WAR AND THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST 49^ Again^ he says,
Struggle is^ therefore, a universal law of nature, and the instinct of self- preseryation which leads to struggle is acknowledged to be a natural condition of existence.
He concludes that war is an unqualified necessity^ justifiable from every point of view^ and that
the efforts directed towards the abolition of war must not only be termed foolish, but absolutelj immoral, and must be stigmatized as unworthy of the human race. . . . The whole idea represents a presumptuous encroachment on the natural laws of development which can only lead to th^ most disastrous conse- quences for humanity generally.
We purpose to show that these arguments, if arguments they may be called, betray a gross misconception of "nature," "biological necessity'* and "the law of struggle.*' If suflSciently clear, and if attended to, the demonstration should carry the conviction that the shallowness and ig- norance implied by such teachings are equaled only by their obvious viciousness. Let us begin by analyzing the struggle for existence in order to see whether the universality of this struggle is proof of the impossibility of abolishing war.
When we analyze the struggle for existence, as carried on either by biological organisms or by nations, we find that it involves not only a competitive struggle of organism against organism or nation agaiost nation, but also a struggle against natural conditions. In so far as it is a struggle against nature, it has nothing to do with war; it would re- main if war were eliminated. Moreover international competition manifests itself not only in war, but also in commerce, art, science, etc. Only rarely does it degenerate into war. War, then, is only a part of the struggle for existence. It is merely a phase of this struggle. Its elimination would not in the least interfere with the great law of struggle. If the nations of the world should become Christian, in fact as well as in name, and the principles of love and brotherhood should prevail throughout the world, there would still be plenty of opportunity for struggle afforded by nature, and by human nature, and progress need not be delayed. The law of progress is action, and action need not be of the destructive nature of war.
What are we to say, then, of this doctrine that the supersodal struggle for existence is the sanguinary struggle of nations — of the doc- trine "that war is as necessary as the struggle of the elements in nature"?" What reply are we to make to the contention that blood- letting is necessary to the virility of nations; that international conflict is to be looked upon as a means of salvation from the degenerating in-
s Quoted by Bemhardi, from A. W. von Schelegel.
�� �
