Science and the “Social Problem”. The Logic of the Socialist Solution
A Common Error
Emile Zola, in his realistic novel, “Work,” pictures science as the peaceful means bywhich the “evils” of modern society will be removed. He tells us that the continued application of science to industry will solve “the social problem,” the political action of the working class being unnecessary. Zola’s attitude has been adopted by others, and the popularity of contemporary science has led many intelligent workers to hold aloof from social and political movements and to occupy themselves with natural science. It is opportune, therefore, to consider the relation of science to the interests of the workers.
The greatest living biologist. Prof. Haeckel, opens his work “The Riddle of the Universe,” with these words :
“The close of the 19th century offers one of the most remarkable spectacles to thoughtful observers. All educated people are agreed that it has in many respects outstripped its predecessors, and has achieved tasks that were deemed impracticable at its commencement. An entirely new character has been given to the whole of our modern civilisation, not only by our astounding theoretical progress in sound knowledge of nature, but also by the remarkable fertile application of that knowledge in technical science, industry, commerce and so forth.
“On the other hand we have made little or no progress in moral and social life in comparison with the earlier centuries ; at times there has been serious reaction and from this obvious conflict there has arisen not only an uneasy sense of dismemberment and falseness, but even the grave danger of catastrophes in the political and social world.”
In his later essays, “The Wonders of Life,” the same writer describes the conditions of life around him thus :
“Misery and want are increasing among the poor as the division of labour and over-population increase ; thousands of strong and active men come to grief every year without any fault of theirs, often precisely because they were quiet and honest ; thousands are hungry because with the best will in the world they cannot find work ; thousands are sacrificed to the heartless demands of our iron age with its exacting technical and industrial requirements. On the other hand, we see thousands of contemptible characters prospering because they have been able to deceive their fellows by unscrupulous speculation or because they have flattered and served the higher authority.”
The Capitalist Squint
After having shown the great contrast between the advance of science and the terrible state of the mass of the people one might have expected this leading thinker to inquire into the cause of this phenomenon. But the bourgeois professor looks at things from the capitalist standpoint, and all we get from him is, a tilt at the Catholic Church—as though poverty was absent from Protestant England, heathen Japan or France with Secularists at the helm !
Sometimes, also, over-population is hinted at as the cause of the trouble, but the facts provide a crushing refutation of this claim. Misery is widespread in France, where a falling birth-rate gives rise to the cry “race suicide,” and has prompted the suggestion that parents of more than three children be given a bonus by the Government. The population of Ireland, 8½ millions in 1850, is now only 4½ millions, yet distress abounds in the land. Many examples could be given, but these suffice ; the fact remains that poverty exists to-day in the very midst of plenty “such as was never seen on earth before.”
Why then has social life lagged behind while signal progress has been made in other fields ? Simply because science has not been applied in dealing with the “social problem.” Science is systemised knowledge, and it teaches us that all effects have an adequate cause. This teaching is acted upon when treating most subjects, but the men of science do not adopt scientific methods when dealing wilh social questions—perhaps because they know that it would menace the interests of the ruling class.
Reform is Fatuous
View the “social problem” scientifically and we see that it is useless to continually attempt to end the evils that exist by merely palliating the effects ceaselessly produced by the system of society itself. The revolutionary policy of the Socialist is, then, in strict accord with the message of science because, seeing that the awful condition of the working class is caused by the robbery of the workers by the class that owns the means of producing wealth, the Socialist seeks to overthrow that class and abolish this system, and so remove the cause from which the social evils spring.
Consider some of the methods pursued toward many phases of industrial and social life, despite the volume of scientific knowledge acquired in in this “wonderful century” (as Alfred Russell Wallace calls it). Consumption and kindred diseases find their victims chiefly among the working class, owing to the conditions under which they work and live. This is admitted by the National Association for the Prevention of Consumption, and was clearly indicated at their Edinburgh Conference in July. They state that “the prevention of consumption raises the whole question of poverty,” but (like all reformers) they shrink from considering the question further.
The awful sufferings of those stricken by “the white scourge” is beyond description here. Seventy thousand persons die annually from it in the United Kingdom, but myriads linger on, bravely struggling to win sustenance for their dependants. A few May be “fortunate” enough to be sent to a sanatorium, and after a few months treatment are returned to the factory hells and slums, flung once more into the relentless grip of their foul foe. Many of the best of the race devote years to tending the afflicted, but these votaries of medical science are blind to the necessity of acting in line with the logic of science ; that is, to abolish the miserable conditions of the worker‘s lives, which are such a fertile source of disease.
