I'!
 
 CONTEMPORARY SOCIALISM
 
 CONTEMPORARY SOCIALISM 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN RAE, M.A. 
 
 SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED 
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 1891
 
 ffX 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 IN the present edition the original work has not only been 
 carefully revised, but very considerably enlarged. The 
 chapters on " The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. " 
 and "Russian Nihilism" contain a few sentences retained 
 from the first edition, but otherwise they are entirely new 
 the former necessarily so on account of the nature of its 
 subject, and the latter on account of the importance of the 
 fresh materials that have been recently given to the world. 
 A new chapter has been added on " Anarchism," and another, 
 of considerable extent, on " State Socialism." No apology is 
 required for the length of the latter, for though State socialism 
 is only a growth of yesterday, it has already spread every- 
 where, and if it is not superseding socialism proper, it is cer- 
 tainly eclipsing it in practical importance, and to some extent 
 even modifying it in character. Revolutionary socialism, grow- 
 ing more opportunist of late years, seems losing much of its old 
 phrenzy, and getting domesticated into a shifty State socialism, 
 fighting a parliamentary battle for minor, though still probably 
 mischievous, changes within the lines of existing society, 
 instead of the old war a Voutrance against existing society in 
 whatever shape or form. Anyhow the socialistic controversy 
 in the immediate future will evidently be fought along the
 
 vi Preface. 
 
 lines of State socialism. It is there the hostile parties meet, 
 and it is well therefore to get, if we can, some more exact 
 knowledge of the ground. Some of the other chapters in the 
 work have been altered here and there for the purpose of bring- 
 ing their matter, where necessary, down to date, or embodying 
 fresh illustrative evidence, or occasionally of making the ex- 
 position itself more lucid and effective ; but it is unnecessary 
 to specify these alterations in detail. 
 
 April, 1891.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTEK I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 Revival of Socialism, 1 Extinction of Old Tj-pes, 2 Main Surviving 
 Type, Social Democracy, 3 Its Two Varieties, Socialist and Anarchist, 
 4 Its Relations to Political Democracy, 4 Definition of Socialism, 
 5 Cairnes on Mill's Profession of Socialism, 6 Ruling Characteristic 
 common to Old and New Socialism, 9 State Socialism, 11 Conserva- 
 tive Socialism, 13 The Minimum of Socialism, 14 First Rise of 
 Social Democracy, 15 Rousseau, 16 Baboeuf, 17 Connection of 
 Socialism "with Democracy, 18 The Danger to Free Institutions, 
 24 Necessity and Probability of Wider Diffusion of Property, 25. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE PROGRESS AND PRESENT POSITION OF SOCIALISM. 
 
 National Conditions Favourable to Socialism. 30 Germany, 30 Progress 
 of Socialist Vote, 33 Action of Socialist Party in Reichstag, 34 Party 
 Programme, 38 Halle Congress of 1891, 40 France, 45 Anarchists, 
 47 Socialist Revolutionary Party, 48 Possibilists, 50 Blanquists, 
 53 The Socialist Group in the Chamber, 53 Austria, 54 Italy, 57 
 Spain, 60 Portugal, 65 Norway and Sweden, 66 Denmark, 67 
 Belgium, 70 Holland, 72 Switzerland, 73 United States, 77 Bos- 
 ton Anarchists, 77 Mr. Henry George, 78 Mr. Bellamy's Nationalism, 
 79 Anarchists, 80 Socialistic Labour Party, 81 Knights of Labor, 
 82 England, 83 Social Democrats, 84 Anarchists, 86 Christian 
 Socialists, 87 Fabians, 88 Lnnd Nationalization, 89 Scotland, 90 
 Australia, 90. 
 
 CHAPTER in. 
 
 FERDINAND LASSALLE. 
 
 German Socialists before Lassalle, 93 Favourable Conditions for Socialist 
 Agitation in Germany, 94 Character of Lassalle, 96 The Hatzfeldt
 
 viii Contents. 
 
 Case, 99 Theft of the Cassette, 100 Trial for Sedition, 101 Literary 
 Activity, 102 Letter to Leipzig Working Men, 103 Foundation of 
 General Working Men's Association, 105 Lassalle's Agitation, 105 
 His Death, 106 Funeral, 108 Political Views, 109 Idea and Posi- 
 tion of the Working Class, 109 Functions of the State, 111 Econo- 
 mic Doctrines, 113 Anarchic Socialism of the present Industrial 
 Regime, 117 Ricardo's "Iron Law" of Wages, 119 A National, not 
 an International Socialist, 124 Internationally not Peculiar to 
 Socialist Parties, 126 Reason of Socialist Condemnation of Patriot- 
 ism, 127. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 KARL MARX. 
 
 Reception of his Work on Capital, 128 The Young Hegelians, 130 
 Feuerbach's Humanism, 131 " Young Germany," 136 Weitling and 
 Albrecht, 137 Early Socialistic Leanings of Marx, 139 Marx in 
 Paris, 141 in Brussels, 142 The Communist League, 142 Com- 
 munist Manifesto of 1847, 144 New Rhenish Gazette, 146 Marx 
 in London, 147 The International, its Rise and Fall, 149 Tendency 
 to Division in Revolutionary Parties, 152 "Das Capital," 155 
 Historical Rise of Capitalism, 156 Origin of Surplus Value, 157 
 Theory of Value, 160 Price, 163 Criticism of his Theory of Value, 
 165 Wages, 166 Normal Day of Labour, 168 Machinery, 170 
 Piecework, 172 Relative Over-population, 174. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE FEDERALISM OF CARL MARLO. 
 
 Rodbertus, 179 Professor Winkelblech (Mario), 180 His Awakening to 
 Social Misery, 180 Application to Economic Study for Solution, 181 
 View of Social Problem, 182 Heathen Idea of Right (Monopolism) 
 to be replaced by Christian Idea of Right (Panpolism), 183 Liberal- 
 ism and Communism both Utopias, 184 Federalism alone realizes 
 Christian Idea of Right, 188 Natural Right of all to Property, 189 
 Right to Labour and to Fruits of Labour, 191 Necessity of Con- 
 trolling Increase of Population, 192 Of Suppressing Unproductive 
 Acquisition, 193 Collectivization of Land and Productive Capital 
 193. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE SOCIALISTS OF THE CHAIR. 
 
 The Name, 195 Held's Vindication of it, 196 Objections to it, 197 
 Founders of the Historical School, 200 Their Departure from Man-
 
 Contents. ix 
 
 Chester Party, 202 Eisenach Congress, 202 The Historical Method, 
 204 The Historical School a Realist School, 205 An Ethical School, 
 209 Their Theory of the State, 211 The Social Question, 212 Von 
 Scheel, 215 Brentano, 215. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS. 
 
 Socialism and Christianity, 218 Views of St. Simon and Cabet, 218 
 Irreligious Character of Contemporary Socialism, 219 The Christian 
 Socialists of England in 1850, 220 Those of Germany now, 223 The 
 Catholic Group, 223 Ketteler, 224 Moufang, 230 Protestant Group, 
 233 Stocker, Todt, 234 Christian Social Working Men's Party, 239 
 The Social Monarchical Union, 241 The Evangelical Social Con- 
 gress of 1890, 241 Is there a Specific Christian Social Politics? 242 
 Christian Socialism in Austria, 242 In France, 243 International 
 Catholic Social Congress of 1890 at Liege, 243 The Pope's Encyclical, 
 245. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 ANARCHISM. 
 
 Recent Activity of Anarchists, 247 Individualist Anarchists and Com- 
 munist Anarchists, 248 Latter are Ultra-Socialist, 249 Ultra-Demo- 
 cratic, 250 Proudhon's Anarchic Government, 250 Xo Representa- 
 tive Institutions, 251 Prince Krapotkin's Plan for Housing the Poor, 
 252 The Russian Mir the Anarchist Model of Government, 252 
 Anarchism Atheistic, 254 Ultra-revolutionary, 255 Propaganda of 
 Deed, 256 Disunity and Weakness of Anarchism, 257. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 RUSSIAN' NIHILISM. 
 
 Haxthausen's Opinion of Russia's Safety from Socialism, 259 Successive 
 Phases of Nihilism, 260 Origin of Nihilism, 261 Influence of the 
 Rural Commune on Revolutionary Thought, 262 Decabrist Conspir- 
 acy of 1825, 263 Extreme Opinions at Russian Universities in Reign 
 of Nicholas, 264 Ascension of Alexander II., 264 Alexander Herzen, 
 265 Turgenieff and the word Nihilist, 266 Koscheleff and Fircks's 
 Accounts of Nihilism, 267 Causes of it, 268 Nihilist Sunday Schools, 
 Tchernycheffsky, 269 Effect of Emancipation of Serfs, 270 Ruined 
 Landlords, 270 Jews, 271 Heretics, 272 Bakunin, 273 Herzen's 
 Recantation of Revolutionism, 273 Bakunin in London, 274 His 
 " Amorphism," 274 His Picture of the Good Revolutionist, 275 
 Netchai'eff founds Branches of the International in Russia, 276 The 
 first Attempt on the Czar, 276 Reversion to Arbitrary and Despotic
 
 Contents. 
 
 Government, 276 Bakunin and Lavroff at Zurich "Going into 
 the People," 279 Secret Societies, 280 Nihilist Arrests and Trials, 
 2S1 Terrorism, 282 Assassination of Czar, 283 Present Socialist 
 Parties, 283 The Black Division Party, 283 Alarming Growth of a 
 Proletariat in Russia, 284 Impoverishment of Peasantry, 286 Break 
 up of Communistic System, 288 Dissolution of House Communities, 
 289 The Black Division, 292 The Labour Emancipation League, 
 295. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 SOCIALISM AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 
 
 A Social Question recognised by Contemporary Economists, 297 Mr. 
 Cairnes on the Situation, 297 Socialist Indictment of Existing 
 Regime, 299 1st, the " Iron Law of Wages," 300 Alleged Deterio- 
 ration of Wage- Labourers' Position Unfounded, 801 Their Standard 
 of Living Better, 302 Their Individual Share in the National Wealth 
 more, 304 The " Iron Law " Misunderstood by Socialists, 305 The 
 " Iron Law " Itself Unsound, 307 The Rate of Wages really Depends 
 on the per capita Prodtiction, 307 Prospects of Increasing per 
 capita Production, 312 Piecework, 314 Shorter Day of Labour, 
 318 2nd, Alleged Multiplication of Vicissitudes, 323 Effects, of 
 Machinery, 323 Temporary Redundancies, 324 Serious Redun- 
 dancies Lessening, 324 Value of Good System of Commercial Statis- 
 tics, 325 3rd, Alleged Expropriation of the Value of the Labourer's 
 Work, 327 How Value is Constituted, 327 Justice of Interest, 329 
 Social Importance of Work of Capitalist Employer, 330 Public 
 Value of Private Property, 333 Value of Freedom, 334 Laissez- 
 faire, 336 Necessity for Opportunities of Investment, 338 Co- 
 operative Production, 338 Advantage of Interlacing of Classes, 340 
 Reason of exceptionally good House Accommodation among Work- 
 ing Classes of Sheffield, 341. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 STATE SOCIALISM. 
 
 1. State Socialism and English Economics. 
 
 M. Leon Say on State Socialism, 345 State Property and State Industries 
 in Germany, 345 Mr. Goschen and others on Change in English 
 Opinion regarding State Intervention, 346 - Their Views Exaggerated 
 and undiscriminating, 347 Little done in England in Nationalizing 
 Industries, 348 Much done in enlargingPopular Rights, 349 English 
 Thinkers never Believers in Laissez-faire, 351 Except Mr. H. Spen- 
 cer, 352 Adam Smith's "Simple and Obvious System of Natural 
 Liberty," 353 His Theory of Social Politics, 356 Ricardo's Views, 
 359 McCulloch's, 360 On the Manufacturing System, 362 On
 
 Contents. xi 
 
 Crises, 363 On Irish Pauper Labour, 364 On Factorj- Legislation, 
 366 On Housing the Poor, 366 On the Poor Law, 368 The So- 
 called Manchester School. 372 The English Theory of Social Politics, 
 373. 
 
 2. The Nature and Principle of State Socialism. 
 
 Different Definitions of Socialism. 374 Origin and Meaning of State 
 Socialism, 379 The Social Monarchists, 380 Rodbertus, 380 His 
 Theory of Social Politics, 381 M. de Laveleye and Establishment of 
 Equality of Conditions, 384 Alleged Disinheritance of the People 
 from the Primitive Economic Eights, 385 Mr. Chamberlain's Doc- 
 trine of " Eansom," 386 Professor A. Wagner's State Socialism, 387. 
 
 3. State Socialism and Social Reform. 
 
 Cobden's Praise of the Prussian Government for its Social "Work. 
 393 Property, a Requisite of Progress, not of Freedom, 394 Limits 
 of Legitimate Intervention, 395 Short Definition of State Socialism, 
 899 Error of Plea for State Socialism as Extinguisher of Chance, 
 399 As Saving the Waste from Competition, 400 Wastefulness of 
 Socialism, 401 As shown in Samoa, 401 In England under Old Poor 
 Law. 402 In Brook Farm, 402 Idleness the Destroyer of the Ameri- 
 can Owenite and Fourierist Communities, 403 Idleness the Great 
 Difficulty in the Shaker and Rappist Communities, 405 " Old Slug," 
 406 Contentment with Squalid Conditions, 407 Special Liability to 
 Mismanagement, 408. 
 
 4. State Socialism and State Management. 
 
 Natural Qualities and Defects of State as Industrial Manager, 409 
 Post Office, 410 Dockyards, 410 Forestry, 412 Mint and other 
 Forms of Attesting, 412 Monopolies, 413 Municipal Management 
 of Gas and Water Supply, 413 Land Nationalization, 414 State 
 Railways, 415 State Insurance in Xew Zealand, 417 Results of 
 Joint-Stock Management and Private Management in Massachusetts, 
 417. 
 
 5. State Socialism and Popular Right. 
 
 Why Impracticable Legislation is Socialistic, 418 Rule of Interven- 
 tion for Realizing Rights, 419 Right to Existence, 421 Right to 
 Superannuation, 421 Right to Labour, 423 Problem of the Un- 
 employed, 425 Free Education, Libraries. Parks, 427 Where Stop ? 
 427 Legal Fixing of Prices, as in Fares and Rates, 428 Of Fair Rent, 
 429 Of Fair Wages, 430 Compulsory Arbitration, 430 Legal 
 Minimum Wages, 431 Sweating System and Starvation Wages, 
 432 International Compulsory Eight Hours Day, 434.
 
 xii Contents. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE AGRARIAN SOCIALISM OF HENRY GEORGE. 
 
 Mr. George Predicts that his Book would find Apostles, 441 Fulfilment 
 of the Prediction, 441 Sisyphism, 442 Loses His Religious Belief 
 through Perception of Poverty, 443 Recovers it again, 445 1st, His 
 Problem, 445 Its unverified Assumption, 445 Evidence of Facts 
 against it, 448 Average Scale of Living has Risen, 449 Proportion 
 of Paupers, unable to obtain it, has Declined, 449 Special Decline of 
 Able-bodied Pauperism, 450 Increase of Length of Life, 452 Mr. 
 George Changes his Problem from one of Quantity to one of Propor- 
 tion, 453 Rent really no larger Proportion of National Wealth or 
 even of Agricultural Produce than before, 454 "Wages no Smaller 
 Proportion, 456 Indications of Increasing Distribution of Wealth, 
 457 2nd, Mr. George's Explanation, 461 Alleged Tendency of 
 Wages to a Minimum that gives but a Bare Living, 462 The Wages 
 Fund and Population Theories, 464 Mr. George's New Population 
 Theory, 465 His New Wages Fund Theory, 468 His Explanation 
 of the Distribution of Wealth without taking Profits into Account, 
 474 Views on Rent, 476 on Interest, 483 Wages, 484 Margin of 
 Cultivation, 484 Absurdities of his Explanation, 485 3rd, Mr. 
 George's Remedy, 487 Land Nationalization Movement in England, 
 488 Futility of Mr George's Remedy, 489 Confiscation, 490 Differ- 
 ence of Mr. George's Proposal from Mr. Mill's, 491 Agricultural 
 Land as truly the Fruit of Labour as other Commodities, 492 Real 
 Distinction between Land and other Property, 494 Social Claim on 
 all Property, 495 Is Private Property the best Guarantee for the 
 most Productive use of Land ? 496 Land Nationalization no Assis- 
 tance to the Reforms that are Needed, 498.
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 IT was a common topic of congratulation at the Exhibition of 
 1862 that the political atmosphere of Europe was then entirely 
 free from the revolutionary alarms which overclouded the first 
 Exhibition in 1851 ; but in that very year the old clouds 
 began to gather once more at different quarters of the horizon. 
 It was in 1862 that Lassalle delivered to a club of working 
 men in Berlin his address on " The Present Epoch of the 
 World, and the Idea of the "Working Class," which was pub- 
 lished shortly afterwards under the title of " The "Working 
 Man's Programme," and which has been called by his friends 
 " The "Wittenberg Theses " of the new socialist movement ; 
 and it was at the Exhibition itself that those relations were 
 established between the delegates of English and French trade 
 societies which issued eventually in the organization of the 
 International. The double train thus laid has put in motion a 
 propaganda of social revolution more vigorous, widespread, and 
 dangerous than any which has preceded it. 
 
 But though the reappearance of socialism was not imme- 
 diately looked for at the time, it could cause no serious surprise 
 to any one who considered how nearly the socialist theory is 
 allied with some of the ruling ideas of modern times, and how 
 many points of attraction it presents at once to the impatient 
 philanthropy of enthusiasts, to the passions of the multitude, 
 and to the narrow but insistent logic of the numerous class of 
 minds that make little account of the complexity of life. 
 Socialism will probably never keep long away during the 
 present transitional period of society, and there is therefore less 
 interest in the mere fact of its reappearance than in marking 
 the particular form in which, after a prolonged retirement, it
 
 2 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 has actually returned ; for this may perhaps be reasonably 
 taken to be its most vital and enduring type, and consequently 
 that with which we shall mainly have to reckon in the future. 
 
 Now the present movement is, before all, political and 
 revolutionary. The philanthropic and experimental forms 
 of socialism, which played a conspicuous role before 1818, 
 perished then in the wreck of the Revolution, and have never 
 risen to life again. The old schools have dispersed. Their 
 doctrines, their works, their very hopes have gone. The 
 theories of man's entire dependence on circumstances, of the 
 rehabilitation of the flesh, of the passional attraction, once in 
 everybody's mouth, have sunk into oblivion. The communi- 
 ties of Owenites, St. Simonians, Fourierists, Icarians, which 
 multiplied for a time on both sides of the Atlantic, are extinct. 
 The socialists of the present day have discarded all belief in 
 the possibility of effecting any social regeneration except by 
 means of political authority, and the first object of their en- 
 deavours is therefore the conquest of the powers of the State. 
 There are some exceptions, but these are very unimportant. 
 The communistic societies of the United States, for instance, 
 are mostly organizations of eccentric religious sects which have 
 no part or influence in the life of the century. The Colinsian 
 Collectivists, followers of the Belgian socialist Colins, are a 
 mere handful ; and the Familistere of Guise in France a 
 remarkable institution, founded since 1848 by an old disciple 
 of Fourier, though not on Fourier's plan stands quite alone, 
 and has no imitators. Non-political socialism may accordingly 
 be said to have practically disappeared. 
 
 Not only so, but out of the several sorts and varieties of 
 political socialism, only one has revived in any strength, and 
 that is the extremest and most revolutionary. It is the demo- 
 cratic communism of the Young Hegelians, and it scouts the 
 very suggestion of State-help, and will content itself with 
 nothing' short of State-transformation. Schemes such as were 
 popular and noisy thirty years ago schemes, involving indeed 
 organic changes, but organic changes of only a partial char- 
 acter have gone to their rest. Louis Blanc, for example, 
 was then a name of some power; but, remarkably enough, 
 though Louis Blanc was but the other year buried with great
 
 Introdzictory. 3 
 
 honour, his Organization of Labour seems to be as completely 
 forgotten as the Circulus of Leroux. M. G. de Molinari writes 
 an interesting account of the debates that took place in the 
 working men's clubs of Paris in the year 1868-9 the first 
 year they were granted liberty of meeting after the establish- 
 ment of the Second Empire and he states that while Fourier 
 and Cabet were still quoted by old disciples, though without 
 any idea of their systems being of practical moment, Louis 
 Blanc's name was not even mentioned. Proudhon's gospel of 
 a State bank of mutual credit for furnishing labourers with 
 capital, by issuing inconvertible notes without money and 
 without price, has still a sprinkling of faithful believers, who 
 call themselves Mutualists ; but they are extremely few, and, 
 as a rule, the socialists of France at the present day, like 
 those of Germany, put their faith in iron rather than paper. 
 What the}- want is a democracy of labour, to use one of their 
 own phrases that is, a State in which power and property 
 shall be based on labour ; wliere citizenship shall depend on a 
 labour qualification, instead of a qualification of birth or of 
 property ; where there shall be no citizen who enjoys without 
 labouring, and no citizen who labours without enjoying ; 
 where every one who is able to work shall have employment,, 
 and every one who has wrought shall retain the whole pro- 
 duce of his labour ; and where accordingly, as the indispens- 
 able prerequisite of the whole scheme, the land of the country 
 and all other instruments of production shall be made the joint 
 property of the community, and the conduct of all industrial 
 operations be placed under the direct administration of the 
 State. Furthermore, all this is contended for as a matter of 
 simple right and justice to the labouring classes, on the ground 
 that the wealth of the nation belongs to the hands that made 
 it ; it is contended for as an obligation of the State, bepause 
 the State is held to be merely the organized will of the<people, 
 and the people is the labouring class ; and it is contended for 
 as an object of immediate accomplishment if possible, by 
 ordinary constitutional means ; but, if not, by revolution. 
 
 This is the form in which socialism has reappeared, and it 
 may be described in three words as Revolutionary Socialist 
 Democracv. The movement is divided into two main branches
 
 4 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 socialism proper, or collectivism, as it is sometimes called, 
 and anarchism. There are anarchists who are not socialists, 
 but hold strongly by an individualist constitution of property. 
 They are very few, however, and the great mass of the party 
 known by that name in our day, including the Russian Nihilists, 
 are as ardent believers in the economic socialism of Karl Marx 
 as the Social Democrats of Germany themselves. They diverge 
 from the latter on a question of future government ; but 
 the differences between the two are only such as the same 
 movement might be expected to exhibit in passing through 
 different media, personal or national. Modern democrats have 
 been long divided into Centralists and Federalists the one 
 party seeking to give to the democratic republic they contem- 
 plate a strongly centralized form of government, and the other 
 preferring to leave the local communes comparatively inde- 
 p2ndent and sovereign, and free, if they choose, to unite them- 
 selves in convenient federations. The federal republic has 
 always been the favourite ideal of the Democrats of Spain and 
 of the Communards of Paris, and there is generally a tendency 
 among Federalists, in their impatience of all central authority, 
 to drop the element of federation out of their ideal altogether, 
 and to advocate the form of opinion known as " anarchy " 
 that is, the abolition of all superior government. It was very 
 natural that this ancient feud among the democrats should 
 appear in the ranks of socialist democracy, and it was equally 
 natural that the Russian Radicals, hating the autocracy of 
 their country and idealizing its rural communes, should 
 become the chief adherents of the federalist and even the 
 anarchic tradition. 
 
 This is the only point of principle that separates anarchism 
 from socialism. In other respects anarchism may be said to 
 be but an extremer phase of socialism. It indulges in more 
 violent methods, and in a more omnivorous spirit of destruc- 
 tion. Its fury takes a wider sweep ; it attacks all current 
 beliefs and all existing institutions ; it puts its hopes in univer- 
 sal chaos. I shall endeavour in a future chapter to explain, 
 from peculiarities of the national character and culture, why 
 this gospel of chaos should find so much acceptance in Russia ; 
 but it, is no exclusively Russian product. It was preached
 
 Introductory. 5 
 
 with singular coolness, as will be subsequently shown, by 
 some of the young Hegelians of Germany before 1848, and it 
 obtains among the more volatile members of most socialist 
 organizations still. Attacks on religion, patriotism, the family, 
 are very usual accessories of their practical agitations every- 
 where. As institutions and beliefs are seen to lend strength 
 to each other, teeth set on edge against one are easily brought 
 to gnash at all. A sharp check from the public authority 
 generally brings out to the front this extremer element in 
 German socialism. After the repressive legislation of 1878 
 the German socialists struck the restriction of proceeding " by 
 legal methods " out of their programme, and the wilder spirits 
 among them would be content with nothing short of a policy 
 of general destruction, and, being expelled from the party, 
 started an organization of their own on thoroughly anarchist 
 lines. 
 
 Under these influences, the word socialism has come to 
 contract a new meaning, and is now generally defined in a 
 way that would exclude the very theories it was originally 
 invented to denote. Its political element its demand on the 
 public power in behalf of the labouring class is taken to be 
 the pith and essence of the system. Mr. Cairnes, for example, 
 says that the circumstance which distinguishes socialism from 
 all other modes of social speculation is its invocation of the 
 powers of the State, and he finds fault with Mr. Mill for de- 
 scribing himself in his " Autobiography " as a socialist, merely 
 because his ideal of ultimate improvement had more in common 
 with the ideal of socialistic reformers than with the views of 
 those who in contradistinction would be called orthodox. The 
 passage from the " Autobiography" runs as follows: "While 
 we repudiated with the greatest energy that tyranny of society 
 over the individual which most socialistic systems are supposed 
 to involve, we yet looked forward to a time when society will 
 no longer be divided into the idle and the industrious ; when 
 the rule that they who do not work shall not eat will be applied, 
 not to paupers only, but impartially to all ; when the division 
 of the produce of labour, instead of depending, as in so great a 
 degree it now does, on the accident of birth, will be made by 
 concert on an acknowledged principle of justice ; and when it
 
 6 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 will no longer either be, or be thought to be, impossible for 
 human beings to exert themselves strenuously in procuring 
 benefits which are not to be exclusively their own, but to be 
 shared with the society they belong to." (" Autobiography," pp. 
 231-232). On this passage Mr. Cairnes observes : " If to look 
 forward to such a state of things as an ideal to be striven for 
 is socialism, I at once acknowledge myself a socialist ; but it 
 seems to me that the idea which ' socialism ' conveys to most 
 minds is not that of any particular form of society to be realized 
 at a future time when the character of human beings and the 
 conditions of human life are widely different from what they 
 now are, but rather certain modes of action, more especially 
 the employment of the powers of the State for the instant 
 accomplishment of ideal schemes, which is the invariable 
 attribute of all projects generally regarded as socialistic. So 
 entirely is this the case that it is common to hear any proposal 
 which is thought to involve an undue extension of the powers 
 of the State branded as socialistic, whatever be the object it 
 may seek to accomplish. After all, the question is one of 
 nomenclature merely ; but people are so greatly governed by 
 words that I cannot but regret that a philosophy of social life 
 with which I so deeply sympathize should be prejudiced by 
 verbal associations fitted, as it seems to me, only to mislead." 
 ( u Leading Principles of Political Economy," p. 316.) 
 
 Mr. Cairnes's objection is just ; for a reformer's position ought 
 to be determined, not by the distant ideal he may think best, 
 if the conditions were ripe for its realization, but by the policy 
 which he counts to be of present importance under the con- 
 ditions that exist. He may cherish, as many orthodox 
 economists do, the socialist hope. He may look for a time 
 when comfort and civilization shall be more universally and 
 securely diffused; when heads and hands in the world of 
 labour shall work together in amity; when competition and 
 exclusive private property and self-interest shall be swallowed 
 up in love and common labour. But he knows that the trans- 
 formation must be gradual, and that the material conditions of 
 it must never be pushed on in advance of the intellectual and 
 moral. And this cuts him off by a whole diameter from those 
 who are now known as socialists. In every question of the day
 
 Introductory. 7 
 
 he will be found in an opposite camp from them. For he 
 makes the ideal what it is and ought to be the goal of his 
 action ; they make it their starting-point, and the peculiarity 
 of the case is that with their view of the situation they cannot 
 make it anything else. For to their mind the struggle they 
 are engaged in is not a struggle for amelioration, but for plain 
 and elementary right. It is not a quest ion of providing greater 
 happiness for the greatest number ; it is a question of doing 
 them bare justice, of giving them their own, of protecting 
 them against a disguised but very real expropriation. They 
 declare that, under the present industrial arrangements, the 
 labouring classes are in effect robbed of most of the value of 
 the work of their hands, and of course the suppression of 
 systematic robbery is an immediate obligation of the present. 
 Justice is a basis to start from now, if possible, and not a 
 dream to await hereafter. First let the labouring man have 
 his rights, they cry, and then, and then only, shall you have 
 the way clear for any further parley about his future. It is 
 true that he is not the victim of individual rapacity so much 
 as of the system, and that he cannot get his rights till the 
 system is completely changed ; but the system, they argue, 
 can never be completely changed except by the power of the 
 State, and why then not change it at once ? Now, it is 
 obvious how, to people who take this view of the matter, there 
 should seem no other alternative but an instant reconstruction 
 of industrial society at the hands of the State. For if it is 
 justice that has to be done, then it appears only natural to 
 conclude that it falls upon the State, as the organ of justice, to 
 do it, and that it cannot do it too soon. The demand for the 
 immediate accomplishment of their scheme by public authority 
 is thus no accidental accessory of it merely, but is really in- 
 separable from the ideas on which the scheme is founded. It 
 is, in fact, so much, if I may use the word, the note of socialism 
 wherever socialism makes itself heard in the world now, that 
 it can only produce confusion to give the name of socialist to 
 persons who hold this note in abhorrence, and virtually desire 
 no more than the gradual triumph of co-operation. 
 
 It may be answered that the latter, like the former, aim not 
 at a mere reform of the present industrial system, but at an
 
 8 Contemporaiy Socialism. 
 
 essential change in its fundamental principles at an eventual 
 suppression of exclusive property and unrestricted competition 
 and that it is therefore only proper to classify them with 
 those who seek the like important end, however they may 
 differ from the latter as to the means and seasons of action. 
 This might be right, perhaps, if our only consideration were 
 to furnish a philosophical classification of opinions ; but we 
 have to deal with a living and agitating party whose name 
 and work are much canvassed, and there is at any rate great 
 practical inconvenience in extending the current designation 
 of that party so as to include persons who object strongly to 
 its whole immediate work. 
 
 The inconvenience has doubled since Mill's time, because 
 socialism has now become a much more definite programme of 
 a much more definite party. Even in the old romantic schools 
 the ruling characteristic of socialism was always its effort to 
 realize some wrong view of distributive justice. It was more 
 than merely an impracticable plan for the extinction of poverty, 
 or the more equable diffusion of wealth, or the correction of 
 excessive inequalities, although that seems to be so prevailing 
 an impression that persons who have what they conceive more 
 feasible proposals to offer for these purposes put them forward 
 under the name of Practicable Socialism But so far as these 
 purposes go, they are common to almost all schools of social 
 reformers, even the most individualist. If socialism meant 
 only feeling earnestly about those inequalities, or desiring 
 earnestly their redress, or even strongly resenting their incon- 
 sistency with an ideal of justice, then Mr. Herbert Spencer is 
 as much a socialist as either Marx or Lassalle. " The fates of 
 the great majority," says he, " have ever been, and doubtless 
 still are, so sad that it is painful to think of them. Unques- 
 tionably the existing type of social organization is one which 
 none who care for their kind can contemplate with satisfaction ; 
 and unquestionably men's activities accompanying this type 
 are far from being admirable. The strong divisions of rank and 
 the immense inequalities of means are at variance with that 
 ideal of human relations on which the sympathetic imagina- 
 tion likes to dwell; and the average conduct, under the pressure 
 and excitement of social life as at present carried on. is in
 
 Introductory. 9 
 
 sundry respects repulsive." ("A Plea for Liberty," p. 4.) 
 Socialists are far from being the only persons whose sense of 
 justice is offended by much in the existing regime, and many 
 very moderate politicians have held that the policy of the law 
 should always favour the diffusion of wealth rather than its 
 concentration ; that it should always favour the active business 
 interest rather than the idle interest; that it should always 
 favour the weaker and more unprotected interest rather than 
 the more powerful and the more contumelious. The socialism 
 comes in not with the condemnation of the existing order of 
 things, but with the policy recommended for its correction. 
 There is no socialism in recognising the plain fact that the gifts 
 of fortune, whether riches or talents, are not distributed in the 
 world according to merit. There is no socialism in declaring 
 that the rich, by reason of their riches, have responsibilities 
 towards the poor ; or that the poor, by reason of their poverty, 
 have claims upon the rich. Nor is there any socialism in 
 holding that the State has responsibilities towards the poor, 
 and that the law ought, when necessary, to assert the reason- 
 able claims of poverty, or enforce the reasonable duties and 
 obligations of wealth. All that merely says that justice and 
 humanity ought to govern in economic affairs, as they ought 
 to govern in all other affairs of life ; and this is an axiomatic 
 position which nobody in the world denies. Only, axiomatic 
 though it is, it seems to dawn on many minds like a revelation 
 late in life, and they feel they are no longer as other men, 
 and that they must henceforth call themselves socialists. This 
 awakening to the injustice or inhumanity of things is not 
 socialism, though socialism may often proceed out of it. So- 
 cialism is always some scheme for the removal of one injustice 
 by the infliction of a greater some scheme which, by mis- 
 taking the rights and wrongs of the actual situation, or the 
 natural operation of its own provisions, or any other cause, 
 would leave things more inequitable and more offensive to a 
 sound sense of justice than it found them. The rich idler, for 
 example, is always a great offence to the socialist, because, 
 according to the socialist sense of justice, no man ought to be 
 rich without working for his riches ; and many other people will 
 possibly agree with the socialist in that. But then the socialist
 
 io Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 proposes to abolish the rich idler by a scheme which would 
 breed the poor idler in overwhelming abundance, and for the 
 sake of equalizing poverty and wealth, would really equalize 
 indolence and industry at once a more fatal and a more offen- 
 sive form of injustice than that which it was designed to redress. 
 Socialists find fault with the present order of things because 
 the many workers support the few idlers ; but most of the old 
 socialist communities of France and America failed because 
 of the opposite and greater injustice, that the few workers 
 found themselves supporting the many idlers, and the con- 
 sequence was a more harrowing sense of unfairness and a 
 more universal impoverishment than prevailed under the old 
 system. The rich idler who merely lives on what he has 
 inherited may not belong to an ideal state of society ; but the 
 poor idler, who shirks and dawdles and malingers, because an 
 indulgent community relieves him of the necessity of harder 
 exertion, is equally unideal, and he is much more hurtful in 
 the reality. 
 
 But the socialists, in their mistaken ideas of justice, do not 
 stop at the rich idler. The rich idler is, in their view, a robber; 
 but the rich worker is a greater robber still. It is characteristic 
 of socialist thought to hold the accumulations of the rich to 
 be in some sort of way unjustly acquired by spoiling the poor. 
 The poor are always represented as the disinherited; their pro- 
 perty is declared to have been taken from them perforce by 
 bad laws and bad economic arrangements and delivered with- 
 out lien into the hands of the capitalists. This view lived and 
 moved in the old socialism, but it has been worked into a 
 reasoned and professedly scientific argument as a basis and 
 justification for the new. The old socialism usually exclaimed 
 against the justice of interest, rent, property, and all forms of 
 labourless income ; but the new socialism pretends to prove 
 the charge by economic principles. It alleges that all these 
 forms of income are so many different forms of plundering the 
 working classes, who are the real producers of wealth, and it 
 sets up a claim on behalf of those classes to the whole value of 
 the things they produce without any deductions for rent, 
 interest, or profit the right, as they call it, of the labourer to 
 the whole produce of his labour. Now this is a verv distinct
 
 Introductory. 1 1 
 
 and definite claim pf right and justice, and the whole final 
 object of the socialist organizations of the present day is to get 
 it realized, and realized at once, as claims of right and justice 
 ought, and must, by the powers of the State. I shall have 
 better opportunities at a later part of this work of proving how 
 absolutely unfounded and unjust is this claim; but I mention it 
 here merely to show that the essence of modern socialism is 
 more and more unmistakably revealing itself as an effort to 
 realize some false ideal of social or distributive justice. This is 
 the deepest and most ruling feature of socialism, and it really 
 necessitated the advance of the movement from the philan- 
 thropic to the political stage. The Owenites were content with 
 the idea of a voluntary equality of wealth ; but that is now 
 dismissed as the mere children's dream, for popular rights 
 are things to be enforced by law, and questions of justice are 
 for the State. The political character of the movement has 
 only brought forward into stronger relief the distorted ideal of 
 justice which gave it being ; and it has therefore become much 
 more confusing than it formerly was for one to call himself a 
 socialist merely because he dreams of better things to come, 
 or because he would like to extinguish poverty, or to diffuse 
 property, or to extend the principle of progressive taxation, or 
 promote co-operation or profit-sharing, or any other just or 
 useful measures of practical social reform. That is shown 
 very well by a simple little tidemark. In the old days it was 
 still possible, though it never was a happy choice, for Maurice 
 and the promoters of the new co-operation movement to assume 
 the designation of Christian Socialists ; but although Schultze- 
 Delitzsch was working on the same lines with even greater 
 eclat at the time when the present socialistic movement began 
 in Germany, he was left so far behind that he was thought 
 the great anti- socialist, and the people to whom it was 
 now considered appropriate to transfer the name of socialists 
 were a set of university professors and others who advo- 
 cated a more extended use of the powers of the State for the 
 solution of the social question and the satisfaction of working- 
 class claims. 
 
 The Socialists of the Chair and the Christian Socialists 
 of Germany contemplate nothing beyond correctives and pal-
 
 12 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 liatives of existing evils; but then they ask the State to 
 administer them. They ask the State to inspect factories, 
 or to legalize trades unions, or to organize working-class in- 
 surance, or to fix fair wages. Their requests may be wise or 
 foolish, but none of them, nor all of them together, would 
 either subvert or transform the existing industrial system ; 
 and those who propound them are called socialists merely 
 because they make it part of the State's business to deal with 
 social questions, or perhaps more particularly because they 
 make it the State's business to deal with social questions in 
 the interest of the working class. This idea of socialism 
 seems largely to govern the current employment of the term. 
 We often hear any fresh extension of the functions of the 
 State condemned as socialistic even when the extension is not 
 supposed to be made in the interests of the working class, or 
 to be conducive to them. The purchase of the telegraphs 
 was socialistic ; the proposal to purchase the railways is social- 
 istic ; a national system of education is socialistic ; and an 
 ecclesiastical establishment, if it were now brought forward as 
 a new suggestion, would be pronounced socialistic too. Since, 
 in a socialistic community, all power is assigned to the 
 State, any measure which now increases the power of the 
 State gets easily represented as an approach to socialism, 
 especially in the want and it is one of our chief wants at 
 present of a rational and discriminating theory of the proper 
 limits and sphere of public authority. 
 
 But in the prevailing use of the word, there is generally the 
 idea that the intervention of authority to which it is applied 
 is undertaken to promote the well-being of the less fortunate 
 classes of society. Since socialism seeks to construct what 
 may be called a working class State, where the material wel- 
 fare of each shall be the great object of the organization of all, 
 it is common to represent as socialistic any proposal that asks 
 the State to do something for the material well-being of the 
 working class, and to describe any group of such proposals, or 
 any theory that favours them, by the name of socialism. The 
 so-called State-socialism of Prince Bismarck, for example, is 
 only, as he has himself declared, a following-out of the tradi- 
 tions of the House of Hohenzollern, the princes of that dynasty
 
 Introductory. 1 3 
 
 having always counted it one of their first duties as rulers 
 to exercise a special protection and solicitude over the poorer 
 classes of their subjects. The old ideas of feudal protection 
 and paternal government have charms fo'r many minds that 
 deplore the democratic spirit of modern society. In Germany 
 they have been maintained by the feudal classes, the court, 
 and the clergy ; their presence in the general intellectual 
 atmosphere there has probably facilitated the diffusion of 
 socialistic views ; and they have certainly led to the curious 
 phenomenon of a Conservative socialism, in which the most 
 obstinately Conservative interests in the country go to meet 
 the Social Democrats half way, and promise to do everything 
 to get them better wages if they will but come to church 
 again and pray for the Kaiser. The days of feudal protection 
 and paternal government are gone ; as idealized by Carlyle, 
 they perhaps never existed ; at any rate, in an age of equality 
 they are no longer possible, but their modern counterparts are 
 precisely the ideas of social protection and fraternal govern- 
 ment which find their home among socialists. On the strength 
 of this analogy, Prince Bismarck and the German Emperor are 
 sometimes spoken of as socialists, because they believe, like 
 the latter, that the State should exercise a general or even a 
 particular providence over the industrial classes. But socialism 
 is more than such a belief. It is not only a theory of the 
 State's action, but a theory of the State's action founded on 
 a theory of the labourer's right. It is at bottom, as I have 
 said, a mistaken demand for social justice. It tells us that 
 an enlargement of social justice was made when it was 
 declared that every man shall be free or, in other words, 
 that every man shall possess completely his own powers of 
 labour ; and it claims that a new enlargement of social 
 justice shall be made now, to declare that every man shall 
 possess the whole produce of his labour. Now those who 
 are known as Conservative Socialists, in patronizing the 
 working people, do not dream of countenancing any such 
 claim, or even of admitting in the least that there is any- 
 thing positively unjust in the present industrial system. None 
 of them would go further than to say that the economic 
 position of the labourer is insufficient to satisfy his legitimate
 
 14 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 aspirations in a civilized community; few of them would 
 go so far. It is therefore highly confusing to class them 
 among socialists. 
 
 M. Limousin, again, speaks of a " minimum of socialism." 
 He would call no man a socialist who does not hold this mini- 
 mum, and he would call every man a socialist who does hold it. 
 And the minimum of socialism, in his opinion, is this, that 
 the State owes a special duty of protection to labourers because 
 they are poor, and that this duty consists in securing to them 
 a more equitable part in the product of general labour. The 
 latter clause migh.t have been better expressed in less general 
 terms, but that may pass. The definition recognises at any 
 rate that the paternal or the fraternal theory of government 
 does not of itself constitute socialism, and that this must be 
 combined with the demand for a new distribution of wealth, 
 on supposed grounds of justice or equity, before we have even 
 the minimum of socialism. But it would have been more 
 correct if it had recognised that the demand for a better 
 distribution must be made not merely on supposed, but on 
 erroneous grounds of justice or equity. If the proposed dis- 
 tribution is really just and equitable, nothing can surely be 
 more proper than to ask the State to do its best to realize it 
 and any practicable intervention for that purpose is only a 
 matter of the ordinary expansion of the law. "What is law, 
 what is right, but a protection of the weak? and all legal 
 reform is a transition from a less equitable to a more equitable 
 system of arrangements. The equitable requirements of the 
 poor are the natural concern of the State on the narrowest 
 theory of its functions, and M. Limousin's definition would 
 really include all rational social reformers under the name of 
 socialist. 
 
