-,% 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 // 
 
 4^ 
 
 
 ^•^ ^ /-/, "^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 IIM 
 
 32 
 
 I4£ 
 
 11: 1^ 
 
 IM 
 
 2.0 
 
 14 111.6 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 /i 
 
 ^>. 
 
 5^V "/ *. ^^H >^^>^ 
 
 .^ "w^ ^'^ 
 
 
 Piiotograp 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 .^' 
 
 \ 
 
 <r 
 
 
 
 ^<g^^\ «>/<^ '^k\ 
 
 \<^^ 
 
 
 ""i,^' 
 
 "%' 
 

 ^ ^S:. 
 
 W., 
 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions histuriques 
 
 Q' 
 
 ?-> 
 
 1987 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bioliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 The 
 to th 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 a 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 a 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculde 
 
 C jver title missing/ 
 
 I } titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 '^oloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 L.icre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations an couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli^ avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 Lareliura serrce peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion le long de la marge interieure 
 
 Blank leaver, added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 
 II se peut que certain's pages blanches ajout^es 
 ion dune restauration apparaissent dans le te.xte, 
 mais, lorsque cela ^tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas ixi filmdes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commantaires supplementaires: 
 
 L'Institut a microfilme le meilleu; exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquis ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloursd pages/ 
 Pages da couleur 
 
 I I Pages damaged/ 
 
 n 
 
 Pages endommagees 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurees et/ou pelliculees 
 
 EFages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 f 
 
 D 
 
 The 
 poss 
 of th 
 film! 
 
 Orig 
 befli 
 the I 
 sion, 
 othe 
 first 
 sion, 
 or ill 
 
 Pages ddcolorees, tachet^es ou piquees 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages detach^ies 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Qualite inigale de ('impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materia 
 Comprend du materiel supple.nentaire 
 
 idition available/ 
 Edition disponible 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 rT] Showthrough/ 
 
 n~] Quality of print varies/ 
 
 r~~| Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 □ Only edition available/ 
 Seuld 
 
 The 
 shall 
 TIIMl 
 whic 
 
 Map 
 diffe 
 dntir 
 begii 
 right 
 requ 
 metl 
 
 Pages wholly or partially ohscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible irrage/ 
 Las pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obsnurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., cnt a§ film^&s A nouveau de faccn a 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio c tacked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filme au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 
 
 10X MX 18X 22X 
 
 2GX 
 
 30X 
 
 y 
 
 UA 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Queen's University 
 
 The images .appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recoided frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol •— ► (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED '), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included In one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many fiames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grfice d la 
 g4n6rositi6 de: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Queen's University 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filmd, et en 
 conformity avec las conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires origlnnux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim^e sont film6s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression cu d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — »>signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diff6rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la m6thode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
m 
 
 
1 
 
 y. 
 
 '•' 
 
 \ 
 
 SOCIALISM 
 
 ■ ) 
 
 1 1 
 
 f 
 f 
 
 AN ADDRESS DK LIVKRKD BEFORE THE KNOX COLLEGE ALUMNI 
 ASSOCIATION AT THEIR POST-GRADUATE SESSION. 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES GIBSON HUME, M.A., PH.D., 
 
 I'NOFBSSOH OF ETHICS AM) THE HISTORY OF IHII.OSOPHV, 
 UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO. 
 
 l-A, 
 
 aMrt»«'«l 
 
 [Reprinted from Ike Knox College Monthly.] 
 
 J 51 
 
 ^1 
 
The Value of a Study of Ethics 
 
 ^H Inaugural Lecture 
 
 RV 
 
 JAMES GIBSON HUME, M.A., Ph.D., 
 
 Professor of Ethics ami Hi.<toiy of Pliilosofhy, 
 
 I 'niversily of Toronto. 
 
 24 pp. 8vo., 
 
 15C. 
 
 TORONTO : 
 
 The J. E. IiRvant Companv (Limiti:i)), 58 Bay Street. 
 
 Political Economy and Ethics 
 
 Same Author and PuuHslu 
 40 pp. - 25 cents. 
 
 \ 
 
SOCIALISM. 
 
 I. THE SIGNIFICAN'CE OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 
 
 IT was suggested to me that instead of dealing with the subject 
 announced—" The contribution of ethics towards the settle- 
 ment of the relation of science to religion " — I should take some 
 topic not so abstract and abstruse ; something; less theoretical- 
 more practical. 
 
 I regard this demand for the " practical," which is such a promi- 
 nent characteristic of our own time, as, on the whole, commend- 
 able, and the e.xpression of what is, in iis deepest meaning, a 
 proper tendency. 
 
 It is not denied that this tendency, like everything else of a 
 rt^orthy character, is liable to be misconceived, misrepresented, 
 and perverted. When the conception of what should be termed 
 " practical " is a limited and inadequate one, when everything 
 is measured by its immediate effect in producing wealth and pro- 
 curing enjoyment, the desire foi what is thus falsely conceived as 
 " practical "" results in a negative attitude towards all that is 
 noblest and best ; moral impulses and religious convictions are 
 stifled ; every claim for strenuous effort and high endeavor is 
 treated with indifference ; for who will " fight the good fight of 
 faith " when the ideals that constitute this faith are regarded as 
 the visionary dreams of speculation, or the prejudices of blind 
 fanaticism ? Even educational methods are modified, and we find 
 that haste for immediate results, that shallowness and superfici- 
 ality which ignores, and fails to secure, the best results of true 
 education. 
 
 Yet I still maintain that though in this way liable to perver- 
 sion, and evil consequence in proportion to this perversion, the 
 demand for the pr^^iical is based upon a deep foundation of true 
 insight. It registers a conviction that, after all, knowledge is for 
 the sake of conduct ; that theories and ideals, whether scientific, 
 moral, or religious, should be realized and manifested in Ufe ; 
 
SOCIALISM. 
 
 that by their duAs we should knew them. It is the Epistle of 
 James in modern form, bringing out the supplementary truth 
 sometimes overlooked or forgotten in St. Paul's message. It is 
 convinced that faith should not remain a mere possession, a 
 passive state, but should be evidenced and expressed in works ; 
 that faith shocld be living, and, like all life, full of energy, not 
 absorbing, like a sponge, but assimilating and transforming what 
 is received, in order to issue in beneficent action. 
 
 The relation of the theoretical to the practical is the relation 
 of faith to works. The cry for the practical is the protest against 
 severmg theory from practice. 
 
 I need scarcely point out that, from my point of view, it would 
 be just as disastrous to separate practice from theory. 
 
 Granted that action is the purpose of theory, that works are 
 the proper outcome and expression of faith, still, works that do 
 not express any faith are lifeless ; acts which express no theory, 
 or principle capable of being formalized in a theory, are merely 
 instinctive, and may often be irrational. The more clearly the 
 man knows and consciously adopts the principles that should 
 guide action, the more effective and beneficent will be his action. 
 
 '* Be practical," properly interpreted, means : Neglect no 
 aspect of truth ; forget no element in reality ; wed deepest 
 research to widest conduct ; let all theory be living in action ; 
 let all action be guided by wise and tested theory; not capricious 
 acts, not arbitrary theories. Away with dreaming, and away 
 with bungling ! Let us see the light, and let us act as children 
 of the light. 
 
 With a true conception of what the really practical is, we 
 may protest against many one-sided perversions in the name of 
 the "practical." 
 
 The truly practical protests against the false separation ot 
 elements that are vitally interconnected, interrelated, mutually 
 interdependent ; the sham practical over against one abstraction 
 sets up another and opposite one. For example, the false or f.ham 
 practical will say : " What we want is more religion, and less 
 theology " ; but if, when thus contrasted with theology, religion 
 means life and conduct that embodies and manifests ideals and 
 convictions, and theology means the apprehension, through 
 , investigation, reflection, and interpretation of the principles, 
 convictions, and ideals that should constitute religion, then 
 
SOCIALISM. 
 
 what the truly practical must assert is not " more r«lif,ion and 
 less theology," but, on the contrary, more religion and more 
 theology, in more vital union. 
 
