Marxism and Darwinism

                                  BY
                            ANTON PANNEKOEK

                    _Translated by Nathan Weiser._


                                CHICAGO
                       CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
                             CO-OPERATIVE




                            Copyright, 1912
                                  By
                       Charles H. Kerr & Company


                          [Illustration: 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――
    The wealth, O Croesus, thou transmittest
    Proves the Survival of the Fittest.

    But, lo, 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. Marxism                               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         33

  VII. The Sociability of Man                36

 VIII. Tools, 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 decades their names have been on the
tongues of everybody, and their teachings have become the central point
of the mental struggles which accompany the social struggles of today.
The cause of this lies primarily in the highly scientific contents of
their teachings.

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 achievements of Darwin and
Marx in this domain.

The theory that plants and animals have developed 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 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. According to the information, all known
plants and animals have always been the same. Scientifically, this
experience was thus expressed, “All kinds are invariable 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 themselves 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 divisions; these divisions are divided
into classes, classes into orders, orders into families, families
into species, each of which contain a few kinds. The more semblance
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 differentiated. 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 examine varieties of the same species; the cat, tiger and lion
resemble each other in many respects where they differ 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. 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 creation, 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 likeness in the construction of the body may be
due to a real family relationship. According to this conception, 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 foundations 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 descended from
some primitive mammal, etc.

This theory of descent was advocated by Lamarck and by Geoffrey St.
Hilaire. It did not, however, meet 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 evolution
has become inseparable from Darwin’s name. Why so?

This was partly due to the fact that through experience ever more
material was accumulated which went to support this theory. Animals
were found which could not very well be placed into the classification
such as oviparous mammals (that is, animals which lay eggs and nourish
their offspring from their breast.――Translator), fishes having lungs,
and invertebrate animals. The theory of descent claimed that these
are simply the remnants of the transition between 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 primitive 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 differentiation of single
cells. Having gone so far, the thought that the highest organisms have
descended from primitive 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 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 really changing into new forms? This
can be done by showing the cause, the propelling force of such
development. 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 become 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, which they ate, their necks were stretched so that a
short-necked animal developed to the long-necked giraffe. 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 succession, 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 raising 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 differ from their
original form much more than the wild kinds 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 having narrow necks and again
have the long-necked inter-breed. If he repeated this at every new
generation the result would be that the neck would ever become longer
and we would get an animal resembling the giraffe.

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 impossible
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 found its solution in
the “struggle for existence.” In this 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 nature. It was not through
his own observation that this solution presented itself to him. It
came to him by his reading the works of the economist Malthus. Malthus
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 existing 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 unavoidable 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 everywhere goes on from long continuous observation
of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under
these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved,
and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the
formation 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 animals is greater
than the existing food permits of sustaining. 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
peculiarities and weapons it struggles against the entire antagonistic
world, against animals, cold, heat, dryness, 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 destroyed, 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 are
ever more individuals born than can remain alive, 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 species. 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 movement of existing species branching out
into new relations 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 throughout
nature. Formerly this wonderful conformity could 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 conformable are less adapted and are exterminated in the struggle
for existence. The green-frog, having descended from the brown-frog,
must preserve its protecting 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 definite 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 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 productive 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
determines 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
productive 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 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 improvements. 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 struggles 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 conquering them they pave the way for the further
unhindered 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. In
doing this they made the theory of evolution acceptable 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 Newton’s theory of gravitation. This theory is the
foundation 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 popular book of Voltaire’s written a half century
afterwards.

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 improvement 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 adherents 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 the fact that this theory serves them as a
weapon in the class struggle. For it is the class struggle that 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 professional 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 abolished. 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 system of production can only be
established by the proletarians struggling against the capitalists,
whose interest it is to maintain the old system of production.
Socialism 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
certainty of their victory. At the same time Marxism has done away with
the old utopian views that Socialism 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 system, 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 Marxism is the
theory of social development, in the midst of which we stand, therefore
Marxism itself stands as the central point of the great mental
struggles that accompany our economic revolution.




                 IV. DARWINISM AND THE CLASS STRUGGLE.


That Marxism owes its importance and position only to the role it takes
in the proletarian class struggle, is known to all. With Darwinism,
however, things seem different to the superficial observer, for
Darwinism 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 Darwinism made its appearance, it had its
enthusiastic advocates and passionate opponents; Darwin’s name, too,
was either highly honored by people who understood something of his
theory, or despised by people who knew nothing more of his theory than
that “man descended from the monkey,” and who were surely unqualified
to judge from a scientific standpoint the correctness or falsity of
Darwin’s theory. Darwinism, too, played a role in the class-struggle,
and it is owing to this role that it spread so rapidly and had
enthusiastic advocates and venomous opponents.