 If we are in this way to stretch the word socialism first to 
 the one side, till it takes in J. S. Mill and Maurice and the 
 co-operators, who repudiate authority and State help, and 
 then on the other side, till it takes in Prince Bismarck, and 
 our own aristocratic Conservative Young England Party, and 
 all social reformers who want the State to do its ordinary 
 duty of supplying the working classes with better securities 
 for the essentials of all humane living, how can there be any
 
 Introductory, 1 5 
 
 rational and intelligible use of the word at all ? Mill holds 
 a more or less socialistic idea of what a just society would 
 be ; Bismarck holds a more or less socialistic view of the 
 functions of the State ; but neither of these ideas separately 
 make up the minimum of socialism ; and it would therefore 
 be misleading to call either of them by that name, while to 
 call both by it would be hopeless confusion, since the one 
 politician holds exactly what the other rejects, and no more. 
 But, after all, it is of less importance to define socialism in the 
 abstract than to describe the actual concrete socialism that 
 has organization and life, especially as the name is only trans- 
 ferred in common speech to all these varying shades of opinion, 
 because they are thought to resemble that concrete socialism 
 in one feature or another. 
 
 Having now ascertained the general nature of the con- 
 temporary socialistic movement, we shall be in a better position 
 to judge of its bearings and importance. "We have seen that 
 the only form of socialism which has come to life again since 
 1848 is the political and revolutionary phase of Social Demo- 
 cracy. Now, this was also the original form in which socialism 
 first appeared in modern Europe at the time of the earlier 
 Revolution of 1789. The tradition it represents is conse- 
 quently one of apparently vigorous vitality. It has kept its 
 place in European opinion for a hundred years, it seems to 
 have grown with the growth of the democratic spirit, and it 
 has in our own day broken out simultaneously in most of the 
 countries of the Continent, and in some of them with remark- 
 able energy. A movement like this, which seems to have 
 taken a continuous and extensive hold of the popular mind, 
 and which moreover has a consciousness of right, a passion for 
 social justice, however mistaken, at the heart of it, cannot be 
 treated lightly as a political force ; but at the same time its 
 consequence is apt to be greatly overrated both by the hopes 
 of sanguine adherents and by the apprehensions of opponents. 
 Socialists are incessantly telling us that their system is the 
 last word of the Revolution, that the current which broke 
 loose over Europe in 1789 is setting, as it could not help setting, 
 in their direction, and that it can only find its final level of
 
 1 6 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 repose in a democratic communism. Conservative Cassandras 
 tell us the same thing, for the Extreme Right takes the same 
 view as the Extreme Left does of the logical tendency of 
 measures. They feel things about them moving everywhere 
 towards equality, they feel themselves helpless to resist the 
 movement, and they are sure they shall waken one morning 
 in a social revolution. Stahl, for example, thought democracy 
 necessarily conducted to socialism, and that wherever demo- 
 cracy entered, socialism was already at the door. A few words 
 will therefore be still necessary towards explaining, first, the 
 historical origin of modern socialism ; second, the relations of 
 socialism to democracy, and, finally, the extent and character 
 of the spread of the present movement. 
 
 Respecting the first of these three points, modern socialism 
 was generated out of the notions about property and the State 
 which appeared towards the close of last century in the course 
 of the speculations then in vogue on the origin and objects of 
 civil society, and which were proclaimed about the same time 
 by many different writers by Brissot, by Mably, by Morelly, 
 and above all by Rousseau. Their great idea was to restore 
 what they called the state of nature, when primitive equality 
 still reigned, and the earth belonged to none, and the fruits 
 to all. They taught that there was no foundation for property 
 but need. He who needed a thing had a right to it, and he 
 who had more than he needed was a thief. Rousseau said 
 every man had naturally a right to whatever he needed ; and 
 Brissot, anticipating the famous words of Proudhon, declared 
 that in a state of nature " exclusive property was theft." It 
 was so in a state of nature, but it was so also in a state of 
 society, for society was built on a social contract, " the clauses 
 of which reduce themselves to one, viz., the total transfer of 
 each associate, with all his rights, to the community." The 
 individual is thus nothing ; the State is all in all. Property is 
 only so much of the national estate conditionally conceded to 
 the individual. He has the right to use it, because the State 
 permits him, while the State permits him, and how the State 
 permits him. So with every other right ; he is to think, speak, 
 train his children, or even beget them, as the State directs and 
 allows, in the interest of tho common gocd.
 
 Introductory. 1 7 
 
 These ideas circulated in a diffuse state till 1793. They 
 formed as yet neither system nor party. But when Joseph 
 Baboeuf, discarding his Christian name of Joseph (because, as 
 he said, he had no wish for Joseph's virtues, and so saw no 
 good in having him for his patron saint), and taking instead 
 the ominous name of Caius Gracchus, organized the conspiracy 
 of the Egaux in that year, then modern socialism began, and 
 it began in the form in which it still survives. Baboeuf's 
 ambition was to found what he called a true democratic 
 republic, and by a true democratic republic he meant one in 
 which all inequalities, whether of right or of fact, should be 
 abolished, and every citizen should have enough and none too 
 much. It was vain, he held, to dream of making an end of 
 privilege or oppression until all property came into the hands 
 of the Government, and was statedly distributed by the 
 Government to the citizens on a principle of scrupulous 
 equality. Misled by the name Caius Gracchus, people thought 
 he wanted an agrarian law and equal division. But he told 
 them an agrarian law was folly, and equal division would not 
 last a twelvemonth, if the participants got the property to 
 themselves. What he wanted, he said, was something much 
 more sublime it was community of goods. Equality could 
 only be made enduring through the abolition of private 
 property. The State must be sole proprietor and sole em- 
 ployer, and dispense to every man his work according to his 
 particular skill, and his subsistence in honourable sufficiency 
 according to his wants. An individual who monopolized any- 
 thing over and above such a sufficiency committed a social 
 theft. Appropriation was to be strictly limited to and by 
 personal need. 
 
 Baboeuf saw no difficulty in working the scheme ; was it 
 not practised every day in the army, with 1,200,000 men? If 
 it were said, the soil of France is too small to sustain its 
 population in the standard of sufficiency contemplated, then 
 so much the worse for the superfluous population ; let the 
 greater landlords first, and then as many sansculottes as were 
 redundant, be put out of the way for their country's good. He 
 actually ascribed this intention to Robespierre, and spoke of 
 the Terror as if it were an excellent anticipation of Malthusi- 
 
 c
 
 1 8 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 anisra. Did any one say that, without inequalities, progress 
 would cease and arts and civilization decay, Baboeuf was 
 equally prepared to take the consequences. " Perish the arts," 
 said a manifesto discovered with him at his apprehension, " but 
 let us have real equality." " All evils," he said in his news- 
 paper, " are on their trial. Let them all be confounded. Let 
 everything return to chaos, and from chaos let there rise a 
 new and regenerated world." 
 
 We have here just the revolutionary socialist democracy 
 that is still rampant over Europe. Socialists now, indeed, 
 generally make light of the difficulty of over-population which 
 Baboeuf solved so glibly with the guillotine, and they contend 
 that their system would humanize civilization instead of 
 destroying it. They follow, too, a different tradition from 
 Baboeuf regarding the right of property. While he built that 
 right on need, they build it on labour. He said the man who 
 has more than he needs is a thief ; they say the man who has 
 more than he wrought for is a thief. He would have the State 
 to give every man an honourable sufficiency right off, accord- 
 ing to his need ; they ask the State to give every man accord- 
 ing to his work, or, if unfit for work, according to his need, 
 and they hold that this rule would afford every one an honour- 
 able sufficiency. But these differences are only refinements 
 on Baboeuf's plan, and its main features remain equality of 
 conditions, nationalization of property, democratic tyranny, a 
 uniform medium fatal to progress, an omnipresent mandarin 
 control crushing out of the people that energy of character 
 which W. von Humboldt said was the first and only virtue 
 of man, because it was the root of all other excellence and 
 advancement. In short, socialists now seek, like Baboeuf, to 
 establish a democratic republic a societj- built on the equal 
 manhood of every citizen and, like Baboeuf, they think a 
 true democratic republic is necessarily a socialistic one. 
 
 This brings me to the next point I mentioned, the interest- 
 ing problem of the true relations of socialism to democracy. 
 Is socialism, as Stahl and others represent, an inevitable 
 corollary of democracy ? If so, our interest in it is very real 
 and very immediate. For democracy is already here, and is &t
 
 Introductory. 1 9 
 
 present engaged in every country of Europe in the very work 
 of reorganizing the social system into harmony with demo- 
 cratic requirements. Its hammer may make little sound in 
 some places, but the work proceeds none the less effectually 
 for the silence, and it will proceed, slowly or more rapidly, 
 until all the institutions of the country have been renovated 
 by the democratic spirit. "Will the social system, which will 
 result from the process, be socialism ? " The gradual develop- 
 ment of the principle of equality," says De Tocqueville, " is a 
 providential fact. It has all the characteristics of such a fact. 
 It is universal ; it is durable ; it constantly eludes all human 
 interference ; and all events, as well as all men, contribute to 
 its progress. "Would it be wise to imagine that a social move- 
 ment, the causes of which lie so far back, can be checked by 
 the efforts of one generation ? Can it be believed that the 
 democracy which has overthrown the feudal system and 
 vanquished kings will retreat before tradesmen and capitalists? 
 "Will it stop now that it has grown so strong, and its adver- 
 saries so weak? " If, then, the natural tendency of democracy 
 is to socialism, to socialism we must eventually go. 
 
 But the natural tendency of democracy is not to socialism. 
 A single plain but remarkable fact suffices to establish that. 
 Democracy has been in full bloom in America for more than 
 a century, and there are no traces of socialism -there except 
 among some German immigrants of yesterday ; for, of course, 
 the communism of the eccentric religious sects of America 
 proceeds from religious ideals, and has no bearing one way 
 or other on the social tendency of democracy. The labouring 
 class is politically everything in that country everything, at 
 least, that electoral power can make them in an elective re- 
 public ; and they have never shown any desire to use their 
 political power to become socially everything or to interfere 
 with the freedom of property. Had this been in any way the 
 necessary effect of democratic institutions, it must have by 
 this time made its appearance in the United States. De 
 Tocqueville, indeed, maintains that so far from there being 
 any natural solidarity between democracy and socialism, they 
 are absolutely contrary the one to the other. " Democracy," 
 he said in a speech in the Republican Parliament of France
 
 2O Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 in 1849, " extends the sphere of individual independence ; 
 socialism contracts it. Democracy gives every individual man 
 his utmost possible value ; socialism makes every man an agent. 
 an instrument, a cipher. Democracy and socialism coincide 
 only in the single word equality, but observe the difference : 
 democracy desires equality in liberty; socialism seeks equality 
 in compulsion and servitude." 
 
 That is so far substantially true, but it cannot be received 
 altogether without qualification. "We have had experience in 
 modern times of two different forms of democracy, which may 
 be called the American and the Continental. In America 
 equality came as it were by nature, without strife and without 
 so much as observation ; the colonists started equal. But 
 freedom was only won by sacrifice ; the first pilgrims bought 
 it by exile ; the founders of the Republic bought it a second 
 time by blood. Liberty therefore was their treasure, their 
 ark, their passion ; and having been long trained in habits of 
 self-government, they acquired in the daily exercise of their 
 liberty that strong sense of its practical value, and that subtle 
 instinct of its just limits, which always constitute its surest 
 bulwarks. "With them the State was nothing more than an 
 association for mutual protection an association, like any 
 other, having its own definite work to do and no more, and 
 receiving from its members the precise powers needed for that 
 work and no more ; and they looked with a jealousy, warm 
 from their history and life, on any extension of the State's 
 functions or powers beyond those primary requirements of 
 public safety or utility which they laid upon it. In the United 
 States property is widely diffused ; liberty has been long 
 enjoyed by the people as a fact, as well as loved by them as 
 an ideal ; the central authority has ever been held in com- 
 parative check ; and individual rights are so general a posses- 
 sion that any encroachment upon them in the name of the 
 majority would always tread on interests numerous and strong 
 enough to raise an effectual resistance. Democracy has in 
 America, accordingly, a soil most favourable to its health}- 
 growth ; the history, the training, and the circumstances of 
 the people all concur to support liberty. 
 
 But on the Continent democracy sprang from very different
 
 Introductory. 2 1 
 
 antecedents, and possesses a very different character. Equality 
 was introduced into France by convulsion, and lias engrossed 
 an undue share of her attention since. Freedom, on the other 
 hand, has been really less desired than power. The Revolution, 
 found the affairs of that country administered by a strong 
 centralized organization, with its hand everywhere and on 
 everything, and the Revolution left them so. Revolution has 
 succeeded revolution ; dynasties and constitutions have come 
 and gone ; almost every part of the political and social sj^stem 
 has suffered change ; the form of government has been re- 
 public, empire, monarchy, empire and republic again ; but 
 the authority of government, its sphere, its attributes, have 
 remained throughout the same. Each party in succession has 
 seized the power of the State, but none has sought to curb its 
 range. On the contrary, their temptation lay the other way ; 
 they have been always so bent on using the authority and 
 mechanism of government to impair or suppress the influence 
 of their adversaries, whom they regarded as at the same time 
 the adversaries of the State, that they could only wish that 
 authority to be larger and that mechanism more perfect than 
 they already were. Even the more popular parties are content 
 to accept the existing over-government as the normal state 
 of affairs, and always strive to gain the control of it rather 
 than to restrain its action. And so it has come about that, 
 while they sought liberty for themselves, they were afraid 
 to grant it to their opponents, for fear their opponents should 
 be able to get the authority of this too powerful administration 
 into their hands and serve them in the same way. The 
 struggle for freedom has thus been corrupted into a struggle 
 for power. That is the secret of the pathetic story of modern 
 France. That is why, with all her marvellous efforts for 
 liberty, she has never fully possessed it, and that is why she 
 seems condemned to instability. 
 
 A growing minority of the democratic party in France is 
 indeed opposed to this unfortunate over-government, but the 
 democratic party in general has always countenanced it, 
 perhaps more than any other party, because to their minds 
 government represents the will of the people, and the people 
 cannot be supposed to have any reason to restrain its own
 
 22 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 will. Besides, they are still dominated by the doctrines of 
 Rousseau and the other revolutionary writers who looked with 
 the utmost contempt on the American idea of the State being 
 a kind of joint-stock association organized for a circumscribed 
 purpose and with limited powers, and who held the State, on 
 the contrary, to be the organ of society in all its interests, 
 desires, and needs, and to be invested with all the powers and 
 rights of all the individuals that compose it. Under the social 
 contract, by which they conceived the State to be constituted, 
 individuals gave up all their rights and possessions to the 
 community, and got them back immediately afterwards as 
 mere State concessions, which there could be no injustice in 
 withdrawing again next day for the greater good of the com- 
 munity. Instead of enjoying equal freedom as men, the great 
 object was to make them enjoy equal completeness as citizens. 
 
 From historical conditions like these there has sprung up 
 on the Continent in Germany as well as France a quite 
 different type of democracy from the American, and this type 
 of democracy, while it may not be the best, the truest, or the 
 healthiest type of it, has a tendency only too natural towards 
 socialism. It contains in its very build and temperament 
 organic conditions that predispose it to socialism as to its 
 peculiarly besetting disease. It evinced this tendency very 
 early in the history of the Revolution. As Ledru-Rollin re- 
 minded De Tocqueville, in replying to his speech, the right to 
 labour on the part of the strong and the right to assistance 
 on the part of the weak were already acknowledged by the 
 Convention of 1793. Claims like these constitute the very 
 A B C of socialism, and they have always moved with more 
 or less energy in the democratic tradition of the Continent. 
 Democracy, guided by the spirit of freedom, will resist 
 socialism ; but authoritative democracy, such as finds favour 
 abroad, leans strongly towards it. A democratic despotism 
 is obviously more dangerous to property than any other, 
 inasmuch as the despot is, in this case, more insatiable, and 
 his rapacity is so easily hid and even sanctified under the 
 general considerations of humanity that always mingle with 
 it. 
 
 It is therefore manifest, that the question whether political
 
 Introductory. 23 
 
 democracy must end in social, is one that cannot be answered 
 out of hand by deduction from the idea. The development 
 will differ in different countries, for it depends on historical 
 conditions, of which the most important is that I have now 
 touched on, whether the national character and circumstances 
 are calculated to guide that development into the form of 
 democratic liberty, or into the form of democratic tyranny. A 
 second condition is scarcely less important, viz., whether the 
 laws and economic situation of the country have conduced 
 to a dispersion or to a concentration of property. For even 
 in the freest democracy individual property can only be per- 
 manently sustained by diffusion, and, if existing conditions 
 have ^solated it into the hands of the few, the many will lie 
 under a constant, and, in emergencies, an irresistible tempta- 
 tion to take freedom in their hand and force the distribution 
 of property by law, or nationalize it entirely by a socialistic 
 reconstruction. It used to be a maxim in former days that 
 power must be distributed in some proportion to property, but 
 with the advent of democracy the maxim must be converted, 
 and the rule of health will now be found in having property 
 distributed in some proportion to power. That is the natural 
 price of stability under a democratic regime. A penniless 
 omnipotence is an insupportable presence. When supreme 
 power is vested in a majority of the people, property cannot 
 sit securely till it becomes so general a possession that a 
 majority of the people has a stake in its defence, and this 
 point will not be reached until at least a large minority of 
 them are actually owners, and the rest enjoy a reasonable 
 prospect of becoming so by the exercise of care and diligence 
 in their ordinary avocations. 
 
 The belief of Marx and modern socialists, that the large 
 system of production, with its centralized capital and its ag- 
 gregation of workpeople in large centres, must, by necessary 
 historical evolution, end in the socialist State, is, as Professor A. 
 Menger has pointed out, not justified by history. The lati- 
 fundia and slavery of the decline of the Roman empire were 
 not succeeded by any system of common property, but by the 
 institutions of mediaeval law which made the rights of private 
 property more absolute and exclusive. And in our own time
 
 24 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the tendency to concentration of property in the hands of a few 
 great capitalists is being corrected by the newer tendency to 
 joint stock management, i.e., to the union and multiplication 
 of small capitalists ; and this is of course a tendency back 
 from, and not on towards, the social revolution Marx con- 
 ceived to be imminent. But though the modern concentra- 
 tion of wealth may not for the moment be increasing, and if 
 it were, may not on that account necessarily spell socialism, 
 it certainly spells social peril; and the future, therefore, 
 stands before us with a solemn choice : either property must 
 contrive to get widely diffused peacefully, or it will be diffused 
 by acts of popular confiscation, or perhaps be nationalized 
 altogether ; and the fate of free institutions hangs up(^i the 
 dilemma. For in a democratic community the peril is always 
 near. De Tocqueville may be right in saying that such 
 communities, if left to themselves, naturally love liberty; 
 but there are other things they love more, and this pro- 
 found political philosopher has himself pointed out with what 
 exceptional vigour they nourish two powerful passions, either 
 of which, if it got the mastery, would prove fatal to free- 
 dom. One is the love of equality. " I think," says he, " that 
 democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom ; left 
 to themselves they will seek to cherish it, and view every pri- 
 vation of it with regret. But for equality their passion is 
 ardent, insatiable, insistent, invincible ; they call for equality 
 in freedom, and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for 
 equality in slavery. They will endure poverty, servitude, 
 pauperism, but they will not endure aristocracy." The other 
 is the unreined love of material gratification. By this De 
 Tocqueville does not mean sensual corruption of manners, for 
 he believes that sensuality will be more moderate in a demo- 
 cracy than in other forms of society. He means the passion 
 for material comfort above all other things, which he describes 
 as the peculiar passion of the middle classes ; the complete 
 absorption in the pursuit of material well-being and the means 
 of material well-being, to the disparagement and disregard of 
 every ideal consideration and interest, as if the chief end and 
 whole dignity of man lay in gaining a conventional standard 
 of comfort. "When a passion like this spreads from the classes
 
 Introductory. 2 5 
 
 whose vanity it feeds to the classes whose envy it excites, 
 social revolution is at the gates, and this is one of De Tocque- 
 ville's gravest apprehensions in contemplating the advance of 
 democracy. For he says that the passion for material well- 
 being has no check in a democratic community except religion, 
 and if religion were to decline and the pursuit of comfort 
 undoubtedly impairs it then liberty would perish. " For my 
 part," he declares, " I doubt whether man can ever support at 
 once complete religious independence and entire public free- 
 dom ; and I am inclined to think that if faith be wanting in 
 him he must serve, and if he be free he must believe." It is 
 impossible, therefore, in an age when the democratic spirit has 
 grown so strong and victorious, to avoid taking some reason- 
 able concern for the future of liberty, more especially as at the 
 same time the sphere and power of government are being 
 everywhere continually extended, the devotion to material 
 well-being, and what is called material civilization, is ever 
 increasing, and religious faith, particularly among the edu- 
 cated and the working classes, is on the decline. 
 
 This is exactly the rock ahead of the modern State, of which 
 we have been long warned by keen eyes aloft, and which seems 
 now to stand out plainly enough to ordinary observers on the 
 deck. Free institutions run continual risk of shipwreck when 
 power is the possession of the many, but property from what- 
 ever cause the enjoyment of the few. With the advance of 
 democracy a diffusion of wealth becomes almost a necessity of 
 State. And the difficulty only begins when the necessity is 
 perceived. For the State cannot accomplish any lasting or 
 effective change in" the matter without impairing or imperilling 
 the freedom which its intervention is meant to protect with- 
 out, in short, becoming socialist, for fear of socialism; and 
 when it has done its best, it finds that the solution is still sub- 
 ject to moral and economic conditions which it has no power 
 to control. In trade and manufactures which occupy such 
 vast and increasing proportions of the population of modern 
 countries, the range of the State's beneficial or even possible 
 action is very little ; and in these branches the natural con- 
 ditions at present strongly favour concentration or aggregation 
 of capital. The small masters have simply been worsted in
 
 26 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 ordinary competition with the large producers, and so long as 
 the large system of production continues the cheapest system 
 of production, no other result can be expected. The social 
 problem, therefore, so far as these branches are concerned, is to 
 discover some form of co-operative arrangement which shall 
 reconcile the large system of production with the interests of 
 the labouring class, unless, indeed what is far from impossible 
 the large system of production is itself to be superseded in 
 the further advance of industrial development. The economic 
 superiority of that system depends greatly on the circum- 
 stance that the power now in use water or steam necessi- 
 tates the concentration of machinery at one spot. Mr. Babbage 
 predicted fifty years ago that if a new power were to be dis- 
 covered that could be generated in a central place in quantities 
 sufficient for the requirements of a whole community, and 
 then distributed, as gas is, wherever it was wanted, the age of 
 domestic manufactures would return. Every little community 
 might then find it cheaper, by saving carriage, and availing 
 itself of cheaper local labour, to manufacture for itself many 
 of the articles now made for it at the large mills ; and the 
 small factory or workshop, so suitable, among other advantages, 
 for co-operative enterprise, would multiply everywhere. Now, 
 have we such a power in electricity ? If so, not the least im- 
 portant effect of the new agent will be its influence on the 
 diffusion of wealth, and its aid towards the solution of the 
 social problem of the nineteenth century. 
 
 With land and agriculture the situation is somewhat differ- 
 ent. The distribution of landed property has always depended 
 largely on legal conditions; and since these conditions have 
 in this country at least wrought for two centuries in favour 
 of the aggregation of estates, their relaxation may reasonably 
 be expected to operate to some extent in the contrary direc- 
 tion. Too much must not be built on this expectation, how- 
 ever, for the natural conditions are at present, at least, as partial 
 to the large property as the legal. The abolition of entail and 
 primogeniture, by emancipating the living proprietor from the 
 preposterous tyranny of the dead, and by bringing to the 
 burdened the privilege of sale, must necessarily throw greater 
 quantities of land into the market than reach it now, but the
 
 Introductory. 2 7 
 
 redistribution of that land will as necessarily conform to the 
 existing social and economic circumstances of the country ; 
 and England will never cease to be characterized by the large 
 property, so long as its social system lends exceptional consider- 
 ation to the possession of land, and its commercial system is 
 continually creating an exceptional number of large fortunes. 
 The market for the large estate is among the wealthy, who 
 buy land as an instrument of enjoyment, of power, of social 
 ambition; and what with the wealth made at home and the 
 wealth made in the colonies, the number of this class is ever 
 on the increase ; the natural market for the small estate, on 
 the other hand, is among the farming class, to whom land is 
 a commercial investment, and the farmers of England, unlike 
 those of other countries, unlike those of our own country in 
 former days, are as a rule positively indisposed to purchase 
 land, finding it more profitable to rent it. This aversion, how- 
 ever, is much more influential with large farmers than with 
 small ones. It is commonly argued as if a small farmer who 
 has saved money will be certain to employ it in taking a more 
 extensive holding, but that is not so. On the contrary, he more 
 usually leaves it in the bank ; in some parts of Scotland many 
 small farmers have deposits of from 500 to 1000 lying there 
 at interest ; they studiously conceal the fact, lest their landlords 
 should hear of it, and raise their rent, and they submit to much 
 inconvenience rather than withdraw any portion of it, once it 
 is deposited. Their ruling object is security and not aggran- 
 disement, and consequently if land were in the market in lots 
 to suit them, they would be almost certain to become pur- 
 chasers of land. In forecasting the possibility of the rise of a 
 peasant proprietary in this country, it is often forgotten that, 
 whether land is a profitable investment for the farmer or not, 
 the class of farmers from whom such a proprietary would be 
 generated is less anxious for a profitable investment than for a 
 safe one, and that to many of them, as of other classes, inde- 
 pendence will always possess much more than a commercial 
 value. 
 
 But, however this may be, land is distributed by holdings as 
 well as by estates, and in connection with our present subject 
 the distribution by holdings is perhaps the more important
 
 28 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 thing of the two. " The magic of property " is no exclusive 
 prerogative of the soil ; ownership in stock will carry the same 
 political effects as ownership in anything else ; and a satisfac- 
 tory system of tenant right may yield all the social and eco- 
 nomic advantages of a peasant proprietary. In fact, tenant 
 right, so far as it goes, is proprietorship, and it has before now 
 developed into proprietorship even in name. The old lamented 
 yeomanry of England were, the great majority of them, copy- 
 holders, and a copyholder was simply a tenant-at-will whose 
 tenant right was consolidated by custom into a perpetual 
 and hereditary property; and if the soil of England will 
 ever again become distributed among as numerous a body of 
 owners as held it in former ages, it will most likely occur 
 through a similar process of consolidation of tenant right. But 
 as it is and though this is a truism, it is often overlooked in 
 discussions on the subject the tenants are owners as well as 
 the landlords ; their interests enlist them on the side of sta- 
 bility ; they have a stake in the defence of property ; and even 
 though the prevailing tendency to the accumulation of estates 
 continues unchecked, its peril to the State may be mitigated 
 by the preservation and multiplication of small and comfort- 
 able holdings, which shall nourish a substantial and indepen- 
 dent peasantry, and supply a hope and ambition to the rural 
 labourers. This is so far well. We know that it is an axiom 
 with Continental socialists that a revolution has no chance 
 of success, however well supported it may be by the artisans 
 of the towns, if the peasantry are contented and take no part 
 in it ; and the most serious feature in more than one of the 
 great countries of Europe at this moment is the miserable 
 condition into which their agricultural labourers have been 
 suffered to fall, and their practical exclusion from all oppor- 
 tunities of raising themselves out of it. The stability of 
 Europe may be said to rest on the number of its comfortable 
 peasantry ; the dam of the Revolution is the small farm. This 
 is not less true of England than of the Continent, for although 
 the agricultural population is vastly outnumbered by the 
 industrial in this country, that consideration really increases 
 rather than diminishes the political value of sustaining and 
 multiplying a contented tenantry.
 
 Introductory. 29 
 
 Now England is the classical country of the large farm as 
 well as of the large estate. Its holdings have always been 
 larger than those of other nations ; they were so when half of 
 them were owned by their occupiers, they are so still when 
 they are rented from great landlords. The large farms have 
 grown larger ; a holding of 200 acres was counted a very large 
 farm in the time of the Commonwealth ; it would be considered 
 a very moderate one in most English counties now. But yet 
 the small farm has not gone the way of the small estate. The 
 effects of consolidation have been balanced to such a degree by 
 a simultaneous extension of the area of cultivation that the 
 number of holdings in England is probably more considerable 
 than it ever was before. If we may trust Gregory King's 
 estimate, there were, 200 years ago, 310,000 occupiers of hold- 
 ings in England, 160,000 owners, and 150,000 tenants ; in 
 1880 there were, exclusive of allotments, which are now 
 numerous, 295,313 holdings of 50 acres and under, and 414,804 
 holdings altogether. Moreover, the future of the small farm is 
 much more hopeful than the future of the small estate or the 
 small factory. All admit the small holding to be preferable to 
 the large for dairy farming and market gardening ; and dairy 
 farms and market gardens are two classes of holdings that 
 must continue to multiply with the growth of the great towns. 
 But even with respect to corn crops, it is now coming to be 
 well understood that the existing conditions of high farming 
 would be better satisfied by a smaller size of holding than has 
 been in most favour with agricultural reformers hitherto ; be- 
 cause then, and then only, can the farmer be expected to 
 bestow upon every rood of his ground that generous expendi- 
 ture of capital, and that sedulous and minute care which are 
 now necessary to make his business profitable. Without en- 
 tering on the disputed question of the comparative productive- 
 ness of large and small farms, it ought to be remembered, in 
 the first place, that the economic advantage of the large 
 farm the reason why the large farmer has been able to offer 
 a higher rent than the smaller is not so much because he 
 produces more, as because he can afford to produce less ; and, 
 in the next place, that the small farmer has heretofore wrought, 
 not only with worse appliances than the large which perhaps
 
 30 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 he must always do but also with less knowledge of the theory 
 of his art, and worse conditions of tenure in both of which 
 respects we may look for improvement in the immediate 
 future. Even as it is, we find small farmers equalling the 
 highest production of the country. In the evidence before the 
 Duke of Richmond's Commission, there is a case of a farmer 
 of three acres producing 45 bushels per acre, or about twice 
 the average of the season in those bad years that impoverished 
 the larger farmers. The same body of evidence seems to prove 
 that the small farmer has more staying power a better capa- 
 city of weathering an agricultural crisis than the large ; for 
 he has much less frequently petitioned for a reduction of rent 
 an advantage which landlords may be expected not to over- 
 look. He enjoys, too, a monopoly of the superior efficiency of 
 interested labour, and as the personal efficiency of the labourer 
 his skill, his knowledge, his watchfulness, his care are be- 
 coming not less, but more important with the growth of 
 scientific farming, whether in corn raising or cattle rearing, 
 the small farm system will probably continue to hold, if not to 
 enlarge, its place in modern agriculture ; and if it is able to do 
 so, it will constitute one of the best buttresses against the social 
 revolution. 
 
 It remains to mark the spread of socialism in the various 
 countries of Europe and America, and to describe its present 
 position ; but this I shall reserve for next chapter.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE PROGRESS AND PRESENT POSITION OF SOCIALISM. 
 
 SOCIALISM being now revolutionary social democracy, we 
 should expect to find it most widely and most acutely developed 
 in those countries where, 1st, the social condition of the lower 
 classes is most precarious, or, in other words, where property 
 and comfort are ill distributed ; 2nd, where political democracy 
 is already a matter of popular agitation ; and, 3rd, where pre- 
 vious revolutions have left behind them an unquiet and 
 revolutionary spirit a " valetudinary habit," as Burke calls 
 it, "of making the extreme medicine of the State its daily 
 bread." That is very much what we do find. All these 
 conditions are present in Germany the country in which 
 socialism has made the most remarkable and rapid advance. 
 Dr. Engel, head of the Statistical Bureau of Prussia, states 
 that in 1875 six million persons, representing, with their 
 families, more than half the population of that State, had an 
 income less than 21 a year each ; and only 140,000 persons 
 had incomes above 150. The number of landed proprietors 
 is indeed comparatively large. In 1861 there were more than 
 two millions of them out of a population of 23,000,000 ; and in 
 a country where half the people are engaged in agriculture 
 this would, at first sight, seem to offer some assurance of 
 general comfort. But then the estates of most of them are 
 much too small to keep them in regular employment or to 
 furnish them with adequate maintenance. More than a 
 million hold estates of less than three acres each, and aver- 
 aging little over an acre, and the soil is poor. The consequence 
 is that the small proprietor is almost always over head and 
 ears in debt. His property can hardly be called his own, and 
 he pays to the usurer a much larger sum annually as interest 
 than he could rent the same land for in the open market.
 
 32 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 More than half of these small estates lie in the Rhine pro- 
 vinces alone, and the distressed condition of the peasantry 
 there has been lately brought again before the attention 
 of the legislature. But while thus in the west the agricultural 
 population suffers seriously from the excessive subdivision of 
 landed property, they are straitened in the eastern and 
 northern provinces by their exclusion from it. Prince 
 Bismarck, speaking of the spread of socialism in a purely 
 agricultural district like Lauenburg, which had excited sur- 
 prise, said that this would not seem remarkable to any one 
 who reflected that, from the land legislation in that part of 
 the country, the labourers could never hope to acquire the 
 smallest spot of ground as their own possession, and were kept 
 in a state of dependence on the gentry and the peasant pro- 
 prietors. Half the land of Prussia is held by 31,000 persons ; 
 and emigration, which used to come chiefly from the eastern 
 provinces, where subdivision had produced a large class of 
 indigent proprietors, proceeds now predominantly from the 
 quarters where large estates abound. The diminution of 
 emigration from the Rhine provinces is indeed one cause of 
 the increase of distress among the peasant proprietary ; but 
 why emigration has ceased, when there seems more motive for 
 it, is not so clear. As yet, however, socialism has taken com- 
 paratively slight hold of the rural population of Germany, 
 because they are too scattered in most parts to combine ; but 
 there exists in that country, as in others, a general conviction 
 that the condition of the agricultural labourers is really a 
 graver social question than the condition of the other in- 
 dustrial classes, and must be faced in most countries before 
 long. Socialism has naturally made most way among the 
 factory operatives of Germany, who enjoy greatest facilities 
 for combination and mutual fermentation, and who besides, 
 while better off in respect to wages than various other sections 
 of workpeople, are yet the most improvident and discontented 
 class in the community. Then, in considering the circum- 
 stances of the labouring classes in Germany, it must be re- 
 membered that, through customs and indirect taxation of 
 different kinds, they pay a larger share of the public burdens 
 than they do in some countries, and that the obligation of
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 3 3 
 
 military service is felt to be so great a hardship that more than 
 a third of the extensive emigration which now takes place 
 every year from the German Empire is prompted by a desire 
 to escape it. Before the establishment of the Empire, only 
 about a tenth part of the emigrants left the country without 
 an official permit ; but the proportion has been rising every 
 year since then, and sometimes comes to nearly a half. 
 
 Under these circumstances neither the strength nor the pro- 
 gress of the Social Democratic party in that country affords 
 occasion for surprise. At the last general election, in February, 
 1890, this party polled more votes than any other single party 
 in the Empire, and returned to the Imperial Diet a body of 
 representatives strong enough, by skilful alliances, to exercise 
 an effective influence on the course of affairs. The advance of 
 the party may be seen in the increase of the socialist vote at 
 the successive elections since the creation of the Empire. 
 
 In 1S71 it was 101.927. 
 
 1874 351,670. 
 
 1877 
 1878 
 1881 
 
 1884 
 
 493,447. 
 437,438. 
 311,961. 
 
 549,000. 
 
 1887 774,123. 
 
 1890 1,427,000. 
 
 The effect of the coercive laws of 1878, as shown by these 
 figures, is very noteworthy. In consequence of the successive 
 attempts made in that year on the life of the Emperor William 
 by two socialists, Hoedel and Nobiling, Prince Bismarck de- 
 termined to stamp out the whole agitation with which the two 
 criminals were connected by obtaining from the Diet excep- 
 tional and temporary powers of repression. The first effect of 
 these measures was, as was natural, to disorganize the socialist 
 party for the time. Hundreds of its leaders were expelled from 
 the country; hundreds were thrown into prison or placed under 
 police restriction ; its clubs and newspapers were suppressed ; 
 it was not allowed to hold meetings, to make speeches, or to 
 circulate literature of any kind. In the course of the twelve 
 years during which this exceptional legislation has sub- 
 sisted, it was stated at the recent Socialist Congress at Halle,
 
 34 . Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 tliat 155 socialist journals and 1200 books or pamphlets had 
 been prohibited ; 900 members of the party had been banished 
 without trial ; 1500 had been apprehended and 300 punished 
 for contraventions of the Anti-Socialist Laws. These measures 
 paralyzed the old organization sufficiently to reduce the So- 
 cialist vote at the next election in 1881 by thirty per cent. ; 
 but the party presently recovered its ground. It adapted 
 itself to the new conditions, and established a secret propaganda 
 which was manifestly quite as effective for its purposes as the 
 old, and charged with more danger to the State. Its vote in- 
 creased immensely at each successive election thereafter ; and 
 now, as Eodbertus prophesied, the social question has really 
 proved " the Russian campaign of Bismarck's fame," for his 
 policy of repression has ended in tripling the strength of the 
 party it was designed to crush, and placing it in possession of 
 one-fifth of the whole voting power of the nation. It was 
 high time, therefore, to abandon so ineffectual a policy, and 
 the socialist coercive laws expired on the 30th September, 
 1890, and the socialists inaugurated a new epoch of open and 
 constitutional agitation by a general congress at Halle in the 
 beginning of October. 
 
 The strength of the party in Parliament has never cor- 
 responded with its strength at the polls. In 1871 it returned 
 only 1 member to the Diet ; in 1874, 9 ; in 1877, 12 ; in 1878, 
 9 ; in 1881, 12 ; in 1884, 24 ; in 1887, 11 ; and in 1890, with an 
 electoral vote which, under a system of proportional representa- 
 tion, would have secured for it 80 members, it has carried only 
 37. The party has no leaders now, in Parliament or out of it, 
 of the intellectual rank of Lassalle or Marx ; but it is very 
 efficiently led. Its two chiefs, Liebknecht and Bebel, are well 
 skilled both in debate and in management, and have for many 
 years maintained their authority in a party peculiarly subject 
 to jealousy and intrigue, and have consolidated its organization 
 under very adverse conditions. Liebknecht, who is a journalist 
 of most respectable talents, character, and acquirements, is 
 now the veteran of the movement, having been out in the '48 
 and passed twelve years of political exile in London in constant 
 intercourse with Karl Marx. Bebel, a turner in Leipzig, is a 
 much younger man, and, indeed, is one of Liebknecht's con-
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 35 
 
 verts, for he opposed the movement when it was first started in 
 Leipzig by Lassalle ; but he has fought so long and so stout a 
 battle for his cause that he too seems now one of its veterans. 
 The other parliamentary leaders of the party are for the most 
 part still under thirty. Von Volmar, a military officer who 
 has left the service for agitation and journalism, seems to be 
 the older leaders' chief lieutenant; and Frohme, a young 
 litterateur of repute, may be mentioned because he heads a 
 tendency to more moderate policy. 
 
 Owing to the paucity of its representatives, the party has 
 hitherto made little attempt to initiate legislation. No bill can 
 be introduced into the GTerrnan Diet unless it is backed by fifteen 
 members ; and, except in the Parliament of 1834-7, the Socialist 
 party never had fifteen members until last February. The 
 work of its parliamentary representatives, therefore, has con- 
 sisted mainly of criticism and opposition, and seizing every 
 suitable occasion for the ventilation of their g?neral ideas ; but 
 after the election of 1884, when they returned to the Diet 
 twenty-four strong, they introduced first a bill for the prohibi- 
 tion of Sunday labour, which was stoutly opposed by Prince 
 Bismarck, and defeated ; and second, a Labourer's Protection 
 Bill, proposing to create an elaborate organization for securing 
 the general wellbeing of the working class. It was to create,, 
 first, a new Labour Department of State ; second, a series of 
 "Workmen's Chambers, one for every district of 200,000 or 
 400,000 inhabitants, with the necessary number of local auxi- 
 liaries ; third, Local Courts of Conciliation for the settlement of 
 differences between labourers and employers, from whose deci- 
 sion there should be an appeal to the "Workmen's Chamber of 
 the District. Both the Court of Conciliation and the "Work- 
 men's Chamber were to be composed of an equal number of 
 employers and employed. The connection between the Work- 
 men's Chambers of the District and the Minister of Labour 
 would be through District Councils of Labour, the members of 
 which were to be chosen by the minister out of a list pre- 
 sented by the "Workmen's Chamber of the District, and con- 
 taining twice the number of names required to fill the places. 
 It was to be the duty of these Councils of Labour to send 
 a report every year to the Labour Department in Berlin on
 
 36 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the condition of labour in their respective districts after an 
 annual inspection of all the factories, workshops, and industrial 
 establishments of any kind located there. The Workmen's 
 Chambers were to have a wide role, and were the keystone of 
 the system. Besides being the courts of final appeal in labour 
 disputes, they were to bring to the knowledge of the compe- 
 tent authorities the existence of any disorders or grievances 
 that occurred in industrial life ; to give advice on the best laws 
 and regulations for industry ; to undertake inquiries into all 
 matters affecting the conditions of labour, treaties of commerce, 
 taxes, rates of wages, technical education, housing, prices of 
 subsistence, etc. 
 