 Theology and ethics, by their procedure in the past in setting 
 up one part in independence from another essentially united 
 with it, have given a bad example to the falsely practical, v/hich, 
 in turn, simply sets up in independent reality the part previously 
 ignored. 
 
 Theology, for instance, at times abstracts itself from ethics. 
 It identifies morality with mere legalism, and excludes it. But 
 legalism is not truly morality, because it is itself an abstracting 
 or separating of the external from the inner life. The confusion 
 of moraliiv w^h its caricature leads to the casting out of both 
 i' disrr;n;..irt--jly. The result is that, instead of being the deep 
 conv''~:iou> the full consecration of the whole nature to the 
 ti^hteot's and reasonable demands of truth, goodness, and holi- 
 ness with reverence tov/ards t'le personal source and fountain of 
 parity and rightecusnr^ss, rei:g(o;\ when thus severed from and 
 >pposed to muralily, tendii ;o degrade into mere sentiment and 
 emotion, awakened b\ the contagion of excitement and backslid- 
 ing as soon as the Siiruilus is withdrawn. 
 
 Instead of disconnecting and opposing, we should unite and 
 combine theology and ethics, religion and morality, both in 
 theory and in conduct. If ethical theory is separated from theo- 
 logical theory, the latter, left insecure as to its foundations in 
 personality and ac countability, is liable to topple over either 
 towards pantheism, on the one hand, or to materialistic natural- 
 ism, on the other. 
 
 It is just as futile to make moralit}' independent of religion. 
 In theory, it is soon discovered that all the various duties under 
 the divisions of lojalty and respect for the sacred meaning of the 
 person's own real being, esteem and regard for the true well- 
 being of his neighbor, requires to be taken up into ,the higher 
 region and be referred to the source of all being and all true well- 
 being, and demanding as our reasonable service reverence and 
 worship to the personal source of all reality, truth, goodness, and 
 holmess. And, on the other hand, experience has shown that 
 wherever ethical societies have been formed, apparently trying 
 to become independent, they may succeed without the special 
 organization of a church, but they are soon found to be most 
 
SOCIALISM. 
 
 earnestly strup;f^ling to rtnd a genuine religious basis for their 
 work. Ethics, as a theory of morals, should be more compre- 
 hensive and practical than has been the usual custom. It should 
 include a scientitic and historical part, with its attempt to make 
 classifications and descriptions ; a philosophical investigation of 
 the significance and validity of its fundamental principles — the 
 most important and most difficult part, where it comes most 
 nearly in contact with theolog\- — and, lastly, it should consider 
 concrete problems of real life, that the student may have train- 
 ing in discovering the application of moral principles to the com- 
 plex relations of human life, and learn to see these intricate 
 problems illuminated by the guidance of moral ideals. This is 
 the work of what might be termed " applied ethics," and one 
 problem worthy of such an investigation is the one we shall 
 endeavor briefly to deal with to-day — socialism. 
 
 Since the time when Aristoile defined ethics as that which 
 deals with the conduct of individuals, and politics as the consid- 
 eration of the comtitution and action of crgani/L-d society, there 
 has been an expli. it attempt to limit ethics to the consideration 
 of the individual, regarded in abstraction from society, and a 
 consequent failure to see that one of the most important subjects 
 for ethical enquiry is man's dut\-, not as an independent indi- 
 vidual, but as an actual member of an organized society. Hence 
 it is not unnatural that many who felt the need of some special 
 training to enable them to deal intelligently with what are 
 termed the social problems of our time turned aside from ethics 
 to po!i<-iral ^:,ience. It is not difficult to see why thev were 
 doomed to disappointment, because political science simply rleals 
 with what has been, and what is, with the purpose of discovering 
 tendencies and results, as these affect the accumulation and 
 distribution of wealth, never once saying a word about what 
 ought to be. and yet it is in order to discover what ought to be 
 that the earnest student, desiring the real improvement of 
 society, has undertaken the study. Thus the limitation of the 
 ethical enquiry to the convictions and conduct of the individual 
 as a separate individual, and the exclusion of the moral element 
 from what Aristotle termed politics, has left a large and most 
 important field of enquiry almost entirely neglected, and scarcely 
 ever receiving due recognition— that is, the ethical consideration 
 of social relations. 
 
SOCIALISM. 
 
 Moral convictions, intentions, and purposes in the individual 
 are, indeed, fundamental and essential ; but we need also to 
 enquire how can j^'ood intentions lind such expression in social 
 conduct that will tend tiiost X.o the moral advancement and highest 
 welfare of our fellow-beings. 
 
 Just at this point, popular thought is most confused and 
 uncertain, and, when we turn to the leaders of thought, their 
 guidance seems to stop and leave us groping in the dark. Exam- 
 ples can easily be given of debated problems that concern the 
 organization and united action of society, and yet are so dis- 
 tinctly and fundamentally ethical questions that the moral element 
 is almost universally recognized as being, in some way, present. 
 The subject of temperance will serve for illustration. Owing to 
 the frequent and thorough discussion of this (juestion for so many 
 years, we may expect a great deal of information and insight. It 
 will be very instructive to note that circumstance or relation of 
 this much-debated question which still remains most uncertain, 
 and about which we find the greatest disagreement among those 
 who are honestly and conscientiously considering it. If we take 
 the physiological standpoint, and ask about the influence of 
 intoxicating liquors upon the human system, we have a great 
 deal of scientific information forthcoming, and the moral element 
 is perfectly clear, and fully recognized, viz., that the individual 
 has a duty to endeavor to preserve his health, and not to sacri- 
 fice it to mere pleasurable feeling. 
 
 If we next consider the financial aspect, we get a great deal of 
 scientific information about the commercial effects of the habit of 
 using intoxicants. Here, however, the moral element seems 
 rather to be obscured by the economic consideration. The 
 emphasis upon the financial aspect leads careless thinkers to 
 vagueh- imagine that, if the balance were on the other side of the 
 page, the use of intoxicants and the traffic therein would be justi- 
 fiable ; whereas, on the ontrary, the moral demand from the 
 previous consideration still holds good, even though the result of 
 the traffic was an increase, instead of a loss, of wealth. 
 
 The confusion arises because the ideal for economics, the 
 greatest amount of wealth, is not consciously and explicitly sub- 
 ordinated lo the higher moral ideal, the highest development of 
 character. Some who have been long accustomed to view every- 
 thing from the standpoint of economics seem at times to forget 
 
SOCIALISM. 
 
 that, after all. wealth is merel\- a means, and not the end of our 
 existence. '' The body is more than meat, and the life than 
 raiment." 
 
 But the confusion in this instance is slight in comparison 
 with what is making the darkness visible in the next consider- 
 ation to ivhich I shall direct your attention. 
 
 This we ma\- term the social, or administrative, side of the 
 question. What may the organi;fed community Itgitimately and 
 properly do in such a matter ? Some answer that it cannot 
 legitimately do anything at all \n the matter. It is a matter of 
 private opinion and individual right. Each should be free to 
 hold any opinion he chooses, and also free to use arguments to 
 convince others to agree with him ; that is, he may use what is 
 sometimes called "moral suasion." Hut here the action should 
 terminate : any legislative action is an interference with the 
 rights of the individual. The usual answer is to point out simi- 
 lar acts of so-called " interference "' that are not called in ques- 
 tion. The reply is ready, however: " We may tolerate these: 
 Ptili, two wrongs do not make a right, nor justify any interfer- 
 ence." Thus the argument goes on arou-.d the question of 
 interference, one party claiming that the public are, in such legis- 
 lation, interfering with the individual; the other that the public 
 is merely restraining the individual from interfering with some one 
 else. I believe the basis on which the argument is carried on 
 is too narrow. We shall return to this question later. All I am 
 concerned just now to point out is that there is no clear concep- 
 tion of what determines the correctnes' or incorrectness of public 
 action. The claim for non-interference is simply a convenient 
 way to protest against any legislation that is disliked ; to claim 
 that, because disliked, some right not defined is interfered with, 
 and to cast the presumption against anv legislative action that 
 does not completely suit everybod}-. 
 
