Chapter I The Malthusian Theory, Its Genesis and Support

Behind the theory we have been considering lies a theory we have yet to consider. The current doctrine as to the derivation and law of wages finds its strongest support in a doctrine as generally accepted—the doctrine to which Malthus has given his name—that population naturally tends to increase faster than subsistence. These two doctrines, fitting in with each other, frame the answer which the current political economy gives to the great problem we are endeavoring to solve.

Behind the theory we have been examining lies another we have yet to consider. The current doctrine of where wages come from and what governs them gets its strongest support from an equally accepted doctrine, the one named for Thomas Malthus. It says that population naturally tends to increase faster than subsistence. The two fit together and form current economics' answer to the great problem we are trying to solve.

In what has preceded, the current doctrine that wages are determined by the ratio between capital and laborers has, I think, been shown to be so utterly baseless as to excite surprise as to how it could so generally and so long obtain. It is not to be wondered at that such a theory should have arisen in a state of society where the great body of laborers seem to depend for employment and wages upon a separate class of capitalists, nor yet that under these conditions it should have maintained itself among the masses of men, who rarely take the trouble to separate the real from the apparent. But it is surprising that a theory which on examination appears to be so groundless could have been successively accepted by so many acute thinkers as have during the present century devoted their powers to the elucidation and development of the science of political economy.

I think the preceding chapters have shown that the doctrine that wages are determined by the ratio between capital and laborers is baseless. We may wonder how it won such wide and lasting acceptance. It is no surprise that the theory arose where most laborers seem to depend for work and wages on a separate class of capitalists. Nor is it surprising that it held its place among ordinary people, who seldom trouble to separate the real from the apparent. But it is surprising that so many acute thinkers, who in this century have devoted their powers to developing economics, accepted it one after another.

The explanation of this otherwise unaccountable fact is to be found in the general acceptance of the Malthusian theory. The current theory of wages has never been fairly put upon its trial, because, backed by the92 Malthusian theory, it has seemed in the minds of political economists a self-evident truth. These two theories mutually blend with, strengthen, and defend each other, while they both derive additional support from a principle brought prominently forward in the discussions of the theory of rent—viz., that past a certain point the application of capital and labor to land yields a diminishing return. Together they give such an explanation of the phenomena presented in a highly organized and advancing society as seems to fit all the facts, and which has thus prevented closer investigation.

The explanation lies in the general acceptance of the Malthusian theory. The current theory of wages has never been fairly put on trial, because, backed by the92 Malthusian theory, it has seemed to economists a self-evident truth. The two theories blend with one another and strengthen and defend each other. Both also draw added support from a principle that figures prominently in discussions of rent: past a certain point, applying more capital and labor to land yields a diminishing return. Together they explain what we see in a highly organized, advancing society in a way that seems to fit all the facts, and so they have prevented closer investigation.

Which of these two theories is entitled to historical precedence it is hard to say. The theory of population was not formulated in such a way as to give it the standing of a scientific dogma until after that had been done for the theory of wages. But they naturally spring up and grow with each other, and were both held in a form more or less crude long prior to any attempt to construct a system of political economy. It is evident, from several passages, that though he never fully developed it, the Malthusian theory was in rudimentary form present in the mind of Adam Smith, and to this, it seems to me, must be largely due the misdirection which on the subject of wages his speculations took. But, however this may be, so closely are the two theories connected, so completely do they complement each other, that Buckle, reviewing the history of the development of political economy in his “Examination of the Scotch Intellect during the Eighteenth Century,” attributes mainly to Malthus the honor of “decisively proving” the current theory of wages by advancing the current theory of the pressure of population upon subsistence. He says in his “History of Civilization in England,” Vol. 3, Chap. 5:

Which of the two theories came first is hard to say. The theory of population was not framed as a scientific dogma until after the theory of wages had been. But they naturally sprang up and grew together, and both were held in a more or less crude form long before anyone tried to construct a system of economics. Several passages show that the Malthusian theory was present in rudimentary form in the mind of Adam Smith, though he never fully developed it. I think it must account largely for the wrong turn his thinking took on wages. However that may be, the two theories are so closely connected that the historian Buckle gives Malthus the main honor of “decisively proving” the current theory of wages by advancing the theory of the pressure of population on subsistence. Buckle makes this point in reviewing the development of economics in his “Examination of the Scotch Intellect during the Eighteenth Century.” In his “History of Civilization in England,” Vol. 3, Chap. 5, he says:

