the terms “world conception” or “world view”). On the other hand, he didn’t realize that what he said about bourgeois Darwinism applies also to Darwin’s work in its entirety, both in terms of class interests and the content of his ideology. Pannekoek didn’t analyze the class character of Darwinism and so couldn’t make a more radical critique of it.

Pannekoek’s fundamental mistake was that he considered Marx’s and Darwin’s conceptions to be similar, as starting from the same principle, and so he carried out an analysis of society using elements taken from Darwinism, because of its supposed “similarity” with Marxism, and ended up impoverishing the latter. This was in line with the hegemonic pseudo-Marxism of the time, as it was a vulgarization of Marxism. This main mistake led to the others. Fortunately, Pannekoek would move on in his later analyses, especially in some respects, although without taking up the question of Darwinism in depth.

In short, these are some of the main elements of Pannekoek’s work that are worth highlighting. There are other problems in this work, such as his discussion of “perfection”, his assertion that the social division of labor remains in socialism or that animals think (but not abstractly), the use of the term “system” (which at the time was not as problematic as it is today), or even about the brain, among others (21). However, this is not the place for a general critique of all the details and problems in the work. There is one statement in particular, morevoer, that deserves a broader look, because of the consequences that misinterpretations of that statement can generate. This would be his statement about races. Let’s quote two passages and comment on them:

“The human brain had to develop along with the instruments; and, in fact, we see that the difference between the most evolved races of humanity and the lowest lies mainly in the content of their brains. But even the development of this organ has to stop at a certain stage (p. 86).”

“Tribal communities that use better tools and weapons can better sustain themselves, and when they come into direct conflict with another race, the race that is better equipped with artificial tools will win and exterminate the weaker ones. The great improvements in technique and working methods at the beginning of humanity, such as the introduction of agriculture and breeding, make man a physically stronger race, which suffers less from the harshness of the natural elements. The races whose technical equipment is better developed, can hunt down or subdue those whose artificial material is not developed, can secure the best land and develop their civilization. The domination of the European race is based on its technical supremacy (p. 87).”

These two statements could give the impression that Pannekoek is a racist, or at least that he conceives of the existence of “superior races” and “inferior races”. As Marx was accused of being a racist by distorting interpreters, it is useful to clarify Pannekoek’s case as well. The first is about the importance of the brain and the differences between “higher” and “lower” races. Obviously, the discussion about the brain is misguided, because the brain, as an organ, enables the development of the human mind, but does not create its content. Its content does not reside in the brain, but in the mind, which is produced socially (22).

The development of the organ, the brain, in humanity does not mean the development of thought, but only potentiality, possibility. All human beings (with the exception of those with organic brain problems) have the same potential and anyone could be a great intellectual like Marx, but not everyone has the interests, information, values, determination, social and historical conditions, family, cultural background, etc., that this particular individual had. Even today there are people who believe that the earth is flat, despite all the scientific and technological production that exists today. The content of the brain, which is the mind, is a social product and not an organic one. An individual’s mind is the result of multiple determinations and only in a biologicist and ideological conception could it be the product of the brain. Pannekoek’s “slip” is thus understandable to us and he himself will ultimately go further in this discussion in the future (23).

With regard to the problem of race, there are two statements. The first states that the brain content of the more evolved races differs from that of the lower races. The second states that the race with the best technical equipment will “win and exterminate” the weaker ones and that the “European race” has achieved (colonial) domination because of its technical supremacy. With regard to the first statement, it’s clear that he was only noting what was actually happening (i.e., it’s not a principle, a wish, or a defense of it). The second statement is also true, i.e., Europeans really did dominate other societies. The reason for European domination was technical supremacy, such as weapons, which is a new observation, not a defense.

