{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_72095/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_72095","id":"gutenberg_72095","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/72095","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Science - Biology","Category: Sociology","Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882","Evolution (Biology) -- Political aspects","Marx, Karl, 1818-1883","Socialism"],"text":"Marxism and Darwinism\n\n                                  BY\n                            ANTON PANNEKOEK\n\n                    _Translated by Nathan Weiser._\n\n\n                                CHICAGO\n                       CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY\n                             CO-OPERATIVE\n\n\n\n\n                            Copyright, 1912\n                                  By\n                       Charles H. Kerr & Company\n\n\n                          [Illustration: 606]\n\n\n\n\n           \u201cSURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.\u201d\n\n\n    In northern climes, the polar bear\n    Protects himself with fat and hair,\n    Where snow is deep and ice is stark,\n    And half the year is cold and dark,\n    He still survives a clime like that\n    By growing fur, by growing fat.\n    These traits, O bear, which thou transmittest\n    Prove the Survival of the Fittest.\n\n    To polar regions waste and wan,\n    Comes the encroaching race of man,\n    A puny, feeble, little bubber,\n    He has no fur, he has no blubber.\n    The scornful bear sat down at ease\n    To see the stranger starve and freeze\u2015\u2015\n    But, lo! the stranger slew the bear,\n    And ate his fat and wore his hair;\n    These deeds, O Man, which thou committest\n    Prove the Survival of the Fittest.\n\n    In modern times the Millionaire\n    Protects himself as did the bear:\n    Where Poverty and Hunger are\n    He counts his bullion by the car:\n    Where thousands perish still he thrives\u2015\u2015\n    The wealth, O Croesus, thou transmittest\n    Proves the Survival of the Fittest.\n\n    But, lo, some people odd and funny,\n    Some men without a cent of money\u2015\u2015\n    The simple common human race\n    Chose to improve their dwelling place:\n    They had no use for millionaires,\n    They calmly said the world was theirs,\n    They were so wise, so strong, so many,\n    The Millionaires?\u2015\u2015there wasn\u2019t any.\n    These deeds, O Man, which thou committest\n    Prove the Survival of the Fittest.\n\n                       \u2015\u2015Mrs. Charlotte Stetson.\n\n\n\n\n                   CONTENTS.\n\n\n                                          PAGE.\n\n    I. Darwinism                              7\n\n   II. Marxism                               16\n\n  III. Marxism and the Class Struggle        19\n\n   IV. Darwinism and the Class Struggle      22\n\n    V. Darwinism Versus Socialism            27\n\n   VI. Natural Law and Social Theory         33\n\n  VII. The Sociability of Man                36\n\n VIII. Tools, Thought and Language           42\n\n   IX. Animal Organs and Human Tools         50\n\n    X. Capitalism and Socialism              54\n\n\n\n\n                        MARXISM _and_ DARWINISM\n\n\n\n\n                             I. DARWINISM.\n\n\nTwo scientists can hardly be named who have, in the second half of the\n19th century, dominated the human mind to a greater degree than Darwin\nand Marx. Their teachings revolutionized the conception that the great\nmasses had about the world. For decades their names have been on the\ntongues of everybody, and their teachings have become the central point\nof the mental struggles which accompany the social struggles of today.\nThe cause of this lies primarily in the highly scientific contents of\ntheir teachings.\n\nThe scientific importance of Marxism as well as of Darwinism consists\nin their following out the theory of evolution, the one upon the domain\nof the organic world, of things animate; the other, upon the domain\nof society. This theory of evolution, however, was in no way new, it\nhad its advocates before Darwin and Marx; the philosopher, Hegel, made\nit even as the central point of his philosophy. It is, therefore,\nnecessary to observe closely what were the achievements of Darwin and\nMarx in this domain.\n\nThe theory that plants and animals have developed one from another\nis met with first in the nineteenth century. Formerly the question,\n\u201cWhence come all these thousands and hundreds of thousands of different\nkinds of plants and animals that we know?\u201d was answered. \u201cAt the time\nof creation God created them all, each after its kind.\u201d This primitive\ntheory was in conformity with the experiences had and with the oldest\ninformation that could be got. According to the information, all known\nplants and animals have always been the same. Scientifically, this\nexperience was thus expressed, \u201cAll kinds are invariable because the\nparents transmit their characteristics to their children.\u201d\n\nThere were, however, some peculiarities among plants and animals which\ngradually forced a different conception to be entertained. They so\nnicely let themselves be arranged into a system which was first set\nup by the Swedish scientist Linnaeus. According to this system, the\nanimals are divided into main divisions; these divisions are divided\ninto classes, classes into orders, orders into families, families\ninto species, each of which contain a few kinds. The more semblance\nthere is in their characteristics, the nearer they stand towards each\nother in this system, and the smaller is the group to which they\nbelong. All the animals classed as mammalian show the same general\ncharacteristics in their bodily frame. The herbivorous animals, and\ncarnivorous animals, and monkeys, each of which belongs to a different\norder, are again differentiated. Bears, dogs, and cats, all of which\nare rapacious animals, have much more in common in bodily form than\nthey have with horses or monkeys. This conformity is still more obvious\nwhen we examine varieties of the same species; the cat, tiger and lion\nresemble each other in many respects where they differ from dogs and\nbears. If we turn from the class of mammals to other classes, such as\nbirds or fishes, we find greater differences than we find in the other\nclass. There is still, however, a slight resemblance in the formation\nof the body, the skeleton and the nervous system are still there. These\nfeatures first disappear when we turn from this main division, which\nembraces all the vertebrates, and go to the molluscs (soft bodied\nanimals) or to the polyps.\n\nThe entire animal world may thus be arranged into divisions and\nsubdivisions. Had every different kind of animal been created entirely\nindependent of all the others, there would be no reason why such\norders should exist. There would be no reason why there should not be\nmammals having six paws. We would have to assume, then, that at the\ntime of creation, God had taken Linnaeus\u2019 system as a plan and created\neverything according to this plan. Happily we have another way of\naccounting for it. The likeness in the construction of the body may be\ndue to a real family relationship. According to this conception, the\nconformity of peculiarities show how near or remote the relationship\nis; just as the resemblance of brothers and sisters is greater than\nbetween remote relatives. The animal classes were, therefore, not\ncreated individually, but descended one from another. They form one\ntrunk that started with simple foundations and which has continually\ndeveloped; the last and thin twigs are our present existing kinds.\nAll species of cats descend from a primitive cat, which together with\nthe primitive dog and the primitive bear, is the descendant of some\nprimitive type of rapacious animal. The primitive rapacious animal, the\nprimitive hoofed animal and the primitive monkey have descended from\nsome primitive mammal, etc.\n\nThis theory of descent was advocated by Lamarck and by Geoffrey St.\nHilaire. It did not, however, meet with general approval. These\nnaturalists could not prove the correctness of this theory and,\ntherefore, it remained only a hypothesis, a mere assumption. When\nDarwin came, however, with his main book, The Origin of Species, it\nstruck like a thunderbolt; his theory of evolution was immediately\naccepted as a strongly proved truth. Since then the theory of evolution\nhas become inseparable from Darwin\u2019s name. Why so?\n\nThis was partly due to the fact that through experience ever more\nmaterial was accumulated which went to support this theory. Animals\nwere found which could not very well be placed into the classification\nsuch as oviparous mammals (that is, animals which lay eggs and nourish\ntheir offspring from their breast.\u2015\u2015Translator), fishes having lungs,\nand invertebrate animals. The theory of descent claimed that these\nare simply the remnants of the transition between the main groups.\nExcavations have revealed fossil remains which looked different\nfrom animals living now. These remains have partly proved to be the\nprimitive forms of our animals, and that the primitive animals have\ngradually developed to existing ones. Then the theory of cells was\nformed; every plant, every animal, consists of millions of cells and\nhas been developed by incessant division and differentiation of single\ncells. Having gone so far, the thought that the highest organisms have\ndescended from primitive beings having but a single cell, could not\nappear as strange.\n\nAll these new experiences could not, however, raise the theory to a\nstrongly proved truth. The best proof for the correctness of this\ntheory would have been to have an actual transformation from one\nanimal kind to another take place before our eyes, so that we could\nobserve it. But this is impossible. How then is it at all possible\nto prove that animal forms are really changing into new forms? This\ncan be done by showing the cause, the propelling force of such\ndevelopment. This Darwin did. Darwin discovered the mechanism of animal\ndevelopment, and in doing so he showed that under certain conditions\nsome animal-kinds will necessarily develop into other animal-kinds. We\nwill now make clear this mechanism.\n\nIts main foundation is the nature of transmission, the fact that\nparents transmit their peculiarities to children, but that at the same\ntime the children diverge from their parents in some respects and also\ndiffer from each other. It is for this reason that animals of the same\nkind are not all alike, but differ in all directions from the average\ntype. Without this so-called variation it would be wholly impossible\nfor one animal species to develop into another. All that is necessary\nfor the formation of a new species is that the divergence from the\ncentral type become greater and that it goes on in the same direction\nuntil this divergence has become so great that the new animal no longer\nresembles the one from which it descended. But where is that force that\ncould call forth the ever growing variation in the same direction?\n\nLamarck declared that this was owing to the usage and much exercise\nof certain organs; that, owing to the continuous exercise of certain\norgans, these become ever more perfected. Just as the muscles of\nmen\u2019s legs get strong from running much, in the same way the lion\nacquired its powerful paws and the hare its speedy legs. In the same\nway the giraffes got their long necks because in order to reach the\ntree leaves, which they ate, their necks were stretched so that a\nshort-necked animal developed to the long-necked giraffe. To many this\nexplanation was incredible and it could not account for the fact that\nthe frog should have such a green color which served him as a good\nprotecting color.\n\nTo solve the same question, Darwin turned to another line of experience.\nThe animal breeder and the gardener are able to raise artificially new\nraces and varieties. When a gardener wants to raise from a certain plant\na variety having large blossoms, all he has to do is to kill before\nmaturity all those plants having small blossoms and preserve those\nhaving large ones. If he repeats this for a few years in succession, the\nblossoms will be ever larger, because each new generation resembles its\npredecessor, and our gardener, having always picked out the largest of\nthe large for the purpose of propagation, succeeds in raising a plant\nwith very large blossoms. Through such action, done sometimes\ndeliberately and sometimes accidentally, people have raised a great\nnumber of races of our domesticated animals which differ from their\noriginal form much more than the wild kinds differ from each other.