 I wish also to call attention to another curious circumstance. 
 Although in the case of individual action it is everywhere admit- 
 ted that the moral demand is the highest, and should guide all 
 private actions in the pursuit of material well-being, when it 
 comes to the action of the communit}', as a communit\', scarcel\ 
 any one woidd think of calling in question the legitimacy of any 
 measures proposed to advance the material well-being of the 
 rommunit}-, but a large number are up in arms at once, with 
 
SOCIALISM. 9 
 
 • ■ 
 
 the cry of " Interference ! Interference ! " the moment any meas- 
 ure is piop'-sed to advance the higher interest of moral well- 
 beinp:. Must wc concUi(ie that the state exists only to contribute 
 to selfishness, and can never properly follow any hiphcr ideal ? 
 What, in short, is tht; duty of the state? What may it do? 
 What cupht it to attempt to do ' Am I stating it too strongly 
 when \ =ay that in regard to our duties as members of an organ- 
 ized ;;ocioty our conceptions are altogether vague and uncertain ? 
 
 Consider the question of charity, and you will find the f.;,' of 
 uncertainty at the very same point. There is another great 
 problem truubling our modern civilization. imperfectly under- 
 stood that few people are even aware that • rivolves a profound 
 r.ioral question, and yet whose whole debate circiv^s around the 
 enquiry into the aspect of duty, to which we have called atten- 
 tion. What is the duty of society ? H . society any duty at 
 all ? What may society undertake, what should it undertake 
 to do ? This is what socialism, in its various forms, is debating; 
 and it is because it is disputing about this great fundamenti'l 
 difficulty that I select it for a brief consideration to-day. 
 
 It may still seem strange to some of you to hear socialism 
 referred tc as concerned with an ethical problem. Wh u you 
 call to mind the mistakes and crimes that have accompanied 
 socialistic agitations, you will probably agree that I am not 
 extreme in saying that to-day we are reaping bitter fruit 'x^cause 
 the field of ethics has been so limited to the consideration of the 
 individual that the duties of the members of society have not 
 been clearly enough and fre(]uently enough presented lo become 
 generally recognised. 
 
 Now, what is socialism ? If each one here will attem[)t to 
 think out a brief answer to this question on the spur of the 
 moment, most of you would, perhaps, be read)- to confess that it 
 is a movement diiTficult to define, and tl/^t your ideas on the sub- 
 ject are a little vague. But, if I ask. How are you dif,posed 
 toward socialistic movements? what is yo-ir opinion about them ? 
 most of you would have little hesitation in pronouncing an 
 unfavorable verdict. When we hear the term socialism, we think 
 of nihilism, anarchism, and communism, an'l we call lo mind the 
 many deeds of violence and crime committed in the name of 
 these. There is some excuse for this intermingling and confusing 
 of different tendencies, no one of which is properly socialism, in 
 
wpm^ 
 
 SOCIALISM. 
 
 the strict use of that word. Inthe n wspapers, the Nvords anarch- 
 isiP and sociaUsm are used ahnost interchangeably, sometimes 
 varied by the introduction of the terms nihihsm and commumsni 
 Lately, however, even the ordinar>- newspaper has learnt that it 
 must use some discrimination in the use of these terms, for we 
 learn that the socia'ists have been passing resolutions condemn- 
 ing the anarchists. If we turn to the Encyclopaedia Bntannica 
 .nd look up the article on socialism, we shall ""t hnd nnich 
 assistance in classifying these different tendencies. We hnd. in 
 simple chronological order, an account of the lives opinions and 
 enterprises of various persons who have atten.pted to modify the 
 existing industr'al system in various ways. If we read Kirkup s, 
 -nv's or Lavaleye's Uhiory of Sacialisn,, we shall hnd the same 
 method of treatment, with scarcely any attempt made to separate 
 the essential from the unessential, the theories from, the foibles, 
 and not even the pretence of trying to enunciate the pnncip es 
 underlying the various theories in their mutual relation. W e 
 shall have to make our own classiftcation. 
 
 Perhaps we shall find it profitable to pcMnt out and distinguish 
 two opposite tendencies. Set over against socialism is individual- 
 ism We can best understand each of these as it stands in con- 
 trast to its opposite. Individualism emphasizes the independence 
 of the individual, and the need of guarding against any encroach- 
 ments upon his rights. Socialism emphasizes the claims of soci- 
 etv upon the individual, the duties of the individual to society, 
 the need of limiting the individual to his sphere as a member in 
 the state. The one speaks of the rights of the individual : the 
 other, of the right of society, or its claims upon the indivdual. 
 and his duties to societv. To understand the one side, we must 
 see it set over against the other. Let us, then, first lake a pre- 
 hminarv look at what is signified by individualism. W Hat do we 
 mean bv speaking of an individual ? The whole history of civiliza- 
 tion might be written with this in view: and it might be seen that 
 our civilization advanced just in proportion to the degree ot 
 recognition given to the meaning, signilicance. and importance ot 
 
 the individual. 
 
 It mav seem to be a remarkable statement to make, hat 
 there was a time when there was practicallx no recognition what- 
 ever of the individual as an individual, and consequentlv no 
 thoi-ht of his rights as an individual. The indivuUuu was 
 
SOCIALISM. 
 
 II 
 
 merfjed in the tribe or in the state. Even at the heif^ht of 
 ancient Greel< civili;?ation, the time of its noblest Uterature and 
 highest art, the individual was almost completel)- merged in the 
 state. But conquest and misfortune soon brought a conscious- 
 ness of the fact that the individualwas not identified with the state. 
 At first, it was a most unhappy consciousness; Epicurean and 
 Stoic alike turned their attention to the problem of the indi- 
 vidual's destiny ; the problem of life was the happiness or misery 
 of the individual. \\'ith this recognition of the worth and inde- 
 pendence of the human spirit, we have splendid examples of the 
 heroism of conduct that it often inspired. Stoicism proclaimed 
 that, though the bodv might be chained, the spirit could never 
 be fettered. Men learnt to despise outer circumstances, and to 
 defy tyrants. Perhaps it was this very defiance that so enraged 
 some of the most brutal of the tyrants, as they felt themselves 
 baf.'^.'jd and beaten bv the unconquered victim. But Stoicism 
 and Epicureanism hpd both grave defects. In both, the view of 
 religion was utterlv inadequate. For the Epicurean, the gods 
 were regarded as living apart, not troubling themselves with 
 human weal or w(5e. For the Stoic, all was at bottom a relent- 
 less fate. We may find in each age a measure of the conception 
 of the dignitvand worth of the human soul by its view of the 
 divine, and anv element of degradation admitted into the view of 
 the divine deteriorates and undermines self-respect and regard 
 for the sacredness of human existence. So, not to mention Epi- 
 cureanism, which easily deteriorated into mere sensualism, even 
 Stoicism, with its nobler elements, through its false view of the 
 divine as merelv a relentless fate, soon lost respect for the sacred- 
 ness of life, and thus came to advocate the cowardice of suicide, 
 that counsel of despair. 
 
