NATURAL SELECTION AND SOCIALISM.
-i-T was a pity that Mrs. Fawcett and Mr. Grant Allen should have chosen the same night at the end of last week for their addresses on the subject of Socialism ; other-
-wise, we might perhaps have learnt from the latter whether he accepts the definition of the aims and methods of Socialism which Mrs. Fawcett gave in her lecture at Welbeck Hall As Mrs. Fawcett very truly said, it was not easy to learn from the leaders of Socialism what they mean by the term ; indeed, -their ideas on the subject seemed to differ so radically, that -she had heard that, on the occasion of their demonstrations in Hyde Park, it was difficult to find any four whose opinions -were sufficiently harmonious to allow of their driving there in the same waggonette. That being the case, it was hardly fair of Mr. Grant Allen to talk of the foolish and ignorant objections which are made by critics who do not know what Socialism means, and yet to say nothing himself which would help to remove that ignorance. W e may suppose, however, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Grant Allen does hold the generally accepted idea of Socialism which Mrs. Fawcett very clearly, though perhaps a little scornfully, proceeded to define—at any rate, there was nothing in his address at Bloomsbury Hall that would argue a different conception of the real meaning of the term—and from that point of view we will consider his utterances as to the relation between Socialism and Natural Selection.
Mr. Grant Allen has undertaken to refute the objections which are raised to Socialism. "None, perhaps," he-says, "is more foolish or more ignorant than that which represents it -as interfering with Natural Selection." We are entirely agreed with Mr. Grant Allen; indeed, the folly of raising such an -objection, when there are a hundred others infinitely more obvious and valid, is almost incredible. " As well might people say that Socialism interfered with gravity or with the -conservation of energy." Exactly so. The laws of gravity and natural selection will remain in force, whatever pranks we play. If the dream of the Socialists were to be realised to- morrow; if the world were to wake up equal in the fullest sense of the word, with an equal share to all men of property, of labour, and of pleasure; if the most perfect equality of position were obtained for all in the present, and even the most stringent laws were passed for ensuring the main- tenance of that equality in the future, there would still be one law already existing that could neither be altered nor changed : the law of natural selection would certainly still remain in force, and would as certainly bring us back within the course of a couple of generations to very much the same point as that from which we started,—the state we are in to-day. The question is not whether Socialism is injurious to Natural Selection, but simply whether the law of Natural Selection is not fatal to Socialism. Here it is evident that Mr. Grant Allen holds a widely different opinion,—namely, that the existing state of things is not the effect but the cause, that, so fax from being controlled by, it actually controls Natural Selection ; and he claims that Socialism will control it infinitely better. Well, his argument shall have the attention it deserves, for though it is not very instructive, it is at lei* rather amusing. First, he proposes to draw a prima-facie ease for maintaining that our present social system hampers and limits in a wrong direction the natural law of the survival of the fittest and the birth of the most fit ; and, secondly, to show that in the animal and vegetable world all true advance and progress have been made by Natural Selection, acting in precisely the self-same way as it will act under the imagined socialistic conditions, and so by analogy to prove that those conditions are necessary for the improvement and progress of mankind.
In support of his first proposition, he says : "Artificial restriction of free access to land, to air, to coal, to sunshine, heavily handicaps against natural selection, the strongest, best, and most promising element in existing populations ; " and, on the other hand, that the weakest and least promising element, the upper class that enjoys these benefits without stint, is unduly protected, coddled, and encouraged to survive. Moreover, that this injustice and inequality are extended to sexual selection as well,—that the most beautiful and vigorous women are unfairly bribed by money and titles to become the wives of feeble and wretched aristocrats, while the most able and useful men are monopolised by uncomely and brainless heiresses. In short, that the least profitable and deserving stock, the upper class, is encouraged to survive and increase at the expense of the more profitable, the lower. Why does Mr. Grant Allen suppose that the average of physical strength and mental ability is higher in the lower classes of our society than in the upper ? We believe that exactly the reverse is the case. And why does he take it for granted that the rate of increase should be larger in the aristocracy than in what is called the proletariat P As a matter of fact, it is notorious that the population of a country is more largely renewed by the lowest than by any other class. If, for instance, the population were to be divided in point of influence, attained either by wealth or position, into four different classes—A, B, C, and D—it would be found that D was increasing more rapidly than C, and B more rapidly than A. Fortunately, at the same time the units shift from one class to another : A is replenished by B, and C by D. But this is merely a common-sense and not a scientific view of the social scale. Let us return to science and Mr. Grant Allen. That is a strange picture that he draws of the feeble and rickety aristocrat buying a beautiful girl to be his mate, while the wicked heiress robs the world of a man's strength and brains. Does he intend it to be a scientifically accurate one P It is so hard to know when he is speaking the language of science, and when the language of romance. A gentleman whose novels are so scientific, and whose science is so romantic, is so easily misunderstood; and difficult of comprehension though he may be, we have really an honest desire not to misunderstand Mr. Grant Allen. But is not this illustration rather a romantic one for so scientific a person ? And as regards his more particular instances, when he quotes the words of a friend, who humbly confesses that had he not possessed a few thousands a year of his own, he would not have known how to earn his living, and then adds, "and yet this man was the father of nine unwholesome and foolish children "—is not that reflection rather crudely scientific for a man of poetry and romance ?--or when he openly alludes to the private and domestic grief, to the most bitter and undeserved misfortune of a man well known on account of his high rank,—is not that allusion rather brutal in the mouth of a man of such romance and feeling p