\n\nIf we should ask an animal-breeder to raise a long-necked animal from a\nshort-necked one, it would not appear to him an impossibility. All he\nwould have to do would be to choose those having partly longer necks,\nhave them inter-bred, kill the young ones having narrow necks and again\nhave the long-necked inter-breed. If he repeated this at every new\ngeneration the result would be that the neck would ever become longer\nand we would get an animal resembling the giraffe.\n\nThis result is achieved because there is a definite will with a\ndefinite object, which, to raise a certain variety, chooses certain\nanimals. In nature there is no such will, and all the deviations must\nagain be straightened out by interbreeding, so that it is impossible\nfor an animal to keep on departing from the original stock and keep\ngoing in the same direction until it becomes an entirely different\nspecies. Where, then, is that power in nature that chooses the animals\njust as the breeder does?\n\nDarwin pondered this problem long before he found its solution in\nthe \u201cstruggle for existence.\u201d In this theory we have a reflex of the\nproductive system of the time in which Darwin lived; because it was\nthe capitalist competitive struggle which served him as a picture for\nthe struggle for existence prevailing in nature. It was not through\nhis own observation that this solution presented itself to him. It\ncame to him by his reading the works of the economist Malthus. Malthus\ntried to explain that in our bourgeois world there is so much misery\nand starvation and privation because population increases much more\nrapidly than the existing means of subsistence. There is not enough\nfood for all; people must, therefore, struggle with each other for\ntheir existence, and many must go down in this struggle. By this theory\ncapitalist competition as well as the misery existing were declared\nas an unavoidable natural law. In his autobiography Darwin declares\nthat it was Malthus\u2019 book which made him think about the struggle for\nexistence.\n\n\u201cIn October, 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my\nsystematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on\npopulation, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for\nexistence which everywhere goes on from long continuous observation\nof the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under\nthese circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved,\nand unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the\nformation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by\nwhich to work.\u201d\n\nIt is a fact that the increase in the birth of animals is greater\nthan the existing food permits of sustaining. There is no exception\nto the rule that all organic beings tend to increase so rapidly that\nour earth would be overrun very soon by the offspring of a single\npair, were these not destroyed. It is for this reason that a struggle\nfor existence must arise. Every animal tries to live, does its best\nto eat, and seeks to avoid being eaten by others. With its particular\npeculiarities and weapons it struggles against the entire antagonistic\nworld, against animals, cold, heat, dryness, inundations, and other\nnatural occurrences that may threaten to destroy it. Above all, it\nstruggles with the animals of its own kind, who live in the same way,\nhave the same peculiarities, use the same weapons and live by the same\nnourishment. This struggle is not a direct one; the hare does not\nstruggle directly with the hare, nor the lion with the lion\u2015\u2015unless\nit is a struggle for the female\u2015\u2015but it is a struggle for existence,\na race, a competitive struggle. All of them can not reach a grown-up\nage; most of them are destroyed, and only those who win the race\nremain. But which are the ones to win in the race? Those which, through\ntheir peculiarities, through their bodily structures are best able\nto find food or to escape an enemy; in other words, those which are\nbest adapted to existing conditions will survive. \u201cBecause there are\never more individuals born than can remain alive, the struggle as to\nwhich shall remain alive must start again and that creature that has\nsome advantage over the others will survive, but as these diverging\npeculiarities are transmitted to the new generations, nature itself\ndoes the choosing, and a new generation will arise having changed\npeculiarities.\u201d\n\nHere we have another application for the origin of the giraffe. When\ngrass does not grow in some places, the animals must nourish themselves\non tree leaves, and all those whose necks are too short to reach these\nleaves must perish. In nature itself there is selection, and nature\nselects only those having long necks. In conformity with the selection\ndone by the animal breeder, Darwin called this process \u201cnatural\nselection.\u201d\n\nThis process must necessarily produce new species. Because too many\nare born of a certain species, more than the existing food supply can\nsustain, they are forever trying to spread over a larger area. In order\nto procure their food, those living in the woods go to the plain, those\nliving on the soil go into the water, and those living on the ground\nclimb on trees. Under these new conditions divergence is necessary.\nThese divergencies are increased, and from the old species a new one\ndevelops. This continuous movement of existing species branching out\ninto new relations results in these thousands of different animals\nchanging still more.\n\nWhile the Darwinian theory explains thus the general descent of the\nanimals, their transmutation and formation out of primitive beings,\nit explains, at the same time, the wonderful conformity throughout\nnature. Formerly this wonderful conformity could only be explained\nthrough the wise superintending care of God. Now, however, this natural\ndescent is clearly understood. For this conformity is nothing else than\nthe adaptation to the means of life. Every animal and every plant is\nexactly adapted to existing circumstances, for all those whose build is\nless conformable are less adapted and are exterminated in the struggle\nfor existence. The green-frog, having descended from the brown-frog,\nmust preserve its protecting color, for all those that deviate from\nthis color are sooner found by the enemies and destroyed or find\ngreater difficulty in obtaining their food and must perish.\n\nIt was thus that Darwin showed us, for the first time, that new species\ncontinually formed out of old ones. The theory of descent, which until\nthen was merely a presumptive inference of many phenomena that could\nnot be explained well in any other way, gained the certainty of an\nabsolute inference of definite forces that could be proved. In this\nlies the main reason that this theory had so quickly dominated the\nscientific discussions and public attention.\n\n\n\n\n                             II. MARXISM.\n\n\nIf we turn to Marxism we immediately see a great conformity with\nDarwinism. As with Darwin, the scientific importance of Marx\u2019s work\nconsists in this, that he discovered the propelling force, the cause of\nsocial development. He did not have to prove that such a development\nwas taking place; every one knew that from the most primitive times new\nsocial forms ever supplanted older, but the causes and aims of this\ndevelopment were unknown.\n\nIn his theory Marx started with the information at hand in his time.\nThe great political revolution that gave Europe the aspect it had, the\nFrench Revolution, was known to everyone to have been a struggle for\nsupremacy, waged by the bourgeois against nobility and royalty. After\nthis struggle new class struggles originated. The struggle carried on\nin England by the manufacturing capitalists against the landowners\ndominated politics; at the same time the working class revolted against\nthe bourgeoisie. What were all these classes? Wherein did they differ\nfrom each other? Marx proved that these class distinctions were owing\nto the various functions each one played in the productive process. It\nis in the productive process that classes have their origin, and it is\nthis process which determines to what class one belongs. Production is\nnothing else than the social labor process by which men obtain their\nmeans of subsistence from nature. It is the production of the material\nnecessities of life that forms the main structure of society and that\ndetermines the political relations and social struggles.\n\nThe methods of production have continuously changed with the progress\nof time. Whence came these changes? The manner of labor and the\nproductive relationship depend upon the tools with which people work,\nupon the development of technique and upon the means of production in\ngeneral. Because in the Middle Ages people worked with crude tools,\nwhile now they work on gigantic machinery, we had at that time small\ntrade and feudalism, while now we have capitalism; it is also for this\nreason that at that time the feudal nobility and the small bourgeoisie\nwere the most important classes, while now it is the bourgeoisie and\nthe proletarians which are the classes.\n\nIt is the development of tools, of these technical aids which men\ndirect, which is the main cause, the propelling force of all social\ndevelopment. It is self-understood that the people are ever trying to\nimprove these tools so that their labor be easier and more productive,\nand the practice they acquire in using these tools, leads their\nthoughts upon further improvements. Owing to this development, a\nslow or quick progress of technique takes place, which at the same\ntime changes the social forms of labor. This leads to new class\nrelations, new social institutions and new classes. At the same time\nsocial, i. e., political struggles arise. Those classes predominating\nunder the old process of production try to preserve artificially\ntheir institutions, while the rising classes try to promote the new\nprocess of production; and by waging the class struggles against the\nruling class and by conquering them they pave the way for the further\nunhindered development of technique.\n\nThus the Marxian theory disclosed the propelling force and the\nmechanism of social development. In doing this it has proved that\nhistory is not something irregular, and that the various social systems\nare not the result of chance or haphazard events, but that there is a\nregular development in a definite direction. In doing this it was also\nproved that social development does not cease with our system, because\ntechnique continually develops.\n\nThus, both teachings, the teachings of Darwin and of Marx, the one in\nthe domain of the organic world and the other upon the field of human\nsociety, raised the theory of evolution to a positive science. In\ndoing this they made the theory of evolution acceptable to the masses\nas the basic conception of social and biological development.\n\n\n\n\n                 III. MARXISM AND THE CLASS STRUGGLE.\n\n\nWhile it is true that for a certain theory to have a lasting influence\non the human mind it must have a highly scientific value, yet this in\nitself is not enough. It quite often happened that a scientific theory\nwas of utmost importance to science, nevertheless, with the probable\nexception of a few learned men, it evoked no interest whatsoever. Such,\nfor instance, was Newton\u2019s theory of gravitation. This theory is the\nfoundation of astronomy, and it is owing to this theory that we have\nour knowledge of heavenly bodies, and can foretell the arrival of\ncertain planets and eclipses. Yet, when Newton\u2019s theory of gravitation\nmade its appearance, a few English scientists were its only adherents.\nThe broad mass paid no attention to this theory. It first became known\nto the mass by a popular book of Voltaire\u2019s written a half century\nafterwards.\n\nThere is nothing surprising about this. Science has become a specialty\nfor a certain group of learned men, and its progress concerns these men\nonly, just as smelting is the smith\u2019s specialty, and an improvement in\nthe smelting of iron concerns him only. Only that which all people can\nmake use of and which is found by everyone to be a life necessity can\ngain adherents among the large mass. When, therefore, we see that a\ncertain scientific theory stirs up zeal and passion in the large mass,\nthis can be attributed to the fact that this theory serves them as a\nweapon in the class struggle. For it is the class struggle that engages\nalmost all the people.\n\nThis can be seen most clearly in Marxism. Were the Marxian economic\nteachings of no importance in the modern class struggle, then none but\na few professional economists would spend their time on them. It is,\nhowever, owing to the fact that Marxism serves the proletarians as a\nweapon in the struggle against capitalism that the scientific struggles\nare centered on this theory. It is owing to this service that Marx\u2019s\nname is honored by millions who know even very little of his teaching,\nand is despised by thousands that understand nothing of his theory.