Aristocracy and evolution; a study of the rights, the origin, and the social functions of the wealthier classes

Front matter

illillljilj:

mM

THE LIBRARY

Preface

The word aristocracy as used in the title of this volume has no exclusive, and indeed no special, reference to a class distinguished by hereditarypolitical privileges, by titles, or by heraldic pedigree. It here means the exceptionally gifted and efficient minority, no matter what the position in which its members may have been born, or what the sphere of social progress in which their exceptional efficiency shows itself. I have chosen the word aristocracy in preference to the word oligarchy because it means not only the rule of the few, but of the best or the most efficient of the few.

Of the various questions involved in the general argument of the work, many would, if they were to be examined exhaustively, demand entire treatises to themselves rather than chapters. This is specially true of such questions as the nature of men's congenital inequalities, the effects of different classes of motive in producing different classes of action, and the effects of equal education on unequal talents and temperaments. But the practical bearings of an argument are more readily grasped vi ARISTOCRACY AND EVOLUTION

when its various parts are set forth with comparative brevity, than they are when the attention claimed for each is minute enough to do it justice as a separate subject of inquiry ; and it has appeared to me that in the present condition of opinion, prevalent social fallacies may be more easily combated by putting the case against them in a form which will render it intelligible to everybody, and by leaving many points to be elaborated, if necessary, elsewhere.

I may also add that the conclusions here arrived at, with whatever completeness they might have explained, elaborated, and defended, would not, in my opinion, do more than partially answer the questions to which they refer. This volume aims only at establishing what are the social rights and social functions, in progressive communities, of the few. The entire question of their duties and proper liabilities, whether imposed on them by themselves or by the State, has been left untouched. This side of the question I hope to deal with hereafter. It is enough to observe here that it is impossible to define the duties of the few, of the rich, of the powerful, of the highly gifted, and to secure that these duties shall be performed by them, unless we first understand the extent of the functions which they inevitably perform, and admit frankly the indefeasible character of their rights.

CHAPTER I '' The Fundamental Error in Modern Sociological Study

PACK

Science during the middle of this century excited popular interest mainly

on account of its bearing on the doctrines of Christianity . . 3

Its popularity is now beginning to depend on its bearing not on religious

problems, but on social ......... 3

Science itself is undergoing a corresponding change .... 4

Its characteristic aim during the middle of the century was to deal with

physical and physiological evolution 4

Its characteristic aim now is to deal with the evolution of society . . 5 Social science itself is not wholly new ....... 5

What is new is the application to it of the evolutionary theory . , 6 This excites men by suggesting great social changes in the future, . . 7 which will give a speculative meaning to the history of humanity, . . 8 or secure for men now existing, or for their children, practical social advantages 8

Men have thus a double reason for being interested in social science,

and sociologists a doul^ reason for studying it; . . . . 9 and it has attracted a number of men of genius, who have applied to it

methods learned in the schoOT of physical science .... 9 Yet despite their genius and their diligence, all parties complain that the

results of their study are inconclusive . . ^P ... 10 Professor Marshall and Mr. Kidd, for instance, complain of the fact, but

can suggest no explanation of it . lo

What can the explanation be? 11

vii vm

The answer will be found in the fact just referred to — that social science

attempts to answer two distinct sets of questions; . . . .12

and one set — namely, the speculative — it has answered with great

success; 12

it has failed only in attempting to answer practical questions . . .13

Now the phenomena with which it has dealt successfully are phenomena

of social aggregates, considered as wholes; 13

but the practical problems of to-day, with which it has dealt unsuccessfully, arise out of the conflict between different parts of aggregates . 15

Social science has failed as a practical guide because it has not recognised this distinction; . . . . . . . . .16

and hence arise most of the errors of the political philosophy of this century 16

The Attempt to merge the Great Man in the Aggregate

Whatever may be done by some men, or classes of men, sociologists are at present accustomed to attribute to tnan ....

Mr. Kidd's Social Evolution, for instance, is based entirely on this pro cedure

He quotes with approval two other writers who have been guilty of it;

who both attribute to man what is done by only a few men; .

and the consequences of their reasoning are ludicrous .

Mr. Kidd's reasoning itself is not less ludicrous. The first half of his argument is that religion prompts the few to surrender advantages to the many, which, if they chose to do so, they could keep .

The second half is that the many could have taken these advantages from the few, and that religion alone prevented them from doing so

This contradiction is entirely due to the faA that, having first divided the social aggregate into two classes, he then obliterates his division, and thinks of tha^both as " man "

Mr. Kidd's confusion ^^he result of no accidental error. It is the inev itable result of a radically fallacious method ; . . . ,

and of this method the chief exponent is Mr. Herbert Spencer,

as a short summary of his arguments will show ....

