Darrow-Kennedy Debate on 'Is the Human Race Permanently Progressing toward a Better Civilization?" 'Is the Human Race Perman ently Progressing toward a Better Civilization?" Affirmative: Professor John C. Kennedy Negative: Mr. Clarence S. Darrow Mr. Arthur M. Lewis Chairman at the GARRICK THEATRE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, MARCH 23, 1919, at 2:30 Maclaskey & Maclaskey, Court Reporters Chicago. JOHN F. HIOGINS. PRINTBB 376-380 WEST MONROE ST. IS THE HUMAN RACE PERMANENTLY PROGRESSING TOWARD A BETTER CIVILIZATION? sta cR Annex Mr. Lewis: This debate this afternoon is between two friends of this Society, whom you have heard before. It has ~ some direct relation to a preceding debate. Our friends both t-)3^> came to the conclusion that their various points of difference belonged in the domain of the philosophy of life and society. So this afternoon they are going to discuss the question as to whether or not the human race is permanently progressing toward a better civilization. Our friend, Professor John Curtis Kennedy, who was pro- fessor for some time at the University of Chicago and who is now alderman of the 27th ward, will take the affirmative; and our oft-tried and always loyal friend of this Society, Mr. Clarence S. Darrow, will take the negative. This will be the last time we shall be able to hear our good friend Kennedy on this stage for some time. I do not suppose we can hear him next year. He is going to ramble around the world and see what is doing and, of course, there is a great deal doing, now, and I would not mind going along with him. I am sure we shall all regret his departure as a loss to the city of Chicago, and a loss to us, but I am sure we all hope after he has been away awhile he will feel a long- ing to return, and will reappear in our midst. And I can promise him when he does return, if he decides to, that we will give him a royal reception. I shall now call upon Mr. Kennedy to open the debate. PROFESSOR KENNEDY'S FIRST SPEECH. Professor Kennedy said: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Darrow, Comrades and Friends: Lester F. Ward has defined social progress as, "Whatever increases the sum total of human hap- piness." For the purpose of this debate I am willing to ac- cept this definition given by Mr. Ward and to endeavor to show that social evolution has been following along lines which, on the whole, have been increasing the sum total of human happiness. There are certain conditions which I think all of us will agree to be necessary for the advancement of human happiness. In the first place, for most of us, at least, it is necessary to have a good subsistence, to have the necessaries of life be- fore we can enjoy any great amount of happiness. We must have plenty of food a variety of food; must have adequate clothing and shelter. These are fundamental requisites for happiness for the masses of the people. 4 DARROW-KEXNEDY DEBATE. Then, again, we need freedom; freedom to pursue some line of activity which gives us satisfaction; freedom of thought; freedom of expression; freedom to develop our per- sonality so that our various talents and capacities will have an opportunity to manifest themselves. In addition to this freedom, if we are to enjoy happiness, I think most of us must have leisure we must have the time to enjoy the fine arts, to enjoy music, sculpture, painting, lit- erature, the drama we must have the time, opportunity and means to travel and enjoy the beauties of Nature. These are some of the requirements of happiness for the human race. And just insofar as any civilization makes it possible for an increasingly large number of people to get the necessities of life, to enjoy freedom, self expression, to parti- cipate in the fine arts, and enjoy the fine arts, I would say that we are making progress toward a higher civilization. Now, there have been a number of civilizations concern- ing which we have a great deal of recorded history. Most of those civilizations have gone through certain stages of evolu- tion. As a rule they originate in what is known as the stage of savagery. After many years the peoples of these various civilization succeeded in rising above that stage of savagery into a condition called barbarism. Out of barbarism they grew into what is commonly called civilization. Such has been the history of the Egyptian civilization, for example, which existed for some five or six thousand years that we know of. Such was the history of the Babylonian civilization, which ex- isted three or four thousand years. Such was the history of the Greek civilization which existed for a shorter period, per- haps, only for a thousand years, and the Roman civilization which existed for only about a thousand years. Such has been, in a large measure, the history of the civilization in which we now find ourselves which might be called the Anglo-Saxon, or Germanic civilization, reaching back to the Anglo-Saxon or Germanic tribes. The civiliza- tion which has been developed in the Western European countries and in America has been a civilization which took something from all the previous civilizations some of the good points and some of the bad points from each. As a rule all of these civilizations have gone through prac- tically the same course. They have originated in savagery and have developed, stage after stage, to something approxi- mating the kind of a civilization which we now enjoy. And if it were true that recorded history simply showed that this process was being repeated over and over again, if it were true that the peoples in different parts of the world started in savagery and ran the gamut up to a certain form of civiliza- KENNEDYS FIRST SPEECH. 5 tion and then lost everything, and sunk into savagery again, and had to make way before another group who were savages I think if that were the case, Mr. Darrow might very fairly maintain that there was no permanent advancement in civili- zation; that there was simply a certain cycle through which people run and we will suffer the same fate that other peoples have in previous historic epochs. But, in my opinion, the his- tories of peoples do not sustain that position. So far as I can see, every cvilization takes over something of the preceding civilization, and this is especially true of the civilization in which we live and of which we are a part; in fact, I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that practically everything worth while achieved by the people in any previous civilization has been taken in and utilized by our present civilization. Everything achieved by the Egyptians and Babylonians, the Chaldeans, Greeks and Romans, and a great deal of what has been achieved by the Chinese and Jap- anese has been made a part of the civilization of the European countries and America. What are some of the advantages that have been gained by the development of modern civilization? What really has been achieved? Wherein has the sum total of the happiness of the human race been increased? I suppose I might in a way compare the savage state with the present state of man- kind in order to bring out the difference the contrast be- tween the conditions under which savages lived and the con- ditions under which we live. That perhaps would take too much time, if I attempted to give the details; and again, even if I did give the details, some of you might say we have heard you before, and as a socialist, we know what you have already condemned capitalistic civilization. We have heard you de- scribe the poverty and the misery; we have heard you picture the extent of crime and of lunacy and of prostitution, and all the horrors of war, and the tyranny of the present civilization. How can you say, in view of the position you have previously taken as a socialist in condemning the capitalistic order, that to be a savage was worse that the present capitalistic civili- zation is any better? Well, I am perfectly willing to face that proposition frank- ly and squarely; in fact, that is just the reason I am here to- day. If I did not believe that the human race had made any progress whatever up to today, I would not have much hope for the future. If I could not point out wherein even the pres- ent capitalistic order is superior to the life which was enjoyed by the savage; if I could not show that on the whole people today are enjoying a better life than they did in the days gone by under savagery, then I would not have much hope that G HARROW-KENNEDY DEBATE. any time in the future they would enjoy a better life. So, per- haps, the best way to get at the crux of the matter is to com- pare our present civilization with the civilization of the sav- age or his lack of civilization; at least, on a few of the impor- tant points. One of the best authorities that I know of, when it comes to observation and reporting upon the conditions of people, was Charles Darwin. For one thing, he was very accurate in his observations, and secondly, he was very truthful. So far as I know, his truthfulness has never been questioned. So, therefore, I want to read to you a passage or two describing savagery as he saw it in some of the primitive places he visited in his Voyage on the Beagle around the world. This will take perhaps three of four minutes to read, but inasmuch as it is an entirely trustworthy account of savage life and gives us a basis upon which to make our comparison, I think it is worth while to read it. He says: "While going one day on shore near Wollaston Island, we pulled alongside a canoe with six Fuegians. These were the most abject and miserable creatures I anywhere beheld. * * * These Fuegians in the canoe