“Scarcely had the Eighteenth Century passed away when it was decisively proved that the reward of labor depends solely on two things; namely, the magnitude of that national fund out of which all labor is paid, and the number of laborers among whom the fund is to be divided. This vast step in our knowledge is due, mainly, though not entirely, to Malthus, whose work on population, besides marking an epoch in the history of speculative thought, has already produced considerable practical results, and will probably give rise to others more considerable still. It was published in 1798; so that Adam Smith, who died in 1790, missed what to him would have been the intense pleasure of seeing how, in it, his own views were expanded rather than corrected. Indeed, it is certain that without Smith there would have been no Malthus; that is, unless Smith had laid the foundation, Malthus could not have raised the superstructure.”

“Scarcely had the Eighteenth Century passed away when it was decisively proved that the reward of labor depends solely on two things: the magnitude of that national fund out of which all labor is paid, and the number of laborers among whom the fund is to be divided. This vast step in our knowledge is due, mainly, though not entirely, to Malthus. His work on population marked an epoch in the history of speculative thought, has already produced considerable practical results, and will probably give rise to others more considerable still. It was published in 1798. So Adam Smith, who died in 1790, missed what would have been for him the intense pleasure of seeing his own views expanded rather than corrected in it. Indeed, it is certain that without Smith there would have been no Malthus. Unless Smith had laid the foundation, Malthus could not have raised the superstructure.”

The famous doctrine which ever since its enunciation has so powerfully influenced thought, not alone in the province of political economy, but in regions of even higher speculation, was formulated by Malthus in the proposition that, as shown by the growth of the North American colonies, the natural tendency of population is to double itself at least every twenty-five years, thus increasing in a geometrical ratio, while the subsistence that can be obtained from land “under circumstances the most favorable to human industry could not possibly be made to increase faster than in an arithmetical ratio, or by an addition every twenty-five years of a quantity equal to what it at present produces.” “The necessary effects of these two different rates of increase, when brought together,” Mr. Malthus naïvely goes on to say, “will be very striking.” And thus (Chap. I) he brings them together:

Malthus stated the famous doctrine, which has so powerfully influenced thought ever since, not only in economics but in regions of even higher speculation. As shown by the growth of the North American colonies, he said, population naturally tends to double at least every twenty-five years, increasing in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence from land, he said, “under circumstances the most favorable to human industry could not possibly be made to increase faster than in an arithmetical ratio, or by an addition every twenty-five years of a quantity equal to what it at present produces.” “The necessary effects of these two different rates of increase, when brought together,” Malthus naïvely goes on, “will be very striking.” And so, in Chap. I, he brings them together:

“Let us call the population of this island eleven millions; and suppose the present produce equal to the easy support of such a number. In the first twenty-five years the population would be twenty-two millions, and the food being also doubled, the means of subsistence would be equal to this increase. In the next twenty-five years the population would be forty-four millions, and the means of subsistence only equal to the support of thirty-three millions. In the next period the population would be equal to eighty-eight millions, and the means of subsistence just equal to the support of half94 that number. And at the conclusion of the first century, the population would be a hundred and seventy-six millions, and the means of subsistence only equal to the support of fifty-five millions; leaving a population of a hundred and twenty-one millions totally unprovided for.

“Taking the whole earth instead of this island, emigration would of course be excluded; and supposing the present population equal to a thousand millions, the human species would increase as the numbers 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and subsistence as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. In two centuries the population would be to the means of subsistence as 256 to 9; in three centuries, 4,096 to 13, and in two thousand years the difference would be almost incalculable.”

“Let us call the population of this island eleven millions, and suppose the present produce equal to the easy support of such a number. In the first twenty-five years the population would be twenty-two millions. The food being also doubled, the means of subsistence would be equal to this increase. In the next twenty-five years the population would be forty-four millions, and the means of subsistence only equal to the support of thirty-three millions. In the next period the population would be eighty-eight millions, and the means of subsistence just equal to the support of half94 that number. At the end of the first century the population would be a hundred and seventy-six millions, and the means of subsistence only equal to the support of fifty-five millions. That would leave a population of a hundred and twenty-one millions totally unprovided for. Taking the whole earth instead of this island, emigration would of course be excluded. Suppose the present population equal to a thousand millions. The human species would increase as the numbers 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, and subsistence as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. In two centuries the population would be to the means of subsistence as 256 to 9, in three centuries as 4,096 to 13, and in two thousand years the difference would be almost incalculable.”

