1
Parmekoek, Anton
Marxism and Darwinism
^,
1^^
Presented to the
LIBRARY of the
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
by
Professor Michael Levin
m,
\
\
MARXISM AND
DARWINISM
4
By ANTON PANNEKOEK
PRICE TEN CENTS
CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
Publishers .... CHICAGO
aas
Marxism and Darwinism
BY
ANTON PANNEKOEK
Translated by Nathan Weiser.
CHICAGO
CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY,
CO-OPERATIVE
Copyrigbl, 1918
By
Charles H. Kerr & CompaKy
^
I -RRAP'
■^ i'
10p7
,r
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—*
MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
The wealth, O Croesus, thou transmittest
Proves the Survival of the Fittest.
But, io, 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. McLtxism - - -...-■- 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 - - 23
VII. /The Sociability of Man"? - - ' - - 36
VIII. ^^ools, 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 dec-
ades their names have been on the tongues of every-
body, and their teachings have become the central
point of the mental struggles which accompany the
social struggles ot today. The cause of this lies pri-
marily in the highly scientific contents of their teach-
ings.
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 achieve-
ments of Darwin and Marx in this domain.
The theory that plants and animals have de-
veloped 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
8 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
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. Ac-
cording to the information, all known plants and ani-
mals have always been the same. Scientifically, this
experience was thus expressed, "All kinds are invari-
able 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 them-
selves 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 di-
visions ; these divisions are divided into classes, classes
into orders, orders into families, families into species,
each of which contain a few kinds. The more sem-
blance 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 dif-
ferentiated. 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 exam-
ine varieties of the same species ; the cat, tiger and lion
resemble each other in many respects where they dif-
fer 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.
MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
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 crea-
tion, 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 like-
ness in the construction of the body may be due to
a real family relationship. According to this concep-
tion, 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 founda-
tions 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 descend-
ed from some primitive mammal, etc.
This theory of descent was advocated by Lamarck
and by Geoffrey St. Hilaire. It did not, however, meet
10 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
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 evolu-
tion has become inseparable from Darwin's name. Why
so?
This was partly due to the fact that through ex-
perience ever more material was accumulated which
went to support this theory. Animals were found
which could not very well be placed into the classifica-
tion such as oviparous mammals (that is, animals
which lay eggs and nourish their offspring from their
breast. — Translator) fishes having lungs, and inverte-
brate animals. The theory of descent claimed that
these are simply the remnants of the transition be-
tween 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 prim-
itive 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 differen-
tiation of single cells. Having gone so far, the thought
that the highest organisms have descended from prim-
itive 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
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 11
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 rea41y changing into new forms? This can be done
by showing the cause, the propelling force of such de-
velopment. 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 be-
come 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,
12 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
which they ate, their necks were stretched so that a
short-necked animal developed to the long-necked gi-
raflfe. 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 suc-
cession, 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 rais-
ing 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 dilifer from
their original form much more than the wild kinas
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 hav-
ing narrow necks and again have the long-necked
inter-breed. If he repeated this at every new genera-
tion the result would be that the neck would ever be-
come longer and we would get an animal resembling
the giraffe.
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 13
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 im-
possible 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
I found its solution in the "struggle for existence." In
Ithis 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 na-
ture. It was not through his own observation that this
Isolution presented itself to him. It came to him by
his reading the works of the economist Malthus. Mal-
thus 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 ex-
isting 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 un-
avoidable 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
14 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
everywhere goes on from long continuous observation
of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck
me that under these circumstances favorable varia-
tions would tend to be preserved, and unfavorable ones
to be destroyed. The result of this would be the for-
mation 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 ani-
mals is greater than the existing food permits of sus-
taining. 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 pe-
culiarities and weapons it struggles against the entire
antagonistic world, against animals, cold, heat, dry-
ness, 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 de-
stroyed, 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
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. U
are ever more individuals born than can remain alire,
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 spe-
cies. 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 move-
ment of existing species branching out into new rela-
tions 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 through-
out nature. Formerly this wonderful conformity could
16 MARXISM AND DARWINISM..
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 con-
formable are less adapted and are exterminated in
the struggle for existence. The green-frog, having
descended from the brown-frog, must preserve its pro-
tecting 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 defi-
nite 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
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 17
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 pro-
ductive 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 de-
termines 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 produc-
tive 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
18 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
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 improve-
ments. 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 strug-
gles 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 con-
quering them they pave the way for the further un-
hindered 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.
>-\ _•> \ "A
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 19
In doing this they made the theory of evolution ac-
ceptable 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 New-
ton's theory of gravitation. This theory is the foun-
dation 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 popu-
lar book of Voltaire's written a half century after-
wards.
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 improve-
ment 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 ad-
herents 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
10 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
the fact that this theory serves them as a weapon in
the class struggle. For it is the class struggle thai
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 pro-
fessional 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 abol-
ished. 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 sys-
tem of production can only be established by the prole-
tarians struggling against the capitalists, whose inter-
est it is to maintain the old system of production. So-
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 21
cialism 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 cer-
tainty of their victory. At the same time Marxism
has done away with the old Utopian views that Social-
ism 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 sys-
tem, 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 Marx-
ism is the theory of social development, in the midst
of which w^ stand, therefore Marxism itself stands as
the central point of the great men-tal struggles that
accompany our economic revolution.
22 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
IV. DARWINISM AND THE CLASS STRUGGLE.
That Marxism owes its importance and position
only to the role it takes in the proletarian class strug-
gle, is known to all. With Darwinism, however, things
seem different to the superficial observer, for Darwin-
ism 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 Dar-
winism made its appearance, it had its enthusiastic
advocates and passionate opponents ; Darwin's name,
too, was either highly honored by people who under-
stood something of his theory, or despised by people
who knew nothing more of his theory than that "man
"^^j*^ descended from the monkey," and who were surely
^^^Ji^' unqualified to judge from a scientific standpoint the
i,^^ ivP correctness or falsity of Darwin's theory. Darwinism,
/J^ too, played a role in the class-struggle, and it is owing
^^^^ to this role that it spread so rapidly and had enthusi-
astic advocates and venomous opponents.
