18.On Marx and Kirchhoff, see Jacques Attali, Karl Marx ou l’esprit du monde (Paris: Fayard, 2005), p. 159.
19.On the 1851 London exhibition, see Jeffrey A. Auerbach, The Great Exhibition of 1851: A Nation on Display (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999). The exhibition turns up in passing in Marx and Engels’s correspondence; see for example the letter from Marx to Engels, 21 May 1851, and from Engels to Marx, 6 July 1851, MEGA III/4, pp. 122 and 142 respectively, MEW 17, pp. 264 and 277 respectively, CW 38, pp. 361 and 379 respectively. Marx’s reactions to the London exhibition, Attali, Karl Marx, pp. 188f.
20.Marx, regarding the electricity exhibition in Munich in a letter to Engels, 8 November 1882, Engels’s response to him, 11 November 1882, MEW 25, pp. 104 and 108 respectively, CW 46, pp. 364 and 373 respectively.
21.Hospitalier 1882. Marx’s excerpts, MEGA IV/31, pp. 467–73. On the underlining, see ibid. 875f. On the copy in his library, see MEGA IV/32, p. 330.
22.Letter from Engels to Bernstein, 27 Feb–1 March 1883, MEW 35, pp. 444f, CW 46, p. 149. On the second Industrial Revolution, see above, p. 24.
23.On the significance of Liebig for Marx, see Foster, Marx’s Ecology, pp. 20 and 147–77. On Liebig and Schönbein as more important than all political economists, Marx in letters to Engels, 13 and 20 February 1866, MEW 31, pp. 178 and 183, CW 42, pp. 227 and 232.
24.Fraas 1842. Marx in a letter to Engels, 25 March 1868, MEW 32, pp. 52f, CW 42, pp. 558f. Engels composed a few brief excerpts of Fraas’s book in the early 1880s, largely drawing the same conclusions as Marx, MEGA IV/31, pp. 512–15. In The Dialectics of Nature he repeated the same ideas, though without mentioning Fraas’s name, MEW 20, p. 453, CW 25, p. 461.
25.Justus von Liebig, Die organische Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf Agricultur und Physiologie (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1840), and many later editions and translations. The classic monograph on Liebig and his efforts is Richard Blunck, Justus von Liebig: die Lebensgeschichte eines Chemikers (Berlin: Hammerich und Leser, 1946). Significantly newer is William H. Brock, Justus von Liebig: The Chemical Gatekeeper (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Brock concentrates one-sidedly on Liebig’s British contacts, but objectively the account of agrarian chemistry is valuable, see pp. 145–82. In contrast to Engels, Marx, as was his custom, composed many detailed excerpts above all of von Liebig, Die organische Chemie (or, more correctly, of the fourth edition from 1842). The excerpts are included in what are known as the ‘London Notebooks’, which date from 1850 to 1853. The Liebig excerpts are printed in MEGA IV/9, pp. 172–213.
26.Marx, MEGA II/6, p. 477, CW 35, pp. 507f.
27.Marx’s own manuscript from 1864, MEGA II/4.2, p. 753. Engels moves the expression unheilbarer Riss forward an entire chapter; see MEW 25, p. 821 and CW 37, p. 799, which most closely corresponds to MEGA II/4.2, p. 833.
28.Foster, Marx’s Ecology, pp. 147–74 and passim.
29.On the history of the concept of metabolism, see Franklin C. Bing, ‘The History of the Word “Metabolism”’, Journal of the History of Medicine 26:2, pp. 158–80.
30.On Marx’s use of the concept of nature, see Foster, Marx’s Ecology, pp. 155ff.
31.Marx in a letter to Engels, 28 January 1863, MEW 30, pp. 320ff, CW 41, p. 449. Lukács wrote about Marx’s notebooks in an article originally published in 1925, and printed in English in Georg Lukács, ‘Technology and Human Relations’, New Left Review 39, 1966 (1925). One monograph on the subject is Amy E. Wendling, Karl Marx on Technology and Alienation (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). Unfortunately, it does not go into the particulars but discusses issues on a more general level.
32.Tristram Hunt at least mentions the name of Schorlemmer and indicates his significance for Engels, Hunt, Friedrich Engels, pp. 230 and 314.