17 18

24 25

CONTENTS ix

PAGB

Mr. Spencer starts with saying that the chief impediment to social

science is the great-man theory; 25

for, if the appearance of the great man is incalculable, progress, if it depends on him, must be incalculable also; 26

but if the great man is not a miraculous apparition, he owes his greatness to causes outside himself; ....... 27

and it is these causes which really produce the effects of which he is the

proximate initiator .......... 27

These effects, therefore, are to be explained by reference not to the great

man, but to the causes that are behind the great man ... 28 The true causes, says Mr. Spencer, of all social phenomena are physical

environment and men's natural character 29

The first physical cause of progress was an exceptionally fertile soil . 29

and an exceptionally bracing climate 29

All the conquering races came from fertile and bracing regions . . 30 There were other regions more fertile, but these were enervating; and hence the inhabitants of the former enslaved the weaker inhabitants

of the latter 30

Again, division of labour, on which industrial progress depends, was

caused by difference in the products of different localities, . . 31 which led to the localisation of industries ...... 32

The localisation of industries in its turn led to road-making; ... 33 and roads made possible the centralisation of authority and interchange

of ideas 33

Next, as to men's natural character, which is the other cause of progress, 33

their primitive character did not fit them to progress, .... 34 till it was gradually improved by the evolution of marriage and the

family — especially of monogamy 34

Monogamy represents the survival of the fittest kind of sexual union . 35 It developed the affections and the practice of efficient co-operation . 35 The family being established, the nation gradually rose from it . -36 One family increased, and gave rise to many families, which were obliged,

in order to get food, to separate into different groups; ... 36 and the recompounding of these groups, for purposes of defence or

aggression, formed the nation; . 37

all government being in its origin military 37

But as the arts of life progress, industry emancipates itself from governmental control, and becomes its own master, and also forms the basis of political democracy 37

X ARISTOCRACY AND EVOLUTION

PAGE

Now, if we consider all these conclusions of Mr. Spencer's, • • . 39

we shall find them to be all conclusions about aggregates as wholes, not

about parts of aggregates 39

The only differences recognised by him between men are differences between one homogeneous aggregate and another, .... 40

and differences between similar men who happen to be occupied differently 41

But, as has already been said, the social problems of to-day arise out of a conflict between different parts of the same aggregate; therefore the phenomena of the aggregate as a whole do not help us . -42

The conflict between the parts of the aggregate arises from inequalities of which Mr. Spencer's sociology takes no account .... 44

Social problems arise out of the desire of those whose positions are inferior to have their positions changed; ...... 45

and the practical question is, is the change they desire possible? . . 45

To answer this question we must examine into the causes why such and

such individuals are in inferior, and others in superior positions . 46

Are inequalities in position due to alterable and accidental circumstances? 47

Or are they due to congenital inequalities which no one can ever do

Social inequalities are partly due to circumstances; .... 48

but most people will admit that congenital inequalities in talent have

much to do with them 48

Why then insist on this fact? 49

Because this fact is precisely what our contemporary sociologists ignore, 49

as Mr. Spencer shows us by his distinct admissions and assertions, as

well as by the character of his conclusions 50

His condemnation of the great-man theory is a removal of all congenital

inequalities from his field of study; . . . . . . -5^

and he actually defines an aggregate as being composed of approximately equal units 52

His failure and that of others, as practical sociologists, arises from their

building on this false hypothesis 53

CONTENTS 3d

Great Men, as the true Cause of Progress

PAGB

The ignoring of natural inequalities is a deliberate procedure. Let us

see how it is defended 55

Let us examine Mr. Spencer's defence of it 55

He defends it in two ways ; 55

(i) by saying that the great man does not really do what he seems

to do; 55

(2) by saying that what he seems to do is not really much ... 56

He admits that the great man does do something exceptional in war; . 57 but denies that he does anything exceptional in the sphere of peaceful

progress 57

But how does the great man fulfil his function in war? By ordering

others 58

The great man, in peace, does precisely the same thing .... 59 Mr. Spencer, for example, orders the compositors who put his books

into type 59

The inventor orders the men by whom his inventions are manufactured 60

The great man of business orders his employees 61

The hotel-keeper orders his staff 62

All these men resemble the great military commander; and if the

latter is a social cause, so are the former 63

Next, as to the contention that the great man is the proximate cause

only, and not the true cause — 63

This, as Mr. Spencer and those popular writers of to-day show us, . 64

resolves itself into four arguments : 65

(1) That every first discovery involves all that have gone before it; . 66

(2) that the discoverer's ability itself is the product of past circumstances; 66

