[The Bour­geois Dar­win­ists] claimed that only the exter­mi­na­tion of all the weak is in accor­dance with nature and that it is nec­es­sary to pre­vent the dete­ri­o­ra­tion of the race, while pro­tec­tion of the weak is unnat­ural and leads to degen­er­a­tion. But what do we see? In nature itself, in the ani­mal world, we find that the weak are pro­tected, that they don’t need to per­sist by their indi­vid­ual strength, and that they are not exter­mi­nated due to their indi­vid­ual weak­ness. And this arrange­ment does not weaken a group in which it is the rule, but strength­ens it. The ani­mal groups in which mutual aid is best devel­oped main­tain them­selves best in the strug­gle for exis­tence....
....Where then, is that power in nature that chooses the animals just as the breeder does?

Darwin pondered this problem long before he found its solution in the “struggle for existence.” In this theory we have a reflex of the productive system of the time in which Darwin lived, because it was the capitalist competitive struggle which served him as a picture for the struggle for existence prevailing in nature. It was not through his own observation that this solution presented itself to him. It came to him by his reading the works of the economist Malthus. Malthus tried to explain that in our bourgeois world there is so much misery and starvation and privation because population increases much more rapidly than the existing means of subsistence. There is not enough food for all; people must therefore struggle with each other for their existence, and many must go down in this struggle. By this theory capitalist competition as well as the misery existing were declared as an unavoidable natural law. In his autobiography Darwin declares that it was Malthus’ book which made him think about the struggle for existence.
...