DARWIN, TROTSKY, ENGELS AND MARX

In order to understand Communism's birth, we must examine European culture in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. Beginning in the second century A.D. under the Emperor Constantine, Europe gradually accepted Christianity. Christian culture held sway until the Enlightenment of the 18^th century, when a number of artists and thinkers began embracing the influence of pagan Greek and Roman culture and consequently, rejecting the dictates of religion. The Enlightenment's most important political result was the French Revolution, which was not only an uprising against the ancient regime, but at the same time, a revolt against religion.

The foundation of the French Revolution was established by the influence of such anti-religious thinkers as Voltaire, Diderot and Montesquieu. From 1789 on, the Enlightenment's pagan, anti-religious tendencies of became obvious. After an intense propaganda campaign, the Jacobins came to lead the revolution, established a movement against orthodox Catholicism, and even managed to create a new religion. Revolutionary worship, seen first during the national Feast of the Federation on July 14, 1790, spread quickly. Robespierre, one of the leaders of the bloody revolution, explained its rules and principles in a report, wherein he called it "The Worship of Supreme Being."'Paris's famous Nôtre Dame cathedral was changed into what he called the "Temple of Reason." Statues of Christian saints were removed from the cathedral walls, replaced by the statue of an allegorical woman called the "Goddess of Reason." In the course of the French Revolution, many priests and nuns were killed; churches and monasteries were plundered and destroyed.

At the same time, the philosophy of materialism reawakened and began to spread throughout Europe. Certain ancient Greek philosophers had first proposed this philosophy, which believes that only matter exists, that living things-indeed, human consciousness itself-are only "matter in motion." In the 18th century, two important names in the French Revolution, Denis Diderot and his close friend Baron d'Holbach, adopted this philosophy and imposed it on the people. In his book called Système de la Nature (The System of Nature) published in 1770, Baron d'Holbach used a few so-called "scientific" suppositions to propose that only matter and energy existed. A fanatical atheist, D'Holbach was opposed to the concept of morality advocating that human beings should take all the pleasure they can and do everything they can to get it.

Communism's roots stretch back to the French Revolution, when hostility to religion was embodied by the "goddess of reason." She later appeared on Communist posters, like the one on the left.

In the 18^th century, a few thinkers adopted materialism, but it became much more widespread in the 19^th, overflowing the borders of France to take root in other European countries. At the beginning of the 20th century, two important Materialist thinkers appeared in Germany: Ludwig Büchner and Karl Vogt. Vogt tried to explain human rationality in terms of a simile: "the brain secretes thought just as the liver secretes bile." Not even the Materialists of his time accepted that nonsensical analogy.

Despite the proffering of such idiotic proposals, materialism was adopted by anti-religious forces, who started to impose it on European societies. Propaganda insisted that materialism was the foundation of reason and science-a deception that quickly spread among the enlightened, moving first from France to Germany and then, gradually, throughout the rest of Europe. In this respect, Freemasonry was an important ally. Masons adopted materialism as a religion and, in the 19^th century, many enlightened Europeans became its members.

As this ancient dogma spread, there were attempts to adapt materialism to several branches of science:

1. To natural science, by the English naturalist Charles Darwin.

2. To social science, by the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Darwin's adaptation is called the theory of evolution, while Marx and Engel's is known as Communism.

Marx and Darwin

It's possible to say that Darwin's theory includes that of Marx and Engels, because Communism is also a theory of "evolution" adapted to history and sociology. Anton Pannekoek, a renowned Darwinist-Marxist thinker, sums this up in his book Marxism and Darwinism published at the beginning of the 20^th century:
 
The scientific importance of Marxism as well as of Darwinism consists in their following out the theory of evolution, the one upon the domain of the organic world, of things animate; the other, upon the domain of society... Thus, both teachings, the teachings of Darwin and of Marx, the one in the domain of the organic world and the other upon the field of human society, raised the theory of evolution to a positive science. In doing this they made the theory of evolution acceptable to the masses as the basic conception of social and biological development.1

Engels (left) saw Darwin and Marx (right) as equals, from the point of view of Communist theory. According to Engels, Marx applied materialism to the social sciences, and Darwin applied it to biology.