(3) that often the same discovery is made by several men at once; . 66

(4) that the difference between the great and the ordinary man is slight 66

Simultaneous discovery only shows that several great men, instead of

one, are greater than others 67

The extent of the great man's superiority depends on how it is measured 68 xii ARISTOCRACY AND EVOLUTION

PAGE

It may be slight to the speculative philosopher, but to the practical man

it is all-important .......... 69

As for the two other arguments, which admit the great man's greatness,

but deny that it is his own 71

they are both true speculatively, but are practically untrue, or irrelevant; 71

just as statements of averages and classification of goods may be true

and relevant for one purpose, and false and irrelevant for another 72 Thus the argument that the great man owes his faculties to his ancestors, and through his ancestors to the society which helped to develop his ancestors, though a speculative truism, • • • 73 leads to nothing but absurdities if we apply it to practical life . . 74 For if the great workers owe their greatness to the whole of past society, the men who shirk work owe their idleness to it; and if the former deserve no reward, the latter deserve no punishment . 75 The same argument applies to morals; and if accepted, we should have to admit that nobody really did, or was really responsible for, anything 76

Finally, let us take the argument that most of what the great man does depends on past discoveries and past achievements, to which

he does but add a little 77

If this argument means anything, it must mean that greatness is commoner than it is vulgarly thought 78

But is this the case? Does Shakespeare's debt to his antecedents make

Shakespeares more numerous? 79

Shakespeare's contemporaries had the same national antecedents that

he had; but they could not do what he did 80

Men inherit the past only in so far as they can assimilate it . . .80 Socialists say that inventions once made become common property . 81

This is absolutely untrue 81

The discoveries and inventions of the past are the property of those

only who can absorb and use them .82

Thus the introduction of the past into the question leaves the differences

between the great man and others undiminished .... 82 If the ordinary m.an does anything, the great man does a great deal more 83 and in practical reasoning he is a true cause for the sociologist . . 83 And, curiously enough, Mr. Spencer unconsciously admits this . . 84 He declares that the Napoleonic wars were entirely due to the maleficent greatness of Napoleon 84

CONTENTS xiii

PAGB

He defends patents because they represent the very substance of the in-

venter's own mind; 86

and he attributes the modern improvement in steel manufacture to Sir

So much, then, being established, we must consider two difficulties suggested by it 88

The Great Man as distinguished from the Physiologically Fittest Survivor

It may be objected that modern sociology does not, as here asserted, neglect the great man, for it adopts the doctrine of the survival of

the fittest 89

It may be asked, on the other hand, what place the great man has in

an exclusively evolutionary theory of progress 90

The fittest survivor is not the same as the great man .... 90

He plays a part in progress, but not the same part go

The fittest men, by surviving, raise the general level of the race, and

promote progress only in this way gi

The great man promotes progress by being superior to his contemporaries 92

The movement of progress is double; . 93

one movement being very slow, the other rapid g3

The survival of the fittest causes the slow movement . . . . g3

The rapid movement is caused by the great man g5

Next, as to evolution — what does the word mean? .... 95 Its great practical characteristic, as put forward by Darwin, is that it is

opposed to the doctrine of design, or divine intention; ... 96 and yet, according to Darwin, species resulted from the intention of

each animal to live and propagate 96

Species, therefore, according to the evolutionist, is the result of intention, but not the result intended 97

Evolution, in fact, is the reasonable sequence of the unintended . . 97

This is as true of social evolution as it is of biological .... 97 Many of the social conditions of any age result from the past, but were

intended by nobody in the past; 98

for instance, many of the social effects of railways and cheap printing . 98 xiv ARISTOCRACY AND EVOLUTION

PAGE

Therefore, whenever any great man produces some change intentionally

he has to work with unintended materials 99

We can see this in the progress of dramatic art; 99

also in the progress of philosophy loo

And yet in each case the intended elements are equal or are greater

than the unintended loo

We see the same thing in the history of the Times printing press . . lOl It was the result of many kinds of unintended progress, constantly re-

^. combined by intention 102

Evolution, in fact, is the unintended result of the intentions of great

men 104

The unintended or evolved element in progress is what concerns the

speculative philosopher 105

The intended element, which originates directly in the great man, is

what is of interest for practical purposes 106

BOOK II The Nature and the Degrees of the Superiorities of Great Men

The causality of the great man being established, we must consider

more precisely what greatness is IH

Mr. Spencer will help us to a general definition of it . . . .112 He divides the human race into the clever, the ordinary, and the