33.Engels, ‘Carl Schorlemmer’, MEW 22, p. 314, CW 27, p. 305.
34.The letter from Engels to Schorlemmer is kept in Manchester University Library, Special Collections, and provides information on a few Greek words of interest to the history of chemistry. The letter, written on 27 January 1891, is reproduced in MEW 38, p. 14, CW 49, p. 111. Four letters from Schorlemmer to Engels are preserved in IISG Marx-Engels Nachlass, IML ZPA, 1:5, p. 2318. The letters from Schorlemmer to Marx, ibid., pp. 3986–92, 1:5, p. 3311.
35.Letter from Engels to Marx, 6 March 1865, MEW 31, p. 92, CW 42, p. 117.
36.Henry Ensfield Roscoe, ‘Carl Schorlemmer’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, vol. 8, and ‘Carl Schorlemmer, L.L.D., R.R.S.’, Nature, vol. 46, p. 365.
37.The nickname Jollymayer turns up in numerous letters, for example from Marx to Engels, 24 October 1868, MEW 32, p. 191, CW 43, p. 143; Engels to Laura Lafargue, 2 June 1883, MEW 36, p. 33, CW 37, p. 31; and Engels to Schorlemmer, 27 January 1891, MEW 38, p. 14, CW 49, p. 111. On the ill and melancholy Schorlemmer, for example, see a letter from Engels to Laura Lafargue, 20 July 1891, MEW 38, p. 138, CW 49, p. 220: ‘but he is getting more and more Tristymeier, you have to work very hard to get a smile out of him now’.
38.On Schorlemmer’s travelling life, see for example Engels to Pauli 25 April 1876, MEW 34, p. 181, CW 45, p. 116; Engels to Marx 7 July 1881, MEW 35, pp. 5f, CW 46, p. 104; Engels to Jenny Longuet, 7 December 1881, MEW 25, p. 240, CW 46, p. 156. On the trip to America, see Engels to Laura Lafargue, 6 August 1888, MEW 37, pp. 82f, CW 48, pp. 202ff; and Engels to F. A. Sorge, 28 August 1888, MEW 37, pp. 86f, CW 48, p. 206 and 31 August 1888, ibid., 87f and 207f respectively. On the trip, see Tsuzuki 1967, 175f and Holmes 2014, 306ff. On Schorlemmer’s trip to Paris, see Engels to Laura Lafargue, 3 October 1883, MEW 36, p. 66, CW 47, pp. 60f and Schorlemmer to Laura Lafargue, IISG Amsterdam Marx-Engels Nachlass, p. 348.
39.Roscoe, ‘Carl Schorlemmer’, VIII, and ‘Carl Schorlemmer, L.L.D., R.R.S.’, Nature, p. 365.
40.Carl Schorlemmer, ‘On the Actions of Chlorine Upon Methyl’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, vol. 12, 1864.
41.The standard work on the early history of oil is R. J. Forbes, Studies in Early Petroleum History, vols 1–2 (Leiden: Brill, 1958–59). On the efforts of Schorlemmer, see Part II, pp. 64ff. On Schorlemmer’s early analyses, see the letter from Schorlemmer to E. Erlenmeyer, 6 November 1882, Bibliothek des deutschen Museums. Carl Schorlemmer, ‘On the Normal paraffin’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. 162, 1872, pp. 111ff.
42.On chemistry, see the letter from Marx to Engels, 22 June 1867 and Engels’s response, 24 June 1867, MEW 31, pp. 306 and 309 respectively, CW 42, pp. 385 and 387f respectively.
43.The note is found in the first edition of Das Kapital in MEGA II/5, p. 246, in the second edition MEGA II/6, p. 308, and in the French translation MEGA II/7, 262. In the third German edition, Engels made in addition to Marx’s brief note, although without changing the content in any way. This addition is found in the English translation, CW 35, p. 313. G. W. F. Hegel, Wissenschaft der Logik (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1969), pp. 82–115 (Qualität), 209–445 (Quantität), and 445–55 (the relationship between both); English translation G. W. F. Hegel, Science of Logic, transl. by A. V. Miller (London: Allen & Unwin, 1969), pp. 81–103, 185–325, and 332–347 respectively. On law, Hegel, Wissenschaft der Logik, pp. 150–6.