\nIt is owing to the great role the Marxian theory plays in the class\nstruggle that his theory is diligently studied by the large mass and\nthat it dominates the human mind.\n\nThe proletarian class struggle existed before Marx for it is the\noffspring of capitalist exploitation. It was nothing more than natural\nthat the workers, being exploited, should think about and demand\nanother system of society where exploitation would be abolished. But\nall they could do was to hope and dream about it. They were not sure\nof its coming to pass. Marx gave to the labor movement and Socialism a\ntheoretical foundation. His social theory showed that social systems\nwere in a continuous flow wherein capitalism was only a temporary\nform. His studies of capitalism showed that owing to the continuous\ndevelopment of perfection of technique, capitalism must necessarily\ndevelop to Socialism. This new system of production can only be\nestablished by the proletarians struggling against the capitalists,\nwhose interest it is to maintain the old system of production.\nSocialism is therefore the fruit and aim of the proletarian class\nstruggle.\n\nThanks to Marx, the proletarian class struggle took on an entirely\ndifferent form. Marxism became a weapon in the proletarian hands;\nin place of vague hopes he gave a positive aim, and in teaching a\nclear recognition of the social development he gave strength to the\nproletarian and at the same time he created the foundation for the\ncorrect tactics to be pursued. It is from Marxism that the workingmen\ncan prove the transitoriness of capitalism and the necessity and\ncertainty of their victory. At the same time Marxism has done away with\nthe old utopian views that Socialism would be brought about by the\nintelligence and good will of some judicious men; as if Socialism were\na demand for justice and morality; as if the object were to establish\nan infallible and perfect society. Justice and morality change with\nthe productive system, and every class has different conceptions of\nthem. Socialism can only be gained by the class whose interest lies in\nSocialism, and it is not a question about a perfect social system, but\na change in the methods of production leading to a higher step, i. e.,\nto social production.\n\nBecause the Marxian theory of social development is indispensable to\nthe proletarians in their struggle, they, the proletarians, try to\nmake it a part of their inner self; it dominates their thoughts, their\nfeelings, their entire conception of the world. Because Marxism is the\ntheory of social development, in the midst of which we stand, therefore\nMarxism itself stands as the central point of the great mental\nstruggles that accompany our economic revolution.\n\n\n\n\n                 IV. DARWINISM AND THE CLASS STRUGGLE.\n\n\nThat Marxism owes its importance and position only to the role it takes\nin the proletarian class struggle, is known to all. With Darwinism,\nhowever, things seem different to the superficial observer, for\nDarwinism deals with a new scientific truth which has to contend with\nreligious prejudices and ignorance. Yet it is not hard to see that\nin reality Darwinism had to undergo the same experiences as Marxism.\nDarwinism is not a mere abstract theory which was adopted by the\nscientific world after discussing and testing it in a mere objective\nmanner. No, immediately after Darwinism made its appearance, it had its\nenthusiastic advocates and passionate opponents; Darwin\u2019s name, too,\nwas either highly honored by people who understood something of his\ntheory, or despised by people who knew nothing more of his theory than\nthat \u201cman descended from the monkey,\u201d and who were surely unqualified\nto judge from a scientific standpoint the correctness or falsity of\nDarwin\u2019s theory. Darwinism, too, played a role in the class-struggle,\nand it is owing to this role that it spread so rapidly and had\nenthusiastic advocates and venomous opponents.\n\nDarwinism served as a tool to the bourgeoisie in their struggle against\nthe feudal class, against the nobility, clergy-rights and feudal\nlords. This was an entirely different struggle from the struggle now\nwaged by the proletarians. The bourgeoisie was not an exploited class\nstriving to abolish exploitation. Oh no. What the bourgeoisie wanted\nwas to get rid of the old ruling powers standing in their way. The\nbourgeoisie themselves wanted to rule, basing their demands upon the\nfact that they were the most important class, the leaders of industry.\nWhat argument could the old class, the class that became nothing but\nuseless parasites, bring forth against them? They leaned on tradition,\non their ancient divine rights. These were their pillars. With the aid\nof religion the priests held the great mass in subjection and ready to\noppose the demands of the bourgeoisie.\n\nIt was therefore for their own interests that the bourgeoisie were in\nduty bound to undermine the \u201cdivinity\u201d right of rulers. Natural science\nbecame a weapon in the opposition to belief and tradition; science and\nthe newly discovered natural laws were put forward; it was with these\nweapons that the bourgeoisie fought. If the new discoveries could prove\nthat what the priests were teaching was false, the \u201cdivine\u201d authority\nof these priests would crumble and the \u201cdivine rights\u201d enjoyed by the\nfeudal class would be destroyed. Of course the feudal class was not\nconquered by this only, as material power can only be overthrown by\nmaterial power, but mental weapons become material tools. It is for\nthis reason that the bourgeoisie relied so much upon material science.\n\nDarwinism came at the desired time; Darwin\u2019s theory that man is the\ndescendant of a lower animal destroyed the entire foundation of\nChristian dogma. It is for this reason that as soon as Darwinism made\nits appearance, the bourgeoisie grasped it with great zeal.\n\nThis was not the case in England. Here we again see how important the\nclass struggle was for the spreading of Darwin\u2019s theory. In England\nthe bourgeoisie had already ruled a few centuries, and as a mass they\nhad no interest to attack or destroy religion. It is for this reason\nthat although this theory was widely read in England, it did not stir\nanybody; it merely remained a scientific theory without great practical\nimportance. Darwin himself considered it as such, and for fear that his\ntheory might shock the religious prejudices prevailing, he purposely\navoided applying it immediately to men. It was only after numerous\npostponements and after others had done it before him, that he decided\nto make this step. In a letter to Haeckel he deplored the fact that his\ntheory must hit upon so many prejudices and so much indifference that\nhe did not expect to live long enough to see it break through these\nobstacles.\n\nBut in Germany things were entirely different, and Haeckel correctly\nanswered Darwin that in Germany the Darwinian theory met with an\nenthusiastic reception. It so happened that when Darwin\u2019s theory made\nits appearance, the bourgeoisie was preparing to carry on a new attack\non absolutism and junkerism. The liberal bourgeoisie was headed by the\nintellectuals. Ernest Haeckel, a great scientist, and of still greater\ndaring, immediately drew in his book, \u201cNatural Creation,\u201d most daring\nconclusions against religion. So, while Darwinism met with the most\nenthusiastic reception by the progressive bourgeoisie, it was also\nbitterly opposed by the reactionists.\n\nThe same struggle also took place in other European countries.\nEverywhere the progressive liberal bourgeoisie had to struggle against\nreactionary powers. These reactionists possessed, or were trying to\nobtain through religious followers, the power coveted. Under these\ncircumstances, even the scientific discussions were carried on with the\nzeal and passion of a class struggle. The writings that appeared pro\nand con on Darwin have therefore the character of social polemics,\ndespite the fact that they bear the names of scientific authors.\nMany of Haeckel\u2019s popular writings, when looked at from a scientific\nstandpoint, are very superficial, while the arguments and remonstrances\nof his opponents show unbelievable foolishness that can only be met in\nthe arguments used against Marx.\n\nThe struggle, carried on by the liberal bourgeoisie against feudalism\nwas not fought to its finish. This was partly owing to the fact that\neverywhere Socialist proletarians made their appearance, threatening\nall ruling powers, including the bourgeoisie. The liberal bourgeoisie\nrelented, while the reactionary tendencies gained an upper hand. The\nformer zeal in combatting religion disappeared entirely, and while it\nis true that the liberals and reactionists were still fighting among\neach other, in reality, however, they neared each other. The interest\nformerly manifested in science as a weapon in the class struggle, has\nentirely disappeared, while the reactionary tendency that the masses\nmust be brought to religion, became ever more pronounced.\n\nThe estimation of science has also undergone a change. Formerly the\neducated bourgeoisie founded upon science a materialistic conception of\nthe universe, wherein they saw the solution of the universal riddle.\nNow mysticism has gained the upper hand; all that was solved appeared\nas very trivial, while all things that remained unsolved, appeared\nas very great indeed, embracing the most important life question. A\nsceptical, critical and doubting frame of mind has taken the place of\nthe former jubilant spirit in favor of science.\n\nThis could also be seen in the stand taken against Darwin. \u201cWhat does\nhis theory show? It leaves unsolved the universal riddle! Whence comes\nthis wonderful nature of transmission, whence the ability of animate\nbeings to change so fitly?\u201d Here lies the mysterious life riddle that\ncould not be overcome with mechanical principles. Then, what was left\nof Darwinism by the light of later criticism?\n\nOf course, the advance of science began to make rapid progress. The\nsolution of one problem always brings a few more problems to the\nsurface to be solved, which were hidden underneath the theory of\ntransmission that Darwin had to accept as a basis of inquiry was ever\nmore investigated, a hot discussion arose about the individual factors\nof development and the struggle for existence. While a few scientists\ndirected their attention to variation, which they considered due to\nexercise and adaptation to life (following the principle laid down by\nLamarck) this idea was expressly denied by scientists like Weissman\nand others. While Darwin only assumed gradual and slow changes, De\nVries found sudden and leaping cases of variation resulting in the\nsudden appearance of new species. All this, while it went to strengthen\nand develop the theory of descent, in some cases made the impression\nthat the new discoveries rent asunder the Darwinian theory, and\ntherefore every new discovery that made it appear so was hailed by\nthe reactionists as a bankruptcy of Darwinism. This social conception\nhad its influence on science. Reactionary scientists claimed that a\nspiritual element is necessary. The supernatural and insolvable has\ntaken the place of Darwinism and that class which in the beginning was\nthe banner bearer of Darwinism became ever more reactionary.\n\n\n\n\n                    V. DARWINISM VERSUS SOCIALISM.\n\n\nDarwinism has been of inestimable service to the bourgeoisie in\nits struggle against the old powers. It was therefore only natural\nthat bourgeoisdom should apply it against its later enemy, the\nproletarians; not because the proletarians were antagonistically\ndisposed to Darwinism, but just the reverse. As soon as Darwinism\nmade its appearance, the proletarian vanguard, the Socialists, hailed\nthe Darwinian theory, because in Darwinism they saw a corroboration\nand completion of their own theory; not as some superficial opponents\nbelieve, that they wanted to base Socialism upon Darwinism but in\nthe sense that the Darwinian discovery,\u2015\u2015that even in the apparently\nstagnant organic world there is a continuous development\u2015\u2015is a\nglorious corroboration and completion of the Marxian theory of social\ndevelopment.\n\nYet it was natural for the bourgeoisie to make use of Darwinism\nagainst the proletarians. The bourgeoisie had to contend with two\narmies, and the reactionary classes know this full well. When the\nbourgeoisie attacks their authority, they point at the proletarians\nand caution the bourgeoisie to beware lest all authority crumble.