Now if all the race were stupid, it is plain there would be no progress; . 114 nor would there be any if all the race were ordinary; . . . ,114 therefore progress must be due to the clever, who are, as Mr. Spencer

S3.y5, 3k " scattered few" . 115

This is the great-man theory reasonably stated 1 15

For great men are not necessarily heroes, as Carlyle thought, . .116

nor divided absolutely from all other men 1 16

Greatness is various in kind and degree, 117

but, at all events, there is a certain minority of men who resemble

each other in being more efficient than the majority . . • "7

We see this in poetry, 1 18

in singers, 118

CONTENTS XV rxcs in the scholarship of boys at the same school, Iig

and similarly in practical life Iig

Enough men, as it is, have equal opportunities, to show how unequal

men are in their powers of using them , . . . . .120 No doubt a man may be ordinary in one respect and great in another; 120

but the majority are not great in any I2i

The measure of a man's greatness as an agent of social progress is the

overt results actually produced by him . . . . . .121

A selfish doctor, if successful, is greater than a devoted doctor, if

The fact that many men who produce no social results seem better and

more brilliant than many men who do produce them, makes some

argue that these results require no greatness for their production . 122 But the most efficient forms of greatness have often nothing brilliant

about them 123

124 125 125 125

126 127

A lofty imagination is often the enemy to practical efficiency; and great efficiency is often independent of exceptional intellect . Intellect is required for progress, e.g. in invention;

but the inventor by himself is often helpless,

and has to ally himself with men whose exceptional gifts are unimpres

sive and even vulgar

Greatness is not one quality, but various combinations of many Greatness, then, is merely those qualities which, in any domain of prog

ress, make the few more efficient than the many The great-man theory, then, merely asserts that if some men were not

more efficient than most men, no progress would take place at all 128 But great men, in spite of these differences, all promote progress in the

same way 128

CHAPTER II 4 Progress the Result of a Struggle not for Survival BUT for Domination

In order to see how the great man promotes progress, we must consider

that whilst the fittest survivor only promotes it . . . . 130

by living, whilst others die, 130

the great man promotes progress by helping others to live . . • 131 He promotes progress not by what he does himself, but by what he

helps others to do 132 xvi ARISTOCRACY AND EVOLUTION

PAGE

We can see this by considering the progress of knowledge which, as

J. S. Mill says, is the foundation of all progress . . . . X32

But all progress in knowledge is the work of " decidedly exceptional

individuals i^ 1 34

as Mill admits, though in curiously confused language . . . • I35

Now how do the exceptional individuals, when they acquire knowledge,

promote progress by doing so? 136

They promote progress by conveying their knowledge to, and imposing

their conclusions on, others . 137

A similar thing is true of invention, which is knowledge applied . .138

Invention promotes progress only because the inventor influences the

actions of the workmen who make and use his machines . •139

The man of business ability promotes progress also only by so ordering

others that the precise wants of the public are supplied . . .140 / And the same principle is obviously true in the domain of war, politics,

and religion 141

Greatness, however, is not in all cases equally beneficial . . . 142

The influence of some great men is more advantageous than that of

others 143

Progress, then, involves a struggle through which the fittest great men shall secure influence over others, and destroy the influence of the less fit 143

We now come to another point of difference between the fittest great

man and the fittest survivor 143

The social counterpart to the Darwinian struggle for survival is to be

found in the struggle of labourers to find employment . . . 144

But this is not the struggle to which historical progress is due . . I45

For the most rapid progress has taken place without any increased fitness in the labourers 145

The progressive struggle in industry is confined entirely to the employers; 146

> and in every domain of progress it is confined to the leaders, to the

exclusion of those who are led ....... 146

In the progressive struggle between great men, the mass of the community play no part whatever 147

Let us take, for instance, two rival hotel-keepers 148

One becomes bankrupt, and the other takes over his hotel and his

staff 148

The sole struggle is between the employers, not the employed . . 148

CONTENTS xvii

FAGB

The staff of the unsuccessful hotel-keeper gain, not lose, by being employed by the successful 149

Historical progress, then, results from a struggle not for subsistence,

but for domination 149

Chapter III '