Darwinism served as a tool to the bourgeoisie in
their struggle against the feudal class, against the no-
bility, clergy-rights and feudal lords. This was an en-
tirely diflPerent struggle from the struggle now waged
by the proletarians. The bourgeoisie was not an ex-
ploited class striving to abolish exploitation. Oh no.
l'^\ What the bourgeoisie wanted was to get rid of the
old ruling powers standing in their way. The bour-
geoisie themselves wanted to rule, basing their de-
mands upon the fact that they were the most impor-
c
i.S^'--
<_
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 28
tant 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; sci-
ence and the newly discovered natural laws were put
forward; it was with these weapons that the bour-
geoisie 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 bour-
geoisie 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
24 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
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 indif-
ference 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 Ger-
many 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 intellec-
tuals. Ernest Haeckel, a great scientist, and of still
greater daring, immediately drew in his book, "Nat-
ural Creation," most daring conclusions against re-
ligion. So, while Darwinism met with the most en-
thusiastic reception by the progressive bourgeoisie,
it was also bitterly opposed by the reactionists.
The same struggle also took place in other Euro-
pean countries. Everywhere the progressive liberal
bourgeoisie had to struggle against reactionary pow-
ers. These reactionists possessed, or were trying to
obtain through religious followers, the power coveted.
Under these circumstances, even the scientific discus-
sions were carried on with the zeal and passion of a
class struggle. The writings that apeared pro and con
on Darwin have therefore the character of social
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 25
polemics, despite the fact that they bear the names of
scientific authors. Many of Haeckel's popular writ-
ings, when looked at from a scientific standpoint, are
very superficial, while the arguments and remon-
strances of his opponents show unbelievable foolish-
ness 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 Social-
ist 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 scep-
tical, critical and doubting frame of mind has taken
the place of the former jubilant spirit in favor of sci-
ence.
This could also be seen in the stand taken against
Darwin. "What does his theory show? It leaves
86 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
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 Darwin-
ism 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 di-
rected their attention to variation, which they con-
sidered due to exercise and adaptation to life (follow-
ing 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 super-
natural and insolvable has taken the place of Darwin-
ism and that class which in the beginning was the
banner bearer of Darwinism became ever more re-
actionary.
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 27
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 dis-
posed to Darwinism, but just the reverse. As soon as
Darwinism made its appearance, the proletarian van-
guard, the Socialists, hailed the Darwinian theory, be-
cause in Darwinism they saw a corroboration and com-
pletion 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 or-
ganic 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 bour-
geoisie had to contend with two armies, and the reac-
tionary classes know this full well. , When the bour-
geoisie attacks their authority, they point at the prole-
tarians 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 politi-
cian and scientist Virchow assailed the Darwinian
theory on the ground that it supported Socialism. "Be
28 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
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 demon-
strate 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 ani-
mal, 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
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 29
as "the best antidote to the Socialist demand of mak-
ing all equal." ^-'f
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 un-
avoidable 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 njust
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 lament-
able that all must die, but the fact can neither be de-
nied 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 Her-
bert Spencer, In thus winning on their field, the con-
querors in the social struggle, the large capitalists,
v7 were 4)roclaimed the best people.
. ( Haeckel retained and still upholds this conception,
/in r592 he said . "Darwinism.^r t hf: theor.YjQLs elect ion,
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 char-
Vj-
30 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
acter, an ever greater inequality among the individuals,
in their activity, education and condition. .;The higher
the advance of human culture, the greater the differ-
ence 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 sur-
vive. The struggle for existence serves therefore as
a purification of the race, protecting it from deterior-
'ation. 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 what-
soever, 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 weak-
ness 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 neces-
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 31
sarily 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
^^*l /animal body leave unconsidered the fact that men do
^ I not differ like various cells or organs, but only in de-
gree 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 un-
derstands something of Socialism knows that the effi-
cient division of labor does not cease with Socialism ;
that first under Socialism real divisions will be pos-
sible. The difiference between the workers, their
ability, and employments will not cease; all that will
cease is the difference between workers and exploiters.
^ . :. iVhile 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 capital-
ist competition. Here victory does not depend upon
perfection of those engaged in the struggle, but in
J something that lies outside of their body. While this
>^' struggle may hold good with the small bourgeois,
^ where success depends upon personal abilities and
V qualifications, yet with the further development of
\^' capital, success does not depend upon personal abili-
ties, but upon the possession of capital. The one who
has a larger capital at command will soon conquer the
\'
32 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
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 stfiiggle. When the small
capitalists perish, they do not perisli 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 ac-
count 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 ex-
ternal cause. It is capitalism which creates all those
unfavorable conditions by means of exploitation, re-
duction of wages, unemployment, crises, bad dwell-
ings, and long hours of employment. It is the capital-
ist system that causes so many strong and healthy
ones to succumb.
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 33
Thus the Socialists prove that, different from the
animal world, the competitive struggle existing be-
tween 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^ V ^|^ ^^K//^/ ^^ ^
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 ap-
plies 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, ^yhen,
however, one wishes to carry the theory of one domain
into that of the other, where different laws are ap-
plicable, 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 ap-
plies, 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
34 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
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 de-
ciding factors."
These critical arguments, while they are not bad
when used as refutations against bourgeois Darwin-
ists, are still faulty. Both sets of arguments, those
used by the bourgeois Darwinists in favor of capital-
ism, and those of the Socialists, who base their Social-
ism on Darwin, are falsely rooted. Both arguments,
although reaching opposite conclusions, are equally
false because they proceed from the wrong premises
that there is a natural and a permanent system of
society.
Marxism has taught us that there is no such thing
as a natural and a permanent social system, and that
there can be none, or, to put it another way, every
social system is natural, for every social system is
necessary and natural under given conditions. There
is not a single definite social system that can be ac-
cepted as natural ; the various social systems take the
place of one another as a result of developments in
the means of production. Each system is therefore the
natural one for its particular time. Capitalism is not
the only natural order, as the bourgeoisie believes, and
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 35
TiO Socialist system is the only natural system, as some
Socialists try to prove. Capitalism was natural under
the conditions of the nineteenth century, just as
feudalism was in the Middle Ages, and as Socialism
will be in the coming age. The attempt to put forward
a certain system as the only natural and permanent
one is as futile as if we were to take an animal and say
that this animal is the most perfect of all animals.
Darwinism teajches us that every animal is equally
adapted and equally perfect in form to suit its special
environments, and Marxism teaches us that every so-
cial system is particularly adapted to its conditions,
and that in this sense it may be called good and per-
fect.
Herein lies the main reason why the endeavor of
the bourgeois Darwinists to defend the foundering
capitalist system is bound to fail. Arguments based
on natural science, when applied to social questions,
must almost always lead to reverse conclusions. This
happens because, while nature is very slow in its de-
velopment and changes within the ken of human his-
tory are imperceptible, so that it may almost be re-
garded as stable, human society nevertheless under-
goes quick and continuous changes. In order to un-
derstand the moving force and the cause of social de-
velopment, we must study society as such. It is only
here that we can find the reason of social development.
