leaders who had studied human nature and who had reached the same
conclusion: that civilization could not solve the problem of Hunger
until it recognized the titanic strength of the sexual instinct. In
Spain, I found that Lorenzo Portet, who was carrying on the work of the
martyred Francisco Ferrer, had reached this same conclusion. In Italy,
Enrico Malatesta, the valiant leader who was after the war to play
so dramatic a role, was likewise combating the current dogma of the
orthodox Socialists. In Berlin, Rudolph Rocker was engaged in the
thankless task of puncturing the articles of faith of the orthodox
Marxian religion. It is quite needless to add that these men who had
probed beneath the surface of the problem and had diagnosed so much more
completely the complex malady of contemporary society were intensely
disliked by the superficial theorists of the neo-Marxian School.

The gospel of Marx had, however, been too long and too thoroughly
inculcated into the minds of millions of workers in Europe, to be
discarded. It is a flattering doctrine, since it teaches the laborer
that all the fault is with someone else, that he is the victim of
circumstances, and not even a partner in the creation of his own and his
child's misery. Not without significance was the additional discovery
that I made. I found that the Marxian influence tended to lead workers
to believe that, irrespective of the health of the poor mothers, the
earning capacity of the wage-earning fathers, or the upbringing of
the children, increase of the proletarian family was a benefit, not
a detriment to the revolutionary movement. The greater the number of
hungry mouths, the emptier the stomachs, the more quickly would the
"Class War" be precipitated. The greater the increase in population
among the proletariat, the greater the incentive to revolution. This
may not be sound Marxian theory; but it is the manner in which it is
popularly accepted. It is the popular belief, wherever the Marxian