ALWAYS FREE

THE

ISSUE NO. 1

REVOLUTIONARY STUDENT
PURDUE UNIVERSITY NORTH CENTRAL / SEPTEMBER 2012

Marx, Darwin and Gould, The Revolution of Evolution

Ten years ago the great paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould died in New York of cancer. It was the second time that Gould had faced this terrible disease and this time he was defeated by it. The name of Gould will always be linked to his punctuated equilibrium theory, published in 1977 with his colleague Niles Eldredge.

MANY BREAKS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD ARE REAL - GOULD

The publication of this theory completely changed evolutionary biology: the general setting of the Modern Synthesis, the name given to the traditional paradigm of evolutionary biology since the 1930s, was totally shattered. The theory of punctuated equilibria did not break with the basic core of Darwinian evolution variation and natural selection but it completely overturned the framework through continued on page 2-4

In Brief: Marxism
All too often Marxism is reduced to far-left liberalism, a fallacy which some of the worlds heralded socialists frequently internalize (and indulge). Let us not forget liberalisms main function: as an ideology of the ruling class. After all, the principles of liberalism were born from and guided bourgeois revolutions throughout the world revolutions which ultimately gave us the world we see today. Contemporary liberalism seems to deliver us with a compelling ethical critique of the worlds socioeconomic ills, offering a vast array of solutions to problems. However, it puts forth imaginary continued on page 4

In Brief: Marxism Starts above, continues on page 4

Is Reforming Capitalism Enough? Page 6

The Revolutionary Student: a Youth For International Socialism publication Issue No. 1 / Volume 1
1

(Revolution of Evolution cont.)

...which we understand natural history, from evolution's rhythm to the role played by natural selection. Dialectical materialism sets out from the idea that that matter, the ultimate basis of our understanding, is always in motion, in a state of change. However, changes do not take place gradually but as a result of slow accumulation in quantity that, at a certain point, produces a qualitative leap. We can see this process clearly at work in the physical and biological world but also in human societies. Revolutions are rare events that seem to come from nowhere, but in reality they are sudden leaps prepared by a long accumulation of apparently minor events. The way nature and society develop means that in order to effectively analyze natural and human history we cannot rely on a method of static study of separated facts. On the contrary we must base ourselves on the dialectic method that understands any single event in a dynamic process of transformation. Gould did not consider himself a Marxist, although he knew and used Marxism and his enemies always accused him of being one. This is because his theory broke with the traditional view of a slow, gradual evolution, something that ts very well with the mainstream ideology that defends capitalism as a system where standards of living are constantly improving. Links between mainstream theories and the ruling class's ideology are inevitable, as scientists cannot isolate themselves from the class struggle going on in society. The struggle of ideas always reects, even if not directly, a clash of opposite social interests and outlooks. Therefore it is

not by chance that to reach a deeper understanding of how nature evolves, Gould and Eldredge were forced to break with the traditional paradigm that was also an implicit political statement about society. The theory of punctuated equilibria borrowed ideas from dialectical materialism but, above all, it enriched it enormously, revealing its importance to understand not only the life of Homo sapiens but of every life form on Earth.

use to develop the theory of natural selection. Even a supercial reading of his famous notebooks proves that Darwin did not arrive at the idea of natural selection in a single step, but through successive approximations. In 1838 Darwin read the famous An essay of the principle of population, in which Malthus explained that, Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence only increases in an arithmetical ratio, an iron law that forced animals and men to ght for their lives. This idea tted well with the ideology that considered the aspiration of workers and peasants for a better life as unnatural. What was the point in raising the standard of living of these people if they were inevitably going to be decimated by famine? According to this school of thought it is nature that dooms most people to death or starvation, not society. Any attempt to change this simple fact were considered useless. Although Malthus idea was very useful to the British ruling class it also helped Darwin to formulate the theory of natural selection. In fact, Darwin developed a close analogy between the large number of offspring produced in every generation and small number of adults who reached the reproductive age. The theory was completed with an analogy between the power of nature to select individuals and human selective power in the process of domestication. The Origin of the species by means of natural selection is the most important work in the history of biology. As Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The core of the Darwinian theory was very simple: there is a natural variation in terms of morphological, physiological or behavioral traits among the individuals of a (Continued on next page) 2