Darwinism and Marxism are fully compatible in two basic arguments:

1. Darwinism proposed that all existing things consist of "matter in motion." This alleges that God neither created nor ordered matter and that therefore, all life arose by chance. Human beings are a species of animal, evolved from other, lesser animals. But these claims rest on no scientific proof and have been proven false be subsequent scientific discoveries. But Darwin's theory harmonizes with the views of Marx and Engels, who believed that only matter existed, and that the whole of human history can be explained in material terms. (For more information, please refer to Darwinism Refuted:How the Theory of Evolution Breaks Down in the Light of Modern Science by Harun Yahya, Goodword Books, 2002 and The Evolution Deceit by Harun Yahya, Ta-Ha Publishers, 2002)

2. Darwinism proposed that "conflict" is the motivating force that brought about development in living creatures. His basic supposition was that the natural world's resources weren't sufficient to support living things; that therefore, organisms had to fight a constant struggle that drove evolution. The dialectical method adopted by Marx and Engels is the same as Darwin's. According to dialectics, the single motive force underlying development in the universe is the conflict between opposites. Human history has progressed by means of this conflict. Humanity itself has advanced in the same way.

When examined closely, the theories of Marx-Engels and Darwin appear to be in total harmony, as if they have arisen from a single source. Darwin applied materialist philosophy to nature, while Marx-Engels applied it to history.

According to Plekhanov, a leader of Russian Communism, Marxism is "Darwinism in its application to social sciences".

In fact, Karl Marx was the first to realize Darwin's important contribution to materialism. Reading Darwin's The Origin of Species after its publication in 1859, Marx found in it great support for his own theory. A letter he wrote to Engels on December 19, 1860, says that Darwin's book "contains the basis in natural history for our view."2 In a letter to Lassalle in January 16, 1861, he says, "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history."3

Marx's dedication to Darwin of his greatest work, Das Kapital, shows the common mind that they shared. In the German edition of his book that he sent Darwin, Marx wrote with his own hand, "To Charles Darwin from a true admirer, from Karl Marx."

Engels also admired Darwin: "Nature is the test of dialectics, and it must be said . . . that in the last resort, nature works dialectically and not metaphysically . . . In this connection, Darwin must be named before all others."4 Elsewhere, he said that, "Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history."5

In denying creation, Darwin gave Communism a supposedly scientific foundation. Therefore Trotsky, one of the bloody leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution regarded Darwin as the proponent of dialectic materialism in the field of the natural sciences.

Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov, one of the leaders of Russian Communism whom Lenin praised for his command of all international Marxist literature, summed it up succinctly when he said that Marxism is "Darwinism in its application to social sciences."6

Professor Malachi Martin, of the Vatican's Pontifical Bible Institute explains the relation between Marx and Darwin in these words:

. . . when Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution, Marx regarded it as far more than theory. He seized upon it as his "scientific" proof that there was no kingdom of Heaven, only the kingdom of Matter. Darwin had vindicated Marx in his rejection of Hegel's [idealism]. Ignoring the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution was just that a theory. . . Marx adapted Darwin's ideas to the social classes of his day. . . Darwin's theory of evolution being what it was, Marx reasoned that the social classes, like all matter, must always be in struggle with each other for survival and dominance.7

Contemporary evolutionists also note the strong bond between Darwinism and Marxism. One of today's most famous proponents of the theory of evolution is the biologist Douglas Futuyma. In the preface to his Evolutionary Biology, he says, "Together with Marx's materialist theory of history and society... Darwin hewed the final planks of the platform of mechanism and materialism."8 Another famous evolutionary paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, said that "Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature."9 Leon Trotsky who, together with Lenin, was one of the architects of the Russian Revolution, described the discovery of Darwin as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter ."10

All this shows the great affinity between Darwinism and Marxism, that without Darwin's influence, there would have been no Marxist theory. And if Darwinism is invalid, we will understand that Marxism is invalid too. But the converse is true as well: In any society where Darwinism is widely accepted, the growth of Marxism is inevitable.

