As regards the theory of evolution, how can any one not see that it most flagrantly contradicts the classical theories of political economy, which looks upon the basic laws of the existing economic organization as eternal and immutable laws? Socialism, on the contrary, maintains that the economic institutions and the juridical and political institutions are only the historical product of their particular epoch, and that therefore they are changing, since they are in a state of continuous evolution, which causes the present to differ from the past, just as the future will be different from the present. Herbert Spencer believes that universal evolution dominates over all orders of phenomena, with the exception of the organization of property, which he declares is destined to exist eternally under its individualistic form. The socialists, on the contrary, believe that the organization of property will inevitably undergo--just as all other institutions--a radical transformation, and, taking into consideration its historical transformations, they show that the economic evolution is marching and will march faster and faster--as a consequence of the increased evils of individualist concentration--toward its goal, the complete socialization of the means of production which constitute the physical basis of the social and collective life, and which must not and can not therefore remain in the hands of a few individuals. Between these two doctrines it is not difficult to decide which is the more in harmony with the scientific theory of physical and social evolution. In any case, with all the respect due to our intellectual father, Herbert Spencer, but also with all the pride to which my scientific studies and conscience give me the right, I am content with having repelled the anathema which Herbert Spencer--without having read my book and on indirect and untrustworthy information--has thought proper to hurl with such a dogmatic tone against a scientific thesis which I have affirmed--not merely on the strength of an _ipse dixi_ (a mode of argument which has had its day)--but which I have worked out and supported with arguments which have, up to this time, awaited in vain a scientific refutation. ENRICO FERRI. Rome, June, 1895. FOOTNOTES: [87] This appendix is a copy of a letter addressed by M. Ferri to an Italian newspaper which had printed a letter addressed by Herbert Spencer to M. Fiorentino. [88] Wallace has advanced beyond this "half way house," and now calls himself a Socialist.--Tr. APPENDIX II.[89] SOCIALIST SUPERSTITION AND INDIVIDUALIST MYOPIA.