were quite naked, and even one full-grown woman was absolutely so. It was raining heavily, and the fresh water, together with the spray, trickled down her body. In another har- bor not far distant, a woman, who was suckling a recent- ly-born child, came one day alongside the vessel, and re- mained there out of mere curiosity, while the sleet fell and thawed on her naked bosom, and on the skin of her naked baby! These poor wretches were stunted in their growth, their hideous faces bedaubed with white paint, their skins filthy and greasy, their hair entangled, their voices discordant, and their gestures violent. Viewing such men, one can hardly make one's self believe that they are fellow creatures, and inhabitants of the same world. It is a common subject of conjecture what pleas- ure in life some of the lower animals can enjoy; how much more reasonably the same question may be asked with re- spect to these barbarians! At night, five or six human beings, naked and scarcely protected from the wind and rain of this tempestuous climate, sleep on the wet ground coiled up like animals. Whenever it is low water, winter or summer, night or day, they must rise to pick shell-fish from the rocks; and the women either dive to collect sea- eggs, or sit patiently in their canoes, and with a baited hair-line without any hook, jerk out little fish. If a seal is killed, or the floating carcass of a putrid whale discov- ered, it is a feast; and such miserable food is assisted by a few tasteless berries and fungi. KENNEDYS FIRST SPEECH. 7 "They often suffer from famine: I heard Mr. Low, a sealing-master intimately acquainted with the natives of this country, give a curious account of the state of a party of one hundred and fifty natives on the west coast, who were very thin and in great distress. A succession of gales prevented the women from getting shell-fish on the rocks, and they could not go out in their canoes to catch seal. A small party of these men one morning set out, and the other Indians explained to him that they were going a four days' journey for food; on their re- turn, Low went to meet them, and he found them ex- cessively tired, each man carrying a great square piece of putrid whale's blubber with a hole in the middle, through which they put their heads, like the Gauchos do through their ponchos or cloaks. As soon as the blub- ber was brought into a wigwam, an old man cut off thin slices, and muttering over them, broiled them for a min- ute, and distributed them to the famished party, who during this time preserved a profound silence. Mr. Low believed that whenever a whale is cast on shore, the na- tives bury large pieces of it in the sand, as a resource in time of famine; and a native boy, whom he had on board, once found a stock thus buried. The different tribes when at war are cannibals. From the concurrent but quite independent evidence of the boy taken by Mr. Low, and of Jemmy Button, it is certainly true that, when pressed in winter by hunger, they kill and devour their old women before they kill their dogs; the boy, being asked by Mr. Low why they did this, answered, 'Doggies catch otters, old women no.' This boy de- scribed the manner in which they are killed by being held over smoke and thus choked; he imitated their screams as a joke, and described the parts of their bodies which are considered best to eat. Horrid as such a death by the hands of their friends and relatives must be, the fears of the old women, when hunger begins to press, are more painful to think of; we were told that they often run away into the mountains, but that they are pursued by the men and brought back to the slaughter-house at their own firesides!" I have taken the trouble to read this because it describes the condition of human beings in the savage state; not only the group that Darwin saw. but as all anthropologists agree it is a characteristic stage through which human beings oass when they are in this savage state. And, it is a state from which, so far as we are able to learn from the best of anthro- pologists, all peoples have risen and developed, whether they 8 D ARROW-KENNEDY DEBATE. be oriental or occidental peoples. If you run back the history far enough it always run back to this kind of savagery. Now, bad as conditions are today; great as poverty is today; great as the misery is today, I ask you how many of you would like to go back to the condition that these people were in, whom Darwin describes? And how many of the people are there you know, even under capitalism, who would exchange the position they find themselves in, with the position of those savages who had no certainty as to food or clothing or shelter, who had no freedom which they could call real freedom, because they never knew what was going to be their condition on the next day, and who knew nothing whatever of the arts, of literature and of the achievements which to us make life worth while? Now, it seems to me that tracing evolution from those conditions to the present, we can see how, step by step, we have won something worth while. And this is a significant fact, that you can judge the advancement of a civilization by the tools and by the methods of production which are used by that civilization in order to secure a livelihood. Und/nr the most primitive conditons they have to live by fishing, hunting, to live off whatever they can pick up practically without the use of tools and without any great knowledge with which to control their environment. But, mankind advances out of this stage, first by learning the use of fire; then by domesticating animals; then by learn- ing the primitive methods of agriculture, and gradually by a development of knowledge regarding the forces of Nature, man learns how to get from Nature a larger and a better liv- ing and a more certain living. So that, if you compare the condition of mankind today with that of the savage, so far as subsistence is concerned, and that is fundamental, you can say today we have a vastly greater variety; we have a greater quantity; w have a far greater degree of security so far as the great mass of the people is concerned. I am aware, of course, of the fact that during certain conditions, as for example, during the war in Europe, there will be conditions of famine. Yet taking the capitalistic system as it has prevailed during the last hundred years, it cannot be denied that the millions of people living under that civilization have had a far greater security so far as livlihood is concerned, a far greater variety of food stuffs than they would have had under the conditions that prevailed during the period of savagery. Then, when you come to the second test of advancement, the freedom of the individual, the opportunity to develop one's personality, to have freedom of thought and freedom of expression, we find again that the savages and barbarians KENNEDYS FIRST SPEECH. 9 were bound much more strictly than the civilized man of to- day. They had their fetishism; their superstitions; they were enslaved by their fears, their ignorance and superstitions so that they did things and lead a life which was anything but a free life. The average person pictures to himself the free Indian; the free Barbarian, the free savage, as one who can do as he pleases and go where he pleases. Not so. They were bound, as anthropologists prove, beyond any question, by all sorts of superstitions; all sorts of customs and all sorts of traditions which made it impossible for the individual to express any individuality whatever. He lost his individuality under the rules of customs and traditions of the tribe. So, this primitive freedom is a false idea, as we find when we make an actual study of the life of these savages. It has been done by Lewis Morgan who lived for many years among the Iroquois Indians, and by other students who have studied the conditions at first hand. To illustrate what some of those conditions are, I select one or two examples from Herbert Spencer's Sociology. He gives dozens of them to illustrate how the primitive peoples are bound by their superstitions. For example, he says, speaking of some of the Mexican Indians: "Ximinez tells us regarding the Indians of Vera Paz that 'when a lord was dying they immediately killed as many slaves as he had, that they might precede him and prepare the house for their master." "In Dahomey immediately the king dies his wives be- gin to destroy all his furniture and things of value, as well as their own: and to murder one another. On one oc- casion two hundred and eighty-five of the women were thus killed before the new king could stop it." "Savages and barbarians also frequently bury most or all of the valuable property with the deceased." I will not burden you with example after example of this sort. We know how the Hindoos for example, had the cus- tom of throwing their children in some cases into the Ganges River and other rivers, as a sort of religious sacrifice to pro- pitiate the wrath of the gods. These customs have existed among savage peoples. But, we have largely outgrown them. I want to read to you to show you how recently these superstitions have prevailed among peoples a citation from Andrew D. White's work on "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom". People of the mid- dle ages were governed by the same superstition believing it was a religious duty to carry out some of the most atrocious performances. Here is a case showing how some of the Christians persecuted the Jews: 10 DARROW-KENXEDY DEBATE. "But this sort of theological reasoning developed an idea far more disastrous, and this was that Satan, in caus- ing pestilences, used as his