4.—Darwinism and the Condition of Society.

It has accordingly not been proven, that women are inferior to men as a result of the quantity of their brain; yet the present intellectual status of women is not surprising. Darwin is surely right in saying, that if a list of the ablest men on the subjects of poetry, painting, sculpture, music, science and philosophy were placed beside a list of the ablest women on the same subjects, the two could not compare with one another. But could it be otherwise? It would be surprising if it were not so. Very correctly Dr. Dodel (Zurich)[161] says, that it would be different if for a number of generations men and women would be similarly educated. As a rule, woman is physically weaker than man also, which is by no means the case among many uncivilized peoples.[162] How much can be attained by practice and training from childhood on, may, for instance, be seen with ladies of the circus and female acrobats, who achieve most astounding things in regard to courage, daring, skill and strength.

As all these things are conditioned by the mode of life and education, as they are—to use a scientific term—due to “breeding,” it may be assumed as certain that the physical and intellectual life of man will lead to the best results, as soon as man will consciously and expediently influence his development.

As plants and animals depend upon conditions of existence, as they are fostered by favorable and hampered by unfavorable ones, and as compulsory conditions force them to change their nature and character—provided that their influence does not destroy them—thus it is also with man. The manner in which a human being obtains his means of subsistence not only affects his external appearance, but also his feelings, his thoughts and his actions. If unfavorable conditions of existence—that is, unfavorable social conditions—are the cause of insufficient individual development, then it follows that by a change of his conditions of existence—that is, his social condition—man himself will be changed. The point in question, then, is, so to organize social conditions that every human being will be given an opportunity for the untrammelled development of his nature; that the laws of development and adaptation—called Darwinism after Darwin—may be consciously and expediently applied to all human beings. But that will only be possible under Socialism. As a rational being, capable of judgment, man must so alter his social conditions and everything in connection with them, that equally favorable conditions of existence prevail for all. Every individual shall be enabled to develop his talents and abilities to his own advantage as well as to the advantage of society, but he must not have the power to harm other individuals or society at large. His own advantage and the advantage of all shall coincide. Harmony of interests must supercede the conflict of interests that dominate present-day society.

Darwinism, like every true science, is an eminently democratic science.[163] If some of its representatives claim that the opposite is true, they fail to recognize the range of their own science. Its opponents, especially the clergy, who are always quick to perceive any advantage or disadvantage to themselves, have recognized this, and therefore denounce Darwinism as being Socialistic or atheistic. In this respect Professor Virchow agrees with his most vehement opponents, for at the congress of Scientists, held in Munich in 1877, he asserted in opposition to Professor Haeckel: “The Darwinian theory leads to Socialism.”[164] Virchow tried to discredit Darwinism because Haeckel demanded, that the theory of evolution should be introduced into the school curriculum. The suggestion to teach science in the schools according to Darwin, and the results of modern scientific investigations, is vehemently opposed by all those who wish to maintain the present order. The revolutionary effect of these doctrines is well known; therefore it is deemed wiser to propagate them only among the chosen few. But we contend that if the Darwinian theories lead to Socialism, as Virchow claims, that is no argument against these theories, but an argument in favor of Socialism. Men of science should not question whether the consequences of a science lead to one form of the state or another, whether one social condition or another is justified by them; it is their sole duty to investigate whether the theories are in accordance with truth, and if they are, to accept them with all their consequences. Whoever acts otherwise, be it for personal gain or favor or to serve class or party interest, commits a despicable action and is no credit to science. The representatives of corporate science, especially at our universities, can indeed only rarely lay claim to independence of character. The fear of financial loss, or the fear of being discredited with the powers that be and of being thereby deprived of title and rank and the opportunity of advancement, causes most of these representatives to bow down and either to conceal their conviction, or to say publicly the opposite of what they believe and know. At a ceremony of homage to the ruler held at the University of Berlin in 1870, Dubois-Reymond exclaimed: “The universities are institutions where the intellectual body-guards of the Hohenzollern are trained.” If a Dubois-Reymond could express himself in this manner, we can imagine what conceptions in regard to the object of science are held by the majority of the others, who are very inferior to this eminent scientist.[165] Science is degraded to serve the purposes of the ruling powers.

It is only natural that Professor Haeckel and his adherents, Professor O. Schmidt, v. Hellwald and others, remonstrate energetically against the terrible accusation that Darwinism leads to Socialism. They claim that the opposite is true, that Darwinism is aristocratic, since it teaches that everywhere in nature the more highly organized and stronger living beings suppress the inferior ones; and since, according to their conception, the propertied and educated classes constitute these more highly organized and stronger living beings in human society, they consider the rule of these classes a matter of course, since it is justified by the laws of nature.

These, among our evolutionists, are ignorant of the economic laws which dominate bourgeois society. Otherwise they would know that the blind rule of these laws does not raise to social pre-eminence either the best or the ablest or the most competent, but frequently the worst and the most cunning, who thereby are placed in a position of making the conditions of life and development most favorable to their progeny, without the least effort on their part. Under no economic system did persons, possessing good and noble human qualities, have so little opportunity of attaining and maintaining an elevated position, as under the capitalistic system. Without fear of exaggeration it may be said, that this state of affairs increases with the development of this system. Lack of consideration for others and unscrupulousness in the choice and application of means to attain one’s end, prove far more effective than all human virtues combined. Only one who is ignorant of the nature of this society or who is so dominated by bourgeois prejudices that he cannot reason properly or draw correct conclusions, could regard a social system based upon such conditions as a society of the “fittest and best.” The struggle for existence is always present with all organisms. It goes on without any knowledge on their part of the laws and conditions that shape it. This struggle for existence prevails among men also and among the members of each social group from which solidarity has disappeared, or where it has not yet been developed. This struggle for existence changes its form according to the various relations of men to one another in the course of human development. It assumes the character of class struggles on an ever higher scale. But these struggles—and thereby man is distinguished from all other human beings—lead to a growing understanding of the nature of society, and finally to a recognition of the laws which determine its development. Eventually man will but need to apply these laws to his social and political institutions and to transform them accordingly. The difference is that man may be called a reasoning animal, but the animal is not a reasoning human being. This many Darwinists fail to see, owing to their biased conceptions, and therefore arrive at false conclusions.[166]

Professor Haeckel and his adherents also deny that Darwinism leads to atheism. Thus, after they have done away with the “creator” by all their scientific arguments and proofs, they make desperate efforts to re-introduce him. To attain this purpose a new sort of individual “religion” is formed, that has been termed “higher morality,” “moral principles,” etc. In 1882 at the congress of scientists in Eisenach, in the presence of the Grand-duke of Weimar and his family, Professor Haeckel endeavored not only to save religion but also to represent his master, Darwin, as being a religious man. The attempt failed, as anyone can affirm who read the lecture and the letter from Darwin that was quoted in it. Darwin’s letter expresses, though in careful terms, the opposite of what Professor Haeckel claimed it to express. Darwin was obliged to consider the piety of his fellow-countrymen, the English, therefore he never dared to express publicly his true views in regard to religion. But he did so privately, as became known shortly after the congress in Weimar, for he told Dr. L. Buechner that he had not believed since his fortieth year—since 1849—because he had not been able to obtain proofs to justify belief. During the last years of his life Darwin also supported an atheistic newspaper, which was published in New York.