Marxism and Darwinism
BY
ANTON PANNEKOEK
_Translated by Nathan Weiser._
CHICAGO
CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
CO-OPERATIVE
Copyright, 1912
By
Charles H. Kerr & Company
[Illustration: 606]
“SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.”
In northern climes, the polar bear
Protects himself with fat and hair,
Where snow is deep and ice is stark,
And half the year is cold and dark,
He still survives a clime like that
By growing fur, by growing fat.
These traits, O bear, which thou transmittest
Prove the Survival of the Fittest.
To polar regions waste and wan,
Comes the encroaching race of man,
A puny, feeble, little bubber,
He has no fur, he has no blubber.
The scornful bear sat down at ease
To see the stranger starve and freeze――
But, lo! the stranger slew the bear,
And ate his fat and wore his hair;
These deeds, O Man, which thou committest
Prove the Survival of the Fittest.
In modern times the Millionaire
Protects himself as did the bear:
Where Poverty and Hunger are
He counts his bullion by the car:
Where thousands perish still he thrives――
The wealth, O Croesus, thou transmittest
Proves the Survival of the Fittest.
But, lo, some people odd and funny,
Some men without a cent of money――
The simple common human race
Chose to improve their dwelling place:
They had no use for millionaires,
They calmly said the world was theirs,
They were so wise, so strong, so many,
The Millionaires?――there wasn’t any.
These deeds, O Man, which thou committest
Prove the Survival of the Fittest.
――Mrs. Charlotte Stetson.
CONTENTS.
PAGE.
I. Darwinism 7
II. Marxism 16
III. Marxism and the Class Struggle 19
IV. Darwinism and the Class Struggle 22
V. Darwinism Versus Socialism 27
VI. Natural Law and Social Theory 33
VII. The Sociability of Man 36
VIII. Tools, Thought and Language 42
IX. Animal Organs and Human Tools 50
X. Capitalism and Socialism 54
MARXISM _and_ DARWINISM
I. DARWINISM.
Two scientists can hardly be named who have, in the second half of the
19th century, dominated the human mind to a greater degree than Darwin
and Marx. Their teachings revolutionized the conception that the great
masses had about the world. For decades their names have been on the
tongues of everybody, and their teachings have become the central point
of the mental struggles which accompany the social struggles of today.
The cause of this lies primarily in the highly scientific contents of
their teachings.
The scientific importance of Marxism as well as of Darwinism consists
in their following out the theory of evolution, the one upon the domain
of the organic world, of things animate; the other, upon the domain
of society. This theory of evolution, however, was in no way new, it
had its advocates before Darwin and Marx; the philosopher, Hegel, made
it even as the central point of his philosophy. It is, therefore,
necessary to observe closely what were the achievements of Darwin and
Marx in this domain.
The theory that plants and animals have developed one from another
is met with first in the nineteenth century. Formerly the question,
“Whence come all these thousands and hundreds of thousands of different
kinds of plants and animals that we know?” was answered. “At the time
of creation God created them all, each after its kind.” This primitive
theory was in conformity with the experiences had and with the oldest
information that could be got. According to the information, all known
plants and animals have always been the same. Scientifically, this
experience was thus expressed, “All kinds are invariable because the
parents transmit their characteristics to their children.”
There were, however, some peculiarities among plants and animals which
gradually forced a different conception to be entertained. They so
nicely let themselves be arranged into a system which was first set
up by the Swedish scientist Linnaeus. According to this system, the
animals are divided into main divisions; these divisions are divided
into classes, classes into orders, orders into families, families
into species, each of which contain a few kinds. The more semblance
there is in their characteristics, the nearer they stand towards each
other in this system, and the smaller is the group to which they
belong. All the animals classed as mammalian show the same general
characteristics in their bodily frame. The herbivorous animals, and
carnivorous animals, and monkeys, each of which belongs to a different
order, are again differentiated. Bears, dogs, and cats, all of which
are rapacious animals, have much more in common in bodily form than
they have with horses or monkeys. This conformity is still more obvious
when we examine varieties of the same species; the cat, tiger and lion
resemble each other in many respects where they differ from dogs and
bears. If we turn from the class of mammals to other classes, such as
birds or fishes, we find greater differences than we find in the other
class. There is still, however, a slight resemblance in the formation
of the body, the skeleton and the nervous system are still there. These
features first disappear when we turn from this main division, which
embraces all the vertebrates, and go to the molluscs (soft bodied
animals) or to the polyps.
