i66 



Now, here is again the same equivocation. M. 

 Garofalo supposes that the increase of activity and of 

 production is only realised with a single worker, and 

 that this increase alone has to be distributed among the 

 whole of the workers, forgetting to think 



(I.) That in the hypothesis it is not one single worker, 

 but all the workers of the nation that will augment their 

 activity, and thus increase the production. 



(II.) That in the state of present servitude the work- 

 man works without spirits, without hope, and, therefore, 

 without feeling bound to him who rewards him so badly 

 for his work ; the contrary will happen when all the 

 citizens are only co-operators, all equally interested in 

 the administration of the social inheritance. 



And it is still, thanks to the same equivocation, that he 

 can affirm, on page 213, that in a socialist re'gime "the 

 fine arts will not be able to exist. It is very well to say 

 that they would henceforth be for the profit of the public. 

 Of what public? Of the great mass of people deprived 

 of artistic education?" As if when misery is once 

 eliminated, and work becomes less exhausting for the 

 working classes, the ease and economic security which 

 would result from it would not develop among them 

 also aesthetic pleasure, twhich they feel and gratify now as 

 it is possible to them in the manifestations of popular 

 art, or, indeed, as is seen to-day in Paris and Vienna in 

 the "Socialist Theatre," and at Brussels in the free 

 musical matinees, instituted by socialists, and frequented 

 by an always increasing number of workers. It is the 

 same with scientific instruction, as is proved by the 

 " university extension movement " in England and 

 Belgium. And all that in spite of the present absence of 

 artistic education, but thanks to the existence among the 

 workers of these countries of an economic condition less 

 miserable than that of the agricultural or even industrial 

 proletariat in countries like Italy. 



In my book, Socialismo et Criminalita, published in 

 1883, and which my opponents, including M. Garofalo 

 (p. 128 and following), now try to compare with the 

 opinions which I have maintained in my more recent 

 book, Socialisme et science positive, 1 developed two 

 arguments : 



(1) That the social arrangement could not have been 

 changed suddenly, as sentimental socialism then main- 

 tained in Italy, because the law of evolution is a 

 sovereign ruler in the human world as in the organic and 

 inorganic world. 



(2) That, from analogy, crime could not disappear 

 absolutely from humanity, as the Italian sentimentalists 

 of that time vaguely insinuated. 