\nIn doing this, the reactionists mean to frighten the bourgeoisie so\nthat they may desist from any revolutionary activity. Of course, the\nbourgeois representatives answer that there is nothing to fear; that\ntheir science but refutes the groundless authority of the nobility and\nsupports them in their struggle against enemies of order.\n\nAt a congress of naturalists, the reactionary politician and scientist\nVirchow assailed the Darwinian theory on the ground that it supported\nSocialism. \u201cBe careful of this theory,\u201d he said to the Darwinists,\n\u201cfor this theory is very nearly related to the theory that caused so\nmuch dread in our neighboring country.\u201d This allusion to the Paris\nCommune, made in the year famous for the hunting of Socialists, must\nhave had a great effect. What shall be said, however, about the science\nof a professor who attacks Darwinism with the argument that it is not\ncorrect because it is dangerous! This reproach, of being in league\nwith the red revolutionists, caused a lot of annoyance to Haeckel, the\ndefendant of this theory. He could not stand it. Immediately afterwards\nhe tried to demonstrate that it is just the Darwinian theory that shows\nthe untenableness of the Socialist demands, and that Darwinism and\nSocialism \u201cendure each other as fire and water.\u201d\n\nLet us follow Haeckel\u2019s contentions, whose main thoughts re-occur in\nmost authors who base their arguments against Socialism on Darwinism.\n\nSocialism is a theory which presupposes natural equality for people,\nand strives to bring about social equality; equal rights, equal duties,\nequal possessions and equal enjoyments. Darwinism, on the contrary, is\nthe scientific proof of inequality. The theory of descent establishes\nthe fact that animal development goes in the direction of ever greater\ndifferentiation or division of labor; the higher or more perfect the\nanimal, the greater the inequality existing. The same holds also good\nin society. Here, too, we see the great division of labor between\nvocations, class, etc., and the higher we stand in social development\nthe greater become the inequalities in strength, ability and faculty.\nThe theory of descent is therefore to be recommended as \u201cthe best\nantidote to the Socialist demand of making all equal.\u201d\n\nThe same holds good, but to a greater extent, of the Darwinian\ntheory of survival. Socialism wants to abolish competition and the\nstruggle for existence. But Darwinism teaches us that this struggle\nis unavoidable and is a natural law for the entire organic world. Not\nonly is this struggle natural, but it is also useful and beneficial.\nThis struggle brings an ever greater perfection, and this perfection\nconsists in an ever greater extermination of the unfit. Only the\nchosen minority, those who are qualified to withstand competition,\ncan survive; the great majority must perish. Many are called, but few\nare chosen. The struggle for existence results at the same time in a\nvictory for the best, while the bad and unfit must perish. This may be\nlamentable, just as it is lamentable that all must die, but the fact\ncan neither be denied nor changed.\n\nWe wish to remark here how a small change of almost similar words\nserves as a defence of capitalism. Darwin spoke about the survival of\nthe fittest, of those that are best fitted to the conditions. Seeing\nthat in this struggle those that are better organized conquer the\nothers, the conquerors were called the vigilant, and later the \u201cbest.\u201d\nThis expression was coined by Herbert Spencer. In thus winning on their\nfield, the conquerors in the social struggle, the large capitalists,\nwere proclaimed the best people.\n\nHaeckel retained and still upholds this conception. In 1892 he said,\n\u201cDarwinism, or the theory of selection, is thoroughly aristocratic; it\nis based upon the survival of the best. The division of labor brought\nabout by development causes an ever greater variation in character,\nan ever greater inequality among the individuals, in their activity,\neducation and condition. The higher the advance of human culture, the\ngreater the difference and gulf between the various classes existing.\nCommunism and the demands put up by the Socialists in demanding an\nequality of conditions and activity is synonymous with going back to\nthe primitive stages of barbarism.\u201d\n\nThe English philosopher Herbert Spencer already had a theory on social\ngrowth before Darwin. This was the bourgeois theory of individualism,\nbased upon the struggle for existence. Later he brought this theory\ninto close relation with Darwinism. \u201cIn the animal world,\u201d he said,\n\u201cthe old, weak and sick are ever rooted out and only the strong and\nhealthy survive. The struggle for existence serves therefore as a\npurification of the race, protecting it from deterioration. This is\nthe happy effect of this struggle, for if this struggle should cease\nand each one were sure of procuring its existence without any struggle\nwhatsoever, the race would necessarily deteriorate. The support given\nto the sick, weak and unfit causes a general race degeneration.\nIf sympathy, finding its expressions in charity, goes beyond its\nreasonable bounds, it misses its object; instead of diminishing, it\nincreases the suffering for the new generations. The good effect of the\nstruggle for existence can best be seen in wild animals. They are all\nstrong and healthy because they had to undergo thousands of dangers\nwherein all those that were not qualified had to perish. Among men\nand domestic animals sickness and weakness are so general because the\nsick and weak are preserved. Socialism, having as its aim to abolish\nthe struggle for existence in the human world, will necessarily bring\nabout an ever growing mental and physical deterioration.\u201d\n\nThese are the main contentions of those who use Darwinism as a defence\nof the bourgeois system. Strong as these arguments might appear at\nfirst sight, they were not hard for the Socialists to overcome. To a\nlarge extent, they are the old arguments used against Socialism, but\nwearing the new garb of Darwinistic terminology, and they show an utter\nignorance of Socialism as well as of capitalism.\n\nThose who compare the social organism with the animal body leave\nunconsidered the fact that men do not differ like various cells or\norgans, but only in degree of their capacity. In society the division\nof labor cannot go so far that all capacities should perish at the\nexpense of one. What is more, everyone who understands something of\nSocialism knows that the efficient division of labor does not cease\nwith Socialism; that first under Socialism real divisions will be\npossible. The difference between the workers, their ability, and\nemployments will not cease; all that will cease is the difference\nbetween workers and exploiters.\n\nWhile it is positively true that in the struggle for existence those\nanimals that are strong, healthy and well survive, yet this does not\nhappen under capitalist competition. Here victory does not depend upon\nperfection of those engaged in the struggle, but in something that\nlies outside of their body. While this struggle may hold good with the\nsmall bourgeois, where success depends upon personal abilities and\nqualifications, yet with the further development of capital, success\ndoes not depend upon personal abilities, but upon the possession of\ncapital. The one who has a larger capital at command will soon conquer\nthe one who has a smaller capital at his disposal, although the\nlatter may be more skillful. It is not the personal qualities, but\nthe possession of money that decides who the victor shall be in the\nstruggle. When the small capitalists perish, they do not perish as men\nbut as capitalists; they are not weeded out from among the living, but\nfrom the bourgeoisie. They still exist, but no longer as capitalists.\nThe competition existing in the capitalist system is therefore\nsomething different in requisites and results from the animal struggle\nfor existence.\n\nThose people that perish as people are members of an entirely different\nclass, a class that does not take part in the competitive struggle. The\nworkers do not compete with the capitalists, they only sell their labor\npower to them. Owing to their being propertyless, they have not even\nthe opportunity to measure their great qualities and enter a race with\nthe capitalists. Their poverty and misery cannot be attributed to the\nfact that they fell in the competitive struggle on account of weakness,\nbut because they were paid very little for their labor power, it is\nfor this very reason that, although their children are born strong and\nhealthy, they perish in great mass, while the children born to rich\nparents, although born sick, remain alive by means of the nourishment\nand great care that is bestowed on them. These children of the poor do\nnot die because they are sick or weak, but because of external cause.\nIt is capitalism which creates all those unfavorable conditions by\nmeans of exploitation, reduction of wages, unemployment, crises, bad\ndwellings, and long hours of employment. It is the capitalist system\nthat causes so many strong and healthy ones to succumb.\n\nThus the Socialists prove that, different from the animal world, the\ncompetitive struggle existing between men does not bring forth the best\nand most qualified, but destroys many strong and healthy ones because\nof their poverty, while those that are rich, even if weak and sick,\nsurvive. Socialists prove that personal strength is not the determining\nfactor, but it is something outside of man; it is the possession of\nmoney that determines who shall survive and who shall perish.\n\n\n\n\n                  VI. NATURAL LAW AND SOCIAL THEORY.\n\n\nThe false conclusions reached by Haeckel and Spencer on Socialism\nare no surprise. Darwinism and Marxism are two distinct theories,\none of which applies to the animal world, while the other applies to\nsociety. They supplement each other in the sense that, according to\nthe Darwinian theory of evolution, the animal world develops up to the\nstage of man, and from then on, that is, after the animal has risen\nto man, the Marxian theory of evolution applies. When, however, one\nwishes to carry the theory of one domain into that of the other, where\ndifferent laws are applicable, he must draw wrong inferences.\n\nSuch is the case when we wish to ascertain from natural law what social\nform is natural and applicable, and this is just what the bourgeois\nDarwinists did. They drew the inference that the laws which govern\nin the animal world, where the Darwinian theory applies, apply with\nequal force in the capitalist system, and that therefore capitalism\nis a natural order and must endure forever. On the other hand, there\nwere some Socialists who desired to prove that, according to Darwin,\nthe Socialist system is the natural one. Said these Socialists, \u201cUnder\ncapitalism men do not carry on the struggle for existence with like\ntools, but with unlike ones artificially made. The natural superiority\nof those that are healthier, stronger, more intelligent or morally\nbetter, is of no avail so long as birth, class, or the possession\nof money control this struggle. Socialism, in abolishing all these\nartificial dissimilarities, will make equal provisions for all, and\nthen only will the struggle for existence prevail, wherein the real\npersonal superiorities will be the deciding factors.\u201d\n\nThese critical arguments, while they are not bad when used as\nrefutations against bourgeois Darwinists, are still faulty. Both sets\nof arguments, those used by the bourgeois Darwinists in favor of\ncapitalism, and those of the Socialists, who base their Socialism on\nDarwin, are falsely rooted. Both arguments, although reaching opposite\nconclusions, are equally false because they proceed from the wrong\npremises that there is a natural and a permanent system of society.\n\nMarxism has taught us that there is no such thing as a natural and\na permanent social system, and that there can be none, or, to put\nit another way, every social system is natural, for every social\nsystem is necessary and natural under given conditions. There is not\na single definite social system that can be accepted as natural; the\nvarious social systems take the place of one another as a result of\ndevelopments in the means of production. Each system is therefore\nthe natural one for its particular time. Capitalism is not the only\nnatural order, as the bourgeoisie believes, and no Socialist system is\nthe only natural system, as some Socialists try to prove. Capitalism\nwas natural under the conditions of the nineteenth century, just as\nfeudalism was in the Middle Ages, and as Socialism will be in the\ncoming age. The attempt to put forward a certain system as the only\nnatural and permanent one is as futile as if we were to take an animal\nand say that this animal is the most perfect of all animals. Darwinism\nteaches us that every animal is equally adapted and equally perfect\nin form to suit its special environments, and Marxism teaches us that\nevery social system is particularly adapted to its conditions, and that\nin this sense it may be called good and perfect.