The entire animal world may thus be arranged into divisions and
subdivisions. Had every different kind of animal been created entirely
independent of all the others, there would be no reason why such
orders should exist. There would be no reason why there should not be
mammals having six paws. We would have to assume, then, that at the
time of creation, God had taken Linnaeus’ system as a plan and created
everything according to this plan. Happily we have another way of
accounting for it. The likeness in the construction of the body may be
due to a real family relationship. According to this conception, the
conformity of peculiarities show how near or remote the relationship
is; just as the resemblance of brothers and sisters is greater than
between remote relatives. The animal classes were, therefore, not
created individually, but descended one from another. They form one
trunk that started with simple foundations and which has continually
developed; the last and thin twigs are our present existing kinds.
All species of cats descend from a primitive cat, which together with
the primitive dog and the primitive bear, is the descendant of some
primitive type of rapacious animal. The primitive rapacious animal, the
primitive hoofed animal and the primitive monkey have descended from
some primitive mammal, etc.
This theory of descent was advocated by Lamarck and by Geoffrey St.
Hilaire. It did not, however, meet with general approval. These
naturalists could not prove the correctness of this theory and,
therefore, it remained only a hypothesis, a mere assumption. When
Darwin came, however, with his main book, The Origin of Species, it
struck like a thunderbolt; his theory of evolution was immediately
accepted as a strongly proved truth. Since then the theory of evolution
has become inseparable from Darwin’s name. Why so?
This was partly due to the fact that through experience ever more
material was accumulated which went to support this theory. Animals
were found which could not very well be placed into the classification
such as oviparous mammals (that is, animals which lay eggs and nourish
their offspring from their breast.――Translator), fishes having lungs,
and invertebrate animals. The theory of descent claimed that these
are simply the remnants of the transition between the main groups.
Excavations have revealed fossil remains which looked different
from animals living now. These remains have partly proved to be the
primitive forms of our animals, and that the primitive animals have
gradually developed to existing ones. Then the theory of cells was
formed; every plant, every animal, consists of millions of cells and
has been developed by incessant division and differentiation of single
cells. Having gone so far, the thought that the highest organisms have
descended from primitive beings having but a single cell, could not
appear as strange.
All these new experiences could not, however, raise the theory to a
strongly proved truth. The best proof for the correctness of this
theory would have been to have an actual transformation from one
animal kind to another take place before our eyes, so that we could
observe it. But this is impossible. How then is it at all possible
to prove that animal forms are really changing into new forms? This
can be done by showing the cause, the propelling force of such
development. This Darwin did. Darwin discovered the mechanism of animal
development, and in doing so he showed that under certain conditions
some animal-kinds will necessarily develop into other animal-kinds. We
will now make clear this mechanism.
Its main foundation is the nature of transmission, the fact that
parents transmit their peculiarities to children, but that at the same
time the children diverge from their parents in some respects and also
differ from each other. It is for this reason that animals of the same
kind are not all alike, but differ in all directions from the average
type. Without this so-called variation it would be wholly impossible
for one animal species to develop into another. All that is necessary
for the formation of a new species is that the divergence from the
central type become greater and that it goes on in the same direction
until this divergence has become so great that the new animal no longer
resembles the one from which it descended. But where is that force that
could call forth the ever growing variation in the same direction?
Lamarck declared that this was owing to the usage and much exercise
of certain organs; that, owing to the continuous exercise of certain
organs, these become ever more perfected. Just as the muscles of
men’s legs get strong from running much, in the same way the lion
acquired its powerful paws and the hare its speedy legs. In the same
way the giraffes got their long necks because in order to reach the
tree leaves, which they ate, their necks were stretched so that a
short-necked animal developed to the long-necked giraffe. To many this
explanation was incredible and it could not account for the fact that
the frog should have such a green color which served him as a good
protecting color.
To solve the same question, Darwin turned to another line of experience.
The animal breeder and the gardener are able to raise artificially new
races and varieties. When a gardener wants to raise from a certain plant
a variety having large blossoms, all he has to do is to kill before
maturity all those plants having small blossoms and preserve those
having large ones. If he repeats this for a few years in succession, the
blossoms will be ever larger, because each new generation resembles its
predecessor, and our gardener, having always picked out the largest of
the large for the purpose of propagation, succeeds in raising a plant
with very large blossoms. Through such action, done sometimes
deliberately and sometimes accidentally, people have raised a great
number of races of our domesticated animals which differ from their
original form much more than the wild kinds differ from each other.
If we should ask an animal-breeder to raise a long-necked animal from a
short-necked one, it would not appear to him an impossibility. All he
would have to do would be to choose those having partly longer necks,
have them inter-bred, kill the young ones having narrow necks and again
have the long-necked inter-breed. If he repeated this at every new
generation the result would be that the neck would ever become longer
and we would get an animal resembling the giraffe.