Such a result is of course prevented by the physical fact that no more people can exist than can find subsistence, and hence Malthus’ conclusion is, that this tendency of population to indefinite increase must be held back either by moral restraint upon the reproductive faculty, or by the various causes which increase mortality, which he resolves into vice and misery. Such causes as prevent propagation he styles the preventive check; such causes as increase mortality he styles the positive check. This is the famous Malthusian doctrine, as promulgated by Malthus himself in the “Essay on Population.”

Of course the physical fact that no more people can exist than can find subsistence prevents such a result. So Malthus concludes that this tendency of population to increase without limit must be held back. Either moral restraint on reproduction does it, or the various causes that raise mortality, which he reduces to vice and misery. He calls the causes that prevent propagation the preventive check and those that raise mortality the positive check. This is the famous Malthusian doctrine as Malthus himself announced it in the “Essay on Population.”

It is not worth while to dwell upon the fallacy involved in the assumption of geometrical and arithmetical rates of increase, a play upon proportions which hardly rises to the dignity of that in the familiar puzzle of the hare and the tortoise, in which the hare is made to chase the tortoise through all eternity without coming up with him. For this assumption is not necessary to the Malthusian doctrine, or at least is expressly repudiated by some of those who fully accept that doctrine; as, for instance, John Stuart Mill, who speaks of it as95 “an unlucky attempt to give precision to things which do not admit of it, which every person capable of reasoning must see is wholly superfluous to the argument.”14 The essence of the Malthusian doctrine is, that population tends to increase faster than the power of providing food, and whether this difference be stated as a geometrical ratio for population and an arithmetical ratio for subsistence, as by Malthus; or as a constant ratio for population and a diminishing ratio for subsistence, as by Mill, is only a matter of statement. The vital point, on which both agree, is, to use the words of Malthus, “that there is a natural tendency and constant effort in population to increase beyond the means of subsistence.”

It is not worth dwelling on the fallacy in assuming geometrical and arithmetical rates of increase. It is a play on proportions that hardly rises to the dignity of the familiar puzzle in which the hare chases the tortoise through all eternity without catching him. The Malthusian doctrine does not need the assumption, and some who fully accept the doctrine expressly reject it. John Stuart Mill, for instance, calls it95 “an unlucky attempt to give precision to things which do not admit of it, which every person capable of reasoning must see is wholly superfluous to the argument.”14 The essence of the doctrine is that population tends to increase faster than the power of providing food. Malthus states the difference as a geometrical ratio for population and an arithmetical ratio for subsistence. Mill states it as a constant ratio for population and a diminishing ratio for subsistence. That is only a matter of statement. The vital point on which both agree is, in the words of Malthus, “that there is a natural tendency and constant effort in population to increase beyond the means of subsistence.”

The Malthusian doctrine, as at present held, may be thus stated in its strongest and least objectionable form:

As now held, the Malthusian doctrine can be stated in its strongest and least objectionable form like this:

That population, constantly tending to increase, must, when unrestrained, ultimately press against the limits of subsistence, not as against a fixed, but as against an elastic barrier, which makes the procurement of subsistence progressively more and more difficult. And thus, wherever reproduction has had time to assert its power, and is unchecked by prudence, there must exist that degree of want which will keep population within the bounds of subsistence.

Population constantly tends to increase. Unrestrained, it must in the end press against the limits of subsistence. Those limits are an elastic barrier, not a fixed one, and they make getting subsistence harder and harder. So wherever reproduction has had time to assert its power and prudence does not check it, there must be enough want to keep population within the bounds of subsistence.

Although in reality not more repugnant to the sense of harmonious adaptation by creative beneficence and wisdom than the complacent no-theory which throws the responsibility for poverty and its concomitants upon the inscrutable decrees of Providence, without attempting to trace them, this theory, in avowedly making vice and suffering the necessary results of a natural instinct with96 which are linked the purest and sweetest affections, comes rudely in collision with ideas deeply rooted in the human mind, and it was, as soon as formally promulgated, fought with a bitterness in which zeal was often more manifest than logic. But it has triumphantly withstood the ordeal, and in spite of the refutations of the Godwins, the denunciations of the Cobbetts, and all the shafts that argument, sarcasm, ridicule, and sentiment could direct against it, to-day it stands in the world of thought as an accepted truth, which compels the recognition even of those who would fain disbelieve it.