Prostitution of Science
That science is prostituted to the service of the capitalist class was made plain at the recent Food and Drugs Exhibition at Caxton Hall. The display showed how the ingenuity of the chemist was used to adulterate the food of the workers in order to increase the profit of the manufacturers. Bread, coffee, milk, jam etc., are so faked as to be detrimental to health. In the large factories (Packingtown is a flagrant instance) chemists are employed to give a false appearance to rubbish in order to make it saleable, regardless of the injury it inflicts upon the, toilers. A recent case of poisoning demonstrated that the cheap boots which the workers are only able to afford, are dangerous owing to the chromic acid used in preparing the “leather.” All along the line the same thing occurs. Reflect upon the fact that medical science is called upon to treat those people who suffer from the use of science in industry by the capitalist class. Science used by the possessing class is unifoim in its effects upon the working class. Inventions and discoveries are pressed into the service of the profit-hunters and are used to increase their profits by saving wages, with the consequence that able-bodied men are flung into the streets to starve. The undeveloped bodies of the children—the potential parents of the race—are brought into the factory and workshop to operate the machines. When, as an inevitable outcome, physical deterioration sets in, the “healing art” once again comes on the scene to patch up the effects of the ever-potent cause !
The application of science to industry to-day enables the masters to speed up the toilers with the result that last year, for instance, the casualties in the British factories numbered over 328,000. Here again surgical science is ever busy tending the maimed and wounded, who, upon recovery, are compelled to go back to the death-traps of capitalism.
The question now arises, if science is applied to the “social problem,” what system of society does it point to, as the solution ? Let us turn to social science for the answer.
Where Spencer Failed
Herbert Spencer showed that this system of society, like every other manifestation of life, has evolved to its present stage. That great thinker refused, however, to follow the logic of his own teaching, and the sorry spectacle was witnessed of the talented author of “Synthetic Philosphy” stooping to write such poor stuff as “Man versus the State” and “Facts and Comments,” in which he defended private property in the means of producing wealth, and sought to show that this institution must remain in the future. Though Spencer proved that society has developed to its present position from lower forms, he did not inquire into the laws of social change. That was done by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.
Already in 18147 Marx and Engels, in studying and criticising the philosophy of Hegel, had come to the conclusion that the method of producing and distributing wealth, and the social organisation arising from it, formed the basis upon which the political, legal and religious institutions are built up. They prove that throughout history the development of economic forces had rendered inevitable changes in the forms of social life. Since civilisation began the property conditions have led to the division of society into classes, with opposing interests, and the class straggles that ensued resulted in political revolutions with the rise of a new class to power each time. An analysis of the capitalist system of society showed that the capitalist class obtained their wealth by employing workers to use the instruments of production which they (the capitalists) owned, returning to the workers just sufficient to keep them fit to go on producing, and appropriating the difference between the wages paid and the value created.
The economic forces in society have developed to such an extent that thousands of workers cooperate in a factory, where the use of the most modern appliances and methods result in a vast mass of wealth being produced by a tithe of the men previously required. The private ownership of these great productive powers causes each individual owner to try and sell to an ever larger number of buyers, with the outcome that at frequent periods a large number of toilers are thrown out of work, the goods they have made being unsold. The machinery of industry is brought to a standstill during these “economic crises” ; those capitalists unable to tide over the period of stagnation “go under,” and thus the field is left to the larger concerns. These periods of industrial anarchy are becoming longer and more frequent, and if the development of society is to proceed, the ownership of these productive forces must pass from the few individuals to the whole of society ; the method of ownership must be brought into line with the co-operative character of industry—Socialism must be established.
Many leading anti-Socialists have borne testimony to the truth of Marx’s teaching. Mr. W. H. Mallock says (“Nineteenth Century Review,” March, 1909) : “His survey of economic history broadly corresponds so far as it goes with facts, and must be accepted as forming one of the most important contributions to economic thought in the course of the 19th century.” Professor Flint, of Edinburgh University, whose work “Socialism” the anti-Socialists describe as the “best book written against Socialism,” says : “Where alone he (Marx) did memorable service was in his analysis and interpretation of the capitalist era, and there he must be admitted to have rendered eminent service.”
Many opponents of Socialism pose as being scientific, and urge that Socialism is contrary to Darwinian teaching. They say that the struggle for existence between individuals and the survival of the fittest—through natural selection—is a permanent feature of human existence. These people falsely interprete Darwin’s famous theory in order to combat Socialism.
That the Socialist position is based upon the facts of life is, however, clear. When man lived almost in a “state of nature” and the power of obtaining food, etc., was consequently limited, the struggle for existence was fierce. Frequently man fought against man for sustenance. But experience taught men that by co-operation they could better protect themselves against hostile forces and increase their power of getting the means of life. That co-operation has played a large part in social progress is admitted by leading biologists. Haeckel in “The Wonders of Life” (page 139) states that “the association of individuals is a great advantage in the struggle for existence.” Huxley (Evolution and Ethics, p. 33) points out that “every forward step of social progress brings men into closer relation with their fellows and increases the importance of the pleasures and pains derived from sympathy.” Professor J. Arthur Thompson, a prominent scientist of to-day, says (“The Science of Life,” p. 196) : “But even when the phrase (struggle for existence) is literally appropriate, we must remember the altruistic colouring of many facts of life, attraction between mates, reproduction, sacrifice, parental and filial affection, the kindliness of kindred, gregarious sociality and mutual aid.”