This result is achieved because there is a definite will with a
definite object, which, to raise a certain variety, chooses certain
animals. In nature there is no such will, and all the deviations must
again be straightened out by interbreeding, so that it is impossible
for an animal to keep on departing from the original stock and keep
going in the same direction until it becomes an entirely different
species. Where, then, is that power in nature that chooses the animals
just as the breeder does?
Darwin pondered this problem long before he found its solution in
the “struggle for existence.” In this theory we have a reflex of the
productive system of the time in which Darwin lived; because it was
the capitalist competitive struggle which served him as a picture for
the struggle for existence prevailing in nature. It was not through
his own observation that this solution presented itself to him. It
came to him by his reading the works of the economist Malthus. Malthus
tried to explain that in our bourgeois world there is so much misery
and starvation and privation because population increases much more
rapidly than the existing means of subsistence. There is not enough
food for all; people must, therefore, struggle with each other for
their existence, and many must go down in this struggle. By this theory
capitalist competition as well as the misery existing were declared
as an unavoidable natural law. In his autobiography Darwin declares
that it was Malthus’ book which made him think about the struggle for
existence.
“In October, 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on
population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for
existence which everywhere goes on from long continuous observation
of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under
these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved,
and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the
formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by
which to work.”
It is a fact that the increase in the birth of animals is greater
than the existing food permits of sustaining. There is no exception
to the rule that all organic beings tend to increase so rapidly that
our earth would be overrun very soon by the offspring of a single
pair, were these not destroyed. It is for this reason that a struggle
for existence must arise. Every animal tries to live, does its best
to eat, and seeks to avoid being eaten by others. With its particular
peculiarities and weapons it struggles against the entire antagonistic
world, against animals, cold, heat, dryness, inundations, and other
natural occurrences that may threaten to destroy it. Above all, it
struggles with the animals of its own kind, who live in the same way,
have the same peculiarities, use the same weapons and live by the same
nourishment. This struggle is not a direct one; the hare does not
struggle directly with the hare, nor the lion with the lion――unless
it is a struggle for the female――but it is a struggle for existence,
a race, a competitive struggle. All of them can not reach a grown-up
age; most of them are destroyed, and only those who win the race
remain. But which are the ones to win in the race? Those which, through
their peculiarities, through their bodily structures are best able
to find food or to escape an enemy; in other words, those which are
best adapted to existing conditions will survive. “Because there are
ever more individuals born than can remain alive, the struggle as to
which shall remain alive must start again and that creature that has
some advantage over the others will survive, but as these diverging
peculiarities are transmitted to the new generations, nature itself
does the choosing, and a new generation will arise having changed
peculiarities.”
Here we have another application for the origin of the giraffe. When
grass does not grow in some places, the animals must nourish themselves
on tree leaves, and all those whose necks are too short to reach these
leaves must perish. In nature itself there is selection, and nature
selects only those having long necks. In conformity with the selection
done by the animal breeder, Darwin called this process “natural
selection.”
This process must necessarily produce new species. Because too many
are born of a certain species, more than the existing food supply can
sustain, they are forever trying to spread over a larger area. In order
to procure their food, those living in the woods go to the plain, those
living on the soil go into the water, and those living on the ground
climb on trees. Under these new conditions divergence is necessary.
These divergencies are increased, and from the old species a new one
develops. This continuous movement of existing species branching out
into new relations results in these thousands of different animals
changing still more.
While the Darwinian theory explains thus the general descent of the
animals, their transmutation and formation out of primitive beings,
it explains, at the same time, the wonderful conformity throughout
nature. Formerly this wonderful conformity could only be explained
through the wise superintending care of God. Now, however, this natural
descent is clearly understood. For this conformity is nothing else than
the adaptation to the means of life. Every animal and every plant is
exactly adapted to existing circumstances, for all those whose build is
less conformable are less adapted and are exterminated in the struggle
for existence. The green-frog, having descended from the brown-frog,
must preserve its protecting color, for all those that deviate from
this color are sooner found by the enemies and destroyed or find
greater difficulty in obtaining their food and must perish.
It was thus that Darwin showed us, for the first time, that new species
continually formed out of old ones. The theory of descent, which until
then was merely a presumptive inference of many phenomena that could
not be explained well in any other way, gained the certainty of an
absolute inference of definite forces that could be proved. In this
lies the main reason that this theory had so quickly dominated the
scientific discussions and public attention.
