The evolution from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy and to republicanism is an obvious historical law; in the present phase of civilization the only difference between the two latter is in the elective or hereditary character of the head of the State.  In the various countries of Europe, the bourgeoisie themselves Hill demand the transition from monarchy to republicanism, in order to put off as long as possible the triumph of socialism.  In Italy as in France, in England as in Spain, we see only too many republicans or “radicals” whose attitude with regard to social questions is more bourgeois and more conservative than that of the intelligent conservatives.  At Montecitorio, for example, there is Imbriani whose opinions on religious and social matters are more conservative than those of M. di Rudini.  Imbriani, whose personality is moreover very attractive, has never attacked the priests or monks—­this man who attacks the entire universe and very often with good reason, although without much success on account of mistaken methods—­and he was the only one to oppose even the consideration of a law proposed by the Depute Ferrari, which increased the tax on estates inherited by collateral heirs!

Socialism then has no more interest in preaching republicanism than it has in preaching atheism.  To each his role (or task), is the law of division of labor.  The struggle for atheism is the business of science; the establishment of republicanism in the various countries of Europe has been and will be the work of the bourgeoisie themselves—­whether they be conservative or radical.  All this constitutes the historical progress toward socialism, and individuals are powerless to prevent or delay the succession of the phases of the moral, political and social evolution.

FOOTNOTES: 

[26] Darwin never made a declaration of atheism, but that was in fact his way of looking at the problem ("sa maniere de voir.").

While Haeckel, concerned solely with triumphing over the opposition, said at the Congress of Eisenach (1882) that Darwin was not an atheist, Buechner, on the contrary, published shortly afterward a letter which Darwin had written him, and in which he avowed that “since the age of forty years, his scientific studies had led him to atheism.”

(See also, “Charles Darwin and Karl Marx:  A Comparison,” by Ed. Aveling.  Published by the Twentieth Century Press, London.—­Translator.)

In the same way, John Stuart Mill never declared himself a Socialist, but that, nevertheless, in opinion he was one, is made evident by his autobiography and his posthumous fragments on Socialism. (See “The Socialism of John Stuart Mill.”  Humboldt Pub.  Co., New York.—­Tr.)

[27] ARDIGO, La Formazione naturale, Vol.  II. of his Opere filologiche, and Vol.  VI., La Ragione, Padone, 1894.

[28] Guyau, L’Irreligion de l’avenir.  Paris. 1887.