tj* 



the scientific domain or in the political domain are the 

 following : 



(1) That of the conservatives such as M. Garofalo, 

 those falling into the easy terror of automorphism so 

 well pointed out by Mr. Spencer which makes them 

 judge the world, not following the conditions objectively 

 established, but following the subjective impression, con- 

 sidering that they are very comfortable in the present 

 regime these maintain that all is for the best in the 

 best of all possible worlds, and oppose everywhere, with 

 a very logical egoism, every change which is not limited 

 to one on the surface. 



(2) That of the reformers, who, like all eclectics, of 

 whom infinitus est numerus, give thus, as the Italian 

 proverb says, one blow to the cask and another to the 

 hoop, and do not deny oh no ! the inconveniences and 

 absurdities even of the present ; but, in order not to 

 compromise themselves too far, hasten to say that they 

 must confine themselves to retouches, superficial reforms, 

 that is to say, to those symptomatic cases which are as 

 easy as they are inconclusive in personal as in social 

 medicine. 



(3) Finally, there are the revolutionaries who call 

 themselves thus just because they think and say that the 

 efficacious remedy is not in superficial reforms but in a 

 radical reorganisation, beginning at the basis itself of 

 private property, and which will be so profound that it 

 will justly form a social revolution. 



It is in this sense that Galileo made a scientific revolu- 

 tion, for he did not confine himself to the reforms of the 

 astronomical system admitted in his time, but he radi- 

 cally changed the fundamental lines. And it is in the 

 same sense that Jacquart made an industrial revolution 

 because he did not confine himself to reforming the 

 hand-loom which had existed for centuries, but he 

 radically changed its structure and productive power. 



Thus, when socialism is called revolutionary, it is 

 understood that we are speaking of the programme to 

 be realised, and of the final end to be attained, and not 

 as M. Garofalo, in spite of the dictionary, continues to 

 believe of the method or tactics with which to attain 

 this end of the social revolution. 



And it is just here that the profound difference is 

 shown between the methods of sentimental socialism and 

 of scientific socialism (henceforth the only socialism in 

 the civilised world), which has received through Marx, 

 Engels, and their followers, the systematic organisation 

 necessitated by the method of evolution. And that is 

 why and how I have been able to show that contem- 

 porary socialism is in complete agreement with the 

 positive doctrine of evolution. 



Socialism, in fact, calls itself revolutionist, but not in 