Marxism and Darwinism should remain in their own
domains ; they are independent of each other and there
is no direct connection between them.
Here arises a very important question. Can we
stop at the conclusion that Marxism applies only to
society and that Darwinism applies only to the or-
ganic world, and that neither of these theories is ap-
96 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
plicable in the other domain? In practice it is very
convenient to have one principle for the human world
and another one for the animal world. In having this,
however, we forget that man is also an animal. Man
has developed from an animal, and the laws that ap-
ply to the animal world cannot suddenly lose their
applicability to man. It is true that man is a very
peculiar animal, but if that is the case it is necessary
to find from these very peculiarities why those prin-
ciples applicable to all animals do not apply to men,
and why they assume a different form.
Here we come to another grave problem. The
bourgeois Darwinists do not encounter such a prob-
lem; they simply declare that man is an animal, and
without further ado they set about to apply the Dar-
winian principles to men. We have seen to what
erroneous conclusions they come. To us this ques-
tion is not so simple ; we must first be clear about the
differences between men and animals, and then we can
see why, in the human world, the Darwinian principles
change into different ones, namely, into Marxism.
VII. THE SOCIABILITY OF MAN.
The first peculiarity that we observe in man is
that he is a social being. In this he does not differ
from all animals, for even among the latter there are
many species that live socially among themselves. But
man differs from all those that we have observed until
now in dealing with the Darwinian theory ; he differs
from those animals that do not live socially, but that
struggle with each other for subsistence. It is not
with the rapacious animals which live separately that
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 37
man must be compared, but with those that live so-
cially. The sociability of animals is a power that we
have not yet spoken of; a power that calls forth new
qualities among animals.
It is an error to regard the struggle for existence
as the only power giving shape to the organic world.
The struggle for existence is the main power that
causes the origin of new species, but Darwin himself
knew full well that other powers co-operate which give
shape to the forms, habits, and peculiarities of animate
things. In his "Descent of Man" Darwin elaborately
treated sexual selection and showed that the competi-
tion of males for females gave rise to the gay colors of
the birds and butterflies and also to the singing voices
of birds. There he also devoted a chapter to social
living. Many illustrations on this head are also to be
found in Kropotkin's book, "Mutual Aid as a Factor
in Evolution." The best representation of the effects
of sociability are given in Kautsky's "Ethics and the
Materialistic Conception of History."
When a number of animals live in a group, herd
or flock, they carry on the struggle for existence in
common against the outside world; within such a
group the struggle for existence ceases. The animals
which live socially no longer wage a struggle against
each other, wherein the weak succumb; just the re-
verse, the weak enjoy the same advantages as the
strong. When some animals have the advantage by
means of greater strength, sharper smell, or experi-
ence in finding the best pasture or in warding off the
enemy, this advantage does not accrue only to these
better fitted, but also to the entire group. This com-
bining of the animals' separate powers into one unit
gives to the group a new and much stronger power
88 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
than any one individual possessed, even the strongest.
It is owing to this united strength that the defense-
less plant-eaters can ward aff rapacious animals. It
is only by means of this unity that some animals are
able to protect their young.
A second advantage of sociability arises from the
fact that where animals live socially, there is a possi-
bility of the division of labor. Such animals send out
scouts or place sentinels whose object it is to look
after the safety of all, while others spend their time
either in eating or in plucking, relying upon their
guards to warn them of danger.
Such an animal society becomes, in some respects,
a unit, a single organism. Naturally, the relation re-
mains much looser than the cells of a single animal
body; nevertheless, the group becomes a coherent
body, and there must be some power that holds to-
gether the individual members.
This power is found in the social motives, the in-
stinct that holds them together and causes the continu-
ance of the group. Every animal must place the inter-
est of the entire group above his own ; it must always
act instinctively for the advantage and maintenance of
the group without consideration of itself. As long as
the weak plant-eaters think of themselves only and
run away when attacked by a rapacious animal, each
one minding his life only, the entire herd disappears.
Only when the strong motive of self-preservation is
suppressed by a stronger motive of union, and each
animal risks its life for the protection of all, only then
does the herd remain and enjoy the advantages of
sticking together. In such a case, self-sacrifice,
bravery, devotion, discipline and consciousness must
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 39
arise, for where these do not exist society dissolves;
society can only exist where these exist.
These instincts, while they have their origin in
habit and necessity, are strengthened by the struggle
for existence. Every animal herd still stands in a com-
petitive struggle against the same animals of a differ-
ent herd; those that are best fitted to withstand the
enemy will survive, while those that are poorer
equipped will perish. That group in which the social
instinct is better developed will be able to hold its
ground, while the group in which social instinct is low
will either fall an easy prey to its enemies or will not
be in a position to find favorable feeding places. These
social instincts become therefore the most important
and decisive factors that determine who shall survive
in the struggle for existence. It is owing to this that
the social instincts have been elevated to the position
of predominant factors.
These relations throw an entirely new light upon
the views of the bourgeois Darwinists. Their claim
is that the extermination of the weak is natural and
that it is necessary in order to prevent the corruption
of the race, and that the protection given to the weak
serves to deteriorate the race. But what do wc see?
In nature itself, in the animal world, we find that the
weak are protected; that it is not by their own per-
sonal strength that they maintain themselves, and that
they are not brushed aside on account of their per-
sonal weakness. This arrangement does not weaken
the group, but gives to it new strength. The animal
group in which mutual aid is best developed is best fit
to maintain itself in the strife. That which, according
to the narrow conception appeared as a cause of weak-
ness, becomes just the reverse, a cause of strength.
40 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
The sociable animals are in a position to beat those
that carry on the struggle individually. This so-called
degenerating and deteriorating race carries off the vic-
tory and practically proves itself to be the most skilful
and best.
Here we first see fully how near sighted, narrow
and unscientific are the claims and arguments of the
bourgeois Darwinists. Their natural laws and their
conceptions of what is natural are derived from a part
of the animal world, from those which man r6sembles
least, while those animals that practically live under
the same circumstances as man are left unobserved.
The reason for this can be found in the bourgeoise's
, own circumstances; they themselves belong to a class
I where each competes individually against the other;
I therefore, they see among animals only that form of
I the struggle for existence. It is for this reason that
I they overlook those forms of the struggle that are of
t greatest importance to men.