 In introducing the bill, its promoters said a chief object of the 
 whole organization was to obtain for working men higher wages 
 for a shorter day's work, and they proposed the immediate re- 
 duction of the day of labour to eight hours for miners and ten 
 hours for all other trades, together with some further limitations 
 on the work of women and children, the abolition of prison work 
 at ordinary trades, and of Sunday work, and the requirement 
 of the payment of wages weekly, and their payment in money. 
 The bill was referred to a committee of the House, and re- 
 jected, after that committee brought up an unfavourable report 
 in February, 1886, and nothing further has boen done in the 
 matter since ; but the Minister of the Interior was so much 
 struck with the unexpectedly moderate and practical character 
 of its proposals that he said if these proposals expressed the 
 whole mind of the members who proposed them, then those 
 members might as well sit on the right side of the House as on 
 the left. The effect of the bill, as far as it was workable, would 
 merely be to give the working class a real and systematic, but 
 not unequal, voice in settling the conditions of their own labour ; 
 and its rejection is to some extent an example of the way the 
 socialist agitation impedes the cause of labour by creating in the 
 public mind an unnecessary distrust even of reasonable reforms. 
 
 There are some questions of general policy on which the 
 socialist deputies take up a position of their own. They 
 always oppose the military budget, because, like socialists 
 everywhere, they are opposed to a.11 war and armaments. 
 Wars are merely quarrels of rulers, for peoples would make for
 
 Tke Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 3 7 
 
 peace, and armaments only drain the people's pockets in order 
 to perpetuate the people's oppression. Then they are opposed 
 to national debts, because national debts enable rulers to carry 
 on war. The}' are opposed to the new colonization policy of 
 the Empire, because in their opinion it is a policy of aggran- 
 disement and conquest undertaken under hypocritical pre- 
 tences. They are opposed to protective duties, because they 
 dislike indirect taxation, as bearing always unjustly on the 
 labouring class. They are strong supporters of popular educa- 
 tion, but they opposed the new insurance laws because they 
 feared these laws would place people too much under the power 
 of the Government, for their jealousy of the Government that 
 exists corrects their general partiality for Government control, 
 and tends to keep them back even from some of the minor 
 excesses of State-socialism. 
 
 The moderate and apparently temporizing policy of the 
 deputies is a constant source of dissatisfaction to the wilder 
 and more inexperienced members of the party, who complain, 
 as they did at the recent Halle Congress, that trjdng to improve 
 the present system of things is not the best way of subverting 
 it, and who will either have socialism cum revolution, or they 
 will have nothing at all. But the older heads merely smile, 
 and tell them the hour for socialism and revolution is not yet, 
 that no man knows when it shall be, and that in the meantime 
 it would be mere folly for socialists to refuse the real comforts 
 they can get because they think they have ideally a right to 
 a great deal more. " Why," said Bebel, when he was charged 
 at Halle with countenancing armaments in violation of socialist 
 principles by voting for a better uniform to the soldiers, 
 " why, there are numbers of Social Democrats in the Reserve, 
 and was I to let them die through inadequate clothing merely 
 because I object to armaments as a general principle ? " 
 
 They of course think of this policy of accommodation as 
 only a temporary necessity, till they become strong enough to 
 be thoroughgoing ; but there is perhaps better reason to believe 
 it to be an abiding and growing necessity of their position, 
 for they are finding themselves more and more obliged, if they 
 are to become stronger at all, or even to keep the strength 
 they have, to bid for the support of aggrieved classes by work-
 
 3^ Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 ing for the immediate removal of their grievances, and thus 
 to keep on reducing day by day as it rises the volume of that 
 social discontent which is to turn the wheel of revolution. It 
 is not unlikely that the socialist party, now that it is sufficiently 
 powerful to do something in the legislature, but not sufficiently 
 powerful to think of final social transformation, will occupy 
 themselves much more completely with those miscellaneous 
 social reforms in the immediate future ; that they will thereby 
 become every day better acquainted with the real conditions 
 on which social improvement depends; that they will find 
 more and more satisfying employment in the exercise of their 
 power of securing palpable, practical benefits, than in agitating 
 uncertain theoretical schemes ; and, in short, that they will 
 settle permanently into what they are for the present to some 
 extent temporarily, a moderate labour party, working for the 
 real remedy of real grievances by the means best adapted, 
 under real conditions, national or political, for effecting the 
 purpose. 
 
 The programme of the party, which was adopted at the 
 Gotha Congress of 1875, after the union of the Marxist socialists 
 and the Lassalleans, and has remained unaltered ever since, 
 has always consisted of a deferred part and an actual. It con- 
 tains, in fact, three programmes the programme for to-day, 
 the programme for to-morrow, and the programme for the day 
 after to-morrow. The last is of course the socialist State of 
 the future, at present beyond our horizon altogether. Before it 
 appears there is to be a more or less prolonged period in which 
 individual management of industry is to be gradually super- 
 seded by co-operative societies founded on State credit; but 
 this intermediate state was only made an article of the pro- 
 gramme to conciliate the Lassalleans, and one hears less of 
 productive associations to-day from the German socialists than 
 from the French. The Germans would apparently prefer to 
 go from private property to public property direct rather than 
 go viA corporate property ; but in any case their programme 
 leaves the creation of productive societies to a future period, 
 and their task for the present is to secure for working men 
 factory and sanitary legislation, constitutional liberties, and 
 an easier and more equitable system of taxation.
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 39 
 
 The programme is as follows : 
 
 "I. Labour is tlie source of all wealth and civilization, and 
 since productive labour as a whole is made possible only in 
 and through society, the entire produce of labour belongs to 
 society, that is, it belongs by an equal right to all its mem- 
 bers, each according to his reasonable needs, upon condition 
 of a universal obligation to labour. 
 
 "In existing society the instruments of labour are the 
 monopoly of the capitalist class ; the dependence of the labour- 
 ing class which results therefrom is the cause of misery and 
 servitude in all forms. 
 
 " The emancipation of labour requires the conversion of the 
 instruments of labour into the common property of society, 
 and the management of labour by association, and the appli- 
 cation of the product with a view to the general good and an 
 equitable distribution. 
 
 " The emancipation of labour must be the work of the labour- 
 ing class, in relation to which all other classes are only a 
 reactionary mass. 
 
 " II. Starting from these principles, the Socialistic Labour 
 Party of Germany seeks by all lawful means to establish a 
 free State and a socialistic society, to break asunder the iron 
 law of wages by the abolition of the system of wage-labour, 
 the suppression of every form of exploitation, and the correction 
 of all political and social inequality. 
 
 " The Socialistic Labour Party of Germany, although at first 
 working within national limits, is sensible of the international 
 character of the labour movement, and resolved to fulfil all 
 the duties thereby laid on working men, in order to realize the 
 brotherhood of all men. 
 
 " The Socialistic Labour Party of Germany demands, in 
 order to pave the way for the solution of the social question, 
 the establishment by State help of socialistic productive 
 associations under the democratic control of the workpeople. 
 Productive associations for industry and agriculture should be 
 created to such an extent that the socialistic organization of 
 all labour may arise out of them. 
 
 " The Socialistic Labour Party of Germany demands, as the 
 basis of the State, (1) Universal, equal, and direct suffrage,
 
 4-O Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 together with secret and obligatory voting, for all citizens over 
 twenty years of age, in all elections in State and commune. 
 The election day must be a Sunday or holiday. (2) Direct 
 legislation by the people. Decision on peace or war by the 
 people. (3) Universal liability to military service. Militia 
 instead of standing army. (4) Abolition of all exceptional 
 laws, especially laws interfering with liberty of the press, of 
 association, and of meeting ; in general, all laws restricting 
 free expression of opinion, free thought, and free inquiry. (5) 
 Administration of justice by the people. Gratuitous justice. 
 (6) Universal, compulsory, gratuitous, and equal education of 
 the people by the State. Religion to be declared a private 
 affair, 
 
 " The Socialistic Labour Party of Germany demands within 
 the conditions of existing society (1) The utmost possible ex- 
 tension of political rights and liberties in the sense of the 
 above demands. (2) The replacement of all existing taxes, 
 and especially of indirect taxes, which peculiarly burden the 
 people, by a single progressive income tax for State and com- 
 mune. (3) Unrestricted right of combination. (4) A normal 
 working day corresponding to the needs of society, Prohibition 
 of Sunday labour. (5) Prohibition of the labour of children, 
 and of all labour for women that is injurious to health and 
 morality. (6) Laws for protection of the life and health of 
 workmen. Sanitary control of workmen's dwellings. Inspec- 
 tion of mines, factories, workshops, and home industry by 
 officers chosen by working men. An effective employers' 
 liability act. (7) Regulation of prison labour. (8) Entire 
 freedom of management for all funds for the assistance and 
 support of working men." 
 
 A committee was appointed at the recent Halle Congress to 
 revise this programme and report to the Congress of 1891 ; but 
 as the revision is merely intended to place the programme in 
 greater conformity with the needs of the time, and keep it 
 as it were up to date, only minor modifications may be expected, 
 and those probably in the direction of a more practical and 
 effectual dealing with existing grievances. Five years ago 
 the party thought a ten hours' day corresponded with the needs 
 of the time ; they now ask for an eight hours' one. Instead of
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 41 
 
 the prohibition of Sunday labour, they now prefer to demand, 
 as a more workable equivalent, a period of thirty-six hours' 
 continuous and uninterrupted rest every week, irrespective of 
 any particular day; and they have sometimes taken up new 
 working-class questions not especially mentioned in their pro- 
 gramme, or included directly under any of its heads, like the 
 abolition of payment of wages in kind. The whole spirit of 
 the late Congress leads us to look for the contemplated modi- 
 fications in this direction of meeting more effectually im- 
 mediate working-class wants. 
 
 Many eyes were upon that Congress ; for it was the first 
 the German socialists had held since they had recovered their 
 freedom and proved their strength. They were now clearly 
 stronger than any socialist party the world had yet seen, and 
 much stronger than most revolutionary parties who have made 
 successful revolution. Would then the word now be revolu- 
 tion ? people asked. It was not : the word was caution. The 
 first effect of the victory in February had been otherwise, and 
 in June, Herr Bebel was still calling, Steady. " The majority 
 of his party colleagues," he said at a public meeting in Berlin 
 on the 20th of that month, " had been intoxicated by the result 
 of the elections of February 20th, and believed they could do 
 what they liked with the middle class, as it was already on the 
 point of going under." But before October steadier counsels 
 prevailed, and the spirit of the Congress was moderation itself. 
 Although the Congress did not agree to the motion to restore 
 to the party programme the phrase " by lawful means," which 
 had been deleted from the opening paragraph of the second part 
 of it by the Wyden Congress of 1880, in consequence of the 
 Anti-Socialist Laws no longer giving them any choice except 
 recourse to unlawful means, the general and decided feeling of 
 the Congress certainly was that only lawful means could now 
 answer their purposes. The controversy was repeatedly raised 
 by an extreme section of the party from Berlin, who com- 
 plained that the work of their parliamentary representatives 
 had hitherto entirely ignored the real aims of social demo- 
 cracy, and that a return should now be made to its socialism 
 and its revolution. But the voice of the meeting was invariably 
 against this Berlin movement. There was a time, said M.
 
 42 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Fleischman and his speech was applauded when it was 
 counted the right thing in the party to make revolutionary 
 speeches, and point to the coming day of account when mankind 
 were to be emancipated at one blow ; but that was not a road 
 they could make any progress by. And as for boycotting, 
 which had been spoken of, he declared he was all for boycotting; 
 but it was the boycotting of the military in such a way as to 
 give them no occasion for the use of their weapons. Lieb- 
 knecht, the chief leader of the party, followed, and was quite as 
 emphatic in the same line. People spoke of revolution, he said ; 
 but they should remember that roast pigeons don't fly into one's 
 mouth by themselves. It was easy enough to make bitter 
 speeches, and any fool and donkey could throw bombs ; but 
 the misadventures of the anarchists showed plainly enough 
 that nothing could be done in that way. The socialists had 
 now 20 per cent, of the population ; but what could 20 per 
 cent, do against 80 per cent, by the use of force ? No, it was 
 not force ; it was reason they must use if they would succeed. 
 "What, then, he asked, was the Social Democracy to do ? They 
 must avoid divisions among themselves, and go out and convert 
 the still indifferent masses. The electoral suffrage was their 
 best weapon of agitation, and their surest means of increasing 
 the party. Prince Bismarck had been represented in a popu- 
 lar book as practising peasant-fishery and elector-fishery. 
 "Peasant-fishery and elector-fishery "said Liebknecht, amid 
 much applause, " that is the word for the Social Democrats to- 
 day." 
 
 Another suggestion of the extreme section was that the 
 party should now assail the Church and religion, as socialist 
 and revolutionary parties have so generally done ; but this 
 bit of their old traditional policy received scant regard from 
 the Halle Congress. A strong feeling was expressed that the 
 party had damaged itself in the past by its assaults on the 
 Church, and that its present policy ought, in self-preserva- 
 tion, to be one of religious neutrality and toleration. " In- 
 stead," said Liebknecht, " of squandering our strength in 
 a struggle with the Church and sacerdotalism, let us go to 
 the root of the matter. We desire to overthrow the State of 
 the classes. When we have done that, the Church and sacer-
 
 TJie Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 43 
 
 dotalism will fall with it, and in this respect we are much more 
 radical and much more definite in purpose than our opponents, 
 for we like neither the priests nor the anti-priests." The old 
 revolutionary policy of stirring up hatred against all existing 
 institutions is thus relegated from the present to the distant 
 future, after the present class-State is overthrown and the 
 working-class or socialist State established in its place. 
 
 "Well, then," suggested another old-world socialist, "let us, at 
 any rate, issue a pamphlet describing the glories of this social- 
 ist State, and get the people prepared to flock into it " ; but this 
 suggestion was also frowned down. " For," said Liebknecht, 
 " who could say what the Zukunft Stoat the socialist State 
 of the future is to be ? Who could foresee so much as the 
 development of the existing German State for a single year ? " 
 In other words I think I am not misinterpreting their mean- 
 ing the State of the future is the concern of the future ; 
 the business of a living party is within the needs and within 
 the lines of the living present. 
 
 What, then, is to be the business of this formidable Social 
 Democratic party ? Peasant-catching is the word. The elec- 
 tions showed that while the party was very strong in the large 
 towns, it was very weak in the rural districts, and among 
 special populations like the Poles and Alsatians; and although 
 previous revolutionists thought everything was gained if the 
 large towns were gained, the Social Democrats generally 
 admit that the social revolution is impossible without the 
 adherence of the peasantry. The peasants, therefore, must 
 be won over to the party. Once in the party, they may learn 
 socialism and revolution, but they must first be brought in, 
 and for that purpose there must be started a special peasants' 
 cry a cry, that is, for the redress of some immediate grievance 
 of that class ; and one suggestion made at the Congress 
 was, that the cry for the peasantry should be the abolition 
 of the German Gesinde (farm-servant) system. In the same 
 spirit the Congress recommended the parliamentary party to 
 take up the question of seamen's rights, and agitate for better 
 regulations for securing the wellbeing of that class. The 
 advance towards practicality is even more evident in their 
 determination upon strikes. Hitherto, for the most part,
 
 44 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 socialists have either looked on strikes with lofty disdain as poor 
 attempts to get a pett}' rise in wages instead of abolishing the 
 present wages system altogether, or they have thrown them- 
 selves into strikes for the mere purpose of fomenting labour 
 troubles, and breaking perchance the power of the large capital- 
 ist class; and this latter view was not unrepresented at the Halle 
 Congress. The resolution of the Congress, however, declared 
 (1st) that strikes and boycotting were often useful means of 
 improving the social position of the labouring class ; but (2nd) 
 that they were to be resorted to even for that purpose with 
 great circumspection. " Whereas, however, strikes and boy- 
 cotting are double-edged weapons which, when used in unsuit- 
 able places and at an inopportune moment, are calculated to 
 do more harm than good to the interests of the working class, 
 this Congress recommends German working men carefully to 
 weigh the circumstances under which they purpose to make 
 use of those weapons." The revolutionary ideal seems thus 
 to be retreating perhaps insensibly in the socialistic mind 
 into an eschatological decoration, into a kind of future Advent 
 which is to come and to be believed in ; but the practical con- 
 cerns of the present must be more and more treated in their 
 own practical way. 
 
 Since the Congress, the party has issued a manifesto to the 
 peasantry, in which, after promising a new and happy day that 
 is coming for them, which is to restore to them the beautiful 
 earth and the poetry of life, they declare against the patri- 
 archal system, and the increase of brandy distilling ; and then, 
 confessing that few socialists know anything about agricul- 
 tural questions, invite information and discussion for the en- 
 lightenment of the party. Here again they forget that they 
 have a theory which is as applicable to agriculture as to manu- 
 factures, and they want to make practical investigations with 
 a view to practical solutions. 
 
 Of course the movement will always generate revolutionary 
 elements as occasions arise, and these sometimes of the wildest 
 character. Most and Hasselman, and their following, who were 
 expelled at the Congress of "Wyden in 1880, were anarchists of 
 a violent type, and Mosts and Hasselmans may arise again. 
 But at present anarchism hardly exists in Germany, and the
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 45 
 
 Social Democratic party is peacefully trying to make people as 
 comfortable as possible till the fulness of time arrives. 
 
 It may be added that the present income of the party, as 
 stated at the last Congress, is 19,525, and that since Febru- 
 ary, 1890, they have established nineteen daily newspapers 
 and forty weekly, with a total circulation of '254.000. 
 
 The socialist movement in other countries may be disposed 
 of much more briefly, for in no other country has it worn any- 
 thing like the same importance, except in Russia, and of the 
 Russian agitation I shall treat more fully in a subsequent 
 chapter 011 " Russian Nihilism." I may observe here, however, 
 that the Russian agitation has not been without its influence 
 on the nations of Western Europe. It was Bakunin who first 
 kindled the socialist movements of Spain, Italy, Belgium, 
 and Holland, and the anarchist fermentations of the last six 
 years have been due in no inconsiderable measure to the new 
 leaven of Russian ideas introduced by men like Prince Kra- 
 potkin and the two hundred other Russian refugees that are 
 scattered abroad in the free countries of Europe. 
 
 In France there is much animated socialist agitation, but 
 no solid and coherent socialist party such as exists in Ger- 
 many. The movement is disunited and fragmentary, and 
 confined almost entirely to the large towns, where many cir- 
 cumstances conspire to favour its growth. The French work- 
 ing class are born to revolutionary traditions. The better 
 portion of them, moreover, though they long since gave up 
 all belief in the old native forms of socialism, never ceased to 
 be imbued with socialist ideas and aspirations ; and M. de 
 Molinari said in 1869, from his experience of French working 
 men's clubs, that out of every ten French working men who had 
 any interest beyond eating and drinking, nine were Socialists. 
 Then there is in France a larger proportion of the working 
 class than in most countries, who are kept in constant poverty 
 and discontent and commotion by their own improvident 
 habits. A pamphlet called "Le Sublime," which attracted 
 considerable attention some years ago, stated that only forty 
 per cent, of the working men of Paris were out of debt ; and Mr. 
 lEalet reported to the English Foreign Office that they were, as 
 a body, so dissipated that none of them had grandchildren or
 
 46 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 grandfathers. But, on the other hand, France enjoys a solid 
 security against, the successful advance of socialism in her peasant 
 proprietors. Half the French population belong to that class, 
 and their industry, thrift, and comfort have long been held up 
 to our admiration by economists. According to M. de Lavergne, 
 they are not so well fed, so well clad, or so well lodged as the 
 farm labourers of England ; but, living in a different climate, 
 they have fewer wants, and are undoubtedly more contented. 
 Among people like these, passing their days in frugal comfort 
 and fruitful industry, and looking with quiet hope and confi- 
 dence to the future, socialism finds, of course, no open door. 
 On the contrary, every man of them feels he has something to 
 lose and nothing to gain by social revolution ; the fear of social- 
 ism is, indeed, one of the chief influences guiding their political 
 action ; and as they are as numerous as all the other classes in 
 the community put together, their worldly contentment is a 
 bulwark of enormous value to the existing order of things. The 
 impression of their substantial independence is so marked that 
 even the Frenchmen who were members of the International 
 Working Men's Association would not assent to the abolition of 
 a peasant proprietary, but always insisted, contrary to the prin- 
 ciples of the Association, on the continued maintenance of that 
 system as a necessary counterpoise to the power of the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 The present socialist groups and sects of France are all 
 believers in the so-called scientific socialism of Marx and 
 Lassalle, and the most important of them work for a pro- 
 gramme substantially identical with that of Gotha. Marx's 
 ideas were introduced among the French by the International, 
 and they were adopted by a section of the Revolutionary 
 Committee of the Paris Commune, 1871 ; but after the sup- 
 pression of the Commune, they made so little stir for some 
 years that Thiers declared, in his last manifesto as President of 
 the Republic, that socialism, which was then busy in Germany, 
 was absolutely dead in France. Its recrudescence was chiefly 
 due to the activity of the Communards. Some of them had 
 escaped to London, where they got into closer communion with 
 Marx and his friends ; and in 1874, thirty-four of these refugees, 
 all military or administrative officers of the Commune, and
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 47 
 
 most of them not professed socialists before, issued a manifesto 
 pronouncing entirely for socialism, and describing the Com- 
 mune as "the militant form of the social revolution" ; but it was 
 not till after the amnesty of the Communards, and their return 
 from New Caledonia and elsewhere in 1880, that the first 
 sensible ripple of socialist agitation was felt in France since 
 the downfall of the second Republic. Numbers of socialist 
 journals began to appear, and a general congress of working 
 men, held at Havre in 18SO, adopted a programme modelled on 
 the lines of that of the German Social Democrats, and made 
 preparations for an active propaganda and organization. 
 
 The adoption of the socialistic programme, however, rent the 
 Congress in three, and the two opposite wings, the Co-opera- 
 tioiiists and the Anarchists, withdrew and established separate 
 organizations of their own. The co-operationists, believing 
 that the amelioration of the working class would only come 
 by the gradual execution of practicable and suitable measures, 
 and that these could only be successfully carried by means of 
 skilful alliances with existing political parties, declared the 
 Havre programme to be a programme for the year 2000, and 
 that the true policy of the working class now was a policy of 
 possibilities. This last word is said to supply the origin of the 
 term Possibilist, which has now come to be applied not to this 
 co-operationist party, but to one of the two divisions into 
 which the third or centre party of the Havre Congress the 
 socialists shortly afterwards split up. 
 
 The co-operationists formed themselves into a body known as 
 the Republican Socialist Alliance, which, as the name indicates, 
 aims at social reforms under the existing republican form of 
 State. They have held several congresses, their member- 
 ship includes many well-known and even eminent Radical 
 politicians M. Clemenceau, for example and they were 
 supported by leading Radical journals, like Le Justice and 
 L'Intransigeant ; but their activity and their numbers have both 
 dwindled awaj r , probably because their work was done 
 sufficiently well already by other political or working-class 
 organizations. 
 
 The anarchists set up not a single organization, but a 
 number of little independent clubs, which agree with one
 
 48 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 another mainly in their dislike of all constituted authority. 
 They want to have all things in common, somehow or other ; 
 but for master or superior of any sort they will have none, 
 be it king or committee. Their ideas find ready favour in 
 France, because they are near allied with the theory of the 
 Revolutionary Commune cherished among the Communards ; 
 and although there is no means of calculating their numbers 
 exactly, they are bslieved to be pretty strong at least, in the 
 South of France. At the time of the Lyons Anarchist trial, 
 at which Prince Krapotkin was convicted, they claimed them- 
 selves to have 8,000 adherents in Lyons alone. In 1886 the 
 authorities knew of twenty little anarchist clubs in Paris, 
 which had between them, however, only a membership of 1,500 ; 
 and of these a considerable proportion were foreign immigrants, 
 especially Austrians and Russians, with a few Spaniards. Some 
 of these clubs are mainly convivial, with a dash of treason for 
 pungency ; but others have an almost devouring passion for 
 " deeds," and are ever concerting some new method of waging 
 their strange guerilla against " princes, proprietors, and par- 
 sons." When a new method is discovered, a new club is 
 sometimes formed to carry it out. For instance, the Anti- 
 proprietaires, which is said to be one of the best organized of 
 the anarchist clubs, bind their members (1) to pay no house- 
 rent, rent, of course, being theft, and theft being really 
 restitution ; and (2) if the landlord at length resorts to law 
 against any of them for this default, to come to their brother's 
 help and remove his furniture to safer quarters before the 
 moment of execution. The group La Panthere, to which 
 Louise Michel belongs, and which has 500 members, and the 
 group Experimental Chemie, as their names indicate, prefer 
 less jocular methods. The best known of the anarchists are 
 old Communards like Louise Michel herself and Elisee Reclus, 
 the geographer. 
 
 The third section of the Havre Congress contained the 
 majority of the 119 delegates, and they formed themselves 
 into the Socialist Revolutionary Party of France, with the 
 programme already mentioned, which was carried on the 
 motion of M. Jules Guesde. 
 
 This programme sets out with the declaration that all
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 49 
 
 instruments of production must be transferred to the possession 
 of the community, and that this can only result from an act of 
 revolution on the part of the working class organized as an 
 independent political party, and then it goes on to say that one 
 of the best means of promoting this end at present was to take 
 part in the elections with the following platform : 
 
 A. Political. 
 
 1. Abolition of all laws restricting freedom of the press, 
 of association, or of meeting, and particularly the law against 
 the International Working Men's Association. Abolition of 
 " work-books." 
 
 2. Abolition of the budget of public worship, and seculari- 
 zation of ecclesiastical property. 
 
 3. Abolition of national debt. 
 
 4. Universal military service on the part of the people. 
 
 5. Communal independence in police and local affairs. 
 
 B. Economic. 
 
 1. One day of rest in the week under legal regulation. 
 Limitation of working day to eight hours for adults. Pro- 
 hibition of the labour of children under fourteen, and limit- 
 ation of work hours to six for young persons between fourteen 
 and sixteen. 
 
 2. Legal fixing of minimum wages every year in accordance 
 with the price of provisions. 
 
 3. Equality of wages of male and female labour. 
 
 4. Scientific and technical training for all children, as well 
 as their support at the expense of society as represented by 
 the State and the Communes. 
 
 6. Support of the aged and infirm by society. 
 
 6. Prohibition of all interference on the part of employers 
 with the management of the relief and sustentation funds of 
 the working classes, to whom the sole control of these funds 
 should be left. 
 
 7. Employers' liability guaranteed by deposit by employers 
 proportioned to number of workmen. 
 
 8. Participation of the workmen in drawing up factory 
 regulations. Abolition of employer's claim to punish the
 
 50 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 labourer by fines and stoppages (according to resolution of the 
 Commune of 27th April, 1871). 
 
 9. Revision of all agreements by which public property has 
 baen alienated (banks, railways, mines, etc.). The management 
 of all State factories to be committed to the workmen em- 
 ployed in them. 
 
 10. Abolition of all indirect taxes, and change of all direct 
 ones into a progressive income tax on all incomes above 3,000 
 francs. 
 
 11. Abolition of the right of inheritance, except in the line 
 of direct descent, and of the latter in the case of fortunes above 
 20,000 francs. 
 
 At the congress of the party held at St. Etienne two years after 
 this programme was adopted, M. Brousse, a medical practi- 
 tioner in Paris, and a member of the Town Council, who had 
 already shown signs of disputing the leadership of M. Guesde, 
 carried by a vote of thirty-six to twenty-seven a motion 
 for introducing some modifications, and the minority seceded 
 and set up a separate organization. In spite of repeated efforts 
 at reconciliation, the two sections of the French socialists 
 have never united again or been able even to work together 
 temporarily at an election. Besides personal jealousies, 
 there are most important differences of tendency keeping them 
 apart. The Guesdists accept the policy of Karl Marx as 
 well as his economic doctrine : the universal revolution, and 
 the centralized socialist State, as well as the theory of surplus 
 value and the right to the full product of labour. The 
 Broussists, on the other hand, believe in decentralization. 
 and would prefer municipalizing industries to nationalizing 
 them. They are for giving the commune control of its own 
 police, its own soldiers, its own civil administration, its own 
 judiciary ; and they think the regime of collective property can 
 be best brought in and best carried on by local bodies. They 
 would have the towns take over their own gas, light, and water 
 supply, their omnibus and tramway traffic ; but they would 
 have them take over also many of the common industries 
 which never tend towards monopoly or even call for any 
 special control. They would municipalize, for example, the 
 bakehouses and the mealshops and the granaries, apparently
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 51 
 
 as supplying the necessaries of life, and they would have 
 various other branches of industry undertaken by the towns to 
 a certain limited extent, in order to provide suitable work for 
 the unemployed. Then in 1887 they added a fresh plank 
 to their platform, and asked for the establishment by munici- 
 palities, on public money or credit, of productive associations to 
 be owned not, like the other undertakings, by the munici- 
 pality, but by the working men employed in them. This is 
 a reappearance of the old policy of Lassalle, with the differ- 
 ence that the productive associations are to be founded on 
 municipal and not on State credit ; and the reappearance is not 
 surprising in Prance, because co-operative production has, on 
 the whole, been more successful in that country than in any 
 other. Then another of their demands is, that all public 
 contracts should be subjected to such conditions as to wages 
 and hours of labour as the workmen's syndicates approve ; and 
 in Paris they have already succeeded in obtaining this con- 
 cession from the Town Council so far as municipal contracts 
 are concerned. These workmen's syndicates are trade unions, 
 which aim only at bettering the position of their members 
 without theoretical prepossessions, but are quite as bold in 
 their demands on the public powers as the socialists, and 
 apparently more successful. In 1885 their claims included, not 
 only an eight hours' day and a normal rate of fair wages, but 
 the fixing of all salaries under 500 francs, a credit to themselves 
 of 500,000,000 francs, and the gratuitous use of empty houses 
 by their members ; and in 1886 they obtained from the Town 
 Council of Paris a furnished room, with free lighting and firing, 
 and a subvention of 20,000 francs, for the establishment of a 
 Labour Bureau, to be a centre for all working-class delibera- 
 tions and intelligence, and a registry for the unemploj^ed. 
 
 The socialism of the Broussists is thus practically a muni- 
 cipal socialism : municipal industries, municipal credit for 
 working men's productive associations, municipal concessions to 
 trade unions ; but all this seems to the Guesdists to be mere 
 tinkering, to be no better than the possibilities of the Repub- 
 lican Socialist Alliance, and they have for that reason given 
 their rivals the name of Possibilists, which for distinction's 
 sake they still commonly bear. Neither section had any
 
 52 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 representative in the Chamber of Deputies till 1889, when the 
 Broussists succeeded in returning M. Jofirin ; but the Broussists 
 have nine in the Town Council of Paris. The Guesdists 
 have more men of culture among them; Guesde himself and 
 Lafargue, Karl Marx's son-in-law, are both men of ability 
 and public position ; but they have a smaller following, 
 and what they have is on the decline. Their sympathy with 
 the principles of German Socialism, their alliance with the 
 German Socialist party is against them, for the French working 
 men have a very honest hatred of the Germans, both from 
 recollections of the war and from the pressure of German 
 industrial competition ; and the feeling seems to be returned 
 by the Germans, for it appeared even among the socialists at 
 the recent congress at Halle, international and non-patriotic 
 as socialists often claim to be. One of the personal accusa- 
 tions that disturbed the sittings of that congress was, that the 
 leaders of the party had been discovered in secret conference 
 with the delegates of the French socialists, MM. Guesde and 
 Ferroul, who had been sent to greet their German comrades. 
 
 The Possibilists have no very eminent members, the most 
 leading persons among them being Brousse himself and MM. 
 Allemane and Jofirin. But they are not inconsiderable in num- 
 ber, and they are growing. They have 400 Circles of Social 
 Studies all over the country, organized into six regions, each 
 with its regular regional congress, and all working under a 
 national executive committee and a general national congress, 
 meeting once a year. The future of French socialism seems 
 to be with the Possibilists rather than the Guesdists ; and the 
 future of the Possibilists, like the future of the German socialists, 
 seems to lie in the direction of releasing their limbs from the 
 dead clothes of socialist theory, in order to take freer and more 
 practical action for the positive wellbeing of the working class. 
 At the recent congress of the Possibilists at Chatellerault in 
 October, 1890, the chief questions discussed were the reform 
 the system of poor relief and the eight hours' day. They 
 want an international eight hours' day, but they would be 
 willing to allow other four hours' overtime, to be paid for by 
 double wages. 
 
 In 1835 the two divisions of socialists combined for elec-
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 5 3 
 
 tioneering purposes with one another and with a third revolu- 
 tionary body called the Blanquists, and they actually formed 
 together an organization known as the Revolutionary Union ; 
 but the three parties quarrelled again before the election, and 
 the union was dissolved. The Blanquists are disciples of the 
 veteran conspirator Blanqui, and include some well-known 
 men, such as General Eudes, and MM. Vaillant and Roche. 
 They are revolutionists pure and simple, and in some respects 
 stand near the anarchists ; only, being old birds, they move 
 about more cautiously, and indeed are sometimes for that 
 reason and because they act as intermediaries between other 
 revolutionaries called the " diplomatists of lawlessness." 
 "With all their love for revolution, however, they have more than 
 the usual democratic aversion to war, and their chief work at 
 present is in connection with the league they have founded 
 against permanent armies. 
 
 Although revolutionary socialism is so ill represented in the 
 French Legislature, there is a special parliamentary party, 
 known as the Socialist Group, which was founded by nine- 
 teen deputies in 1887, and returned thirty candidates to the 
 Chamber at the election of 1889. They are for communal 
 autonomy ; for the transformation of industrial monopolies into 
 public services, to be directed by the respective companies 
 under the control of the public ad ministration ; and for the 
 progressive nationalization of property, so as to make the 
 individual employment of it accessible to free labourers ; and 
 they have no lack of other planks in their platform : inter- 
 national federation and arbitration ; abolition of. standing 
 armies ; abolition of capital punishment ; universal suffrage ; 
 minority representation ; sexual equality ; free education, 
 primary, secondary, and technical ; suppression of the budget 
 of public worship ; separation of Church and State ; absolute 
 liberty to think, speak, write, meet, associate, and contract ; 
 abolition of indirect taxes and customs, and introduction of 
 a progressive income tax, and a progressive succession duty ; 
 public creches; establishment of superannuation, sick and 
 accident insurance at public expense. Among the deputies 
 who signed the programme in 1887 were the two Boulangists, 
 MM. Laisant and Laur, and MM. Clovis Hughes, Basley,
 
 54 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Bower, etc. The idea of the party seems to be what M. 
 Laisant recommends in his " L'Anarchie Bourgeoise," pub- 
 lished in the same year 1887, a Republican Socialist party, 
 which, accepting the good works of socialism, without caring 
 for its political or economic theory, shall do its best to abolish 
 misery by any means open to it under the existing repub- 
 lican form of government. Republican socialism corresponds 
 therefore to what is called State socialism in Germany the 
 abolition of poverty by means of the power of the present State ; 
 and the question between socialists and other reformers is 
 narrowing in France, as elsewhere, into a question of the justice 
 and the suitability of the individual measures proposed. 
 
 There is also a body of Christian Socialists in France, 
 of whom, however, I shall have more to say in a subsequent 
 chapter on the Christian Socialists. 
 
 Socialism crossed very early from Prussia into Austria and 
 took quick root among the German-speaking population, but 
 has never to this day made much way among any of the 
 other nationalities in the Empire. The Magyars are, on the 
 whole, fairly comfortable and contented in their worldly cir- 
 cumstances, and they have a strong national aversion to any- 
 thing German, even a German utopia ; so that they lent no ear 
 to the socialist agitation till 1880, when a socialist congress 
 of 119 delegates was held at Buda Pest and founded the 
 Hungarian Labour Party. The agitation, however, has not 
 assumed any important dimensions. The Poles of Austria, 
 like the Poles of Russia and the Poles of Prussia, have all 
 along been a source of much disappointment to socialist 
 leaders, who expected they would leap into the arms of any 
 revolutionary scheme, but find them too pre-occupied with 
 their own nationalist cause to care for any other. The same 
 observation applies to the Czechs. They are Czechs and 
 Federalists first, and a social system under which they would 
 cease to be Czechs and Federalists, and become mere atoms 
 under a powerful centralized government, led possibly by 
 Germans, is naturally not much to their fancy. But in the 
 German-speaking part of the monarchy socialism has found 
 a ready and general welcome, and has latterly grown most 
 popular in the anarchist form. This development is due to
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 55 
 
 various causes. The federalist ideas prevalent in the country 
 would be a bridge to the general principles of anarchism, 
 while the coercive laws in force since 1870 would naturally 
 provoke a recourse to revolutionary methods and an impatience 
 with the sober and Fabian policy of the Austrian Social Demo- 
 crats. The Social Democrats of Austria were advised from 
 the first by Von Schweitzer and Liebknecht, the leaders of 
 German socialism at the time, to adopt this temporizing 
 policy, as being on the whole the best for the party in the 
 circumstances existing in their country. They were advised 
 to give a general support at the elections to the Liberal party, 
 because nothing could be done for socialism in Austria till the 
 priestly and feudal ascendancy was abolished, and that could 
 only be done by strengthening the hands of the Liberals. 
 They have continued to observe this moderate course. Unlike 
 their German comrades, they looked with favourable eyes on 
 the labour legislation introduced by Government for improving 
 the condition of the working classes ; and though they have 
 suffered from coercive legislation much longer and sometimes 
 quite as severely, they have never struck the qualification " by 
 legal means" out of their principles, but, on the contrary, have 
 declared, when they were permitted to hold a meeting as for 
 example at Briinn in 1884 that they adhered entirely and 
 exclusively to peaceful methods, and repudiated the deeds of 
 the anarchists. But then they are apparently not prospering 
 in number, while the anarchists are. For one thing they have 
 never had good leaders, and though they sometimes invite 
 Liebknecht or one of the German socialist leaders to come 
 and rouse them, Government has always refused liberty for 
 such addresses to be delivered in Austria. The anarchists, on 
 the other hand, had an energetic and eloquent leader in Peukert, 
 a house-painter, who is now a chief personage in anarchist 
 circles in London, and from here no doubt still carries on 
 relations with his old friends ; and their propaganda seems to 
 be spreading, if we judge from the political trials, and from the 
 fresh measures of repression directed against it in 188-4, when 
 Vienna was put under siege, and again in the latter part of 
 1838. They have nine or ten newspapers, and the socialists six 
 or seven. Neither faction has any representative in Parliament.
 
 56 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Both parties direct their chief attention to the peasantry, 
 especially where any germ of an agrarian movement happens 
 already to prevail. The Galician agitation against great 
 landlords in 1886 was fomented by anarchist emissaries, and 
 we occasionally hear of anarchist operations among the people 
 of Northern Bohemia or Styria as well as in Upper Austria, 
 where rural discontent has long been more or less acute. 
 Austria is mainly an agricultural country ; but greater part of 
 the land is held in very large estates by the clergy and 
 nobility, and the evils of the old feudal regime are only now 
 being gradually removed. There are, it is true, as many as 
 1,700,000 peasant proprietors in the Cisleithanian half of the 
 Empire alone; but then their properties are seriously en- 
 cumbered by the debt of their redemption from feudal servi- 
 tudes and by the severity of the public taxation. The land 
 tax amounts to 26 per cent, of the proprietor's income, and the 
 indirect taxes on articles of consumption are numerous and 
 burdensome. But three-fourths of the rural population are 
 merely farm servants or day labourers, and are worse off even 
 than the same class elsewhere. The social question in Austria 
 is largely agrarian, but the spontaneous movements of the 
 Austrian peasantry seem rather unlikely to run in harness with 
 social democracy. Unions of free peasants for example have 
 sprung up of recent years in various provinces. Their great aim 
 is to procure a reduction in the taxes paid by the peasantry ; 
 but then they add to their programme the principle of State- 
 help to labour, the abolition of all feudal privileges and all 
 rights of birth, gratuitous education, and cessation of the 
 policy of contracting national debt, and they speak vaguely 
 about instituting a peasant State, and requiring every minister 
 and responsible official to serve an apprenticeship to peasant 
 labour as a qualification for office, in order that he may under- 
 stand the necessities and capacities of the peasantry. This 
 idea of the peasant State is analogous to the idea of the labour 
 State of the Social Democrats ; but of course this is agree- 
 ment which is really conflict. It is like the harmony between 
 Sforza and Charles VIII. : " I and my cousin Charles are 
 wonderfully at one ; we both seek the same thing Milan." 
 The class interest of the landed peasant is contrary to the
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism, 5 7 
 
 class interest of the working man, and would be invaded by 
 social democracy. The peasantry are simply fighting for 
 their own hand, and as their votes are courted by both 
 political parties they will probably be able to secure some 
 mitigation of their grievances. Distress is certainly serious 
 among them when, as happened a few years ago, in a parish 
 of 135 houses as many as 35 executions were made in one day 
 for failure to pay taxes, and in another of 250 houses as many 
 as 72 ; but on the whole there seems to be little of that hope- 
 less indigence which appears among the peasant proprietary 
 in countries where the practice of unrestricted or compulsory 
 subdivision of holdings exists, or has recently existed, to any 
 considerable extent. 
 
 There is an influential Catholic Socialist movement in Austria, 
 led by the clergy and nobility, and dealing in an earnest 
 spirit with the social question as it appears in that country. 
 