emissaries especially Jews and witches. The proof of this belief in the case of the Jews was seen in the fact that they escaped with a less per- centage of disease than did the Christians in the great plague periods. This was doubtless due in some measure to their remarkable sanitary system, which had probably originated thousands of years before in Egypt, and had been handed down through Jewish lawgivers and states- men. Certainly they observed more careful sanitary rules and more constant abstinence from dangerous foods than was usual among Christians; but the public at large could not understand so simple a cause, and jumped to the con- clusion that their immunity resulted from protection by Satan, and that this protection was repaid and the pes- tilence caused by their wholesale poisoning of Christians. As a result of this mode of thought, attempts were made in all parts of Europe to propitiate the Almighty, to thwart Satan, and to stop the plague by torturing and murdering the Jews. Throughout Europe during great pestilences we hear of extensive burnings of this devoted people. In Bavaria, at the time of the Black Death, it is computd that twelve thousand Jews thus perished; in the small town of Erfurt the number is said to have been three thousand; in Strasburg, the Rue Brulee remains as a monument to the two thousand Jews burned there for poisoning the wells and causing the plague of 1348; at the royal castle of Chinon, near Tours, an immense trench was dug, filled with blazing wood, and in a single day one hundred and sixty Jews were burned. Every- where in continental Europe this mad persecution went on." Let me give you another illustration a paragraph or two regarding the persecution of so-called witches: "As to witches, the reasons for believing them the cause of pestilence also came from fear. This belief, too, had been poured mainly from Oriental sources into our sacred books and thence into the early Church, and was strengthened by a whole line of Church authorities, fath- ers, doctors, and saints; but, above all, by the great bull, Summis Desiderantes, issued by Pope Innocent VIII. in 1 484. This utterance from the seat of St. Peter infallibly committed the Church to the idea that witches are a great cause of disease storms, and various ills which afflict hu- manity; and the Scripture on which the action recom- mended against witches in this papal bull, as well as in KENNEDY'S FIRST SPEECH. 11 so many sermons and treatises for centuries afterward, was based, was the famous text, 'Thou shalt not surfer a witch to live.' This idea persisted long, and the evolu- tion of it is among the most fearful things in human his- tory." Now, when we are thinking about the conditions that pre- vail now, it is just as well to know a little bit about the con- ditions that prevailed in previous periods. And, when you realize in a single century, in Germany that about one hun- dred thousand people were put to death for witchcraft, you get some idea of the blackness that must have prevailed over those vast districts inhabited by millions of people during the middle ages. So, I maintain that limited as our freedom is today in many respects, all sorts of laws being on the statute books to limit us in this way and that way limited as our freedom is, still compared with the conditions that prevailed under savagery, when they used to slaughter people for all sorts of super- stition; compared with the conditions that prevailed even during the middle ages, when they were slaughtered by the tens of thousands on theological grounds, I say today we have a vastly greater degree of freedom, so far as intellect and discussion are concerned, and by that I do not mean to say for a moment everything is all right; that we have won every- thing we need, but am simply comparing conditions today with those that prevailed in what, in my opinion, were far darker periods in human history. Not only has there been a great advance as to subsistence and liberty of thought and discussion; I likewise believe hu- manity as a whole today is in a far better position to enjoy the arts and sciences and the beauties of nature and all mat- ters which give satisfaction to mankind. And, there again, of course, we must frankly admit and recognize that large masses of people do not fully appreciate in the benefits of modern civilization. We must admit that for a great many people these treasures are locked up. But, it is a question of comparing things as they are now, with things as they were in previous times, not as they might be under ideal conditions. What has happened so far as science and literature and art and all that sort of thing is concerned? In the first place, up to about two or three hundred years ago, there was not any science worth mentioning. It is true that the Greeks had achieved advancement in certain direc- tions; that there were individuals such as Aristotle, who show- ed wonderful power intellectually, but, comparing the science of antiquity with the science of today, nobody can seriously maintain that that science pmounted to very much. As a 12 DARRO \V-KEXXEDY DEBATE. matter of fact, it was hardly a beginning. Until recent times, when the experimental and inductive method has been ap- plied and utilized, we could not maintain that any real science was in existence; but, now we have real science of mathe- matics, astronomy, chemistry and physics; we have a real science of biology; and we have developing sciences of psy- chology and sociology; and the applied sciences in the various engineering departments, and so on. In fact, we have accu- mulated a very wonderful mass of knowledge which any hu- man being, if he is intellectual at all, must find some pleasure in pursuing. Some prefer history; some are interested in mathematics, or biology each one has his choice. But, the fact remains that the superstition and darkness of the early and middle ages has really been supplanted very largely by the light of modern civilization. Of course, there are still a good many people in darkness; we must admit that. We call it Christian Science or some- thing of that sort! But, we are comparing conditions as a whole, as they prevailed in the middle ages or the earlier periods, with conditions as they prevail today. And, when you recognize that in every city, town, hamlet there are li- braries; when you realize that millions and millions of people are reading and having access to these libraries; when you realize meetings like this are going on, as you know, year after year and distributing the literature and ideals of modern science to the people of this country and, not only in this country but in other countries you must admit there has been an advance in human freedom and enjoyment in that direction. I do not see how anybody can seriously maintain that the conditions under savagery, barbarism or in the middle ages are on a par with the conditions today, even though they are not as we would like to see them today. Now, I have briefly touched upon a few of the tests of human advancement. Limited as we are to an hour and a half apiece, one cannot take all of the details in these var- ious arts and achievements. Let us take the field of music. Compare the tom-toms and the bones of the savage music with, let us say, the Chi- cago Orchestra, or the Grand Opera performances; the music of the barbarism with tKe music of a Wagner, a Schuman, a Gounod, Greig, or a Verdi. There is no comparison at all. We know people enjoy it because they pay their money that is a pretty good test; if they do not enjoy it, they would not go. These splendid compositions of the composers sure- ly give great enjoyment and happiness. KENNEDY'S FIRST SPEECH. 13 It is the same way in literature. In the first place, the sav- age did not have any language at all except a sort of sign language. He may have had, as he developed, a vocabulary of two or three hundred words. But, we now have not only an oral and written language, but we have a printed language and an unlimited vocabulary; and the means of spreading of the ideals and ideas of literature among practically all the people through books, newspapers, and our vast resources of communication. The savage had no telephone, no telegraph, no cable, no means of exchange of ideas. All you need to know to realize how far we have advanced is to ask yourself what sort of a life you would have if you took away all the printing presses; took away all our means of communication; abolished practically all literature and went back to a stage where you would have to communicate with one another by gestures and perhaps two or three hundred words; then you would be back under primitive conditions. We have got away from that and built up this wonderful literature which makes it possible for a Shakespeare, an Ibsen, a Poe, a Haupt- man, a Hugo, or a Tolstoi, to portray life as it is, and it is possible for anybody to enjoy their works. So, you can see that literature is an achievement of civilization; you cannot have it without civilization. Likewise, we have our museums and our art galleries. What is the foundation? It is the economic foundation of modern civilization. That brings me to what to my mind is one of the most important features in this debate. What is the outlook for this future? Because in reckoning what the achievements of this civilization are, I reckon as one of the most important is the organization and unification of the working class. That organzation of the workers is our best guarantee of future progress. The capitalists did not mean to organize and unify the working class; they did not mean, as a means of developing culture to develop