44.William Robert Grove, Correlation of Physical Forces (London, Longman, 1846). Engels on the forms of movement, MEGA I/26, p. 409, CW 25, p. 370. Marx on Grove’s book in a letter to Engels, 31 August 1864, and to Philips, 17 August 1864, MEW 25, pp. 424 and 670 respectively, CW 41, pp. 553 and 551 respectively.
45.Engels on ‘heat death’ to Marx, 21 March 1869, MEW 32, pp. 286f, CW 43, p. 246. Rudolf Clausius, Die mechanische Wärmetheorie (Braunschweig: F. Vieweg & Sohn, 1867).
46.The polemic in The Dialectics of Nature, MEGA I/26, pp. 458 and 517 respectively, MEW 20, pp. 535 and 545 respectively, and CW 25, pp. 535 and 562 respectively. The notes were authored in 1873 and 1875 respectively. Clausius, Die mechanische Wärmetheorie. Engels refers to Clausius’s book in notes from 1880 in 1881, MEGA I/26, pp. 435, 469, and
517f, MEW 20, pp. 382, 391, and 545, CW 25, pp. 390, 398, and 563.
47.Kant deals with works of art and organisms respectively in different parts – the latter is dealt with in Immanuel Kant, Kritik der Urteilslzraft, XI–VI (Werkausgabe: Frankfurt am Main, 1974), pp. 334–456. The differences between both areas is dealt with in the introduction, pp. 78–109. Foster, Marx’s Ecology, p. 232f.
48.The postscript to the second edition of Capital; MEGA II/6, p. 709, CW 25, p. 19. There is a large amount of literature on emergent phenomena of different types. See for example Victoria N. Alexander, The Biologist’s Mistress: Rethinking Self-Organization in Art, Literature and Nature (Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications, 2011).
49.Letter from Engels to Marx, 30 May 1873 (with Schorlemmer’s comments) and from Marx to Engels, 31 May 1873, MEW 33, pp. 80f and 82ff respectively, CW, pp. 500–4 and 504ff respectively.
50.On the appeals to Marx and his refusal, see William Liebknecht, Briefwechsel mit Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels (Mouton & Co., 1963), pp. 190 and 195ff.
51.Engels, ‘Old Preface’, MEGA I/26, p. 328, MEW 20, p. 328, CW 25, p. 336.
52.Letter from Engels to Marx, 24 May, Marx to Engels 25 May, Engels to Marx 28 May and 25 July 1876, MEW 34, pp. 12f, 14, 17ff, and 20 respectively, CW 45, pp. 117ff, 119ff, 122ff, and 130f respectively. Letter from Marx to Liebknecht, 7 October 1876, MEW 34, p. 209, CW 45, p. 154.
53.The section on Büchner is in MEW 20, pp. 472–6, CW 25, pp. 482–7.
54.‘Hard and fast lines’, ibid., pp. 482 and 493 respectively.
55.On thought and reality in particular see the section titled ‘Abstract Identity’ (written in 1874), MEW 20, pp. 483f, CW 25, p. 495.
56.Upon publication in the 1920s, the note on the dialectics was given the title (a) Allgemeine Fragen der Dialektik. Grundgesetze der Dialektik, translated into English as (a) General Questions of Dialectics. The Fundamental Loss of Dialectics, MEW 20, pp. 418f, CW 25, p. 492.
57.‘Der dumme Wilhelm’, Engels to Marx 24 May 1876, MEW 34, p. 13, CW 45, p. 18. ‘[T]he tedious Dühring’, 28 May 1876, MEW 34, p. 17, CW 45, p. 122.
58.Engels thanks Marx for the text in a letter on 6 March 1877, MEW 34, p. 37, CW 45, p. 206. Marxist section is called ‘From the Critical History’ in the book version, MEGA I/27, p. 494, MEW 20, pp. 210–38, CW 25, pp. 211–43.
59.‘[J]ournalistic activities’, letter from Engels to Eduard Bernstein, 26 June 1879, MEW 34, p. 379, CW 45, p. 361.
