The Camouflagingof Eugenicistsas Eugenicism’s Opponents 93that eugenicists“on the ‘right’” likewiseemployedthe socialDarwinismlabel“to stigma-
tize laissezfaire.”^104 Alongwiththeseothers,MattRidleyaffirmsthat evaluation.^105
BesidesPearsonandWard,examplesof self-avowedsocialistsamongthe State-run
eugenicsmovementincludeBritishLabourPartychairmanHaroldLaski(1893–1950),^106
activist“Red” EmmaGoldman(1869–1940),NobelPrize-winninggeneticistHermann
JosephMuller(1890–1967),^107 geneticsexpertJ. B. S. Haldane,and,as a youngscientist,
WorldWildlifeFundfounderJulianHuxley(1887–1975).^108 Laskiwroteof his fretting
over“the fosteringof the unfitat the expenseof the fit, andtheirconsequentover-
propagation.” For thatreason,Laskistated,Laskiwanted“naturalselection” supplanted
withgovernmental“reproductiveselection.. .” Thisgovernmentalcontrolwouldcon-
structa masterraceintelligentenoughto “builda strongpoliticalsuperstructure” of
State-drivencollectivism.^109
PlaywrightGeorgeBernardShaw(1856–1950)ofPygmalionfame,^110 andpolemicists
Sidney(1859–1947)andBeatriceWebb(1858–1943)^111 weresocialistswhoeachpledged
allegianceto eugenicism,compulsorysterilization,andimmigrationrestriction.Sidney
WebbwrotethesecomplaintsinFabianTractaboutEnglandbeinginfestedwithnew
ethnicitieshe did not feelcomfortablearound.“In GreatBritainat thismoment,...
childrenare beingfreelybornto the IrishRomanCatholicsandthe Polish,Russian,and
GermanJews,on the one hand,andthe thriftlessandirresponsible—largelythe casual
laborersand the otherdenizensof the one-roomedtenementsof our greatcities—on the
other.... Thiscan hardlyresultin anythingbut nationaldeterioration;or, as an alterna-
tive,in this countrygraduallyfallingto the Irishand the Jews.Finally,thereare signsthat
eventheseracesare becominginfluenced.Theultimatefutureof theseislandsmaybe-
longto the Chinese!”^112 Webbrefusesto toleratethe possibilitythat personsof EastAsian
descentcouldholdmoneyand power.
In keepingwiththeirgovernisteugenicism,Shawandthe Webbsalsoseriouslypre-
vaileduponthe BritishEmpireto acquiremoreunderdevelopednationsas colonialterri-
tories.^113 Thisconspicuouslycontradictsthe contemporarystereotypethatradicalleftists
categoricallyopposecolonialismand militarism.Shawclarified,“The problembeforeus,
is howthe worldcan be orderedby GreatPowersof practicallyinternationalextent....
The notionthat a nationhas the rightto do whatit pleaseswithits ownterritory,without
referenceto the interestsof the rest of the world,is no moretenablefromthe International
Socialistpointof view—that is, fromthe pointof viewof the twentiethcentury—thanthe
notionthatthe landlordhas a rightto do whathe likeswithhis ownestatewithout
referenceto the interestsof his neighbours.”^114 It will be rememberedfromBookTwothat
in the earlytwentiethcenturyJohnA. Hobsonand VladimirLeninwroteof imperialism
beingevil.Yet the prevailingnotionamongsocialistsfromthe 1800sto WorldWarTwo
hadbeenin favorof militarism.It wasnot untilthe UnitedStatesandthe UnitedKing-
domcomingintoconflictwiththe SovietUnionand othercommuniststatesthat Western
leftists—in sympathyfor the communists—urgedthe Westto refrainfromwar.
Despitehis priorcriticisms,ArthurEkirchat leastrecognizesSumneras an “anti-
imperialist” in contradistinctionto Shawand the Webbs.As a corollary,Ekirchconcedesa
specificpointof Sumner’s. Thispointis thatmuchnineteenth-centuryrhetoricurging
Europeanimperialismamountedto a logicalextensionof the socialists’ and progressives’
conceitthat the Stateshouldcontrolotherpeople’s lives.Shawand the Webbswantedthe
governmentto controlpeoplewithintheirnativeBritain.By extension,Shawandthe
Webbswouldhaveit thatthisStatecontrolbe extendedbeyondnationalboundaries.
“ThecontemporaryAmericanrationalefor imperialism,as professorslikeSumner...
complained,seemedto anticipateandparallel Progressivistideology. Thusthe...
governmentsoughtby Progressives,it wasbelieved,couldalsoprovebeneficialabroad.
Exhortationsof reformand self-sacrificeat homeas the meansof simplejusticefor the less