This theory is really no more repugnant to our sense of wise and kind design than the complacent non-theory that blames poverty and its companions on the inscrutable decrees of Providence without tracing them. But it openly makes vice and suffering the necessary results of a natural instinct with96 which the purest and sweetest affections are linked. It therefore collides roughly with ideas deeply rooted in the human mind. As soon as it was published it was fought with a bitterness in which zeal often outran logic. Yet it has triumphantly survived. It has withstood the refutations of the Godwins, the denunciations of the Cobbetts, and every shaft of argument, sarcasm, ridicule and sentiment aimed at it. Today it stands in the world of thought as an accepted truth that compels recognition even from those who would gladly disbelieve it.

The causes of its triumph, the sources of its strength, are not obscure. Seemingly backed by an indisputable arithmetical truth—that a continuously increasing population must eventually exceed the capacity of the earth to furnish food or even standing room, the Malthusian theory is supported by analogies in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, where life everywhere beats wastefully against the barriers that hold its different species in check—analogies to which the course of modern thought, in leveling distinctions between different forms of life, has given a greater and greater weight; and it is apparently corroborated by many obvious facts, such as the prevalence of poverty, vice, and misery amid dense populations; the general effect of material progress in increasing population without relieving pauperism; the rapid growth of numbers in newly settled countries and the evident retardation of increase in more densely settled countries by the mortality among the class condemned to want.

The causes of its triumph and the sources of its strength are not obscure. It seems to rest on an indisputable arithmetical truth: a continuously increasing population must eventually exceed the earth's capacity to furnish food, or even standing room. It is supported by analogies in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, where life everywhere beats wastefully against the barriers that hold each species in check. Modern thought, by leveling the distinctions between different forms of life, has given those analogies more and more weight. And many obvious facts seem to confirm it. There is poverty, vice and misery among dense populations. Material progress generally increases population without relieving dependence on public relief. Numbers grow rapidly in newly settled countries, while growth in more densely settled ones is evidently slowed by deaths among the class condemned to want.

The Malthusian theory furnishes a general principle which accounts for these and similar facts, and accounts for them in a way which harmonizes with the doctrine that wages are drawn from capital, and with all the principles that are deduced from it. According to the current doctrine of wages, wages fall as increase in the num97ber of laborers necessitates a more minute division of capital; according to the Malthusian theory, poverty appears as increase in population necessitates the more minute division of subsistence. It requires but the identification of capital with subsistence, and number of laborers with population, an identification made in the current treatises on political economy, where the terms are often converted, to make the two propositions as identical formally as they are substantially.15 And thus it is, as stated by Buckle in the passage previously quoted, that the theory of population advanced by Malthus has appeared to prove decisively the theory of wages advanced by Smith.

The Malthusian theory supplies a general principle that accounts for these and similar facts. It accounts for them in a way that fits the doctrine that wages are drawn from capital and all the principles deduced from it. By the current doctrine of wages, wages fall as the growing number97 of laborers forces a finer division of capital. By the Malthusian theory, poverty appears as growing population forces a finer division of subsistence. Only one step is needed to make the two propositions identical in form as well as substance: identify capital with subsistence and the number of laborers with population. The current treatises on economics make that identification, often using the terms interchangeably.15 That is how, as Buckle says in the passage quoted above, the theory of population advanced by Malthus has seemed to prove decisively the theory of wages advanced by Smith.

Ricardo, who a few years subsequent to the publication of the “Essay on Population” corrected the mistake into which Smith had fallen as to the nature and cause of rent, furnished the Malthusian theory an additional support by calling attention to the fact that rent would increase as the necessities of increasing population forced cultivation to less and less productive lands, or to less and less productive points on the same lands, thus explaining the rise of rent. In this way was formed a triple combination, by which the Malthusian theory has been buttressed on both sides—the previously received doctrine of wages and the subsequently received doctrine of rent exhibiting in this view but special examples of the operation of the general principle to which the name of Malthus has been attached—the fall in wages and the rise in rents which come with increasing population being but modes in which the pressure of population upon subsistence shows itself.