a co-operative system of production such as we have today. That was not their aim. But, neverthe- less, as Engels and Marx have so well portrayed in their Com- munist Manifesto, the bourgeoisie did develop a wonderful organization for producing wealth, and it is on the basis of this wonderful organization which has been developed that it will be possible to build a splendid civilization in which all will be able to participate. Within this modern capitalistic civilization the forces have been developed which will secure for future generations everything that is worth while; and we will eliminate the evils which have grown up and spread un- der capitalism. The forces are all present within our civili- zation; they are here in our midst, which are going to pre- 14 DARROVV-KENNEDY DEBATE. serve everything that is good, and going to make it possible for the masses to enjoy all these things; not only to preserve everything that is good, but to make possible a much higher development of civilization than we have had in the past. At this time, I want to read just a paragraph from what will go down into history as one of the greatest books that was ever written, and that is the Communist Manifesto. It gives the key to human history. If there is any philosophy; if there is any interpretation of history that makes it possible for us to understand the evolution of mankind, from primi- tive conditions up to the present, and gives us a key with which to unlock the future, it is the philosophy of the mater- ialistic conception of history, or as some call it, the economic interpretation of history. It will take just a moment to read a few sentences in which Engels, in his introduction, to the Communist Manifesto, sums up the economic interpretation of history: "In every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social or- ganization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be ex- plained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and op- pressed classes; that the history in which, now-a-days, a stage has been reached when the exploited and oppressed class the proletariat cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class the bour- geoise without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, op- pression, class-distinctions and class-struggles." There is the key to human history and the one who mas- ters that interpretation of history and applies it to the develop- ment from the primitive savage stage up to the present, can see that as the tools developed; as the means of production developed; as man's understanding of the forces of Nature developed; as the industrial system developed; civilization moved forward. And, it is only when something happens to that industrial system that you make any lasting progress. And, the whole lesson of history is this, that economicallv, we have been progressing from a very simple, crude stage of pro- duction up to a higher and higher stage of production, which makes possible, what? It makes possible a vast amount of wealth; which makes possible a great amount of leisure; which makes possible for the first time in all human history real DARROW's FIRST SPEECH. 15 freedom. It is only by the conquest of the forces of Nature by the organization of the productive forces by the appli- cation of science to the natural resources and the powers of the universe; it is only thus, that we get the foundation for a real civilization, a real fredom. And, the lesson of all human history is, despite all the superstition, despite all of the tyranny, despite all of the suf- ferings of the past, we have been marching forward toward that goal, getting an economic foundation for a real civiliza- tion. And, today, we are just about at the point where it is within the grasp of humanity to build a co-operative common- wealth where all will be free; where all will enjoy the fruits of human progress; where all will be free, not only economic- ally, but intellectually and spiritually; where the fogs of su- perstition will pass away; where freedom of thought will prevail and where mankind really will enjoy happiness. And, it is because I believe that; because I see what has been already achieved, I am ready to say here today, we are making permanent progress toward a higher civilization! MR. DARROW'S FIRST SPEECH. Mr. Darrow said: The next time I have a debate I am going to argue with somebody who disagrees with me. I am going to take somebody who is really ignorant enough to be- lieve the things that I do not believe. Now, I have one advan- tage in this debate anyway; Mr. Kennedy said something to the effect that he was a little nervous for fear some of his so- cialist friends would think he was contradicting the things he had said before. Now, I always rather like to contradict things I have said before. For, if it is not a sign of progress, it is at least a sign of change, and change is generally taken for prog- ress in this world. I do not know whether the civilized man of today is hap- pier than the savage or not. I fancy that I am happier here in Chicago than I would be in Tierra del Fuego, but I kind of fancy that those natives are happier there than they would be here! I would hate to be a barn-yard hog, but I fancy if they had any brains which they have not they would hate to be men. I am inclined to think, on the whole, they are happier, while it lasts, and it does not last very long either way so I do not see there is much in that. The question that I am inter- ested in is not the one that my friend discussed I do not mean that his discussion was not interesting. It was both inter- esting and learned, especially learned, and still it does not get anywhere. Now, I really do not know how to prove that a civilized man is less happy than a savage; in fact, I do not know how 16 DARROW-KENNEDY DEBATE. to prove which is the civilized man and which is the savage F That question depends upon your standpoint, like everything else in this world. Of course, there is only one really civilized man that I know. There are a lot of them who think they are, but hey are not. I am willing to accept his definition of progress. That is one thing we agree on. I believe that progress is purely a ques- tion of the pleasure units that we get out of life. The pleas- ure and pain theory is the only correct theory of morality and the only way to judge life. Many of us might debate for a great while about the meaning of the word progress, but I think he has come closer to it than anybody else could have got at it and I am going to accept it just as he stated it. Progress means how much fun we get out of it. If the human race today is getting more fun out of it than it was five hundred years ago, then there has been progress between that time and this. If it was getting more fun out of it two thousand years ago, than it was one thousand years ago, then there was no progress between the two thousand years ago and one thousand years ago. If, at a certain time it got more pleasure and then something happened so it got less, then there has not been progress between those two dates. If there is a perma- nent law of progress it means we are forever going toward a point where the human race is getting more and more pleas- ure out of life. That is what I dispute. I presume there are periods in the human race when men got along more com- fortably than at other periods, but we are not always getting along more comfortably year after year or age after age. We go forward and we go backward and we go up and we go down and bob around and think we are getting somewhere and we are not. That is what I contend; I do not think we are getting anywhere. I imagine if some person stood off and looked at the earth going at a terrific rate of speed I do not know how fast, but almighty fast he would say: It is going to get there quick, isn't it? He would wait a year to find out how far it had gone only to learn that it had come back to the same old place! Now, that is the law of physics; it is the law of life and I be- lieve there is no possible exception to it. This is really a ques- tion of science. I appreciate debating with my friend here, because he has a scientific mind and he does not take any dope unless it is socialism and, everybody ought to be permitted to have one dope anyhow. If he ever gets over that, I would sug- gest pessimism. I am willing to put it all on a scientific basis, for that is where it belongs. Of course, he has made many statements DARROVV's FIRST SPEECH. 