 It was at this stage that a new and marveiious power arose 
 to proclaim the infinite worth of the individual, the nobility of 
 his origin, the glory of his destiny, the illimitable meaning of his 
 
 possibilities. , \ n a • t- 
 
 Christianitv aro-;, in its pur.ty, to proclaim that God is not 
 far from anv one of us ; that He was not. as the Epicurean 
 affirmed, indifferent to the fate of any of His creatures, but that 
 not even a sparrow fell without His notice ; that the human soul 
 was of such importance that the question was asked. W hat would 
 it profit if a man sliould gain the whole world, get m summation 
 
|E |3g5S" 
 
 IS 
 
 EOCIALISM. 
 
 a possession of all the delights pictured by the hpicurean, oe an 
 epitome of the whole universe as conceived by the Stoic-wha 
 would it profit him if he gained all this, nnd lost his own soul . 
 How different is this from those earlier views that entirely forgot 
 the soul, lost in their contemplation, of nature The uihmte 
 worth of the human soul of such importance that the divine 
 Himself was willing to suffer, to come down and assist the 
 struggling finite spirit, redeem the sinner, make him a son of 
 God, an heir and joint-heir ! ^ r t f ,c 
 
 This is indeed, a marvellous message, its words familiar to us, 
 but whose' height and depth of meaning we but dmily grasp 
 We repeat the phrases, " fatherhood of God," " brotherhood of 
 man " but often they are little more than phrases, and even the 
 most Christian nations, in international matters, are almost 
 entirely forgetful of the significance of these momeucous words. 
 How we have to congratulate ourselves because lately an inter- 
 nafoiial dispute could be settled by an arbitration, as a wonder- 
 ful occurrence, while the nations of Europe-Chnstian nations- 
 are armed to the teeth for war ! What jubilation over the 
 peaceful meeting of the nations at the World's l^iir ! vvhat excla- 
 mations of wonder over a peaceful discussion at the Parliamen 
 of Religions ! that topic which should be the bond of peace but 
 which has been, alns ! so often the fruitful cause ot war. If the 
 light of this truth is onlv bcginnmg to dawn up^i us now at the 
 close of the nineteenth century, we need not wonder that the 
 message was imperfectly u '.rstood in the early history of the 
 church Pagan views of nature came in to mingle with the 
 interpretation of the divine revelation. Nature was somethmg 
 altogether opposed to God. not His handiwork, declaring His 
 -lorv No ; the earlv church held to the neo-plaiunic pagan con- 
 ception of nature as utterly and altogether bad : everything finite 
 was utterly depraved, debased, and vile. God was still very iar 
 off Salvation was possible, but it was too good to be found and 
 enjoyed in this vile world. It could only be begun in heaven. 
 This world was only a dungeon, this life a curse. 
 
 Thus arose the asceticism of the early church-its views o 
 poverty as the highest condition. The saints must be sickly and 
 emaciated, weakening themselves by penances and self-infiirted 
 tortures. Thus w-i may account for the vows that came to be 
 taken, supposed to constitute a state of higher sanctity-poverty, 
 
mm 
 
 at|ij^pS5»i!#ffl||-i 
 
 SOCIALISM. 
 
 n 
 
 celibacy, obedience. Each of these we can trace from neo-pla- 
 tonic fallacies; each indicates the utter repudiation of everything 
 connected with this life. We have an interesting example of 
 how certain portions of the scriptures may be fitted into this 
 interpretation in our modern Tolstoi. 
 
 There must be some element of truth lu this asceticism. 
 Were it not for some element of truth, it would not be so readily 
 accepted, so often recurring in history. Error must always be 
 sugar-coated with truth to make it palatable and dangerous. 
 Perhaps the most successtul way of dealing with error is simply 
 to recognize and remove the sugar-coating of truth. The hidden 
 . vileness will then disclose itself. 
 
 What is the sugar-coating of asceticism ? 
 It is the truth that to live the purely selfish life is bad. To 
 live for purely selfish ends is, in fact, the essence of badness. We 
 should not live for selfishness ; our lives should be dedicated to 
 God's service. We are not our own. But, to live for God, 
 which is our reasonable service, our onlj- rational procedure, is 
 not to abandon our earthly existence and our human interests. 
 God has sanctified humanity. Many eastern ascetics have fully 
 succeeded in abandoning utterly the world and crushing out 
 every human interest, yet have not come into God's service. It 
 is a'tremendous fallacy to suppose that the absence of human 
 interests is the presence of divine interests. The eastern ascetic 
 is consistent in making his god " Nirvana," emptiness, no.i-exist- 
 ence. But the God of Christianity is no^ a negative quani'ty or 
 
 an infinite ;icro. 
 
 Christ prayed, not that His disciples should be taken out of 
 the world, but that they should be kept from the evil. We are 
 enjoined to love our brother whom wc see : and inasmuch as we 
 do this to the least of Christ's brethren, we do it unto Him. 
 Even prosaic busir-ss is to be done in the right spirit. We do 
 not ..eed to wait for the New Jerusalem, but may glorify God m 
 
 Toronto. . 
 
 The medi;tval view of the worthlessncss of human interests 
 fitted in well with the institutions of the time, such as feudalism. 
 But as the implications of the vows of poverty, celibacy, and 
 obedience became more and more ident, as they became 
 har<lened into institutions and organi;iations to suppress and 
 destroy human interests and human life : when the church 
 
14 
 
 SOCIALISM. 
 
 became a power, and enforced the vow of obedience, and used its 
 power as an engine of tyranny, the human spirit at length 
 revolted against this false separation of the human from the 
 divine ; this division of everything into irreconcilable sacred and 
 secular ; this travesty of the deepest message of Christianity. 
 One form of thi3 revolt of the human spirit we are most familiar 
 with in church historv under the name of the Protestant Reforma- 
 tion The protest of Wycliffe, and Huss, and Zwingli, and brave 
 Luther, with his manly claim for the right of private judgment. 
 The repudiation of the ch'im that the individual should be so dis- 
 paraged and enslaved by a cliurch system that interposed its 
 ceremonies and authority between the human soul and its reccm- 
 ciled Creator. Luther's claim voiced a mighty movement— a 
 heartfelt and deep conviction that we must recogni/e the sacred 
 worth of the human soul ; its right, its duty, to come into direct 
 communion with its heavenly Father. The usurpation of the 
 church that grew out of its pagan view of nature, its false separa- 
 tion of the sacred and secular, its negative attitude, was with- 
 stood. 
 
 All progress in science, art, and literature rest?, for its possi- 
 bility, on the implicit or (explicit recognition of the positive 
 element emphasized in the protest for the sacred right of the 
 individual soul, its glorious privilege of freedom. This is not the 
 claim that all progress is due to Protestantism. Still, Protestant- 
 ism is one attempt to express and realize the principle on which 
 all progress must be based. Neither should all the ills that fol- 
 low the perversion of this principle be attributed to Protestantism. 
 Take, for instance, the French Revolution. Consider its excessive 
 revolt against all religion. Here there is every evidence that it 
 was the parody of religion as it was then represented— or mis- 
 represented—in the Roman Catholic Church, in league with the 
 oppressive legislatif)n of the time, and upholding it, that led to 
 the disgust of what thev supposed to be religion. They identi- 
 tied religion with Roman Catholicism, as the Roman Catholic 
 Church had taught them to do ; and so, seeing the evils and cor- 
 ruptions of Roman Catholicism, they rejected it, and supposed 
 that thev should reject all religion. 
 
 Again, in the other side of the revolt against the civil govern- 
 ment of the time, there was an element that was simply negative 
 and destructive, opposed to all form of regulation ; the degrada- 
 
SOCIALISM. 
 