But regardless of this, there can still be an impression of racism from the terms used (evolved, lower, extermination, etc.). However, in order to understand these statements, it is necessary to understand what he is calling “race”. He uses race, not in the biological sense of the term, whether in the thesis of two races (whites and blacks) or three races (Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid), or any other, but in a cultural sense. Basically, he’s talking about ethnicities. Despite this, he makes the mistake of talking about a “European race”, because in Europe there were several ethnic groups that formed nation-states, which in turn maintain internal differences (which have diminished over time, but still have remnants, such as the Basques in Spain). What he meant was that certain societies (or “communities”, “ethnicities”, depending on how we define those terms) have a technical superiority over others and therefore end up “winning” over them, as happened with Spanish and Portuguese colonization. This makes it clear that there is no racism in Pannekoek’s statements, although they are problematic because of the way they were made, giving rise to interpretative misunderstandings.

Finally, the merit of Pannekoek, who wrote this work in 1912, was to stand out from the social democratic interpretation of Darwinism, to point out differences between its adherents, to show its sources, albeit with a certain moderation.

What remains for today’s reader is to read and assimilate this contribution and move towards a more radical critique of Darwinism and point towards overcoming it (24). A true theory of evolution still needs to be established and that means overcoming Darwinism. After Pannekoek, others went even further, both in their critique of Darwinism and in their analysis of the evolutionary process. Pannekoek’s work emerges in the history of the debate on Darwinism as one of the first to put forth a reflection that, despite its misunderstandings, opened up space for new reflections that were carried out later, whether or not we were aware of it.

Nildo Viana (2022)

1. VIANA, Nildo. Pannekoek: From Bureaucratic Organizations to Self-Organization. In: PANNEKOEK, Anton. Parties, Councils and Trade Unions. Goiânia: Edições Enfrentamento, 2021
   
   
2. This was the case with Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartakus League and Otto Rühle and the Internationalist Communists in Germany; Bolshevism in Russia; Sylvia Pankhurst and others in England, among many others. Pannekoek had other dissidents within Social Democracy, most of whom joined what was called “radical socialism”, a name to describe the diverse and heterogeneous political forces that were dissidents and became opponents of Social Democracy.
   
   
3. There are other definitions and conceptions of dissent, but this is our take on the term, which helps us understand political and intellectual processes.
   
   
4. The PSTU’s main generating organization was the PT’s internal tendency, called Convergência Socialista (with a Trotskyist orientation), which, after being expelled from the party, got together with various small internal dissident groups and some from outside the party and with the PLP – Partido da Libertação Proletária (Proletarian Liberation Party), and founded the new party.
   
   
5. Another important moment in the debate was between Rosa Luxemburg and Emile Vandervelde. The texts of this debate are collected in: PARVUS, A. et al. Debate on the mass uprising. Part 1. 2nd edition, Mexico: PYP, 1978.
   
   
6. On the positivist paradigm, its meaning and strength at the time of the intensive accumulation regime, see VIANA, Nildo. Bourgeois Hegemony and Hegemonic Renewals. Curitiba: CRV, 2019.
   
   
7. This can be seen in the case of Marx’s son-in-law, Fulano, who wrote a book against religion based on Darwinism and asked Darwin to preface it. Darwin obviously refused, because he didn’t want any problems with religion and the Church, as Pannekoek puts it in this work, and his family. The curious fact is that the reply to this letter caused confusion, as it was considered to be a reply to Marx. It is because of this that the legend was created that Marx had asked Darwin to write the preface to Capital (cf. VIANA, Nildo. The Truth about Darwinism. Goiânia: Edições Redelp, 2020).
   
   
8. His ambiguity came from his reading of Marx and revolutionary conviction, on the one hand, and the influence of social democracy, on the other, which was a deformation of Marxism.
   
   
9. An intellectual and political portrait of Kautsky is offered by Paul Mattick, with the suggestive title: “Karl Kautsky: from Marx to Hitler” (cf. MATTICK, Paul. Capitalist Integration and Workers’ Rupture. Porto: A Regra do Jogo, 1977).
   
