588 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



winism go in denying equality, tliat even where in idea we should have 

 equality, Darwinism pronounces its realization an impossibility. Dar- 

 winism is the scientijic estahlishment of inequality, and hence the as- 

 sertion that the Darwinian doctrine is above all a recognition of the 

 doctrine of the equality of all men needs no refutation from our side : 

 it has no foundation in fact. 



Again, nowhere in the literature of Darwinism do we find the axioms 

 that " every man is from the beginning good," or that " all men are 

 equal in their capacity for development." 



As to what the Darwinians think, let me quote from my book, 

 " Darwinism and the Doctrine of Descent " : " The grade to which 

 this (intellectual) development rises is generally dependent on the pre- 

 ceding generations. The psychical capacities of each individual bear 

 the family type, and are determined by the laws of heredity. For it is 

 simply untrue that, indejyendently of color and descent, each man, under 

 conditions otherwise alike, may attain a like pitch of mental develop- 

 me7it" (page 296). 



Had it not been that we are held answerable for these ideas of the 

 Socialist Democrats, we should never have esteemed them worthy of 

 notice. 



The Socialist Democrats anticipate, when their state shall have been 

 founded, the universal contentment of all men, who shall labor partly 

 out of personal inclination, partly by state ordinance. For this, good 

 men will surely be needed, for one year after the proclamation of 

 equality, the " Volksstaat " (1874, No. 30) demands that " the strong 

 and the weak, the bright and the dull, force of mind and force of body, 

 in so far as they are human, shall in a partnership such as befits human 

 beings be associated in labor, and associated in the enjoyment of its 

 fruits." 



Here we must consider that fraction of the Socialist Democrats who 

 with Engels {ubi supra, pages 223 sqq., and especially page 235) imagine 

 that the inequaHty which man inherits from his brute origin, an in- 

 equality that can not be done away, will be paralyzed under the new 

 social order. As we have seen, some of the Socialists deduce the in- 

 equality of human individuals from the unnaturalness of the old form of 

 social organization ; they not only maintain a vague idea of equality, but 

 they also expect to see an equal development of individuals, though 

 strong and weak, bright and dull, still continue. 



On the other hand, Engels calls the advanced advocates of equality 

 " ghosts," and the demand of the proletariat for an equality beyond the 

 abolition of class, an " absurdity " (page 84) ; at the same time he is con- 

 fident that the struggle for existence will cease on the abolition of class 

 distinctions, and will give place to universal mutual good will. This 

 would require tliat individuals should disregard all actually existent 

 inequalities, whether mental or bodily. Plainly there is no Darwinism 

 here either, and we leave it to others to contest this conversion of the 