AT THE ORIGIN OF THE ORIGIN

There is a grandeur in this view of life Charles Darwin When Charles Darwin in 1859 published his masterpiece, The origin of the species by means of natural selection, many attempts to introduce an evolutionist view of life had already been made by Diderot, Maupertuis, Buffon and others, but they were all based on speculation. None of these natural scientists had gathered sufcient observations and experimental evidence to back up the idea of evolution. Only the great zoologist Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck had developed a proper model of natural evolution, based on organic use and disuse and on a metaphysical vitalist force that pushed life forms forward. The fact remains that the idea of a world in which species were created by God at the beginning of time was dominant.Scala naturae, the idea that God had placed all animals and plants on a xed scale from the lower to the higher forms, was the accepted explanation of the diversity of life. After his return in 1836 from the Beagle's 5-year voyage around the world, Darwin had become famous for the animal and plant collections sent to London, but more importantly he had collected the main data he would

population; these traits are heritable; individuals with traits that promote reproduction are preserved over the generations. The result is the progressive evolution of the entire population. In Darwin's words: Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree protable to an individual of any species, in its innitely complex relationship to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring[1] These conclusions did not arise from speculation but from careful observations and evidence from fossils, botany, zoology and other elds. The basic ideas of Darwin have been conrmed by thousands and thousands of different observations. That life forms evolve is by far the most established and important feature of nature. The core of Darwinian theory was very simple but the consequences of the theory were revolutionary. If Copernicus and Galileo had removed humankind from the centre of the physical world, Darwin's theory shattered the ideas of humankind as the summit of the biological world. Moreover, his theory disposed of any nalist and teleological view of nature. There is no intelligent design nor a Divine project behind evolution. It simply happens. It's the environment that silently shapes individuals on the basis of their random variations. Adaptations appear as consequences of life, that is in the struggle of plants and animals to survive. As Darwin wrote: I'm fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some others and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the

acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendant of that species (Ibid., Introduction[2]) Thus the same theory explains two seemingly contradictory processes: on the one hand, the preservation of the most advantageous traits generation after generation; on the other hand an explosion of diversity from one common ancestor as a consequence of natural selection and the survival of the ttest (i.e. individuals with the most useful traits for reproduction). From the imbalance between the large number of offspring and the limited resources emerges the struggle for existence. That is the source of natural selection. In this view speciation and extinction have a dialectical relationship: species with less advantageous traits are progressively destined to disappear, opening up space in the environment in a constant process of change. This space will be lled by the new species emerging from the extinction of the former. In Darwin's view extinction is the condition of existence of new emerging species. According to Darwin, this is a slow and gradual process: an entire species gradually becomes a new species. Steve Gould was eventually to dene this gradual and slow view of evolution as phyletic gradualism. For all its greatness, there were two main weaknesses in The Origin. First of all, Darwin maintained an ambiguous explanation of how species arise. In fact, Darwin explained that a population of individuals selected by natural selection become a new species by slow, constant, imperceptible changes. Darwin admitted that geographic separation of small groups from the population could play a role in creating new species, but only marginally.

This gradualist view of evolution was inuenced by the general ideology of gradualism in all spheres of life: natura non facit saltus [Nature does not make leaps] is at the core of any political, social, cultural and scientic thinking in all epochs that attempts to deny the possibility of changing society. In the theory of natural evolution, gradualism required the existence of uninterrupted intermediate stages in the fossil records, something that was never to materialize. Darwin himself attributed the lack of intermediate fossils to the difculties in the process of fossilization, but the actual real fossil records that we do have show species that are unchanged for millions of years. Furthermore, what are the differences between variations and how did new species arise from these? New species seemed to vanish in a sea of variation: a well-marked variation is an incipient species. In a nutshell, we can see that the Darwinian paradigm of evolution had revolutionary features, but was also hampered by the ideological imposition of a gradualist view of natural history. Darwin modied his book in the following edition to answer these critics. For example we can read these words to explain the development of the eye shaped by a gradual, slow evolution by natural selection: Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modication in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difculty of believing that a (Continued on next page) 3

perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. (Ibid., Chapter VI, Difculties on theory[3]) And again: I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility. (Ibid., Chapter VI) The second problem was that Darwin, in setting up his theory, did not know exactly how the characteristics were transmitted to the next generation. This was pivotal for a theory based on natural selection because one of the main elements of the theory was the presence of variations among the individuals and the possibility of transmitting the variations to the next generation. Without these two points it is not possible to have evolution. In The Origin Darwin left open the question and, a few years later, he published an essay entitled The variation of animals and plants under domestication in which he talked about a provisional theory of the pangenesis. According to this theory, characteristics come from every single point of the body and are accumulated in the gonads: the offspring are merely the product of mixing both parents' characteristics and not, as we know today, the product of random genetic reworking before the fusion of germ cells. It is clear that according to the provisional theory of pangenesis, the random emergence of advantageous variations cannot be inherited in full by the offspring but are diluted by mixing. Natural selection would have nothing to preserve.

