ion, developing in mass in perfection and
functional activity."

The points of difference between organisms and society go farther; and it
is proved that these differences are merely apparent, but that organisms
and societies are absolutely similar.

For the uninitiated man the question immediately presents itself: "What
are you talking about? Why is mankind an organism, or similar to an
organism?"

You say that societies resemble organisms in these four features; but it
is nothing of the sort. You only take a few features of the organism,
and beneath them you range human communities. You bring forward four
features of resemblance, then you take four features of dissimilarity,
which are, however, only apparent (according to you); and you thence
conclude that human societies can be regarded as organisms. But surely,
this is an empty game of dialectics, and nothing more. On the same
foundation, under the features of an organism, you may range whatever you
please. I will take the fist thing that comes into my head. Let us
suppose it to be a forest,--the manner in which it sows itself in the
plain, and spreads abroad. 1. Beginning with a small aggregate, it
increases imperceptibly in mass, and so forth. Exactly the same thing
takes place in the fields, when they gradually seed themselves down, and
bring forth a forest. 2. In the beginning the structure is simple:
afterwards it increases in complication, and so forth. Exactly the same
thing happens with the forest,--in the first place, there were only bitch-
trees, then came brush-wood and hazel-bushes; at first all grow erect,
then they interlace their branches. 3. The interdependence of the parts
is so augmented, that the life of each part depends on the life and
activity of the remaining parts. It is precisely so with the forest,--the
hazel-bush warms the tree-boles (cut it down, and the other trees will
freeze), the hazel-bush protects from the wind, the seed-bearing trees
carry on reproduction, the tall and leafy trees afford shade, and the
life of one tree depends on the life of another. 4. The separate parts
may die, but the whole lives. Exactly the case with the forest. The
forest does not mourn one tree.

Having proved that, in accordance with this theory, you may regard the
forest as an organism, you fancy that you have proved to the disciples of
the organic doctrine the error of their definition. Nothing of the sort.
The definition which they