170 



a successive predominance that changes from epoch to 

 epoch and from place to place. 



Just as with the individual, egoism and altruism co- 

 exist, and will always co-exist for egoism is the personal 

 basis of existence but with a progression continually 

 restrictive and transformative of egoism as opposed to 

 altruism, passing from the ferocious egoism of savage 

 humanity to the less brutal egoism of the present epoch 

 and to the more fraternal egoism of the society to come, 

 just as in the social organism, for example, the warlike 

 type and the industrial type always co-exist, but with a 

 progressive predominance of the latter over the former. 



Just the same again the different types of constitution 

 of the family always co-exist, but with a different pre- 

 dominance at different epochs ; just as to-day in every 

 civilised society, although the monogamic type (to-day 

 by joint action and legal fiction, later by free consent) 

 predominates much over other family types, yet one 

 always finds in all countries both sexual community 

 (masculine and feminine prostitution), and the union of 

 one wife with several husbands (one legal and the others 

 extra legal), and also the union of one husband with 

 several wives (one legal and the others extra legal). 



It is the same with many other institutions of which 

 Spencerian sociology had only given the descriptive evo- 

 lution, and of which the Marxian theory of economic 

 determinism has given us the generic evolution, by 

 explaining that customs, religious and juridical institu- 

 tions, social types, family forms, etc., are only the 

 reflection of the economic structure, which differs accord- 

 ing to place (on islands or continents, according to the 

 abundance or scarcity of food), and also varies from 

 epoch to epoch. And to complete the Marxian theory 

 this economic structure is for every social group the 

 resultant of the energies of race developing themselves 

 in such and such physical environment, as I have said 

 elsewhere. 



The same rule holds good for the two co-existing laws 

 of the struggle for existence and solidarity in the struggle, 

 of which the first predominates (such as primitive 

 morals, war, slavery, etc.) where the economic conditions 

 are the most difficult, whilst the second predominates 

 where the economic security of the greater number 

 increases. But the latter, whilst completely developing 

 in a socialist regime and by assuring material life to 

 every man who works, will not exclude the intellectual 

 forms of the struggle for existence, which M. Tchisch 

 said ought to be interpreted in the sense not only of a 

 struggle for life, but also of a struggle for the increase 

 of life* 



* Tchisch La /' fondamentale de la. vie, Dorpat, 1895, p. 19. 