Our understanding of the inheritance mechanism depends basically on Gregor Mendel's work. Today we know that there are precise mechanisms through which characteristics are inherited. Mendel's work, published in 1865, went basically unnoticed. Darwin received Mendel's work but he never opened it. However, from the publications of Mendel's work, especially with the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1959, the problems raised by The Origin have now been basically solved. Today there are still many questions in the programme of evolutionary research that remain open, but they all start from the Darwinian core of evolution led by natural selection. There has been much research into the most appropriate scientic methods with which to dene a species, a phylogenetic relationship, to understand the fossil records, to interpret the tempo and mode of the Earth's natural history and, above all, of humankind's natural history. It is a great leap forward for us and today this allows us to say that evolution is a fact. Without the giant leap forward represented by the theory of evolution, it would not be possible to understand the relationships between all of the planet's phyla and our own history. Unless, of course, one believes that a superior being created all the animals exactly as they are today, and that the same supreme being buried a lot of dinosaur fossils simply to play games with humanity! Ever since the publication of The Origin biology and science in general, has never been the same. The theory of evolution by natural selection contains a profound dialectical meaning: conservation through diversity is a wonderful demonstration of the dialectical character by which nature proceeds. Marx and Engels immediately

acknowledged the revolutionary implications of the theory pointing out, at the same time, the limits represented by the implicit ideology that lay behind it.

By Lorenzo Esposito and Emanuele Cullor

[To be continued in Issue No. 2...] [1] C. Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter III, Struggle for existence, (http://www.literature.org/ authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-ofspecies/chapter-03.html). [2] http://www.literature.org/ authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-ofspecies/introduction.html. [3] http://www.literature.org/ authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-ofspecies/chapter-06.html.

In Brief: Marxism (cont.)

treatments of concrete problems; it ignores the material conditions of society. Marxism on the other hand, through scientic analysis, allows us to understand the world in a truly revolutionary way; the point being to change it. Communism, as Friedrich Engels stated in 1846, was nothing but the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. With this, Engels proclaimed communism not as a single set of dogmatic ideals, but a concept destined to change as conditions change: alongside society. Unfortunately, reading Marx allows one to dispel conjectures born of pseudo-Marxism easier than it allows one to understand the true essence of communism. This may ultimately be (Continued on next page) 4

the reason that Marx and Engels held a very rational fear that a misunderstanding of theory would lead to a dogmatic interpretation (and in turn application) of Marxism. However, when reading Marx, free from the sentiments of internalized McCarthyism, it becomes abundantly clear why the notion that communism is an evil ideal waiting for an opportunity to destroy ones freedom is ludicrous. So, what is communism? In order to begin answering this question, an explanation of the terms socialism and communism is necessary. In traditional Marxist discourse, neither Marx nor Engels ever made a distinction between socialism and communism. These words were used interchangeably. It was not until V.I. Lenin that the term socialism became separate from communism. What Marx called the transitional phase between capitalism and highcommunism Lenin dubbed socialism. In this essay, I will use the Leninist terminology for it is the most dominate today. Socialism, as will later be explained in greater detail, constitutes something completely opposite of the so-called socialist social-democratic parties of Europe, and to a far greater extent, the U.S. Democratic Party. Socialism being the phase between capitalism and communism is nothing but a means for the development of a communist society. This being said, the means are manifested in what Marx and Engels called the dictatorship of the proletariat. This dictatorship is not the traditional dictatura, or rule by single person or small group of people with no democratic control, but is diametrically opposed to such a concept. However unfortunate the terminology chosen by Marx, it must be understood in context. Marxs dictatorship of the proletariat was nothing but state power captured by the mass of society, to be exercised through republican democracy. This

has consistently been reiterated by Marxists as the most important constituent part of socialism. If this is not sufcient proof of the benign nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, one must only look to the short essay The Civil War in France written by Marx. In the postscript to this essay Engels wrote, [D]o you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat in the commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible, and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive, and legislative at the same time. This form of popular government, featuring revocable election of councilors and maximal public participation in governance, resembles contemporary direct democracy. This is the only example Marx and Engels gave, possibly because none had ever existed before. The Paris Commune leads us to another important feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The seizure of State power by the masses not only served to give power to the people, but was necessary as a means to suppress the coercive power of capital, further develop the means of production, and to begin reorganizing the structural framework of society. Full seizure of the state machine, and with it state power, would allow the proletariat to destroy the existing capitalist state and replace it with a very different proletarian one. The historical mission of the proletarian seizure of the state is not the proliferation of state power, but without getting too far ahead the ultimate destruction

