It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that primitive peoples [[389]]present under all circumstances the altruistic characteristics that I have mentioned. I have already remarked that the position of woman is in general very dependent. In general the primitive peoples are very fond of their children and give them very tender care. Nevertheless infanticide is not uncommon among those who are at a low stage of civilization. And I have already remarked that among nomadic peoples the sick and aged were often abandoned. Here are then contradictions which it is necessary to explain.
Apparently—but only apparently—an evolution from egoism towards altruism has really taken place and has not yet ceased. This appearance is the effect of the alteration in the character of the egoism under the present economic system; it has become less violent than at earlier periods. The fight is no longer carried on with fire-arms or cold steel, but with other weapons no less dangerous, and this is what is generally lost sight of. We note that in ancient times the prisoners were killed; that later they were sold into slavery; that slavery was superseded by serfdom, which in its turn gave place to free labor.
But it is not always a growing altruistic sentiment that has been the motive in these changes. The life of prisoners of war has not been spared from reasons of humanity, but because the extension of the productivity of labor made it more profitable to make a prisoner work than to kill him. And slavery was not abolished because slave-owners had become less egoistic, but because it was more profitable to make free laborers work than to make slaves do so.[25] We cannot speak of the diminution of egoism, but of the moderating of violence in the course of time. It cannot be maintained that a capitalist who tries by a lock-out to force his workmen to break with their union, in order that he may escape the danger of a decrease in his profits through a strike, and who in this way condemns them and their families to hunger, is less egoistic than the slave-owner driving his slaves to harder labor. The former does not use force—it is useless—he has a surer weapon at his command, the suffering with which he can strike his workmen; he seems less egoistic, but in reality is as egoistic as the latter. The great speculator who, by manipulating the market, forces thousands of persons to pay more for the necessaries of life, and to become his tributaries as it were, is not less egoistic than the robber-baron of the middle ages who, arms in hand, forced the traveling [[390]]merchants to pay him tribute. The difference is merely that the former attains his end without using violence like the latter. Capitalism is a system of exploitation in which, in place of the exploited person’s being robbed he is compelled by poverty to use all his powers for the benefit of the exploiter.[26]
The same thing is true of colonial history. At first the aborigines of the countries explored by the Europeans were often pillaged and massacred. This system has long been abandoned, not from altruism however, but because it is more profitable to make a conquered people work than to pillage and exterminate them. When they do not submit voluntarily, force is used as heretofore.
The apparent improvement has yet another cause. Christianity preaches “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self.” And since this maxim has been often preached and many Christians have it always in their mouths, men come to believe that it is really put into practice. The contrary is true. The fact that the duty of altruism is so much insisted upon is the most convincing proof that it is not generally practiced or it would not be so much spoken and preached about. There are many persons in our days who ask nothing better than to see men act altruistically, but they preach in the wilderness; their wish has not come true. Present society is moulded by egoism. The egoism is less violent, however, and more disguised.
Before speaking of the real causes of egoism and altruism it may be well to attempt to answer the question, Whence come these inexact ideas? It is not difficult, in my opinion, to explain how it comes about that many men believe that the “homo homini lupus” of Hobbes has been true always and everywhere. The adherents of this opinion have studied principally men who live under capitalism, or under civilization; their correct conclusion has been that egoism is the predominant characteristic of these men, and they have adopted the simplest explanation of the phenomenon and say that this trait is inborn.
If they had known the periods anterior to civilization, they would have noted that the “homo homini lupus” is an historical phenomenon applicable during a relatively short period,[27] and that consequently it is impossible that egoism should be innate in man. However great have been the social modifications during the period of civilization, the principal aim of men has always been, and still is, to acquire [[391]]personal wealth, and men still remain divided into classes, that is into groups whose economic interests are contrary. This is why an examination of the earlier periods is of such high importance for sociology.
An erroneous interpretation of the Darwinian theory has also contributed to bring about the strange notion of the eternal character of the struggle of all against all. Darwin himself maintains nothing of the sort. In his “Origin of Species” he says in the clearest terms that the struggle between the individuals of the same species does not at all happen in every species: “There must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life.”[28]
The explanation of the second hypothesis, that of the evolution from egoism towards altruism, is more complicated. In the first place the facts adduced in support of it are not numerous, and they serve rather to illustrate a theory than to furnish the materials by which it may be justified. In the second place a part of the ethnological materials in relation to the question it has been impossible to utilize. They have been collected partly by persons convinced beforehand of the superiority of Christian morality to every other system, and who consequently disapprove of everything opposed to it, and partly by persons whose own conduct has caused the enmity manifested by the peoples with whom they have come into contact. No part of the history of civilization offers a more hideous spectacle than that of colonization.[29] In the third place it is necessary to exclude peoples that have had much contact with Europeans or other civilized peoples. In the fourth place we often lose sight of the fact that primitive peoples show great differences of development, and consequently cannot be placed in the same rank.[30] For example, if peoples despotically governed show strong egoistic tendencies, we have no right to declare that all primitive peoples are egoistic.