Darwinism served as a tool to the bourgeoisie in their struggle against
the feudal class, against the nobility, clergy-rights and feudal
lords. This was an entirely different struggle from the struggle now
waged by the proletarians. The bourgeoisie was not an exploited class
striving to abolish exploitation. Oh no. What the bourgeoisie wanted
was to get rid of the old ruling powers standing in their way. The
bourgeoisie themselves wanted to rule, basing their demands upon the
fact that they were the most important 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; science and
the newly discovered natural laws were put forward; it was with these
weapons that the bourgeoisie 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 bourgeoisie 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 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 indifference 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 Germany 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
intellectuals. Ernest Haeckel, a great scientist, and of still greater
daring, immediately drew in his book, “Natural Creation,” most daring
conclusions against religion. So, while Darwinism met with the most
enthusiastic reception by the progressive bourgeoisie, it was also
bitterly opposed by the reactionists.

The same struggle also took place in other European countries.
Everywhere the progressive liberal bourgeoisie had to struggle against
reactionary powers. These reactionists possessed, or were trying to
obtain through religious followers, the power coveted. Under these
circumstances, even the scientific discussions were carried on with the
zeal and passion of a class struggle. The writings that appeared pro
and con on Darwin have therefore the character of social polemics,
despite the fact that they bear the names of scientific authors.
Many of Haeckel’s popular writings, when looked at from a scientific
standpoint, are very superficial, while the arguments and remonstrances
of his opponents show unbelievable foolishness 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 Socialist 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
sceptical, critical and doubting frame of mind has taken the place of
the former jubilant spirit in favor of science.

This could also be seen in the stand taken against Darwin. “What does
his theory show? It leaves 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 Darwinism 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
directed their attention to variation, which they considered due to
exercise and adaptation to life (following 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 supernatural and insolvable has
taken the place of Darwinism and that class which in the beginning was
the banner bearer of Darwinism became ever more reactionary.




                    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
disposed to Darwinism, but just the reverse. As soon as Darwinism
made its appearance, the proletarian vanguard, the Socialists, hailed
the Darwinian theory, because in Darwinism they saw a corroboration
and completion 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 organic 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 bourgeoisie had to contend with two
armies, and the reactionary classes know this full well. When the
bourgeoisie attacks their authority, they point at the proletarians
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 politician and scientist
Virchow assailed the Darwinian theory on the ground that it supported
Socialism. “Be 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 demonstrate 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
animal, 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 as “the best
antidote to the Socialist demand of making all equal.”

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 unavoidable 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 must 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 lamentable that all must die, but the fact
can neither be denied 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 Herbert Spencer. In thus winning on their
field, the conquerors in the social struggle, the large capitalists,
were proclaimed the best people.

Haeckel retained and still upholds this conception. In 1892 he said,
“Darwinism, or the theory of selection, 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 character,
an ever greater inequality among the individuals, in their activity,
education and condition. The higher the advance of human culture, the
greater the difference 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 survive. The struggle for existence serves therefore as a
purification of the race, protecting it from deterioration. 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
whatsoever, 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 weakness 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 necessarily 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 animal body leave
unconsidered the fact that men do not differ like various cells or
organs, but only in degree 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 understands something of
Socialism knows that the efficient division of labor does not cease
with Socialism; that first under Socialism real divisions will be
possible. The difference between the workers, their ability, and
employments will not cease; all that will cease is the difference
between workers and exploiters.

While 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 capitalist competition. Here victory does not depend upon
perfection of those engaged in the struggle, but in something that
lies outside of their body. While this struggle may hold good with the
small bourgeois, where success depends upon personal abilities and
qualifications, yet with the further development of capital, success
does not depend upon personal abilities, but upon the possession of
capital. The one who has a larger capital at command will soon conquer
the 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
struggle. When the small capitalists perish, they do not perish 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 account 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 external cause.
It is capitalism which creates all those unfavorable conditions by
means of exploitation, reduction of wages, unemployment, crises, bad
dwellings, and long hours of employment. It is the capitalist system
that causes so many strong and healthy ones to succumb.

Thus the Socialists prove that, different from the animal world, the
competitive struggle existing between 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.




                  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 applies 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. When, however, one
wishes to carry the theory of one domain into that of the other, where
different laws are applicable, 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 applies, 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 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 deciding factors.”

These critical arguments, while they are not bad when used as
refutations against bourgeois Darwinists, are still faulty. Both sets
of arguments, those used by the bourgeois Darwinists in favor of
capitalism, and those of the Socialists, who base their Socialism 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 accepted 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 no 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
teaches us that every animal is equally adapted and equally perfect
in form to suit its special environments, and Marxism teaches us that
every social system is particularly adapted to its conditions, and that
in this sense it may be called good and perfect.