It is true that these bourgeois Darwinists are
aware of the fact that man is not ruled by mere egoism
without regard for his neighbors. The bourgeois
scientists say very often that every man is possessed
of two feelings, the egotistical, or self-love, and the
altruistic, the love of others. But as they do not know
the social origin of this altruism, they cannot under-
stand its limitations and conditions. Altruism in their
mouths becomes a very indistinct idea which they
don't know how to handle.
Everything that applies to the social animals ap-
plies also to man. Our ape-like ancestors and the
primitive men developing from them were all defense-
less, weak animals who, as almost all apes do, lived in
tribes. Here the same social motives and instincts
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. il
had to arise which later developed to moral feelings.
That our customs and morals are nothing other than
social feelings, feelings that we find among animals, is
known to all; even Darwin spoke about "the habits
of animals which would be called moral among men."
The difference is only in the measure of conscious-
ness; as soon as these social feelings become clear to
men, they assume the character of moral feelings.
Here we see that the moral conception — which bour-
geois authors considered as the main distinction be-
tween men and animals — is not common to men, but
is a direct product of conditions existing in the animal
world.
It is in the nature of the origin of these moral
feelings that they do not spread further than the social
group to which the animal or the man belongs. These
feelings serve the practical object of keeping the group
together; beyond this they are useless. In the animal
world, the range and nature of the social group is de-
termined by the circumstances of life, and therefore
the group almost always remains the same. Among
men, however, the groups, these social units, are ever
changing in accordance with economic development,
and this also changes the social instincts.
The original groups, the stems of the wild and
barbarian people, were more strongly united than the
animal groups. Family relationship and a common
language strengthened this union further. Every indi-
vidual had the support of the entire tribe. Under such
conditions, the social motives, the moral feelings, the
subordination of the individual to the whole, must
have developed to the utmost. With the further de-
vek)pment of society, the tribes are dissolved and their
places are taken by new unions, by towns and peoples.
42 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
New formations step into the place of the old ones,
and the members of these groups carry on the struggle
for existence in common against other peoples. In
equal ratio with economic development, the size of
these unions increases, the struggle of each against the
other decreases, and social feelings spread. At the end
of ancient times we find that all the people known
then formed a unit, the Roman Empire, and at that
time arose the theory — the moral feelings having their
influence on almost all the people — which led to the
maxim that all men are brothers.
When we regard our own times, we see that
economically all the people form one unit, although a
very weak one; nevertheless the abstract feeling of
brotherhood becomes ever more popular. The social
feelings are strongest among members of the same
class, for classes are the essential units embodying
particular interests and including certain members.
Thus we see that the social units and social feelings
change in human society. These changes are brought
about by economic changes, and the higher the stage
of economic development, the higher and nobler the
social feelings.
VIII. TOOLS, THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE.
Sociability, with its consequences, the moral feel-
ings, is a peculiarity which distinguishes man from
some, but not from all, animals. There are, however, some
peculiarities which belong to man only, and which
separate him from the entire animal world. These, in
the first instance, are language, then reason. Man is
also the only animal that makes use of self-made tools.
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 43
For all these things, animals have but the slightest
propensity, but among men, these have developed es-
sentially new characteristics. Many animals have
some kind of voice, and by means of sounds they can
come to some understanding, but only man has such
sounds as serve as a medium for naming things and
actions. Animals also have brains with which they
think, but the human mind shows, as we shall see
later, an entirely new departure, which we designate
as reasonable or abstract thinking. Animals, too,
make use of inanimate things which they use for cer-
tain purposes ; for instance, the building of nests.
Monkeys sometimes use sticks or stones, but only man
uses tools which he himself deliberately makes for par-
ticular purposes. These primitive tendencies among
animals show us that the peculiarities possessed by
man came to him, not by means of some wonderful
creation, but by continuous development.
Animals living isolated can not arrive at such a
stage of development. It is only as a social being that
man can reach this stage. Outside the pale of society,
language is just as useless as an eye in darkness, and
is bound to die. Language is possible only in society,
and only there is it needed as a means by which mem-
bers may understand one another. All social animals
possess some means of understanding each other,
otherwise they would not be able to execute certain
plans conjointly. The sounds that were necessary as
a means of communication for the primitive man while
at his tasks must have developed into names of activi-
ties, and later into names of things.
The use of tools also presupposes a society, for it
is only through society that attainments can be pre-
served. In a state of isolated life every one has to
4A MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
make discoveries for himself; with the death of the
discoverer the discovery also becomes extinct, and
each has to start anew from the very beginning. It is
only through society that the experience and knowl-
edge of former generations can be preserved, perpetu-
ated, and developed. In a group or body a few may
die, but the group, as such, does not. It remains.
Knowledge in the use of tools is not born with man,
but is acquired later. Mental tradition, such as is pos-
sible only in society, is therefore necessary.
While these special characteristics of man are in-
separable from his social life, they also stand in strong
relation to each other. These characteristics have not
been developed singly, but all have progressed in com-
mon. That thought and language can exist and de-
velop only in common is known to everyone who has
but tried to think of the nature of his own thoughts.
When we think or consider, we, in fact, talk to our-
selves; we observe then that it is impossible for us
to think clearly without using words. Where we do
not think with words our thoughts remain indistinct
and we can not combine the various thoughts. Every
one can realize this from his own experience. This is
because so-called abstract reason is perceptive thought
and can take place only by means of perceptions. Per-
ceptions we can designate and hold only by means of
names. Every attempt to broaden our minds, every
attempt to advance our knowledge must begin by dis-
tinguishing and classifying by means of names or by
giving to the old ones a more precise meaning. Lan-
guage is the body of the mind, the material by which
all human science can be built up.
The difference between the human mind and the
animal mind was very aptly shown by Schopenhauer.
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 45
This citation is quoted by Kautsky in his "Ethics and
the Materialist Conception of History" (pages 139-40
English Translation). The animal's actions are de-
pendent upon visual motives, it is only by these that
it sees, hears or observes in any other way. We can
always tell what induced the animal to do this or the
other act, for we, too, can see it if we look. With man,
however, it is entirely different. We can not foretell
what he will do, for we do not know the motives that
induce him to act ; they are thoughts in his head. Man
considers, and in so doing, all his knowledge, the re-
sult of former experience, comes into play, and it is
then that he decides how to act. The acts of an ani-
mal depend upon immediate impression, while those of
man depend upon abstract conceptions, upon his think-
ing and perceiving. Man is at the same time influenced
by finer invisible motives. Thus all his movements
bear the impress of being guided by principles and in-
tentions which give them the appearance of independ-
ence and obviously distinguishes them from those of
animals.
