and, to use his very expression, suddenly "explode" and give life to numerous new forms, of which some assert themselves and multiply, and others, which are unfit for the conditions of life, disappear.
I have no intention of drawing from these new observations a conclusion in favour of the Revolution. That would be committing, the same mistake which is committed by those who argue from the theory of evolution as to the non-acceptability of revolution. Nevertheless, to say the least, the observations in question prove that the natural philosophers are themselves not agreed as to the part played by catastrophic changes in the development of the earth and of organisms, and therefore on this ground alone it would be a mistake to conclude rashly from any of their theories as to the rôle of revolution in the development of society.
If, however, in spite of all, people still persist in doing it, then we can present them with a very popular and well known example, which proves ad oculos that Nature, too, proceeds by leaps and bounds—I mean the act of birth. That act is a leap. At one blow a fœtus, which has hitherto formed a part of the maternal organism, shared in the circulation of its blood, has been nourished by it, and has known no breath, becomes an independent human being, with its own blood circulation, which breathes and cries, takes its own nourishment, and passes it through the bowels.
The analogy between birth and revolution does not, however, extend only to the suddenness of the act. If we look closer we find that this sudden change at birth is limited to the functions. The organs develop but slowly, and it is only when the development has reached a certain stage that the leap becomes possible which releases suddenly their new functions. Should, however, the leap take place before that stage of the development is reached, the result is not the beginning of new functions of the organs, but the stopping of all functions, the death of the new creature. On the other hand, the slow development of the organs in the womb of the mother might have proceeded ever so long, they would never have been able to begin their new functions without the revolutionary act of birth. At a certain stage of the development of the organs this becomes unavoidable.
We find the same in Society. Here also revolutions are the result of slow developments (evolutions). Here also it is the social organs which slowly develop. What may alter suddenly, at a blow, are their functions. The railway system has but slowly developed. On the other hand, it is possible to transform a railway at one blow from a capitalistic concern, serving the purpose of enriching a number of capitalists, into a Socialist undertaking working for the exclusive good of the community. And just as at birth all the functions of the child are revolutionised at one and the same moment—circulation of the blood, breathing, digestion, &c.—so must all the functions of the railway line be revolutionised at one
