belief； the new scientific doctrine was ratified。
Spencer； for example； in one of his first works； expresses this
doctrine thus：…
〃Societies and organisms；〃 he says； 〃are alike in the following
points：…
〃1。 In that； beginning as tiny aggregates； they imperceptibly grow
in mass； so that some of them attain to the size of ten thousand
times their original bulk。
〃2。 In that while they were； in the beginning； of such simple
structure； that they can be regarded as destitute of all structure；
they acquire during the period of their growth a constantly
increasing complication of structure。
〃3。 In that although in their early； undeveloped period； there
exists between them hardly any interdependence of parts； their parts
gradually acquire an interdependence； which eventually becomes so
strong； that the life and activity of each part becomes possible
only on condition of the life and activity of the remaining parts。
〃4。 In that life and the development of society are independent；
and more protracted than the life and development of any one of the
units constituting it； which are born； grow； act； reproduce
themselves； and die separately； while the political body formed from
them； continues to live generation after generation； developing in
mass in perfection and functional activity。〃
The points of difference between organisms and society go farther；
and it is proved that these differences are merely apparent； but
that organisms and societies are absolutely similar。
For the uninitiated man the question immediately presents itself：
〃What are you talking about？ Why is mankind an organism； or similar
to an organism？〃
You say that societies resemble organisms in these four features；
but it is nothing of the sort。 You only take a few features of the
organism； and beneath them you range human communities。 You bring
forward four features of resemblance； then you take four features of
dissimilarity； which are； however； only apparent （according to you）；
and you thence conclude that human societies can be regarded as
organisms。 But surely； this is an empty game of dialectics； and
nothing more。 On the same foundation； under the features of an
organism； you may range whatever you please。 I will take the fist
thing that comes into my head。 Let us suppose it to be a forest；
the manner in which it sows itself in the plain； and spreads abroad。
1。 Beginning with a small aggregate； it increases imperceptibly in
mass； and so forth。 Exactly the same thing takes place in the
fields； when they gradually seed themselves down； and bring forth a
forest。 2。 In the beginning the structure is simple： afterwards it
increases in complication； and so forth。 Exactly the same thing
happens with the forest；in the first place； there were only bitch…
trees； then came brush…wood and hazel…bushes； at first all grow
erect； then they interlace their branches。 3。 The interdependence
of the parts is so augmented； that the life of each part depends on
the life and activity of the remaining parts。 It is precisely so
with the forest；the hazel…bush warms the tree…boles （cut it down；
and the other trees will freeze）； the hazel…bush protects from the
wind； the seed…bearing trees carry on reproduction； the tall and
leafy trees afford shade； and the life of one tree depends on the
life of another。 4。 The separate parts may die； but the whole
lives。 Exactly the case with the forest。 The forest does not mourn
one tree。
Having proved that； in accordance with this theory； you may regard
the forest as an organism； you fancy that you have proved to the
disciples of the organic doctrine the error of their definition。
Nothing of the sort。 The definition which they give to the organism
is so inaccurate and so elastic that under this definition they may
include what they will。 〃Yes；〃 they say； 〃and the forest may also
be regarded as an organism。 The forest is mutual re…action of
individuals； which do not annihilate each other；an aggregate； its
parts may also enter into a more intimate union； as the hive of bees
constitutes itself an organism。〃 Then you will say； 〃If that is so；
then the birds and the insects and the grass of this forest； which
re…act upon each other； and do not destroy each other； may also be
regarded as one organism； in company with the trees。〃 And to this
also they will agree。 Every collection of living individuals； which
re…act upon each other； and do not destroy each other； may be
regarded as organisms； according to their theory。 You may affirm a
connection and interaction between whatever you choose； and；
according to evolution； you may affirm； that； out of whatever you
please； any other thing that you please may proceed； in a very long
period of time。
And the most remarkable thing of all is； that this same identical
positive science recognizes the scientific method as the sign of
true knowledge； and has itself defined what it designates as the
scientific method。
By the scientific method it means common…sense。
And common…sense convicts it at every step。 As soon as the Popes