II. MARXISM.
If we turn to Marxism we immediately see a great conformity with
Darwinism. As with Darwin, the scientific importance of Marx’s work
consists in this, that he discovered the propelling force, the cause of
social development. He did not have to prove that such a development
was taking place; every one knew that from the most primitive times new
social forms ever supplanted older, but the causes and aims of this
development were unknown.
In his theory Marx started with the information at hand in his time.
The great political revolution that gave Europe the aspect it had, the
French Revolution, was known to everyone to have been a struggle for
supremacy, waged by the bourgeois against nobility and royalty. After
this struggle new class struggles originated. The struggle carried on
in England by the manufacturing capitalists against the landowners
dominated politics; at the same time the working class revolted against
the bourgeoisie. What were all these classes? Wherein did they differ
from each other? Marx proved that these class distinctions were owing
to the various functions each one played in the productive process. It
is in the productive process that classes have their origin, and it is
this process which determines to what class one belongs. Production is
nothing else than the social labor process by which men obtain their
means of subsistence from nature. It is the production of the material
necessities of life that forms the main structure of society and that
determines the political relations and social struggles.
The methods of production have continuously changed with the progress
of time. Whence came these changes? The manner of labor and the
productive relationship depend upon the tools with which people work,
upon the development of technique and upon the means of production in
general. Because in the Middle Ages people worked with crude tools,
while now they work on gigantic machinery, we had at that time small
trade and feudalism, while now we have capitalism; it is also for this
reason that at that time the feudal nobility and the small bourgeoisie
were the most important classes, while now it is the bourgeoisie and
the proletarians which are the classes.
It is the development of tools, of these technical aids which men
direct, which is the main cause, the propelling force of all social
development. It is self-understood that the people are ever trying to
improve these tools so that their labor be easier and more productive,
and the practice they acquire in using these tools, leads their
thoughts upon further improvements. Owing to this development, a
slow or quick progress of technique takes place, which at the same
time changes the social forms of labor. This leads to new class
relations, new social institutions and new classes. At the same time
social, i. e., political struggles arise. Those classes predominating
under the old process of production try to preserve artificially
their institutions, while the rising classes try to promote the new
process of production; and by waging the class struggles against the
ruling class and by conquering them they pave the way for the further
unhindered development of technique.
Thus the Marxian theory disclosed the propelling force and the
mechanism of social development. In doing this it has proved that
history is not something irregular, and that the various social systems
are not the result of chance or haphazard events, but that there is a
regular development in a definite direction. In doing this it was also
proved that social development does not cease with our system, because
technique continually develops.
Thus, both teachings, the teachings of Darwin and of Marx, the one in
the domain of the organic world and the other upon the field of human
society, raised the theory of evolution to a positive science. In
doing this they made the theory of evolution acceptable to the masses
as the basic conception of social and biological development.
III. MARXISM AND THE CLASS STRUGGLE.
While it is true that for a certain theory to have a lasting influence
on the human mind it must have a highly scientific value, yet this in
itself is not enough. It quite often happened that a scientific theory
was of utmost importance to science, nevertheless, with the probable
exception of a few learned men, it evoked no interest whatsoever. Such,
for instance, was Newton’s theory of gravitation. This theory is the
foundation of astronomy, and it is owing to this theory that we have
our knowledge of heavenly bodies, and can foretell the arrival of
certain planets and eclipses. Yet, when Newton’s theory of gravitation
made its appearance, a few English scientists were its only adherents.
The broad mass paid no attention to this theory. It first became known
to the mass by a popular book of Voltaire’s written a half century
afterwards.
There is nothing surprising about this. Science has become a specialty
for a certain group of learned men, and its progress concerns these men
only, just as smelting is the smith’s specialty, and an improvement in
the smelting of iron concerns him only. Only that which all people can
make use of and which is found by everyone to be a life necessity can
gain adherents among the large mass. When, therefore, we see that a
certain scientific theory stirs up zeal and passion in the large mass,
this can be attributed to the fact that this theory serves them as a
weapon in the class struggle. For it is the class struggle that engages
almost all the people.
This can be seen most clearly in Marxism. Were the Marxian economic
teachings of no importance in the modern class struggle, then none but
a few professional economists would spend their time on them. It is,
however, owing to the fact that Marxism serves the proletarians as a
weapon in the struggle against capitalism that the scientific struggles
are centered on this theory. It is owing to this service that Marx’s
name is honored by millions who know even very little of his teaching,
and is despised by thousands that understand nothing of his theory.
It is owing to the great role the Marxian theory plays in the class
struggle that his theory is diligently studied by the large mass and
that it dominates the human mind.