\n\nHerein lies the main reason why the endeavor of the bourgeois Darwinists\nto defend the foundering capitalist system is bound to fail. Arguments\nbased on natural science, when applied to social questions, must almost\nalways lead to reverse conclusions. This happens because, while nature\nis very slow in its development and changes within the ken of human\nhistory are imperceptible, so that it may almost be regarded as stable,\nhuman society nevertheless undergoes quick and continuous changes.\nIn order to understand the moving force and the cause of social\ndevelopment, we must study society as such. It is only here that we can\nfind the reason of social development. Marxism and Darwinism should\nremain in their own domains; they are independent of each other and\nthere is no direct connection between them.\n\nHere arises a very important question. Can we stop at the conclusion\nthat Marxism applies only to society and that Darwinism applies only to\nthe organic world, and that neither of these theories is applicable\nin the other domain? In practice it is very convenient to have one\nprinciple for the human world and another one for the animal world. In\nhaving this, however, we forget that man is also an animal. Man has\ndeveloped from an animal, and the laws that apply to the animal world\ncannot suddenly lose their applicability to man. It is true that man is\na very peculiar animal, but if that is the case it is necessary to find\nfrom these very peculiarities why those principles applicable to all\nanimals do not apply to men, and why they assume a different form.\n\nHere we come to another grave problem. The bourgeois Darwinists do\nnot encounter such a problem; they simply declare that man is an\nanimal, and without further ado they set about to apply the Darwinian\nprinciples to men. We have seen to what erroneous conclusions they\ncome. To us this question is not so simple; we must first be clear\nabout the differences between men and animals, and then we can see why,\nin the human world, the Darwinian principles change into different\nones, namely, into Marxism.\n\n\n\n\n                     VII. THE SOCIABILITY OF MAN.\n\n\nThe first peculiarity that we observe in man is that he is a social\nbeing. In this he does not differ from all animals, for even among the\nlatter there are many species that live socially among themselves. But\nman differs from all those that we have observed until now in dealing\nwith the Darwinian theory; he differs from those animals that do not\nlive socially, but that struggle with each other for subsistence. It is\nnot with the rapacious animals which live separately that man must be\ncompared, but with those that live socially. The sociability of animals\nis a power that we have not yet spoken of; a power that calls forth new\nqualities among animals.\n\nIt is an error to regard the struggle for existence as the only power\ngiving shape to the organic world. The struggle for existence is the\nmain power that causes the origin of new species, but Darwin himself\nknew full well that other powers co-operate which give shape to the\nforms, habits, and peculiarities of animate things. In his \u201cDescent of\nMan\u201d Darwin elaborately treated sexual selection and showed that the\ncompetition of males for females gave rise to the gay colors of the\nbirds and butterflies and also to the singing voices of birds. There\nhe also devoted a chapter to social living. Many illustrations on this\nhead are also to be found in Kropotkin\u2019s book, \u201cMutual Aid as a Factor\nin Evolution.\u201d The best representation of the effects of sociability\nare given in Kautsky\u2019s \u201cEthics and the Materialistic Conception of\nHistory.\u201d\n\nWhen a number of animals live in a group, herd or flock, they carry on\nthe struggle for existence in common against the outside world; within\nsuch a group the struggle for existence ceases. The animals which live\nsocially no longer wage a struggle against each other, wherein the\nweak succumb; just the reverse, the weak enjoy the same advantages as\nthe strong. When some animals have the advantage by means of greater\nstrength, sharper smell, or experience in finding the best pasture\nor in warding off the enemy, this advantage does not accrue only to\nthese better fitted, but also to the entire group. This combining of\nthe animals\u2019 separate powers into one unit gives to the group a new\nand much stronger power than any one individual possessed, even the\nstrongest. It is owing to this united strength that the defenseless\nplant-eaters can ward off rapacious animals. It is only by means of\nthis unity that some animals are able to protect their young.\n\nA second advantage of sociability arises from the fact that where\nanimals live socially, there is a possibility of the division of labor.\nSuch animals send out scouts or place sentinels whose object it is to\nlook after the safety of all, while others spend their time either in\neating or in plucking, relying upon their guards to warn them of danger.\n\nSuch an animal society becomes, in some respects, a unit, a single\norganism. Naturally, the relation remains much looser than the cells of\na single animal body; nevertheless, the group becomes a coherent body,\nand there must be some power that holds together the individual members.\n\nThis power is found in the social motives, the instinct that holds\nthem together and causes the continuance of the group. Every animal\nmust place the interest of the entire group above his own; it must\nalways act instinctively for the advantage and maintenance of the group\nwithout consideration of itself. As long as the weak plant-eaters think\nof themselves only and run away when attacked by a rapacious animal,\neach one minding his life only, the entire herd disappears. Only when\nthe strong motive of self-preservation is suppressed by a stronger\nmotive of union, and each animal risks its life for the protection\nof all, only then does the herd remain and enjoy the advantages of\nsticking together. In such a case, self-sacrifice, bravery, devotion,\ndiscipline and consciousness must arise, for where these do not exist\nsociety dissolves; society can only exist where these exist.\n\nThese instincts, while they have their origin in habit and necessity,\nare strengthened by the struggle for existence. Every animal herd\nstill stands in a competitive struggle against the same animals of a\ndifferent herd; those that are best fitted to withstand the enemy will\nsurvive, while those that are poorer equipped will perish. That group\nin which the social instinct is better developed will be able to hold\nits ground, while the group in which social instinct is low will either\nfall an easy prey to its enemies or will not be in a position to find\nfavorable feeding places. These social instincts become therefore the\nmost important and decisive factors that determine who shall survive\nin the struggle for existence. It is owing to this that the social\ninstincts have been elevated to the position of predominant factors.\n\nThese relations throw an entirely new light upon the views of the\nbourgeois Darwinists. Their claim is that the extermination of the\nweak is natural and that it is necessary in order to prevent the\ncorruption of the race, and that the protection given to the weak\nserves to deteriorate the race. But what do we see? In nature itself,\nin the animal world, we find that the weak are protected; that it is\nnot by their own personal strength that they maintain themselves,\nand that they are not brushed aside on account of their personal\nweakness. This arrangement does not weaken the group, but gives to it\nnew strength. The animal group in which mutual aid is best developed\nis best fit to maintain itself in the strife. That which, according\nto the narrow conception appeared as a cause of weakness, becomes\njust the reverse, a cause of strength. The sociable animals are in a\nposition to beat those that carry on the struggle individually. This\nso-called degenerating and deteriorating race carries off the victory\nand practically proves itself to be the most skilful and best.\n\nHere we first see fully how near sighted, narrow and unscientific are\nthe claims and arguments of the bourgeois Darwinists. Their natural\nlaws and their conceptions of what is natural are derived from a part\nof the animal world, from those which man resembles least, while those\nanimals that practically live under the same circumstances as man are\nleft unobserved. The reason for this can be found in the bourgeoise\u2019s\nown circumstances; they themselves belong to a class where each\ncompetes individually against the other; therefore, they see among\nanimals only that form of the struggle for existence. It is for this\nreason that they overlook those forms of the struggle that are of\ngreatest importance to men.\n\nIt is true that these bourgeois Darwinists are aware of the fact that\nman is not ruled by mere egoism without regard for his neighbors. The\nbourgeois scientists say very often that every man is possessed of two\nfeelings, the egotistical, or self-love, and the altruistic, the love\nof others. But as they do not know the social origin of this altruism,\nthey cannot understand its limitations and conditions. Altruism in\ntheir mouths becomes a very indistinct idea which they don\u2019t know how\nto handle.\n\nEverything that applies to the social animals applies also to man. Our\nape-like ancestors and the primitive men developing from them were all\ndefenseless, weak animals who, as almost all apes do, lived in tribes.\nHere the same social motives and instincts had to arise which later\ndeveloped to moral feelings. That our customs and morals are nothing\nother than social feelings, feelings that we find among animals, is\nknown to all; even Darwin spoke about \u201cthe habits of animals which\nwould be called moral among men.\u201d The difference is only in the measure\nof consciousness; as soon as these social feelings become clear to men,\nthey assume the character of moral feelings. Here we see that the moral\nconception\u2015\u2015which bourgeois authors considered as the main distinction\nbetween men and animals\u2015\u2015is not common to men, but is a direct product\nof conditions existing in the animal world.\n\nIt is in the nature of the origin of these moral feelings that they do\nnot spread further than the social group to which the animal or the man\nbelongs. These feelings serve the practical object of keeping the group\ntogether; beyond this they are useless. In the animal world, the range\nand nature of the social group is determined by the circumstances of\nlife, and therefore the group almost always =remains the same=. Among\nmen, however, the groups, these social units, are ever changing in\naccordance with economic development, and this also changes the social\ninstincts.\n\nThe original groups, the stems of the wild and barbarian people, were\nmore strongly united than the animal groups. Family relationship and\na common language strengthened this union further. Every individual\nhad the support of the entire tribe. Under such conditions, the social\nmotives, the moral feelings, the subordination of the individual to the\nwhole, must have developed to the utmost. With the further development\nof society, the tribes are dissolved and their places are taken by new\nunions, by towns and peoples. New formations step into the place of\nthe old ones, and the members of these groups carry on the struggle for\nexistence in common against other peoples. In equal ratio with economic\ndevelopment, the size of these unions increases, the struggle of each\nagainst the other decreases, and social feelings spread. At the end of\nancient times we find that all the people known then formed a unit, the\nRoman Empire, and at that time arose the theory\u2015\u2015the moral feelings\nhaving their influence on almost all the people\u2015\u2015which led to the maxim\nthat all men are brothers.\n\nWhen we regard our own times, we see that economically all the people\nform one unit, although a very weak one; nevertheless the abstract\nfeeling of brotherhood becomes ever more popular. The social feelings\nare strongest among members of the same class, for classes are the\nessential units embodying particular interests and including certain\nmembers. Thus we see that the social units and social feelings change\nin human society. These changes are brought about by economic changes,\nand the higher the stage of economic development, the higher and nobler\nthe social feelings.\n\n\n\n\n                  VIII. TOOLS, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE.\n\n\nSociability, with its consequences, the moral feelings, is a peculiarity\nwhich distinguishes man from some, but not from all, animals. There are,\nhowever, some peculiarities which belong to man only, and which separate\nhim from the entire animal world. These, in the first instance, are\nlanguage, then reason. Man is also the only animal that makes use of\nself-made tools. For all these things, animals have but the slightest\npropensity, but among men, these have developed essentially new\ncharacteristics. Many animals have some kind of voice, and by means of\nsounds they can come to some understanding, but only man has such sounds\nas serve as a medium for naming things and actions. Animals also have\nbrains with which they think, but the human mind shows, as we shall see\nlater, an entirely new departure, which we designate as reasonable or\nabstract thinking. Animals, too, make use of inanimate things which they\nuse for certain purposes; for instance, the building of nests. Monkeys\nsometimes use sticks or stones, but only man uses tools which he himself\ndeliberately makes for particular purposes. These primitive tendencies\namong animals show us that the peculiarities possessed by man came to\nhim, not by means of some wonderful creation, but by continuous\ndevelopment.\n\nAnimals living isolated can not arrive at such a stage of development.\nIt is only as a social being that man can reach this stage. Outside the\npale of society, language is just as useless as an eye in darkness, and\nis bound to die. Language is possible only in society, and only there\nis it needed as a means by which members may understand one another.\nAll social animals possess some means of understanding each other,\notherwise they would not be able to execute certain plans conjointly.\nThe sounds that were necessary as a means of communication for the\nprimitive man while at his tasks must have developed into names of\nactivities, and later into names of things.\n\nThe use of tools also presupposes a society, for it is only through\nsociety that attainments can be preserved. In a state of isolated\nlife every one has to make discoveries for himself; with the death\nof the discoverer the discovery also becomes extinct, and each has to\nstart anew from the very beginning. It is only through society that\nthe experience and knowledge of former generations can be preserved,\nperpetuated, and developed. In a group or body a few may die, but the\ngroup, as such, does not. It remains. Knowledge in the use of tools is\nnot born with man, but is acquired later. Mental tradition, such as is\npossible only in society, is therefore necessary.\n\nWhile these special characteristics of man are inseparable from his\nsocial life, they also stand in strong relation to each other. These\ncharacteristics have not been developed singly, but all have progressed\nin common. That thought and language can exist and develop only in\ncommon is known to everyone who has but tried to think of the nature\nof his own thoughts. When we think or consider, we, in fact, talk\nto ourselves; we observe then that it is impossible for us to think\nclearly without using words. Where we do not think with words our\nthoughts remain indistinct and we can not combine the various thoughts.\nEvery one can realize this from his own experience. This is because\nso-called abstract reason is perceptive thought and can take place only\nby means of perceptions. Perceptions we can designate and hold only by\nmeans of names. Every attempt to broaden our minds, every attempt to\nadvance our knowledge must begin by distinguishing and classifying by\nmeans of names or by giving to the old ones a more precise meaning.\nLanguage is the body of the mind, the material by which all human\nscience can be built up.\n\nThe difference between the human mind and the animal mind was very\naptly shown by Schopenhauer. This citation is quoted by Kautsky in\nhis \u201cEthics and the Materialist Conception of History\u201d (pages 139\u201340\nEnglish Translation). The animal\u2019s actions are dependent upon visual\nmotives, it is only by these that it sees, hears or observes in any\nother way. We can always tell what induced the animal to do this or the\nother act, for we, too, can see it if we look. With man, however, it is\nentirely different. We can not foretell what he will do, for we do not\nknow the motives that induce him to act; they are thoughts in his head.\nMan considers, and in so doing, all his knowledge, the result of former\nexperience, comes into play, and it is then that he decides how to act.\nThe acts of an animal depend upon immediate impression, while those of\nman depend upon abstract conceptions, upon his thinking and perceiving.\nMan is at the same time influenced by finer invisible motives. Thus\nall his movements bear the impress of being guided by principles and\nintentions which give them the appearance of independence and obviously\ndistinguishes them from those of animals.\n\nOwing to their having bodily wants, men and animals are forced to seek\nto satisfy them in the natural objects surrounding them. The impression\non the mind is the immediate impulse and beginning; the satisfaction\nof the wants is the aim and end of the act. With the animal, action\nfollows immediately after impression. It sees its prey or food and\nimmediately it jumps, grasps, eats, or does that which is necessary\nfor grasping, and this is inherited as an instinct. The animal hears\nsome hostile sound, and immediately it runs away if its legs are so\ndeveloped to run quickly, or lies down like dead so as not to be seen\nif its color serves as a protector. Between man\u2019s impressions and\nacts, however, there comes into his head a long chain of thoughts\nand considerations. His actions will depend upon the result of these\nconsiderations.\n\nWhence comes this difference? It is not hard to see that it is closely\nassociated with the use of tools. In the same manner that thought\narises between man\u2019s impressions and acts, the tool comes in between\nman and that which he seeks to attain. Furthermore, since the tool\nstands between man and outside objects, thought must arise between the\nimpression and the performance. Man does not start empty-handed against\nhis enemy or tear down fruit, but he goes about it in a roundabout\nmanner, he takes a tool, a weapon (weapons are also tools) which he\nuses against the hostile animal; therefore his mind must also make the\nsame circuit, not follow the first impressions, but it must think of\nthe tools and then follow to the object. This material circuit causes\nthe mental circuit; the thoughts leading to a certain act are the\nresult of the tools necessary for the performance of the act.\n\nHere we took a very simple case of primitive tools and the first stages\nof mental development. The more complicated technique becomes, the\ngreater is the material circuit, and as a result the mind has to make\ngreater circuits. When each made his own tools, the thought of hunger\nand struggle must have directed the human mind to the making of tools.\nHere we have a longer chain of thoughts between the impressions and\nthe ultimate satisfaction of men\u2019s needs. When we come down to our own\ntimes, we find that this chain is very long and complicated. The worker\nwho is discharged foresees the hunger that is bound to come; he buys a\nnewspaper in order to see whether there is any demand for laborers; he\ngoes to the railroad, offers himself for a wage which he will get only\nlong afterwards, so that he may be in a position to buy food and thus\nprotect himself from starvation. What a long circuitous chain the mind\nmust make before it reaches its destiny. But it agrees with our highly\ndeveloped technique, by means of which man can satisfy his wants.\n\nMan, however, does not rule over one tool only, but over many, which\nhe applies for different purposes, and from which he can choose. Man,\nbecause of these tools, is not like the animal. The animal never\nadvances beyond the tools and weapons with which it was born, while man\nmakes his tools and changes them at will. Man, being an animal using\ndifferent tools, must possess the mental ability to choose them. In his\nhead various thoughts come and go, his mind considers all the tools\nand the consequences of their application, and his actions depend upon\nthese considerations. He also combines one thought with another, and\nholds fast to the idea that fits in with his purpose.\n\nAnimals have not this capacity; it would be useless for them for they\nwould not know what to do with it. On account of their bodily form,\ntheir actions are circumscribed within narrow bounds. The lion can only\njump upon his prey, but can not think of catching it by running after\nit. The hare is so formed that it can run; it has no other means of\ndefense although it may like to have. These animals have nothing to\nconsider except the moment of jumping or running. Every animal is so\nformed as to fit into some definite place. Their actions must become\nstrong habits. These habits are not unchangeable. Animals are not\nmachines, when brought into different circumstances they may acquire\ndifferent habits. It is not in the quality of their brains, but in the\nformation of their bodies that animal restrictions lie. The animal\u2019s\naction is limited by its bodily form and surroundings, and consequently\nit has little need for reflection. To reason would therefore be useless\nfor it and would only lead to harm rather than to good.\n\nMan, on the other hand, must possess this ability because he exercises\ndiscretion in the use of tools and weapons, which he chooses according\nto particular requirements. If he wants to kill the fleet hare, he\ntakes the bow and arrow; if he meets the bear, he uses the axe, and\nif he wants to break open a certain fruit he takes a hammer. When\nthreatened by danger, man must consider whether he shall run away or\ndefend himself by fighting with weapons. This ability to think and to\nconsider is indispensable to man in his use of artificial tools.\n\nThis strong connection between thoughts, language, and tools, each\nof which is impossible without the other, shows that they must have\ndeveloped at the same time. How this development took place, we can\nonly conjecture. Undoubtedly it was a change in the circumstances of\nlife that changed men from our ape-like ancestors. Having migrated\nfrom the woods, the original habitat of apes, to the plain, man had\nto undergo an entire change of life. The difference between hands and\nfeet must have developed then. Sociability and the ape-like hand, well\nadapted for grasping, had a due share in the new development. The first\nrough objects, such as stones or sticks, came to hand unsought, and\nwere thrown away. This must have been repeated so often that it must\nhave left an impression on the minds of those primitive men.\n\nTo the animal, surrounding nature is a single unit, of the details\nof which it is unconscious. It can not distinguish between various\nobjects. Our primitive man, at his lowest stage, must have been at the\nsame level of consciousness. From the great mass surrounding him, some\nobjects (tools) come into his hands which he used in procuring his\nexistence. These tools, being very important objects, soon were given\nsome designation, were designated by a sound which at the same time\nnamed the particular activity. Owing to this sound, or designation,\nthe tool and the particular kind of activity stands out from the rest\nof the surroundings. Man begins to analyze the world by concepts and\nnames, self-consciousness makes its appearance, artificial objects are\npurposely sought and knowingly made use of while working.\n\nThis process\u2015\u2015for it is a very slow process\u2015\u2015marks the beginning of our\nbecoming men. As soon as men deliberately seek and apply certain tools,\nwe can say that these are being developed; from this stage to the\nmanufacturing of tools, there is only one step. The first crude tools\ndiffer according to use; from the sharp stone we get the knife, the\nbolt, the drill, and the spear; from the stick we get the hatchet. With\nthe further differentiation of tools, serving later for the division of\nlabor, language and thought develop into richer and newer forms, while\nthought leads man to use the tools in a better way, to improve old and\ninvent new ones.\n\nSo we see that one thing brings on the other. The practice of\nsociability and the application to labor are the springs in which\ntechnique, thought, tools and science have their origin and continually\ndevelop. By his labor, the primitive ape-like man has risen to real\nmanhood. The use of tools marks the great departure that is ever more\nwidening between men and animals.\n\n\n\n\n                  IX. ANIMAL ORGANS AND HUMAN TOOLS.