17 here that I could not fully agree with and I hardly think will stand a test: That the world is happier because it has more food, and the need of the human race is to have more food and a greater variety of food, and more clothes and have its wants satisfied. That will not do at all. You do not need a greater variety of food because when you get a greater va- riety you will want a still greater variety. An ordinary man can live on cabbage and corned beef, but as you get well civil- ized you want nightingales' tongues or something like that. I do not know that one gives any more happiness than the other. I am not well enough civilized to know. As to clothes, that is a matter of habit, too. The bour- geoisie I don't think I got that pronounced right anyhow, it is a socialist word, but they are the only ones that really wear plenty of clothes. Primitive man did not need them; he did not wear many, if any; and the rich people are beginning gradually to leave theirs off. It is all a matter of habit and a question of your standpoint. You cannot say clothes make people more comfortable or less comfortable, excepting in real cold weather, and you cannot be sure of it then because clothes make you cold as well as warm. Thousands of people down in Tierra del Fuego do not suffer half as much as Darwin thought they did. If Darwin had taken off his clothes, he would have been miserable. But you know the Bible says that the Lord tempers the wind to the shorn lamb. That is not true. But, he does temper the shorn lamb to the wind. And, in the winter time, when it is cold, the shorn lamb is not shorn ; it is only in the spring when the sun comes out, for along toward winter its wool gets thick. So it is with the human race. These things have various origins and largely they are matters of habit. I do not believe anybody could prove that the people who wear clothes are happier because they wear clothes than the people who do not wear clothes. I rather think they could not. I would not know how to do it even if I was on that side. There are a lot of things you cannot prove. For instance, he tells us they used to be very superstitious. Used to be? We have the same God the first savage had, and He does just the same things, and we believe in Him just as much. His method of action has taken a different form, that is all. Now, I suppose there were half a million people, more or less, today who went to church in Chicago and at least pretended that they believe in God. A thoroughly civilized city! The savages had something to look at that represented their god; but the Chicago people did not they just talked into the air! And, we are civilized! We have all the charms and incantations and so on. 18 DARROW-KEXXEDY DEBATE. Why, I went to a banquet the other night, a Victory ban- quet, on account of our triumph over German autocracy, and some "fool" preacher talked to God before we had a chance to talk, and he thanked God for ending the war! The preach- er did not think it funny. I fancy I was pretty nearly the only one there that did. Of course, he did not thank Him for start- ing the thing; just for stopping it. And, even as intellectual and as radical a person as the President of the United States appointed a day of prayer to God to help beat the Germans. Still we talk about superstition! We still pray for rain that is I do not but we do. Savages could not beat that, could they? Governors appoint days to pray for rain, and then if the rain does not come they say that God knew better than they when it ought to come. We have a rapidly growing school of medicine the Christian Scientists I suppose, who be- lieve more or less that the diety has to do with the state of health, and I think He does. I rather think that anybody who believes that way is a cheerful idiot and will live a long while. We still pray for people who are sick. Lots of people pray for them, and then they die, they keep on praying for others. When the war began, everybody got religion so God would keep the bullets away from them. Some of them got over it when they found it did not keep them off. That is in a civil- ized country and a civilized world. I cannot see that there s any great change in that; I cannot see that there is any change in the human mind whether you believe in forty gods or one. One god comes as a sort of a trust evolution, that's all. One can do it, so we consolidate the business. The idea is exactly the same, it is a superstition, and yet everybody almost everybody, at least professes to believe it, and I fancy some of them really do. Now, another thing. I don't know that the fact that a man knows something about science makes any one happier. That is the worst of all of that. Now, I will agree with Professor Kennedy that real learning, real learning, means acquaintance with the laws of Nature, or, speaking broadly, science. Begin- ning with Aristotle, and coming on down through to Bacon and the English school of philosophers to the present day and we will "cut out" the idealism of Plato, Mary Baker Eddy and that line I do not know that science gives you anything so far as happiness goes. I enjoy biology and for me, it is some fun. I do not think it adds to my length of life. But, I as one person get an individual gratification out of it, just as some other fellow does out of playing checkers, or some wom- en do out of whist and others out of sewing societies and war work. Now, what is the difference? I cannot say that I, who study biology, am happier than the other fellow who plays HARROWS FIRST SPEECH. 1!) checkers. I rather think I am not. It might possibly be I am more intellectual; but nobody can prove that intellectuality makes you happy; in fact, I think it does not. I am inclined to think 1 am a little too intellectual to be happy. I have kind of gone "over the top", really! I wish there was some way I could slow down so I would be like the other people, but there is not. This art business well, I don't know that studying art makes you happy. I never could see that an artist was any happier than a mechanic. I think he is not. I am more or less of an artist in some directions but that does not make me happy, and if it did it would not make some other person happy. You cannot say that if you would make all men artists this would be a happier world. You would probably all of you have indigestion. The truth is you cannot live on intel- lect. Why, a good stomach is worth forty brains for life. At the time the human race gets a brain as tall as a stove-pipe hat. there will be nothing left of it and it cannot live. We have all the time to keep down to the sources of life, and Nature will not let us get away. If we do, she keeps pulling us back. It is perfectly evident to me that intellectuality does not bring happines. Then, to come back to the savage. Well now, I do not know. The savage had a pretty good time anyway, and sur- vived. That is one way of telling. He survived longer than the civilized man has. I think there is very much more chance for the civilized man to go back to savagery than for the sav- age man to come to civilization. I do not know why, but I will elaborate a little bit more on that after a while. He sur- vived. He was comfortable and warm in the summer time and the Lord tempered him up so that he could stand the win- ter, so he got along all right. Of course, he had his bad days; so do we. He did not have much toothache probably because he used his teeth more. He did not cook his food. He prob- ably did not have dyspepsia. When he died, he died a sud- den death and got through with it. Even his cannibalism was not so bad. Of course this was largely a religious rite. To have all his wives have a row after his death is not so much; a civilized man would have them rowing when he was living. Really, is there any way to tell? We just assume these things, you know. Now, if a savage wrote books, he would tell how much better off they were than we civilized people are. If the mosquitoes wrote them they would tell; if the flies wrote them, they would tell us how all these fool people waste their time preparing food for them to eat. We only see the world from the standpoint of civilized human beings, or semi- civilized, whatever it is, and we cannot judge the other fellow's 20 DARROW-KENNEDY DEBATE. pleasures or his pains; but I fancy that the savage had some ad- vantages over us, and I don't care to emphasize this for the sake of making this side seem stronger than it really is: The relative pleasures of the savage and the civilized man are fair subjects for discussion and are worth thinking about, and it is of no importance to me which side you take. I don't know which side I am on. All I can say is people assume too much entirely. Now, even though I may have been descended from an ape, still, my children might be well, Methodists. I know which side I am on as to the permanent progress. But as to whether the savage or civilized man is better off, you can say things in favor of each of them. One thing is pretty sure to me that the savage's mind never bothered him a great deal. Another thing that is sure to me is that the civilized man's mind bothers him more than his body. I have had a lot of ills in my day. The most of them were in my mind, and I am not a Christian Scientist, either. But, it is true. The more intellgent you are, the more trouble you get out of it disease and parting with friends and disasters, some of which never come and some of which do come. All these things are the heritage of brain power. I honestly think, if I were born again which God forbid I would ask to be made a shade less intelligent. I believe that the present trou- bles of most of us are more intellectual than physical. Suppose we could live right along, getting careless and thoughtless, like the other animals, never thinking and wor- rying about it and just living. Today it is cold and we are just a bit uncomfortable; tomorrow the sun is shining and we warm up. Today we are just a little bit hungry, but we can run around better for that. The next day a dead whale comes in and we live on blubber for a week! Now, what is the mat- ter with that life? I don't know what is the matter with that life! Of course you haven't many clothes; but you don't need them. You don't need to even have a watch to know what time it is; you just go along. I don't think that the man who seeks to civilize and even Christianize the savages s doing any great good to them, and the man probably hmself is not in- telligent enough even to get any good out of it. Nature, I rather think, is on their side. Let us see whether it is. I want to get down to the science and philosophy of this thing, before I get through, because I am long on science and phi- losophy, to give you something to think about. There are two sides to all things. The animal has persisted down through all time. Of course, not always the same animal, but Nature has let him live. While he lived a fairly vagrant life, sometimes having food and sometimes not, he survived. The savage has sur- DARROW'S FIRST SPEECH. 