Socialism and Modern Science | Page 3

evolution and in the smaller field of biology where it becomes the
theory of descent--that the variety of phenomena flows from an original
unity, the diversity of functions from a primitive identity, and the
complexity of organization from a primordial simplicity. The
conditions of existence for all individuals are, from their very birth,
unequal. There must also be taken into consideration the inherited
qualities and the innate tendencies which also vary more or less widely.
In view of all this, how can the work and the reward be equal for all?
"The more highly the social life is developed, the more important
becomes the great principle of the division of labor, the more requisite
it becomes for the stable existence of the State as a whole that its
members should distribute among themselves the multifarious tasks of
life, each performing a single function; and as the labor which must be
performed by the individuals, as well as the expenditure of strength,
talent, money, etc., which it necessitates, differs more and more, it is
natural that the remuneration of this labor should also vary widely.
These are facts so simple and so obvious that it seems to me every
intelligent and enlightened statesman ought to be an advocate of the
theory of descent and the general doctrine of evolution, as the best
antidote for the absurd equalitarian, utopian notions of the socialists.
"And it was Darwinism, the theory of selection, that Virchow, in his
denunciation, had in mind, rather than mere metamorphic development,
the theory of descent, with which it is always confused! Darwinism is
anything rather than socialistic.
"If one wishes to attribute a political tendency to this English
theory,--which is quite permissible,--this tendency can be nothing but
aristocratic; by no means can it be democratic, still less socialistic.
"The theory of selection teaches that in the life of mankind, as in that of
plants and animals, it is always and everywhere a small privileged
minority alone which succeeds in living and developing itself; the
immense majority, on the contrary, suffer and succumb more or less

prematurely. Countless are the seeds and eggs of every species of
plants and animals, and the young individuals who issue from them.
But the number of those who have the good fortune to reach fully
developed maturity and to attain the goal of their existence is relatively
insignificant.
"The cruel and pitiless 'struggle for existence' which rages everywhere
throughout animated nature, and which in the nature of things must
rage, this eternal and inexorable competition between all living beings,
is an undeniable fact. Only a small picked number of the strongest or
fittest is able to come forth victoriously from this battle of competition.
The great majority of their unfortunate competitors are inevitably
destined to perish. It is well enough to deplore this tragic fatality, but
one cannot deny it or change it. 'Many are called, but few are chosen!'
"The selection, the 'election' of these 'elect' is by absolute necessity
bound up with the rejection or destruction of the vast multitude of
beings whom they have survived. And so another learned Englishman
has called the fundamental principle of Darwinism 'the survival of the
fittest, the victory of the best.'
"At all events, the principle of selection is not in the slightest degree
democratic; it is, on the contrary, thoroughly aristocratic. If, then,
Darwinism, carried out to its ultimate logical consequences, has,
according to Virchow, for the statesman 'an extraordinarily dangerous
side,' the danger is doubtless that it favors aristocratic aspirations."
I have reproduced complete and in their exact form all the arguments of
Haeckel, because they are those which are repeated--in varying tones,
and with expressions which differ from his only to lose precision and
eloquence--by those opponents of socialism who love to appear
scientific, and who, for polemical convenience, make use of those
ready-made or stereotyped phrases which have currency, even in
science, more than is commonly imagined.
It is easy, nevertheless, to demonstrate that, in this debate, Virchow's
way of looking at the subject was the more correct and more
perspicacious, and that the history of these last twenty years has amply

justified his position.
It has happened, indeed, that Darwinism and socialism have both
progressed with a marvelous power of expansion. From that time the
one was to conquer--for its fundamental theory--the unanimous
endorsement of naturalists; the other was to continue to develop--in its
general aspirations as in its political discipline--flooding all the
conduits of the social consciousness, like a torrential inundation from
internal wounds caused by the daily growth of physical and moral
disease, or like a gradual, capillary, inevitable infiltration into minds
freed from all prejudices, and which are not satisfied by the merely
personal advantages that they derive from the orthodox distribution of
spoils.
But, as political or scientific