For this reason, it is very important to understand why Darwinism has no validity in the fields of either science or sociology. This understanding will prevent the revitalization of Marxism which stems from it, and which is lying in wait today-as well as forestalling any return to the agonies that humanity has suffered over the previous century. History shows that without Darwinism, there can be no Marxism.

Darwinism's Spread and The Relationship Between Communism and Capitalism

When we investigate Darwinism's political influence, keep in mind that this theory is related not to one single ideology, but to many seemingly different ones. Apart from Communism, the wide spectrum of ideologies relying on Darwinism includes racism, imperialism, capitalism, and fascism. The common point that all these apparently independent, even contrary, ideologies share is their opposition to monotheistic religions and whatever moral values that these religions inculcate.

Lenin wrote that Communists and the bourgeoisie are the same, as regards their hostility towards religion. According to Lenin's interpretation, the conflict between Communism and capitalism is really just an "internal quarrel," and these two materialist ideologies' common enemy is religion.

These ideologies' leaders see religious beliefs and values as impediments, and use Darwinism as a weapon to destroy them. Ironically, by opening a "breathing room" for their own ideologies in this way, they only strengthen competing ideologies. For example, capitalists claim that a Darwinist outlook is needed to legitimate the ruthless "struggle to survive" evident in the free market. In this way, they support the very Communism that they oppose.

Anton Pannekoek's book Marxism and Darwinism refers to this interesting paradox. He describes the support given to Darwinism by the bourgeoisie (Europe's wealthy capitalist class) in these words:

That Marxism owes its importance and position only to the role it takes in the proletarian class struggle, is known to all...Yet it is not hard to see that in reality Darwinism had to undergo the same experiences as Marxism. Darwinism is not a mere abstract theory which was adopted by the scientific world after discussing and testing it in a mere objective manner. No, immediately after Darwinism made its appearance, it had its enthusiastic advocates and passionate opponents... Darwinism, too, played a role in the class-struggle, and it is owing to this role that it spread so rapidly and had enthusiastic advocates and venomous opponents.

Darwinism served as a tool to the bourgeoisie in their struggle against the feudal class, against the nobility, clergy-rights and feudal lords. ...What the bourgeoisie wanted was to get rid of the old ruling powers standing in their way... With the aid of religion the priests held the great mass in subjection and ready to oppose the demands of the bourgeoisie...Natural science became a weapon in the opposition to belief and tradition; science and the newly discovered natural laws were put forward; it was with these weapons that the bourgeoisie fought...

Darwinism came at the desired time; Darwin's theory that man is the descendant of a lower animal destroyed the entire foundation of Christian dogma. It is for this reason that as soon as Darwinism made its appearance, the bourgeoisie grasped it with great zeal...Under these circumstances, even the scientific discussions were carried on with the zeal and passion of a class struggle. The writings that appeared pro and con on Darwin have therefore the character of social polemics, despite the fact that they bear the names of scientific authors.11

The spread of Darwinism actually happened this way. The forces that held sway in Europe saw Darwinism as a rare opportunity to legitimate the capitalist order they had established in their own countries, and their imperialist colonial systems throughout the world. (For details, refer to Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity, Harun Yahya, Attique Publishers, 2000.) Darwinism's scientific inconsistency, its imaginary suppositions and nonsensical claims have totally been ignored. Those who regard it as a weapon against religion and morality have disseminated it for ideological purposes.