 Socialism was introduced into Italy in 1868 by Bakunin, 
 who, in spite of the opposition of Mazzini, gained wide accept- 
 ance for his ideas wherever he went, and founded many 
 branches of the International in the country, which survived 
 the extinction of the parent society, and continued to bear its 
 name. They were, like Bakunin himself, anarchist in their 
 social and political views, and were marked by an especial 
 violence in their attacks on Church and State and family. 
 They published a great number of journals of various sorts, 
 and kept up an incessant and very successful propaganda ; but 
 no heed was paid them by the authorities till 1878, when an 
 attempt on the life of the king led to a thorough examination 
 being instituted into the whole agitation. The dimensions 
 and ramifications of the movement were found to be so much 
 more extensive than any one in power had anticipated, that 
 it was determined to set a close watch thereafter on all 
 its operations, and its meetings and congresses were then 
 from time to time proclaimed. But after the passing of the 
 Franchise Act of 1882, a new socialist movement came into 
 being which looked to constitutional methods alone. The 
 franchise was not reduced very low : it only gave a vote to 
 one person in every fourteen, while in England one in six 
 has a vote ; but the reduction was accompanied with scrutin
 
 58 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 de liste and the ballot, and it was felt that something could 
 now be done. Accordingly a new Socialist Labour Party was 
 formed on the usual Marxist lines, under the leadership of a 
 very capable man, an orator and a good organizer, Andrea 
 Costa, who was formerly an anarchist. This party obtained 
 60,000 votes at the first subsequent election, and returned two 
 candidates to the Legislature, one of them being Costa. In 
 1883 it formed a working alliance with the Italian Democratic 
 Society an active working-class body of which Costa was a 
 leading member ; and in 1884 it entered into an incorporating 
 union with another working-class body, the Lombardy Labour 
 Federation, which had a large number of local branches. 
 With their help it had become, in 1886, an organization of 133 
 branches, and Government resolved to suppress it. Most of 
 the branches in the north of Italy were dissolved, and their 
 funds, flags, and libraries confiscated. But the party is still 
 active over the country. They returned three members at the 
 late election in November, 1890. The growth of this party 
 was even more displeasing to the anarchists than to the 
 Government, and in 1882 they called back Maletesta, one of 
 their old leaders, from abroad, to conduct a regular campaign 
 over the whole kingdom against Costa, and to denounce every 
 man for a traitor to the socialist cause who should take any 
 manner of part in parliamentary elections, or show the smallest 
 sign of reconciliation to the existing order of things. His 
 campaign ended in his arrest in May, 1883, and the condem- 
 nation of himself and 53 comrades to several years' imprison- 
 ment for inciting to disturbance of the public peace. Besides 
 their contentions with the Socialist Labour Party, the Italian 
 anarchists are much given to contending among themselves, 
 and split up, even beyond other parties of the kind, upon 
 trifles of doctrine or procedure. But however divided they 
 may be, socialists and anarchists in Italy are all united in 
 opposing the new social legislation of the Government. 
 When the Employers' Liability Bill was introduced, Costa 
 declared that legislation of that kind was utterly useless so 
 long as the people were denied electoral rights, because till 
 the franchise was reduced far enough to give the people a 
 real voice in public affairs, there could be no security for
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 59 
 
 the loyal and faithful execution of the provisions of such an 
 act. 
 
 The Italian socialists andanarchists have always had a lively 
 brood of journals, which, however, are generally shorter lived 
 than even socialist organs elsewhere ; but when one dies for 
 want of funds to-day, another comes out in its place to-morrow. 
 This remarkable fertility in journals seems to be due to the 
 large literary proletariat that exists in Italy the unemployed 
 educated class who could live by their pen if they only had a 
 paper to use it in. Through their presence among the socialists 
 new journals are pushed forward without sufficient funds to 
 carry them on, and as the people are too poor to subscribe to 
 them, and the party too poor to subsidize them, they soon come 
 to a natural termination. 
 
 The, development of socialism in Italy is no matter of sur- 
 prise. Though there is no great industry in the country, the 
 whole population seems a proletariat. There is a distressed 
 nobility, a distressed peasantry, a distressed working class, a 
 distressed body of university men. Mr. Gallenga says that for 
 six months of the year Italy is a national workshop ; everybody 
 is out of employment, and has to get work from the State ; 
 and he states as the reason for this, that the employing class 
 wants enterprise and ability, and are apt to look to the Govern- 
 ment for any profitable undertakings. The Government, how- 
 ever, are no better financiers than the rest, and the state of the 
 public finances is one of the chief evils of the country. Taxa- 
 tion is very heavy, and yet property and life are not secure. 
 " The peasants," says M. de Laveleye, " are reduced to extreme 
 misery by rent and taxation, both alike excessive. Wages are 
 completely inadequate. Agricultural labourers live huddled in 
 boiirgades, and obtain only intermittent employment. There 
 is thus a rural proletariat more wretched than the industrial. 
 Excluded from property by latifundia, it becomes the enemy 
 of a social order that crushes it." The situation is scarcely 
 better in parts of the country which are free from latifundia. 
 In Sicily most of the agricultural population live on farms 
 owned by themselves ; but then these farms are too small to 
 support them adequately, and their occupiers scorn the idea of 
 working for hire. There are as many nobles in Sicily as in
 
 60 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 England, and Mr. Dawes (from whose report on Sicily to the 
 Foreign Office in 1872 I draw these particulars states) that 25 
 per cent, of the lower orders are what he terms drones idlers 
 who are maintained by their wives and children. In Italy 
 there is little working-class opinion distinct from the agri- 
 cultural. There are few factories, and the artisans who work 
 in towns have the habit of living in their native villages near 
 by, and going and coming every day to their work. Two- 
 thirds of the persons engaged in manufactures do so, or at 
 least go to their rural homes from Saturday till Monday. 
 Their habits and ways of thinking are those of agriculturists, 
 and the social question of Italy is substantially the agricultural 
 labourers' question. The students at the universities, too, are 
 everywhere leavened with socialism. The advanced men 
 among them seem to have ceased to cry for a republic, and to 
 place their hope now in socialism. They have no desire to 
 overturn a king who is as patriotic as the best president, and 
 they count the form of government of minor importance as 
 compared with the reconstitutioii of property. Bakunin 
 thought Italy the most revolutionary country of Europe except 
 Spain, because of its exceptionally numerous body of enthusi- 
 astic young men without career or prospects ; and certainly 
 revolutionary elements abound in the peninsula, but, as M. de 
 Laveleye shrewdly remarks, a revolution is perhaps next to 
 impossible for want of a revolutionary metropolis. " The 
 malaria," he says, " which makes Rome uninhabitable for part 
 of the year will long preserve her from the danger of becoming 
 the seat of a new commune." 
 
 In Spain, as in Italy, socialism made its first appearance in 
 1868 through the agency of the International, and found an 
 immediate and warm response among the people. In 1873 the 
 International had an extensive Spanish organization with 
 300,000 members and 674 branches planted over the whole 
 length and breadth of the country, from industrial centres 
 like Barcelona to remote rural districts like the island of 
 Majorca. M. de Laveleye was present at several sittings of 
 these socialist clubs when he visited Spain in 1869, and he 
 says : " They were usually held in churches erected for wor- 
 ship. From the pulpit the orators attacked all that had pre-
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 6 1 
 
 viouslj* been exalted there Grod, religion, the priests, the rich. 
 The speeches were white hot, but the audience remained calm. 
 Many women were seated on the ground, working, nursing 
 their babes, and listening attentively as to a sermon. It was 
 the very image of '93." He adds that their journals wrote with 
 unparalleled violence, especially against religion and the Church. 
 On the division of the International in 1872 the Spanish 
 members sided with Bakunin, supporting the anarchist view of 
 the government of the future. This was natural for Spaniards, 
 among whom their own central government had been long 
 thoroughly detested, and their own communal organization 
 regarded with general satisfaction. The Spanish people, even 
 the humblest of them, are imbued beyond others with those 
 sentiments of personal dignity and mutual equality which are 
 at the bottom of democratic aspirations ; and in their local 
 communes, where every inhabitant who can read and write has 
 a voice in public council, they have for ages been accustomed 
 to manage their own affairs with harmony and advantage. 
 The revolutionary tradition of Spain has accordingly always 
 favoured communal autonomy, and the Federal rather than the 
 Central Republic. Castelar declares the Federal Republic to 
 be the most perfect form of State, though he thinks it for the 
 present impracticable ; and the revolution of 1873, in which the 
 International played an active part, was excited for the purpose 
 of establishing it. The Federal Republicans are not all socialists. 
 Many of them are for making the agricultural labourers peasant 
 proprietors, and even for dividing the communal property 
 among them ; but in a country like Spain, where communal 
 property exists already to a large extent, the idea of making 
 all other property communal property lies ever at hand as a 
 ready resource of reformers. Nor, again, are all Spanish 
 socialists federalists. There is a Social Democratic Labour 
 party in Spain which broke off from the anarchists in 1882, 
 and published a programme more on Marxist lines, demanding 
 (1) the acquisition of political power ; (2) the transformation 
 of all private and corporate into the common property of the 
 nation ; and (3) the reorganization of society on the basis of 
 industrial associations. This body is not very numerous, but 
 at one of its recent congresses it had delegates from 152
 
 62 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 different branches, and it has for the last four years had a 
 party organ, El Socialista, in Madrid. 
 
 The bulk of Spanish socialism still belongs, however, to the 
 anarchist wing. Little has been heard of the anarchists in 
 Spain since the revolution of 1873 and the fall of the Inter- 
 national. They have usually been blamed for the attempts on 
 the life of the king in 1878, but they have certainly never 
 resorted to those promiscuous outrages which have formed so 
 much of the recent policy of the anarchists of other countries ; 
 and except for participation in a few demonstrations of the 
 unemployed, they have maintained a surprisingly quiet and 
 unobtrusive existence. In 1881 they reconstituted themselves 
 as the Spanish Federation of the International Working Men's 
 Association, which is said by the author of " Socialismus und 
 Anarchismus, 1883-86," apparently on their own authority, to 
 have 70,000 members in all Spain, who are distributed in 800 
 branches, and hold regular district and national congresses, 
 but always under cover of secrecy. They have two journals 
 in Madrid, and others in the larger towns elsewhere. They 
 are sorely divided into parties and schools on very petty points, 
 and fierce strife rages between the tweedledums and tweedle- 
 dees. One party has broken away altogether and established 
 a society of its own, under the name of the Autonomists. The 
 anarchists are in close alliance with an agrarian organization 
 called the Rural Labourers' Union, which has agitated since 
 1879 for the abolition of latifundia in Andalusia, but they always 
 disclaim all connection with the more notorious Andalusian 
 society, the Black Hand, which committed so many outrages 
 in 1881 and 1882, and is often identified with the anarchists. 
 The Black Hand is a separate organization from the anarchists, 
 and has, it is said, 40,000 members, mostly peasants, in Anda- 
 lusia and the neighbouring provinces ; but their principles are 
 undoubtedly socialistic. Their views are confined to the 
 subject of land ; but they declare that land, like all other 
 property, has been made by labour, that it therefore cannot in 
 right belong to the idle and rich class who at present own it, 
 and that any means may be legitimately employed to deprive 
 this class of usurpers of their possessions the sword, fire, 
 slander, perjury.
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 63 
 
 In Spain, unlike most other countries, the artisans of the 
 towns show less inclination to socialistic views than the rural 
 labourers. They have an active and even powerful labour 
 movement of their own, carried on through an extensive 
 organization of trade unions which has risen up rapidly 
 within the last few years, especially in Catalonia, and they 
 put their whole trust in combination, co-operation, and peace- 
 ful agitation for gradual reform under the present order of 
 things, and will have nothing to say to socialism or anarchism ; 
 so much so, that they manifested the greatest reluctance to 
 join in the eight hour demonstrations of May-day, 1890, be- 
 cause they did not wish to be confounded or in any way 
 identified with the more extreme faction who were getting 
 those demonstrations up ; and they actually held a rival demon- 
 stration of their own on Sunday, the 4th of May, " in favour," 
 as they stated in the public announcement of it, " of State 
 socialism and of State legislation, both domestic and inter- 
 national, to improve the general condition of the working 
 classes without any revolutionary or sudden change that could 
 alarm the Sovereign and the governing classes." 
 
 Spain made a beginning in factory legislation in 1873, when 
 an act was passed restricting the labour of children and young 
 people; but the act remained dead-letter till 1884, when the 
 renewal of agitation on the social question by the various 
 parties led the cabinet to issue an order to have this law carried 
 into effect, and a little later in the same year to appoint a 
 royal commission to institute a thorough inquiry into the 
 whole circumstances of the labouring classes, and the conditions 
 of their improvement. This commission, which received 
 nothing but abuse from the anarchists, who said the labour 
 problem must be settled from below and not from above, 
 was welcomed very heartily by the trade unionists, and with 
 favour rather than otherwise even by the Social Democrats ; 
 but it has as yet had little or no result, and men who know 
 the country express their opinion very freely that it will never 
 lead to anything but an act or two that will remain dead-letter 
 like their predecessors. The suffrage is high, only one person 
 in seventeen having a vote ; and working-class legislation will 
 continue lukewarm till the working class acquires more real
 
 64 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 political power. A leading Spanish statesman said lately : 
 " The day for social questions has not yet come in Spain, and 
 we can afford to look on and see other countries make experi- 
 ments which may be of use some day when our politicians and 
 thinkers can find time to devote attention to these twentieth 
 century problems." 
 
 There seems much truth in the view that socialism, spite of 
 the alarm its spread caused to the Spanish Government in 1872, 
 is really a disease of a more advanced stage of industrial 
 development than yet exists in Spain, and therefore unlikely 
 to grow immediately into anything very formidable there. 
 The country has few large industrial centres. Two-thirds of 
 the people are still engaged in agriculture ; and though it is 
 among the agricultural classes socialism has broken out, the 
 outbreak has been local, and confined to provinces where the 
 conditions of agricultural labour are decidedly bad. But these 
 conditions vary much from province to province. In the 
 southern provinces the cereal plains and also the lower pastur- 
 ages are generally possessed by large proprietors, who work 
 them by farmers on the metayer principle, with the help of 
 bands of migratory labourers in harvest time ; but in the moun- 
 tainous parts of these provinces the estates belong for the 
 most part to the communes. They are usually large, and as 
 every member of the commune has an undivided right of using 
 them, he is able to obtain from them the main part of his 
 living without rent. Many of the inhabitants of such districts 
 engage in the carrying trade, to which they conjoin a little 
 cattle-dealing as opportunities offer ; and as they are sober and 
 industrious, they are usually comparatively well off. In the 
 northern provinces the situation is in some respects better. 
 Land is much subdivided, and though the condition of the 
 labouring class is not as a rule unembarrassed, that result is 
 due more to their own improvidence and indolence than to 
 anything else. A man of frugal and industrious habits can 
 always rise without much difficulty from the position of day 
 labourer to that of metayer tenant, and from tenancy to pro- 
 prietorship, and some of the small proprietors are able to amass 
 a considerable competency. Besides, even the improvident are 
 saved from the worst by the communal organization. They
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 65 
 
 have always a right of pasturage on the commons, and a right 
 to wood for fire, house and furniture, and they get their chil- 
 dren's education and medical attendance in sickness gratui- 
 tously on condition of giving six daj r s' labour at the roads of the 
 commune. The most active and saving part of the population, 
 north and south, is the class of migratory workmen, who stay at 
 home only during seed-time and harvest, and go for the rest of 
 the year to work in Castile, Andalusia, or Portugal, as masons 
 or carpenters, or waiters, and always come back with a store of 
 money. Sometimes they remain abroad for a year or two, and 
 sometimes they go to Cuba or Mexico for twenty years, and 
 return to settle on a property of their own in their native 
 village. This class forms the personnel of the small property in 
 Spain, and they give by their presence a healthy stimulus to 
 the neighbourhoods they reside in. The small property is in 
 Spain, as elsewhere, too often turned from a blessing to a curse 
 by its subdivision, on the death of the proprietor, among the 
 members of his family, who in Spain are usually numerous, 
 though it is interesting to learn that in some of the Pyrenean 
 valleys it has been preserved for five hundred years by the 
 habit of integral transmission to the eldest child son or 
 daughter coupled with the habit of voluntary celibacy on the 
 part of many of the other children. The economic situation 
 of Spain, then, is not free from defects ; but there always exists 
 a wide margin of hope in a country where, as Frere said, " God 
 Almighty has so much of the land in His own holding," and 
 its economic situation would not of itself be likely to pre- 
 cipitate social revolution. 
 
 From Spain, socialism passed into Portugal; but from 
 the first it has worked very quietly there. Its adherents 
 formed themselves into an association in 1872, and held con- 
 gresses, published newspapers, started candidates, and actively 
 promoted their views in every legitimate way. Their pro- 
 gramme was anarchism, like that of their Spanish allies ; 
 but, unlike anarchists elsewhere, they repudiated all resort 
 to violence, for, as M. de Laveleye says, they are naturally 
 "less violent than the Spaniards, the economic situation of 
 the country is better, and liberty being very great, prevents the 
 explosion of popular fury, which is worse when exasperated by
 
 66 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 repression." Portugal is au agricultural country in a good 
 climate, where the people have few wants, and find it easy to 
 satisfy them fairly well. In the absence of any manner of 
 acute discontent, socialism could never have been much 
 better than an abstract speculation; and Portuguese 
 socialism, if we may trust the complaints made by the party 
 elsewhere, seems now to have lost even the savour it had. 
 In March, 1888, one of the socialist newspapers of London 
 reported that the Portuguese working men's movement had, 
 in the course of the preceding ten years, given up the straight- 
 forward socialist character it once had; that its leaders had 
 entered into compromises with other political parties, and 
 threw themselves too much into experiments in co-operation ; 
 that the party press was very lukewarm in its socialism, and 
 inclined more to mere Radicalism ; and that one or two attempts 
 that had been made to start more extreme journals had 
 completely failed ; but it announced with satisfaction, that at 
 last, in January, 1888, a frankly anarchist paper was published 
 at Oporto A Revoluzao Social. About the same time the 
 editor of a journal which had made some host.ile remarks on 
 anarchism was shot, and anarchists were blamed and arrested 
 for the deed. There was a Socialist Congress at Lisbon in 
 1882, composed of twelve delegates representing eight societies, 
 all in Lisbon or Oporto. 
 
 While the socialist cause has been thus rather retreating in 
 the south of Europe, it has been making some advances in the 
 north. Of the three Scandinavian countries, Denmark alone 
 gave any early response to the socialist agitation ; but there 
 are now socialist organizations in Sweden and Norway, and 
 the movement in Denmark has assumed considerable dimen- 
 sions. Attempts were made to introduce socialism into 
 Norway as far back as 1873 by Danish emissaries, and the 
 International also founded a small society of thirty-seven 
 members in Christiania ; but the society seems to have died, 
 and nothing more was heard of socialism there till the com- 
 motion in favour of a Republic in 1883. A Social Democratic 
 Club was then established in Christiania, and a Social 
 Democratic Congress was held at Arendal in 1887 ; but even 
 yet Norwegian social democracy is of so mild a character thac
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 67 
 
 it would be counted conservatism by Social Democrats else- 
 where, for this Congress issued a programme for a new labour 
 party without a word of socialism in it, and merely asking for 
 a normal working day, for factory legislation and reform of 
 taxation. In Sweden there is more appearance of agitation, 
 because there is one very active agitator in the country, Palm, 
 a tailor, who keeps socialism en evidence by making stump 
 speeches, or getting up street processions with the usual red 
 flags, and sometimes such was the easy indifference of the 
 Government to his work at first with a military band in full 
 uniform at the head of them. The Swedish socialists had 
 four newspapers in 1SSS, but three of them were confiscated 
 by the Government in December of that year, and their editors 
 arrested for offences against religion and the throne. In May, 
 1890, they held their first Congress at Stockholm, when dele- 
 gates appeared from twenty-nine unions ; but the movement 
 is very unimportant 'in Sweden and Norway, and the chief 
 conditions of success seem wanting to it in those countries. 
 There is no class of labourers there without property; no 
 town residuum, and no rural cottagers. There being few great 
 manufacturers in the kingdom, only fifteen per cent, of 
 the people altogether live in towns. The rest are spread 
 sparsely over the rural districts on farms belonging to them- 
 selves, and in the absence of roads are obliged to make at 
 home many of the ordinary articles of consumption. What 
 with the produce of their small properties and their own 
 general handiness, they are unusually independent and com- 
 fortable. M. de Laveleye considers them the happiest people 
 in Europe. 
 
 The circumstances of Denmark are different. The operatives 
 of the town are badly off. Mr. Strachey tells us in his report 
 to the Foreign Office in 1870 that every fourth inhabitant of 
 Copenhagen was in receipt of parochial relief in 1867, and he 
 says that while the Danish operatives are sober and well 
 educated, they fail in industry and thrift. " No fact in my 
 report," he states, "is more certain than that the Dane has 
 yet to learn the meaning of the word work; of entireness 
 and thoroughness he has seldom any adequate notion. This 
 is why the Swedish artisan can so often take the bread from
 
 68 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 his mouth." In the rural districts, too, the economic situa- 
 tion, though in some respects highly favourable, is attended by 
 a shadow. The land is, indeed; -widely diffused. There are in 
 all 280,000 families in the rural districts of Denmark, and 
 of these 170,000 occupy independent freeholds, 30,000 farm 
 hired land, and only 26,000 are agricultural labourers pure and 
 simple. Seven-eighths of the whole country is held by peasant 
 proprietors, and as a rule no class in Europe has improved 
 more during the last half century than the Danish peasant or 
 Bonde. Mr. Strachey says : " The Danish landlord was till 
 recent times the scourge of the peasantry. Under his paternal 
 care the Danish Bonde was a mere hewer of wood and drawer 
 of water ; his lot was no better than that of the most miserable 
 ryot of Bengal. The Bonde is now the freest, the most politi- 
 cally wise, the best educated of European yeomen." But 
 there is another side to the picture. In Denmark, as in other 
 places where the small property abounds-, the property is often 
 too small for the proprietor's necessities, and there thus arises 
 a kind of proprietor-proletariat, unwilling to part with their 
 land and unable to extract a living out of it. This class, along 
 with the rural labourers who have no property, constitute a 
 sort of fourth estate in the country, and there as elsewhere their 
 condition is preparing a serious social question for the future. 
 Then, among the influences favourable to the acceptance of 
 socialism in Denmark, must be counted the fact that one of 
 the two great political parties of the country is democratic. 
 Curiously enough that party consists of the peasantry, and the 
 Conservatives of Denmark are the commercial classes of the 
 towns, with the artisans in their wake, their Conservatism, 
 however, being substantially identical with the Liberalism of 
 the same classes in other countries. This democratic party 
 seeks to make everything in the State conduce to the interests 
 of the peasantry, and keeps alive in the country the idea that 
 the State exists by the will of the people, and for their good 
 alone. 
 
 The International was introduced into this exclusively 
 Protestant country by two militant Roman Catholics Pio, a 
 retired military officer, who came to Denmark as religious 
 tutor to a baroness who had joined the Church of Rome, and
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 69 
 
 Geleff, who wrote for an Ultramontane journal. They pursued 
 their new mission with great zeal and success. They opened 
 branches of the association in most of the towns, started a 
 party newspaper, held open-air meetings, were sent to im- 
 prisonment for sedition in 1873, and on their release in 1877 
 absconded to America with the whole of the party funds, 
 and disputed bitterly there over the spoil. While they were 
 in prison, the International was suppressed in Denmark ; but 
 the members merely reconstituted the organization under the 
 name of the Socialist Labour Party, and the place of leader 
 was taken for a time by an authoress, Jacquette Lilyenkrantz, 
 for, as in other countries, women are in Denmark among the most 
 active propagandists of socialism. They kept up communica- 
 tions with the socialist leaders in Germany, and the meeting 
 of the German Socialist Congress at Copenhagen in 1883 gave 
 the movement a new impetus. They were able to return two 
 deputies, Holm and Horclun, to the Volkething in 1884, and 
 they took part, 80,000 strong, in the Copenhagen procession 
 of 1886, in commemoration of the fundamental law of the 
 State. Their chief party organ, the Social Demokraten, has 
 a circulation of 26,000 daily, one of the largest newspaper 
 circulations in Denmark; and there are other four socialist 
 journals in the kingdom. 
 
 They belong to the moderate wing of social democracy, being 
 opposed to revolution and terrorism, and placing their confi- 
 dence in constitutional agitation. Their programme is sub- 
 stantially that of Gotha the right of the labourers to the full 
 product of labour, State management of all industry, free 
 education, universal suffrage, normal working day, abolition 
 of class inequalities, single chamber in legislature, free justice, 
 no standing army, State provision for sick and aged, religions 
 to be a private affair. They turn their propaganda with most 
 hope to the land proletariat ; and a recent writer, P. Schmidt, 
 in an interesting paper in the Arbeiterfreund for 1889, says 
 they are succeeding in their mission, and that socialism is 
 spreading more and more every day among the rural labourers. 
 At their last Congress, held at Copenhagen, in June, 1890, and 
 attended by seventy-one delegates from fifty-four different 
 branches, their attention was chiefly occupied with questions
 
 70 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 about the land ; provision of more land for the people by com- 
 pulsory acquisition of ecclesiastical property and uncultivated 
 ground ; State advances of capital to agricultural labourers ; 
 agricultural schools ; better housing for farm servants, etc. In 
 1887 they held a socialist exhibition in Copenhagen an inter- 
 national exhibition of socialist pamphlets, newspapers, books, 
 magazines, and pictures; and in 1890 they returned two 
 members to the Landthing the first time they secured repre- 
 sentatives in the Upper Chamber. 
 
 Belgium has many of the conditions of soil most favourable 
 for socialism a dense population, large towns, an advanced 
 productive system, and an industrial class at once very nu- 
 merous, very ill paid, and very open, through their education, 
 to new social ideas. For a time, accordingly, socialism spread 
 remarkably in that country. The International had eight 
 federations of branches in 1869, with 60,000 members and 
 several newspapers. In the dispute between Marx and Bakunin, 
 the Belgian Internationalists seem to have sided as a body with 
 Bakunin ; but they presently fell out among themselves, and, in 
 spite of many repeated efforts at reconciliation, they have never 
 since succeeded in composing their differences. The German 
 socialist leaders tried to reorganize them in 1879 at a special 
 Congress at Brussels, under the name of the Socialist Labour 
 Party of Belgium, and with the Gotha programme ; but they 
 were rent again in 1881 by a division which had then entered 
 into German socialism itself. The majority of the party adhered 
 to Liebknecht and Bebel ; but an active minority, composed 
 chiefly of "Walloons, followed the anarchist views of Most and 
 Hasselman, withdrew from the party, and founded another called 
 the Revolutionary Union. The anarchists have one journal 
 Ni DieUj Ni Maitre violent, as the name indicates, but obscure 
 and unimportant ; but they believe most in the less intellectual 
 propaganda of deed, and make themselves conspicuous from 
 time to time by dynamite explosions and street fights with 
 the police or the military, or their own socialist rivals. The 
 Belgian socialists, on the other hand, look more to constitutional 
 and parliamentary action, and usually work with the Liberals at 
 the elections ; but the Belgian voting qualification is high, and 
 they have never succeeded in returning a candidate of their
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 7 1 
 
 own. In 1887 their candidate for Brussels got 1,000 votes, 
 while his successful rival had 3,000. They took an active part 
 in the Republican agitation which was raised by the School 
 Law in 1881. They have capable leaders, and they publish 
 two journals, which, however, for want of funds, appear only at 
 distant and uncertain intervals. They have lately begun to 
 hold many open-air meetings, which the authorities had long 
 forbidden, and thay held an International Socialist Exhibition 
 at Ghent in 1837 like that held in the same year at Copen- 
 hagen. 
 
 On the whole socialism, after twenty years' work, is making 
 no way in Belgium, notwithstanding the favourable character 
 of the soil, because the labour movement is choosing other 
 directions and forms of organization. Trade unions and co-opera- 
 tive societies have been multiplying much during these 
 twenty years, and in 1885 a strong Balgiau Labour Party 
 was formed, with 120 branches and 100,000 members, which 
 aims at promoting the practical wellbeing of the working class 
 by remedial legislation by in some cases vicious State-social- 
 istic legislation, it may be but has no word of the right to 
 the full product of labour, of the nationalization of all industry, 
 or of the social revolution. One of the items of the programme 
 is worded " collective property " ; but whether it contemplates 
 the universal State-property of collectivism or the corporate 
 property of co-operation does not appear. The other items are 
 universal suffrage, direct legislation by the people (presumably 
 the referendum), free undenominational education, abolition of 
 standing army, abolition of budget of worship, normal work 
 day, normal wages, regulation of work of women and children, 
 factory inspection, employers' liability, workmen's chambers, 
 courts of conciliation, repeal of taxes on means of subsistence, 
 increased income tax, international labour legislation. M. de 
 Laveleye attributes the ill success of socialism in Belgium, 
 and no doubt rightly, to the influence of discussion and free 
 institutions. Government has left it to stand or fall on its own 
 merits before public opinion. The socialists enjoy full 
 liberty of the platform and press ; they can hold meetings 
 and congresses and form clubs in any town they please, and 
 the result is that though the movement, like all new move-
 
 72 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 ments, made a certain impression and advance for a time at 
 first, it got checked under the influence of discussion and the 
 application of solid practical judgment. Then, though the 
 Belgian Legislature has not yet done what it can and ought for 
 ameliorating the condition of the labourers, philanthropy has 
 been very active and useful in a number of ways in that king- 
 dom. The Catholic Church has always intervened to keep up 
 a high ideal of employers' responsibility the old ideal of a 
 patriarchal care ; and there is a strong organization in Belgium 
 of Catholic "Working Men's Clubs, which were formed into one 
 body in 1867, which were united with the Catholic Working 
 Men's Clubs of Germany in 1869, and with those of France 
 in 1870, and which now constitute with these the Interna- 
 tional Catholic "Working Men's Association. 
 
 It ought perhaps to be mentioned that there is an old but 
 small party of Land Nationalizers in Belgium, the Colinsiaii 
 Socialists, whose principles have been warmly endorsed by 
 Mr. Raskin as "forming the most complete system of social and 
 political reform yet put forward." They want the State to own 
 all the soil, and let it out by auction ; but they are opposed 
 to nationalizing any of the other instruments of production. 
 
 In Holland, wealth is very unequally divided, wages are low, 
 and taxation, being largely indirect, falls heavily on the 
 working class ; but the people are phlegmatic, domestic, 
 religious, and contrive on small means to maintain a general 
 appearance of comfort and decency. Above all, they enjoy 
 free institutions ; and, under freedom, socialism has run the same 
 course in Holland as p. Belgium. The International made 
 rapid advances in 1869, founded branches in all the towns, 
 and carried on, after the Paris Commune, so active and success- 
 ful an agitation that the bourgeoisie took alarm, and Government 
 imposed some restrictions on the disaffected press. But a 
 general rise in wages happened about the time, a strong co- 
 operative movement was promoted under the lead of the ortho- 
 dox divines, a lively polemic against socialism broke out among 
 the working men themselves, and all interest in the social revo- 
 lution seemed to have died away, when, in 1878, it was revived 
 again by D. Niewenhuis, a retired Protestant minister, a man 
 of capacity and zeal, who has been unwearied in his advocacy
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 73 
 
 of the cause ever since. He started in that year a journal, 
 Recht Voor Allen, which is still, I believe, the only socialist 
 organ in Holland, and appears now three times a week ; and 
 he founded the Social Democratic Union in 1884, which 
 is strongest in the Hague and Amsterdam, but has branches 
 in most of the other towns, and a membership by no means 
 inconsiderable, though much below the old numbers of 
 the Dutch International. After being imprisoned in 1837 for 
 political reasons, Niewenhuis was returned to the Legis- 
 lature in 1888 the first socialist who has sat there. The 
 Dutch Socialists, to increase their numbers, enrol a class of 
 " secret " members, timid spirits who will only come to them 
 " by night, for fear of the Jews." There is also a handful of 
 anarchists in Holland, who have a newspaper in Amsterdam, 
 and are said to live harmoniously with the socialists, and, accord- 
 ing to the reports of the American consuls, nobody in the 
 country thinks any "harm of either. 
 
 Switzerland has swarmed for a century with conspirators 
 of all hues and nations ; but the Swiss thanks again to free 
 institutions have been steel against revolution. The " Young 
 G-ermanys " and " Young Italys " whom she sheltered in the 
 past sought only, it is true, to win for their own countries the 
 political freedom which Switzerland already enjoyed ; but the 
 socialist and anarchist refugees of the last twenty years have 
 had social principles to preach which were as new and as good 
 for the Swiss as for their own countrymen ; and, speaking as 
 they did the languages of the Confederation, they have never 
 ceased making active efforts for the conversion of the Swiss. 
 The old Jurassian Federation of the International, still con- 
 tinues to exist in French-speaking Switzerland, and to bear 
 witness for the extremest kind of anarchist communism no 
 force or authority whatever, and a collective consumption of 
 products as well as a collective production ; but this body is not 
 increasing, and though Guesde, the French socialist, made a 
 lecturing tour through that division of Switzerland in 1885, he 
 had quite as little success for his branch of the revolutionary 
 cause. There are numbers of Social Democratic Clubs in the 
 German-speaking cantons, but they consist mainly of German 
 refugees, and contain few native Swiss members. After the
 
 74 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Anti-Socialist Laws of 1879, the German socialists settled largely 
 in Switzerland. They transferred to Zurich their part}* organ, 
 the Social Democrat, and along with it, to use their own phrase, 
 the entire Olympus of the party, the body of writers and 
 managers who moved the shuttle of its operations. These 
 propagandists naturally did not neglect the country of their 
 adoption, but used every opportunity to forward their agitation 
 by addresses and even by extended missionary journeys, and a 
 separate Swiss Social Democratic party was actually founded, 
 with a separate organ, the Arbeiterstimme ; but it collapsed in 
 1884 from internal dissensions. No attempt was made to revive 
 it till 1888, when the action of the Federal Council in May 
 against the foreign socialists resident in the Confederation led 
 to the organization of a Swiss socialist party in October. The 
 Federal Government had already, in 1884 and 1885, taken 
 measures against the political refugees, especially the an- 
 archists, who were thought to have abused the hospitality they 
 received by planning and preparing in Switzerland the series of 
 crimes which shocked all Europe in 1884, and even by trying to 
 explode the Federal Palace at Berne itself. The Government 
 instituted an inquiry, and finding the country absolutely 
 riddled with anarchist clubs, determined to keep the eye of 
 the police on them, and in the meantime expelled thirty or 
 forty of their leading members from Switzerland altogether. 
 These were almost without exception either Austrians or 
 Germans, and included Neve, now a leading anarchist in 
 London. The Russian anarchists were apparently not thought 
 so dangerous, their great occupation being to invent new ways 
 and means of smuggling newspapers into Russia ; but they 
 disliked the police supervision to which they were subjected, 
 and very generally quitted Switzerland of their own accord 
 for London or Paris. The anarchist organ, the Revolte, was 
 removed at the same time to Paris, but its place in Geneva 
 was taken by a new paper L'Egalitaire. In 1883 the police 
 were ordered to report all socialist meetings held in the country, 
 and all arrivals or departures of " foreigners whose means of 
 subsistence was unknown, and whose presence might, for 
 other reasons, become dangerous to the safety of the country"; 
 and as this further turn of the screw was believed to be made
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 75 
 
 on the instigation of Germany, it provoked considerable oppo- 
 sition, one result of which was the formation of the new 
 Swiss socialist party. 
 
 This party, however, is not an affair of any magnitude, and 
 does not appear very likely to become so; for the working men of 
 Switzerland have the public power in their own hands alreadj 7 , 
 and they have their own organizations besides to look after 
 their interests ; and while they are by no means averse to the 
 use of the powers of the State, they are disposed to move with 
 inquiry and caution, and to see every step of their way before 
 running into speculative schemes of foreign origin. Their 
 political position satisfies them, because they know they are 
 too strong for Government to neglect their wishes, because 
 some labour laws have already been passed for their protection, 
 and because the authorities always show themselves ready 
 to entertain any new proposals for the same object, as, for 
 example, they did in May, 1890, by summoning an Inter- 
 national Congress at Berne to discuss the length of the work- 
 ing day and other conditions of labour. 
 
 Their economic position, moreover, is also comparatively 
 satisfactory for various reasons, among which Mr. Bonar, in his 
 report to the 'Foreign Office in 1870, gives a chief place to 
 the general working of democratic institutions and the preva- 
 lence of benevolent and charitable associations. "In enumerat- 
 ing," he says, "the favourable circumstances in which the Swiss 
 working man is placed, prominence must be given to the im- 
 mense extension of the principle of democracy, which, whatever, 
 may be its defects and dangers from a political point of view 
 when pushed to extremes, serves in Switzerland in its econo- 
 mical effects to advance the cause of the operative by removing 
 the barriers dividing class from class, and to establish among 
 all grades the bonds of mutual sympathy and goodwill, further 
 strengthened by a widely-spread network of associations or- 
 ganized with the object of securing the common interests and 
 welfare of the people." Masters and workmen are socially 
 more equal than in most European countries ; they sit side by 
 side at the board of the Communal Council, they belong to the 
 same choral societies, they refresh themselves at the same 
 cafes. In most cantons, too, operatives are either owners of, or
 
 76 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 hold from the communes, small pieces of land which they cul- 
 tivate in their leisure hours, and which thus serve them when 
 work gets slack or fails altogether. The favourable rural eco- 
 nomy of the country is well known ; its peasant proprietors 
 rival those of France. The Swiss societies of beneficence are 
 remarkable, and almost suggest the hope that the voluntary 
 socialism of a more enlarged and widely organized system of 
 charity may be found to furnish a substantial solution of the 
 social question. Every canton of Switzerland has its society of 
 public utility, whose aims take an extensive range ; it gives 
 the start to projects of improvement of every description, 
 infant schools, schools of design, savings banks, schemes for 
 the poor, the sick, the dumb, singing classes, halls for Sunday 
 recreation, popular lectures, workmen's houses, protection of 
 animals, even industrial undertakings which promise to be 
 ultimately beneficial, though they may not pay at first. The 
 society of Basle has 900 members and a capital of 6,000, and 
 the Swiss Society of Public Utility is an organization for the 
 whole Republic, which holds an annual congress at Zurich, 
 and general meetings in the different cantons by turns. These 
 meetings pass off with every mark of enthusiasm, and gather 
 together men of all religious and political opinions in a common 
 concern for the progress and prosperity of the masses. One of 
 the institutions which these societies have largely promoted is 
 what they call a hall of industry, or a bazaar, where loans may 
 be received by workmen on the security of their wages, or of 
 goods they may deposit. A labourer who has made any article 
 which he cannot get immediately sold, may deposit it at one of 
 these bazaars, and obtain an advance equal to a fixed propor- 
 tion of its value, and if the article is sold at the bazaar, the 
 proceeds are accounted for to the depositor, less the sum 
 advanced and a small charge for expenses. These institutions, 
 Mr. Bonar says, have had excellent effects, though he admits 
 that the facilities of borrowing have led the working men in 
 some places into debt ; but they are at any rate a vast im- 
 provement on the pawnbroking system in vogue elsewhere. 
 The condition of Switzerland shows us clearly enough that 
 democracy under a regime of freedom lends no ear to socialism, 
 but sets its face in entirely different directions.
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 77 
 
 The United States of America have done more for experi- 
 mental socialism than any other country. Owenites, Fourier- 
 ists, Icarians have all established communities there, but these 
 communities have failed long ago, except one of the Icarian, 
 and the only other socialist experiments now existing in 
 America are seventy or eighty religious communities, Shakers 
 and Rappists, whose success has been due to their religious 
 discipline and their celibacy, and whose members amount to no 
 more than 5,000 souls all told. There is indeed a Russian Com- 
 mune in California, but it remains a solitary Russian Commune 
 still, the " new formula of civilization," as Russian reformers 
 used to call it, showing no sign of further adoption. Nor has 
 the new or political socialism found any better success in the 
 States. There are various indigenous forms of it such as 
 the agrarian socialism of Mr. Henry George, and the national- 
 ism of Mr. E. Bellamy but in point of following they are of 
 little importance, and the socialism of the American socialist 
 and revolutionary parties is a mere German import, with as yet 
 a purely German consumption. It has been pushed vigorously 
 in the American market for twenty years, but taken singularly 
 little hold of the American taste. There is one revolutionary 
 socialist body composed chiefly of English-speaking members, 
 the International Workmen's Association, which was founded 
 in 1881 in one of the western states ; but Mr. Ely says its 
 membership would be generously estimated at 15,000, and it 
 considers the great work of the present should be popular educa- 
 tion, so as to prepare the people for the revolution when it comes. 
 
 The Boston Anarchists, perhaps, ought not, strictly speaking, 
 to be included in any account of socialism, for, unlike most 
 contemporarj 7 ' anarchists, they are not socialist, but extremely 
 individualist ; but historically, it is worth noting, Boston Anar- 
 chism is the doctrine of a disenchanted socialist, Josiah 
 "Warren, who had lived with Robert Owen at New Harmony, 
 and came to the conclusion that that experiment failed because 
 the individual had been too much sunk in the community, and 
 no room was left for the play of individual interests, individual 
 rights, and individual responsibilities. From Owen's commu- 
 nism, Warren ran to the opposite extreme, and thought it im- 
 possible to individualize things too much. He would abolish
 
 78 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the State, and have the work of police and defence done by 
 private enterprise, like any other service. He issued some 
 books, tried to carry out his views by practical experiment, 
 and, though they failed, he has still a small band of believing 
 disciples at Boston, who publish a newspaper called Liberty, 
 but have no organization and no importance. 
 
 Henry George and his followers, too, perhaps ought not in 
 strictness to be classified among socialists. He would certainly 
 repudiate such a classification himself, and the United Labour 
 Party, which he founded in 1836 to promote his views by poli- 
 tical action, expelled the socialists from membership in 1887. 
 His actual practical proposal is nothing more than a narrow 
 and illusory plan of taxation ; but he puts it forward so ex- 
 pressly as the keystone of a new social system, as the remedy 
 prescribed by economic science itself for the complete regene- 
 ration of society and the simultaneous removal of all existing 
 social evils, that he is not improperly placed among Utopian 
 socialists. Does he not promise us a new heaven and a new 
 earth ? And if he believes the State can call the new heaven 
 and the new earth into being by a mere turn in the incidence 
 of taxation, while most other contemporary socialists think the 
 State must first pull down all that now is and reconstruct the 
 whole on a new plan, is he. on account of this greater credulity 
 of his, to be considered a more, and not rather a less, sober and 
 rational speculator than they ? He wants to abolish landlord- 
 ism, while they want to abolish landlordism and all other 
 capitalism besides ; and his views may fairly be called partial 
 or agrarian socialism. The United Labour Party was founded 
 mainly to promote Mr. George's panacea of the single tax 
 on such land values as arise from the growth of society 
 apart from individual exertion ; but it includes other 
 articles in its programme the municipalization of the supply 
 of water, light, and heat ; the nationalization of all money, 
 note issue, post, telegraphs, railways, and savings banks ; re- 
 duction of the hours of labour, prohibition of child labour, 
 suppression of the competition of prison labour with honest 
 labour ; sanitary inspection of houses, factories, and mines ; 
 simplification of legal procedure ; secret ballot ; payment of 
 election expenses. The United Labour Party is not strong.
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 79 
 
 When Mr. George stood for the Maj-oralty of New York, he 
 had 68,000 votes to his opponent's 90,000 ; but he had on that 
 occasion the assistance of the Socialistic Labour Party, who are 
 said by Mr. Ely to number about 25,000 in New York, and 
 who certainly constituted a very considerable element in the 
 United Labour Party, for they were expelled at the Party 
 Convention only by a vote of 94 to 54. On the other hand, Mr. 
 Ely's estimate of the strength of the socialists is possibly too 
 high, for they ran a candidate for the Mayoralty of New York 
 themselves in 1888, a leading man of the party, one Jones, and 
 he only secured 2,000 votes. However that may be, the United 
 Labour Party was certainly much weakened by the loss of the 
 socialists, and they were disabled entirely in the following year 
 by a division on the question of Free Trade and the secession 
 of Father McGlynn and the Protectionist members. 
 