The proletarian class struggle existed before Marx for it is the
offspring of capitalist exploitation. It was nothing more than natural
that the workers, being exploited, should think about and demand
another system of society where exploitation would be abolished. But
all they could do was to hope and dream about it. They were not sure
of its coming to pass. Marx gave to the labor movement and Socialism a
theoretical foundation. His social theory showed that social systems
were in a continuous flow wherein capitalism was only a temporary
form. His studies of capitalism showed that owing to the continuous
development of perfection of technique, capitalism must necessarily
develop to Socialism. This new system of production can only be
established by the proletarians struggling against the capitalists,
whose interest it is to maintain the old system of production.
Socialism is therefore the fruit and aim of the proletarian class
struggle.
Thanks to Marx, the proletarian class struggle took on an entirely
different form. Marxism became a weapon in the proletarian hands;
in place of vague hopes he gave a positive aim, and in teaching a
clear recognition of the social development he gave strength to the
proletarian and at the same time he created the foundation for the
correct tactics to be pursued. It is from Marxism that the workingmen
can prove the transitoriness of capitalism and the necessity and
certainty of their victory. At the same time Marxism has done away with
the old utopian views that Socialism would be brought about by the
intelligence and good will of some judicious men; as if Socialism were
a demand for justice and morality; as if the object were to establish
an infallible and perfect society. Justice and morality change with
the productive system, and every class has different conceptions of
them. Socialism can only be gained by the class whose interest lies in
Socialism, and it is not a question about a perfect social system, but
a change in the methods of production leading to a higher step, i. e.,
to social production.
Because the Marxian theory of social development is indispensable to
the proletarians in their struggle, they, the proletarians, try to
make it a part of their inner self; it dominates their thoughts, their
feelings, their entire conception of the world. Because Marxism is the
theory of social development, in the midst of which we stand, therefore
Marxism itself stands as the central point of the great mental
struggles that accompany our economic revolution.
IV. DARWINISM AND THE CLASS STRUGGLE.
That Marxism owes its importance and position only to the role it takes
in the proletarian class struggle, is known to all. With Darwinism,
however, things seem different to the superficial observer, for
Darwinism deals with a new scientific truth which has to contend with
religious prejudices and ignorance. Yet it is not hard to see that
in reality Darwinism had to undergo the same experiences as Marxism.
Darwinism is not a mere abstract theory which was adopted by the
scientific world after discussing and testing it in a mere objective
manner. No, immediately after Darwinism made its appearance, it had its
enthusiastic advocates and passionate opponents; Darwin’s name, too,
was either highly honored by people who understood something of his
theory, or despised by people who knew nothing more of his theory than
that “man descended from the monkey,” and who were surely unqualified
to judge from a scientific standpoint the correctness or falsity of
Darwin’s theory. Darwinism, too, played a role in the class-struggle,
and it is owing to this role that it spread so rapidly and had
enthusiastic advocates and venomous opponents.
Darwinism served as a tool to the bourgeoisie in their struggle against
the feudal class, against the nobility, clergy-rights and feudal
lords. This was an entirely different struggle from the struggle now
waged by the proletarians. The bourgeoisie was not an exploited class
striving to abolish exploitation. Oh no. What the bourgeoisie wanted
was to get rid of the old ruling powers standing in their way. The
bourgeoisie themselves wanted to rule, basing their demands upon the
fact that they were the most important class, the leaders of industry.
What argument could the old class, the class that became nothing but
useless parasites, bring forth against them? They leaned on tradition,
on their ancient divine rights. These were their pillars. With the aid
of religion the priests held the great mass in subjection and ready to
oppose the demands of the bourgeoisie.
It was therefore for their own interests that the bourgeoisie were in
duty bound to undermine the “divinity” right of rulers. Natural science
became a weapon in the opposition to belief and tradition; science and
the newly discovered natural laws were put forward; it was with these
weapons that the bourgeoisie fought. If the new discoveries could prove
that what the priests were teaching was false, the “divine” authority
of these priests would crumble and the “divine rights” enjoyed by the
feudal class would be destroyed. Of course the feudal class was not
conquered by this only, as material power can only be overthrown by
material power, but mental weapons become material tools. It is for
this reason that the bourgeoisie relied so much upon material science.
Darwinism came at the desired time; Darwin’s theory that man is the
descendant of a lower animal destroyed the entire foundation of
Christian dogma. It is for this reason that as soon as Darwinism made
its appearance, the bourgeoisie grasped it with great zeal.