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 development and changes within the ken of human
history are imperceptible, so that it may almost be regarded as stable,
human society nevertheless undergoes quick and continuous changes.
In order to understand the moving force and the cause of social
development, 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 organic world, and that neither of these theories is applicable
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 apply 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 principles 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 problem; they simply declare that man is an
animal, and without further ado they set about to apply the Darwinian
principles to men. We have seen to what erroneous conclusions they
come. To us this question 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 man must be
compared, but with those that live socially. 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
competition 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 reverse, the weak enjoy the same advantages as
the strong. When some animals have the advantage by means of greater
strength, sharper smell, or experience 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 combining of
the animals’ separate powers into one unit gives to the group a new
and much stronger power than any one individual possessed, even the
strongest. It is owing to this united strength that the defenseless
plant-eaters can ward off 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 possibility 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 remains 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 together the individual members.

This power is found in the social motives, the instinct that holds
them together and causes the continuance of the group. Every animal
must place the interest 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 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 competitive struggle against the same animals of a
different 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 we see? In nature itself,
in the animal world, we find that the weak are protected; that it is
not by their own personal strength that they maintain themselves,
and that they are not brushed aside on account of their personal
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 weakness, becomes
just the reverse, a cause of strength. 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 victory
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 resembles 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 where each
competes individually against the other; therefore, they see among
animals only that form of the struggle for existence. It is for this
reason that they overlook those forms of the struggle that are of
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 understand 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 applies also to man. Our
ape-like ancestors and the primitive men developing from them were all
defenseless, weak animals who, as almost all apes do, lived in tribes.
Here the same social motives and instincts 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 consciousness; 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 bourgeois authors considered as the main distinction
between 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 determined 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 individual
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 development
of society, the tribes are dissolved and their places are taken by new
unions, by towns and peoples. 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 feelings, 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. For all these things, animals have but the slightest
propensity, but among men, these have developed essentially 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 certain purposes; for instance, the building of nests. Monkeys
sometimes use sticks or stones, but only man uses tools which he himself
deliberately makes for particular 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 members 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
activities, and later into names of things.

The use of tools also presupposes a society, for it is only through
society that attainments can be preserved. In a state of isolated
life every one has to 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 knowledge of former generations can be preserved,
perpetuated, 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
possible only in society, is therefore necessary.

While these special characteristics of man are inseparable 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 common. That thought and language can exist and develop 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 ourselves; 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. Perceptions 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 distinguishing and classifying by
means of names or by giving to the old ones a more precise meaning.
Language 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. 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 dependent 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 result of former
experience, comes into play, and it is then that he decides how to act.
The acts of an animal depend upon immediate impression, while those of
man depend upon abstract conceptions, upon his thinking 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
intentions which give them the appearance of independence 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 natural 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 impression. 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 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 impressions, 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 chain of thoughts between the impressions 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 there is any demand for laborers; he
goes to the railroad, 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
developed 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 purposes, 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 consequences 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 useless 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 although it may like to have. These animals have nothing to
consider except the moment of jumping or running. Every animal is so
formed as to fit into some definite place. Their actions must become
strong habits. These habits are not unchangeable. Animals are not
machines, when brought into different circumstances 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 requirements. 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, language, 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 undergo 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 unsought, and
were thrown away. This must have been 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 surrounding 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 particular 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 appearance, 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 differentiation of tools, serving later for the division of
labor, language and thought develop into richer and newer forms, while
thought leads man to use the tools in a better way, to improve old and
invent 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 science have their origin and continually
develop. By his labor, the primitive ape-like man has risen to real
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 animals do not know. Because the human hand
can use various tools, it can combine the functions of all possible
organs 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 monkey would be if brought to
the prairie. Man, on the other hand, uses the axe in the forest, and
the spade 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 different regions cannot exist, man has conquered the whole
world. Every animal has, as a zoölogist 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 itself. 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 creation, the king
of the earth.

In the animal world there is also a continuous development and
perfection of organs. This development, 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 transferring 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
marvelous. 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 dominion. The peaceful
and hitherto unhindered development of the organic world ceases to
develop according 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 environment, 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 human 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 beginning of civilization, the functions of the brain are ever
more taken away by some artificial means; science is treasured up in
books. Our reasoning faculty of today is not much better than the one
possessed 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 unburdened by its substitutes, the books.

Having learned the difference between men and animals, let us now
again consider how they are affected by the struggle for existence.
That this struggle 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 carry on the struggle by means of their tails;
hares do 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 human 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
technical aids are better developed, can drive out or subdue 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 results between men and
animals. In the animal, it leads to a continuous development of natural
organs; that is the foundation of the theory of descent, the essence 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 underlies 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 methods, the division of labor and knowledge
became the propelling force in social development. It is these that
brought about the various systems, such as primitive communism, the
peasant system, the beginnings of commodity production, feudalism, and
now modern capitalism, and which bring us ever nearer to Socialism.