 Nationalism is the name of a new movement, the fruit of the 
 remarkable and very popular novel of Mr. Edward Bellamy, 
 " Looking Backward," which may be said to be the latest de- 
 scription of Utopia as it now stands with all the most modern 
 improvements. Mr. Bellamy would have all industry orga- 
 nized and conducted by the nation on the basis of a common 
 obligation of work and a general guarantee of livelihood, all 
 men to get exactly the same wages, and to do exactly the same 
 quantity of work, due allowance being made for differences in 
 severity, and the State to enlarge indefinitely its free public 
 provision of the means of common enjoyment and culture. 
 Mr. Bellamy's charming pictures of the new country naturally 
 engendered a general wish to be there, and many little societies 
 have been established to hasten the hour ; but as the movement 
 has not been more than a year in being, little account can yet 
 be given of its success. The Nationalists have quite recently 
 issued an organ, The New Nation, which announces its pro- 
 gramme to be (1) the nationalization of post, telegraphs, tele- 
 phone, railways and coal mines ; (2) municipalization of gas 
 and water supply, and the like ; and (3) the equalization of 
 educational opportunities as between rich and poor, and the 
 promotion of all reforms tending towards humaner, more fra- 
 ternal, and more equal conditions. Nationalism out of Utopia, 
 therefore, means merely a little State-socialism.
 
 8o Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 The strongest socialist organizations in the United States 
 are the Socialistic Labour Party, corresponding to the 
 Social Democrats of Europe, and the International Working 
 People's Association, corresponding to the anarchists ; but 
 both are composed almost exclusively of Germans. There are 
 more Germans in the North American Republic than in any 
 State of Germany except Prussia ; and as many of them have 
 fled from their own country for political reasons to escape 
 the conscription, or to escape prosecution for sedition they 
 bear no goodwill to the old system of government, and harbour 
 revolutionary ideas almost from the nature of things. A so- 
 cialist propaganda began among them so far back as 1848, 
 when "Weitling, of whom more will be said presently, pub- 
 lished a socialist newspaper ; and a Socialist Gymnastic Union 
 was established in New York in 1850, which succeeded in 
 forming a kind of federal alliance, apparently for socialistic 
 purposes, with a number of other local German gymnastic 
 societies throughout the States ; but though these societies 
 still exist, they seem to have dropped their socialism. It 
 was taken up again, however, in 1869, by the International, 
 which transferred its General Council to New York in 
 1872, held congresses from time to time in the country, 
 and eventually, at the Newark Convention of 1877, adopted 
 the name of the Socialistic Labour Party, with a programme 
 formed after the Gotha lines. The numbers of the party 
 were strengthened in the years immediately following by the 
 arrival of German refugees, expelled from their own land by 
 the Socialist Laws ; but the new members brought with them 
 elements of dissension which speedily came to a head after 
 the arrival of the incendiary spirit, John Most, in 1882, and led, 
 in 1883, to the entire separation of the Anarchists from the 
 Social Democrats. The latter held a separate Congress at 
 Baltimore in the latter year, attended by 16 delegates, re- 
 presenting 23 branches and 10.000 members, and it reported 
 that altogether 38 branches adhered to them. The anarchists 
 held a Congress at Pittsburg, and formed themselves into the 
 International Working People's Association, with the follow- 
 ing principles : 
 
 " What we would achieve is therefore plainly and simply
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 8 1 
 
 " 1st. Destruction of the existing class rule by all means ; 
 i.e., by energetic, relentless, revolutionary, and international 
 action. 
 
 " 2nd. Establishment of a free society based upon co-opera- 
 tive organization of production. 
 
 " 3rd. Free exchange of equivalent products by and between 
 the productive organizations without commerce and profit- 
 mongery. 
 
 " 4th. Organization of education on a secular, scientific, and 
 equal basis for both sexes. 
 
 " 5th. Equal rights for all without distinction of sex or race. 
 
 " 6th. Regulation of all public affairs by free contracts 
 between the autonomous (independent) communes and associa- 
 tions resting on a federalistic basis." (Ely's " Labour Movement 
 in America," p. 231.) 
 
 They differ from the Socialistic Labour Party, as this pro- 
 gramme shows, in their exclusive devotion to revolution, and 
 their opposition to all central government. 
 
 The Socialistic Labour Party has several newspapers, the 
 principal being the Sozialist and the Xeu Yorker Volkszeitung 
 of New York, and the Tageblatt of Philadelphia ; and the 
 anarchists have more, the best known being Host's notorious 
 Freiheit. Mr. Ely mentions sixteen socialist newspapers and 
 ten sympathizing with socialism, and says that the majority 
 of these support the anarchist side. The anarchists, more- 
 over, have one journal in English the Alarm ; the Socialistic 
 Labour Party started one in 1883, but it died. With that ex- 
 ception the press of both parties is entirely German, and neither 
 party seems to have done almost anything in the way of an 
 English propaganda from the platform. Dr. and Mrs. Aveling 
 state that before they made their lecturing tour on the subject 
 through the States in 1886, the American public had never 
 heard socialism preached to them in their own tongue ; yet 
 books like Mr. Gronlund's " Co-operative Commonwealth," 
 giving a very effective exposition of socialism, had already 
 appeared from the American press. Dr. and Mrs. Aveling say, 
 moreover, they met with more hostility to their mission from 
 the anarchists than from any other source in America. The 
 American people, while firmly stamping out the dynamite 
 
 G
 
 82 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 policy of the anarchists, have naturally nothing to say 
 against an academic propaganda of any system of doctrine. 
 
 The trend of the labour movement in America seems away 
 from socialism. That movement is in many respects more 
 powerful there than in any European country. There are some 
 five hundred labour newspapers in the United States, and an 
 immense 'number of trade organizations of all kinds. Political 
 power, moreover, both in the States and in the Union, is in 
 the hands of the working class ; and that class has now very 
 nearly the same grievances there as it has in Europe, and the 
 same aspirations after a better order of things. But their 
 tendencies are not nearer socialism, but further from it. 
 They simply cannot understand people who tell them the}* 
 have no power to work out their own salvation under the 
 system that is, and that nothing can be done, as Marx assures 
 them, until every capital in Europe is ready for a simultaneous 
 revolution with New York and Chicago. The trade unions 
 accordingly ignore socialism. The Knights of Labour ex- 
 pressly repudiate it, and in the course of a very long pro- 
 gramme they hardly make a demand which has a taint even 
 of State-socialism. This " Noble Order of the Knights of 
 Labour " is a general association of working men to promote the 
 cause of labour, partly by their own efforts and partly through 
 the Government. By their own efforts they are to promote 
 co-operation till, if possible, it supersedes the present wages 
 system entirely ; equality of wages for men and women for 
 equal work ; a general eight hours day through a general 
 strike ; and a system of arbitration in trade quarrels. From the 
 Union Legislature they want merely a few general reforms, none 
 bearing directly on the situation of labour, except the abolition 
 of foreign contract labour. The others are, reform of the 
 currency, nationalization of telegraphs and railways, and the 
 institution of banking facilities of various kinds in connection 
 with the Post Office. From the State Legislatures they ask 
 the reservation of public lands to actual settlers, the simpli- 
 fication of the administration of justice, factory legislation, 
 graduated income tax, and the following provisions for labour : 
 weekly payment of wages in money, mechanic's lien on the pro- 
 duct of his labour for his wages, compulsory arbitration in trade
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 8^5 
 
 o j \j 
 
 disputes, prohibition of labour of children under fifteen. In 
 1886 they were 702.884 strong, but they have declined sorely 
 since then. Their great weapon was to be an extension 
 of strikes and boycotting beyond what was possible to single 
 trades ; but it was found that this policy was double-edged, 
 and caused more hurt to some sections of the working class 
 than any good it could do to others ; and people lost faith 
 in the principle of such huge miscellaneous organizations. 
 Dr. Aveling contends that the Knights of Labour, in spite of 
 Mr. Powderly's disclaimer, are really, though it may be un- 
 consciously, socialists, because they want to supersede the 
 wages system, if they can, by establishing co-operative insti- 
 tutions without State aid ; and this, he holds, " is pure and 
 unadulterated socialism." Indeed ! then where is the man 
 who is not a pure and unadulterated socialist ? and what need 
 for any mission to the States to preach the socialist message 
 to the Americans for the first time in their own tongue ? 
 
 England was the country last reached by the present wave 
 of revolutionary socialism, although the system has been 
 largely conceived upon a study of English circumstances, and 
 is claimed to be peculiarly adapted to them. England is al- 
 ternately the hope and the despair of Continental socialists. 
 Every requisite of revolution is there, and yet the people will 
 not rise. The yeomanry are gone. The land has come into 
 the hands of a few. Industry is carried on by great centralized 
 capital. The large system of production has almost finished 
 its work. The mass of the people is a proletariat ; they are 
 thronged in large towns ; every tenth person is a pauper ; and 
 the great mansions of the rich cast an evil shadow into the 
 crowded dens of the wretched. " The English," says Eugene 
 Dupont, a leading member of the old International, " possess 
 all the materials necessary for the social revolution ; but they 
 lack the generalizing spirit and the revolutionary passion." 
 Any proletariat movement in which the English proletariat 
 takes no part, said Karl Marx, is " no better than a storm in a 
 glass of water " ; yet, though Marx himself resided in England 
 for most of his life, no organized attempt was made to gain 
 over the English proletariat to socialism till 1883 the year he 
 died. There was before that, indeed, a small English section in
 
 84 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 a foreign socialist club in Solio ; and, after the fall of the Paris 
 Commune, hopes were for a time entertained of starting a serious 
 socialist movement in our larger towns ; but these hopes proved 
 so delusive that Karl Marx said more than once to Mr. Hyndman, 
 as we are told by the latter, that he despaired " of any great move- 
 ment in England, unless in response to ome violent impetus 
 from without." But in 1883 a socialist movement seemed 
 to break out spontaneously in England, the air hummed for a 
 season with a multifarious social agitation, and we soon had 
 a fairly complete equipment of socialist organizations social 
 democratic, anarchist, dilettante which have ever since 
 kept up a busy movement with newspapers, lectures, debates 
 speeches, and demonstrations in the streets. 
 
 In 1883 the Democratic Federation, which had been estab- 
 lished two years before to promote measures of Radical 
 reform, including, among other things, the nationalization 
 of the land, adopted the socialistic principles of Karl Marx, 
 and changed its name to the Social Democratic Federation. 
 Its programme is long, and includes, besides the nationaliza- 
 tion of land and all means of production, direct legislation 
 by the people, direct election of all functionaries by adult 
 suffrage, gratuitous justice, gratuitous, compulsory, and equal 
 education, abolition of standing armies, Home Rule for Ire- 
 land, an eight hours day, State erection of workmen's 
 dwellings, to be let at bare cost, progressive income tax, pro- 
 portional representation, abolition of House of Lords, separa- 
 tion of Church and State, etc. Its principal founders were 
 Mr. William Morris, an artist, a great poet, and a manufacturer 
 exceptionally excellent in his arrangements with his work- 
 people; Mr. H. M. Hyndman, a journalist of standing and 
 ability ; Mr. J. Stuart Glennie, and Mr. Belfort Bax, both 
 authors of repute ; Dr. Aveling, a popular lecturer on science, 
 and son-in-law of Karl Marx ; Miss Helen Taylor, step-daughter 
 of John Stuart Mill ; and the Rev. Stewart Headlam. In 
 January, 1884, they started a weekly newspaper, Justice, and 
 a monthly magazine, To-Day, both of which still appear, and 
 began the active work of lecturing and founding branches. 
 But before the year was out, the old enemy of socialists, the 
 spirit of division, entered among them, and Mr. Morris, with
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 8 5 
 
 Dr. Aveling and Mr. Bax, seceded and set up an independent 
 organization called the Socialist League, with a separate 
 weekly organ, The Commonweal. The difference seems to 
 have arisen out of the common socialist trouble about the 
 propriety of mixing in current politics. The same disruptive 
 tendency has persisted in the two parts, and in the end of 
 1890, Mr. William Morris seceded from the Socialist League 
 with his local following at Hammersmith. 
 
 Neither of these revolutionary bodies has a complete organi- 
 zation like those of continental countries. They have never 
 held a Congress, either national or provincial. They consist 
 of a central committee in London, and detached local groups 
 in the provinces, and their membership is not accurately 
 known, but it is not extensive. It is in both cases declining, 
 and it has always been variable, young men joining for a year 
 or two, and then leaving. Their chief success has been 
 among the miners of the North of England, and they have 
 returned three members to the School Board of Newcastle. 
 There is one socialist member in Parliament, Mr. Cunningham 
 Graham, but he has not been returned on socialist principles 
 or by a socialist vote ; and hitherto the party has failed to 
 obtain any serious support at the elections. At the election 
 of 1885, Mr. John Burns, socialist candidate for Nottingham, 
 had only 598 votes out of a total poll of 11,064, and Mr. 
 J. "Williams, the socialist candidate for Hampstead, had only 
 27 out of a total of 4.722. Mr. Burns, however, has since 
 been returned to the London County Council, and will not 
 improbably succeed in being returned to Parliament at next 
 election. He is a working engineer, but is much the strongest 
 leader English socialism has produced, an orator of great 
 power, an excellent organizer, and the head and representative 
 of a new labour movement which is likely to play a con- 
 siderable part in the immediate future, and which is certainly 
 fermented with a good measure of socialistic leaven. The 
 New Unionism, as this movement is sometimes called, repre- 
 sents mainly the opinion of the new trade unions of 
 unskilled labour dockers and others which have sprung 
 into existence recently, and it was strong enough at the Trade 
 Union Congress in 1890 to carry the day against the old
 
 86 Contemporary Socialism, 
 
 unionism of the skilled trades by a considerable majority in 
 favour of the compulsory and universal eight hours day. But, 
 as Mr. T. Burt, M.P., the miners' parliamentary representa- 
 tive, said in his speech to the Eighty Club two months after- 
 wards, the New Unionism is, after all, only the young and 
 inexperienced unionism, and must needs run now through the 
 same kind of errors which the older trade unions have gone 
 through before, but will, like the older unions, learn, by dis- 
 cussion and experiment, to keep within the lines of practicable 
 and beneficial action. However that may be, for the moment, 
 at any rate, the fortunes of English socialism seem to lie 
 with Mr. John Burns and his labour movement, and not with 
 the two socialist organizations which appear to have already 
 reached their height, and to be now on the decline. 
 
 A well-informed German writer lately warned us that anar- 
 chism had brought its headquarters to London, that it was 
 coming into relations with the English population through 
 its clubs and newspapers, and he ventured to prophesy that 
 we should certainly have soon an anarchist fire to extinguish 
 on our own hearth much more serious than Germany or Austria 
 has had to encounter. So far, however, there is little to 
 support such a prophecy. There are four small anarchist 
 clubs in London three of them German clubs, which live at 
 strife with one another, and the fourth a Russian or Polish 
 club, whose members have few or no dealings with the Ger- 
 mans. The German anarchists publish two weekly news- 
 papers in German, which it is their great business to smuggle 
 into the Fatherland, and the Russian or Polish anarchists 
 publish one in Yedish the German-Hebrew patois of the 
 Polish Jews which is printed for the entertainment of the 
 Polish tailors of the East End. Some of the principal anar- 
 chist leaders, it is true, live amongst us for example, Prince 
 Krapotkin and Victor Dave and under their influence a 
 group of English anarchists has grown up during the last 
 few years ; but this group has already, after the manner of 
 modern revolutionists, split on a point of doctrine into two 
 opposite camps, which, if we may judge from their respective 
 organs, The Anarchist and Freedom expend a considerable 
 share of their destructive energies upon one another. The
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 8 7 
 
 English anarchists have no permanent organization of any 
 kind, and the one group are for socialist anarchism, and the 
 other for individualist anarchism. On the whole the con- 
 version of the English by the anarchist refugees is not an 
 idea worthy of serious consideration ; a better and more likely 
 result would be that they would themselves, like Alexander 
 Herzen, the leading anarchist of the past generation, be con- 
 verted in England to more rational ideas of politics. Our 
 safety lies, however, not so much in the practical character 
 of our people, as in their habits of free and open discussion. 
 AVhat is called practicality is no safeguard against delusive ideas 
 outside one's own immediate field of activity, and there is 
 perhaps no country, except the still more practical country of 
 America, where more favour is shown than here to fanaticism 
 of any kind, if there seems to be heart in it. Besides, when we 
 hear it said, We have indeed an enormous proletariat, but they 
 are too practical to think of insurrection, we ought to reflect 
 that, to the miserable, the practical test of a scheme will not 
 be, Shall we be any the better for the change? but Shall 
 we be any the worse for it? But under free institutions 
 grievances always come to be ventilated ; ventilation leads to 
 more or less remedial measures, and discontent is removed 
 altogether, or, at any rate, appeased for the time ; and although 
 under free institutions ill-considered schemes which inflate that 
 discontent with delusive hopes may raise for a season a boom 
 of earnest discussion, the discussion eventually kills them. 
 So it seems to be with the fortunes of revolutionary socialism 
 in England to-day. It has been much discussed for six years, 
 but the height of the tide has been reached already, and the 
 movement is now apparently on the ebb. 
 
 Besides these manifestations of revolutionary socialism, we 
 have various societies representing an amateur and apprecia- 
 tive interest in socialism. There is the Christian Socialist 
 Society, a small body of less than 150 adherents, including 
 many clergymen and other members of the learned professions. 
 They must not be confounded with the Christian Socialists of 
 forty years ago, Maurice, Kingsley, and their allies, for the 
 survivors of this earlier movement, such as Judge Thomas 
 Hughes, Mr. Vansittart Neale, and Mr. J. M. Ludlow, do not
 
 88 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 belong to the present Christian Socialist Society, and would 
 repudiate its principles. They wanted to promote co-operation 
 without State interference, and they take a leading part in 
 the co-operative movement still ; but the Christian Socialist 
 Society of the present day is all for State interference, and 
 the articles of its organ, the Christian Socialist, strongly 
 support the doctrines of Karl Marx, and declare that " the 
 command, ' Thou shalt not steal,' if impartially applied, must 
 absolutely prohibit" the capitalist, as such, from deriving any 
 revenue whatever from the labourer's toil." But with all 
 their will to believe with the Marxists, the latter are not sure 
 of them, and the socialist organs, Justice and To-Day, twit them 
 one day for not being Christians, and the next for not being 
 socialists. They are not men of the same mark as the earlier 
 body of English Christian socialists, Canon Shuttleworth and 
 Mr. Stewart Headlam being the two best known of them. 
 The Guild of St. Matthew, which is composed to some extent 
 of the same personnel as the Christian Socialist Society, has 
 published a compendium of Christian socialism, and strives, 
 among other branches of its activity, to cultivate good rela- 
 tions between socialists and the Church 
 
 The Fabian Society, again, is a debating club of mixed 
 socialism. It contains socialists of all feathers revolutionary 
 socialists and philosophical socialists, Christian socialists and 
 un-Christian socialists who meet together under its auspices 
 and exchange their views, without having any recognised end 
 beyond the discussion. They intervened lately, however, in 
 the eight hours day controversy, and drafted a bill for a com- 
 pulsory measure on the subject which attracted some public 
 attention. Among the principal members are Mr. Sidney 
 "Webb, a well-known writer and lecturer on economic subjects, 
 Mr. G. Bernard Shaw, journalist, Mrs. Besant, and Mr. "W. 
 Clarke. They have published a volume of Fabian Essays, 
 which has had a large sale. 
 
 No account of English socialism would be complete that 
 made no mention of the writings of Mr. Ruskin, which have 
 probably done more than any other single influence to imbue 
 English minds with sentiments and principles of a socialistic 
 character. But they have produced nothing in the nature of
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 89 
 
 a school or party more than perhaps some detached local 
 group ; such, for example, as the Sheffield Socialists, a small 
 body formed under Ruskinian inspiration, and the leadership 
 of Mr. E. Carpenter. 
 
 The outburst of socialist agitation in England in 1883 and 
 1884 was immediately preceded by a revival of popular in- 
 terest in an old and favourite subject of English speculation, the 
 nationalization of the land. Mr. Henry George had published 
 his " Progress and Poverty " in 1881, and in the same year the 
 Democratic Federation was established in London with land 
 nationalization for one of its principles, and Mr. A. R. Wallace, 
 the eminent naturalist, founded the Land Nationalization 
 Society. In 1882, Mr. Wallace contributed still further to 
 awaken discussion of the question by publishing his work on 
 u Land Nationalization," and the discussion was spread every- 
 where in 1883 by the appearance of a sixpenny edition of Mr. 
 George's remarkable work. Land nationalization in the hands 
 of Mr. Wallace has little in common with any form of con- 
 temporary socialism. He does not contemplate any inter- 
 ference with the present system of agricultural production ; 
 that is still to be conducted by capitalists and hired labourers, 
 as it is now. He merely proposes to abolish what is called 
 landlordism by the compulsory conversion of the present 
 tenant farmers into a body of yeomanry or occupying owners, 
 and his scheme differs from the more ordinary proposals for the 
 creation of peasant proprietors merely in two points : 1st which 
 is a very good proposal that he would leave part of the price 
 of the property to be paid in the form of a permanent annual 
 quitrent to the State ; and 2nd which is a more doubtful pro- 
 posal that this part should represent, as nearly as it is possible 
 now to calculate it, the original value of the soil apart from im- 
 provements of any kind or, in other words, the unearned part 
 of the present value of the property and that it should be 
 subject to periodical revision, with a view to recovering from 
 the holder any further unearned increments of value that may 
 accrue to his holding from time to time. Mr. Wallace, like 
 Mr. George, has very Utopian expectations from his scheme ; 
 but he would honestly buy up the rights of the existing land- 
 lords, while Mr. George would merely confiscate them by excep-
 
 go Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 tional taxation. This difference broke up the Land National- 
 ization Society in 1883, and the partisans of Mr. George's view 
 seceded and formed themselves into the English Land Restora- 
 tion League, which has established branches in most of the 
 larger towns, and has now probably a more numerous member- 
 ship than the original society. It is especially strong in 
 Scotland, and ran three candidates for Glasgow at the last 
 general election ; but the three only got 2,222 votes between 
 them, out of a total of 23,800 polled in the three divisions 
 they contested. The ideas of the League have a certain vogue 
 among the Highland crofters, where they blend very readily 
 with the universal peasant doctrines that the earth is the 
 Lord's, and that all other lords should be abolished. 
 
 In Scotland there are a good many branches of the two 
 regular socialist organizations. The Scottish Emancipation 
 League joined the Social Democratic Federation, and the 
 Scottish Land and Labour League joined the Socialist League ; 
 but it is remarkable that there is no socialism in Ireland, 
 except in a small branch of the Socialist League in Dublin, 
 called the Dublin Socialist Club, although it seems a miracle 
 for a country seething for centuries with political and econo- 
 mic discontent to escape such a visitation. Probably, as with 
 the Poles, the minds of the discontented are already too much 
 pre-occupied with other political and social solutions. The 
 land nationalization views of Mr. George are, of course, spread 
 widely through the influence of Mr. Michael Davitt in the 
 agrarian movement of Ireland. 
 
 But while the recent wave of socialism has passed over dis- 
 contented Ireland, and lef fc it, like Gideon's fleece, quite dry, 
 much more susceptibility has been shown by those parts of 
 the Empire where the lot of labour is, perhaps in all the world, 
 the happiest the Australian colonies. Here, too, the suscep- 
 tibility has been created to some extent by the land questions 
 of the country. Mr. George, in his recent lecturing tour 
 through these colonies, met with a warm welcome in almost 
 all the towns he visited, made many converts to his ideas, and 
 gave rise to a considerable agitation. In South Australia three 
 of his disciples were returned to the Legislature in 1887, and 
 their views are supported by several newspapers in Adelaide.
 
 The Progress and Present Position of Socialism. 9 1 
 
 In a new colony the argument for keeping the land in the 
 hands of the State has in some respects more point and force than 
 in an old. Mr. George's disciples in Sydney publish a paper 
 called the Land Nationalize); and his views are advocated by 
 one of the most influential papers in the colony, the Bulletin of 
 Sydney. In New Zealand a bill has actually been brought in 
 for the purpose of nationalizing the land. But apart from Mr. 
 George altogether, there is a flourishing Australian Socialist 
 League in Sydney, established in 1887, and with a membership 
 of 7,000 in 1888. It has a journal called the Radical, and keeps 
 up a busy agitation with lectures and discussions. As a method 
 of temporary policy it promotes associations of labourers for the 
 purpose of undertaking Government and municipal contracts. 
 In Melbourne, again, people are more advanced. They have 
 no socialist organization, but they have an anarchist club, 
 established in 1886 for the purpose of aiding social reform on 
 the lines of liberty, equality, and fraternity. It circulates the 
 works of Proudhon, Tucker, the Boston anarchist, Bakunin, 
 and Mr. Auberon Herbert ; and it publishes a newspaper called 
 Honesty, which appeared at first once a month, and latterly once 
 in two months. The ideas of the party are not easy to ascertain 
 exactly from the pages of their journal. The State is, of course, 
 the enemy, and land monopoly is one of the State's worst crea- 
 tions ; but some of the writers advocate land nationalization, 
 while others propound a scheme of what they call " construc- 
 tive anarchy," under which every man is to own the land he 
 occupies. They have started a new form of co-operative store, 
 a kind of mutual production society, whose members bind 
 themselves to produce for one another, and exchange their 
 products for the bare cost of production; and they have started 
 a co-operative home, in which the members get better and 
 cheaper accommodation through their combination. Melbourne 
 anarchism, however, has no harm in it : it is a mere spark of 
 eccentric speculation. The working class of Melbourne is 
 probably the most powerful and the best organized working 
 class in the world. In their Trades Hall they, have had for 
 thirty years a workmen's chamber of their own creating like 
 what German socialists are vainly asking from the State, and 
 much more effective, because more independent. They have
 
 92 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 secured the eight hours day to fifty-two different trades with- 
 out receiving a finger's help from the law, and without losing 
 a shilling of wages. They have, moreover, the voting power in. 
 their own hands. In fact, they are, as nearly as any working 
 class can be, in the precise condition socialists require for 
 revolutionary action. They are entirely dependent on a 
 handful of capitalists for their employment, and they have the 
 whole power of the State substantially under their own control ; 
 so that they might, if they chose, march to the Parliament 
 House with a red flag, and instal the socialist State to-morrow. 
 But they do not choose. They propose no change in the present 
 industrial system, and make surprisingly few demands of any 
 sort upon the State. The world goes very well with them 
 as it is, and they will not risk the comforts they really enjoy 
 to try any sweeping and problematical solutions. While the 
 socialist movement, in the countries where it is most advanced 
 and powerful, seems settling into a practical labour movement, 
 the labour movement, in the countries where it is most 
 advanced and powerful, is steering furthest and clearest from 
 socialism.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 FERDINAND LASSALLE. 
 
 GERMAN socialism is it is hardly too much to say the creation 
 of Ferdinand Lassalle. Of course there were socialists in 
 Germany before Lassalle. There are socialists everywhere. 
 A certain rudimentary socialism is always in latent circulation 
 in what may be called the " natural heart " of society. The 
 secret clubs of China " the fraternal leagues of heaven and 
 earth " who argue that the world is iniquitously arranged, 
 that the rich are too rich, and the poor too poor, and that the 
 wealth of the great has all accrued from the sweat of the 
 masses, only give a formal expression to ideas that are probably 
 never far from any one of us who have to work hard and earn 
 little, and they merely formulate them less systematically than 
 Marx and his disciples do in their theories of the exploitation 
 of labour by capital. Socialism is thus so much in the common 
 air we all breathe, that there is force in the view that the 
 thing to account for is not so much the presence of socialism, 
 at any time, as its absence. Accordingly it had frequently 
 appeared in Germany under various forms before Lassalle. 
 Fichte to go no farther back had taught it from the stand- 
 point of the speculative philosopher and philanthropist. 
 Schleiermacher, it may be remembered, was brought up in a 
 religious community that practised it. Weitling, with some 
 allies, preached it in a pithless and hazy way as a gospel to the 
 poor, and, finding little encouragement, went to America, to 
 work it out experimentally there. The Young Hegelians made 
 it part of their philosophic creed. The Silesian weavers, 
 superseded by machinery, and perishing for want of work, 
 raised it as a wild inarticulate cry for bread, and dignified it 
 with the sanction of tears and blood. And Karl Marx and 
 Friedrich Engels, in 1848, summoned the proletariat of the 
 
 93
 
 94 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 whole world to make it the aim and instrument of a universal 
 revolution. But it was Lassalle who first really brought it 
 from the clouds and made it a living historical force in the 
 common politics of the day. The late eminent Professor 
 Lorenz von Stein, of Vienna, said, in 1842, in his acute and 
 thoughtful work on French Communism, that Germany, unlike 
 France, and particularly England, had nothing to fear from 
 socialism, because Germany had no proletariat to speak of. 
 Yet, in twenty years, we find Germany become suddenly the 
 theatre of the most important and formidable embodiment of 
 socialism that has anywhere appeared. Important and for- 
 midable, for two reasons : it founds its doctrines, as socialism 
 has never done before, on a thoroughly scientific investigation 
 of the facts, and criticism of the principles, of the present 
 industrial regime, and it seeks to carry them out by means of a 
 political organization, growing singularly in strength, and based 
 on the class interests of the great majority of the people. 
 
 There were, of course, predisposing conditions for this out- 
 burst. . A German proletariat had come into being since Stein 
 wrote, and though still much smaller, in the aggregate, than 
 the English, it was perhaps really at this time the more 
 plethoric and distressed of the two. For the condition of the 
 English working-classes had been greatly relieved by emigra- 
 tion, by factory legislation, by trades unions, whereas in some 
 of these directions nothing at all, and in others only the 
 faintest beginnings, had as yet been effected in Germany. 
 Then, the stir of big political movement and anticipation was 
 on men's minds. The future of the German nation, its unity, 
 its freedom, its development, were practical questions of the 
 hour. The nationality principle is essentially democratic, and 
 the aspirations for German unity carried with them in every 
 one of the States strong movements for the extension of 
 popular freedom and power. This long spasmodic battle for 
 liberty in Germany, which began with the century, and 
 remains still unsettled, this long series of revolts and con- 
 cessions and overridings, and hopes nattered and again 
 deferred, this long uncertain babble of Gross-Deutsch and 
 Klein- Deutsch, and Centralist and Federalist and Particularist, 
 of " Gotha ideas " and " new eras " and " blood and iron,"
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 95 
 
 had prepared the public ear for bold political solutions, and 
 has entered from the first as an active and not unimportant 
 factor in the socialist agitation. Then, again, the general 
 political habits and training of the people must be taken into 
 account. Socialistic ideas would find a readier vogue in 
 Germany than in this country, because the people are less 
 rigidly practical, because they have been less used to the 
 sifting exercise of free discussion, and because they have 
 always seen the State doing a great deal for them which they 
 could do better for themselves, and are consequently apt to 
 visit the State with blame and claims for which it ought not 
 to be made responsible. Then the decline of religious belief in 
 German}*-, which the Church herself did much to produce when 
 she was rationalistic, without being able to undo it since she 
 has become orthodox, must certainly have impaired the 
 patience with which the poor endured the miseries of their lot, 
 when they still entertained the hope of exchanging it in a few 
 short years for a happier and an everlasting one hereafter. 
 
 All these circumstances undoubtedly favoured the success of 
 the socialistic agitation at the period it started ; but, when 
 everything is said, it is still doubtful whether German socialism 
 would ever have come into being but for Lassalle. Its fer- 
 menting principle has been less want than positive ideas. 
 This is shown by the fact that it was at first received among 
 the German working classes with an apathy that almost dis- 
 heartened Lassalle ; and that it is now zealously propagated by 
 them as a cause, as an evangel, even after they have emigrated 
 to America, where their circumstances are comparatively 
 comfortable. The ideas it contains Lassalle found for the 
 most part ready to his hand. The germs of them may be 
 discovered in the writings of Proudhon, in the projects of 
 Louis Blanc. Some of them he acknowledges he owes to 
 Bodbertus, others to Karl Marx, but it was in passing through 
 his mind they first acquired the stamp and ring that made 
 them current coin. Contentions about the priority of pub- 
 lishing this bit or that bit of an idea, especially if the idea be 
 false, need not concern us ; and indeed Lassalle makes no 
 claim to originality in the economical field. He was not so 
 much an inventive as a critical thinker, and a critical thinker
 
 96 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 of almost the first rank, with a dialectic power, and a 
 clear, vivid exposition that have seldom been excelled. Any 
 originality that is claimed for him lies in the region of 
 interpretation of previous thought, and that in the departments 
 of metaphyics and jurisprudence, not of economics. 
 
 The peculiarity of his mind was that it hungered with 
 almost equal intensity for profound study and for exciting 
 action, and that he had the gifts as well as the impulses for 
 both. As he said of Heraclitus the Dark, whom he spent some 
 of his best years in expounding, " there was storm in his 
 nature." Heine, who knew and loved him well as a young 
 man in Paris, and indeed found his society so delightful during 
 his last years of haggard suffering, that he said, " No one has 
 ever done so much for me, and when I receive letters from you, 
 courage rises in me, and I feel better," Heine characterizes 
 him very truly in a letter to Varnhagen von Ense. He says 
 he was struck with astonishment at the combination of 
 qualities Lassalle displayed the union of so much intellectual 
 power, deep learning, rich exposition on the one hand, with so 
 much energy of will and capacity for action on the other. 
 With all this admiration, however, he seems unable to regard 
 him without misgiving, for his audacious confidence, checked 
 by no thought of renunciation or tremor of modesty, amazed 
 him as much as his ability. In this respect he says Lassalle is 
 a genuine son of the modern time, to which Varnhagen and 
 himself had acted in a way as the midwives, but on which they 
 could only look like the hen that hatched duck's eggs and 
 shuddered to see how her brood took to the water and swam 
 about delighted. Heine here puts his finger on the secret of 
 his young friend's failure. Lassalle would have been a great 
 man if he had more of the ordinary restraining perceptions, 
 but he had neither fear nor awe, nor even in spite of his vein 
 of satire a wholesome sense of the ridiculous, in this last 
 respect resembling, if we believe Carlyle, all Jews. Chivalrous, 
 susceptible, with a genuine feeling for the poor man's case, and 
 a genuine enthusiasm for social reform, a warm friend, a 
 vindictive enemy, full of ambition both of the nobler and the 
 more vulgar type, beset with an importunate vanity and given 
 to primitive lusts ; generous qualities and churlish throve and
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 97 
 
 strove in him side by side, and governed or misgoverned a will 
 to which, opposition was almost a native and necessary element, 
 and which yet or perhaps rather, therefore brooked no 
 check. " Ferdinand Lassalle, thinker and fighter," is the 
 simple epitaph Professor Boeckh put on his tomb. Thinking 
 and fighting were the craving of his nature ; thinking and 
 fighting were the warp and woof of his actual career, mingled 
 indeed with threads of more spurious fibre. The philosophical 
 thinker and the political agitator are parts rarely combined in 
 one person, but to these Lassalle added yet a third, which 
 seems to agree with neither. He was a fashionable dandy, 
 noted for his dress, for his dinners, and, it must be added, for 
 his addiction to pleasure a man apparently with little of that 
 solidarity in his own being which he sought to introduce into 
 society at large, and yet his public career possesses an un- 
 doubted unity. It is a mistake to represent him, as Mr. L. 
 Montefiore has done, as a savan who turned politician as if by 
 accident and against his will, for the stir of politics was as 
 essential to him as the absorption of study. It is a greater 
 mistake, though a more common one, to represent him as 
 having become a revolutionary agitator because no other 
 political career was open to him. He felt himself, it is said, 
 like a Caesar out of employ, disqualified for all legitimate 
 politics by his previous life, and he determined, if he could not 
 bend the gods, that he would move Acheron. But so early as 
 1848, when yet but a lad of twenty-three, he was tried for 
 sedition, and he then declared boldly in his defence that he was 
 a socialist democrat, and that he was " revolutionary on prin- 
 ciple." This he remained throughout. He laughs at those 
 who cannot hear the word revolution without a shudder. 
 " Revolution," he says, " means merely transformation, and is 
 accomplished when an entirely new principle is either with 
 force or without it put in the place of an existing state of 
 things. Reform, on the other hand, is when the principle of 
 the existing state of things is continued, and only developed 
 to more logical or just consequences. The means do not 
 signify. A reform may be carried out by bloodshed, and a 
 revolution in the profoundest tranquillity. The Peasants' 
 "War was an attempt to introduce reform by arms, the inven- 
 
 H
 
 98 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 tion of the spinning-jenny wrought a peaceful revolution." 
 In this sense he was " revolutionary on principle." His 
 thought was revolutionary, and it was the lessons he learnt as 
 a philosopher that he applied and pled for an agitator. His 
 thinking and his fighting belonged together like powder and 
 shot. His Hegelianism, which he adopted as a youth at 
 college, is from first to last the continuous source both of 
 impetus and direction over his public career. Young Germany 
 was Hegelian and revolutionary at the time he went to the 
 University (1842), and with the impressionable Lassalle, then 
 a youth of seventeen, Hegelianism became a passion. He 
 wrote articles on it in University magazines, preached it right 
 and left in the cafes and taverns, and resolved to make philo- 
 sophy his profession and establish himself as a privat Docent at 
 Berlin University. It was the first sovereign intellectual 
 influence he came under, and it ruled his spirit to the end. 
 In adopting it, his intellectual manhood may be said to have 
 opened with a revolution, for his family were strict Jews, and 
 he was brought up in their religion. 
 
 Lassalle was born in 1825 at Breslau, where his father was a 
 wholesale dealer. He was educated at the Universities of Bres- 
 lau and Berlin, and at the latter city saw, through the Mendels- 
 sohns, a good deal of the best literary society there, and made 
 the acquaintance, among others, of Alexander von Humboldt, 
 who used to call him a Wunderldnd. On finishing his curri- 
 culum, he went for a time to Paris, and formed there a close 
 friendship with H. Heine, who was an old acquaintance of his 
 family. He meant to qualify himself as privat Docent when he 
 returned, but was diverted from his purpose by the task of re- 
 dressing a woman's wrongs, into which he flew with the roman- 
 tic enterprise of a knight-errant, and which he carried, through 
 years of patient and zealous labour, to a successful issue. The 
 Countess Hatzfeldt had been married when a girl of sixteen to 
 a cousin of her own, one of the great nobles of Germany ; but 
 the marriage turned out most unhappily after a few years, and 
 she was obliged, on account of the maltreatment she suffered , 
 to live apart from her husband. His persecution followed her 
 into her separation. He took child after child from her, and 
 was now seeking to take the last she had left, her youngest
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 99 
 
 son. He allowed her very scanty and irregular support, while 
 he lavished his money on mistresses, and was, at this very 
 moment, settling on one of them an annuity of 1,000. This 
 state of things had continued for twenty years, and the Coun- 
 tess's own relations had, for family reasons, always declined to 
 take up her case. Lassalle, who had made her acquaintance in 
 Berlin, was profoundly touched by her story, and felt that she 
 was suffering an intolerable wrong, which society permitted 
 only because she was a woman, and her husband a lord. 
 Though not a lawyer, he resolved to undertake her case, and 
 after carrying the suit before thirty-six different courts, during 
 a period of eight years, he at length procured for her a divorce 
 in 1851, and a princely fortune in 1854, from which she re- 
 warded him with a considerable annuity for his exertions. 
 Lassalle's connection with this case not unnaturally gave rise 
 to sinister construction. It was supposed he must have been 
 in love with the Countess, and wanted to marry her, but this 
 was disproved by the event. Darker insinuations were made, 
 but had there been truth in them, it could not have escaped 
 the spies the Count sent to watch him, and the servants the 
 Count bribed to inform on him. Chivalry, vanity, and teme- 
 rity at the season of life when all three qualities are at their 
 height, account sufficiently for his whole conduct, and I see no 
 reason to doubt the explanation he himself gives of it. " Her 
 family," he states, " were silent, but it is said when men keep 
 silence the stones will speak. When every human right is 
 violated, when even the voice of blood is mute, and helpless 
 man is forsaken by his born protectors, there then rises 
 with right man's first and last relation man. You have 
 all read with emotion the monstrous history of the un- 
 happy Duchess of Praslin. Who is there among you that 
 would not have gone to the death to defend her ? Well, gentle- 
 men, I said to myself, here is Praslin ten times over. What is 
 the sharp death-agony of an hour compared with the pangs of 
 death protracted over twenty years ? What are the wounds a 
 knife inflicts compared with the slow murder dispensed with 
 refined cruelty throughout a being's whole existence ? What 
 are they compared with the immense woe of this woman, every 
 right of whose life has been trampled under foot, day after day,
 
 ioo Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 for twenty years, and whom they have first tried to cover with 
 contempt, that they might then the more securely overwhelm 
 her with punishment ? . . . The difficulties, the sacrifices, 
 the dangers did not deter me. I determined to meet false 
 appearances with the truth, to meet rank with right, to meet 
 the power of money with the power of mind. But if I had 
 known what infamous calumnies I should have to encounter, 
 how people turned the purest motives into their contraries, and 
 what ready credence they gave to the most wretched lies 
 well, I hope my purpose would not have been changed, but it 
 would have cost me a severe and bitter struggle." There seems 
 almost something unmodern in the whole circumstances of this 
 case, both in the oppression the victim endured, and in the 
 manner of her rescue. 
 