The control of humanity over nature now enables us to produce wealth sufficient to assume comfort, and even luxury, for all. Therefore the real necessity of a struggle for existence between man and man has long since passed ; but the fruits of industry are to-day monopolised by a few, with the consequence that men, women and children of the working class are forced to fight like animals for the opportunity to earn the necessaries of life. The spectacle of a father competing with his children for a job. brother against sister, husband against wife, is not by Nature ordained, but is the result of the economic condition imposed upon the workers by those who see in cheap and numerous wage-slaves, a chance of ever-increasing profit for themselves.
It is important, too, to realise what the phrase “Survival of the fittest” implies, because many of our unscrupulous opponents twist its meaning. Mr. Mallock, for instance, in his “Aristocracy and Evolution,” endeavours to show that because the great capitalists survive and flourish, they are, therefore, the “flower” of the race. A definition from one of the leading biologists of the nineteenth century will be useful here. “In the living world one of the most characteristic features of this cosmic process is the struggle for existence in the competition of each with all, the result of which is the selection, that is to say the survival, of those forms which are best adapted to the conditions which at any period obtain and which are in that respect and only in that respect the fittest.” (Huxley, “Evolution and Ethics” p. 4.)
Under capitalism those who rule are not the best intellects, the “men of ability,” or those possessing qualities fraught with the greatest happiness for the many, but it is the favoured few who, by inheritance, spoliation and fraud, come into possession of the means essential for producing the necessaries of life. Herbert Spencer himself was often financially embarrassed when desiring to issue the products of his facile pen. Compare him with a linen draper, Mr. Ch. Morgan, who last year left a fortune of over 13 millions ! Grant Allen, whose remarkable works drew praise from Herbert Spencer, embodied over twenty years patient study and investigation in “Plant Life,” “Physiological Aesthetics,” “Evolution of the Idea of God,” “The Hand of God,” and other works, yet this cultured author had a bitter struggle to provide for himself and wife. The pitiful story of how he had to tern to and write novels such as “The Typewriter Girl,” in order to “keep the wolf from the door” in after years is an illuminating example of the “reward” of ability under capitalism. As Allen himself well said (in a review article upon “Socialism and Natural Inequality”), “Look at the lives of our truly great men—our thinkers, our organisers, our men of science, our discoverers, our poets, our men of letters, our artists. Is it not a commonplace that the majority of these have had to pass through a period of early struggle, that crippled some of them, soured not a few, drove mad or disheartened or permanently weakened many ? Is it not a well-known fact that numbers of them died poor or starving or gave up the struggle in disgust, or lived on, mere wrecks, or took to suicide ?
“The worker who invents some valuable surgical appliance, some new anaesthetic, some scientific instrument, some optical improvement, usually makes next to nothing, sometimes looses even his all in the attempt to perfect or bring out his discovery.”
Socialism, a system in which the means of producing the requirements of life would be possessed in common and worked in the interest of all, offers us the prospect of extending our control over natural forces and assuring the comforts and pleasures of life to all in return for a minimum of labour. It presents us with the great incentive of ourselves being able to enjoy the wealth that we create, instead of seeing idlers consume the fruits of our toil. Under Socialism the struggle for existence will have ceased because, as Huxley says in the work referred to (p. 35), “When the ethical process has advanced so far as to secure every member of the society in the possession of the means of existence, the struggle for existence between man and man in that society is at an end.”
Instead of “a mere squabble round the platter,” the spirit of rivalry in the intellectual arena, the possibilities of self development then afforded, will result in an intelligent and informed population able to appreciate the beauties of literature, science and the arts, thus giving to the best minds in society the knowledge that their work can be understood and valued at its worth. How different to the present, when the majority of the people are so sunk in ignorance, with intelligence blunted and minds cramped, the every-day question of getting bread and butter filling their whole horizon and engaging all their time. Taking an interest in the study of the sciences, they can then help to extend the boundaries of human knowledge and increase the harvest in fields where the labourers have been all too few. Science is to-day cultivated by but a minority, but Socialism provides the means of leisure for all to take part in the work of wresting from nature secrets of infinite significance for human welfare.
Many sciences to-day are in their infancy and provinces such as psychology and “the problem of heredity” are really virgin fields awaiting cultivation still. Even one of the leading opponents, Dr. Schaffle, says of Socialism : “The very fabulous quantity of leisure would favour the rise of the more industrious as well as the more highly endowed individuals both in science and art, even if they were all obliged to spend 3 hours daily in manual labour. . . . Taste, natural gifts and love of art would still remain unalterably various.” (“Impossibility of Social Democracy,” p. 161-2.)
It is hoped that the necessity has been made plain for organising to speedily end this system and to institute Socialism. That Socialism is possible was admitted by the arch-individualist Herbert Spencer, who, writing to his old French colleague, M. G. Davenay, in Oct. 1905 said: “Socialism will inevitably triumph in spite of all opposition.”
Yes, Socialism is inevitable—if the workers organise and fight for it—as they will.
A. KOHN