                     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
members of different groups, nevertheless ceases among members of the
same group, and its place is taken by mutual aid and social feeling.
In the struggle between groups, technical equipment decides who shall
be the victor; this results in the progress of technique. These two
circumstances lead to different effects under 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 began by breaking the feudal bonds
and freeing the people from all feudal ties. It was essential
for capitalism 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 hampered by legal statutes, for only thus was
it possible for production to develop its full capacity. The workers
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 capitalists 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 unprotected.
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. 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 resembles
mostly the world of rapacious animals, and it is for this very reason
that the bourgeois 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-Dühring” (page 293). 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 countries. 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 development.”

What is that which carries on the struggle in this capitalist
competition, the perfectness of which decides 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 improved, the machines that cannot perform much,
and the simple tools are exterminated and machine technique develops
with gigantic strides to ever greater productivity. This is the real
application of Darwinism 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 getting ever larger. This
concentration of capital undermines capital itself, for it diminishes
the bourgeoisie whose interest it is to maintain capitalism, and it
increases that mass which seeks to abolish it. In this development,
one of the characteristics of capitalism is gradually abolished. In
the world where each struggles against all and all against each, a new
association develops among the working class, the class organization.
The working class organizations start with ending 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 organization,
brought about by natural conditions. In the ranks of this class
organization, social motives, moral feelings, self-sacrifice and
devotion for the entire 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 capitalist 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 the
strength of the class organization.

Let us now look at the future system of production as carried on
under Socialism. The struggle leading 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 displacement of the less developed
by the better developed machinery will be carried out upon careful
consideration.

With the abolition of classes the entire civilized world will become
one great productive community. Within this community mutual struggle
among members 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 workings 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
is the next step.


1. =The Evolution of Man.= By Wilhelm Boelsche. Contains absolute proof
of the truth of Darwin’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 each 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.

5. =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 knowledge 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 welcomed 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, in volumes of uniform
size. Price, 60c each postpaid.

                       CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
                   341–349 East Ohio Street, Chicago




                       The Origin of the Family

                    PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE STATE

                          By Frederick Engels

The book on which are based all subsequent works on property and the
State written by Socialists and Communists. What is the State? How did
it arise? Does it represent all the people? Will it ever disappear? What
is its function? When did Private Property arise? And how? Has the
institution of the Family changed and evolved? Just now all over the
world socialists, anarchists, syndicalists and communists are divided
upon the subject of the State, its origin, its function and its future.
Which group are you in, and do you know why? This book explains these
vital questions for you. Cloth, 217 pages. 60 cents.




                               Socialism

                        UTOPIAN AND SCIENTIFIC

                          By Frederick Engels


When may we expect a proletarian revolution? Can we plan to have it
at a certain time? Can we carry a revolution by propaganda? Does it
depend on what we desire? We all want tickets to the New Society of the
Workers. How can we know how near we are historically? Engels gives us
the signs in this book. They never fail. When we understand them we can
know how to use social and economic forces to carry us forward to the
New Day. Cloth. 60 cents; paper, 25 cents.


                       CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
                   CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHERS, CHICAGO




                                CAPITAL

                    A Critique of Political Economy

                             By Karl Marx


This work is 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 Production=,” 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 explains 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 Capital=,” 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 entangled. 618 pages, =$2.50=.

VOLUME 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=. 1,048 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 publishing 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 everywhere have testified to their educational value and to the
enjoyment and enlightenment they obtained from the study of Dietzgen.

December 9th, 1928, 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
German is by W. W. Craik, an Englishman, resident of Hamburg.

Good as our former edition was, we do not 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 masterly 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-DÜHRING

                        _Herr Eugene Dühring’s_
                        _Revolution in Science_

                          By Frederick Engels

        _Also contains “The Mark” and the author’s introduction
                to “Socialism, Utopian and Scientific”_


Part I treats with Philosophy, giving the most comprehensive statement
of Marx and Engels with 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 explains
the basis of modern socialism in its entire range of program, strategy
and tactics.

_Anti-Dühring_ 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 Darwin’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 opposition to him, and in a more connected form than had previously
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 for complete list_

                       CHARLES H. KERR & COMPANY
            341–349 E. Ohio St.           Chicago, Illinois




 Transcriber’s Notes:

 ――Text in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_); text in
   bold by “equal” signs (=bold=).

 ――Punctuation and spelling inaccuracies were silently corrected.

 ――Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.

 ――Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.