\n\n\nIn animal organs and human tools we have the main difference between\nmen and animals. The animal obtains its food and subdues its enemies\nwith its own bodily organs; man does the same thing with the aid of\ntools. Organ (organon) is a Greek word which also means tools. Organs\nare natural, adnated (grown-on) tools of the animal. Tools are the\nartificial organs of men. Better still, what the organ is to the\nanimal, the hand and tool is to man. The hands and tools perform the\nfunctions that the animal must perform with its own organs. Owing\nto the construction of the hand to hold various tools, it becomes a\ngeneral organ adapted to all kinds of work; it becomes therefore an\norgan that can perform a variety of functions.\n\nWith the division of these functions, a broad field of development\nis opened for men which animals do not know. Because the human hand\ncan use various tools, it can combine the functions of all possible\norgans possessed by animals. Every animal is built and adapted to a\ncertain definite surrounding. Man, with his tools, is adapted to all\ncircumstances and equipped for all surroundings. The horse is built for\nthe prairie, and the monkey is built for the forest. In the forest, the\nhorse would be just as helpless as the monkey would be if brought to\nthe prairie. Man, on the other hand, uses the axe in the forest, and\nthe spade on the prairie. With his tools, man can force his way in all\nparts of the world and establish himself all over. While almost all\nanimals can live in particular regions, such as supply their wants, and\nif taken to different regions cannot exist, man has conquered the whole\nworld. Every animal has, as a zo\u00f6logist expressed it once, its strength\nby which means it maintains itself in the struggle for existence, and\nits weakness, owing to which it falls a prey to others and cannot\nmultiply itself. In this sense, man has only strength and no weakness.\nOwing to his having tools, man is the equal of all animals. As these\ntools do not remain stationary, but continually improve, man grows\nabove every animal. His tools make him master of all creation, the king\nof the earth.\n\nIn the animal world there is also a continuous development and\nperfection of organs. This development, however, is connected with the\nchanges of the animal\u2019s body, which makes the development of the organs\ninfinitely slow, as dictated by biological laws. In the development of\nthe organic world, thousands of years amount to nothing. Man, however,\nby transferring his organic development upon external objects has been\nable to free himself from the chain of biologic law. Tools can be\ntransformed quickly, and technique makes such rapid strides that, in\ncomparison with the development of animal organs, it must be called\nmarvelous. Owing to this new road, man has been able, within the short\nperiod of a few thousand years, to rise above the highest animal. With\nthe invention of these implements, man got to be a divine power, and he\ntakes possession of the earth as his exclusive dominion. The peaceful\nand hitherto unhindered development of the organic world ceases to\ndevelop according to the Darwinian theory. It is man that acts as\nbreeder, tamer, cultivator; and it is man that does the weeding. It is\nman that changes the entire environment, making the further forms of\nplants and animals suit his aim and will.\n\nWith the origin of tools, further changes in the human body cease.\nThe human organs remain what they were, with the exception of the\nbrain. The human brain had to develop together with tools; and, in\nfact, we see that the difference between the higher and lower races\nof mankind consists mainly in the contents of their brains. But even\nthe development of this organ had to stop at a certain stage. Since\nthe beginning of civilization, the functions of the brain are ever\nmore taken away by some artificial means; science is treasured up in\nbooks. Our reasoning faculty of today is not much better than the one\npossessed by the Greeks, Romans or even the Teutons, but our knowledge\nhas grown immensely, and this is greatly due to the fact that the\nmental organ was unburdened by its substitutes, the books.\n\nHaving learned the difference between men and animals, let us now\nagain consider how they are affected by the struggle for existence.\nThat this struggle is the cause of perfection and the weeding out of\nthe imperfect, can not be denied. In this struggle the animals become\never more perfect. Here, however, it is necessary to be more precise\nin expression and in observation of what perfection consists. In being\nso, we can no longer say that animals as a whole struggle and become\nperfected. Animals struggle and compete by means of their particular\norgans. Lions do not carry on the struggle by means of their tails;\nhares do not rely on their eyes; nor do the falcons succeed by means\nof their beaks. Lions carry on the struggle by means of their saltatory\n(leaping) muscles and their teeth; hares rely upon their paws and ears,\nand falcons succeed on account of their eyes and wings. If now we ask\nwhat is it that struggles and what competes? the answer is, the organs\nstruggle. The muscles and teeth of the lion, the paws and ears of the\nhare, and the eyes and wings of the falcon carry on the struggle. It\nis in this struggle that the organs become perfected. The animal as a\nwhole depends upon these organs and shares their fate.\n\nLet us now ask the same question about the human world. Men do not\nstruggle by means of their natural organs, but by means of artificial\norgans, by means of tools (and in weapons we must understand tools).\nHere, too, the principle of perfection and the weeding out of the\nimperfect, through struggle, holds true. The tools struggle, and this\nleads to the ever greater perfection of tools. Those groups of tribes\nthat use better tools and weapons can best secure their maintenance,\nand when it comes to a direct struggle with another race, the race that\nis better equipped with artificial tools will win. Those races whose\ntechnical aids are better developed, can drive out or subdue those\nwhose artificial aids are not developed. The European race dominates\nbecause its external aids are better.\n\nHere we see that the principle of the struggle for existence, formulated\nby Darwin and emphasized by Spencer, has a different effect on men than\non animals. The principle that struggle leads to the perfection of the\nweapons used in the strife, leads to different results between men and\nanimals. In the animal, it leads to a continuous development of natural\norgans; that is the foundation of the theory of descent, the essence of\nDarwinism. In men, it leads to a continuous development of tools, of the\nmeans of production. This, however, is the foundation of Marxism.\n\nHere we see that Marxism and Darwinism are not two independent theories,\neach of which applies to its special domain, without having anything in\ncommon with the other. In reality, the same principle underlies both\ntheories. They form one unit. The new course taken by men, the\nsubstitution of tools for natural organs, causes this fundamental\nprinciple to manifest itself differently in the two domains; that of the\nanimal world to develop according to Darwinian principle, while among\nmankind the Marxian principle applies.\n\nWhen men freed themselves from the animal world, the development of\ntools and productive methods, the division of labor and knowledge\nbecame the propelling force in social development. It is these that\nbrought about the various systems, such as primitive communism, the\npeasant system, the beginnings of commodity production, feudalism, and\nnow modern capitalism, and which bring us ever nearer to Socialism.\n\n\n\n\n                     X. CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM.\n\n\nThe particular form that the Darwinian struggle for existence assumes\nin development is determined by men\u2019s sociability and their use of\ntools. The struggle for existence, while it is still carried on among\nmembers of different groups, nevertheless ceases among members of the\nsame group, and its place is taken by mutual aid and social feeling.\nIn the struggle between groups, technical equipment decides who shall\nbe the victor; this results in the progress of technique. These two\ncircumstances lead to different effects under different systems. Let us\nsee in what manner they work out under capitalism.\n\nWhen the bourgeoisie gained political power and made the capitalist\nsystem the dominating one, it began by breaking the feudal bonds\nand freeing the people from all feudal ties. It was essential\nfor capitalism that every one should be able to take part in the\ncompetitive struggle; that no one\u2019s movements be tied up or narrowed\nby corporate duties or hampered by legal statutes, for only thus was\nit possible for production to develop its full capacity. The workers\nmust have free command over themselves and not be tied up by feudal or\nguild duties, for only as free workers can they sell their labor-power\nto the capitalists as a whole commodity, and only as free laborers can\nthe capitalists use them. It is for this reason that the bourgeoisie\nhas done away with all old ties and duties. It made the people entirely\nfree, but at the same time left them entirely isolated and unprotected.\nFormerly the people were not isolated; they belonged to some\ncorporation; they were under the protection of some lord or commune,\nand in this they found strength. They were a part of a social group\nto which they owed duties and from which they received protection.\nThese duties the bourgeoisie abolished; it destroyed the corporations\nand abolished the feudal relations. The freeing of labor meant at the\nsame time that all refuge was taken away from him and that he could no\nlonger rely upon others. Every one had to rely upon himself. Alone,\nfree from all ties and protection, he must struggle against all.\n\nIt is for this reason that, under capitalism, the human world resembles\nmostly the world of rapacious animals, and it is for this very reason\nthat the bourgeois Darwinists looked for men\u2019s prototype among animals\nliving isolated. To this they were led by their own experience. Their\nmistake, however, consisted in considering capitalist conditions as\neverlasting. The relation existing between our capitalist competitive\nsystem and animals living isolated, was thus expressed by Engels in his\nbook, \u201cAnti-D\u00fchring\u201d (page 293). This may also be found on page 59 of\n\u201cSocialism, Utopian and Scientific\u201d as follows:\n\n\u201cFinally, modern industry and the opening of the world market made the\nstruggle universal and at the same time gave it unheard-of virulence.\nAdvantages in natural or artificial conditions of production now decide\nthe existence or non-existence of individual capitalists as well as of\nwhole industries and countries. He that falls is remorselessly cast\naside. It is the Darwinian struggle of the individual for existence\ntransferred from Nature to society with intensified violence. The\nconditions of existence natural to the animal appear as the final term\nof human development.\u201d\n\nWhat is that which carries on the struggle in this capitalist\ncompetition, the perfectness of which decides the victory?\n\nFirst come technical tools, machines. Here again applies the law\nthat struggle leads to perfection. The machine that is more improved\noutstrips the less improved, the machines that cannot perform much,\nand the simple tools are exterminated and machine technique develops\nwith gigantic strides to ever greater productivity. This is the real\napplication of Darwinism to human society. The particular thing about\nit is that under capitalism there is private property, and behind every\nmachine there is a man. Behind the gigantic machine there is a big\ncapitalist and behind the small machine there is a small capitalist.\nWith the defeat of the small machine, the small capitalist, as\ncapitalist, perishes with all his hopes and happiness.\n\nAt the same time the struggle is a race of capital. Large capital\nis better equipped; large capital is getting ever larger. This\nconcentration of capital undermines capital itself, for it diminishes\nthe bourgeoisie whose interest it is to maintain capitalism, and it\nincreases that mass which seeks to abolish it. In this development,\none of the characteristics of capitalism is gradually abolished. In\nthe world where each struggles against all and all against each, a new\nassociation develops among the working class, the class organization.