felt that nothing holy remained in them； they called themselves most
holy。
As soon as science felt that no common…sense was left in her she
called herself sensible； that is to say； scientific science。
CHAPTER III。
Division of labor is the law of all existing things； and； therefore；
it should be present in human societies。 It is very possible that
this is so； but still the question remains； Of what nature is that
division of labor which I behold in my human society？ is it that
division of labor which should exist？ And if people regard a
certain division of labor as unreasonable and unjust； then no
science whatever can convince men that that should exist which they
regard as unreasonable and unjust。
Division of labor is the condition of existence of organisms； and of
human societies； but what； in these human societies； is to be
regarded as an organic division of labor？ And； to whatever extent
science may have investigated the division of labor in the cells of
worms； all these observations do not compel a man to acknowledge
that division of labor to be correct which his own sense and
conscience do not recognize as correct。 No matter how convincing
may be the proofs of the division of labor of the cells in the
organisms studied； man； if he has not parted with his judgment； will
say； nevertheless； that a man should not weave calico all his life；
and that this is not division of labor； but persecution of the
people。 Spencer and others say that there is a whole community of
weavers； and that the profession of weaving is an organic division
of labor。 There are weavers； so； of course； there is such a
division of labor。 It would be well enough to speak thus if the
colony of weavers had arisen by the free will of its member's； but
we know that it is not thus formed of their initiative； but that we
make it。 Hence it is necessary to find out whether we have made
these weavers in accordance with an organic law； or with some other。
Men live。 They support themselves by agriculture； as is natural to
all men。 One man has set up a blacksmith's forge； and repaired his
plough； his neighbor comes to him； and asks him to mend his also；
and promises him in return either work or money。 A third comes； and
a fourth； and in the community formed by these men； there arises the
following division of labor；a blacksmith is created。 Another man
has instructed his children well； his neighbor brings his children
to him； and requests him to teach them also； and a teacher is
created。 But both blacksmith and teacher have been created； and
continue to be such； merely because they have been asked； and they
remain such as long as they are requested to be blacksmith and
teacher。 If it should come to pass that many blacksmiths and
teachers should set themselves up； or that their work is not
requited； they will immediately； as commonsense demands and as
always happens when there is no occasion for disturbing the regular
course of division of labor；they will immediately abandon their
trade； and betake themselves once more to agriculture。
Men who behave thus are guided by their sense； their conscience； and
hence we； the men endowed with sense and conscience； all assert that
such a division of labor is right。 But if it should chance that the
blacksmiths were able to compel other people to work for them； and
should continue to make horse…shoes when they were not wanted； and
if the teachers should go on teaching when there was no one to
teach； then it is obvious to every sane man； as a man； i。e。； as a
being endowed with reason and conscience； that this would not be
division； but appropriation； of labor。 And yet precisely that sort
of activity is what is called division of labor by scientific
science。 People do that which others do not think of requiring； and
demand that they shall be supported for so doing； and say that this
is just because it is division of labor。
That which constitutes the cause of the economical poverty of our
age is what the English call over…production （which means that a
mass of things are made which are of no use to anybody； and with
which nothing can be done）。
It would be odd to see a shoemaker； who should consider that people
were bound to feed him because he incessantly made boots which had
been of no use to any one for a long time； but what shall we say of
those men who make nothing；who not only produce nothing that is
visible； but nothing that is of use for people at large；for whose
wares there are no customers； and who yet demand； with the same
boldness； on the ground of division of labor； that they shall be
supplied with fine food and drink； and that they shall be dressed
well？ There may be； and there are； sorcerers for whose services a
demand makes itself felt； and for this purpose there are brought to
them pancakes and flasks； but it is difficult to imagine the
existence of sorcerers whose spells are useless to every one； and
who boldly demand that they shall be luxuriously supported because
they exercise sorcery。 And it is the same in our world。 And all
this comes about on the basi