 15 
 
 tion of liberty into license. " Liberie " and " Egalite " came to 
 mean: "Leteverv one do a. he likes; down with everj- one 
 who likes to do anything' else ! "' P.ut, even in the worst days of 
 the French Revolution, thete was another element stated, how- 
 ever slif^htly recognized in practice: " Fraternitc "—brother- 
 hood. And, if their practice was very unsatisfactory, some of 
 the fault must surely lie with those who trained them so badly. 
 It was certainlv a violent and extremt^ reaction against tyranny, 
 oppression, avarice, misgovernment. If the tempest wai a ter- 
 rible one, who were the guilty causes of its virulence? Was it 
 not those who, bv long-continued injuries and tyrannies, had at 
 last goaded their victims to overstep all bounds in the spirit of 
 
 revenge ? . . r 1 <,u 
 
 We have a better illustration of the recogmticn of the worth 
 of the individual in the English Revolution ; not destructive and 
 pascionately revengeful, but constructive, progressive, ameliorat- 
 ing, and beneticent. It found expression in positive reconstruc- 
 tions of societv ; such as (i) the extension of the franchise ; (2) 
 the emancipation of slaves ; (.5) removing self.sh and unnatural 
 restrictions upon trade-thus making the individual not only 
 politicallv, but also industrially, free. The striking difference 
 between "the English and the French Revolutions is that the 
 latter was simplv the violent casting off of restraints ; the former 
 attempting to be positive, and to give to the individual a proper 
 place in the reorganisation of society. The one was a revolu- 
 tion • the other was an evolution. In the evolution we hnd a 
 recognition of societv, as an organization in whose regulation the 
 individual should assist ; in whose benefits he should share as a 
 
 co-operating member. • • .^ 
 
 From our brief review we may conclude that an enquiry into 
 the significance, importance, and proper place of the individual 
 is dealing with a fundamental question. We may notice that tfie 
 progress of civilization has been so bound up with this question 
 that wc: mav sav that every advance has been conditioned by a 
 clearer apprehension in theory of the true place of the individual, 
 and the expression of this truer theory in institutions, and in 
 private and national conduct. 
 
■mg^^-'^ "tojira^-i 
 
 i6 
 
 SOCIALISM. 
 
 H. THE INDIVIDUAL AS A FACTOR IN SOCIETY. 
 
 THE distinction drawn between revolution and evolution will 
 help in contrasting two views of the individual. The first 
 is negative, opposed to all forms of regulation or control ; the 
 second, positive, seeking to give the Individual a share in the 
 control, and to widen the field for the exercise of his powers m 
 harmony with others. 
 
 The negative attitude is what is usurdly in mind when mdi- 
 vidualism is referred to. We may term this pure individualism, 
 or abstract mdividualism, and we shall be assisted in our 
 classification if at once we set over against it the opposite 
 
 extreme. 
 
 Pure individualism will have the individual absolutely uncon- 
 trolled. The other extreme would be to have the individual 
 absolutely controlled. This we may term pure despotism. 
 Between these great extremes we may easily range the various 
 theories and beliefs concerning the proper relation of the indi- 
 vidual to society, of the -overned or ungoverned to the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Of pure individualism we may notice two types— the passive, 
 eastern, and the active, western. Of these the eastern is the 
 most individualistic, the most consistent. It is entirely self- 
 included ; it will have nothing to do with others; it will not even 
 complain about them ; nay, it will not even notice their existence 
 at all. It will seek " Nirvana " ; it will counsel indifference and 
 
 quietism. 
 
 Let me quote its rules of conduct : 
 '• In him who has intercourse with others affections arise, 
 and then the pain which follows affection; considering the 
 misery that originates in affection, let one wander alone, like a 
 
 rhinoceros." ... 
 
 " He who has compassion on his friends and confidential 
 
 companions loses his own advantage, having a fettered mind ; 
 
 seeing this danger in friendship, let one wander alone, like a 
 
 rhinoceros." 
 
 The active form of pure individualism is more familiar in 
 western civilization. Here the individual is not satisfied to 
 retire, to luave the world and " wander alone, like a rhinoceros," 
 allowing others to do as they please about it. He wishes to be 
 entirelv unhampered ; so he desires to destroy every power that 
 
SOCIALISM. 
 
 17 
 
 seems to limit him in any way. " Down with all forms of 
 control, away with all government 1 " is his motto. This is the 
 doctrine of the nihilist. 
 
 Directly opposed to the nihilist, we find, :n the same country 
 in which they are most numerous, the opposite extreme of auto- 
 cratic despotism, and this juxtaposition is not a matter of acci- 
 dent, for nihilism is just a violent reaction against the other 
 
 extreme. 
 
 Despotism says, " All power to the government ; let every one 
 be completely dependent upon it." Nihilism says, " No right of 
 p, ,wer belongs to any government ; each individual should be 
 absolutelv independent, unhampered, and uncontrolled." 
 
 Despotism may have two forms: Tyranny, where the gov- 
 erning power seeks its own wishes, without any regard for the 
 governed. And paternalism, which is just as autocratic, but 
 wishes to treat the governed in a way thai is conceived to be for 
 their good ; not, however, because the governed wish this action, 
 but because the governing power wishes it. 
 
 We may tind manv examples of organizations framed on the 
 despotic (tyrannical 'or paternal) model. The theory of the 
 divine right^ of kings in English history was an attempt to give a 
 religious support to this plan of organization. Every army is 
 organized on this model. The general issues the commands, the 
 officers pass it dosvn, the private soldier must act accordmgly. 
 
 " Theirs not to reason why, 
 Theirs but to do or die." 
 
 The Protestant reformation that asserted the right of the 
 individual was met bv the counter-reformation that reasserted 
 th- inviolable validitv of the church authority. Consequently, 
 L.-yola organized his followers on the model of the army, and 
 insisted on the need of absolute obedience. 
 
 The Salvation Army is organized on the same model. All 
 selecMon of officers is from above, and each subordmate is re- 
 sponsible, not to those under him, but to those over him, and ulti- 
 mately to the General. , , ^ . . t ^ 
 
 In education, we mav contrast the method that starts from 
 the side of a consideration of the individual, and the one that is 
 framed on the despotic or paternal model. , _ 
 
 The paternal, or despotic, is carried on in accordance with 
 precise instructions from above. It has its authont.es, and to 
 
,S SOCJAI./SAf. 
 
 those it appeals. The work of the teacher is to instruct ; that is. 
 to unfold the authorities, being most careful not to ..C.d anything 
 thereto. As so much depends on the authorities used, there 
 ,nust be a careful selection, and an " index expurgatonus of 
 evervthing questionable, or not in accord with the ultimate 
 authority. This is still upheld as the only true method by the 
 
 Jesuits. ■ r • Tf ;= 
 
 The other principle starts from another point of view it is 
 most anxious to awaken the powers of the pupil, develop h.s 
 capabilities, and train his faculties, so that he may eventually 
 become independent of his teacher, and think matters out for 
 himself. This is the principle of Protestantism applied to educa- 
 tion. One of the difficulties in the way of uniting the separate 
 and public schools, not generally recognised, is this fundamental 
 opposition of theory of education. , . ' 
 
 I have called the principle of education, as opposed to 
 instruction, the Protestant principle. But, perhaps, in view of 
 recent events in the United States and Canada, we ought to say 
 this is the principle th . guides Protestants in education, with 
 the exception of the theological colleges. 
 
 In recent discussion a large section of the Protestant com- 
 munity and most of the theological journals openly advocated 
 the Jesuit principle as the only one applicable to the teaching 
 of theology. Comment is need less. 
 
 If we have clearly before our minds the principles that under- 
 lie the two extremes that I have termed pure individualism and 
 pure despotism, we may notice that the next theory in order is 
 that modification of pure individualism as exemphhcd m ndi.l.sm 
 that would bring it one stage nearer to the opposite principle ot 
 pure despotism, by admitting some place for control or go-'ern- 
 ment This will be anarchism, very slightly distinguishable from 
 nihilism. They are alike in the beginning, for both advocate the 
 need of tearing down as the first requisite. Both say we must 
 destroy all existing institutions; we must reduce society to an 
 atomic condition. But this is all nihilism works for; this i. he 
 "consummation devoutly to be wished." Anarchism on Mie 
 other hand, regards this as merely the first act m the tragedy. 
 It hopes that upon this fragmentary chaos there may mtervene 
 and follow a reorganisation. This is to be "oluntary. ^ --l-b e 
 at wish, strictly local and limited in extent-that is, with home 
 
SOCLIUSM. 
 