A few years after the “Essay on Population” appeared, the economist David Ricardo corrected the mistake Smith had made about the nature and cause of rent. Ricardo gave the Malthusian theory further support. He pointed out that rent rises as the needs of a growing population force cultivation onto less and less productive lands, or points on the same lands. That explained the rise of rent. So a triple combination was formed, and the Malthusian theory was buttressed on both sides. The earlier doctrine of wages and the later doctrine of rent now looked like special cases of the general principle that carries Malthus's name. The fall in wages and rise in rents that come with increasing population were just ways in which the pressure of population on subsistence shows itself.

Thus taking its place in the very framework of polit98ical economy (for the science as currently accepted has undergone no material change or improvement since the time of Ricardo, though in some minor points it has been cleared and illustrated), the Malthusian theory, though repugnant to sentiments before alluded to, is not repugnant to other ideas, which, in older countries at least, generally prevail among the working classes; but, on the contrary, like the theory of wages by which it is supported and in turn supports, it harmonizes with them. To the mechanic or operative the cause of low wages and of the inability to get employment is obviously the competition caused by the pressure of numbers, and in the squalid abodes of poverty what seems clearer than that there are too many people?

So the Malthusian theory took its place in the very framework of economics98. (Economics as now accepted has changed little since Ricardo, apart from minor points cleared up and illustrated.) The theory offends the sentiments mentioned earlier, but it does not offend other ideas that generally prevail among the working classes, in older countries at least. Like the theory of wages that supports it and is supported by it, it fits those ideas. To the mechanic or factory worker, the cause of low wages and of failing to find work is plainly the competition that comes from crowding. And in the squalid homes of poverty, what seems clearer than that there are too many people?

But the great cause of the triumph of this theory is, that, instead of menacing any vested right or antagonizing any powerful interest, it is eminently soothing and reassuring to the classes who, wielding the power of wealth, largely dominate thought. At a time when old supports were falling away, it came to the rescue of the special privileges by which a few monopolize so much of the good things of this world, proclaiming a natural cause for the want and misery which, if attributed to political institutions, must condemn every government under which they exist. The “Essay on Population” was avowedly a reply to William Godwin’s “Inquiry concerning Political Justice,” a work asserting the principle of human equality; and its purpose was to justify existing inequality by shifting the responsibility for it from human institutions to the laws of the Creator. There was nothing new in this, for Wallace, nearly forty years before, had brought forward the danger of excessive multiplication as the answer to the demands of justice for an equal distribution of wealth; but the circumstances of the times were such as to make the same idea, when brought forward by Malthus, peculiarly grateful99 to a powerful class, in whom an intense fear of any questioning of the existing state of things had been generated by the outburst of the French Revolution.

But the great cause of the theory's triumph is that it threatens no vested right and opposes no powerful interest. It is soothing and reassuring to the classes who wield the power of wealth and largely dominate thought. At a time when old supports were falling away, it came to the rescue of the special privileges by which a few monopolize so much of this world's good things. It proclaimed a natural cause for the want and misery that, if blamed on political institutions, would condemn every government under which they exist. The “Essay on Population” openly answered William Godwin's “Inquiry concerning Political Justice,” a work asserting the principle of human equality. Its purpose was to justify existing inequality by shifting the responsibility from human institutions to the laws of the Creator. There was nothing new in this. Nearly forty years earlier, the Scottish writer Wallace had offered the danger of excessive multiplication as the answer to justice's demand for an equal distribution of wealth. But the circumstances of the time made the same idea, when Malthus brought it forward, peculiarly welcome99 to a powerful class. The outburst of the French Revolution had bred in them an intense fear of any questioning of the existing state of things.

Now, as then, the Malthusian doctrine parries the demand for reform, and shelters selfishness from question and from conscience by the interposition of an inevitable necessity. It furnishes a philosophy by which Dives as he feasts can shut out the image of Lazarus who faints with hunger at his door; by which wealth may complacently button up its pocket when poverty asks an alms, and the rich Christian bend on Sundays in a nicely upholstered pew to implore the good gifts of the All Father without any feeling of responsibility for the squalid misery that is festering but a square away. For poverty, want, and starvation are by this theory not chargeable either to individual greed or to social mal-adjustments; they are the inevitable results of universal laws, with which, if it were not impious, it were as hopeless to quarrel as with the law of gravitation. In this view, he who in the midst of want has accumulated wealth, has but fenced in a little oasis from the driving sand which else would have overwhelmed it. He has gained for himself, but has hurt nobody. And even if the rich were literally to obey the injunctions of Christ and divide their wealth among the poor, nothing would be gained. Population would be increased, only to press again upon the limits of subsistence or capital, and the equality that would be produced would be but the equality of common misery. And thus reforms which would interfere with the interests of any powerful class are discouraged as hopeless. As the moral law forbids any forestalling of the methods by which the natural law gets rid of surplus population and thus holds in check a tendency to increase potent enough to pack the surface of the globe with human beings as sardines are packed in a box, nothing can really be done, either by individual or by combined100 effort, to extirpate poverty, save to trust to the efficacy of education and preach the necessity of prudence.

