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！
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 natural science is on its side。 But even in the most objective of theories； those which systematically make abstraction of all political tendencies in order to study the social reality in itself； traces of Darwinism are readily to be found。
Let us take for example Durkheim's theory of Division of Labour （〃De la Division du Travail social〃； Paris； 1893。） The conclusions he derives from it are that whenever professional specialisation causes multiplication of distinct branches of activity； we get organic solidarityimplying differencessubstituted for mechanical solidarity； based upon likenesses。 The umbilical cord； as Marx said； which connects the individual consciousness with the collective consciousness is cut。 The personality becomes more and more emancipated。 But on what does this phenomenon； so big with consequences； itself depend？ The author goes to social morphology for the answer： it is； he says； the growing density of population which brings with it this increasing differentiation of activities。 But； again； why？ Because the greater density； in thrusting men up against each other； augments the intensity of their competition for the means of existence； and for the problems which society thus has to face differentiation of functions presents itself as the gentlest solution。
Here one sees that the writer borrows directly from Darwin。 Competition is at its maximum between similars； Darwin had declared； different species； not laying claim to the same food； could more easily coexist。 Here lay the explanation of the fact that upon the same oak hundreds of different insects might be found。 Other things being equal； the same applies to society。 He who finds some unadopted speciality possesses a means of his own for getting a living。 It is by this division of their manifold tasks that men contrive not to crush each other。 Here we obviously have a Darwinian law serving as intermediary in the explanation of that progress of division of labour which itself explains so much in the social evolution。