 19 
 
 rule" sufficiently clecentralize<l to satisfy even the Patrons of 
 
 Industrj-. 
 
 In the meantime, nihilists and anarchists join hands m a war 
 of extermination against every form of government. They are 
 justly dreaded as iW. greatest enemi. .^ to society because they 
 wish to destroy all organi;;ation. Hut there is this curious mcon- 
 sistency, that, though desiring to destroy every form of organi;?a- 
 tion, they are the most despotically and absolutely organized 
 society in existence. Their secret organization has its circles of 
 ten, in which each lower circl'.j is ruled by a higher, absolutely ; 
 and', when any member is selected to do any deed, ^however hor- 
 rible and revolting to him, it is literally "do or die." 
 
 In logical order, we should now reach our next theory by con- 
 sidering'despotism as slightly . lodified b> admitting an element 
 of consideration for the individual. The paternal torm of des- 
 potism is thus transformed into communism. The controlling 
 power is still absolute, yet it recognizes the individuals in an 
 imperfect wav. All the individuals exist to contribute to a cen- 
 tral fund, to i)e redistributed again. Each individual is regarded 
 as a unit without anv consideration of degrees of worth, earnest- 
 ness, application, or industry, or of the opposite degrees of worth- 
 lessness, laziness, or carelessness. Each is to count for one, and 
 no one to count for more than one. " Share and share alike is 
 the motto. You will easily recognize this as communism. The 
 early church, for a short time, had a kind of communism when 
 thev had all things in common. I shall make no criticism of the 
 fault of overlooking the moral value of different degrees of 
 remuneration in accordance with difficulty of work and moral 
 qualities required to ensure successful performance. 
 
 We now come to the second modification cf pure individual- 
 ism, and the second modification of pure despotism, and these as 
 .Irawing much closer together, though starting from opposite 
 extremes, will be of much greater interest. Only a small, though, 
 at times, unpleasantly active, minority belong to the classes we 
 have already enumerated, as nihilism an<l anarchism, on the 
 individualistic side, and despotism and communism, on the other. 
 The second modification of pure individualism begins by insist- 
 in- upon the central thought of individualism, that each person 
 should mind his own business; but, unlike nihilism and anarch- 
 ism, it says it is not the business of one individual to sett.e what 
 
,^ SOCIALISM. 
 
 another's business should be, or to see that he keeps to this 
 sphere. Here there is need for government to settle the hnuts. 
 and to keep each one strictly within his limits. Whenever gov- 
 ernr^ent steps beyond this to undertake anytlung for the pro- 
 po^ed good of individuals, it is overstepping its own provmce, 
 and is interfering on its p=-t with the rights of individuals, 
 whose rights it was its duty to guara from all invasion This 
 view commends itself very much to a large class of people It 
 is most frequently appealed to as if it were an almost self-evident 
 statement of the true relation of the individual to the govern- 
 ment. The government is needed, indeed ; but it is a necessary 
 evil, and the less of it the better for all. \/ „ , , 
 
 We have a famous exponent of this view in Mr. Herbert 
 Spencer, and perhaps the plausibility of his presentation has 
 done a great deal towards the wide acceptance of this theory. 
 
 Spencer say. that we may note three stages in the history ot 
 the race. Originally, there is the militar>- period, where there is 
 an excessive amount of government and a great deal of contro.. 
 Then came the industrial period, peace reigning, and government 
 greatlv curiailed. With the advancing evolution and improve- 
 ment of the race, government will be gradually eliminated, both 
 in the sphere of politics and morality. Eventually, government 
 will altogether vanish, and then both moral and political obliga- 
 
 tion will cease. , , . 
 
 Over against Spencer's modilied individualism we need to set 
 that form of modihed paternalism thnt is most properly called 
 " socialism," if that term is used with anv degree of accuracy, 
 and still more suitably termed "collectivism,- for this helps to 
 describe its chief characteristic. 
 
 Spencer allowed a place for the government as a necessary 
 evil to be gradualU- eliminate.l. Collectivism starts with the 
 emi'/iasis upon the need of extending the work of government, 
 and limiting what it regards as evils from too great power in the 
 hands of irresponsible individuals. 
 
 \s Spencer's position is a great advance upon anarchism, so 
 collectivism is a great advance on communism. It gives a much 
 greater place to the individual th;vu communism did. It believes 
 tha^ everything should be under the complete control of the gov- 
 ernment ' It wishes to replace the present mode of industrial 
 action, based on individualistic competition, by a form of co-oper- 
 
SOCIALISM. 
 
 31 
 
 ation, owned and conlruUed by the government. They do not 
 propose, however, to give to each one an equal share in the 
 accumulated product, but desire to apportion to each according 
 to his worth and earnestness. It desires to leave room for choice 
 in the selection of a career, an.l, with this in view, it insists that 
 the state should see that all its citizens are educated and trained 
 until they are eighteen years of a},'e in such a way as to fit each 
 to enter upon any industrial, literary, or artistic career, for which 
 he or she was most htted. The more disa-reei.-)le forms of work 
 now uespised are to be regarde.l as the most honorable. 
 Like Spencer, they also speak of three stages. 
 The first was when government was most lax and inadequate, 
 where private individuals owned slaves, and carried on industrial 
 ..perations bv this slave labor, subject to the caprice of the slave- 
 owner, unchecked by government. Feudalism would be regarded 
 as a slightly modified form of slavery. 
 
 Then came a second stage, where government control 
 increased, and removed feudalism and slave ownership. This 
 marked a great advance to wage labor and freedom of contract 
 But the coUectivists claim that this is only an appearance of 
 freedom, not real freedom to the great majority. T' . the sys- 
 tem of competition, especially since the rise of combinations, 
 trusts, and joint-stock companies, has enabled a number ot the 
 stronger to combine, like the old feudal barons, to injure and 
 oppress the remainder. The freedom of contract is merely nom- 
 inal, while the contracting parties do not stand on an equal foot- 
 ing. The stronger dictate terms to the weaker, which they must 
 •iccept It IS a form of industrial warfare said to be fair play ; 
 but one is fighting in armor and in companies, the rest unarmed 
 
 ''"^Tetollectivists wish for a truce, and they look to the further 
 extension of governmental control to remedy this evil, as it did 
 with the earlier feudalism. It hopes for government to grow 
 strong enough and extensive enough to substitute organised and 
 legally controlled universal co-operation, or at least natioiial 
 co-operation, instead of the present competitive system. The 
 three stages, then, would be slave labor, wage labor, and national 
 co-operative labor. The coUectivists point to the success o such 
 national enterprises as the post-offices, the system of national 
 public education. They also bring examples to show that. 
 
,, soc/.ir/s.\r. 
 
 wlK-re fairlv tric.l. municipalities have succeedod in managing 
 their own water an<l gas supply, sanitary .natters now have to be 
 regulated bv the nv.inicipahties: and they argue that gas supply 
 and street "railways should be n.anagc-d by the mun>^<pa»'f cs 
 and railroa<ls bv- th. r.tate. They go f.uther. an-, conclude that 
 it would be wise for the state to own and manage all the 
 materials of production, and that the citizens should each and a 1 
 become civil servants in ^he employ of the state. It .s d.flicult 
 in a very brief outline, to do justice to any tlh-ory. yet I trus 
 that this is not onlv a concise, but also a perfectly fair accoun 
 of the leading principles underlying Spencer's position, and tbat 
 
 of the coUectivists. , . .■ r 
 
 Perhaps I mav be allowed now a few words of estnnat.on o 
 these two positions, in neither of which. I believe, is to be found 
 the full and correct statement of the problem t.) be solved, nor a 
 satisfactory solution of the real d.fficulty before our civduat.on. 
 