 In the course of this suit occurred the robbery of Baroness 
 von Meyerdorff's cassette, on which so much has been said. 
 The Baroness was the person already mentioned on whom 
 Count Hatzfeldt bestowed the annuity of 1,000. The Coun- 
 tess, on hearing of this settlement, went straight to her hus- 
 band, accompanied by a clergyman, and insisted upon him 
 cancelling it, in justice to his youngest son, whom it would 
 have impoverished. The Count at first promised to do so, but 
 after her departure, refused, and the Baroness set out for Aix 
 to get her bond effectually secured. Lassalle suspected the 
 object of her journey, and said to the Countess, in the presence 
 of two young friends, Could we not obtain possession of this 
 bond ? No sooner said than done. The two young men started 
 for Cologne, and one of them stole the Baroness's cassette, con- 
 taining the veritable deed, in her hotel, and gave it to the 
 other. They and Lassalle were all three successively tried for 
 their part in this crime. Oppenheim, who actually stole the 
 cassette, was acquitted ; Mendelssohn, who only received it, was 
 sent to prison ; and Lassalle, who certainly suggested the deed, 
 was found guilty by the jury, but acquitted by the judges. 
 Moral complicity of some sort was clear, but it did not amount 
 to a legal crime. Our interest with the transaction is merely 
 to discover the light it reflects on the character of the man. 
 It was a rash, foolish, and lawless freak, but of course the 
 ordinary motives of the robber were absent. The theft of the
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 101 
 
 cassette, however, was a transaction which his enemies never 
 suffered to be forgotten. 
 
 The theft of the cassette occurred in 1846 ; Lassalle was tried 
 for it in 1848, and was no sooner released than he fell into the 
 hands of justice on a much more serious charge. The dissolu- 
 tion of the first Prussian National Assembly in 1848, and the 
 gift of a Constitution by direct royal decree, had excited bitter 
 disappointment and opposition over the whole country. There 
 was a general agitation for combining to stop supplies by re- 
 fusing to pay taxes, in order thus " to meet force with force," 
 and this agitation was particularly active in the Rhine pro- 
 vinces, where democratic views had found much favour. Las- 
 salle even planned an insurrection, and urged the citizens of 
 Dusseldorf to armed resistance ; but the Prussian Government 
 promptly intervened, placed the town under a state of siege, 
 and threw Lassalle into jail. He was tried in 1849 for treason, 
 and acquitted by the jury, but was immediately afterwards 
 brought before a correctional tribunal on the minor charge of 
 resisting officers of the police, and sent to prison for six months. 
 It was in his speech at the former of these trials that he de- 
 clared himself a partisan of the Socialist Democratic Republic, 
 and claimed for every citizen the right and duty of active re- 
 sistance to the State when necessary. He had nothing but 
 scorn to pour on the passive resistance policy of the Parliament. 
 " Passive resistance is a contradiction in itself. It is like Lich- 
 tenberg's knife, without blade, and without handle, or like the 
 fleece which one must wash without wetting. It is mere inward 
 ill-will without the outward deed. The Crown confiscates the 
 people's freedom ; and the Prussian National Assembly, for the 
 people's protection, declares ill-will ; it would be unintelligible 
 how the commonest logic should have allowed a legislative 
 assembly to cover itself with such incomparable ridicule if it 
 were not too intelligible." These are bold words. He felt 
 himself standing on a principle and representing a cause ; and 
 so he went into prison, he tells us, with as light a heart as he 
 would have gone to a ball ; and when he heard that his sister 
 had petitioned for his pardon, he wrote instantly and publicly 
 disclaimed her letter. 
 
 All these trials had brought Lassalle into considerable
 
 IO2 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 notoriety, not un mingled with a due recognition of his un- 
 doubted verve, eloquence, and brilliancy. One effect of them 
 was that he was forbidden to come to Berlin. This prohibition 
 was founded, of course, on his seditious work at Dusseldorf , but 
 is believed to have been instigated and kept up by the influ- 
 ence of the Hatzfeldt family. Lassalle felt it a sore privation, 
 for his ambitions and hopes all centred in Berlin. After various 
 ineffectual attempts to obtain permission, he arrived in the 
 capital one day in 1857 disguised as a waggoner, and through 
 the personal intercession of Alexander von Humboldt with the 
 king, was at length suffered to remain. His " Heraclitus " had 
 just appeared, and at once secured him a position in literary 
 circles. One of his first productions after his return to Berlin 
 was a pamphlet on " The Italian "War and the Mission of Prus- 
 sia ; a Voice from the Democracy," which shows that his poli- 
 tical prosecutions had not soured him against Prussia. His 
 argument is that freedom and democracy must in Germany, as 
 in Italy, be first preceded by unity, and that the only power 
 capable of giving unity to Germany was Prussia, as to Italy, 
 Piedmont. He had more of the political mind than most revolu- 
 tionaries and doctrinaires, and knew that the better might be 
 made the enemy of the good, and that ideals could only be 
 carried out gradually, and by temporary compromises. He was 
 monarchical for the present, therefore, no doubt because he 
 thought the monarchy to be for the time the best and shortest 
 road to the democratic republic. His friend Rodbertus said 
 there was an esoteric and an exoteric Lassalle. That may be 
 said of all politicians. Compromise is of the essence of their 
 work. 
 
 During the next few years Lassalle's literary activity was 
 considerable. Besides a tragedy of no merit ("Franz von 
 Sickingen," 1859) and various pamphlets or lectures on Fichte, 
 on Lessing, on the Constitution, on Might and Right, he 
 published in 1861 the most important work he has left us, his 
 " System of Acquired Rights," and in 1862 a satirical com- 
 mentary on Julian Schmidt's " History of German Literature," 
 which excited much attention and amusement at the time. 
 His " System of Acquired Rights " already contains the germs 
 of his socialist views, and his pamphlet on the Constitution,
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 103 
 
 which appeared when the " new era " ended and the era of 
 Bismarck began, is written to disparage the Constitutionalism 
 of modern Liberals. A paper constitution was a thing of no 
 consequence ; it was merely declarative, not creative ; the 
 thing of real account was the distribution of power as it 
 existed in actual fact. The king and army were powers, the 
 court and nobility were powers, the populace was a power. 
 Society was governed by the relative strength of these powers, 
 as it existed in reality and not by the paper constitution that 
 merely chronicled it. Right is regarded as merely declarative 
 of might. It is thus easy to see why he should have more 
 sympathy with the policy of Bismarck than with the Liberals ; 
 and later in the same year he expounded his own political 
 position very completely in a lecture he delivered to a "Working 
 Men's Society in Berlin, on " The Connection between the 
 Present Epoch of History and the Idea of the "Working Class." 
 This lecture, to which I shall again revert, was an epoch in 
 his own career. It led to a second Government prosecution, 
 and a second imprisonment for political reasons; and it and 
 the prosecution together led to his receiving an invitation to 
 address a General "Working Men's Congress at Leipzig, in 
 February, 1863, to which he responded by a letter, sketching 
 the political programme of the working class, which was 
 certainly the first step in the socialist movement. 
 
 Attention was already being engaged on the work of in- 
 dustrial amelioration. The Progressist party, then including 
 the present National Liberals, had, under the lead of Schultze- 
 Delitzsch, been promoting trades unions and co-operation in 
 an experimental way, and the working classes themselves 
 were beginning to think of taking more concerted action for 
 their own improvement. The Leipzig Congress was projected 
 by a circle of working men, who considered the Schultze- 
 Delitzsch schemes inadequate to meet the case. This was 
 exactly Lassalle's view. He begins his letter by telling the 
 working men that if all they wanted was to mitigate some of 
 the positive evils of their lot, then the Schultze-Delitzsch 
 unions, savings banks, and sick funds were quite sufficient, 
 and there was no need of thinking of anything more. But if 
 their aim was to elevate the normal condition of their class,
 
 IO4 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 then more drastic remedies were requisite ; and, in the first 
 instance, a political agitation was indispensable. The Leipzig 
 working men had discussed the question of their relation to 
 politics at a previous congress a few months before, and had 
 been divided between abstaining from politics altogether, and 
 supporting the Progressist party. Lassalle disapproved of 
 both these courses. They could never achieve the elevation 
 they desired till they got universal suffrage, and they would 
 never get universal suffrage by backing the Progressists who 
 were opposed to it. He then explains to them how their 
 normal condition is permanently depressed at present by the 
 essential laws of the existing economic regime, especially by 
 " the iron and cruel law of necessary wages." The only real 
 cure was co-operative production, the substitution of associated 
 labour for wage labour ; for it was only so the operation of 
 this tyrannical law of wages could be escaped. Now co- 
 operative production, to be of any effective extent, must be 
 introduced by State help and on State credit. The State gave 
 advances to start railways, to develop agriculture, to promote 
 manufactures, and nobody called it socialism to do so. Why, 
 then, should people cry socialism if the State did a similar 
 service to the great working class, who were, in fact, not a class, 
 but the State itself. 96 per cent, of the population were 
 ground down by " the iron law," and could not possibly lift 
 themselves above it by their own power. They must ask the 
 State to help them, for they were themselves the State, and the 
 help of the State was no more a superseding of their own self- 
 help than reaching a man a ladder superseded his own climb- 
 ing. State help was but self-help's means. Now these State 
 advances could not be expected till the working class acquired 
 political power by universal suffrage. Their first duty was 
 therefore to organize themselves and agitate for universal 
 suffrage ; for universal suffrage was a question of the stomach. 
 The reception his letter met with at first was most dis- 
 couraging. The newspapers with one consent condemned it, 
 except a Feudalist organ here and there who saw in it an 
 instrument for damaging the Liberals. "What seemed more 
 ominous was the opposition of the working men themselves. 
 The Leipzig Committee to whom it was addressed did indeed
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 105 
 
 approve of it, and individual voices were raised in its favour 
 elsewhere, but in Berlin the working men's clubs rejected it 
 with decided warmth, and all over the country one working 
 men's club after another declared against it. Leipzig was 
 the only place in which his words seemed to find any echo, 
 and he went there two months later and addressed a meeting 
 at which only 7 out of 1,300 voted against him. "With this 
 encouragement he resolved to go forward, and founded, on the 
 23rd of Maj 7 , 1863, the General "Working Men's Association 
 for the promotion of universal suffrage by peaceful agitation, 
 after the model of the English Anti-Corn Law League. He 
 immediately threw himself with unsparing energy into the 
 development of this organization. He passed from place to 
 place, delivering speeches, establishing branches ; he started 
 newspapers, wrote pamphlets, and even larger works, published 
 tracts by Rodbertus, songs by Herwegh, romances by Yon 
 Schweitzer. But it was uphill work. South Germany was 
 evidently dead to his ideas, and even among those who followed 
 him in the North there were but few who really understood 
 his doctrines or concurred in his methods. Some were for 
 more " heroic " procedure, for raising fighting corps to free 
 Poland, to free Schleswig-Holstein, to free oppressed nation- 
 alities anywhere. Many were perfectly impracticable persons 
 who knew neither why exactly they had come together, nor 
 where exactly they would like to go. There were constant 
 quarrels and rivalries and jealousies among them, and he is 
 said to have shown remarkable tact and patience, and a genuine 
 governing faculty in dealing with them. Lassalle's hope was 
 to obtain a membership of 100,000 : with a smaller number 
 nothing could be done, but with 100,000 the movement would 
 be a power. In August, 1863, he had only enrolled 1,000 after 
 three months' energetic labour, which, he said, " would have 
 produced colossal results among a people like the French." 
 He was intensely disappointed, and asked, " When will this 
 foolish people cast aside their lethargy?" but meanwhile re- 
 pelled the suggestion of the secretary of the organization that 
 it should be at once dissolved. In August, 1864, another 
 year's strenuous work had raised their numbers only to 
 4,610, and Lassalle was completely disenchanted, and wrote
 
 io6 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Countess Hatzfeldt from Switzerland, shortly before his death, 
 that he was continuing President of the Association much 
 against his will, for he was now tired of politics, which was 
 mere child's play if one had not power. He seems to have 
 been convinced that the movement was a failure, and would 
 never become a force in the State. Yet he was wrong ; his 
 words had really taken fire among the working classes, and 
 kindled a movement which, in its curious history, has shown 
 the remarkable power of spreading faster with the checks it 
 encounters. It seems to have profited, not merely from 
 political measures of repression, but even from the internal 
 dissensions and divisions of its own adherents, and some persons 
 tell us that it was first stimulated into decided vigour by the 
 fatal event which might have been expected to crush it the 
 sudden and tragical death of its chief. 
 
 In the end of July, 1864, Lassalle went to Switzerland 
 ostensibly for the Righi whey cure, but really to make the 
 acquaintance of Herr von Donnigsen, Bavarian Envoy at 
 Berne, whose daughter he had known in Berlin, and wished 
 to obtain in marriage. It is one of the fatalities that entangled 
 this man's life in strange contradictions, that exactly he, a 
 persona ingratissima to Court circles, their very arch-enemy, 
 as they believed, should have become bound by deep mutual 
 attachment with the daughter of exactly a German diplomatist, 
 the courtliest of the courtly", a Conservative seven times refined. 
 They certainly cherished for one another a sincere, and latterly 
 a passionate affection, and they seem to have been well fitted 
 for each other. Helena von Donnigsen was a bright, keen- 
 witted, eccentric, adventurous young woman of twenty-five, 
 and so like Lassalle, even in appearance, that when she was 
 acting a man's part, years afterwards (in 1874), in some amateur 
 performance in the theatre of Breslau, Lassalle's native town, 
 many of the audience said, here was Lassalle again as he was 
 when a boy. Learning from a common friend in Berlin that 
 Lassalle was at the Righi, she made a visit to some friends in 
 Berne, and soon after accompanied them on an excursion to 
 that " popular " mountain. She inquired for Lassalle at the 
 hotel, and he joined the party to the summit. She knew her 
 parents would be opposed to the match, but felt certain that
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 107 
 
 her lover, with his gifts and charms, would be able to win 
 them over, and it was accordingly agreed that when she 
 returned to Geneva, Lassalle should go there too, and press his 
 suit in person. The parents, however, were inexorable, and 
 refused to see him ; and the young lady in despair fled from 
 her father's house to her lover's lodging, and urged him to 
 elope with her. Lassalle calmly led her back to her father's 
 roof, with a control which some writers think quite inexplicable 
 in him, but which was probably due to his still believing that 
 he would be able to talk the parents round if he got the 
 chance, and to his desire to try constitutional means before 
 resorting to revolutionary. Helena was locked in her room 
 for days alone with her excited brain and panting heart. For 
 days, father, mother, sister, brother, all came and laid before 
 her what ruin she was bringing 011 the family for a mere selfish 
 whim of her own. If she married a man so objectionable to 
 people in power, her father would be obliged to resign his 
 post, her brother could never look for one, and her sister, who 
 had just been engaged to a Count, would, of course, have to 
 give up her engagement. She was in despair, but ultimately 
 submitted passively to write to Lassalle, desiring him to con- 
 sider the matter ended, and submitted equally passively (for 
 she informs us herself) to accept the hand of Herr von Raco- 
 witza, a young "Wallachian Boyar, whom she had indeed been 
 previously engaged to, and sincerely liked and respected, 
 without in the eminent sense loving him. Lassalle had mean- 
 while wrought himself into a fury of excitement. Enraged 
 by her parents' opposition, enraged still more by their refusal 
 even to treat with him, enraged above all by his belief that 
 their daughter was being illegitimately constrained, he wrote 
 here, wrote there, tried to get the foreign minister at Munich 
 to interfere, to get Bishop Ketteler to use his influence, pro- 
 mised even to turn Catholic to please the Donnigsens, forget- 
 ting that they were Protestants. All in vain. At last two 
 of his friends waited by appointment on Herr von Donnigsen, 
 and heard from Helena's own lips that she was to be married 
 to the Boyar, and wished the subject no more mentioned. 
 She now tells us that she did this in sheer weariness of mind, 
 and with a confused hope that somehow or other the present
 
 zoS Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 storm would blow past, and she might have her Lassalle after 
 all. Lassalle, however, was overcome with chagrin ; and 
 though he always held that a democrat should not fight duels, 
 and had got Robespierre's stick, which he usually carried, as 
 a present for having declined one, he now sent a challenge 
 both to the father and the bridegroom. The latter accepted. 
 The duel was fought. Lassalle was fatally wounded, and died 
 two days after, on the 31st August, 1864, at the age of 39. 
 Helena married Herr von E-acowitza shortly afterwards, but he 
 was already seized with consumption, and she says she found 
 great comfort, after the tumult and excitement of the Lassalle 
 episode, in nursing him during the few months he lived after 
 their marriage. 
 
 The body was sent back to Germany, after funeral orations 
 from revolutionists of all countries and colours, and the Coun- 
 tess Hatzfeldt had made arrangements for similar funeral 
 celebrations at every halting place along the route to Berlin, 
 where she meant it to be buried, but at Cologne it was inter- 
 cepted by the police on behalf of the Lassalle family, and 
 carried quietly to Breslau, where, after life's fitful fever, he 
 was laid silently with his fathers in the Jewish burying- 
 ground of his native place. Fate, however, had not even yet 
 done with him. It followed him beyond the tomb to throw 
 one more element of the bizarre into his strangely compounded 
 history. Lest the death of the leader should prove fatal to the 
 cause, the Committee of the General Working Men's Associa- 
 tion determined to turn it, if possible, into a source of strength, 
 as B. Becker, his successor in the president's chair, informs us, 
 " by carrying it into the domain of faith." Lassalle was not 
 dead, but only translated to a higher and surer leadership. A 
 Lassalle cultus was instituted, and Becker says that many a 
 German working man believed that he died for them, and that 
 he was yet to come again to save them, This singular 
 apotheosis, which is neither creditable to the honesty of the 
 leaders of the socialist movement, nor to the intelligence of its 
 rank and file, was kept up by periodical celebrations among 
 those of the German socialists who are generally known as the 
 orthodox Lassalleans, down, at least, to the time of the Anti- 
 Socialist Law of 1878.
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 109 
 
 Lassalle's doctrines are mainly contained in his lecture on 
 " The Present Age and the Idea of the "Working Class," which 
 he delivered in 1862, and published in 1863, under the title of 
 the " Working Men's Programme," and in his " Herr Bastiat- 
 Schultze von Delitzsch, der Oekonomische Julian ; oder 
 Capital und Arbeit," Berlin, 1864. 
 
 In the " Working Men's Programme," the question of the 
 emancipation of the working class is approached and contem- 
 plated from the standpoint of the Hegelian philosophy of 
 history. There are, it declares, three successive stages of 
 evolution in modern history. First, the period before 1789, 
 the feudal period, when all public power was vested in, exer- 
 cised by, and emploj^ed for the benefit of, the landed class. It 
 was a period of privileges and exemptions, which were enjoyed 
 by the landed interests exclusively, and there prevailed a 
 strong social contempt for all labour and employment not 
 connected with the land. Second, the period 1789-1848, the 
 bourgeois period, in which personal estate received equal rights 
 and recognition with real, but in which political power was 
 still based on property qualifications, and legislation was 
 governed by the interests of the bourgeoisie. Third, the period 
 since 1848, the age of the working class, which is, however, 
 only yet struggling to the birth and to legal recognition. The 
 characteristic of this new period is, that it will for the first 
 time give labour its rights, and that it will be dominated by 
 the ideas, aspirations, and interests of the great labouring 
 class. Their time has already come, and the bourgeois age is 
 already past in fact, though it still lingers in law. It is 
 always so. The feudal period had in reality come to an end 
 before the Revolution. A revolution is always declarative and 
 never creative. It takes place first in the heart of society, and 
 is only sealed and ratified by the outbreak. " It is impossible 
 to make a revolution, it is possible only to give external legal 
 sanction and effect to a revolution already contained in the 
 actual circumstances of society. . . . To seek to make a 
 revolution is the folly of immature men who have no con- 
 sideration for the laws of history ; and for the same reason it 
 is immature and puerile to try to stem a revolution that has 
 already completed itself in the interior of society. If a revolu-
 
 1 1 o Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 tion exists in fact, it cannot possibly be prevented from 
 ultimately existing in law." It is idle, too, to reproach those 
 who desire to effect this transition with being revolutionary. 
 They are merely midwives who assist in bringing to the birth a 
 future with which society is already pregnant. Now, it is this 
 midwife service that Lassalle believed the working class at 
 present required. He says of the fourth estate what Sieyes 
 said of the third. What is the fourth estate ? Nothing ? 
 What ought the fourth estate to be ? Everything. And it 
 ought to be so in law, because it is so already in fact. The 
 bourgeoisie, in overthrowing the privileges of the feudal class, 
 had almost immediately become a privileged class itself. At 
 so early a period of the revolution as the 3rd of September, 
 1791, a distinction was introduced between active and passive 
 citizens. The active citizen was the citizen who paid direct 
 taxes, and had therefore a right to vote ; the passive citizen 
 was he who paid no direct taxes, and had no right to vote. 
 The effect of this distinction was to exclude the whole labour- 
 ing classes from the franchise ; and under the July Monarchy, 
 while the real nation consisted of some thirty millions, the 
 legal nation (pays legaT), the people legally possessed of poli- 
 tical rights, amounted to no more than 200,000, whom the 
 Government found it only too easy to manage and corrupt. 
 The revolution of 1848 was simply a revolt against this 
 injustice. It was a revolt of the fourth estate against the 
 privileges of the third, as the first revolution was a revolt 
 of the third against the privileges of the other two. Nor 
 were the privileges which the bourgeoisie had contrived 
 to acquire confined to political rights alone ; they included 
 also fiscal exemptions. According to the latest statistical 
 returns, it appeared that five-sixths of the revenue of Prussia 
 came from indirect taxation, and indirect taxes were always 
 taken disproportionately out of the pockets of the working 
 class. A man might be twenty times richer than another, but 
 he did not therefore consume twenty times the amount of 
 bread, salt, or beer. Taxation ought to be in ratio of means, 
 and indirect taxation so much favoured by the bourgeoisie 
 was simply an expedient for saving the rich at the expense of 
 the poor.
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. in. 
 
 Now, the revolution of 1848 was a fight for the emancipation 
 of the working class from this unequal distribution of political 
 rights and burdens. The working class was really not a class 
 at all, but was the nation ; and the aim of the State should be 
 their amelioration. ""What is the State?" asks Lassalle. 
 " You are the State," he replies. " You are ninety-six per 
 cent, of the population. All political power ought to be of you, 
 and through you, and for you ; and your good and ameliora- 
 tion ought to be the aim of the State. It ought to be so, be- 
 cause your good is not a class interest, but is the national 
 interest." The fourth estate differs from the feudal interest, 
 and differs from the 'bourgeoisie, not merely in that it is not a 
 privileged class, but in that it cannot possibly become one. It 
 cannot degenerate, as the bourgeoisie had done, into a privi- 
 leged and exclusive caste ; because, consisting as it does of the 
 great body of the people, its class interest and the common 
 good are identical, or at least harmonious. " Your affair is the 
 affair of mankind ; your personal interest moves and beats with 
 the pulse of history, with the living principle of moral develop- 
 ment." 
 
 Such then is the idea of the working class, which is, or is 
 destined to be, the ruling principle of society in the present 
 era of the world. Its supremacy will have important con- 
 sequences, both ethical and political. Ethically, the working 
 class is less selfish than the classes above it, simply because 
 it has no exclusive privileges to maintain. The necessity of 
 maintaining privileges always develops an assertion of personal 
 interest in exact proportion to the amount of privilege to be 
 defended, and that is why the selfishness of a class constantly 
 exceeds the individual selfishness of the members that compose 
 it. Now under the happier regime of the idea of labour, there 
 would be no exclusive interests or privileges, and therefore less 
 selfishness. Adam would delve and Eve would spin, and, con- 
 sciously or unconsciously, each would work more for the whole, 
 and the whole would work more for each. Politically, too, the 
 change would be remarkable and beneficial. The working 
 class has a quite different idea of the State and its aim from 
 the bourgeoisie. The latter see no other use in the State but to 
 protect personal freedom and property. The State is a mere
 
 112 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 night-watchman, and, if there were no thieves and robbers, 
 would be a superfluity ; its occupation would be gone. Its 
 whole duty is exhausted when it guarantees to ever} 7 individual 
 the unimpeded exercise of his activity as far as consistent with 
 the like right of his neighbours. Even from its own point of 
 view this bourgeois theory of the State fails to effect its pur- 
 pose. Instead of securing equality of freedom, it only secures 
 equality of right to freedom. If all men were equal in fact, 
 this might answer well enough, but since they are not, the 
 result is simply to place the weak at the mercy of the 
 powerful. Now the working class have an entirely different 
 view of the State's mission from this. They say the protection 
 of an equality of right to freedom is an insufficient aim for the 
 State in a morally ordered community. It ought to be sup- 
 plemented by the securing of solidarity of interests and com- 
 munity and reciprocity of development. History all along is 
 an incessant struggle with Nature, a victory over misery, 
 ignorance, poverty, powerlessness i.e., over unfreedom, 
 thraldom, restrictions of all kinds. The perpetual conquest 
 over these restrictions is the development of freedom, is the 
 growth of culture. Now this is never effected by each man 
 for himself. It is the function of the State to do it. The 
 State is the union of individuals into a moral whole which 
 multiplies a millionfold the aggregate of the powers of each. 
 The end and function of the State is not merely to guard 
 freedom, but to develop it ; to put the individuals who com- 
 pose it in a position to attain and maintain such objects, such 
 levels of existence, such stages of culture, power, and freedom, 
 as they would have been incapable of reaching by their own 
 individual efforts alone. The State is the great agency for 
 guiding and training the human race to positive and progres- 
 sive development ; in other words, for bringing human destiny 
 (i.e., the culture of which man as man is susceptible) to real 
 shape and form in actual existence. Not freedom, but develop- 
 ment is now the keynote. The State must take a positive 
 part, proportioned to its immense capacity, in the great work 
 which, as he has said, constitutes history, and must forward 
 man's progressive conquest over misery, ignorance, poverty, 
 and restrictions of every sort. This is the purpose, the essence,
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 113 
 
 the moral nature of the State, which she can never entirely 
 abrogate, without ceasing to be, and which she has indeed 
 always been obliged, by the very force of things, more or less 
 to fulfil, often without her conscious consent, and sometimes 
 in spite of the opposition of her leaders. In a word, the State 
 must, by the union of all, help each to his full development. 
 This was the earnest and noble idea of 1848. It is the idea of 
 the new age, the age of labour, and it cannot fail to have a 
 most important and beneficial bearing on the course of politics 
 and legislation whenever it is permitted to have free operation 
 in that sphere by means of universal and direct suffrage. 
 
 This exposition of Lassalle's teaching in his "Working Men's 
 Programme " already furnishes us with the transition to his 
 economic views. Every age of the world, he held, has its own 
 ruling idea, The idea of the working class is the ruling idea 
 of the new epoch we have now entered on, and that idea im- 
 plies that every man is entitled to a menschenwiirdiges Dasein, 
 to an existence worthy of his moral destiny, and that the State 
 is bound to make this a governing consideration in its legislative 
 and executive work. Man's destiny is to progressive civilization, 
 and a condition of society which makes progressive civilization 
 the exclusive property of the few, and practically debars the 
 vast mass of the people from participation in it, stands in the 
 present age self-condemned. It no longer corresponds to its 
 own idea. Society has long since declared no man shall be 
 enslaved ; society has more recently declared no man shall be 
 ignorant ; society now declares no man shall be without pro- 
 perty. He cannot be really free without property any more 
 than he can be really free without knowledge. He has been 
 released successively from a state of legal dependence and from 
 a state of intellectual dependence ; he must now be released 
 from a state of economic dependence. This is his final eman- 
 cipation, which is necessary to enable him to reap any fruits 
 from the other two, and it cannot take place without a complete 
 transformation of present industrial arrangements. It is a com- 
 mon mistake, he said, to think that socialists take their stand 
 on equality. They really take their stand on freedom. They 
 argue that the positive side of freedom is development, and if 
 every man has a right to freedom, then every man has a right 
 
 i
 
 H4 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 to the possibility of development. From this right, however, 
 they allege the existing industrial system absolutely excludes 
 the great majority. The freeman cannot realize his freedom, 
 the individual cannot realize his individuality, without a cer- 
 tain external economic basis of work and enjoyment, and the 
 best way to furnish him with this is to clothe him in various 
 ways with collective property. 
 
 Lassalle's argument, however, is still more specific than this. 
 In the beginning of his " Herr Bastiat-Schultze," he quotes a 
 passage from his previous work on " The System of Acquired 
 Rights," which he informs us he had intended to expand into 
 a systematic treatise on " The Principles of Scientific National 
 Economy." This intention he was actually preparing to fulfil 
 when the Leipzig invitation and letter diverted him at once 
 into practical agitation. He regrets that circumstances had 
 thus not permitted the practical agitation to be preceded by 
 the theoretical codex which should be the basis for it, but adds 
 that the substance of his theory is contained in this polemic 
 against Schultze-Delitzsch, though the form of its exposition 
 i? considerably modified by his plan of following the ideas of 
 Schultze's " Working Men's Catechism," and by his purpose 
 of answering Schultze's misplaced taunt of " half knowledge " 
 by trying to extinguish the economic pretensions of the 
 latter as completely as he had done the literary pretensions of 
 Julian Schmidt. " Every line I write," says Lassalle, with a 
 characteristic finality of self-confidence, " I write armed with 
 the whole culture of my century " ; and at any rate Schultze- 
 Delitzsch was far his inferior in economic as in other know- 
 ledge. In the passage to which I have referred, Lassalle says, 
 " The world is now face to face with a new social question, the 
 question whether, since there is no longer any property in the 
 immediate use of another man, there should still exist property 
 in his mediate exploitation i.e., whether the free realization 
 and development of one's power and labour should be the 
 exclusive private property of the owner of the instruments and 
 advances necessary for labour i.e., of capital ; and whether 
 the employer as such, and apart from the remuneration of his 
 own intellectual labour of management, should be permitted 
 to have property in the value of other people's labour i.e.,
 
 Ferdinand Las sal le. 1 1 5 
 
 whether he ought to receive what is known as the premium 
 or profit of capital, consisting of the difference between the 
 selling price of the product and the sum of the wages and 
 salaries of all kinds of labour, manual and mental, that have 
 contributed to its production." 
 
 His standing-point here, again, as always, belongs to the 
 philosophy of history to the idea of historical evolution with 
 which his Hegelianism had early penetrated him. The course 
 of legal history has been one of gradual but steady contraction 
 of the sphere of private property in the interests of personal 
 freedom and development. The ancient system of slavery, 
 under which the labourer was the absolute and complete 
 property of his master, was followed by the feudal system of 
 servitudes, under which he was still only partially proprietor 
 of himself, but was bound by law to a particular lord by one 
 or more of a most manifold series of specific services. These 
 systems have been successively abolished. There is no longer 
 property in man or in the use of man. No man can now be 
 either inherited or sold in whole or in part. He is his own, 
 and his power of labour is his own. But he is still far from 
 being in full possession of himself or of his labour. He cannot 
 work without materials to work on and instruments to work 
 with, and for these the modern labourer is more dependent 
 than ever labourer was before on the private owners in whose 
 hands they have accumulated. And the consequence is that 
 under existing industrial arrangements the modern labourer 
 has no more individual property in his labour than the ancient 
 slave had. He is obliged to part with the whole value of his 
 labour, and content himself with bare subsistence in return. 
 It is in this sense that socialist writers maintain property to 
 be theft not that subjectively the proprietors are thieves, but 
 that objectively, under the exigencies of a system of competi- 
 tion, they cannot help offering workmen, and workmen cannot 
 help accepting, wages far under the true value of their labour. 
 Labour is the source of all wealth, for the value of anything 
 that which makes it wealth is, on the economists' own show- 
 ing, only another name for the amount of labour put into the 
 making of it ; and labour is the only ground on which modern 
 opponents of socialism Thiers and Bastiat, for example think
 
 1 1 6 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the right of individual property can be established. Yet 
 on the methods of distribution of wealth that now exist, in- 
 dividual property is not founded on this its only justifiable 
 basis, and the aim of socialists is to emancipate the system of 
 distribution from the influence of certain unconscious forces 
 which, as they allege, at present disturb it, and to bring back 
 individual property for the first time to its natural and right- 
 ful foundation labour. Their aim is not to abolish private 
 property, but to purify it, by means of some systematic social 
 regulation which shall give each man a share more con- 
 formable with his personal merit and contribution. Even if 
 no question is raised about the past, it is plain that labour is 
 every day engaged in making more new property. Millions 
 of labouring men are, day after day, converting their own 
 brain, muscle, and sinew into useful commodities, into value, 
 into wealth. Now, the problem of the age, according to 
 Lassalle, is this, whether this unmade property of the future 
 should not become genuine labour property, and its value 
 remain greatly more than at present in the hands that 
 actually produced it. 
 
 This, he holds, can only be done by a fundamental recon- 
 struction of the present industrial system, and by new methods 
 of determining the remuneration of the labouring class. For 
 there is a profound contradiction in the present system. It 
 is unprecedentedly communistic in production, and unpre- 
 cedentedly individualistic in distribution. Now there ought to 
 be as real a joint participation in the product, as there is 
 already a joint participation in the work. Capital must be- 
 come the servant of labour instead of its master, profits must 
 disappear, industry must be conducted more on the mutual 
 instead of the proprietary principle, and the instruments of 
 production be taken out of private hands and turned into 
 collective or even, it may be, national propsrty. In the old 
 epoch, before 1789, industrial society was governed by the 
 principle of solidarity without freedom ; in the period since 
 1789, by freedom without solidarity, which has been even 
 worse ; in the epoch now opening, the principle must be 
 solidarity in freedom. 
 
 Partisans of the present system object to any social inter-
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 1 1 7 
 
 ference with the distribution of wealth, but they forget how 
 much how entirely that distribution is even now effected 
 by social methods. The present arrangement of property, 
 says Lassalle, is, in fact, nothing but an anarchic and unjust 
 socialism. How do you define socialism ? he asks. Socialism 
 is a distribution of property by social channels. Now this is 
 the condition of things that exists to-day. There exists, under 
 the guise of individual production, a distribution of property 
 by means of purely objective movements of society. For there 
 is a certain natural solidarity in things as they are, only being 
 under no rational control, it operates as a wild natural force, 
 as a kind of fate destroying all rational freedom and all rational 
 responsibility in economic affairs. In a sense, there never 
 was more solidarity than there is now ; there never was so 
 much interdependence. Under the large system of production, 
 masses of workmen are simply so many component parts of a 
 single great machine driven by the judgment or recklessness 
 of an individual capitalist. With modern facilities of inter- 
 communication, too, the trade of the world is one and indivisible. 
 A deficient cotton harvest in America carries distress into 
 thousands of households in Iryons, in Elberfeld, in Manchester. 
 A discovery of gold in Australia raises all prices in Europe. 
 A simple telegram stating that rape prospects are good in 
 Holland instantly deprives the oil workers of Prussia of half 
 their wages. So far from there being any truth in the con- 
 tention of Schultze-Delitzsch, that the existing system is the 
 only sound one, because it is founded on the principle of 
 making every man responsible for his own doings, the very 
 opposite is the casa. The present system makes every man 
 responsible for what he does not do. In consequence of the 
 unprecedented interconnection of modern industry, the sum of 
 conditions needed to be known for its successful guidance have 
 so immensely increased that rational calculation is scarcely 
 possible, and men are enriched without any merit, and im- 
 poverished without any fault. According to Lassalle, in the 
 absence as yet of an adequate system of commercial statistics, 
 the number of known conditions is always much smaller than 
 the number of unknown, and the consequence is, that trade is 
 very much a game of chance. Everything in modern indus-
 
 1 1 8 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 trial economy is ruled by social connections, by favourable or 
 unfavourable situations and opportunities. Conjnnctur is its 
 great Orphic chain. Chance is its Providence Chance and 
 his sole and equally blind counsellor, Speculation. Every age 
 and condition of society, says Lassalle, tends to develop some 
 phenomenon that more particularly expresses its type and 
 spirit, and the purest type of capitalistic society is the 
 financial speculator. Capital, he maintains, is a historical and 
 not a logical category, and the capitalist is a modern product. 
 He is the development, not of the ancient Croesus or the 
 mediaeval lord, but of the usurer, who has taken their place, 
 but was in their lifetime hardly a respectable person. Croesus 
 was a very rich man, but he was not a capitalist, for he could 
 do anything with his wealth except capitalize it. The idea of 
 money making money and of capital being self-productive, 
 which Lassalle takes to be the governing idea of the present 
 order of things, was, he says, quite foreign to earlier periods. 
 Industry is now entirely under the control of capitalists specu- 
 lating for profit. No one now makes things first of all for his 
 own use as mythologizing economists relate and then ex- 
 changes what is over for the like redundant work of his 
 neighbours. Men make everything first of all, and last of all, 
 for other people's use, and they make it at the direction and 
 expense of a capitalist who is speculating for money, and, in 
 the absence of systematic statistics, is speculating in the dark. 
 Chance and social connections make him rich, chance and 
 social connections bring him to ruin. Capital is not the re- 
 sult of saving, it is the result of Conjunctur ; and so are the 
 vicissitudes and crises that have so immensely increased in 
 modern times. What you have now, therefore, says Lassalle, 
 is a system of socialism ; wealth is at present distributed by 
 social means, and by nothing else ; and all he contends for is, 
 as he says, to substitute a regulated and rational socialism for 
 this anarchic and natural socialism that now exists. 
 
 His charge against the present system, however, is more 
 than that it is anarchic ; he maintains it to be unjust organ- 
 ically and hopelessly unjust. The labourer's back is the green 
 table on which the whole game is played, and all losses are in 
 the end sustained by him. A slightly unfavourable turn of
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 119 
 
 things sends him at once into want, while even a considerably 
 favourable one brings him no corresponding advantage, for, 
 according to all economists, wages are always the last thing 
 to rise with a reviving trade. The present system is, in fact, 
 incapable of doing the labourer justice, and would not suffer 
 employers to do so even if they wished. Injustice is bred in 
 its very bone and blood. In this contention Lassalle builds 
 his whole argument on premises drawn from the accepted 
 economic authorities. Socialist economics, he says, is nothing 
 but a battle against Kicardo, whom he describes as the last and 
 most representative development of bourgeois economics ; and 
 it fights the battle with Bicardo's own weapons, and on 
 Bicardo's own ground. There are two principles in particular 
 of which it makes much use Bicardo's law of value and 
 Bicardo's law of natural or necessary wages. 
 
 Bicardo's law of value is that the value of a commodity, or 
 the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange, 
 depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary 
 for its production, and not on the greater or less compensation 
 which is paid for that labour. Value is thus resolved into so 
 much labour, or what is the same thing, so much time con- 
 sumed in labour, mental and manual, upon the commodity. 
 This reduction of value to quantity of time is reckoned by 
 Lassalle the one great merit of Bicardo and the English 
 economists. Bicardo, however, strictly limited his law to 
 commodities that admitted of indefinite multiplication, the 
 value of other commodities being, he held, regulated by their 
 scarcity ; and he confined it to the normal value of the com- 
 modities only, the fluctuations of their market-price depending 
 on other considerations. But Lassalle seeks to make it cover 
 these cases also by means of a distinction he draws between 
 individual time of labour, and socially necessary time of 
 labour. According to this distinction, what constitutes the 
 value of a product is not the time actually taken or required 
 by the person who made it ; for he may have been indolent or 
 slow, or may not have used the means and appliances which 
 the age he lived in afforded him. What constitutes value is 
 the average time of labour socially necessary, the time required 
 by labour of average efficiency using the methods the age
 
 I2O Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 supplies. If the commodity can be produced in an hour, an 
 hour's work will be its value, though you have taken ten to 
 produce it by slower methods. So far there is nothing very 
 remarkable, but Lassalle goes on to argue that you may waste 
 your time not merely by using methods that society has 
 superseded, but by producing commodities that society no 
 longer wants. You go on making shoe-buckles after they 
 have gone out of fashion, and you can get nothing for them. 
 They have no value. And why ? Because, while they indeed 
 represent labour, they do not represent socially necessary 
 labour. So again with over-production : you may produce a 
 greater amount of a commodity than society requires at the 
 time. The value of the commodity falls. Why? Because while 
 it has cost as much actual labour as before, it has not cost 
 so much socially necessary labour. In fact, the labour it has 
 taken has been socially unnecessary, for there was no demand 
 for the product. On the other hand and we are entitled to 
 make this expansion of Lassalle's argument take the case of 
 under-production, of deficient supply. Prices rise. What is 
 usually known as a scarcity value is conferred on commodities. 
 But this scarcity value Lassalle converts into a labour value ; 
 the commodity is produced by the same individual labour, but 
 the labour is more socially necessary. In plain English, there 
 is more demand for the product. 
 
 Lassalle's distinction is thus an ingenious invention for 
 expressing rarity value in terms of labour value. It has no 
 theoretical importance, but is of some practical service in the 
 socialistic argument. That argument is not that value is 
 constituted by labour pure and simple, but by labour modified 
 by certain general conditions of society; only it holds that 
 these conditions conditions of productivity, of rarity, of 
 demand have been created by nobody in particular, that, 
 therefore, nobody in particular should profit by them, and 
 that so far as the problem of the distribution of value goes, 
 the one factor in the constitution of value which needs to 
 be taken into account in settling that problem, is labour. 
 All value comes from labour, represents so much time of 
 labour, is, in fact, so much " labour-jelly," so much preserved 
 labour.
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 1 2 1 
 
 While one accepted economic law thus declares that all 
 value is conferred by the labourer, and is simply his sweat, 
 brain, and sinew incorporated in the product, another econo- 
 mic law declares that he gains no advantage from the pro- 
 ductivity of his own work, and that whatever value he 
 produces, he earns only the same wages bare customary 
 subsistence. In that lies the alleged injustice of the present 
 system. Von Thuenen, the famous Feudalist landowner and 
 economic experimentalist, said, many years ago, that when the 
 modern working class once began to ask the question, What 
 is natural wages ? a revolution might arise which would reduce 
 Europe to barbarism. This is the question Lassalle asked, 
 and by which mainly he stirred up socialism. The effect of 
 the previous argument was to raise the question, What is the 
 labourer entitled to get? and to suggest the answer, he is 
 entitled to get everything. The next question is, What, then, 
 does the labourer actually get ? and the answer is, that on the 
 economists' own showing, he gets just enough to keep soul 
 and body together, and on the present system can never 
 get any more. Ricardo, in common with other economists, 
 had taught that the value of labour, like the value of every- 
 thing else, was determined by the cost of its production, and 
 that the cost of the production of labour meant the cost of 
 the labourer's subsistence according to the standard of living 
 customary among his class at the time. Wages might rise for 
 a season above this level, or fall for a season below it, but they 
 always tended to return to it again, and would not permanently 
 settle anywhere else. When they rose higher, the labouring 
 class were encouraged by their increased prosperity to marry, and 
 eventually their numbers were thus multiplied to such a degree 
 that by the force of ordinary competition the rate of wages was 
 brought down again ; when they fell lower, marriages diminished 
 and mortality increased among the working class, and the result 
 was such a reduction of their numbers as to raise the rate of 
 wages again to its old level. This is the economic law of 
 natural or necessary wages " the iron and cruel law " which 
 Lassalle declared absolutely precluded the wage-labourers i.e., 
 96 per cent, of the population from all possibility of ever 
 improving their condition or benefiting in the least from the
 
 122 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 growing productivity of their own work. This law converted 
 industrial freedom into an aggravated slavery. The labourer 
 was unmanned, taken out of a relationship which, with all 
 its faults, was still a human and personal one, put under an 
 impersonal and remorseless economic law, sent like a com- 
 modity to be bought in the cheapest market, and there dis- 
 possessed by main force of competition of the value of the 
 property which his own hands had made. Das Eigenthum ist 
 Fremdthum geicorden. 
 