But the bourgeoisie-that is, the capitalist class responsible for Darwinism's dissemination-have supported both this theory and its rival. Why? Because Darwinism's spread and the concomitant destruction of religious belief have benefited Marxism as much they have capitalism. Religion teaches such values as moderation, modesty, brotherhood, self-sacrifice and compassion. With these removed, society becomes a savage arena in which the "struggle for survival" among capitalists goes on, much as does the class struggle between capitalists and Communists.

In the fall of 1871, European naturalists gathered at an international congress. One of the speakers, the German statesman and naturalist Rudolf Virchow, said, "Be careful of this theory, for this theory is very nearly related to the theory that caused so much dread in our neighboring country."12 The country he meant was France, and the theory was French Communism, which created the bloody Paris Commune of that year. (The Commune was a citywide revolt led by the Communists, at a time when France was weakened after losing the Franco-Prussian War. For months, directors of the Commune administered the city. Widespread assaults were organized against religious centers and the clergy.)

Finally, despite their differences, both capitalists and Communists found common ground in their opposition to religion, and for that opposition, they found great support in Darwinism. For this reason, Communists believe that before the revolution can occur, a society must first become capitalist.. According to this idea, along with the general adoption of capitalist morality (where Darwinist propaganda plays a vital role), a society must first discard religion before Communism can grow. In Vladimir Lenin's 1909 article titled "The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion," the Communist leader describes the role played by the capitalist bourgeoisie in opposing religion:

. . . the task of combating religion is historically the task of the revolutionary bourgeoisie. In the West, this task was to a large extent performed by bourgeois democracy, in the epoch of its revolutions against feudalism and medievalism... Both France and Germany have a tradition of bourgeois war on religion, which began long before socialism (the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach). In Russia, because of the conditions of our bourgeois-democratic revolution, this task too falls almost entirely on the shoulders of the working class.13

Lenin is saying that capitalists have the obligation to wage war against religion, as they have in Europe; that because the capitalist class does not exist in Russia, he and his party will undertake this war against religion. His words show that in essence, the opposition between capitalism and Communism is an "inner conflict" only. Actually, these two forces' common enemy is religion.

Communists are clearly attempting to erode societies, alienate people from the truth, and weaken their moral values and humanity, so as to make them accept their own irreligious system. But none of their attacks against religion can succeed at all. Don't forget, many have tried to destroy true religion in the past, disobeying God's apostles and turning away from His holy Books. But their fate is the same: God afflicts some of those who fight against His religion with troubles in this world, while others must wait for the Last Day to receive their painful torment. As the Qur'an (40:4-6) announces,

No one disputes God's Signs except those who disbelieve. Do not let their free movement about the earth deceive you. The people of Noah denied the truth before them, and the Confederates after them. Every nation planned to seize its Messenger and used false arguments to rebut the truth. So I seized them, and how [awful] was My punishment! So your Lord's Words about those who disbelieve proved true, that they are indeed the Companions of the Fire.

Darwinism's Bloody Dialectic

So far, we have sketched the spread of Communism throughout the world. In nearly every country, it developed as an alternative to capitalism or Fascism. Communism may seem to be the direct opposite of capitalism and Fascism, but Darwinism is their common inspiration. Capitalism and Fascism are Darwinism's right wing and Communism, its left wing. In every country, the spread of Darwinism gives rise to the sudden growth of both wings. Therefore, those who use Darwinism to support Fascism and capitalism will inevitably have supported Communism too!

According to Darwinism's atheist worldview, right and left give birth to, and even nourish each other. Each side engages with the other in continuous conflict. Darwinism regards this clashing as appropriate, even necessary for human societies.

Viewing this general outline, we can say that Darwinism has established a dialectic on the political level. Dialectic, a theory proposed by the German philosopher Hegel and adopted later by Marx and Engels, supposes that every development in the universe occurs as the result of conflict. Every state, condition, or idea is a "thesis," followed by an "antithesis." Thesis and antithesis engage in a conflict that's eventually resolved in a "synthesis." After a while, this synthesis itself becomes another thesis; and another antithesis comes into conflict with it. According to dialetic theory, conflict must continue in this way indefinitely.