Now, as then, the Malthusian doctrine parries the demand for reform. It shelters selfishness from question and from conscience behind an inevitable necessity. It gives Dives a philosophy by which, as he feasts, he can shut out the image of Lazarus fainting with hunger at his door. Wealth can complacently button up its pocket when poverty asks an alms. The rich Christian can bow on Sundays in a nicely upholstered pew to ask the All Father for good gifts. He feels no responsibility for the squalid misery festering a square away. By this theory, poverty, want and starvation are chargeable neither to individual greed nor to social mal-adjustments. They are the inevitable results of universal laws, which it would be impious, and as hopeless, to quarrel with as with the law of gravitation. On this view, the man who has accumulated wealth in the midst of want has merely fenced in a little oasis against the driving sand that would otherwise have overwhelmed it. He has gained for himself and hurt nobody. Even if the rich literally obeyed the injunctions of Christ and divided their wealth among the poor, nothing would be gained. Population would grow, only to press again on the limits of subsistence or capital, and the equality produced would be only the equality of common misery. So reforms that would interfere with the interests of any powerful class are discouraged as hopeless. The moral law forbids anyone to forestall the methods by which natural law gets rid of surplus population. Those methods hold in check a tendency to increase strong enough to pack the globe with human beings as sardines are packed in a box. So nothing can really be done, by individual or combined100 effort, to end poverty, except to trust to education and preach the need for prudence.

A theory that, falling in with the habits of thought of the poorer classes, thus justifies the greed of the rich and the selfishness of the powerful, will spread quickly and strike its roots deep. This has been the case with the theory advanced by Malthus.

A theory that fits the habits of thought of the poorer classes and also justifies the greed of the rich and the selfishness of the powerful will spread quickly and strike deep roots. That has happened with the theory of Malthus.

And of late years the Malthusian theory has received new support in the rapid change of ideas as to the origin of man and the genesis of species. That Buckle was right in saying that the promulgation of the Malthusian theory marked an epoch in the history of speculative thought could, it seems to me, be easily shown; yet to trace its influence in the higher domains of philosophy, of which Buckle’s own work is an example, would, though extremely interesting, carry us beyond the scope of this investigation. But how much be reflex and how much original, the support which is given to the Malthusian theory by the new philosophy of development, now rapidly spreading in every direction, must be noted in any estimate of the sources from which this theory derives its present strength. As in political economy, the support received from the doctrine of wages and the doctrine of rent combined to raise the Malthusian theory to the rank of a central truth, so the extension of similar ideas to the development of life in all its forms has the effect of giving it a still higher and more impregnable position. Agassiz, who, to the day of his death, was a strenuous opponent of the new philosophy, spoke of Darwinism as “Malthus all over,”16 and Darwin himself says the struggle for existence “is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”17

In recent years the Malthusian theory has also gained new support from the rapid change in ideas about the origin of man and the origin of species. I think it could easily be shown that Buckle was right in saying that the Malthusian theory marked an epoch in the history of speculative thought. But tracing its influence in the higher domains of philosophy, of which Buckle's own work is an example, would be extremely interesting and would carry us beyond this investigation. Still, whether reflex or original, the support the theory gets from the new philosophy of development, now spreading rapidly in every direction, must be noted in any estimate of where it draws its present strength. In economics, the doctrines of wages and rent combined to raise the Malthusian theory to the rank of a central truth. In the same way, extending similar ideas to the development of life in all its forms gives it a still higher and more impregnable position. The naturalist Agassiz, a strenuous opponent of the new philosophy to the day of his death, called Darwinism “Malthus all over.”16 Darwin himself says the struggle for existence “is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”17

