DE VRIES' "MUTATION" 95 



at any rate not contradicted^ when we assert 

 that in social development, periods of econo- 

 mic evolution, with apparent social stability, 

 are followed by periods of social revolution 

 when the entire social superstructure is trans- 

 formed. 



It is no longer necessary to assume count- 

 less millions of years for the evolution of liv- 

 ing forms. A plant enjoys a period of appar- 

 ent stability, then it reaches a point where it 

 "explodes" and gives birth to new species. If 

 a plant, why not a society? At least there is 

 nothing in the example of the plant that will 

 furnish an argument against such an idea. 



If the history of biological science for the 

 last half a century were to be written by a 

 Socialist, who had no scruples about wresting 

 the record so as to support his Socialist the- 

 ories, he would have nothing to gain by chang- 

 ing a single line. 



There is nothing in that history to contra- 

 dict us when we assert the probability or the 

 certainty, of a social revolution. Who, that 

 looks about him^ can fail to see that death is 

 plainly branded in the brow of the existing 

 social order? Its legal, political, and financial 

 institutions are tied' together with rotten 

 thread. It is already outliving its usefulness, 

 and when it goes it will have few mourners. 