 It is no wonder that teaching like this should move the 
 minds of working men to an intolerable sense of despair and 
 wrong. Nor was there any possibility of hope except in a 
 revolution. For the injustice complained of lay in the essence 
 of the existing economic system, and could not be removed, 
 except with the complete abolition of the system. The only 
 solution of the question, therefore, was a socialistic recon- 
 struction which should make the instruments of production 
 collective property, and subordinate capital to labour, but such 
 a solution would of course be the work of generations, and 
 meanwhile, the easiest method of transition from the old order 
 of things to the new, lay in establishing productive associations 
 of working men on State credit. These would form the living 
 seed-corn of the new era. This was just Louis Blanc's scheme, 
 with two differences viz., that the associations were to be 
 formed gradually, and that they were to be formed voluntarily. 
 The State was not asked to introduce a new organization of 
 labour by force all at once, but merely to lend capital at 
 interest to one sound and likely association after another, as 
 they successively claimed its aid. This loan was not to be 
 gratuitous, as the French socialists used to demand in 1848, 
 and since there would be eventually only one association of 
 the same trade in each town, and since, besides, they would 
 also establish a system of mutual assurance against loss, trade 
 by trade, the State, it was urged, would really incur no risk. 
 Lassalle, speaking of State help, said he did not want a hand 
 from the State, but only a little finger, and he actually sought, 
 in the first instance at least, no more than Mr. Gladstone gave 
 in the Irish Land Act. The scheme was mainly urged, of 
 course, in the interests of a sounder distribution of wealth ; but
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 123 
 
 Lassalle contended that it would also increase production ; and 
 it is important to remember that he says it would not other- 
 wise be economically justifiable, because " an increase of 
 production is an indispensable condition of every improvement 
 of our social state." This increase would be effected by a 
 saving of cost, in abolishing local competition, doing away 
 with middle-men and private capitalists, and adapting produc- 
 tion better to needs. The business books of the association 
 would form the basis of a sound and trustworthy system of 
 commercial statistics, so much required for the purpose of 
 avoiding over-production. The change would, he thought, 
 also introduce favourable alterations in consumption, and in 
 the direction of production ; inasmuch as the taste of the 
 working class for the substantial and the beautiful, would 
 more and more supplant the taste of the bourgeoisie for the 
 cheap and nasty. 
 
 After the death of Lassalle, the movement he began departed 
 somewhat from the lines on which he launched it. 1st, His 
 plan of replacing capitalistic industry by productive associa- 
 tions of labourers, founded on State credit, had always seemed 
 a mockery, or, at least, a makeshift, to many of the socialists 
 of Germany. It would not -destroy competition, for one 
 association would still of necessity compete with another ; and 
 it would not secure to every man the right to the full product 
 of his labour, for the members of the stronger productive 
 associations would be able to exploit the members of the 
 weaker as the ordinary result of their inter-competition. In 
 other words, Lassalle's plan would not in their eyes realize the 
 socialist claim, as that claim had been taught to them, by 
 Marx. Their claim could only be realized by the conversion of 
 all industrial instruments into public property, and the system- 
 atic conduct of all industry by the public authority ; and why 
 not aim straight for that result, they asked, instead of first 
 bringing in a merely transitional period of productive associa- 
 tions,which would, on Lassalle's own calculations, take two hun- 
 dred years to create, and which might not prove transitional to 
 the socialist state after all ? Rodbertus even had gone against 
 Lassalle on this point, because he wanted to see individual 
 property converted into national property, and thought con-
 
 124 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 verting it first into joint stock property was really to prevent 
 rather than promote the main end he had in view. 
 
 Then, 2nd, Lassalle was a national, not an international 
 socialist. He held that every country should solve its own 
 social question for itself, and that the working-class movement 
 was not, and should not be made, cosmopolitan. He was 
 even as Prince Bismarck said in Parliament, when taxed with 
 having personal relations with him patriotic. At least he 
 was an intense believer in Prussia ; less, however, because he 
 was a Prussian than because Prussia was a strong State, and 
 because he thought that strong States alone could do the 
 world's work in Germany or elsewhere. By nationality in 
 itself he set but little store ; a nationality had a right to 
 separate existence if it could assert it, but if it were weak 
 and struggling, its only duty was to submit with thankfulness 
 to annexation by a stronger power. He wished his followers, 
 therefore, to keep aloof from the doings of other nations, and 
 to concentrate their whole exertions upon victory at the 
 elections in their own country and the gradual development 
 of productive associations on national loans. This restriction 
 of the range of the movement had from the first dissatisfied 
 some of its adherents, especially a certain active section who 
 hated Prussia as much as Lassalle believed in her, and after 
 the influence of the International began to make itself felt 
 upon the agitation in Germany, this difference of opinion 
 gathered gradually to a head. In 1868 a motion was brought 
 before the general meeting of the League in favour of estab- 
 lishing relations with the International and accepting its 
 programme. The chief promoters of this motion were the two 
 present leaders of the Social Democratic party in the Reichs- 
 tag, Liebknecht and Bebel, and it was strongly opposed by 
 the president of the League, Dr. von Schweitzer, an advocate in 
 Frankfort, and a strong champion of Prussia, who was elected 
 to the presidency in 1866, just at the time t*he extension of the 
 suffrage gave a fresh impetus to the movement, and whose 
 energy and gifts of management contributed greatly to the 
 development of the organization. The motion was carried by 
 a substantial majority, but before next year Von Schweitzer 
 had succeeded in turning the tables on his opponents, and at
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 125 
 
 the general meeting in 1869, Liebknecht and Bebel were 
 expelled from the League, as traitors to the labourers' cause. 
 After their expulsion they called together in the same year a 
 congress of working men at Eisenach, which was attended 
 mainly by delegates from Austria and South Germany, and 
 founded an independent organization on the principles of the 
 International, and under the name of the Social Democratic 
 Labour Party of Germany. The two organizations existed 
 side by side till 187-1, when a union was effected between them 
 at a general meeting at Gotha, and they became henceforth 
 the Socialist Labour Party. This was the burial of the 
 national socialism of Lassalle, for though in deference to his 
 followers, the new programme promised in the meantime to 
 work within national limits, it expressly recognised that the 
 labourers' movement was international, and that the great aim 
 to be striven after was a state of society in which every man 
 should be obliged to share in the general labour according to 
 his powers, and have a right to receive from the aggregate 
 product of labour according to what was termed his rational 
 requirements. Some " orthodox Lassalleans," as they called 
 themselves, held aloof from this compromise, b.ut they are too 
 few to be of any importance. They still remain apart from 
 the main body of German socialism, and live in such good 
 odour with the Government, whether on account of their 
 unimportance or of their supposed loyalty, that they were never 
 molested by any application of the Socialist Laws which were 
 enforced for twelve years strenuously against all other socialists. 
 Among the causes which brought the others to so much 
 unanimity was undoubtedly the establishment of the German 
 Empire in 1871, which was viewed with universal aversion 
 by socialists of every shade. On the outbreak of the war, 
 Schweitzer and the members of the original League gave their 
 sympathies warmly to the arms of their country, and the 
 Social Democratic party was nearly equally divided on the 
 subject ; but after the foundation of the French Republic, 
 they all with one consent declared that the war ought now to 
 cease, and the socialist deputies, no matter which organization 
 they belonged to, voted without exception against granting 
 supplies for its continuance. They were likewise opposed to
 
 126 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the recognition of the title of Emperor and to the constitution 
 of the Empire, and indeed as republicans they could not be 
 anything else. From a recollection mainly of these votes 
 Prince Bismarck considered the movement to be unpatriotic 
 and hostile to the Empire, and accordingly suppressed its pro- 
 paganda in 1878, when its growth seemed likely to prove a 
 serious danger to an Empire whose stability was still far from 
 being assured by any experience of its advantages. The 
 socialists retorted upon this policy at their congress at Wyden, 
 Switzerland, in 1880, by striking out of their programme the 
 limitation of proceeding by legal means, on the ground that 
 the action of the Government having made legal means 
 impracticable, no resource was left but to meet force by force. 
 They thus threw aside the last shred of the practical policy of 
 Lassalle, and stood out thenceforth as a party of international 
 revolution. 
 
 The movement could, however, hardly help becoming inter- 
 national ; not, as some allege, because this is a peculiarity of 
 revolutionary parties ; on the contrary, other parties may also 
 exhibit it. What, for example, was the Holy Alliance but an 
 international league of the monarchical and aristocratic parties 
 against the advance of popular rights ? Nor is it a peculiarity 
 of the present time only. No doubt the increased inter- 
 communication and inter-dependence between countries now 
 facilitates its development. There are no longer nations in 
 Europe, said Heine, but only parties. But in reality it has 
 always been nearly as much so as now. Any party founded 
 on a definite general principle or interest may in any age 
 become international, and even what may seem unpatriotic. 
 The Protestants of France in the 16th century sought help 
 from England, and the Jacobites of England in the 18th 
 sought help from France ; just as the German socialists of 
 1870 sided with the French after Sedan, and the French 
 communists of 1871 preferred to see their country occupied 
 by the Germans rather than governed by the " Versaillais." 
 In all these cases the party principles were naturally inter- 
 national, and the party bias overcame the patriotic. 
 
 Besides, the socialist is, almost by necessity of his position 
 and principles, predisposed to discourage and condemn patriot-
 
 Ferdinand Lassalle. 127 
 
 ism. Others, indeed, condemn it as well as he. Most of the 
 great writers who revived German literature towards the 
 beginning of this century Lessing, Herder, Wieland, Goethe 
 have all disparaged it. They looked on it as a narrow and 
 obsolete virtue, useful enough perhaps in rude times, but a 
 hindrance to rational progress now; the modern virtue was 
 humanity, the idea of which had just freshly burst upon their 
 age like a new power. This consideration may no doubt to 
 some extent weigh with socialists also, for their whole thinking 
 is leavened with the notion of humanity, but their most 
 immediate objection to patriotism is one of a practical nature. 
 Their complaint used always to be that the proletarian had 
 no country, because he was excluded from political rights. He 
 was not a citizen, and why should he have the feelings of 
 one? But now he has got political rights, and they still 
 complain. He is in the country, they say, but not yet of it. 
 He is practically excluded from its civilization, from all that 
 makes the country worth living or fighting for. He has no 
 country, for he is denied a man's share in the life that is 
 going in any. Edmund Ludlow wrote over his door in exile 
 
 " Every land is my fatherland, 
 For all lands are my Father's." 
 
 The modern socialist says, No land is my fatherland, for in 
 none am I a son. He believes himself to be equally neglected 
 in all, and that is precisely the severest strain that can try 
 the patriotic sentiment. The proletarian is taught that in 
 every country he is a slave, and that patriotism and religion 
 only reconcile him to remaining so. Moreover, as B,od- 
 bertus has remarked, the social question itself is, in a sense, 
 international because it is social.
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 KARL MARX. 
 
 IN opening the present chapter in the previous edition of this 
 book, I said it was not a little remarkable that the works of 
 Karl Marx, which had then excited considerable commotion 
 in other European countries, were still absolutely unknown 
 in England, though England was the country where they 
 were written, and to whose circumstances they were, in their 
 author's judgment, pre-eminently applicable. His principal 
 work, "Das Kapital," is a criticism of modern industrial develop- 
 ment as explained by English economists and exemplified in 
 English society. It shows a rare knowledge of English 
 economic literature, even of the most obscure writers ; it goes 
 very fully into the conditions of English labour as described 
 in our parliamentary reports; and out of four hundred odd 
 books it quotes, more than three hundred are English books. 
 Its illustrations are drawn from English industrial life, and 
 its very money allusions are stated in terms of English coin. 
 Its chief doctrine, moreover, was an old English doctrine, 
 familiar among the disciples of Owen ; and to crown all, if the 
 author's belief was true, England was the country ripest for 
 its reception, for the socialist revolution, he thought, would 
 inevitably come when the working class sunk into the condition 
 of a proletariat, and the working class of England had been 
 a proletariat for many years already. Yet Marx's work 
 was not at that time (1884) translated into English, though 
 it had been into most other European languages, and had 
 enjoyed a very large sale even in Russia, to whose circum- 
 stances it had admittedly very little adaptation. An English 
 translation appeared at length, however, in 1887, twenty years 
 after the publication of the original, and a considerable edition 
 was disposed of within a year, though the price was high. We 
 
 128
 
 Karl Marx. 129 
 
 have therefore grown more familiar of late with the name and 
 importance of Karl Marx. 
 
 Born at Treves in 1818, the son of a Christian Jew who 
 had a high post in the civil service, Marx was sent to the 
 University of Bonn, towards the end of the '30s, won a con- 
 siderable reputation there in philosophy and jurisprudence, 
 determined, like Lassalle, to devote himself to the academic 
 profession, and seemed destined for an eminently successful 
 career, in which his subsequent marriage with the sister of the 
 Prussian Minister of State, Von "Westphalen, would certainly 
 have facilitated his advancement. But at the University he 
 came under the spell of Hegel, and passed, step by step, with 
 the Extreme Left of the Hegelian school, into the philosophical, 
 religious, and political Radicalism which finally concentrated 
 into the Humanism of Feuerbach. Just as he had finished his 
 curriculum, the accession of Frederick William IV. in 1840 
 stirred a rustle of most misplaced expectation among the 
 Liberals of Germany, who thought the day of freedom was at 
 length to break, and who rose with generous eagerness to the 
 tasks to which it was to summon them. Under the influence 
 of these hopes and feelings, Marx abandoned the professorial 
 for an editorial life, and committed himself at the very outset 
 of his days to a political position which compromised him 
 hopelessly with German governments, and forced him, step 
 by step, into a long career of revolutionary agitation and 
 organization. He joined the staff of the Ehenish Gazette, which 
 was founded at that time in Cologne by the leading Liberals 
 of the Rhine country, including Camphausen and Hansemann, 
 and which was the organ of the Young Hegelian, or Philo- 
 sophical Radical Party, and he made so great an impression 
 by his bold and vigorous criticism of the proceedings of the 
 Rhenish Landtag that he was appointed editor of the news- 
 paper in 1842. In this post he continued his attacks on the 
 Government, and they were at once so effective and so carefully 
 worded that a special censor was sent from Berlin to Cologne 
 to take supervision of his articles, and when this agency 
 proved ineffectual, the journal was suppressed by order of the 
 Prussian Ministry in 1843. From Cologne Marx went to 
 Paris to be a joint editor of the Deutsche Franzosische Jahr- 
 
 K
 
 130 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Mcher with Arnold Ruge, a leader of the Hegelian Extreme 
 Left, who had been deprived of his professorship at the 
 University of Halle by the Prussian Government, and whose 
 magazine, the Deutsclie Jahrbiicher, published latterly at 
 Leipzig to escape the Prussian authority, had just been 
 suppressed by the Saxon. The Deutsche Franzoxische Jahr- 
 biicher were published by the well-known Julius Froebel, 
 who had some time before given up his professorship at 
 Zurich to edit a democratic newspaper, and open a shop 
 for the sale of democratic literature ; who professed himself a 
 communist in Switzerland, and had written some able works, 
 with very radical and socialistic leanings, but who seems to 
 have gone on a different tack at the time of the Lassallean 
 movement, for he was as Meding shows us in his " Memoiren 
 zur Zeitgeschichte " the prime promoter of the ill-fated 
 Congress of Princes at Frankfort in 1865. The new magazine 
 was intended to be a continuation of the suppressed Deutsche 
 Jahrbucher, on a more extended plan, embracing French as 
 well as German contributors, and supplying in some sort a 
 means of uniting the Extreme Left of both nations ; but no 
 French contribution ever appeared in it, and it ceased alto- 
 gether in a year's time, probably for commercial reasons, 
 though there is no unlikelihood in the allegation sometimes 
 made, that it was stopped in consequence of a difference 
 between the editors as to the treatment of the question of 
 communism. 
 
 The Young Hegelians had already begun to take the 
 keenest interest in that question, but were, for a time, 
 curiously perplexed as to the attitude they should assume 
 towards it. They seem to have been fascinated and repelled 
 by turns by the system, and to have been equally unable to 
 cast it aside or to commit themselves fairly to it. Karl 
 Griin, himself a Young Hegelian, says that at first they feared 
 socialism, and points, for striking evidence of this, to the fact 
 that the Rhenish Gazette bestowed an enthusiastic welcome on 
 Stein's book on French communism, although that book con- 
 demned the sj^stem from a theologically orthodox and politically 
 reactionary point of view. But he adds that the Young 
 Hegelians contributed to the spread of socialism against their
 
 Karl Marx. 131 
 
 will, that it was through the interest they took in its specula- 
 tions and experiments that socialism acquired credit and 
 support in public opinion in Germany, and that the earliest 
 traces of avowed socialism are to be found in the Rhenish 
 Gazette. If we may judge by the extracts from some of Marx's 
 articles in that journal which are given in Bruno Bauer's 
 " Vollstandige Geschichte der Parthei-Kampfe in Deutschland 
 wahrend der Jahre 1842-46," we should say that Marx was 
 even at this early period a decided socialist, for he often 
 complains of the great wrong " the poor dumb millions " suffer 
 in being excluded by their poverty from the possibility of a 
 free development of their powers, " and from any participation 
 in the. fruits of civilization," and maintains that the State had 
 far other duty towards them than to come in contact with 
 them only through the police. When Ruge visited Cabet in 
 Paris, he said that he and his friends (meaning, he explained, 
 the philosophical and political opposition) stood so far aloof 
 from the question of communism that they had never yet 
 so much as raised it, and that, while there were communists 
 in Germany, there was no communistic party. This state- 
 ment is probably equivalent to saying that he and his school 
 took as yet a purely theoretical and Platonic interest in socialism, 
 and had not come to adopt it as part of their practical pro- 
 gramme. Most of them were already communists by con- 
 viction, and the others felt their general philosophical and 
 political principles forcing them towards communism, and the 
 reason of their hesitation in accepting it is probably expressed 
 by Ruge, when he says (in an article in Heinzen's " Die 
 Opposition," p. 103), that the element of truth in communism 
 was its sense of the necessity of political emancipation, but 
 that there was a great danger of communists forgetting the 
 political question in their zeal for the social. It was chiefly 
 under the influence of the Humanism into which Feuerbach 
 had transformed the Idealism of Hegel, that the Hegelian 
 Left passed into communism. Humanist and communist 
 became nearly convertible terms. Friedrich Engels mentions 
 in his book on the condition of the English working classes, 
 published in 1845, that all the German communists of that 
 day were followers of Feuerbach, and most of the followers
 
 132 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 of Feuerbach in Germany (Ruge seems to have remained an 
 exception) were communists. Lassalle was one of Feuerbach's 
 correspondents, and after he started the present socialist move- 
 ment in Germany, he wrote Feuerbach on 21st October, 
 1863, saying that the Progressists were political rationalists 
 of the feeblest type, and that it was the same battle which 
 Feuerbach was waging in the theological, and he himself now 
 in the political and economic sphere. Stein attributed French 
 socialism greatly to the prevailing sensualistic character of 
 French philosophy, which conceived enjoyment to be man's 
 only good, and never rose to what he calls the great German 
 conception, the logical conception of the Ego, the idea of 
 knowing for the sake of knowing. The inference this con- 
 trast suggests is that the metaphysics of Germany had been 
 her protector, her national guard, against socialism, but as 
 we see, at the very time he was writing the guard was turning 
 traitor, and a native socialism was springing up by natural 
 generation out of the idealistic philosophy. The fact, how- 
 ever, rather confirms the force of Stein's remark, for the 
 Hegelian idealism first bred the more sensualistic system of 
 humanism, and then humanism bred socialism. 
 
 Hegel had transformed the transcendental world of current 
 opinion, with its personal Deity and personal immortality, into 
 a world of reason; and Feuerbach went a step further, and 
 abolished what he counted the transcendency of reason itself. 
 Heaven and God, he entirely admitted, were nothing but 
 subjective illusions, fantastic projections of man's own being 
 and his own real world into external spheres. But mind, an 
 abstract entity, and reason, a universal and single principle, 
 were, in his opinion, illusions too. There was nothing real 
 but man the concrete flesh and blood man who thinks and 
 feels. " God," says Feuerbach, speaking of his mental develop- 
 ment, " was my first thought, Reason my second, Man my 
 third and last." He passed, as Lange points out, through 
 Comte's three epochs. Theology was swept away, and then 
 metaphysics, and in its room came a positive and materialistic 
 anthropology which declared that the senses were the sole 
 sources of real knowledge, that the body was nob only part of 
 man's being, but its totality and essence, and, in short, that man
 
 Karl Marx. 133 
 
 is -what he eats Zter Mensch ist was er isst. Man, therefore, 
 had no other God before man, and the promotion of man's 
 happiness and culture in this earthly life which was his only 
 life was the sole natural object of his political or religious 
 interest. This system was popularized by Feuerbach's brother 
 Friedrich, in a little work called the " Religion of the Future," 
 which enjoyed a high authority among the German com- 
 munists, and formed a kind of lectionary they read and com- 
 mented on at their stated meetings. The object of the new 
 religion is thus described in it : " Man alone is our God, our 
 father, our judge, our redeemer, our true home, our law and 
 rule, the alpha and omega of our political, moral, public, and 
 domestic life and work. There is no salvation but by man." 
 And the cardinal articles of the faith are that human nature 
 is holy, that the impulse to pleasure is holy, that everything 
 which gratifies it is holy, that every man is destined and 
 entitled to be happy, and for the attainment of this end has the 
 right to claim the greatest possible assistance from others, and 
 tli duty to afford the same to them in turn. 
 
 Now the tendency of this metaphysical and moral teaching 
 was strongly democratic and socialistic. There was said to be 
 in the existing political system a false transcendency identical 
 with that of the current religious system. King and council 
 hovered high and away above the real life of society in a world 
 of their own, looking on political power as a kind of private 
 property, and careless of mankind, from whom it sprang, to 
 whom it belonged, and by whom and for whom it should be 
 administered. " The princes are gods," says Feuerbach, " and 
 they must share the same fate. The dissolution of theology 
 into anthropology in the field of thought is the dissolution of 
 monarchy into republic in the field of politics. Dualism, sepa- 
 ration is the essence of theology ; dualism, separation is the 
 essence of monarchy. There we have the antithesis of God 
 and world ; here we have the antithesis of State and people." 
 This dualism must be abolished. The State must be humanized 
 must be made an instrument in the hands of all for the wel- 
 fare of all ; and its inhabitants must be politized, for they, all 
 of them, constitute the polis. Man must no longer be a means, 
 but must be everywhere and always an end. There was no-
 
 134 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 body above man ; there was neither superhuman person, nor 
 consecrated person ; neither deity, nor divine right. And, on 
 the other hand, as there is no person who in being or right is 
 more than man, so there must be no person who is less. There 
 must be no unmenschen, no slaves, no heretics, no outcasts, no 
 outlaws, but every being who wears human flesh must be 
 placed in the enjoyment of the full rights and privileges of 
 man. The will of man be done, hallowed be his name. 
 
 These principles already bring us to the threshold of social- 
 ism, and now Feuerbach's peculiar ethical principle carries us 
 into its courts. That principle has been well termed Tuism, 
 to distinguish it from Egoism. The human unit is not the 
 individual, but man in converse with man, the sensual Ego 
 with the sensual Tu. The isolated man is incomplete, both as 
 a moral and as a thinking being. " The nature of man is con- 
 tained only in the community, in the unity of man with man. 
 Isolation is finitude and limitation, community is freedom and 
 infinity. Man by himself is but man ; man with man, the 
 unity of I and Thou, is God." Feuerbach personally never 
 became a communist, for he says his principle was neither 
 egoism nor communism, but the combination of both. They 
 were equally true, for they were inseparable, and to condemn 
 self-love would be, he declared, to condemn love to others at 
 the same time, for love to others was nothing but a recogni- 
 tion that their self-love was justifiable. But it is easy to per- 
 ceive the natural tendency of the teaching that the social man 
 was the true human unit and essence, and was to the indi- 
 vidual as a God. With most of his disciples Humanism meant 
 making the individual disappear in the community, making 
 egoism disappear in love, and making private property dis- 
 appear in collective. Hess flatly declared that " the species 
 was the end, and the individuals were only means." Huge 
 disputed this doctrine, and contended that the empirical indi- 
 vidual was the true human unit and the true end ; but even he 
 said that socialism was the humanism of common life. Griin 
 passes into socialism by simply applying to property Feuer- 
 bach's method of dealing with theology and monarchy. He 
 argues that if the true essence of man is the social man, then, 
 just as theology is anthropology, so is anthropology socialism,
 
 Karl Marx. 135 
 
 for property is at present entirely alienated, externalized from 
 the social man. There is a false transcendency in it, like that 
 of divinity and monarchy. " Deal, therefore," he says, " with 
 the practical God, money, as Feuerbach dealt with the theo- 
 retical " ; humanize it. Make property an inalienable posses- 
 sion of manhood, of every man as man. For property is a 
 necessary material for his social activity, and therefore ought 
 to belong as inalienably and essentially to him as everything 
 which he otherwise possesses of means or materials for his 
 activity in life ; as inalienably, for example, as his body or his 
 personal acquirements. If man is the social man, some social 
 possession is then necessary to his manhood, and might be 
 called an essential part of it ; but existing property is some- 
 thing outside, as separate from him as heaven or the sovereign 
 power. Griin accordingly says that Feuerbach's " Essence of 
 Christianity " supplies the theoretical basis for Proudhon's 
 social system, because the latter only applies to practical life 
 the principles which the former applied to religion and meta- 
 physics, but he admits that neither Feuerbach nor Proudhou 
 would acknowledge the connection. 
 
 We thus see how theoretical humanism a philosophy and 
 a religion led easily over into the two important articles of 
 practical humanism, a democratic transformation of the State 
 and a communistic transformation of society. This was the 
 ideal of the humanists, and it contains ample and wide-reach- 
 ing positive features ; but when it came to practical action they 
 preferred for the present to take up an attitude of simple but 
 implacable negation to the existing order of things. No doubt 
 variety of opinion existed among them ; but if they are to be 
 judged by what seemed their dominant interest, they were 
 revolutionaries and nothing else. They repudiated with one 
 consent the socialist Utopias of France, and refrained on prin- 
 ciple from committing themselves to, or even discussing, any 
 positive scheme of reconstruction whatsoever. They held it 
 premature to think of positive proposals, which would, more- 
 over, be sure to sow divisions among themselves. Their first 
 great business was not to build up, but to destroy, and their 
 work in the meantime was therefore to develop the revolu- 
 tionary spirit to its utmost possible energy, by exciting hatred
 
 136 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 against all existing institutions; in short, to create an immense 
 reservoir of revolutionary energy which might be turned to 
 account when its opportunity arrived. Their position is singu- 
 larly like the phase of Russian nihilism described by Baron. 
 Fircks, and presented to us in TurgeniefFs novels. It is ex- 
 pressed very plainly by W. Marr. himself an active humanist, 
 who carried Feuerbach's " Essence of Christianity " as his con- 
 stant companion, and founded a secret society for promoting 
 humanistic views. In his interesting book on Secret Societies 
 in Switzerland, he says, " The masses can only be gathered 
 under the flag of negation. "When you present detailed plans, 
 you excite controversies and sow divisions ; you repeat the 
 mistake of the French socialists, who have scattered their 
 redoubtable forces because they tried to carry formulated 
 systems. We are content to lay down the foundation of the 
 revolution. We shall have deserved well of it if we stir hatred 
 and contempt against all existing institutions. We make war 
 against all prevailing ideas, of religion, of the State, of country., 
 of patriotism. The idea of God is the keystone of a perverted 
 civilization. It must be destroyed. The true root of liberty, 
 of equality, of culture, is Atheism. Nothing must restrain the 
 spontaneity of the human mind." All this work of annihila- 
 tion could neither be done by reform, nor by conspiracy, but 
 only by revolution, and " a revolution is never made ; it makes 
 itself." While the revolution was making, Marr founded an 
 association in Switzerland, " Young Germany," which should 
 prepare society for taking effective action when the hour came. 
 There was a " Young Germany " in Switzerland when he 
 arrived there; part of a federation of secret societies established 
 by Mazzini in 1834, under the general name of "Young 
 Europe," and comprising three series of societies : " Young 
 Italy," composed of Italians; "Young Poland," of Poles; and 
 " Young Germany," of Germans. But this organization was 
 not at all to Marr's mind, because it concerned itself with 
 nothing but politics, and because its method was conspiracy. 
 " Great transformations," he said, "are never prepared by con- 
 spiracies," and it was a very great transformation indeed that 
 he contemplated. He therefore formed a " Young Germany " 
 of his own. His plan was to plant a lodge, or " family," wher-
 
 Karl Marx. 137 
 
 ever there existed a German working men's association. The 
 members of this family became members of the association, 
 and formed a leaven which influenced all around them, and, 
 through the wandering habits of the German working class, 
 was carried to much wider circles. The family met for poli- 
 tical discussion once a week, read Friedrich Feuerbach to- 
 gether on the Sundays with fresh recruits, who, when they 
 had mastered him, were said to have put off the old man ; and 
 their very password was humanity, a brother being recognised 
 by using the half-word human ? interrogatively, and the other 
 replying by the remaining half Hat. The members were all 
 ardent democrats, but, as a rule, so national in their sym- 
 pathies that the leaders made it one great object of their disci- 
 pUna arcani to stifle the sentiment of patriotism by subjecting 
 it to constant ridicule. 
 
 Their relations to communism are not quite easy to deter- 
 mine. Marr himself sometimes expresses disapproval of the 
 system. He says, " Communism is the expression of impotence 
 of will. The communists lack confidence in themselves. They 
 suffer under social oppression, and look around for consolation 
 instead of seeking for weapons to emancipate themselves with. 
 It is only a world-weariness desiring illusion as the condition 
 of its life." He says the belief in the absolute dependence of 
 man on matter is the shortest and most pregnant definition of 
 communism, and that it starts from the principle that man is 
 a slave and incapable of emancipating himself. But, on the 
 other hand, he complains that the members of " Young Ger- 
 many" did not sufficiently appreciate the social question, being 
 disgusted with the fanaticism of the communists. By the 
 communists, he here means the followers of "Weitling and 
 Albrecht, who were at that time creating a party movement 
 in Switzerland. The prophet Albrecht, as he is called, was 
 simply a crazy mystic with proclivities to sedition which 
 brought him at length to prison for six years, and which took 
 there an eschatological turn from his having, it is said, nothing 
 to read but the Bible, so that on his release he went about pro- 
 phesying that Jehovah had prepared a way in the desert, 
 which was Switzerland, for bringing into Europe a reign of 
 peace, in which people should hold all things in common and
 
 138 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 enjoy complete sensuous happiness, sitting under their common 
 vine and fig-tree, with neither king nor priest to make them 
 any more afraid. Weitling was not quite so unimportant, but 
 the attention he excited at the time is certainly not justified 
 by any of the writings he has left us. He was a tailor from 
 Magdeburg, who was above his work, believing himself to be a 
 poet and a man of letters, condemned by hard fate and iniqui- 
 tous social arrangements to a dull and cruel lot. Having 
 gone to Paris when socialism was the rage there, he eagerly 
 embraced that new gospel, and went to Switzerland to carry 
 its message of hope to his own German countrymen. There 
 he forsook the needle altogether, and lived as the paid apostle 
 of the dignity of manual labour, for which he had himself little 
 mind. His ideas are crude, confused, and arbitrary. His ideal 
 of society was a community of labourers, with no State, no 
 Church, no individual property, no distinction of rank or posi- 
 tion, no nationality, no fatherland. All were to have equal 
 rights and duties, and each was to be put in a position to 
 develop his capacity and gratify his bents as far as possible. 
 He was moved more by the desire for abstract equality than 
 German socialists of the humanist or contemporary type, for 
 they do not build on the justice of a more equal distribution of 
 wealth so much as on the necessity of the possession of pro- 
 perty for the free development of the human personality. He 
 is entirely German, however, in his idea of the government of 
 the new society. It was to be governed by the three greatest 
 philosophers of the age, assisted by a board of trade, a board of 
 health, and a board of education. In Switzerland he founded, 
 to promote his views, a secret society, the " Alliance of the 
 Just," which had branches in most of the Swiss towns. Its 
 members were chiefly Germans from Germany, for very few 
 'of the communists in Switzerland were born Swiss, and 
 according to Marr, who was present at some of their meetings, 
 they were three-fourths of them tailors. " I felt," says Marr, 
 " when I entered one of these clubs, that I was with the 
 mother of tailors. The tailor sitting and chatting at his work 
 is always extreme in his opinions. Tailor and communist are 
 synonymous terms." It was to some of the leaders of this 
 alliance that Weitling unfolded his wild scheme of a proleta-
 
 Karl Marx. 139 
 
 riat raid, according to which an army of 20,000 brigands was 
 to be raised among the proletariat of the large towns, to go 
 with torch and sword into all the countries of Europe, and 
 terrify the bourgeoisie into a recognition of universal commu- 
 nity of goods. It is only fair to add that his proposal met 
 with no favour. Letters were found in his possession, and 
 subsequently published in Bluutschli's official report, which 
 show that some of Weitling's correspondents regarded his 
 scheme with horror, and others treated it with ridicule. One 
 of them said it was trying to found the kingdom of heaven 
 with the furies of hell. The relations between " Young Ger- 
 many " and Weitling's allies were apparently not cordial, 
 though they had so much in common that, on the one hand, 
 "Weitling's correspondents urge him to keep on good terms 
 with " Young Germany," and, on the other, Marr says he 
 actually tried to get a common standing ground with the 
 communists, and thought he had found it in the negation of 
 the present system of things the negation of religion, the 
 negation of patriotism, the negation of subjection to authority. 
 Now the importance of this excursus on the Young Hegelians 
 lies in the fact that Karl Marx was a humanist, and looked on 
 humanism as the vital and creative principle in the renovation 
 of political and industrial society. In the Deutsche Franzos- 
 ische Jahrbilcher he published an article on the Hegelian 
 Philosophy of Right, in which he sa} 7 s : " The new revolution 
 will be introduced by philosophy. The revolutionary tradition 
 of Germany is theoretical. The Reformation was the work of 
 a monk ; the Revolution will be the work of a philosopher." 
 The particular philosophy that was to do the work is that of 
 the German critics, whose critique of religion had ended in the 
 dogma that man is the highest being for man, and in the 
 categorical imperative, " to destroy everything in the present 
 order of things that makes a man a degraded, insulted, for- 
 saken, and despised being." But philosophy cannot work a 
 revolution without material weapons ; and it will find its 
 material weapon in the proletariat, which he owns, however, 
 was at the time he wrote only beginning to be formed in 
 Germany. But when it rises in its strength, it will be irre- 
 sistible, and the revolution which it will accomplish will be the
 
 140 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 only one known to history that is not Utopian. Other revolu- 
 tions have been partial, wrought by a class in the interests of a 
 class ; but this one will be a universal and uniform revolution, 
 effected in the name of all society, for the proletariat is a 
 class which possesses a universal character because it dissolves 
 all other separate classes into itself. It is the only class that 
 takes its stand on a human and not a historical title. Its 
 very sorrows and grievances have nothing special or relative 
 in them; they are the broad sorrows and grievances of 
 humanity. And its claims are like them ; for it asks no 
 special privileges or special prerogatives ; it asks nothing but 
 what all the world will share along with it. The history of 
 the world is the judgment of the world, and the duration of an 
 order of things founded on the ascendancy of a limited class 
 possessing money and culture, is practically condemned and 
 foredoomed by the rapid multiplication of a large class outside 
 which possess neither. The growth of this latter body not 
 merely tends to produce, but actually is, the dissolution of the 
 existing system of things. For the existing system is founded 
 on the assertion of private property, but the proletariat is 
 forced by society to take the opposite principle of the negation 
 of private property for the principle of its own life, and will 
 naturally carry that principle into all society when it gains 
 the power, as it is rapidly and inevitably doing. Marx 
 sums up : " The only practical emancipation for Germany is 
 an emancipation proceeding from the standpoint of the theory 
 which explains man to be the highest being for man. In 
 Germany the emancipation from the middle ages is only 
 possible as at the same time an emancipation from the partial 
 conquests of the middle ages. In Germany one kind of bond 
 cannot be broken without all other bonds being broken too. 
 Germany is by nature too thorough to be able to revolutionize 
 without revolutionizing from a fundamental principle, and 
 following that principle to its utmost limits ; and therefore the 
 emancipation of Germany will be the emancipation of man. 
 The head of this emancipation is philosophy ; its heart is the 
 proletariat." He adds that when things are ripe, " when all 
 the inner conditions have been completed, the German resur- 
 rection day will be heralded by the crowing of the Gallic cock."
 
 Karl Marx. 141 
 
 In this essay we mark already Marx's overmastering belief 
 in natural historical evolution, which he had learnt from 
 Hegel, and which prevented him from having any sympathy 
 with the Utopian projects of the French socialists. They 
 vainly imagined, he held, that they could create a new world 
 right off, whereas it was only possible to do so by observing a 
 rigorous conformity to the laws of the development already in 
 progress, by making use of the forces already at work, and 
 proceeding in the direction towards which the stream of things 
 was itself slowly but mightily moving. Hegel sought the 
 principle of organic development in the State, but Marx 
 sought it rather in civil society, and believed he had discovered 
 it in that most mighty though unconscious product of the 
 large system of industry, the modern proletariat, which was 
 born to revolution as the sparks fly upward ; and in the 
 simultaneous decline of the middle classes, that is, of the con- 
 servative element which could resist the change. The process 
 which was, as he held, now converting society into an aggre- 
 gate of beggars and millionaires was bound eventually to 
 overleap itself and land in a communism. I shall not discuss 
 the truth of this conception at present, but it contributes, along 
 with the sentiments of justice and humanity that animate 
 rightly or wrongly the ideal of the socialists, to lend some- 
 thing of a religious force to their movement, for they feel that 
 they are fellow-workers with the nature of things. 
 
 "\\~e- left Marx in Paris, and on returning to him, we find 
 him engaged as indeed we usually do when his history comes 
 into notice in a threefold warfare. Besides his general war 
 against the arrangements of modern society, he is always 
 carrying on a bitter and implacable war against the Prussian 
 Government, and is often engaged in controversy sometimes 
 very personal with foes of his own philosophical or revolu- 
 tionary household. After the cessation of the Deutsche Franzos- 
 ische Jahrbticher, Marx edited a paper called Vorwarts, and in 
 this and other journals open to him, he attacked the Prussian 
 administration so strongly that that administration complained 
 to Guizot, who gave him orders to quit France. His more 
 personal controversy at this time arose out of one of the 
 schisms of the Young Hegelians, and he and his friend
 
 142 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Friedrich Engels wrote a pamphlet " Die Heilige Familie " 
 against the Hegelian Idealism, and especially against Bnmo 
 Bauer, who had offended him says Erdmaiin, in his " History 
 of Philosophy " at once as Jew, as Radical, and as journalist. 
 When expelled from France, he went to Brussels, where he 
 was allowed to continue his war upon the Prussian Govern- 
 ment without interference, till the revolution of 1848. During 
 this period he devoted his attention more particularly than 
 hitherto to commercial subjects, and published in 1846 his 
 " Discours sur le Libre-echange," and in 1847 his " Misere de 
 la Philosophie," a reply to Proudhon's " Philosophic de la 
 Misere " both in French. 
 
 While in Brussels, Marx received an invitation from the 
 London Central Committee of the Communist League to join 
 that society. This league had been founded in Paris in 1836, 
 for the purpose of propagating communist opinions among the 
 working men of Germany. Its organization was analogous to 
 that of the International and other societies of the same kind. 
 A certain number of members constituted a Gemeinde, the 
 several Gemdnden in the same town constituted a Kreis, a 
 number of Kreise were grouped into a leading Kreis, and at 
 the head of the whole was the Central Committee, which was 
 chosen at a general congress of deputies from all the Krei*<-, 
 and which had since 1840 had its seat in London. The method 
 of the league was to establish, as a sphere of operation, German 
 working men's improvement associations everywhere. The 
 travelling custom of German working men greatly facilitated 
 this work, and numbers of these associations were soon founded 
 in Switzerland, England, Belgium, and the United States. 
 The reason its committee applied to Marx was that he had just 
 published a series of pamphlets in Brussels, in which, as he 
 tells us, he " submitted to a merciless criticism the medley 
 of French-English socialism and communism and of German 
 philosophy, which then constituted the secret doctrine of the 
 League," and insisted that " their work could have no tenable 
 theoretical basis except that of a scientific insight into the 
 economic structure of society, and that this ought to be put 
 into a popular form, not with the view of carrying out any 
 Utopian system, but of promoting among the working classes
 
 Karl Marx. 143 
 
 and other classes a self-conscious participation in the process 
 of historical transformation of society that was taking place 
 under their eyes." This is always with Marx the distinctive 
 and ruling feature of his system. The French schemes were 
 impracticable Utopias, because they ignored the laws of history 
 and the real structure of economic society ; and he claims 
 that his own proposals are not only practicable but inevitable, 
 because they strictly observe the line of the actual industrial 
 evolution, and are thus, at worst, plans for accelerating the day 
 after to-morrow. But, besides this difference of principle, 
 Marx thought the League should also change its method and 
 tactics. Its work, being that of social revolution, was different 
 from the work of the old political conspirators and secret socie- 
 ties, and therefore needed different weapons ; the times, too, 
 were changed, and offered new instruments. Street insurrec- 
 tions, surprises, intrigues, pronunciamentos might overturn a 
 dynasty, or oust a government, or bring them to reason, but were 
 of no avail in the world for introducing collective property or 
 abolishing wage labour. People would just begin again the day 
 after to work for hire and rent their farms as they did before. 
 A social revolution needed other and larger preparation ; it 
 needed to have the whole population first thoroughly leavened 
 with its principles ; nay, it needed to possess an international 
 character, depending not on detached local outbreaks, but on 
 steady concert in revolutionary action on the part of the 
 labouring classes everywhere. The cause was not political, or 
 even national, but social ; and society which was indeed 
 already pregnant with the change must be aroused to a con- 
 scious consent to the delivery. What was first to be done, 
 therefore, was to educate and move public opinion, and in this 
 work the ordinary secret society went but a little way. A 
 secret propaganda might still be carried on, but a public and 
 open propaganda was more effectual and more suitable to the 
 times. There never existed greater facilities for such a move- 
 ment, and they ought to make use of all the abundant means 
 of popular agitation and intercommunication which modern 
 society allowed. No more secret societies in holes and corners, 
 no more small risings and petty plots, but a great broad 
 organization working in open day, and working restlessly by
 
 144 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 tongue and pen to stir the masses of all European countries 
 to a common international revolution. Marx sought, in short, 
 to introduce the large system of production into the art of 
 conspiracy. 
 