This was not the case in England. Here we again see how important the
class struggle was for the spreading of Darwin’s theory. In England
the bourgeoisie had already ruled a few centuries, and as a mass they
had no interest to attack or destroy religion. It is for this reason
that although this theory was widely read in England, it did not stir
anybody; it merely remained a scientific theory without great practical
importance. Darwin himself considered it as such, and for fear that his
theory might shock the religious prejudices prevailing, he purposely
avoided applying it immediately to men. It was only after numerous
postponements and after others had done it before him, that he decided
to make this step. In a letter to Haeckel he deplored the fact that his
theory must hit upon so many prejudices and so much indifference that
he did not expect to live long enough to see it break through these
obstacles.
But in Germany things were entirely different, and Haeckel correctly
answered Darwin that in Germany the Darwinian theory met with an
enthusiastic reception. It so happened that when Darwin’s theory made
its appearance, the bourgeoisie was preparing to carry on a new attack
on absolutism and junkerism. The liberal bourgeoisie was headed by the
intellectuals. Ernest Haeckel, a great scientist, and of still greater
daring, immediately drew in his book, “Natural Creation,” most daring
conclusions against religion. So, while Darwinism met with the most
enthusiastic reception by the progressive bourgeoisie, it was also
bitterly opposed by the reactionists.
The same struggle also took place in other European countries.
Everywhere the progressive liberal bourgeoisie had to struggle against
reactionary powers. These reactionists possessed, or were trying to
obtain through religious followers, the power coveted. Under these
circumstances, even the scientific discussions were carried on with the
zeal and passion of a class struggle. The writings that appeared pro
and con on Darwin have therefore the character of social polemics,
despite the fact that they bear the names of scientific authors.
Many of Haeckel’s popular writings, when looked at from a scientific
standpoint, are very superficial, while the arguments and remonstrances
of his opponents show unbelievable foolishness that can only be met in
the arguments used against Marx.
The struggle, carried on by the liberal bourgeoisie against feudalism
was not fought to its finish. This was partly owing to the fact that
everywhere Socialist proletarians made their appearance, threatening
all ruling powers, including the bourgeoisie. The liberal bourgeoisie
relented, while the reactionary tendencies gained an upper hand. The
former zeal in combatting religion disappeared entirely, and while it
is true that the liberals and reactionists were still fighting among
each other, in reality, however, they neared each other. The interest
formerly manifested in science as a weapon in the class struggle, has
entirely disappeared, while the reactionary tendency that the masses
must be brought to religion, became ever more pronounced.
The estimation of science has also undergone a change. Formerly the
educated bourgeoisie founded upon science a materialistic conception of
the universe, wherein they saw the solution of the universal riddle.
Now mysticism has gained the upper hand; all that was solved appeared
as very trivial, while all things that remained unsolved, appeared
as very great indeed, embracing the most important life question. A
sceptical, critical and doubting frame of mind has taken the place of
the former jubilant spirit in favor of science.
This could also be seen in the stand taken against Darwin. “What does
his theory show? It leaves unsolved the universal riddle! Whence comes
this wonderful nature of transmission, whence the ability of animate
beings to change so fitly?” Here lies the mysterious life riddle that
could not be overcome with mechanical principles. Then, what was left
of Darwinism by the light of later criticism?
Of course, the advance of science began to make rapid progress. The
solution of one problem always brings a few more problems to the
surface to be solved, which were hidden underneath the theory of
transmission that Darwin had to accept as a basis of inquiry was ever
more investigated, a hot discussion arose about the individual factors
of development and the struggle for existence. While a few scientists
directed their attention to variation, which they considered due to
exercise and adaptation to life (following the principle laid down by
Lamarck) this idea was expressly denied by scientists like Weissman
and others. While Darwin only assumed gradual and slow changes, De
Vries found sudden and leaping cases of variation resulting in the
sudden appearance of new species. All this, while it went to strengthen
and develop the theory of descent, in some cases made the impression
that the new discoveries rent asunder the Darwinian theory, and
therefore every new discovery that made it appear so was hailed by
the reactionists as a bankruptcy of Darwinism. This social conception
had its influence on science. Reactionary scientists claimed that a
spiritual element is necessary. The supernatural and insolvable has
taken the place of Darwinism and that class which in the beginning was
the banner bearer of Darwinism became ever more reactionary.
V. DARWINISM VERSUS SOCIALISM.
Darwinism has been of inestimable service to the bourgeoisie in
its struggle against the old powers. It was therefore only natural
that bourgeoisdom should apply it against its later enemy, the
proletarians; not because the proletarians were antagonistically
disposed to Darwinism, but just the reverse. As soon as Darwinism
made its appearance, the proletarian vanguard, the Socialists, hailed
the Darwinian theory, because in Darwinism they saw a corroboration
and completion of their own theory; not as some superficial opponents
believe, that they wanted to base Socialism upon Darwinism but in
the sense that the Darwinian discovery,――that even in the apparently
stagnant organic world there is a continuous development――is a
glorious corroboration and completion of the Marxian theory of social
development.