Owing to their having bodily wants, men and
animals are forced to seek to satisfy them in the nat-
ural objects surrounding them. The impression on
the mind is the immediate impulse and beginning; the
satisfaction of the wants is the aim and end of the act.
With the animal, action follows immediately after im-
pression. It sees its prey or food and immediately it
jumps, grasps, eats, or does that which is necessary
for grasping, and this is inherited as an instinct. The
animal hears some hostile sound, and immediately it
runs away if its legs are so developed to run quickly,
or lies down like dead so as not to be seen if its color
serves as a protector. Between man's impressions
46 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
and acts, however, there comes into his head a long
chain of thoughts and considerations. His actions will
depend upon the result of these considerations.
Whence comes this difference? It is not hard to
see that it is closely associated with the use of tools.
In the same manner that thought arises between
man's impressions and acts, the tool comes in between
man and that which he seeks to attain. Furthermore,
since the tool stands between man and outside objects,
thought must arise between the impression and the
performance. Man does not start empty-handed
against his enemy or tear down fruit, but he goes
about it in a roundabout manner, he takes a tool, a
weapon (weapons are also tools) which he uses
against the hostile animal; therefore his mind must
also make the same circuit, not follow the first impres-
sions, but it must think of the tools and then follow
to the object. This material circuit causes the mental
circuit; the thoughts leading to a certain act are the
result of the tools necessary for the performance of
the act.
Here we took a very simple case of primitive tools
and the first stages of mental development. The more
complicated technique becomes, the greater is the
material circuit, and as a result the mind has to make
greater circuits. When each made his own tools, the
thought of hunger and struggle must have directed
the human mind to the making of tools. Here we
have a longer cham of thoughts between the impres-
sions and the ultimate satisfaction of men's needs.
When we come down to our own times, we find that
this chain is very long and complicated. The worker
who is discharged foresees the hunger that is bound
to come ; he buys a newspaper in order to see whether
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 47
there is any demand for laborers ; he goes to the rail-
road, offers himself for a wage which he will get only-
long afterwards, so that he may be in a position to buy
food and thus protect himself from starvation. What
a long circuitous chain the mind must make before it
reaches its destiny. But it agrees with our highly de-
veloped technique, by means of which man can satisfy
his wants.
Man, however, does not rule over one tool only,
but over many, which he applies for different pur-
poses, and from which he can choose. Man, because
of these tools, is not like the animal. The animal
never advances beyond the tools and weapons with
which it was born, while man makes his tools and
changes them at will. Man, being an animal using
different tools, must possess the mental ability to
choose them. In his head various thoughts come and
go, his mind considers all the tools and the conse-
quences of their application, and his actions depend
upon these considerations. He also combines one
thought with another, and holds fast to the idea that
fits in with his purpose.
Animals have not this capacity ; it would be use-
less for them for they would not know what to do
with it. On account of their bodily form, their actions
are circumscribed within narrow bounds. The lion
can only jump upon his prey, but can not think of
catching it by running after it. The hare is so formed
that it can run; it has no other means of defense al-
though it may like to have. These animals have noth-
ing to consider except the moment of jumping or run-
ning. Every animal is so formed as to fit into some
definite place. Their actions must become strong
habits. These habits are not unchangeable. Animals
48 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
are not machines, when brought into different circum-
stances they may acquire different habits. It is not in
the quality of their brains, but in the formation of
their bodies that animal restrictions lie. The animal's
action is limited by its bodily form and surroundings,
and consequently it has little need for reflection. To
reason would therefore be useless for it and would
only lead to harm rather than to good.
Man, on the other hand, must possess this ability
because he exercises discretion in the use of tools and
weapons, which he chooses according to particular re-
quirements. If he wants to kill the fleet hare, he takes
the bow and arrow; if he meets the bear, he uses the
axe, and if he wants to break open a certain fruit he
takes a hammer. When threatened by danger, man
must consider whether he shall run away or defend
himself by fighting with weapons. This ability to
think and to consider is indispensable to man in his
use of artificial tools.
This strong connection between thoughts, lan-
guage, and tools, each of which is impossible without
the other, shows that they must have developed at the
same time. How this development took place, we can
only conjecture. Undoubtedly it was a change in the
circumstances of life that changed men from our ape-
like ancestors. Having migrated from the woods, the
original habitat of apes, to the plain, man had to un-
dergo an entire change of life. The difference between
hands and feet must have developed then. Sociability
and the ape-like hand, well adapted for grasping, had
a due share in the new development. The first rough
objects, such as stones or sticks, came to hand un-
sought, and were thrown away. This must have been
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 40
repeated so often that it must have left an impression
on the minds of those primitive men.
To the animal, surrounding nature is a single unit,
of the details of which it is unconscious. It can not
distinguish between various objects. Our primitive
man, at his lowest stage, must have been at the same
level of consciousness. From the great mass sur-
rounding him, some objects (tools) come into his
hands which he used in procuring his existence. These
tools, being very important objects, soon were given
some designation, were designated by a sound which
at the same time named the particular activity. Owing
to this sound, or designation, the tool and the particu-
lar kind of activity stands out from the rest of the
surroundings. Man begins to analyze the world by
concepts and names, self-consciousness makes its ap-
pearance, artificial objects are purposely sought and
knowingly made use of while working.
This process — for it is a very slow process — marks
the beginning of our becoming men. As soon as men
deliberately seek and apply certain tools, we can say
that these are being developed ; from this stage to the
manufacturing of tools, there is only one step. The
first crude tools differ according to use ; from the sharp
stone we get the knife, the bolt, the drill, and the
spear; from the stick we get the hatchet. With the
further dififerentiation of tools, serving later for the
division of labor, lang.. ^ge and thought develop into
richer and newer forms, while thought leads man to
use the tools in a better way, to improve old and in-
vent new ones.
So we see that one thing brings on the other. The
practice of sociability and the application to labor are
the springs in which technique, thought, tools and
to MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
science have their origin and continually develop. By
his labor, the primitive ape-like man has risen to rea^
manhood. The use of tools marks the great departure
that is ever more widening between men and animals.
IX. ANIMAL ORGANS AND HUMAN TOOLS.
In animal organs and human tools we have the
main difference between men and animals. The animal
obtains its food and subdues its enemies with its own
bodily organs; man does the same thing with the aid
of tools. Organ (organon) is a Greek word which also
means tools. Organs are natural, adnated (grown-on)
tools of the animal. Tools are the artificial organs of
men. Better still, what the organ is to the animal, the
hand and tool is to man. The hands and tools perform
the functions that the animal must perform with its
own organs. Owing to the construction of the hand
to hold various tools, it becomes a general organ
adapted to all kinds of work ; it becomes therefore an
organ that can perform a variety of functions.
