按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
n； valid though they might be for the animal kingdom； were not applicable to the human。 And so a return was made to the classic dualism。 This indeed seems to be the line that Huxley took； when； for instance； he opposed to the cosmic process an ethical process which was its reverse。
But the number of thinkers whom this antithesis does not satisfy grows daily。 Although the pessimism which claims authorisation from Darwin's doctrines is repugnant to them； they still are unable to accept the dualism which leaves a gulf between man and nature。 And their endeavour is to link the two by showing that while Darwin's laws obtain in both kingdoms； the conditions of their application are not the same： their forms； and； consequently； their results； vary with the varying mediums in which the struggle of living beings takes place； with the means these beings have at disposal； with the ends even which they propose to themselves。
Here we have the explanation of the fact that among determined opponents of war partisans of the 〃struggle for existence〃 can be found： there are disciples of Darwin in the peace party。 Novicow； for example； admits the 〃combat universel〃 of which Le Dantec （〃Les Luttes entre Societies humaines et leurs phases successives〃； Paris； 1893；） speaks； but he remarks that at different stages of evolution； at different stages of life the same weapons are not necessarily employed。 Struggles of brute force； armed hand to hand conflicts； may have been a necessity in the early phases of human societies。 Nowadays； although competition may remain inevitable and indispensable； it can assume milder forms。 Economic rivalries； struggles between intellectual influences； suffice to stimulate progress： the processes which these admit are； in the actual state of civilisation； the only ones which attain their end without waste； the only ones logical。 From one end to the other of the ladder of life； struggle is the order of the day； but more and more as the higher rungs are reached； it takes on characters which are proportionately more 〃humane。〃
Reflections of this kind permit the introduction into the economic order of limitations to the doctrine of 〃laisser faire； laisser passer。〃 This appeals； it is said； to the example of nature where creatures； left to themselves； struggle without truce and without mercy； but the fact is forgotten that upon industrial battlefields the conditions are different。 The competitors here are not left simply to their natural energies： they are variously handicapped。 A rich store of artificial resources exists in which some participate and others do not。 The sides then are unequal； and as a consequence the result of the struggle is falsified。 〃In the animal world；〃 said De Laveleye （〃Le socialisme contemporain〃； page 384 （6th edition）； Paris； 1891。）； criticising Spencer； 〃the fate of each creature is determined by its individual qualities； whereas in civilised societies a man may obtain the highest position and the most beautiful wife because he is rich and well…born； although he may be ugly； idle or improvident； and then it is he who will perpetuate the species。 The wealthy man； ill constituted； incapable； sickly； enjoys his riches and establishes his stock under the protection of the laws。〃 Haycraft in England and Jentsch in Germany have strongly emphasised these 〃anomalies；〃 which nevertheless are the rule。 That is to say that even from a Darwinian point of view all social reforms can readily be justified which aim at diminishing； as Wallace said； inequalities at the start。
But we can go further still。 Whence comes the idea that all measures inspired by the sentiment of solidarity are contrary to Nature's trend？ Observe her carefully； and she will not give lessons only in individualism。 Side by side with the struggle for existence do we not find in operation what Lanessan calls 〃association for existence。〃 Long ago； Espinas had drawn attention to 〃societies of animals；〃 temporary or permanent； and to the kind of morality that arose in them。 Since then； naturalists have often insisted upon the importance of various forms of symbiosis。 Kropotkin in 〃Mutual Aid〃 has chosen to enumerate many examples of altruism furnished by animals to mankind。 Geddes and Thomson went so far as to maintain that 〃Each of the greater steps of progress is in fact associated with an increased measure of subordination of individual competition to reproductive or social ends； and of interspecific competition to co… operative association。〃 （Geddes and Thomson； 〃The Evolution of Sex〃； page 311； London； 1889。） Experience shows； according to Geddes； that the types which are fittest to surmount great obstacles are not so much those who engage in the fiercest competitive struggle for existence； as those who contrive to temper it。 From all these observations there resulted； along with a limitation of Darwinian pessimism； some encouragement for the aspirations of the collectivists。
And Darwin himself would； doubtless； have subscribed to these rectifications。 He never insisted； like his rival； Wallace； upon the necessity of the solitary struggle of creatures in a state of nature； each for himself and against all。 On the contrary； in 〃The Descent of Man〃； he pointed out the serviceableness of the social instincts； and corroborated Bagehot's statements when the latter； applying laws of physics to politics； showed the great advantage societies derived from intercourse and communion。 Again； the theory of sexual evolution which makes the evolution of types depend increasingly upon preferences； judgments； mental factors； surely offers something to qualify what seems hard and brutal in the theory of natural selection。
But； as often happens with disciples； the Darwinians had out…Darwined Darwin。 The extravagancies of social Darwinism provoked a useful reaction； and thus people were led to seek； even in the animal kingdom； for facts of solidarity which would serve to justify humane effort。
On quite another line； however； an attempt has been made to connect socialist tendencies with Darwinian principles。 Marx and Darwin have been confronted； and writers have undertaken to show that the work of the German philosopher fell readily into line with that of the English naturalist and was a development of it。 Such has been the endeavour of Ferri in Italy and of Woltmann in Germany； not to mention others。 The founders of 〃scientific socialism〃 had； moreover； themselves thought of this reconciliation。 They make more than one allusion to Darwin in works which appeared after 1859。 And sometimes they use his theory to define by contrast their own ideal。 They remark that the capitalist system； by giving free course to individual competition； ends indeed in a bellum omnium contra omnes； and they make it clear that Darwinism； thus understood； is as repugnant to them as to Duhring。
But it is at the scientific and not at the moral point of view that they place themselves when they connect their economic history with Darwin's work。 Thanks to this unifying hypothesis； they claim to have constructed as Marx does in his preface to 〃Das Kapital〃a veritable natural history of social evolution。 Engels speaks in praise of his friend Marx as having discovered the true mainspring of history hidden under the veil of idealism and sentimentalism； and as having proclaimed in the primum vivere the inevitableness of the struggle for existence。 Marx himself； in 〃Das Kapital〃； indicated another analogy when he dwelt upon the importance of a general technology for the explanation of this psychology：a history of tools which would be to social organs what Darwinism is to the organs of animal species。 And the very importance they attach to tools； to apparatus； to machines； abundantly proves that neither Marx nor Engels were likely to forget the special characters which mark off the human world from the animal。 The former always remains to a great extent an artificial world。 Inventions change the face of its institutions。 New modes of production revolutionise not only modes of government； but modes even of collective thought。 Therefore it is that the evolution of society is controlled by laws special to it； of which the spectacle of nature offers no suggestion。
If； however； even in this special sphere； it can still be urged that the evolution of the material conditions of society is in accord with Darwin's theory； it is because the influence of the methods of production is itself to be explained by the incessant strife of the various classes with each other。 So that in the end Marx； like Darwin； finds the source of all progress in struggle。 Both are grandsons of Heraclitus：polemos pater panton。 It sometimes happens； in these days； that the doctrine of revolutionary socialism is contrasted as rude and healthy with what may seem to be the enervating tendency of 〃solidarist〃 philanthropy： the apologists of the doctrine then pride themselves above all upon their faithfulness to Darwinian principles。
So far we have been mainly concerned to show the use that social philosophies have made of the Darwinian laws for practical purposes： in order to orientate society towards their ideals each school tries to show that the authority of n