I do not say that such men are or are not right or anywhere near right in the views they express, but I do say that they are writing in cold blood in the light of a great deal of exact knowledge and certainly are much better judges of the truth in those matters than most of us who dispose of them so brusquely.

The fact is that man, like other animals, differs greatly in individual ability but he differs from other animals in that the difference between the most competent and the least competent is enormously greater than such difference in any other species.  The highest type of man is almost Godlike in the scope and keenness of his intellect.  The lowest type reaches depths of degradation not touched by any other animal.  There is no degradation so utterly degraded as a degraded mind.

If you ask what all this has to do with Socialism, the reply is that it has everything to do with it.  The sole object which I have in this address is to impress upon you the concept of man as an animal in the grip of an all-powerful Nature, and differing from other animals solely in his greater ability to dodge and evade, and so prolong the processes through which Nature will surely get him in the end; to conceive of him also as subject to the same law which enthralls other animals, whereby the fittest who demonstrate their fitness in the economic struggle shall survive while the least fit shall perish; to conceive of him as prepared and inspired for the struggle by the love of self which Nature has implanted in his soul in order that the race may endure to the utmost limit possible for it, by the survival of those having the greatest capacity for happiness.

And, having fixed this conception in your minds, form your own judgment of the probable outcome of a contest which would begin by eliminating from man the one principle — selfishness — through which he must survive if he survives at all.

Thus far, I have dealt with the subject in icy cold blood as a purely economic problem wholly excluding all considerations of humanity.  It must be dealt with in that way if we are to deal with it intelligently.  What must be will be, however dearly we may wish it otherwise.  But we do not wish to go home with ice in our souls, and let us see if we cannot find some reflections more comforting.  I am sure that we can.

I have said that humanitarianism has no legitimate place in economic discussion and it has not.  But it has a very large place outside economic theory and often in contact with economic results.

There may be economic gains which ought to be and will be surrendered for social gains, as long as we can do it and live.  A very reliable test of the prosperity of a Society is the extent to which it can without distress, surrender economic goods in exchange for social goods.