   
10. Even without the publication of certain works by Marx, the Kautskyist version is extremely impoverished and limited, including on Marx’s theory of capitalism, whose greatest work had already been published (volume 01 by Marx himself and the other two volumes by Engels from his manuscripts and the fourth by Kautsky himself). Cf. KAUTSKY, Carlos. The Economic Doctrine of Charles Marx. Buenos Aires: El Yunque Editora, 1973.
    
    
11. Marx divides political economy into three main tendencies: the classical (Adam Smith, David Ricardo), the eclectic (Jean-Baptiste Say, Stuart Mill, etc.) and the vulgar, whose great name is Malthus (cf. MARX, Karl. Capital. 3rd edition, vol. 01, São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 1988). Marx also criticizes Malthus’ “theory” of population. Malthus became famous for naturalizing hunger and bringing up terms that Darwin would later work on, and this was his basis for being against the so-called “law of the poor”, because only the “fittest” should survive.
    
    
12. See A Verdade sobre o Darwinismo and also: FERREIRA, Ricardo. Bates, Darwin, Wallace and the Theory of Evolution. Brasília: UnB, 1990.
    
    
13. See the preface by Nélio Marco Bizzo to the first edition of The Origin of Species (DARWIN, Charles. A Origem das Espécies. São Paulo: Edipro, 2018).
    
    
14. Cf. DARWIN, Charles. The Origin of Species – Draft of 1842. São Paulo: Newton Economic Classics, 1996.
    
    
15. On bourgeois epistemology, see: VIANA, Nildo. The Bourgeois Way of Thinking. Bourgeois Epistemology and Marxist Epistemology. Curitiba: CRV, 2018.
    
    
16. Obviously, here we are talking about “bourgeois” not as a class, but as the bearers of a bourgeois conception, i.e. on an intellectual level.
    
    
17. And he was already carrying it himself, because you only have to see his explicit racism and sexism, as well as his approval of the ideas of his cousin, Francis Galton, a eugenicist, to be clear about this (DARWIN, Charles. The Origin of Man and Sexual Selection. São Paulo: Hemus, 1974). On this subject, see The Truth about Darwinism.
    
    
18. This is Kropotkin’s book “Mutual Aid” (KROPOTKIN, Piotr. Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution. São Sebastião: A Senhora Editora, 2009). A critique of the Kropotkist interpretation of Darwin can be seen in The Truth About Darwinism.
    
    
19. Pannekoek recognizes its link to Malthus’ population “theory”, but ends up disregarding its significance.
    
    
20. See: PRENANT, Marcel. Darwin. Mexico, Ediciones Quetzal, 1940; MARCO (BIZZO), Nélio. What is Darwinism? São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1987; VIANA, Nildo. The Truth about Darwinism. Goiânia: Edições Redelp, 2020.
    
    
21. It is in The German Ideology (MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. The German Ideology (Feuerbach). 3rd edition, São Paulo: Ciências Humanas, 1982) that Marx better explains his position on the question of the social division of labor and relates it to private property and, later, to the relations of production. Marx’s position is that in communism there is an abolition of the social division of labor and he makes this explicit with his statement that in the new society individuals will be able to fish in the morning, write poetry in the afternoon and criticize at night. Regardless, the link between the social division of labor and class exploitation points to the need for such an abolition.
    
    
22. Cf. VIANA, Nildo. Brain and Ideology. A Critique of Cerebral Determinism. Jundiaí: Paco, 2010.
    
    
23. See: PANNEKOEK, Anton. Lenin the Philosopher. Córdoba: PYP, 1973.
    
    
24. Other conceptions of evolution emerged after Darwinism, such as neo-Lamarckism, the theory of punctuated equilibrium, cladism, “dialectical biology”, etc. Undoubtedly, some of these conceptions are close to Marxism, but a radical and total social transformation would be necessary to develop the Marxist epistemology and research into nature free from the determinations of capitalist society (bourgeois epistemology, ideologies, social pressure, funding, etc.) in order to effectively advance in understanding the genesis of humanity and the evolution of species.