The Means by which the Great Man applies his Greatness to Wealth-Production

All gain by the domination of the fittest, except the few who fail to

secure power for themselves , . . . . . . • ^S^

We must consider, however, that the great men who struggle for

domination would not do so without some strong motive ; . • ^$2 and also that they cannot dominate others except by some particular

means 153

Now the question of motive we will treat of hereafter. At present we

will confine ourselves to the question of means . . . '153

These vary in each domain of social activity 153

In some they are too obvious to need discussion 154

We need consider what they are only in the domains of politics and

wealth-production 155

The question is most important in its bearings on wealth-production . 156 The great man in wealth-production can influence the actions of others

by two means only — by the slave-system and the wage-system . 157 The slave-system secures obedience by coercion, the wage-system by

Wage-capital, not fixed capital, gives the primary power to capitalism

as a productive agent 158

Wage-capital is an accumulation of the necessaries of life, . . • ^59

owned or controlled by a few persons, 159

and apportioned by them amongst many, on certain conditions . .160 Karl Marx entirely misunderstood what these conditions are . . .160 The essence of these conditions is that the many shall be technically

directed by the few l6l

The question of how much the few appropriate of the product is a

separate question altogether 162

The corvee system or slavery would make wage-capital superfluous;

and this shows what the essential function of wage-capital is . .162 xviii ARISTOCRACY AND EVOLUTION

PAGB

So-called " co-operation " is merely the wage-system disguised . . 163

There are, then, only two alternatives — the wage-system and the slave-system; 164

as we shall find by considering how the socialists can only escape the

wage-system by substituting slavery . . . . . . .165

For they would secure industrial obedience by coercion, . . .166

not through the worker's desire to earn his living. And this is the

essence of slavery . . . . . . . . . .166

Next let us consider the means by which the great directors of industry

compete against one another ........ 167

Under capitalism they do so, owing to the fact that the man who cannot direct industry so as to please the public loses his capital, and with it the means of direction 167

The wage-system is the only efficient means of competition of this

kind 168

The socialists, though they affect to be opposed to competition altogether 168

re-introduce it into their own system 170

the only change being that it is associated with the slave-system, which

is very cumbrous and inefficient . . . . . . .170

Competition between employers, then, is a part of every system that

permits of progress; . . . . . . . . .172

and since the re-introduction of slavery is practically impossible, we must regard the wage-system as a permanent feature of progressive societies. . . . . . . . . . . .172

We might reduce society to ashes, but this system and capitalistic

competition would arise out of them ; . . . . . .173

for capitalistic competition means the domination of the fittest great men 174 / The industrial obedience of the many to the few is the fundamental ^ condition of progress 174

The Means by which the Great Man acquires Power IN Politics

In discussing the means by which the great man wields power in politics, the debatable question differs from the question raised by his power in industry; 176

CONTENTS xix

PAGB for the points that are debated in the case of the great wealth-producer

are admitted by all in the case of the governor . . , .176

The greatest democrat admits that the governor must be an exceptional and also that he must be chosen by elective competition . . -177

There is a competitive element even in autocracies, , . . .178

and democracies are essentially competitive . . . . . .178

All parties also agree that laws must be enforced by pains and

penalties 179

Democrats are peculiar only in their theory that the sole greatness required in their governors is a perceptive and executive greatness, which will enable them to carry out the spontaneous wishes of the many . . . . . . . . . . . -179

This is the only point in which the democratic theory differs from the

The democratic ruler is, theoretically, a balance for weighing the wills or a machine for executing their "mandates"; 182

and there are signs which might suggest that the few in politics are

really becoming the mere instruments of the many .... 182

But these signs are deceptive; for what seems the will of the many,

really depends on the action of another minority . . . .183

Opinions, to derive power from the numbers who hold them, must be

identical; 184

but they seldom are identical till a few men have manipulated them . 184

Thus what seems to be the opinion of the many is generally dependent

on the influence of a few ........ 185

The many, for instance, would never have had any opinions on Free Trade or Bimetallism if the few had not worked on them 185

Popular opinion requires exceptional men, as nuclei, round which to

form itself 187

Thus even in what seems extremest democracy the few are essential . 188

Democrats, however, may argue that under democracy the few do, in

the long-run, carry out the wishes of the many .... 188

Even were this true, the current formulas of democracy would be false, for unequal men would be essential to executing the wishes of equals 189

Now in reality the few are never mere passive agents; .... 189

XX ARISTOCRACY AND EVOLUTION

PAGE

but nevertheless the many do impress their will on them to a great

extent 190

The question is to a'.^a/ extent ? 191

This introduces us to a new side of the problem — the extent of the

power of the many .......... 191

This is greater in politics than in industry; 192

and yet when we think it over we shall see that it is great in most

domains of activity 192

We had to take it for granted at starting. We must now examine it .193