21 vived, so far as we can tell of course we guess a good deal upon these things. I want to call attention to guessing as we go along, because a great deal of all of this, in the long sweep of time, is more or less guesswork. The chances are that the savage has survived ever since man has been on earth, which is perhaps, some two hundred thousand years at least; maybe a little longer; I haven't the time to figure it up, and he stayed there. The civilized man has not been here long enough to know whether clothes did him any good or not. Of course, he could not get along with civilization without clothes, but he might get along without civilzaton and clothes. We can tell somethng about it, though, just a little about it, and I want to put this on the side of the things we do know: Is there a law of progress or is civilization moving forward permanently? Whatever way or however way you want to put it: Is there something inherent in life and Nature which means that the human race is happier today than it was yesterday, and it will be happier a thousand years from now than it is today, and a hundred thousand years from now than it it today? That is the question. Of course, my friend has glorious hope for the human race a thousand years from now, for then we will have socialism! Well, I don't know; maybe we will. I never shall know. That is the difference between him and me. I know that the human race has had it in more or less different phases, and I would be glad to see it tried over because change is a good thing any- way; you get tired of the same kind of thing over and over; at least some of us do. But, the human race has had it. Bees have had it ever since there were bees. I suppose animals are higher than bees. There isn't anything in this that brings hap- piness that I know about. And then you cannot measure it up. Is there a permanent law? I think that is easily settled. As a matter of science and of philosophy, is there some- thing in the universe which in and of itself means that the world will always be getting happier? That is purely a reli- gious doctrine. It can rest upon nothing excepting religion. My friend and I, neither of us being orthodox, of course, we cannot take it from that angle. As a religious doctrine it rests with the orthodox, first, on the assumption that there is a God. and, secondly, that he is good. Well, you have to prove both of them to me. Every fact in life and science is against both, and there is no use talking about them. Scientific men do not talk about it any more than they talk about hobgoblins. Now, suppose you do not believe in it, then progress rests upon another religious dogma, which in some way is hitched up to science: That the law of evolution is beneficient; that the world is changing and there is something inherent in the 22 DARROW-KEXXEDY DEBATE. law of evolution which takes the human race higher and higher and makes it happier. Why? Why should you not say that the law of evolution is demoniac; that it carries us lower? It is a pure matter of faith that it takes us higher and higher. Faith, a religious faith, whether the religion is God or evolu- tion, it does not make a particle of difference; you get back to the same thing. Are you going to base it on facts? I take a telescope and look out into the heavens. I find a countless number of worlds that are dead, have been burned to cinders that were once worlds like ours. I find others that are in the forming; others like ours that seem plainly to have passed their highest stage and the deserts appear and they seem to be going toward the sunset. Worlds are found in their birth; in every stage; life and death are there as they are everywhere and there is no chance for any permanence. Turn to the race. Civilization, as we call it, is not very old; perhaps some vestage of civilization for five or six thou- sand years. And yet nations have risen and flourished and de- cayed. We have had the civilization of Persia; of Arabia; of Egypt; of Mesopotamia; and through all these places there are desert wastes where the owl hoots at night, and where beasts pursue their prey in those spots which once were fertile lands and where once lived civilized people, so-called. They were born, and they lived, and they died. The everlasting cycle of the earth going around the sun; the everlasting law of change, that is not the law of progress, but simply a law of change and nothing more. There is no chance to prove any- thing more. The savage looked at the rising tide and thought it would rise forever; but it went back again; it goes back just as it rises. It changes as the seasons change. An everlasting change, that is all there is to it. Let us see about individuals. The greatest civilization, perhaps, this world ever saw was in Greece. They did not know as much biology in those days as even I know. But, what of it? They were more civilized. They could not put up a building as high as we can build them in Chicago. That old civilization is almost in ruins. The civilization of India is in ruins. Some of Rome and Greece is in ruins. And, the civilization of Chicago would not make a decent ruin! Why, Gallon says that the common people of Greece were more intelligent than the members of Parliament fiftv years ago! Of course they did not have to be very intelligent to be that, but it was a long while ago. I think they would average up with our City Council, barring my friend Kennedy, would they not? Now, here was Plato, who was a pretty clever man for his age and generation. His lineal descendant is Mary Baker G. KENNEDY'S SECOND SPEECH. 23 Eddy. There is very much in common between the two phi- losophies. So far as I can understand, Christian Scientists get their inspiration from Mrs. Eddy, whose words seem unintelli- gible so far as they go. If one wants to study that Philosophy. I would advise them not to read Mary Baker G. Eddy, but to read Plato. Plato was the bigger man. Socrates was a great philosopher. 1 could stand here the rest of the afternoon and mention the great Greeks. The world has never had such a galaxy since. The world passed from Greek philosophy to the Roman period. From Roman strength and power and civilization to the darkness of midnight, and for centuries the dark ages set- tled down over the earth. Those are the ones my brother here read about when he read about witchcraft, which we still be- lieve in. For centuries this world was dark, after the illustrious days of Greece and Rome. Was it going backward or for- ward? There is no question where it went. It went back. I fancy for some centuries it has been going upward, and I have just a hunch that today it is going down. That is not because I am a pessimist; it is because I see today that the spirit of hu- man freedom has vanished from the peoples of this world especially from America! We have forgotten it. We care nothing about. If we can make money by compelling people to do certain things by law, or if some fool reformers think they can save the souls of men by passing laws, we say: let them do it. We would not fight for liberty today; we have forgotten it. I fancy today it is going back; perhaps not, but that is my feeling. But human life and all life is like the waves of the sea; it is tossed about; it is up and down; it is in and out the law of change is everywhere, but that there is a law of progress is a matter of pure, unadulterated, religious faith! MR. KENNEDY'S SECOND SPEECH. Mr. Kennedy said: When we attempt to judge whether or not human beings are more or less happy, it is very diffi- cult of couse to get a standard by which we can register an accurate judgment. Happiness is a subjective matter. You cannot tell exactly from looking at a person whether he is happy or not. You cannot tell by reading about a certain place or civilization whether those people were happy or not. So, when Mr. Darow says that perhaps if the savages were considering our civilization, they would say they were a whole lot happier under savagery than here, perhaps he is right. But, really, that has no bearing on the debate. We are not interested in what savages think about our civilization. We are doing the judging ourselves. It is up to us to decide whether we think our civilization better than 24 DARROVV-KENNEDY DEBATE. savagery. If we do, we want to keep it and improve it. If we do not, we can get back to savagery pretty fast! It is a whole lot easier to drop from civilization to savagery than to come from savagery to civilization! If we come to the con- clusion that we do not like to have three meals a day, it is very easy to go without, isn't it? I do not need to argue about that. Brother Darrow says food and variety of food is not es- sential to happiness. All right, let us do without. You can soon settle which way you will be happier with or without food! That is not a matter of opinion. You can decide that for yourselves. I want the food, and I think if it comes to where it is put to a real test, we will get a decision of ninety- nine per cent, who will take the meals take the variety. In fact, isn't that what most people are struggling for? To get enough food and good food to nourish themselves and to be sure of it? Enough clothing and good clothing, to clothe themselves, and be sure of it, not only today, but tomorrow, and a decent home to like in. Why are they going thru all these strenuous activities? I name these because they