60.More appreciatively, for example in a letter to the same Bernstein, 11 April 1884, MEW 36, p. 136, CW 47, p. 126; or to August Bebel, 3 December 1892, MEW 38, p. 356, CW 50, pp. 50f. Engelsism, compare with my article ‘Engelsismus’ in Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus, 1997.
61.Quantity and quality, MEGA I/27, pp. 317–25, MEW 20, pp. 111–20, CW 25, pp. 110–19; negation of the negation, MEGA I/27, pp. 326–38, MEW 20, pp. 120–33, CW 25, pp. 120–32.
62.Ibid., pp. 336, 131, and 131 respectively.
63.The four different dialectical laws, MEGA I/26, p. 293, MEW 20, p. 307, CW 25, p. 313.
64.The normative presentation with three laws, ibid., I/26, pp. 307ff, 348ff, and 356ff respectively.
65.MEW 20, p. 9, CW 25, p. 9.
66.Ludwig Feuerbach, MEGA I/30, pp. 122–62, MEW 21, pp. 261–307, CW 25, pp. 353–98.
67.Engels to Marx, 11 or 12 December 1859, MEGA III/10, p. 127, MEW 29, p. 524, CW 40, p. 551.
68.MEW 13, p. 470, CW 16, p. 469.
69.Marx on The Origin of Species to Engels, 19 December 1860, MEGA III/11, p. 271, MEW 30, p. 131, CW 41, p. 232.
70.Marx’s letter to Lassalle 16 January 1861, MEW 30, p. 578, CW 41, pp. 246f.
71.A lively description of how Darwin absorbed Malthus’s ideas on overpopulation and then applied them to the principles of natural selection is given in Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin (London: Penguin Books, 1991), pp. 264ff and passim. It is in the third chapter of The Origin of Species, ‘Struggle for Existence’, that the influences from Malthus appear most clearly.
72.On Darwin and Malthus, see the letter from Marx to Engels, 18 June 1862, MEW 30, p. 249, CW 41, p. 381.
73.Friedrich Albert Lange, Die Arbeiterfrage in ihrer Bedeutung für Gegenwart und Zukunft (Duisburg: Bleuler-Hausheer, 1875), pp. 75, 29ff. On the struggle for the best conditions of life, ibid., pp. 5f. On the struggle for wages, p. 13. On the dissemination of talents, pp. 46ff. Moral advances, p. 15.
74.Marx on Lange in a letter to Kugelmann, 27 June 1870, MEW 32, pp. 658f, CW 42, pp. 527f.
75.MEW 3, p. 31, CW 5, p. 31.
76.Pierre Trémaux, Origine et transformations de l’homme et des autres êtres (Paris: Librairie de L. Hachette, 1865), pp. 13, 129, 160ff. Trémaux was said to have put forward a great law of nature: la loi de coïncidence du sol et des types, a law on the concordance between the soil and the races/species. The law was formulated as follows: ‘La perfection des êtres est ou devient proportionnelle au degré d’élaboration du sol sur lequel ils vivent’ – the perfection of beings is or becomes proportional to the extent that the soil on which they live has been worked. Trémaux, Origine, pp. 11 and 17. Pierre Trémaux had arrived at his results during various anthropological field studies in locations such as Sudan. His book is based on limited biological material. The discussion about Darwin and other early evolutionary biologists is meagre.
77.Marx on Trémaux to Engels, 7 August 1866, MEW 31, pp. 248f, CW 42, pp. 304f. Engels’s response, 2 October 1866, ibid., 256 and 320 respectively; Marx’s reply, 3 October, and Engels’s final judgment, 5 October 1866, ibid., 257ff and 322ff respectively.
78.Das Kapital, MEGA II/6, pp. 337 and 364, CW 35, pp. 346 and 375.
79.Desmond and Moore, Darwin, pp. 601f.