With the division of these functions, a broad field
of development is opened for men which anmials do
not know. Because the human hand can use various
tools, it can combine the functions of all possible or-
gans possessed by animals. Every animal is built and
adapted to a certain definite surrounding. Man, with
his tools, is adapted to all circumstances and equipped
for all surroundings. The horse is built for the
prairie, and the monkey is built for the forest. In the
forest, the horse would be just as helpless as the mon-
key would be if brought to the prairie. Man, on the
other hand, uses the axe in the forest, and the spade
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 51
on the prairie. With his tools, man can force his way
in all parts of the world and establish himself all over.
While almost all animals can live in particular regions,
such as supply their wants, and if taken to diflferent
regions cannot exist, man has conquered the whole
world. Every animal has, as a zoologist expressed it
once, its strength by which means it maintains itself in
the struggle for existence, and its weakness, owing to
which it falls a prey to others and cannot multiply it-
self. In this sense, man has only strength and no
weakness. Owing to his having tools, man is the
equal of all animals. As these tools do not remain
stationary, but continually improve, man grows above
every animal. His tools make him master of all crea-
tion, the king of the earth.
In the animal world there is also a continuous de-
velopment and perfection of organs. This develop-
ment, however, is connected with the changes of the
animal's body, which makes the development of the
organs infinitely slow, as dictated by biological laws.
In the development of the organic world, thousands
of years amount to nothing. Man, however, by trans-
ferring his organic development upon external objects
has been able to free himself from the chain of biologic
law. Tools can be transformed quickly, and technique
makes such rapid strides that, in comparison with the
development of animal organs, it must be called mar-
velous. Owing to this new road, man has been able,
within the short period of a few thousand years, to
rise above the highest animal. With the invention of
these implements, man got to be a divine power, and
he takes possession of the earth as his exclusive do-
minion. The peaceful and hitherto unhindered devel-
opment of the organic world ceases to develop accord-
52 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
\ng to the Darwinian theory. It is man that acts as
breeder, tamer, cultivator ; and it is man that does the
weeding. It is man that changes the entire environ-
ment, making the further forms of plants and animals
suit his aim and will.
With the origin of tools, further changes in the
human body cease. The human organs remain what
they were, with the exception of the brain. The hu-
man brain had to develop together with tools ; and, in
fact, we see that the difference between the higher and
lower races of mankind consists mainly in the contents
of their brains. But even the development of this
organ had to stop at a certain stage. Since the be-
ginning of civilization, the functions of the brain are
ever more taken away by some artificial means;
science is treasured up in books. Our reasoning fac-
ulty of today is not much better than the one pos-
sessed by the Greeks, Romans or even the Teutons,
but our knowledge has grown immensely, and this is
greatly due to the fact that the mental organ was un-
burdened by its substitutes, the books.
Having learned the diflference between men and
animals, let us now again consider how they are af-
fected by the struggle for existence. That this strug-
gle is the cause of perfection and the weeding out of
the imperfect, can not be denied. In this struggle the
animals become ever more perfect. Here, however, it
is necessary to be more precise in expression and in
observation of what perfection consists. In being so,
we can no longer say that animals as a whole struggle
and become perfected. Animals struggle and compete
by means of their particular organs. Lions do not"
e^ ry on the struggle by means of their tails ; hares do
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 53
not rely on their eyes; nor do the falcons succeed by
means of their beaks. Lions carry on the struggle by
means of their saltatory (leaping) muscles and their
teeth ; hares rely upon their paws and ears, and falcons
succeed on account of their eyes and wings. If now
we ask what is it that struggles and what competes?
the answer is, the organs struggle. The muscles and
teeth of the lion, the paws and ears of the hare, and
the eyes and wings of the falcon carry on the struggle.
It is in this struggle that the organs become perfected.
The animal as a whole depends upon these organs and
shares their fate.
Let us now ask the same question about the hu-
man world. Men do not struggle by means of their
natural organs, but by means of artificial organs, by
means of tools (and in weapons we must understand
tools). Here, too, the principle of perfection and the
weeding out of the imperfect, through struggle, holds
true. The tools struggle, and this leads to the ever
greater perfection of tools. Those groups of tribes
that use better tools and weapons can best secure their
maintenance, and when it comes to a direct struggle
with another race, the race that is better equipped
with artificial tools will win. Those races whose tech-
nical aids are better developed, can drive out or sub-
due those whose artificial aids are not developed. The
European race dominates because its external aids
are better.
Here we see that the principle of the struggle for
existence, formulated by Darwin and emphasized by
Spencer, has a different effect on men than on animals.
The principle that struggle leads to the perfection of
the weapons used in the strife, leads to different re-
sults between men and animals. In the animal, it
64 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
leads to a continuous development of natural organs;
that is the foundation of the theory of descent, the es-
sence of Darwinism. In men, it leads to a continuous
development of tools, of the means of production.
This, however, is the foundation of Marxism.
Here we see that Marxism and Darwinism are not
two independent theories, each of which applies to its
special domain, without having anything in common
with the other. In reality, the same principle under-
lies both theories. They form one unit. The new
course taken by men, the substitution of tools for
natural organs, causes this fundamental principle to
manifest itself differently in the two domains ; that of
the animal world to develop according to Darwinian
principle, while among mankind the Marxian principle
applies.
When men freed themselves from the animal
world, the development of tools and productive meth-
ods, the division of labor and knowledge became the
propelling force in social development. It is these
that brought about the various systems, such as primi-
tive communism, the peasant system, the beginnings
of commodity production, feudalism, and now modern
capitalism, and which bring us ever nearer to So-
cialism.
X. CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM.
The particular form that the Darwinian struggle
for existence assumes in development is determined by
men's sociability and their use of tools. The struggle
for existence, while it is still carried on among mem-
bers of different groups, nevertheless ceases among.
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. S9
members of the same group, and its place is taken by-
mutual aid and social feeling. In the struggle be-
tween groups, technical equipment decides who shall
be the victor ; this results in the progress of technique.
These two circumstances lead to different effects un-
der different systems. Let us see in what manner they
work out under capitalism.