\nThe working class organizations start with ending the competition\nexisting between workers and combine their separate powers into one\ngreat power in their struggle with the outside world. Everything that\napplies to social groups also applies to this class organization,\nbrought about by natural conditions. In the ranks of this class\norganization, social motives, moral feelings, self-sacrifice and\ndevotion for the entire body develop in a most splendid way. This solid\norganization gives to the working class that great strength which it\nneeds in order to conquer the capitalist class. The class struggle\nwhich is not a struggle with tools but for the possession of tools, a\nstruggle for the right to direct industry, will be determined by the\nstrength of the class organization.\n\nLet us now look at the future system of production as carried on\nunder Socialism. The struggle leading to the perfection of the tools\ndoes not cease. As before under capitalism, the inferior machine will\nbe outdistanced and brushed aside by the one that is superior. As\nbefore, this process will lead to greater productivity of labor. But\nprivate property having been abolished, there will no longer be a man\nbehind each machine calling it his own and sharing its fate. Machines\nwill be common property, and the displacement of the less developed\nby the better developed machinery will be carried out upon careful\nconsideration.\n\nWith the abolition of classes the entire civilized world will become\none great productive community. Within this community mutual struggle\namong members will cease and will be carried on with the outside world.\nIt will no longer be a struggle against our own kind, but a struggle\nfor subsistence, a struggle against nature. But owing to development of\ntechnique and science, this can hardly be called a struggle. Nature is\nsubject to man and with very little exertion from his side she supplies\nhim with abundance. Here a new career opens for man: man\u2019s rising from\nthe animal world and carrying on his struggle for existence by the use\nof tools, ceases, and a new chapter of human history begins.\n\n\n\n\n                  Library of Science for the Workers\n\n\nTo understand modern Socialism, you must understand Evolution.\nSocialists predict the speedy end of the capitalist system as a result\nof irresistible NATURAL LAWS, the workings of which have been studied\nfor two generations since their discovery. Most of the books in which\nthese laws are explained are too difficult to read and too expensive to\nbuy, except for the leisure class. The ten books here described will\ngive you a clear understanding of the great process in which Socialism\nis the next step.\n\n\n1. =The Evolution of Man.= By Wilhelm Boelsche. Contains absolute proof\nof the truth of Darwin\u2019s theory of the descent of man. Illustrated.\n\n2. =The Triumph of Life.= By Wilhelm Boelsche. Describes the resistless\ntriumph of the Life Force over all obstacles. Illustrated.\n\n3. =Life and Death.= By Dr. E. Teichmann. A study in biology, explaining\nhow and why life began and how the life of each individual ends.\n\n4. =The End of the World.= By Dr. M. Wilhelm Meyer. A study of\nthe natural forces that will some time destroy all life on earth.\nIllustrated.\n\n5. =The Amazons.= By Emanuel Kanter. An excellent analytical study\nof the phenomenon of ancient fighting women, the Amazons, from the\nstandpoint of dialectical materialism.\n\n6. =Germs of Mind in Plants.= By R. H. France. A remarkable work\nproving that \u201cmind\u201d is not limited to man or even to animals, but is\nfound in plants also. Illustrated.\n\n7. =The Struggle Between Science and Superstition.= By Arthur M. Lewis.\nThis book deals with what is on the whole the most interesting and\ndramatic element in social development. Side by side with the struggle\nbetween social classes, there is waged a bitter conflict between\nancient ignorance and new knowledge. The new knowledge is the natural\nally of the essential social class\u2015\u2015the proletariat.\n\n8. =Science and Revolution.= By Ernest Untermann. A history of the\ngrowth of the Evolution theory, showing how at every step it was fought\nby the ruling classes and welcomed by the workers.\n\n9. =Social and Philosophical Studies.= By Paul Lafargue. The causes of\nbelief in God and the origin of abstract ideas explained in a brilliant\nand convincing way.\n\n10. =Evolution, Social and Organic.= By Arthur M. Lewis. A volume of\npopular lectures in which the relation of the evolution theory to\nSocialism is fully explained.\n\n\nThese ten volumes are handsomely bound in cloth, in volumes of uniform\nsize. Price, 60c each postpaid.\n\n                       CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY\n                   341\u2013349 East Ohio Street, Chicago\n\n\n\n\n                       The Origin of the Family\n\n                    PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE STATE\n\n                          By Frederick Engels\n\nThe book on which are based all subsequent works on property and the\nState written by Socialists and Communists. What is the State? How did\nit arise? Does it represent all the people? Will it ever disappear? What\nis its function? When did Private Property arise? And how? Has the\ninstitution of the Family changed and evolved? Just now all over the\nworld socialists, anarchists, syndicalists and communists are divided\nupon the subject of the State, its origin, its function and its future.\nWhich group are you in, and do you know why? This book explains these\nvital questions for you. Cloth, 217 pages. 60 cents.\n\n\n\n\n                               Socialism\n\n                        UTOPIAN AND SCIENTIFIC\n\n                          By Frederick Engels\n\n\nWhen may we expect a proletarian revolution? Can we plan to have it\nat a certain time? Can we carry a revolution by propaganda? Does it\ndepend on what we desire? We all want tickets to the New Society of the\nWorkers. How can we know how near we are historically? Engels gives us\nthe signs in this book. They never fail. When we understand them we can\nknow how to use social and economic forces to carry us forward to the\nNew Day. Cloth. 60 cents; paper, 25 cents.\n\n\n                       CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY\n                   CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHERS, CHICAGO\n\n\n\n\n                                CAPITAL\n\n                    A Critique of Political Economy\n\n                             By Karl Marx\n\n\nThis work is beyond comparison the greatest of all Socialist books. It\nis a scientific analysis of the society in which we live, showing the\nprecise method by which the capitalists grow rich at the expense of the\nwage-workers.\n\nVOLUME I, entitled \u201c=The Process of Capitalist Production=,\u201d is\npractically complete in itself. It explains the thing which, up to the\ntime that Marx came on the scene, had confused all the economists,\nnamely, =Surplus Value=. It explains exactly how the capitalist\nextracts his profits. This volume might be called the keystone of the\nSocialist arch. 869 pages, =$2.50=.\n\nVOLUME II, \u201c=The Process of Circulation of Capital=,\u201d explains the\npart that the merchant and the banker play in the present system, and\nthe laws that govern social capital. Unravels knots in which previous\nwriters had become entangled. 618 pages, =$2.50=.\n\nVOLUME III, in some respects the most interesting of all, treats of\n\u201c=The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole=.\u201d Predicts the =Rise\nof Trusts= and makes clear the =Cause of Panics and Industrial Crises=.\nShows how the small capitalist is swallowed. Explains for all time the\nsubjects of =Land, Rent and Farming=. 1,048 pages, =$2.50=.\n\n\nThe complete work sells for $7.50, and contains over 2,500 large\npages, in three handsome volumes, bound in cloth and stamped in gold.\nAny capitalist publishing house would charge at least double our\nprice. Ours is a socialist co-operative house, owned by three thousand\ncomrades who expect no dividends but have subscribed for shares to make\npossible the circulation of the best socialist literature at the lowest\npossible prices. Ask for catalog.\n\n\n                       CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY\n                   341\u2013349 East Ohio Street, Chicago\n\n\n\n\n                           CENTENARY EDITION\n\n                  The Positive Outcome of Philosophy\n\n                           By Josef Dietzgen\n\n\nOne of the best books we have ever published is THE POSITIVE OUTCOME OF\nPHILOSOPHY. We have sold many thousands of Josef Dietzgen\u2019s books, and\nreaders everywhere have testified to their educational value and to the\nenjoyment and enlightenment they obtained from the study of Dietzgen.\n\nDecember 9th, 1928, was the hundredth anniversary of the birth of\nJosef Dietzgen. To commemorate the event we published, with the kind\nassistance of his son, Eugen Dietzgen, a new translation of THE\nPOSITIVE OUTCOME OF PHILOSOPHY. This new translation from the original\nGerman is by W. W. Craik, an Englishman, resident of Hamburg.\n\nGood as our former edition was, we do not hesitate to assert that\nthis translation is immensely superior. It is in clear and expressive\nEnglish, which simplifies the study. Craik has certainly done his work\nwell.\n\nTo those who have formerly read the philosophy of Josef Dietzgen, it is\nnot necessary to comment upon its merits, but to those who have not yet\nparticipated in this pleasure we wish to give here a brief outline of\nits content.\n\nIt deals with the nature and substance of thinking. It strips the\nhuman mind of the mysticism that is usually attached to it, and shows\nthe functioning of the brain as a perfectly natural process. Just as\nKarl Marx and Frederick Engels traced history and economics along\nevolutionary lines, to the logical conclusion that a new social order\nis inevitable, so Josef Dietzgen traced the evolution of human thought,\nas expressed through philosophy, to its positive outcome. He shows\nthat the natural sciences have taken over every branch of the old-time\nphilosophy, leaving only the thinking process itself to be explained.\nThis latter he accomplishes in a masterly fashion in his chapter on\n\u201cThe Nature of Human Brain-Work.\u201d\n\nThe Centenary Edition of THE POSITIVE OUTCOME OF PHILOSOPHY is\nhandsomely bound in maroon cloth with gold stamping and contains a\nportrait of its famous author. Price $2.00, postage paid.\n\n\n                       CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY\n                     341 East Ohio Street, Chicago\n\n\n\n\n                             ANTI-D\u00dcHRING\n\n                        _Herr Eugene D\u00fchring\u2019s_\n                        _Revolution in Science_\n\n                          By Frederick Engels\n\n        _Also contains \u201cThe Mark\u201d and the author\u2019s introduction\n                to \u201cSocialism, Utopian and Scientific\u201d_\n\n\nPart I treats with Philosophy, giving the most comprehensive statement\nof Marx and Engels with regard to this question than anywhere else\nin their published writings. Part II is, in effect, an outline and\nintroduction to the three volumes of _Capital_, along with interesting\ndata on the force theory and warfare and militarism. Part III explains\nthe basis of modern socialism in its entire range of program, strategy\nand tactics.\n\n_Anti-D\u00fchring_ is the only work compressing into one volume the Marxian\nworld-outlook in its relation to the various fields of knowledge and\nscience and the society of the future. Engels says of this work: \u201cI had\nto treat of all and every possible subject, from the concepts of time\nand space to bimetallism; from the eternity of matter and motion to\nthe perishable nature of moral ideas; from Darwin\u2019s natural selection\nto the education of youth in a future society. Anyhow, the systematic\ncomprehensiveness of my opponent gave me the opportunity of developing,\nin opposition to him, and in a more connected form than had previously\nbeen done, the views held by Marx and myself on this great variety of\nsubjects. And that was the principal reason which made me undertake\nthis otherwise ungrateful task.\u201d\n\n                                               Price, postpaid, $2.00\n\n\n                       _Write for complete list_\n\n                       CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY\n            341\u2013349 E. Ohio St.           Chicago, Illinois\n\n\n\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n\n \u2015\u2015Text in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_); text in\n   bold by \u201cequal\u201d signs (=bold=).\n\n \u2015\u2015Punctuation and spelling inaccuracies were silently corrected.\n\n \u2015\u2015Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.\n\n \u2015\u2015Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.","title":"Marxism and Darwinism : $b Evidence, speeches, and papers in its favour","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":16473}