Yet it was natural for the bourgeoisie to make use of Darwinism
against the proletarians. The bourgeoisie had to contend with two
armies, and the reactionary classes know this full well. When the
bourgeoisie attacks their authority, they point at the proletarians
and caution the bourgeoisie to beware lest all authority crumble.
In doing this, the reactionists mean to frighten the bourgeoisie so
that they may desist from any revolutionary activity. Of course, the
bourgeois representatives answer that there is nothing to fear; that
their science but refutes the groundless authority of the nobility and
supports them in their struggle against enemies of order.
At a congress of naturalists, the reactionary politician and scientist
Virchow assailed the Darwinian theory on the ground that it supported
Socialism. “Be careful of this theory,” he said to the Darwinists,
“for this theory is very nearly related to the theory that caused so
much dread in our neighboring country.” This allusion to the Paris
Commune, made in the year famous for the hunting of Socialists, must
have had a great effect. What shall be said, however, about the science
of a professor who attacks Darwinism with the argument that it is not
correct because it is dangerous! This reproach, of being in league
with the red revolutionists, caused a lot of annoyance to Haeckel, the
defendant of this theory. He could not stand it. Immediately afterwards
he tried to demonstrate that it is just the Darwinian theory that shows
the untenableness of the Socialist demands, and that Darwinism and
Socialism “endure each other as fire and water.”
Let us follow Haeckel’s contentions, whose main thoughts re-occur in
most authors who base their arguments against Socialism on Darwinism.
Socialism is a theory which presupposes natural equality for people,
and strives to bring about social equality; equal rights, equal duties,
equal possessions and equal enjoyments. Darwinism, on the contrary, is
the scientific proof of inequality. The theory of descent establishes
the fact that animal development goes in the direction of ever greater
differentiation or division of labor; the higher or more perfect the
animal, the greater the inequality existing. The same holds also good
in society. Here, too, we see the great division of labor between
vocations, class, etc., and the higher we stand in social development
the greater become the inequalities in strength, ability and faculty.
The theory of descent is therefore to be recommended as “the best
antidote to the Socialist demand of making all equal.”
The same holds good, but to a greater extent, of the Darwinian
theory of survival. Socialism wants to abolish competition and the
struggle for existence. But Darwinism teaches us that this struggle
is unavoidable and is a natural law for the entire organic world. Not
only is this struggle natural, but it is also useful and beneficial.
This struggle brings an ever greater perfection, and this perfection
consists in an ever greater extermination of the unfit. Only the
chosen minority, those who are qualified to withstand competition,
can survive; the great majority must perish. Many are called, but few
are chosen. The struggle for existence results at the same time in a
victory for the best, while the bad and unfit must perish. This may be
lamentable, just as it is lamentable that all must die, but the fact
can neither be denied nor changed.
We wish to remark here how a small change of almost similar words
serves as a defence of capitalism. Darwin spoke about the survival of
the fittest, of those that are best fitted to the conditions. Seeing
that in this struggle those that are better organized conquer the
others, the conquerors were called the vigilant, and later the “best.”
This expression was coined by Herbert Spencer. In thus winning on their
field, the conquerors in the social struggle, the large capitalists,
were proclaimed the best people.
Haeckel retained and still upholds this conception. In 1892 he said,
“Darwinism, or the theory of selection, is thoroughly aristocratic; it
is based upon the survival of the best. The division of labor brought
about by development causes an ever greater variation in character,
an ever greater inequality among the individuals, in their activity,
education and condition. The higher the advance of human culture, the
greater the difference and gulf between the various classes existing.
Communism and the demands put up by the Socialists in demanding an
equality of conditions and activity is synonymous with going back to
the primitive stages of barbarism.”
The English philosopher Herbert Spencer already had a theory on social
growth before Darwin. This was the bourgeois theory of individualism,
based upon the struggle for existence. Later he brought this theory
into close relation with Darwinism. “In the animal world,” he said,
“the old, weak and sick are ever rooted out and only the strong and
healthy survive. The struggle for existence serves therefore as a
purification of the race, protecting it from deterioration. This is
the happy effect of this struggle, for if this struggle should cease
and each one were sure of procuring its existence without any struggle
whatsoever, the race would necessarily deteriorate. The support given
to the sick, weak and unfit causes a general race degeneration.