are some of the things we are needing in life. I am very sus- picious of these highly intellectual people who have a con- tempt for food, clothing and shelter as non-essential. So, just looking at things from the standpoint of how people actually do act and think, I have come to the conclu- sion that most folks would be a whole lot happier when that economic problem is solved than when it is not solved. You can settle it for yourself, but that is just my belief and it may be a religious belief! In fact, that is one of the main points in my religion get plenty of food, clothing and shelter which are the necessities of life, for everybody. Let us go a step further from the physical necessities to the intellectual situation. Brother Darrow says that since there were five hundred thousand went to church here in Chicago today, what is the use of talking about superstition dying out. Well, there is just this difference between things as they are today and things as they would have been under savagery. We are holding this meeting here today too. It could not have been held under savagery or during the middle ages. They would have strung us all up or burned us at the stake because we think differently from the majority. That is the history of the superstition and persecution which we are out- growing in a measure. Men like Darrow, Lewis and I can think our own thoughts, say something about them once in a while without being burned at the stage. That is some advantage. It is true there are a great many people who do not agree with us, but as KENNEDY'S SECOND SPEECH. 25 long as we have the opportunity to discuss our ideas, and to say what we think about reactionary and superstitious prac- tices, I believe that more and more people will come to look at things from the scientific rather than the theological stand- point. That is another point in my religion: I believe we are going to outgrow the superstitious period in the history of the human race. My belief is science will kill superstition. I rea- lize that at times due to social conditions, science is given a set-back ; but, as you look back, over the history of the human race, you will see it has gone forward, and superstition has gone backward; and just in proportion as science has gone forward, we have a greater degree of human freedom. Then again, we are reminded of the fact that the Greeks had a great civilization. We are told that we have not made any advance over their civilization, so where is our progress? Fundamentally, the Greek civilization was not great. There was a census taken in Athens 309 B. C. which showed twenty-one thousand free citizens; ten thousand foreigners and four hundred thousand slaves. I cannot glorify that kind of a civilization. It is true they had their sculptors and their architects and their philosophers and others who made con- tributions to human thought and human advancement; but, taking the civilization as a whole, it did not compare with modern civilization, for the reason that for the mass of the people there was nothing like the same degree of security, freedom and liberty that we have today. Of course, I know that the wage system is not perfect, but it is an advance over chattel slavery. There again, I leave it to your own common sense. If you had your choice to settle here this afternoon, whether you would rather be a chattel slave, owned by some- body else or a wage worker, as you probably are, which would you choose? Would you prefer to be owned as a chat- tel and sold on the block rather than a wage-earner as you are today? I do believe that the wage-system, even with its unemployment, and injustice, is superior to chattel slavery. I do not believe in befuddling my mind to the extent of say- ing that chattel slavery is better than the wage system, as some people do, for purposes of discussion. But, if they were put up against it personally, they would say: I will take the wage system every time. In Greece they had a chattel slave system, four hundred thousand of them as against twenty-one thousand free citi- zens. So, when you get down to the fundamentals of their civilization, it was not on a par with our modern civilization. Brother Darrow is worrying a lot lest the spirit of human freedom is dead. I wish he could be in Russia for a while now; it would do him good! He will differ with me on this I 26 DARROW-KEXXEDY DEBATE. know, but I believe his ideas about Russia are about the same ideas in the main that the newspaper men have about Russia. I do not say that in any sense of criticism at all. What I mean by it is that most of us here in this country do not know the real truth about Russia. I think if we were there and saw the actual spirit prevailing among those millions of Russians, we would say that the spirit of freedom is not dead! I believe the torch of liberty is burning very brightly and fiercely among the millions and millions in Russia today and more than it ever did before in the history of the human race. That is largely a matter of belief. As I say, we have not got the facts; it is unfortunate. If I can get to Russia within the next year or so, I am going to try to get some of the facts for myself. I believe it to that extent. 1 believe in other countries in Europe the same spirit of liberty is manifest. I should not be surprised if you would see something interesting happen in England this week! You certainly will if the government does not get off the lid and grant some more great conces- sions to the railroad workers, to the dockers and mine work- ers, giving them some more leisure and the worth while things in life that these people are after. You will find that the spirit of liberty is not dead in England, either. There is going to be a revolution in England just as sure as fate. So, too, the peo- ple who think the spirit of liberty is dead in this country sim- ply need to wait a little while. Things will pick up over here! I am not worrying about the ultimate outcome. The people in this country just need to be worked up a little bit. They do not realize just exactly what is going on. They will in the course of a few years; it may take five, twenty or twenty- five years. But, what is that in the history of civilization? The real economic conditions are here for a great civilization. It is not a religious proposition that underlies my faith. It is an economic proposition. It is the development of the work- ers in the economic struggle, the development of the indus- trial organization. We can see real progress, step by step whereby we can in a larger measure rule our destiny. My faith is not simply out of the skies or what I have read in a book, but it is based upon what we can witness in the actual development of our economic and social order. If that evolution had not taken place; if I could not see the difference between the earlier and the later stages, with mankind steadily moving forward, and see the progress from the beast of burden and the cart, up to the railroad and the automobile and the aeroplane I might not be so optimistic. It is not a matter of theory but of fact, the conquest of the forces of Nature, the freeing of mankind in a very real sense KENNEDYS SECOND SPEECH. ffl which makes it possible for you to be here today and, if you have a little money, in California tomorrow. It is essential to have that little money. That is the reason we want to change the social order. The fact we have the automobiles, railroads, have harnessed the powers of electricity, use steamships instead of dug-outs, are fundamental and essen- tial to the real civilization. And, those conditions never existed before in the history of the human race. It is a fact, not a dream. The economic foundations for a high civilization for millions of people never existed before the modern era. It may be that a few individ- uals could get along very well, but the masses could not un- der the old social conditions. This is the first time that we ever had the economic foundations for a high civilization. The queston remains: Is it possible to pass on our technical and scientific and social achievements? Can we do it by means of universities, by means of industrial museums; by means of literature; by means of word of mouth; by means of meetings like this? Can we pass on the achievements of the past and present to the future generations? That is the real question. I believe we can and we will do it. I believe the printing press, the library and university are going to be the means whereby we pass on what has been achieved in the past, and I am fully aware of the conditions in the universities today, too. When I say the university will be the means, I am aware that we will have to get rid of some of the present boards of trustees, to be sure. We will do that. And, if we cannot do that, we can build up some of our own universities in place of the other universities. Brother Lewis talked about a publishing society. Truly, you are a publishing society, and what is there to stop your development? Here is an organization of men and women who come together for mutual advancement and develop- ment. What is to prevent this organization from growing; this is like one of the old time universities, where the people came in flocks and met in the groves not in class-rooms, but in vast numbers and considered questions of vast interest and importance to the people. You truly have a university right here, and it is going to facilitate the passing on of such science as already has been attained. With such institutions developing and growing all over the world, I cannot see how we are going to lose the liberty we have. I cannot see that the world is going backward. I can see that we are making wonderful progress and that we are organizing in a way that is going to make it possible to bring home to all the people the advantages now enjoyed by only a few of the people. 