 First, with referenc' co Spencer's account, which is the one 
 
 that is accepted bv tin- nn.iority of !■ nglish-sp.aking people as 
 
 the most reasonable : a kind of sensible coniprom.se between 
 
 two fanatical extrcnes. 'Uit Spencer's theory does not reconcde 
 
 hese extremes, nor solve the diftVmlty. Instead of the extreme 
 
 of pure individualism, or the extreme of pure despotism, we have 
 
 both of them on our hands, merely juxtaposed; not reconci ed. 
 
 but set up to Hght it out about the limit.. Each is absolute 
 
 within its own sphere, and the spheres are mutually exclusive. 
 
 and the problem, or the battle, is to keep them mutually exclu- 
 
 '''' They must tight it out. For Spencer, it is not wise to inter- 
 fere in anv tight. Evolution advances by the survival of me ht- 
 est the tight is necessary to determine whicli is the httest and 
 Spencer has a good deal to say again., tl. n.eddhng pbdan- 
 tlLpistswho interfere with what he iv^a^os u. .he lumeficent 
 andLalthy working of this law. Let all force, ti.ht awc^^ 
 hence let there be unrestricted competition. 1 he coUectn -sts 
 call this industrial warfare: very well, says Spencer, that is just 
 what is wanted. It is said that the Anglo-Saxon people like a 
 i,.ht, that our earlv br.rbari.Tn still clings to us. and this is some- 
 times said to explain the interest that is taken in such bnita 
 exhibitions as pri.e-hghts. 1 Mit, along with this, there is another 
 element associated with the light or competition-the element ot 
 
SOCIALISM. 
 
 n 
 
 1 
 
 uncertainty that UmkIs ..rc.i'^ion to the -ni'.l.iciition of the low 
 t^ainblinK instinct. The hitter is one of the menaces of our tune. 
 Both of these instincts are in favor of letting matters he fought 
 -ut and take the chances. How often the hooty from gambhng 
 is not discriminated from genuine earnings I may illustrate by 
 an editorial in one of our foremost papers, where it tried to 
 account for the wide interest in prixe-hghts, and said of the v m- 
 ner in a late set-to that there were not many people who could, 
 as he did, make $20,000 in nine minates with his own hands. 
 Make! Earn! What preposterous nonsense ! 
 
 Spencer's plausible account of government as -r-.dually dis- 
 appearing onlv takes account of one aspect cf gov> rnment, 
 iruiu'lv a part of its attitude towards criminals and those 
 opposed to Kuod government. The restrictive and external force 
 and might is all that he lias in view. But government h,. 
 anoth rr side in dealing with good citizens, and even m dealing 
 with ciminals it should not be merely restrictive, but^also 
 remedial. Though starting wit., the assertion of individualism. 
 Spencer measures all advance by the limitation of the govern- 
 ment Thus he neither sees the true place ot government nor 
 the true, positive mecning of the individual. He does not give 
 the individual his proper place because he does not see now he 
 may express himself in participating in government : and, again, 
 he does not give l.:m his true place because he regards improve- 
 meut as coming about by a necessary law of evolution, uht.h 
 obscures the c.uth that improvement at ea.h stage is dupeudent 
 upon the freelv chosen moral conduct of responsible individuals. 
 We neither become better by some vague " natural law," nor as a 
 rcsidt of state regulation alone. Moral advance depends upon 
 the willing co-operation of responsible moral agents-the.r fre.. 
 adoption of those lines of conduct that tend to their highest 
 interests and truest well-being. . , , 
 
 Natural conditions and state regulations may, indeed, assist, 
 but only on the supposition that they build upon and call into 
 exercise the selective action of moral ag.nts, favoring and encour- 
 aging the selection of the higher, retarding and disc uragmg the 
 selection of the lower. , 1 ,. .u^ 
 
 Both Spencer and the collectiv.sts measure advaiv.e on the 
 Hmitation or the extension of government, but this is noc the real 
 Te tion at a!!-not is government much or little, great or 
 
I^l^l 
 
 JMi 
 
 24 SOCIALISM. 
 
 small, limited or unlimited, but what is its character ? It is 
 not a question of quantity, but of quality. And the measura of 
 improvement or advance proposed by both is erroneous-Spen- 
 cer measuring? by tendency to produce pleasure, the coUectivists 
 b\ the tendency to increase material possessions, while the real 
 measure is deeper, viz., the tendency to deveU^J the highest type 
 of moral character. Hence we must take a wider view ot govern- 
 ment than Spence- does, a deeper view of the individual than 
 either Spencer or the collectivist. 
 
 First, government must be wider than Spencer allows. He 
 does not' notice, in his account, that a new side to government 
 begins to come in, slight in the war period, much more promi- 
 nent in the industrial period, and continually increasing; the 
 side where government is not external, restrictive, and opposed 
 to the subject, but is adopted, chosen, and approved, and is thus 
 an expression of the wishes of the governed themselves. Such 
 crovernment might be terme.l organized self-government. In it 
 the subjects are not being ruled by an external power, but are 
 regulating themselves. Such government will not appear as a 
 restriction to the good citizen, and, if we should ever arrive at a 
 sta-e when there would be no need of restriction, there could be 
 the'^most complete organic self-regulation, and government as the 
 expression of the wishes of this community might be most 
 
 extensive. 
 
 There is no restriction to a good man to be commanded to 
 do what he intends to do and should do ; it is only to those who 
 wish to do what is wrong that a good law appears as a restriction 
 of their liberty ; and a man's liberty to do wrong and injury needs 
 to be restricted even on Spencer's own account. 
 
 This is not collectivism, however, which is inclined to meas- 
 ure every advance by the extension of government in such a wav 
 as to control most completely the production of wealth. As 
 Spencer has too little place for government owing to a narrow view 
 of the government and the individual, so the collectivist has too 
 much trust in mere amount of government. It trusts too much 
 to external applications in reforming ; it belittles, mdividuat 
 spontaneity. It is a reaction against the extreme of pure or 
 negative indivi-iualism. It sees that each, to mind his own busi- 
 ness, leaves everything to the arbitrary guidance of irresponsible 
 
 wishes order and rule. Hut may 
 
 and capricious 1 
 
 ndividuals. It 
 
SOCIALISM. 
 
 25 
 
 we not fall into the hands of an arbitrary, capricious, and irre- 
 sponsible government, whose actions may be more uniform, but 
 may also be more uniformly tyrannical, being able to enforce 
 their whims upon the governed ? We must see to the charac- 
 ter of our government, and before we can have more government 
 control we must have more control of government. 
 
 And even though government were fully under control, the 
 faithful servant of the public, there is a fallacy involved in the 
 reasoning by which the collectivists conclude that it would be 
 well to have complete nationalization of all industries. They 
 reason from a certain class of enterprises that are often termed 
 " natural monopolies." These are of such a character that it is 
 a tremendous loss to duplicate them. One can be carried on 
 more economically than more than one. For instance, it would 
 be manifestly bad management to have two or several street rail- 
 ways on our streets. Such enterprises naturally tend to fall 
 into the hands of one company, and are then monopolies. Now, 
 it might be conceded that, with a properly controlled govern- 
 ment and efficient management, such enterprises might be col- 
 lectively owned and managed ; that is, nationalized, or munici- 
 palized, successfullv. 
 
 This is the grain of truth. Hut it does not at all follow that 
 what might succeed with this peculiar class of enterprises would 
 be suitable to entirely different classes of industry. In other 
 cases the ct.st of supervision would be so great as to lead, m ail 
 probability, to a heavy loss, besides other disadvantages. 
 
 But, while differing from Spencer and the collectivists, I desu-e 
 to be perfectly fair to each. 
 
 Now. it is not only manifestly unfair, but the height of absurd- 
 ity or ignorance, to class the collectivists with the nihilists and 
 anarchists, '/he latter desire the utter extirpation of all govern- 
 ment. They desire to raze the stiucUue of society to its foun- 
 dations. TJie collectivists, or socialists, on the contrary, are 
 excessive in their devotion to government, and every form of con- 
 stituted a- thority. They desire to make such constituted 
 authority all-embracing. 
 