If sympathy, finding its expressions in charity, goes beyond its
reasonable bounds, it misses its object; instead of diminishing, it
increases the suffering for the new generations. The good effect of the
struggle for existence can best be seen in wild animals. They are all
strong and healthy because they had to undergo thousands of dangers
wherein all those that were not qualified had to perish. Among men
and domestic animals sickness and weakness are so general because the
sick and weak are preserved. Socialism, having as its aim to abolish
the struggle for existence in the human world, will necessarily bring
about an ever growing mental and physical deterioration.”
These are the main contentions of those who use Darwinism as a defence
of the bourgeois system. Strong as these arguments might appear at
first sight, they were not hard for the Socialists to overcome. To a
large extent, they are the old arguments used against Socialism, but
wearing the new garb of Darwinistic terminology, and they show an utter
ignorance of Socialism as well as of capitalism.
Those who compare the social organism with the animal body leave
unconsidered the fact that men do not differ like various cells or
organs, but only in degree of their capacity. In society the division
of labor cannot go so far that all capacities should perish at the
expense of one. What is more, everyone who understands something of
Socialism knows that the efficient division of labor does not cease
with Socialism; that first under Socialism real divisions will be
possible. The difference between the workers, their ability, and
employments will not cease; all that will cease is the difference
between workers and exploiters.
While it is positively true that in the struggle for existence those
animals that are strong, healthy and well survive, yet this does not
happen under capitalist competition. Here victory does not depend upon
perfection of those engaged in the struggle, but in something that
lies outside of their body. While this struggle may hold good with the
small bourgeois, where success depends upon personal abilities and
qualifications, yet with the further development of capital, success
does not depend upon personal abilities, but upon the possession of
capital. The one who has a larger capital at command will soon conquer
the one who has a smaller capital at his disposal, although the
latter may be more skillful. It is not the personal qualities, but
the possession of money that decides who the victor shall be in the
struggle. When the small capitalists perish, they do not perish as men
but as capitalists; they are not weeded out from among the living, but
from the bourgeoisie. They still exist, but no longer as capitalists.
The competition existing in the capitalist system is therefore
something different in requisites and results from the animal struggle
for existence.
Those people that perish as people are members of an entirely different
class, a class that does not take part in the competitive struggle. The
workers do not compete with the capitalists, they only sell their labor
power to them. Owing to their being propertyless, they have not even
the opportunity to measure their great qualities and enter a race with
the capitalists. Their poverty and misery cannot be attributed to the
fact that they fell in the competitive struggle on account of weakness,
but because they were paid very little for their labor power, it is
for this very reason that, although their children are born strong and
healthy, they perish in great mass, while the children born to rich
parents, although born sick, remain alive by means of the nourishment
and great care that is bestowed on them. These children of the poor do
not die because they are sick or weak, but because of external cause.
It is capitalism which creates all those unfavorable conditions by
means of exploitation, reduction of wages, unemployment, crises, bad
dwellings, and long hours of employment. It is the capitalist system
that causes so many strong and healthy ones to succumb.
Thus the Socialists prove that, different from the animal world, the
competitive struggle existing between men does not bring forth the best
and most qualified, but destroys many strong and healthy ones because
of their poverty, while those that are rich, even if weak and sick,
survive. Socialists prove that personal strength is not the determining
factor, but it is something outside of man; it is the possession of
money that determines who shall survive and who shall perish.
VI. NATURAL LAW AND SOCIAL THEORY.
The false conclusions reached by Haeckel and Spencer on Socialism
are no surprise. Darwinism and Marxism are two distinct theories,
one of which applies to the animal world, while the other applies to
society. They supplement each other in the sense that, according to
the Darwinian theory of evolution, the animal world develops up to the
stage of man, and from then on, that is, after the animal has risen
to man, the Marxian theory of evolution applies. When, however, one
wishes to carry the theory of one domain into that of the other, where
different laws are applicable, he must draw wrong inferences.
Such is the case when we wish to ascertain from natural law what social
form is natural and applicable, and this is just what the bourgeois
Darwinists did. They drew the inference that the laws which govern
in the animal world, where the Darwinian theory applies, apply with
equal force in the capitalist system, and that therefore capitalism
is a natural order and must endure forever. On the other hand, there
were some Socialists who desired to prove that, according to Darwin,
the Socialist system is the natural one. Said these Socialists, “Under
capitalism men do not carry on the struggle for existence with like
tools, but with unlike ones artificially made. The natural superiority
of those that are healthier, stronger, more intelligent or morally
better, is of no avail so long as birth, class, or the possession
of money control this struggle. Socialism, in abolishing all these
artificial dissimilarities, will make equal provisions for all, and
then only will the struggle for existence prevail, wherein the real
personal superiorities will be the deciding factors.”