28 DARROW-KEXXEDY DEBATE. That is the reason I am a Socialist. That is the reason I stand for the socialist program, because, to my mind, it is the next necessary step in the line of human development; it is the necessary program for placing the achievements of all humanity in the possession of all the people. That is the im- portant thing. Now, just to say it never has been done does not bother me any. Lots of things that were never done before are done now. Remember the countryman who said to the engineer, when he saw the first locomotive: "You will never get the darn thing started". And, then as the locomotive rolled off he turned to him and said: "You will never get the darn thing stopped". That is very much the position our friend Darrow takes. If you do get it you can not keep it, and even if you are happy you will never be satisfied, and whatever progress you get will not be progress after all. Well, I believe that it makes Brother Darrow happy to think that way. He gets the pleasure out of his pessimism that the rest of us get out of our optimism. But, to get back to what I believe to be the fundamental and essential key to the whole situation. The question of the higher civilization rests on that proposition of the technique to control the forces of Nature; that is fundamental, and as that advances, your civilization advances; if that goes down, your civilization goes down. You can satisfy yourself, if you will make the investigation that there has been great advance in the past. If you will look over the various institutions and agencies for perpetuating and advancing the achievements that have been made, I think you will be satisfied that there is a promising future for the human race. The Chairman : Our friend Kennedy has suggested that should be his last speech and the closing of the debate be left to Mr. Darrow. I will now call upon Mr. Darrow. MR. DARROW'S LAST SPEECH. Mr. Darrow said : I do not see any need of taking any of your time in closing this debate. I trust you have all had something to think about from both of us on this anyhow. Mr. Kennedy does not quote me quite right in saying the machine will not start or start. I believe it will start and I believe it will stop. Then it will start again and speed up and slow down and stop and start again and stop, world with- out end Amen! Now, I do not want to be put in a wrong attitude about Russia. I am really very strong for Russia. And, I want to see Mr. Lenine and Mr. Trotsky succeed. My difference with DARROW'S LAST SPEECH. 29 some of you came over the question of whether allied armies should be sent to Russia in times of war with Germany, and I think they should. But, when war is over, Russia ought to be left to work out her own destiny, and I hope it will be good and I hope it will be free. I want to call your attention to one or two things, though, "so you will not get too much proud flesh," as Weber & Field say. I have read Mr. Lenine's address to the workers of America and, of course, he says largely that they have abolished freedom in Russia and they had to do it. Very likely they had to. I do not want you to think they are any better than the rest. They are not. Per- haps they may work out toward a higher civilization, but they are using exactly the same tools as the rest. The proletariat if that is the right word can shout, but the bourgeois has to keep his mouth shut. They have just stood the thing on its head. Well, I do not object to that. If it can stand on its head, all right, and maybe that is the right end of it! I fancy though it will not last; now, you know Nature is a funny old thing. It has no intelligence; it has no unintelligence; it has no anything. It is just busy, that is all. Why, if I had been called on to fix this thing in the be- ginning. I would have had it right. But, Nature went at it like a blind, stupid, fool mechanic that knew nothing about his business. But, Nature is the boss, that is the trouble. I do not ask you to study Nature; and I don't suppose Kennedy does; because Nature knows anything. She knows nothing. But you have got to obey her. She is the boss and you would better study to find out how she is going so you can go along with her, that is all. Now, Nature does not reason or think. She just acts. And, I fancy that the intellectuals of Russia, if they are intellectuals, and many of them are, although prob- ably not all of them, many of them are I fancy they can not make an intellectual, patented, ready-made scheme and put it down on the heads of the Russians and have it fit. If they can, all right. But, heads are not made that way. Heads are simply awful. They would have just as good a chance putting it down on their heels. You can just take this for a prophecy, hoping that it will not come true. I would not mind letting the world stand on its head for a while if that was all there would be to it, because it has been standing on the other end so long; but, I fancy the customs and habits and ideas and superstitions of man are so deeply settled that he can swear allegiance to a paper constitution and forget it the next day. I know what I am talking about at least I think I do. I hope I am wrong, but I am not. It is just like a mis- sionary taking over a Bible and a ton of rice to convert the Chinese. When they have eaten up the rice, they have for- 30 DARROW-KEXXEDY DEBATE. gotten the Bible. Now, of course, I wish they would throw away the rice and stick to the Bible. But, they will not. So I think Mr. Lenine and Mr. Trotsky will be out of it the way the czar is out o fit and someone in between will come along and blunder along a while and the world will not be so very much different, probably a little better for a time. I fancy Russia is on the up-grade. I was talking about the United States being on the down-grade, and I think she is. Russia is newer; Russia is more primitive. There is no other way to go excepting up! For us, there is no other way to go excepting down; we have started. Put this on a philosophical basis. Man consists of his stomach, legs and a head, such as it is. Of course, a man can get along without a brain but not without his stomach ; that is really more important. That is the philosophy of social- ism the Gospel according to Saint Marx. And, when man digests his food he has to run around more or less and he has to have legs or he can not digest his food. Take a man like me, who does not believe in food, and who doesn't run around and his stomach will go back on him after a while. This is all exactly true. You let all our people ride in auto- mobiles, as they will under the socialist commonwealth, and they will loose the use of their legs and then their stomachs will not digest the food, so what use are their brains? They will decay, absolutely. Now, that is civilization. I believe that is civilization just as sure as the course of the earth is around the sun. Let me put this question a little plainer, if I can. Civili- zation has in itself the seeds of its decay. As long as man lives, he must have legs and arms and a stomach. He can get along with very little brains. Most of them do, and they have too much brains at that, for they do not use them, they do not need them. But, his stomach and his legs are neces- sary. Now, it is a fool world that they should be necessary but, there they are, and you cannot help it. What man ought to have had was brain and wings. That is all he ever should have had; but, Nature, not knowing how to do the job, loaded him up this way. But, he can not live without putting food down into his stomach and running around so that it will digest. And, when you get your flying machines, and your automobiles and your railroads, and man stops running around to hunt his prey, he is going to die, that is all, and he always has, I think. He can only live until this physical part of him gets so far up and then he comes down to earth, for that is where he draws his supply. That law has been at work forever. Mankind only gets a certain distance from the earth when he comes back just as gravitation draws the balloon DARROVV'S LAST SPEECH. 31 back when it goes up. An everlasting round, From work, running, eating and digesting, man develops a certain brain power, and when he is overloaded with that, he goes back again to the earthly things to pull himself up. Take this with you as a suggestion: The intellect keeps you always thinking and dreaming. Suppose the people of this world learn just one thing, which they are learning very fast; suppose they learn birth control. Then the human race is done for; it is done for, unless there are just a few savages left who will build it up again. Nature tricked man into life; she lied to him and cheated him and defrauded him and tricked him so that life would be born everlastingly upon the earth. And, when man is intelligent enough to learn the cheat, and the fraud and the lie, and to control it, then the race is going to die. The Catholics are right on that propo- sition. You can only go up in the air a certain distance, grav- ity calls you back. The old pendulum is swinging around for- ever. The eternal recurrence of things in the physical world, in the spiritual world, in matter and in life, prevails forever! , University of California IN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY SOUTHERN REGK 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 Return this material to the library from which it wss borrowed.