80.On the friendship between Marx and Lankester, see Lewis S. Feuer, ‘The Friendship of Edwin Ray Lankester and Karl Marx: The Last Episode in Marx’s Intellectual Evolution’, Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 40, no. 4, 1979, pp. 633–48. Lankester’s fight against fraudulent media, see ibid., pp. 624f. On Lankester and Marx, see Foster, Marx’s Ecology, pp. 221–4. On Darwin and Marx as the great materialists of the nineteenth century, ibid., pp. 1 and passim. In his great Marx biography, Gareth Stedman Jones misunderstands the basis for Marx’s initial hesitancy towards Darwin. He does not see that the reason is the influences of Malthus, but believes that it concerns the thesis that biological development is random. To this, it can be said that this consequence of Darwin’s theory did not represent the time in which he lived, and probably not even for Darwin himself; in The Origin of Species, he could talk about the development of species as development towards greater physiological differentiation. What was clear to Darwin, and what Marx immediately emphasized, was that all teleological argumentation could be dismissed from the field of the development of species. Stedman Jones, Karl Marx, pp. 567f.
81.On the significance of the discovery of Neanderthals for their views on the earliest history of humanity, see Foster, Marx’s Ecology, pp. 212f.
82.Herbert Spencer, Utvecklingsläran (Uppsala: U. Almqvist & J. Wiksell, 1883), § 121, 307.
83.Lewis H. Morgan, Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization (London: MacMillan and Company, 1877). On the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers’ ideas about progress, see David Spadafora, The Idea of Progress in Eighteenth Century Britain (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).
84.James George Frazer, The Golden Bough: Studies in Magic and Religion (Stockholm: Natur & Kultur, 1992). Frazer gradually expanded his work so that it ultimately extended over twelve volumes.
85.Marx called Kovalevsky ‘the fat boy’ in documents such as a letter to Engels on 17 September 1878, MEW 34, p. 78, CW53, p. 22.
86.Engels in MEGA I/29, pp. 7–271, MEW 21, pp. 25–173, CW 26, pp. 129–276.
87.Lewis H. Morgan, Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery Through Barbarism to Civilization (London: MacMillan
and Company, 1877), p. 34.
88.Foster, Marx’s Ecology, p. 220.
89.Karl Marx, The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx: Studies of Morgan, Phear, Maine, Lubbock (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1972). Lawrence Krader reproduces all of Marx’s commentary in the excerpts of Morgan in Ethonologie und Anthropologie bei Marx (Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein, 1976), pp. 26–9. On societal conditions, Morgan, Ancient Society, p. 18. The exclamation point, Marx, The Ethnological Notebooks, p. 127. Engels, see MEGA I/29, p. 13, MEW 21, p. 30. The perception that Engels uses the expression ‘materialist conception of history’ here for the first time is corroborated in many quarters, including Krader, Ethonologie und Anthropologie, pp. 124ff. Timo Freudenberger, Die Anthropologie in der politischen Theorie von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels (München: GRIN Verlag, 2007) also deals with Marx, Engels, and anthropology, but adds nothing substantially new, however.
90.Production of new people, MEGA I/29, pp. 11f. MEW 21, pp. 27f.
91.Marx, The Ethnological Notebooks, p. 112; cited by Engels in MEGA I/29, pp. 21f, MEW 21, p. 38, CW 26, p. 141.
92.Edward Aveling, The Darwinian Theory: Its Meaning, Difficulties, Evidence, History (London: Progressiv Pub., 1884). Karl Kautsky, Erinnerungen und Erörterungen (Haag: Mouton, 1960), pp. 214ff.
93.On Engels’s Habgier (‘greed’), see Lawrence Krader, Ethonologie und Anthropologie bei Marx (Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein, 1976), p. 147. Engels, see MEGA I/29, p. 269, MEW 21, p. 171, CW 26, p. 275.
94.Marx, The Ethnological Notebooks, p. 27. Compare Krader, Ethonologie, p. 31.
95.Johann Jakob Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht: eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur (Basel: Schwabe, 1948). Engels on Bachofen, see MEGA I/29, pp. 33ff, MEW 21, pp. 53ff, CW 26, pp. 158–61.
96.Simone de Beauvoir, Det andra könet (Stockholm: Norstedts, 2002); Eva Lundgren-Gothlin, kön och existens: studier i Simone de Beauvoir Le deuxième sexe (Göteburg: Daidolos, 1991).
A World to Win Page 84