As we have said, it is never easy to :understand Mr. Grant
Allen, but never more difficult than when he deals with analogy, as he does in the second part of his argument. " There are people," he says, " who don't know what analogy means. They confound it with identity. They are best left alone. Their own stupidity is the punishment most meet for them." We must submit to that meet punishment, for, without having any more wish to confound identity with analogy than to confound Mr. Grant Allen with the opinions he professes, we confess that we cannot understand how his analogies argue in his favour. He briefly reviews the whole system of Natural Selection as evidenced in animal and vegetable creation, and he reviews it in such a way as only Mr. Grant Allen can, investing it with a picturesque poetry that elicits our liveliest interest and most sincere admiration. He shows how, the higher the stage in the scale of existence, the greater are the restrictions that are put by Nature itself upon the law of Natural Selection; how in the lowest form of animals or plants, vast hordes of seeds or eggs are turned loose without pro- vision by the parents upon an unsympathetic world ; how the improvident mother-cod leaves the millions of her offspring fry to eat or be eaten without any defence against the cruel and wasteful natural law that selects but two survivors perhaps from the million destroyed ; how the birds, less fertile, but higher in the scale of life, provide not only a warm nest for their callow brood, but also food and education; how the mammals sacrifice themselves further yet on behalf of their young; and how mankind, the highest organism of all, provides anxiously for the long- protracted and helpless infancy of its children. From that he argues that the greater the care that is taken of its progeny, the higher the race rises. That is perfectly true ; but what has that to do with Socialism, or why should we suppose that we should be better able or more anxious to guard and educate our children under socialistic conditions than we are at present ? On the contrary, as our children must necessarily inherit and partake of a dead level of life in common equality with the rest of the world, there would be no reason to listen any longer to the natural instinct that prompts us to provide for them. Let the State that forbids us to lay by a private store in favour of our own children, provide for them itself. Mr. Grant Allen then passes on to speak of the analogous case of the social insects, such as ants and bees. Surely so accomplished a naturalist cannot have forgotten that in both hive and ant-hill there exist dominant classes that tyrannise over and direct the labours of the others. Or perhaps that is the reason that, in answer to a supposed objection that human beings are not bees, he answers "No, thank God ! and Socialism is not a system of hiving "?—a pious expression of gratitude that is rather uncalled for. After all, Socialism might represent something much worse than hiving; notwithstanding the slavish worship of their queen, the bees have a summary method of dealing with their drones, and are most successful in their storage of honey.
It is possible to take too much to heart the conclusions that physiologists like Messrs. Galton and Weismann have deduced from their patient researches. Theoretically, it may seem conclusively proved that qualities acquired by an individual after birth are not hereditary, and that the only possible method of improving a race is by directing and influencing the processes of natural and sexual selection ; but historically it is difficult to reconcile this conclusion with the history of nations that have risen or fallen in the scale of humanity. As to the abolition of artificial barriers, such as castes, classes, or marriage, that unduly control natural selection, there is no reason to call such barriers artificial. Mankind, in separating itself into different classes, classes in which the units fall or rise according to their usefulness to the community at large, and in submitting itself to the restriction of marriage, is simply following a natural law,—a law every whit as natural as any that Mr. Grant Allen has observed in force among the lower forms of existence. The course of Nature towards perfection will not be greatly helped by mating dukes with milkmaids, or ploughmen with princesses. As to the " kindly extinction of undesirable stocks," such as invalids, criminals, and idiots, by " exhorting them not to replenish the world with their own images," in those rare cases where the strong natural law of repulsion fails, the kindly exhortations of Mr. Grant Allen and his friends are hardly likely to succeed. Nor do we quite understand why he falls foul of " the Bavarian Royal House, the grandees of Spain, the aristocracy of England, and the money-grubbers of London." The Royal House of Bavaria, which, by-the-way, endeared itself considerably to its own people, might well be permitted to extinguish itself now in peace ; the grandees of Spain, whose courage and chivalry passed for a proverb in the Middle Ages, are probably now as little known to Mr. Grant Allen as to the rest of Europe; the aristocracy of England have done more than their fair share in making its history glorious ; and the money-grubbers of London have helped to make England the first commercial country in the world. If these latter be undesirable stocks, compared to those in which Mr. Grant Allen puts his faith, we can indeed congratulate him on his investment. "Life is short : science is infinite," he says in conclusion. Life is certainly too short to be wasted in vain imaginings; but in what sense does he say that science is infinite? Infinite in capacity and power it certainly is not, for it is limited by those very laws of Nature of which Mr. Grant Allen is so close a student : it can ascertain, but it cannot change the working of them; against that it fights in vain.
Previous page