Darwinism has made the world a battleground for dialectic by rejecting the fact that God created humanity and promoting the idea that human beings are another species of animal. In many countries, especially in Europe, right-wing Darwinists once held sway. Having destroyed religious belief or destroying moral values, they introduced heartless capitalism that led to Fascism. Against this group, the left-wing Darwinists-Communists-organized themselves; both sides entered into a continual state of conflict with each other. The synthesis of this Darwinist dialectics is always the same: torture, pain, blood, war, tears...

Our other books have examined the terror and savagery perpetrated by Fascists, the representatives of right-wing Darwinist dialectics. In this book, we'll examine Communist terror and savagery.

THOSE WHO WISH TO SILENCE OPPOSING IDEAS WITH A "CONFLICT OF DIALECTIC" ARE DEFEATED IN EVERY AGE Dialectical materialism took its inspiration from Darwinism, regarding history as a merciless struggle between opposing ideas. In the 20th century, Communists have clashed with Fascists and set citizens of one country against one another, turning the world into a lake of blood. Each has believed that its own ideology would emerge the victor. But Communism did not come out of this struggle victorious, and dialectical materialism's idea of historical dialectics has also collapsed. Above is a relief depicting the Egyptian Pharaoh breaking the skulls of his opponents. Pharaoh was proud of his cruel, oppressive methods. But he had a sad end. Throughout history, there has always been an opposition between good and evil, even in the realm of ideas. Good has always won out, because the methods of struggle that God has revealed to people in the Qur'an are designed to bring peace, trust and friendship, destroying contention and enmity. For example, God commanded Moses to call Pharaoh into the right way. Moses and Pharaoh had completely different aims, but when God brought these two opposing sides together, He said to Moses and his brother Aaron, "Go to Pharaoh; he has overstepped the bounds. But speak to him with gentle words so that hopefully he will pay heed or show some fear." (Qur'an, 20:43-44) As God had commanded, Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh, patiently using various methods to show him, the good and righteous path of God's commands. At the end of this intellectual argument, Pharaoh wasn't able to see the truth and kept on with his oppression. But he was drowned in the sea, and Moses and his people were saved. This example is a synopsis of human history: No one wins by fighting and bloodshed. Even those who rose to power by means of conflict could not lead their lives in peace and comfort. On the contrary, they live every moment under material and spiritual stress. Those who prevail are believers who always invite people to discuss their ideas in an atmosphere of peace and trust, and who incite them to think.

..............................................................................
1. Anton Pannekoek, Marxism and Darwinism, Translated by Nathan Weiser. Transcribed for the Internet by Jon Muller, Chicago, Charles H. Kerr & Company Co-operative Copyright, 1912 by Charles H. Kerr & Company
2. Conway Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959, pp.85-87
3. Conway Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959, pp.85-87
4. Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Foreign Languages Press, Peking 1975, p. 67
5. Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, London: Chatto & Windus, 1959, pp. 348-9
6. Robert M. Young, Darwinian Evolution and Human History, Historical Studies on Science and Belief, 1980
7. Malachi Martin, The Keys of This Blood: The Struggle for Life for World Dominion Between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Capitalist West, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990, p.203-5
8. Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., Sunderland, MA:Sinauer, 1986, p.3
9. Alan Woods and Ted Grant, Marxism and Darwinism, Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science, London, 1993
10. Alan Woods and Ted Grant, Marxism and Darwinism, Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science, London, 1993
11. Anton Pannekoek, Marxism and Darwinism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/index.htm)
12. Ibid.
13 Vladimir Ilyic Lenin, "Proleterya Partisinin Din Konusundaki Tutumu" (Religious Attitude of Proleteria Party), Proleterya, Vol 45, 13