When the bourgeoisie gained political power and
made the capitalist system the dominating one, it be-
gan by breaking the feudal bonds and freeing the
people from all feudal ties. It was essential for capi-
talism that every one should be able to take part in
the competitive struggle; that no one's movements
be tied up or narrowed by corporate duties or ham-
pered by legal statutes, for only thus was it possible
for production to develop its full capacity. The work-
ers must have free command over themselves and not
be tied up by feudal or guild duties, for only as free
workers can they sell their labor-power to the capi-
talists as a whole commodity, and only as free laborers
can the capitalists use them. It is for this reason that
the bourgeoisie has done away with all old ties
and duties. It made the people entirely free, but
at the same time left them entirely isolated and un-
protected. Formerly the people were not isolated;
they belonged to some corporation; they were under
the protection of some lord or commune, and in this
they found strength. They were a part of a social
group to which they owed duties and from which they
received protection. These duties the bourgeoisie
abolished ; it destroyed the corporations and abolished
the feudal relations. The freeing of labor meant at
the same time that all refuge was taken away from
him and~ that he could no longer rely upon others.
56 MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
Every one had to rely upon himself. Alone, free from
all ties and protection, he must struggle against all.
It is for this reason that, under capitalism, the
human world resernbles mostly the world of rapacious
animals, and it is for this very reason that the bour-~
geois Darwinists looked for men's prototype among
animals living isolated. To this they were led by their
own experience. Their mistake, however, consisted in
considering capitalist conditions as everlasting. The
relation existing between our capitalist competitive
system and animals living isolated, was thus expressed
by Engels in his book, "Anti-Diihring" (page 293 j.
This may also be found on page 59 of "Socialism,
Utopian and Scientific" as follows :
"Finally, modern industry and the opening of the
world market made the struggle universal and at the_
same time gave it unheard-of virulence. Advantages
in natural or artificial conditions of production now
decide the existence or non-existence of individual
capitalists as well as of whole industries and coun-
tries. He that falls is remorselessly cast aside. It is
the Darwinian struggle of the individual for existence
transferred from Nature to society with intensified
violence. The conditions of existence natural to the
animal appear as the final term of human develop-
ment."
What is that which carries on the struggle in this
capitalist competition, the perfectness of which de-
cides the victory?
First come technical tools, machines. Here again
applies the law that struggle leads to perfection. The
machine that is more improved outstrips the less im-
proved, the machines that cannot perform much, and
the simple tools are exterminated and machine tech-
MARXISM AND DARWINISM. 57
nique develops with gigantic strides to ever greater
productivity. This is the real application of Darwin-
ism to human society. The particular thing about it is
that under capitalism there is private property, and
behind every machine there is a man. Behind the
gigantic machine there is a big capitalist and behind
the small machine there is a small capitalist. With
the defeat of the small machine, the small capitalist,
as capitalist, perishes with all his hopes and happiness.
At the same time the struggle is a race of capital.
Large capital is better equipped; large capital is get-
ting ever larger. This concentration of capital under-
mines capital itself, for it diminishes the bourgeoisie
whose interest it is to maintain capitalism, and it in-
creases that mass which seeks to abolish it. In this
development, one of the characteristics of capitalism is
gradually abolished. In the world where each strug-
gles against all and all against each, a new association
develops among the working class, the class organiza-
tion. The working class organizations start with end-
ing the competition existing between workers and
combine their separate powers into one great power in
their struggle with the outside world. Everything that
applies to social groups also applies to this class or-
ganization, brought about by natural conditions. In
the ranks of this class organization, social motives,
moral feelings, self-sacrifice and devotion for the en-
tire body develop in a most splendid way. This solid
organization gives to the working class that great
strength which it needs in order to conquer the capi-
talist class. The class struggle which is not a struggle
with tools but for the possession of tools, a struggle
for the right to direct industry, will be determined by
^he strength of the class organization.
fiS MARXISM AND DARWINISM.
Let US now look at the future system of produc-
tion as carried on under Socialism. The struggle lead-
ing to the perfection of the tools does not cease. As
before under capitalism, the inferior machine will be
outdistanced and brushed aside by the one that is
superior. As before, this process will lead to greater
productivity of labor. But private property having
been abolished, there will no longer be a man behind
each machine calling it his own and sharing its fate.
Machines will be common property, and the displace-
ment of the less developed by the better developed
machinery will be carried out upon careful consider-
ation.
With the abolition of classes the entire civilized
world will become one great productive community.
Within this community mutual struggle among mem-
bers will cease and will be carried on with the outside
■world. It will no longer be a struggle against our own
kind, but a struggle for subsistence, a struggle against
nature. But owing to development of technique and
science, this can hardly be called a struggle. Nature
is subject to man and with very little exertion from
his side she supplies him with abundance. Here a new
career opens for man : man's rising from the animal
world and carrying on his struggle for existence by
the use of tools, ceases, and a new chapter of human
history begins.
Library of Science for the Workers
To understand modern Socialism, you must understand
Evolution. Socialists predict the speedy end of the capitalist
system as a result of irresistible NATURAL LAWS, the work-
ings of which have been studied for two generations since their
discovery. Most of the books in which these laws are explained
are too difficult to read and too expensive to buy, except for
the leisure class. The ten books here described will give you
a clear understanding of the great process in which Socialism
i» the next step.
1. The Evolution of Man. By Wilhelm Boelsche. Contains
absolute proof of the truth of Darvrin's theory of the
descent of man. Illustrated.
2. The Triumph of Life. By Wilhelm Boelsche. Describes
the resistless triumph of the Life Force over all obstacles.
Illustrated.
3. Life and Death. By Dr. E. Teichmann. A study in biology,
explaining how and why life began and how the life of
#ach individual ends.
4. The End of the World. By Dr. M. Wilhelm Meyer. A
study of the natural forces that will some time destroy
all life on earth. Illustrated.
3. The Amazons. By Emanuel Kanter. An excellent analytical
study of the phenomenon of ancient fighting women, the
Amazons, from the standpoint of dialectical materialism.
6. Germs of Mind in Plants. By R. H. France. A remarkable
work proving that "mind" is not limited to man or even to
animals, but is found in plants also. Illustrated.
7. The Struggle Between Science and Superstition. By
Arthur M. Lewis. This book deals with what is on the
whole the most interesting and dramatic element in social
development. Side by side with the struggle between
social classes, there is waged a bitter conflict between
ancient ignorance and new knowledge. The new knowl-
edge is the natural ally of the essential social class — the
proletariat.
8. Science and Revolution. By Ernest Untermann. A history
of the growth of the Evolution theory, showing how at
every step it was fought by the ruling classes and wel-
comed by the workers.