 The socialists, instead of being identical with the anarchists, 
 have been more earnest and zealous than an\- other part of the 
 community in uuposing and counteracting the ignorant and 
 misguided fanaticism that is leagued together m nihilism and 
 
26 
 
 SOCIALISM. 
 
 anarchism. The nihiHst or the anarchist is not to be regarded 
 as an ordinary assassin : he is much more dangerous, b-cause he 
 acts, not from passion, but from a fal^ principle. He is a nns- 
 guided fanatic, who needs instruction and enlightenment to 
 change his ignorant and false views of society. Nihilism and 
 anarchism is a moral pestilence, resulting upon the neglect o. a 
 portion of the communitv by the more enlightened and cultivated 
 portion, thus allowing a barbarism to grow up in their very midst. 
 I cannot, however, worship government to the extent the 
 socialists or collectivists do. On the other hand, pure indi- 
 vidualism, negative individualism, is evidently the helium omnium 
 contra omncs of Hobbes. And when negative self-included 
 individualism speaks of the rights of the individual, it is contra- 
 dicting itself. Right, in its very nature, can never be something 
 st>^cial and anti-social. It must be the same for all. Hence to 
 speak of a n-ht to do as I please is a contradiction in terms. 
 A man has the right to do as he pleases only so long as he 
 pleases to do the right which does not depend on his whim. 
 
 The value of the individualistic protest is to enforce that the 
 individual does not exist for government, but government for the 
 individual. Ikit if government is for the individual, then the 
 individual must be more than a law of repulsion. He has a 
 positive meaning, and is capable of entering into positive inter- 
 relations with his fellow-beings. Indeed, only in such positive 
 concrete relations does bis life Hnd content and meanmg. We 
 start from the individual, if he is properly conceived, as the posi- 
 tive individual who hnds 1 Is realization in society. GoverninLnt 
 —and by government we mean any organi;ied social action— is 
 for this positive, concrete individual, and it should be the faith- 
 ful expression of the wishes and aspirations of the individuals 
 governed. Such a government may properly undertake anything 
 that is agreed uoon as for the highest good of all, and the test of 
 theproprietv of'' he government will be, Does it establish and con- 
 serve relations tha. are fitted to favor and cond'ice to the hi,i;hest 
 development of noblest character in the govenu'd ? 
 
 The government is the means : its end is v. aid in the pro- 
 gress and development of the highest type of individuals. Care- 
 fully distinguish these. 
 
 (1) What do we wish to bring about ? 
 
 (2) What methods must be employed to brinu it at)OUt .•' 
 
SOCIALISM. 
 
 27 
 
 We want the most perfect and responsible government in 
 order to brint; in the highest type of manhood and womanhood. 
 
 The improvement of government is a necessary thing, and we 
 must strive for the continual reformation of government, not as 
 the goal of all effort, but as a means to reach our goal. 
 
 Government, or our organized social action, is to be im- 
 proved that organized society may do its duty to the members 
 
 of society. 
 
 But it IS evident that the improvement of society that would 
 tend to the benefit of the individuals is itself dependent upon 
 the advancement of those who create and constitute the govern- 
 ment. It is a case of reciprocal action : the people act on the 
 government, and the government reacts on the people. 
 
 If improvement is to take place, one or the other must 
 advance, and we see that, from the nature of the case, the 
 advance must start from the side of the individuals. 
 
 There must be a certain advance before a law or regulation 
 can be made. Such law expresses the higher view of the major- 
 ity of the most enlightened; it thus becomes a means of edu- 
 cating or bringing up the rear portion of the army to the stand- 
 ard of the advance part. If advance goes much beyond the law, 
 it may have the opposite effect of deteriorating in its influence ; 
 it then requires to be advanced. 
 
 But individuals may advance in apprehension without doing 
 anvthing to advance the social organization. They have higher 
 conceptions of what ought to be, but do nothing to make this act 
 upon the social organization. They beconie indolent and self- 
 righteous; they abandon society to its fate, and enjoy their phari- 
 salcal self-complacency. But there must be a different line of 
 action if the world is to grow better. 
 
 We need the best individuals to react upon the organization 
 of sorietv. to purifv it, remodel it, make it a true expression of 
 what thtV see it ought to be. Instead, then, of standing apart 
 from the regulation of society, instead of aping the mediaeval 
 retreat from the worl<l and its prosaic duties, to enjoy contem- 
 plations, there is need that eve.y good man and true come out of 
 his hermit cell and manfully perform the noble duties of citizen- 
 
 ' '^Some verv good people, though they nnght be much better, 
 say, " Government is so bad, we wash our hands of such a dirty 
 
 . \ 
 
TSBRsairewT "'■•TSiWi^ - 
 
 28 
 
 SOCIALISM. 
 
 business." But if the government, if the social arrangements, if 
 the constitution of our society is bad and vile, it is to a certain 
 extent the man's fault who has not done everything in his power 
 to make it better. There will come a time when those who boast 
 of how little they do for the government of the country in which 
 they live will see that they should be ashamed of themselves. 
 They have left undone what they ought to have done. 
 
 How does this apply to you, ministers of the gospel, leaders 
 in ^ood works, as well as guides in good thought ? 
 
 Perhaps I should commend you for your excellent plan for 
 post-graduate study; but it is perhaps better that I should rather 
 praise you to others, and,' while talking to you, endeavor to leave 
 you dissatisfied with present attainments, desirous of greater 
 achievement. 
 
 Are you doing your duty in this matter, if you are only with 
 difficulty stirred up to act as citizens when something like the 
 Sunday street car question arises ? Has mediicvalism still got 
 its clutches upon any of you ? Do not suppose that, because 
 dealing with such high themes, you are made a different order of 
 beings, exempted from and incapncitated for the grand duty and 
 privilege of citizenship. Standin apart, you leave unsupported 
 the hands of those who are striv g to bring in and carry out 
 nobler policies. 
 
 We need a deeper view of the duties of the individual. We 
 need to see that he realizes his nature in relation to his fellow- 
 men. That it is his duty not to regard himself as an indepen- 
 dent atom, but to seek to become a real and helpful member of 
 society— in the home life, in the family, in the chuixi. organiza- 
 tions, in the State. 
 
 We need those of the highest character to permeate and 
 transform all forms of social organization :— the family, the 
 church, and that wider organization which so powerfully reacts 
 upon and moulds the family and church— the State. 
 
 We need sanctified common sense. We need a purified 
 political atniosphere. We need a deeper conviction of dut.\- to 
 our fellow-man. We need a citizenship of activ working Chris- 
 tian-^. In short, instead of withdrawing our ( tianity from 
 contact with the world, making it a Sunday matter, and a mere 
 sentiment of contemplation and rest, it must be Imnight out and 
 used every dav, everv hour, through a!' l)usiness, through all 
 
>i.e3gjj^i:rT«(ES!«.'r- ' 
 
 SOCIALISM. 
 
 29 
 
 society, in every institution, in all organization, so that, through 
 the life and activity of Christians as citizens in this world, it may 
 be completely transformed, and become a living, acting, organ- 
 I -e; . Christianized society. 
 
 TABl.E. 
 
 The iNDivinuAi. 
 
 I. I'ure Individualism, 
 (a) Eastern (Passive). 
 
 (h) Western (Active), Nihilism. 
 
 vs. The Govf.rnmknt. 
 
 i I. Ture Despotism, 
 
 (a) Tyrannical. 
 
 (b) Paternalism. 
 
 II. Communism. 
 
 II. Anarchism. 
 
 III. Herbert Spencer's Theory. 
 
 III. Socialism or Collectivism. 
 
 The Problem. 
 
 James Gibson Hume. 
 
 Toronto.