It does not, however, seem to me exactly correct to say that the theory of development by natural selection or survival of the fittest is extended Malthusianism, for the doctrine of Malthus did not originally and does not necessarily involve the idea of progression. But this was soon added to it. McCulloch18 attributes to the “principle of increase” social improvement and the progress of the arts, and declares that the poverty that it engenders acts as a powerful stimulus to the development of industry, the extension of science and the accumulation of wealth by the upper and middle classes, without which stimulus society would quickly sink into apathy and decay. What is this but the recognition in regard to human society of the developing effects of the “struggle for existence” and “survival of the fittest,” which we are now told on the authority of natural science have been the means which Nature has employed to bring forth all the infinitely diversified and wonderfully adapted forms which the teeming life of the globe assumes? What is it but the recognition of the force, which, seemingly cruel and remorseless, has yet in the course of unnumbered ages developed the higher from the lower type, differentiated the man and the monkey, and made the Nineteenth Century succeed the age of stone?

It does not seem to me exactly right, however, to say that the theory of development by natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is extended Malthusianism. The doctrine of Malthus did not originally involve the idea of progression and does not necessarily do so. But progression was soon added. The economist McCulloch18 credits the “principle of increase” with social improvement and the progress of the arts. He declares that the poverty it produces is a powerful stimulus to industry, science and the accumulation of wealth by the upper and middle classes. Without that stimulus, he says, society would quickly sink into apathy and decay. What is this but a recognition, in human society, of the developing effects of the “struggle for existence” and “survival of the fittest”? Natural science now tells us these were the means Nature used to bring forth all the infinitely diverse and wonderfully adapted forms that the teeming life of the globe takes. What is it but a recognition of the force that seems cruel and remorseless? Yet over unnumbered ages it developed the higher from the lower type, separated man from the monkey, and made the Nineteenth Century succeed the age of stone.

Thus commended and seemingly proved, thus linked and buttressed, the Malthusian theory—the doctrine that poverty is due to the pressure of population against subsistence, or, to put it in its other form, the doctrine that the tendency to increase in the number of laborers must always tend to reduce wages to the minimum on which laborers can reproduce—is now generally accepted as an unquestionable truth, in the light of which social phenomena are to be explained, just as for ages the102 phenomena of the sidereal heavens were explained upon the supposition of the fixity of the earth, or the facts of geology upon that of the literal inspiration of the Mosaic record. If authority were alone to be considered, formally to deny this doctrine would require almost as much audacity as that of the colored preacher who recently started out on a crusade against the opinion that the earth moves around the sun, for in one form or another, the Malthusian doctrine has received in the intellectual world an almost universal indorsement, and in the best as in the most common literature of the day may be seen cropping out in every direction. It is indorsed by economists and by statesmen, by historians and by natural investigators; by social science congresses and by trade unions; by churchmen and by materialists; by conservatives of the strictest sect and by the most radical of radicals. It is held and habitually reasoned from by many who never heard of Malthus and who have not the slightest idea of what his theory is.

Commended and seemingly proved in this way, linked and buttressed, the Malthusian theory is now generally accepted as an unquestionable truth. It says that poverty comes from the pressure of population against subsistence. Put the other way, it says that the tendency of the number of laborers to increase must always reduce wages to the minimum on which laborers can reproduce. Social phenomena are now explained in its light. For ages the102 phenomena of the heavens were explained the same way, by the fixity of the earth, and the facts of geology by the literal inspiration of the Mosaic record. If authority alone counted, formally denying this doctrine would take almost as much audacity as the Black preacher showed who recently began a crusade against the opinion that the earth moves around the sun. In one form or another the doctrine has almost universal endorsement in the intellectual world. It crops up everywhere in the best as well as the most common literature of the day. Economists and statesmen endorse it, as do historians and natural investigators, social science congresses and trade unions, churchmen and materialists, strict conservatives and the most radical of radicals. It is held, and habitually reasoned from, by many who never heard of Malthus and have no idea what his theory is.

Nevertheless, as the grounds of the current theory of wages have vanished when subjected to a candid examination, so, do I believe, will vanish the grounds of this, its twin. In proving that wages are not drawn from capital we have raised this Antæus from the earth.

Nevertheless, just as the grounds of the current theory of wages vanished under candid examination, so, I believe, will the grounds of its twin. In proving that wages are not drawn from capital, we have lifted this Antaeus, the giant of Greek myth, off the earth.