9. Social and Philosophical Studies. By Paul Lafargue. The
causes of belief in God and the origin of abstract ideas
explained in a brilliant and convincing way.
10. Evolution, Social and Organic. By Arthur M. Lewis. A
volume of popular lectures in which the relation of the
evolution theory to Socialism is fully explained.
These ten volumes are handsomely bound in cloth, ia
volumes of uniform size. Price, 60c each postpaid.
CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
341-349 East Ohio Street, Chicago
TKe Ori^n o£ the Family
PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE STATE
By Frederick Elngels
The book on wkich are based all subsequent works on
property and the State %sTitten by Socialists and Communists.
NX'Hat is the State) How did it arise? Does it represent all
the people? \^ ill it ever disappear? ^tat is its function?
^"hen did Private Property arise? .And Low? Has the in-
stitution of the Fanruly changed and evolved? Just now all
o%-er the world socialists, anarchists, syndicalists and com-
munists are divided upon the subject of the State, its origin,
its function and its future. \^Tiich group are you in. and do
you know w-hy? This hook explains these vital questions for
j-ou. Cloth, 217 F^ges. 60 cents.
Social!
ociaiism
UTOPIAN AND SCIENTIHC
By Frederick Elngels
VI her. may -.ve expect a proletarian revoi'Jtion? Can we
]4an tc -ae i: a: a certain time? Can we carry a revo-
lution by prop>aganda? Does ;: oerend on *rhat ■*« desire?
We all want tickets to the New S-ocsety of the Workers- How
can we know how near iwe are historically? Engels gr^es va
the signs in this book. They never faiL Wben we under-
ttand them we can know^ how to use aooal and econonuc
forces to carry us forward to die New Day. Cloth. 60 cenis:
paper. 25 cents.
CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
COOPER.\TT\'E PUBUiHERS, CHICAGO
19/9'
CAPITAL
A Critique of Political Economy
By Karl Marx
This work i» beyond comparison the greatest of all
Socialist books. It is a scientific analysis of the society in
which we live, showing the precise method by which the
capitalists grow rich at the expense of the wage-workers.
VOLUME I. entitled "The Process of Capitalist Produc
tion," is practically complete in itself. It explains the thing
which, up to the time that Marx came on the scene, had
confused all the economists, namely. Surplus Value. It ex-
plains exactly how the capitalist extracts his profits. This
volume might be called the keystone of the Socialist arch.
869 pages. $2.50.
VOLUME II. "The Process of Circulation of CapiUl,"
explains the part that the merchant and the banker play in
the present system, and the laws that govern social capital.
Unravels knots in which previous writers had become en-
tangled. 618 pages, $2.50.
VOLUTVIE III, in some respects the most interesting of all,
treats of "The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole."
Predicts the Rise of Trusts and makes clear the Cause of
Panics and Industrial Crises. Shows how the small capitalist is
swallowed. Explains for all time the subjects of Land, Rent
and Farming. 1,046 pages, $2.50.
The complete work sells for $7.50, and contains over
2,500 large pages, in three handsome volumes, bound in
cloth and stamped in gold. Any capitalist pubhshing house
would charge at least double our price. Ours is a socialist
co-operative house, owned by three thousand comrades who
expect no dividends but have subscribed for shares to make
possible the circulation of the best socialist literature at the
lowest possible prices. Ask for catalog.
CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
341-349 East Ohio Street, Chicago
CENTENARY EDITION
The Positive Outcome of Philosophy
By Josef Dietzgen
One of the best books we have ever published is THE
POSITIVE OUTCOME OF PHILOSOPHY. We have sold
many thousands of Josef Dietzgen's books, and readers every-
where have testified to their educational value and to the
enjoyment and enlightenment they obtained from the study
of Dietzen.
December 9th, 1 928, was the hundredth anniversary of
the birth of Josef Dietzgen. To commemorate the event we
published, with the kind assistance of his son, Eugen Dietzgen,
a new translation of THE POSITIVE OUTCOME OF
PHILOSOPHY. This new translation from the original Ger-
man is by W. W. Craik, an Englishman, resident of Hamburg.
Good as our former edition was, we do nolt hesitate to
assert that this translation is immensely superior. It is in
clear and expressive English, which simplifies the study. Craik
has certainly done his work well.
To those who have formerly read the philosophy of Josef
Dietzgen, it is not necessary to comment upon its merits, but
to those who have not yet participated in this pleasure we
wish to give here a brief outline of its content.
It deals with the nature and substance of thinking. It
strips the human mind of the mysticism that is usually attached
to it, and shows the functioning of the brain as a perfectly
natural process. Just as Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
traced history and economics along evolutionary lines, to the
logical conclusion that a new social order is inevitable, so
Josef Dietzgen traced the evolution of human thought, as
expressed through philosophy, to its positive outcome. He
shows that the natural sciences have taken over every branch
of the old-time philosophy, leaving only the thinking process
itself to be explained. This latter he accomplishes in a mas-
terly fashion in his chapter on "The Nature of Human Brain-
Work."
The Centenary Edition of THE POSITIVE OUTCOME OF
PHILOSOPHY is handsomely bound in maroon cloth with
gold stamping and contains a portrait of its famous author.
Price $2.00, postage paid.
CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
341 East Ohio Street, Chicago
ANTI-DUHRING
CHerr Eugene Duhring's 71
Revolution in Science jj
By Frederick Engels
Aiso contains "The Mark'' and the author's introduction
to "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific"
Part I treats with Philosophy, giving the most compre-
hensive statement of Marx and Engels v^^ith regard to this
question than anywhere else in their published writings.
Part II is, in effect, an outline and introduction to the
three volumes of Capital, along with interesting data on
the force theory and warfare and militarism. Part III ex-
plains the basis of modern socialism in its entire range
of program, strategy and tactics.
Anti-Diihrmg is the only work compressing into one
volume the Marxian world-outlook in its relation to the
various fields of knowledge and science and the society of
the future. Engels says of this work: "I had to treat of
all and every possible subject, from the concepts of time
and space to bimetallism; from the eternity of matter and
motion to the perishable nature of moral ideas; from Dar-
v/in's natural selection to the education of youth in a future
society. Anyhow, the systematic comprehensiveness of my
opponent gave me the opportunity of developing, in oppo-
sition to him, and in a more connected form than had pre-
viously been done, the views held by Marx and myself on
this great variety of subjects. And that was the principal
reason which made me undertake this otherwise ungrateful
task." Price, postpaid, |2.00
Write j or complete list
CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
341-349 E. Ohio St. Chicago, Illinois
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