of the state. The Paris Commune suffered a bloody demise due the lack of complete State power and external bourgeois military forces. Historically, in times of civil war or revolution, repression of the enemy was the job of the State. We see examples of this through history, ranging from the extreme such as Robespierre's 'Reign of Terror', all the way to the lesser but still repressive force that was the suspension of habeas corpus by Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War or under the Bush/Obama Administration beneath the guise of a domestic war on terror. The objectives described above and their respective results can only achieved by seizure of the State by the working-class, that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat i.e., socialism. Now that the question of socialism is out of the way you may ask: What is left to be done? As it is already known, socialism is but the means for achieving communism. So what is communism? Communism includes, but is not limited to: the abolition of capital and of private (not personal) property, the abolition of all hierarchy and social power, and the organizational residue left after the dissolution of the State. In Issue No. 2 of The Revolutionary Student, we will analyze the capitalist mode of production and its repercussions. Without semicomprehensive knowledge of capitalist economics, one cannot understand what Marxists which to achieve by aiming to construct a socialist society. (To be continued)

By Jacob Pointon

Is reforming capitalism enough?

WHEN SOMEONE is described as having "liberal" ideas about, for example, women's rights or racial equality, that's positive. "Liberal" in this sense means simply the opposite of conservative. But in the world of politics, "liberalism" has a more denite meaning. Marxists are for women's rights and against racial discrimination. But Marxists are not only not liberal; we are, in certain ways, opposed to liberalism. Liberals criticize some aspects of the system. But they do so with the aim of nding ways of improving the institutions they criticize. The socalled progressive movement of the early 20th century was a liberal reform movement. It tried to curb the excesses of big business, break up monopolies and trusts, and eliminate corruption. The reformers saw themselves as saving the system from its own excesses--making improvements in order to prevent more drastic revolt. They were very clear about their moderate aims--as this passage that prefaced a 1912 muckraking expose of judicial corruption makes clear: This is presented as the rst step in the important work of making conditions wholesome enough to restore people's condence. It is our hope that the publication of the truth will lead to that reform of the judiciary which is necessary to remove the causes of discontent. Because we respect judges as a class, we insist upon exposing those who are bringing them into discredit. What would a Marxist version of this paragraph look like? Maybe a little like this:

This is presented as a rst step in the important work of removing people's condence in the judiciary. Because money and power grease the judicial machinery, an honest judge is the exception rather than the rule. It is our hope that the publication of the truth will, in provoking a movement for judicial reform, lead activists to conclude that the whole judicial system is rotten. Liberals want to "remove the causes of discontent" in order to "restore condence" in the system--whereas socialists want to destroy condence in the system because the system is fundamentally awed. So, for example, where a liberal might encourage capitalists to invest more "responsibly," Marxists attack the whole prot system for putting greed over human need. Liberals fear collective struggle and working-class revolt, whereas socialists welcome it. That doesnt mean that liberals won't sometimes participate in mass movements. But when they do, they do so in order to ensure that things don't "get out of hand." The fundamental political difference between liberalism and Marxism is that liberalism sees a social problem-such as America's role as the world's bully--as bad policy, not as something that ows out of U.S. economic and military interests. For example, liberal commentator Robert Borosage, in a book critical of high military spending, argues that with higher taxes, the U.S. government could afford to "police the world...and invest in vital social and economic needs at home." In the same book, another writer, William Hartung, argues that the U.S. military budget "sends the wrong signal by implying that force is still the ultimate arbiter of international disputes." But what other signal could the U.S. possibly send? Force is indeed the nal arbiter of

international disputes in a system of states that compete economically and militarily for control of the world's resources. Hartung and Borosage want the U.S. government to carry out a nicer foreign policy--one that doesn't murder thousands of Iraqi children every month through economic sanctions, one that doesn't slaughter 2 million Vietnamese people, one that doesn't provide aid to a Colombian military that works hand in glove with murderous, drug-running death squads. But imperialism with a human face is a contradiction in terms. The problem with the liberal approach is that it seeks, to paraphrase the Polish Marxist Rosa Luxemburg, surface modications in the existing society rather than a fundamental transformation. So no matter how well they criticize aspects of the system, they end up apologizing for it. Surface modications leave the basic structures intact. And it's the basic structures that need to be dismantled. (First published in the May 25, 2001, issue of Socialist Worker)

By Paul D'Amato

NOT A MEMBER? JOIN THE PNC C H A P T E R O F YO U T H F O R INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM! CONTACT US BY EMAIL: YFISPNC@GMAIL.COM LIKE US ON FACEBOOK!