 Finding his views well received by the Central Committee of 
 the Communist League, he acceded to their request to attend 
 their General Congress at London in 1847, and then, after 
 several weeks of keen discussion, he prevailed upon the Con- 
 gress to adopt " the Manifesto of the Communist party," which 
 was composed by himself and Engels, and which was afterwards 
 translated from the German into English, French, Danish, 
 and Italian, and sown broadcast everywhere just before the 
 Revolution of 1848. This Communist League may be said to 
 be the first organization and this Communist Manifesto the 
 first public declaration of the International Socialist Demo- 
 cracy that now is. The Manifesto begins by describing the 
 revolutionary situation into which the course of industrial 
 development has brought modern society. Classes were dying 
 out ; the yeomanry, the nobility, the small tradesmen, would 
 soon be no more ; and society was drawn up in two widely 
 separated hostile camps, the large capitalist class or bourgeoisie, 
 who had all the property and power in the country, and the 
 labouring class, the proletariat, who had nothing of either. The 
 bourgeoisie had played a most revolutionary part in history. 
 They had overturned feudalism, and now they had created pro- 
 letarianism, which would soon swamp themselves. They had 
 collected the masses in great towns ; they had kept the course of 
 industry in perpetual flux and insecurity by rapid successive 
 transformations of the instruments and processes of production, 
 and by continual recurrences of commercial crises ; and while 
 they had reduced all other classes to a proletariat, they had made 
 the life of the proletariat one of privation, of uncertainty, 
 of discontent, of incipient revolution. They exploited the 
 labourer of political power ; they exploited him of property, 
 for they treated him as a ware, buying him in the cheapest 
 market for the cost of his production, that is to say, the cost of 
 his living, and taking from him the whole surplus of his work, 
 after deducting the value of his subsistence. Under the 
 system of wage labour, it could not be otherwise. Wages
 
 Karl Marx. 145 
 
 could never, by economic laws, rise above subsistence. 
 While wage labour created property, it created it always for 
 the capitalist, and never for the labourer ; and, in fact, the latter 
 only lived at all, so far as it was for the interests of the 
 governing class, the bourgeoisie, to permit him. Class rule and 
 wage labour must be swept away, for they were radically 
 unjust, and a new reign must be inaugurated which would be 
 politically democratic and socially communistic, and in which 
 the free development of each should be the condition for the 
 free development of all. 
 
 The Manifesto went on to say that communism was not the 
 subversion of existing principles, but their universalization. 
 Communism did not seek to abolish the State, but only the 
 bourgeois State, in which the bourgeois exclusively hold and 
 wield political power. Communism did not seek to abolish 
 property, but only the bourgeois system of property, under 
 which private property is really already abolished for nine- 
 tenths of society, and maintained merely for one-tenth. Com- 
 munism did not seek to abolish marriage and the family, but 
 only the bourgeois system of things under which marriage and 
 the family, in any true sense of those terms, were virtually 
 class institutions, for the proletariat could not have any family 
 life worthy of the name, so long as their wages were so low 
 that they were forced to huddle up their whole family regard- 
 less of all decency, in a single room, so long as their wives and 
 daughters were victims of the seduction of the bourgeoisie, and 
 so long as their children were taken away prematurely to 
 labour in mills for bourgeois manufacturers, who yet held up 
 their hands in horror at the thought of any violation of the 
 institution of the family. Communism did not tend to abolish 
 fatherland and nationality that was abolished already for the 
 proletariat, and was being abolished for the bourgeoisie, too, by 
 the extensions of their trade. 
 
 As to the way of emancipation, the proletariat must strive 
 to obtain political power, and use it to deprive the bourgeoisie 
 of all capital and means of production, and to place them in the 
 hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat itself organized as 
 a governing body. Now, for this, immediate and various 
 measures interfering with property, and condemned by our 
 
 L
 
 146 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 current economics, were requisite. Those measures would 
 naturally be different for different countries, but for the most 
 advanced countries the following were demanded : (1) Expro- 
 priation of landed property and application of rent to State 
 expenditure; (2) abolition of inheritance; (3) confiscation of 
 the property of all emigrants and rebels ; (4) centralization of 
 credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank, 
 with State capital and exclusive monopoly ; (5) centralization 
 of all means of transport in hands of State ; (6) institution of 
 national factories, and improvement of lands on a common 
 plan ; (7) compulsory obligation of labour upon all equally, and 
 establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture ; 
 (8) joint prosecution of agriculture and mechanical arts, and 
 gradual abolition of the distinction of town and country ; (9) 
 public and gratuitous education for all children, abolition of 
 children's labour in factories, etc. The Manifesto ends by say- 
 ing : " The communists do not saek to conceal their views 
 and aims. They declare openly that their purpose can only 
 be obtained by a violent overthrow of all existing arrange- 
 ments of society. Let the ruling classes tremble at a com- 
 munistic revolution. The proletariat have nothing to lose in 
 t but their chains ; they have a world to win. Proletarians of 
 all countries, unite ! " 
 
 When the French Revolution of February, 1848, broke out, 
 Marx was expelled without circumstance from Brussels, and 
 received an invitation from the Provisional Government of 
 Paris to return to France. He accepted this invitation, but 
 was only a few weeks in Paris when the German revolution of 
 March occurred, and he hastened to the theatre of affairs. 
 With his friends, Freiligrath, Wolff, En gels, and others, he 
 established on June 1st in Cologne the New Rhenish Gazette, 
 which was the soul of the Rhenish revolutionary movement, the 
 most important one of the year in Germany, and that in which, 
 as we have seen, the young Lassalle first emerged on the 
 troubled surface of revolutionary politics. After the coup d'etat of 
 November, dissolving the Prussian Parliament, the New Rhen- 
 ish Gazette strongly urged the people to stop paying their taxes, 
 and thus meet force by force. It inserted an admonition to 
 that effect in a prominent place in every successive number,
 
 Karl Marx. 147 
 
 and Marx was twice tried for sedition on account of this 
 admonition, but each time acquitted. The newspaper, how- 
 ever, was finally suppressed by civil authority after the 
 Dresden insurrection of May, 1849, its last number appearing 
 on June 19th in red type, and containing Freiligrath's well- 
 known " Farewell of the New Rhenish Gazette " spiritedly 
 translated for us by Ernest Jones which declared that the 
 journal went down with " rebellion " on its lips, but would 
 reappear when the last of the German Crowns was overturned. 
 
 Farewell, but not for ever farewell ! 
 
 They cannot kill the spirit, my brother ; 
 In thunder I'll rise on the field where I fell, 
 
 More boldl}' to fight out another. 
 "When the last of Crowns, like glass, shall break 
 
 On the scene our sorrows have haunted, 
 And the people its last dread " Guilty " shall speak, 
 
 By your side you shall find me undaunted. 
 On Rhine or on Danube, in war and deed, 
 
 You shall witness, true to his vow, 
 On the wrecks of thrones, in the midst of the field, 
 
 The rebel who greets you now. 
 
 This vow is no mere Parthian flourish of poetical defiance. 
 Freiligrath and his friends undoubtedly believed at this time 
 that the political movements of 1848 and 1849 were but pre- 
 liminary ripples, and would be presently succeeded by a great 
 flood-wave of revolution which they heard already sounding 
 along in their dangerously expectant ear. His poem on the 
 Revolution remains as evidence to us that in 1850 he still 
 clung to that hope, and it would not have been out of tune 
 with his sanguine beliefs of the year before if he promised, 
 not merely that the spirit of the journal would rise again, but 
 that its next number would be published, after the Deluge. 
 
 Meanwhile Marx went to London, where he remained for 
 the rest of his life. Finding that the revolutionary spirit did 
 not revive, and that historical societies, which have not lost 
 their moral and economic vitality, had a greater readjusting 
 power against political disturbance than he previously believed, 
 he gave up for the next ten or twelve years the active wort of 
 revolutionizing. The Communist League, which had got 
 disorganized in the revolutionary year, and was rent in two by
 
 148 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 a bitter schism in 1850, was, with his concurrence, dissolved 
 in 1852, on the ground that its propaganda was no longer 
 opportune ; and the story of the Brimstone League, with its 
 iron discipline and ogrish desires, of which Mehring says Marx 
 was, during his London residence, the head-centre, is simply a 
 fairy tale of Karl Vogt's, whose baselessness Marx has himself 
 completely exposed, Before leaving the Communist League, 
 two circumstances may be mentioned, because they repeat 
 themselves constantly in this revolutionary history. The one 
 is that this schism took place not on a point of doctrine, but of 
 opportunity ; the extremer members thought the conflict in 
 Germany on the Hessian question offered a good chance for a 
 fresh revolutionary outbreak, and they left the League because 
 their views were not adopted. The other is that in one of its 
 last reports (quoted by Mehring) the League definitely justifies, 
 and even recommends, assassination and incendiarism " the 
 so-called excesses, the inflictions of popular vengeance on hated 
 individuals, or on public buildings which revive hateful 
 associations." For the next ten years Marx lived quietly in 
 London, writing for the New York Tribune and other journals, 
 and studying modern industry on this its " classical soil.'' 
 He read much in the British Museum Library, gaining his 
 remarkable acquaintance with the English economic writers, 
 and it was probably in this period he elaborated his famous 
 doctrine of surplus value, with its corollary of the right of 
 the labourer to the full product of his labour. There can be 
 no doubt that the original suggestion of this doctrine came 
 from English sources, for it was taught more than a generation 
 before among the English socialists, notably by William 
 Thompson in his " Inquiry into the Principles of the Distri- 
 bution of "Wealth," which was published as early as 1824, and 
 is actually quoted by Marx in his work on Capital. Marx built 
 up the doctrine, however, into a more systematic form, and it 
 is through him and not through the Owenites it has come into 
 the present socialist movement in which it plays so conspicuous 
 a part. During this period of reading and rumination, 
 Marx published a pamphlet against Louis Napoleon ; another 
 against Lord Palmerston, which was widely circulated by 
 David Urquhart ; a third of a personal and bitter character
 
 Karl Marx. 149 
 
 against his fellow-socialist, Karl Vogt ; and a more solid and 
 important work, the "Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie " (1859), 
 the firstfruits of his new economic studies. But a revolu- 
 tionist never permanently gives up revolutionizing, and after 
 his prolonged abstinence from that excitement, Marx returned 
 to it again in 1864, on the foundation of the famous Inter- 
 national Working Men's Association. 
 
 The International was simply the Communist League raised 
 again from the dead. Their principles were the same ; their 
 constitution was the same ; and Marx began his inaugural 
 address to the International in 1864 with the very words that 
 concluded his Communistic Manifesto of 1847, " Proletarians of 
 all nations, unite ! " When the representatives of the English 
 working men first suggested the formation of an international 
 working men's association, in the address they presented in the 
 Freemasons' Tavern to the French working men who were 
 sent over at the instance of Napoleon III. to the London Exhi- 
 bition of 1862, they certainly never dreamt of founding an 
 organization of revolutionary socialist democracy which in a 
 few years to come was to wear a name at which the world 
 turned pale. Their address was most moderate and sensible. 
 They said that some permanent medium of interchanging 
 thoughts and observations between the working men of differ- 
 ent countries was likely to throw light on the economic secrets 
 of societies, a-nd to help onwards the solution of the great 
 labour problem. For they declared that that solution had not 
 yet been discovered, and that the socialist systems which had 
 hitherto professed to propound it were nothing but magnificent 
 dreams. Moreover, if the system of competition were to con- 
 tinue, then some arrangement of concord between employer 
 and labourer must be devised, and in order to assert the views of 
 the labouring class effectively in that arrangement, a firm and 
 organized union must be established among working men, not 
 merely in each country, but in all countries, for their interests, 
 both as citizens and as labourers, were everywhere identical. 
 Those ideas would constitute the basis of a very rational and 
 moderate programme. But when, in the following year, after 
 a meeting in favour of the Polish insurrection, which was held 
 in St. Martin's Hall under the presidency of Professor Beesly,
 
 150 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 and at -which some of the French delegates of 1862 were pre- 
 sent, a committee was appointed to follow up the suggestion, 
 this committee asked Marx to prepare a programme and sta- 
 tutes for the proposed association, and he impressed upon it at 
 its birth the stamp of his own revolutionary socialism. He never 
 had a higher official position in the International than corre- 
 sponding secretary for Germany, for it was determined, pro- 
 bably with the view of securing a better hold of the great 
 English working class and their extensive trade organizations, 
 that the president and secretary should be English working 
 men, and then, after a time, the office of president was abo- 
 lished altogether because it had a monarchical savour. But 
 Marx had the ablest, the best informed, and probably the most 
 made-up mind in the council ; he governed without reigning ; 
 and, with his faithful German following, he exercised an al- 
 most paramount influence on its action from first to last, in 
 spite of occasional revolts and intrigues against an authority 
 which democratic jealousy resented as dictatorial, or worse 
 still monarchical. The statutes of the association, which were 
 adopted at the Geneva Congress of 1866, declared that " the 
 economic subjection of the labourer to the possessor of the 
 means of labour, i.e. of the sources of life, is the first cause of 
 his political, moral, and material servitude, and that the econo- 
 mic emancipation of labour is consequently the great aim to 
 which every political movement ought to be subordinated." 
 Now no doubt the " economic emancipation of labour " meant 
 different things to different sections of the Association's mem- 
 bers, To the English trades unionists it meant practically 
 better wages ; to the Russian nihilists it meant the downfall of 
 the Czar and of all central political authority, and leaving the 
 socialistic communal organization of their country to manage 
 itself without interference from above ; to some of the French 
 members (as appeared at the Lausanne Congress in 1867) it 
 meant the nationalization of credit and all land except that 
 held by peasant proprietors, a class which it was necessary to 
 maintain as a counterpoise to the State ; while, to the German 
 socialists, it meant the abolition of wages, the nationalization 
 of land and the instruments of production, the assumption by 
 the State of a supreme direction of all trade, commerce, finance,
 
 Karl Marx. I5 1 
 
 and agriculture, and the distribution by the State of land, tools, 
 and materials to guilds and productive associations as the actual 
 industrial executive. There were thus very different elements 
 in the composition of the International, but a modus vivendi 
 was found for some years by nursing an ultimate ideal, which 
 was desirable, and meanwhile practically working for a proxi- 
 mate and much narrower ideal, which was more immediately 
 feasible or necessary. The association could thus hold that 
 nothing could benefit the working class but an abolition of 
 wages, and could yet, as it sometimes did, help and encourage 
 strikes which wanted only to raise wages. At its Congress in 
 Brussels in 1868 it declared that a strike was not a means of 
 completely emancipating the labourers, but was often a neces- 
 sity in the present situation of labour and capital. Most of the 
 other practical measures to which the association addressed 
 itself the eight hours normal day of labour, gratuitous educa- 
 tion, gratuitous justice, universal suffrage, abolition of standing 
 armies, abolition of indirect taxes, prohibition of children's 
 labour, State credit for productive associations contemplated 
 modifications of the existing system of things, but always con- 
 templated them as aids to and instalments of the coming 
 transformation of that system. The consciousness was con- 
 stantly preserved that a revolution was impending, and that, 
 as Lassalle said, it was bound to come and could not be checked, 
 whether it approached by sober advances from concession to 
 concession, or flew, with streaming hair and shod with steel, 
 right into the central stronghold. 
 
 This was very much the keynote struck by Marx in his 
 inaugural address. That address was simply a review of the 
 situation since 1848, and an encouragement of his forces to a 
 renewal of the combat. "Wealth had enormously increased in 
 the interval ; colonies had been opened, new inventions dis- 
 covered, free trade introduced ; but misery was not a whit the 
 less ; class contrasts were even deeper marked, property was 
 more than ever in the hands of the few ; in England the num- 
 ber of landowners had diminished eleven per cent, in the pre- 
 ceding ten years ; and if this rate were to continue, the country 
 would be rapidly ripe for revolution, While the old order of 
 things was thus hastening to its doom, the new order of things
 
 152 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 had made some advances. The Ten Hours Act was " not merely 
 a great practical result, but was the victory of a principle. For 
 the first time the political economy of the bourgeoisie had been 
 in clear broad day put in subjection to the political economy of 
 the working class." Then, again, the experiment of co-opera- 
 tion had now been sufficiently tried to show that it was possible 
 to carry on industry without the intervention of an employing 
 class, and had spread abroad the hope that wage labour was, 
 like slavery and feudal servitude, only a transitory and subor- 
 dinate form, which was destined to be superseded by associated 
 labour. The International had for its aim to promote this 
 associated labour ; only it sought to do so, not piecemeal and 
 sporadically, but systematically, on a national scale, and by 
 State means. And for this end the labouring class must first 
 acquire political power, so as to obtain possession of the means 
 of production ; and to acquire political power, they must unite. 
 The International, though, as we have seen, possessing no 
 real solidarity in its composition, held together till the out- 
 break of the Franco-German war, and of the revolution of the 
 Paris Commune. It was, of course, strongly opposed to the 
 war, as it was to all war ; and strongly in favour of the revolu- 
 tion, as it was of all revolution. Its precise complicity in the 
 work of the Commune is not easy to determine, but there can 
 be no doubt that its importance has been greatly exaggerated, 
 both by the fears of his enemies and the vanity of its members. 
 Some of the latter were certainly among those who sat in the 
 Hotel de Ville, but none of them were leading minds there ; 
 and, as for the Association itself, it never had a real member- 
 ship, or ramifications, of any formidable extent. For example, 
 the English trades unions were in connection with it, and their 
 members might be, in a sense, counted among its members, 
 but it is certain they never recognised it as an authority over 
 them, and they probably subscribed to it mainly as to a useful 
 auxiliary in a strike. The leaders of the International, how- 
 ever, were, undoubtedly, heart and soul with the Commune, 
 and approved probably both of its aims and methods, and 
 Marx, at the Congress of the International, at the Hague, in 
 1872, drew from its failure the lesson that " revolution must 
 be solidary " in order to succeed. A revolution in one capital
 
 Karl Marx. 153 
 
 of Europe must be supported by simultaneous revolutions in the 
 rest. But, while there is little ground for the common belief 
 that the International had any important influence in creating 
 the insurrection of the Commune, it is certain that the insurrec- 
 tion of the Commune killed the International. The English 
 members dropped off from it and never returned, and at its 
 first Congress after the revolution (the Hague, 1872), the Associ- 
 ation itself was rent by a fatal schism arising from differences 
 of opinion on a question as to the government of the society of 
 the future, which would probably not have become a subject 
 of such keen present interest at the time but for the Paris 
 Commune. The question concerned the maintenance or aboli- 
 tion of the State, of the supreme central political authority, 
 and the discussion brought to light that the socialists of the 
 International were divided into two distinct and irreconcilable 
 camps the Centralist Democratic Socialists, headed by Marx, 
 and the Anarchist Socialists, headed by Michael Bakunin, the 
 Russian revolutionist. The Marxists insisted that the socialist 
 regime of collective property and systematic co-operative pro- 
 duction could not possibly be introduced, maintained, or regu- 
 lated, except by means of an omnipotent and centralized poli- 
 tical authority call it the State, call it the collectivity, call it 
 what you like which should have the final disposal of every- 
 thing. The Bakunists held that this was just bringing back 
 the old tyranny and slavery in a more excessive and intolerable 
 form. They took up the tradition of Proudhon, who said that 
 " the true form of the State is anarchy," meaning by anarchy, 
 of course, not positive disorder, but the absence of any supreme 
 ruler, whether king or convention. They would have property 
 possessed and industry pursued on a communistic principle by 
 groups or associations of workmen, but these groups must form 
 themselves freely and voluntarily, without any social or politi- 
 cal compulsion. The Marxists declared that this was simply 
 a retention of the system of free competition in an aggravated 
 form, that it would only lead to confusion worse confounded, 
 and that the Bakunists, even in trying to abolish the evils of 
 laissez-faire, were still foolishly supposing that the world could 
 go of itself. This division of opinion really a broader one 
 than that which parts socialist from orthodox economist rent
 
 154 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the already enfeebled International into two separate organiza- 
 tions, which languished for a year or two and passed away. 
 And so, with high thoughts of spreading a reign of fraternity 
 over the earth, the International Working Men's Association 
 perished, because, being only human, it could not maintain 
 fraternity in its own narrow borders. This is a history that 
 repeats itself again and again in socialist movements. As "W. 
 Marr said in the remark quoted above, revolutionists will only 
 unite on a negation ; the moment they begin to ask what they 
 will put in its place they differ and dispute and come to nought. 
 Apprehend them, close their meetings, banish their leaders, 
 and you but knit them by common suffering to common re- 
 sistance. You supply them with a negation of engrossing 
 interest, you preoccupy their minds with a negative programme 
 which keeps them united, and so you prevent them from rais- 
 ing the fatal question What next ? which they never discuss 
 without breaking up into rival sects and factions, fraternal 
 often in nothing but their hatred. " It is the shades that hate 
 one another, not the colours." Such disruptions and secessions 
 may as they did in Germany by emulation increase for a 
 time the efficiency of the organization as a propagandist 
 agency, but they certainly diminish its danger as a possible in- 
 strument of insurrection. A socialist organization seems always 
 to contain two elements of internal disintegration. One is the 
 prevalence of a singular and almost pathetic mistrust of their 
 leaders, and of one another. The law of suspects is always in 
 force among themselves. At meetings of the German Social- 
 ists, Liebknecht denounces Schweitzer as an agent of the 
 Prussian Government, Schweitzer accuses Liebknecht of being 
 an Austrian, spy, and the frequent hints at bribery, and open 
 charges of treason against the labourers' cause, disclose to us 
 now duller and now more acute phases of that unhappy state 
 of mutual suspicion, in which the one supreme, superhuman 
 virtue, worthy to be worshipped, if haply it could anywhere 
 be discovered, is the virtue men honoured oven in Robespierre 
 the incorruptible. The other source of disintegration is 
 the tendency to intestine divisions on points of doctrine. A 
 reconstruction of society is necessarily a most extensive 
 programme, and allows room for the utmost variety of opinion
 
 Karl Marx. 155 
 
 and plan. The longer it is discussed, the more certainly do 
 differences arise, and the movement becomes a strife of schools 
 in no way formidable to the government. All this only fur- 
 nishes another reason for the conclusion that in dealing with 
 socialist agitations, a government's safest as well as justest 
 policy is, as much as may be, to leave them alone. Their 
 danger lies in the cloudiness of their ideas, and that can only 
 be dispersed in the free breezes of popular discussion. The 
 sword is an idle method of reasoning with an idea ; an idea will 
 eventually yield to nothing but argument. Repression, too, is 
 absolutely impossible with modern facilities of inter-commu- 
 nication, and can at best but drive the offensive elements for 
 a time into subterranean channels, where they gather like a 
 dangerous choke-damp that may occasion at any moment a 
 serious explosion. 
 
 After the fall of the International, Marx took no further 
 part in public movements, but occupied his time in completing 
 his work Das Capital, under frequent interruption from ill- 
 health, and he died in Paris in the spring of 1883, leaving that 
 work still unfinished. 
 
 The Das Capital of Marx may be said to be the sacred book 
 of contemporary socialism, and though, like other sacred 
 books, it is probably a sealed one to the body of the faithful, 
 for it is extremely stiff reading, it is the great source from 
 which socialist agitators draw their inspiration and arguments. 
 Apart from the representative authority with which it is thus 
 invested, it must be at once acknowledged to be an able, 
 learned, and important work, founded on diligent research, 
 evincing careful elaboration of materials, much acuteness of 
 logical analysis, and so much solicitude for precision that a 
 special terminology has been invented to secure it. The 
 author's taste for logical distinctions, however, as he has 
 actually applied it, serves rather to darken than to elucidate 
 his exposition. He overloads with analysis secondary points 
 of his argument which are clear enough without it, and he 
 assumes without analysis primary positions which it is most 
 essential for him to make plain. His style and method carries 
 us back to the ecclesiastical schoolmen. His superabcunding
 
 156 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 love of scholastic formalities is unmodern ; and one may be 
 permitted to hope that the odium more than theological with 
 which he speaks of opponents has become unmodern too. 
 
 Marx's argument takes the form of an inquiry into the 
 origin and social effects of capital ; understanding the word 
 capital, 'however, in a peculiar sense. Capital, according to 
 the elementary teaching of political economy, always means 
 the portion of wealth which is saved from immediate con- 
 sumption to be devoted to productive uses, and it matters not 
 whether it is so saved and devoted by the labourer who is to 
 use it, or by some other person who lends it to the labourer 
 at interest or employs the labourer to work with it at a fixed 
 rate of wages. A fisherman's boat is capital as much as a 
 Cunard Company's steamer, although the boat is owned by 
 the person who sails it and the steamer by persons who may 
 never have seen it. The fisherman is labourer and capitalist 
 in one, but in the case of the steamer the capital is supplied 
 by one set of people and the labour undertaken by another. 
 Now Marx speaks of capital only after this division of func- 
 tions has taken place. It is, he says, not a logical but a 
 historical category. In former times men all wrought for the 
 supply of their own wants, the seed and stock they received 
 was saved and owned by themselves, capital was an instru- 
 ment in the hands of labour, But in modern times, especially 
 since the rise of foreign commerce in the 16th century, this 
 situation has been gradually reversed. Industry is now con- 
 ducted by speculators, who advance the stock and pay the 
 labourer's wages, in order to make gain out of the excess of 
 the product over the advances, and labour is a mere instru- 
 ment in the hands of capital. The capitalist is one who, 
 without being personally a producer, advances money to pro- 
 ducers to provide them with materials and tools, in the hope 
 of getting a larger sum of money in return, and capital is the 
 money so advanced. With this representation of capital as 
 money, so long as it is but a popular form of speech, no fault 
 need be found, but Marx soon after falls into a common fallacy 
 and positively identifies capital with money, declaring them 
 to be only the same thing circulating in a different way. 
 Money as money, he says, being a mere medium of exchange,
 
 Karl Marx. 157 
 
 is a middle term between two commodities which it helps to 
 barter, and the order of circulation is C M C, i.e. com- 
 modity is converted into money and money is reconverted into 
 commodity. On the other hand, money as capital stands at 
 the two extremes, and commodity is a middle term, a medium 
 of converting one sum of money into another and greater ; the 
 order of circulation being expressed as M C M. Of course 
 capital, like other wealth, may be expressed in terms of money, 
 but to identify capital with money in this way is only to 
 introduce confusion, and the real confusion is none the less 
 pernicious that it presents itself under an affectation of mathe- 
 matical precision. 
 
 Capital, then, as Marx understands it, may be said to be 
 independent wealth employed for its own increase, and in 
 " societies in which the capitalistic method of production pre- 
 vails " all wealth bears distinctively this character. In more 
 primitive days, wealth was a store of means of life produced 
 and preserved for the supply of the producer's future wants, 
 but now it " appears as a huge collection of wares," made for 
 other people's wants, made for sale in the market, made for 
 its own increase. What Marx wants to discover is how all 
 this independent wealth has come to accumulate in hands that 
 do not produce it, and in particular from whence comes the 
 increase expected from its use, because it is this increase that 
 enables it to accumulate. "What he endeavours to show is 
 that this increase of value cannot take place anywhere except 
 in the process of production, that in that process it cannot 
 come from the dead materials, but only from the living crea- 
 tive power of labour that works upon them, and that it is 
 accordingly virtually stolen from the labourers who made it 
 by the superior economic force of the owners of the dead 
 materials, without which indeed it could not be made, but 
 whose service is entitled to a much more limited reward. 
 
 Xo increase of value, he contends, can occur in the process 
 of exchange, for an exchange is a mere transposition of things 
 of equal value. In one sense both parties in the transaction are 
 gainers, for each gets a thing he wants for a thing he does not 
 want. The usefulness of the two commodities is thus increased 
 by the exchange, but their value is not. An exchange simply
 
 158 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 means that each party gives to the other equal value for equal 
 value, and even if it were possible for one of them to make a gain 
 in value to-day to get a more valuable thing for a less valu- 
 able thing still, as all the world is buyer and seller in turn, 
 they would lose to-morrow as buyers what they gained to-day 
 as sellers, and the old level of value would be restored. No 
 increase whatever would be effected. There is indeed a class 
 of people whom he describes as always buying and never 
 selling the unproducing class who live on their money, and 
 who, he says, receive by legal titles or by force wealth made 
 by producers without giving anything in exchange for it. 
 And it may be supposed that perhaps value is created by 
 selling things to this class of persons, or by selling things to 
 them above their true value, but that is not so ; you would 
 have brought no new value into the world by such a transac- 
 tion, and even if you got more for your goods than their 
 worth, you would only be cheating back from these rich 
 people part of the money that they had previously received 
 for nothing. Another supposition remains. Perhaps new 
 value is created in the process of exchange when one dealer 
 takes advantage of another when Peter, say, contrives to 
 induce Paul to take 40 worth of wine for 50 worth of iron. 
 But in this case there has been no increase of value ; the 
 value has merely changed hands ; Peter has 10 more than he 
 had before, and Paul 10 less. The commodities have between 
 them after the transaction, as they had before it, a total value 
 of 90, and that total cannot be increased by a mere change 
 of possessor. 
 
 Having thus established to his satisfaction that commerce, 
 being only a series of exchanges, cannot produce any increase 
 of value, or what he terms surplus value, Marx says that that 
 only makes the problem of the origin of surplus value more 
 enigmatical than ever. For we are thus left in presence of an 
 apparent contradiction : surplus value cannot spring up in the 
 circulation of commodities because circulation is nothing but 
 an exchange of equivalents ; and yet surplus value cannot 
 spring up anywhere except in circulation, because the class of 
 persons who receive it and live by it do nob produce. Here, 
 then, is a riddle, and Marx sets himself to rede it. True, he
 
 Karl Marx. 159 
 
 says, value is not created directly in the market, but a com- 
 modity is purchased in the market which has the remarkable 
 property of creating value. That commodity is the human 
 powers of labour. The very use of these powers, their con- 
 sumption, their expenditure, is the creation of value. But 
 marvellous as they are, their possessor is obliged to sell them, 
 because while they are yielding their product he must mean- 
 while live, and he sells a day's use of them for a day's means 
 of living. They create in a day far more than the value of 
 the wages for which they are bought. This excess is surplus 
 value, and is the secret and fountainhead of all accumulations 
 of capital. Powers which can create six shillings worth in a 
 day may be procured in the market for three shillings, because 
 three shillings will pay for their necessary maintenance. Sur- 
 plus value is the difference between the value of the labourer's 
 necessary maintenance and the value of the labourer's pro- 
 duction, and it is in the present system entirely appropriated 
 by the dealer who advances him his wages. 
 
 Marx thus bases his argument on two principles which he 
 borrows from current economic writers, without, however, 
 observing the limitations under which those writers taught 
 them, and introducing besides important modifications of his 
 own. The one principle is that value comes from labour, or 
 as economists stated their law, that the natural value of com- 
 modities is determined by the cost of their production. The 
 second is only a special application of the first ; that the 
 natural wages of labour are determined by the cost of its pro- 
 duction, and that the cost of the production of labour is the 
 cost of the labourer's subsistence. The fault he finds with the 
 present system is accordingly this, that while labour creates 
 all value it is paid only by its stated living, no matter how 
 much value it creates ; and he then goes over the phenomena 
 of modern industrial life to show how each arrangement is 
 invented so as to extract more and more value out of the 
 labourer by prolonging his hours of work or enhancing its 
 speed without giving him any advantage whatever from the 
 increase of value so obtained. "We shall get a fair view of 
 Marx's argument, therefore, if we follow it through the suc- 
 cessive heads : 1st, Value ; 2nd, Wages ; 3rd, Normal day of
 
 160 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 labour ; 4th, Machinery ; 5th, Piecework ; 6th, Relative over- 
 population. 
 
 1st. Value. Marx holds that all capital all industrial ad- 
 vances except wages is absolutely unproductive of value, and 
 therefore not entitled to the acknowledgment known as in- 
 terest. The original value of all such capital the purchase 
 price of the materials, together with a certain allowance made 
 for tear and wear of machinery is carried forward into the 
 value of the product, and preserved in it, and even that could 
 not be done except by labour. The old value is preserved by 
 labour, and all new value is conferred by it, and therefore 
 interest is a consideration entirely out of the question. It is 
 obvious to object that labour by itself is as unproductive as 
 capital by itself, but Marx would reply that while labour and 
 capital are equally indispensable to produce new commodities, 
 it is labour alone that produces new value, for value is only so 
 much labour preserved, it is merely a register of so many hours 
 of work. His whole argument thus turns upon his doctrine of 
 the nature of value, and that doctrine must therefore be closely 
 attended to. 
 
 What, then, is value ? Marx considers that most errors on 
 this subject have arisen from confusing value with utility on 
 the one hand or with price on the other, and he regards his 
 discrimination of value from these two ideas as his most im- 
 portant contribution to political economy. He takes his start 
 from the distinction current since the days of Adam Smith 
 between value in use and value in exchange, and of course 
 agrees with Smith in making the value of a commodity in 
 exchange to be independent of its value in use. Water had 
 great value in use and none in exchange, and diamonds had 
 great value in exchange and little in use. Value in use is 
 therefore not value strictly so called, it is utility ; but strictly 
 speaking value in exchange, according to Marx, is not value 
 either, but only the form under which in our state of society 
 value manifests itself. There was no exchange in primitive 
 society when every family produced things to supply its own 
 wants, and there would be no exchange in a communism, for 
 in an exchange the transacting parties stand to one another 
 equally as private proprietors of the goods they barter. And
 
 Karl Marx. 161 
 
 where there was no exchange there could of course be no 
 exchange value. No doubt there was value for all that in 
 primitive times, and there would be value under a communism, 
 though it would manifest itself in a different form. But as we 
 live in an exchanging society, where everything is made for 
 the purpose of being exchanged, it is in exchange alone that 
 we have any experience of value, and it is only from an exam- 
 ination of the phenomena of exchange that we can learn its 
 nature. 
 
 What, then, is value in exchange? It is the ratio in which 
 one kind of useful commodity exchanges against another kind 
 of useful commodity. This ratio, says Marx, does not in the 
 least depend on the usefulness of the respective commodities, 
 or their capacity of gratifying any particular want. For, first, 
 that is a matter of quality, whereas value is a ratio between 
 quantities ; and second, two different kinds of utility cannot 
 be compared, for they have no common measure; but value, 
 being a ratio, implies comparison, and comparison implies a 
 common measure. A fiddle charms the musical taste, a loaf 
 satisfies hunger, but who can calculate how much musical 
 gratification is equivalent to so much satisfaction of hunger. 
 The loaf and the fiddle may be compared in value, but not by 
 means of their several uses. Third, there are many commodi- 
 ties which are useful and yet have no value in exchange : air, 
 for example, water, and, he adds, virgin soil. In seeking what 
 in the exchange the value depends on, we must therefore leave 
 the utility of the commodities exchanged entirely out of 
 account ; and if we do so, there is only one other attribute they 
 all possess in common, and it must be on that attribute that 
 their value rests. That attribute is that they are all products 
 of labour. While we looked to the utility of commodities, they 
 were infinite in their variety, but now they are all reduced to 
 one sober characteristic they are so many different quantities 
 of the same material, labour. Diversity vanishes ; there are 
 no longer tables and chairs and houses, there is only this much 
 and that much and the next amount of preserved human labour 
 And this labour itself is not discriminated. It is not joiner 
 work, mason work, or weaver work ; it is merely human labour 
 in the abstract, incorporated, absorbed, congealed in exchange- 
 
 M
 
 1 62 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 able commodities. In an exchange commodities are quantities 
 of labour jelly, and they exchange in the ratio of the amount 
 of labour they have taken in. 
 
 Value, then, is quantity of abstract labour, and now what is 
 quantity of labour ? How is it to be ascertained ? Labour is 
 the exertion or use of man's natural powers of labour, and the 
 quantity of labour is measured by the duration of the exertion. 
 Quantity of labour is thus reduced to time of labour, and is 
 measured by hours and days and weeks. Marx accordingly 
 defines value to be an immanent relation of a commodity to 
 time of labour, and the secret of exchange is that " a day's 
 labour of given length always turns out a product of the same 
 value." Value is thus something inherent in commodities 
 before they are brought to market, and is independent of the 
 circumstances of the market. 
 
 Marx has no sooner reduced value to the single uniform 
 element of time of labour, and excluded from its constitution 
 all considerations of utility and the state of the market, than 
 he reintroduces those considerations under a disguised form. 
 In the first place, if a day's labour of given length always 
 produces the same value, it is obvious to ask whether then an 
 indolent and unskilful tailor who takes a week to make a coat 
 has produced as much value as the more expert hand who turns 
 out six in this time, or, with the help of a machine, perhaps 
 twenty ? Marx answers, Certainly not, for the time of labour 
 which determines value is not the time actually taken, but the 
 time required in existing social conditions to produce that 
 particular kind of commodity the time taken by labour of 
 average efficiency, using the means which the age affords in 
 short, what he calls the socially necessary time of labour. Value 
 is an immanent relation to socially necessary time of labour. 
 Marx's standard is thus, after all, not one of quantity of labour 
 pure and simple ; it takes into account, besides, the average 
 productive power of labour in different branches of industry. 
 " The value of a commodity," says he, " changes directly as 
 the quantity, and inversely as the productive power, of the 
 labour which realizes itself in that commodity." Before we 
 know the value of a commodity we must therefore know not 
 only the quantity of labour that has gone into it, but the
 
 Karl Marx. 163 
 
 productive power of that labour. We gather the quantity 
 from the duration of exertion, but how is average productive 
 power to be ascertained ? By simply ascertaining the total 
 product of all the labour engaged in a particular trade, and 
 then striking the average for each labourer. Diamonds occur 
 rarely in the crust of the earth, and therefore many seekers 
 spend days and weeks without finding one. Hits and misses 
 must be taken together ; the productive power of the diamond 
 seeker is low ; or, in other words, the time of labour socially 
 necessary to procure a diamond is high, and its value corre- 
 sponds. In a good year the same labour will produce twice 
 as much wheat as in a bad ; its productive power is greater ; 
 the time socially necessary to produce wheat is less, and the 
 price of the bushel falls. The value of a commodity is there- 
 fore influenced by its comparative abundance, whether that be 
 due to nature, or to machinery, or to personal skill. 
 
 But, in the next place, if value is simply so much labour, it 
 would seem to follow, on the one hand, that nothing could have 
 value which cost no labour, and, on the other, that nothing 
 could be devoid of value which cost labour. Marx's method 
 of dealing with these two objections deserves close attention, 
 because it is here that the fundamental fallacy of his argument 
 is brought most clearly out. He answers the first of them by 
 drawing a distinction between value, and price, which he and 
 his followers count of the highest consequence. Things which 
 cost no labour may have a price, but they have no value, and, 
 as we have seen, he mentions among such things conscience 
 and virgin soil. No labour has touched those things; they 
 have no immanent relation to socially necessary time of 
 labour ; they have not, and cannot have, any value, as Marx 
 understands value. But then, he says, they command a price. 
 Virgin soil is actually sold in the market ; it may procure 
 things that have value though it has none itself. Now, this 
 distinction between value and price has no bearing on the 
 matter at all, for the simple reason that, as Marx himself 
 admits, price is only a particular form, of value. Price, he 
 says, is " the money form of value " ; it is value expressed in 
 money ; it is the exchange value of a commodity for money, 
 To say that uncultivated land may have a price but not a
 
 164 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 value is, on Marx's own showing, to say that it has an ex- 
 change value which can be definitely measured in money, and 
 has yet no value. But he has started from the phenomena of 
 exchange ; he has told us that exchange value is the only form 
 in which we experience value now ; and he thus arrives at a 
 theory of value which will not explain the facts. If he argued 
 that a thing had value, but no exchange value, his position 
 might be false, but he says that a thing may have exchange 
 value but no value, and so his position is contradictory. More- 
 over, he describes money accurately enough as a measure of 
 value, and says that it could not serve this function except it 
 were itself valuable, i.e., unless it possessed the quality that 
 makes all objects commensurable, the quality of being a pro- 
 duct of labour. Yet here we find him admitting that virgin 
 soil, which, ex hypothesi, does not possess that quality, and 
 ought therefore to be incommensurable with anything that 
 possesses it, is yet measured with money every day. Such are 
 some of the absurdities to which Marx is reduced by refusing 
 to admit that utility can confer value independently of labour. 
 Let us see now how he deals with the other objection. If 
 labour is just value-forming substance, and if value is just 
 preserved labour, then nothing which has cost labour should 
 be destitute of value. But Marx frankly admits that there are 
 such things which have yet got no value ; and they have no 
 value, he explains, because they have no utility. " Nothing 
 can have value without being useful. If it is useless, the work 
 contained in it is useless, and therefore has no value." He 
 goes further ; he says that a thing may be both useful and the 
 product of labour and yet have no value. " He who by the 
 produce of his labour satisfies wants of his own produces 
 utility but not value. To produce a ware, i.e., a thing which 
 has not merely value in use, but value in exchange, he must 
 produce something which is not only useful to himself, but 
 useful to others," i.e., socially useful. A product of labour 
 which is useless to the producer and everybody else has no 
 value of any sort ; a product of labour which, while useful to 
 the producer, is useless to any one else, has no exchange value. 
 It satisfies no want of others. This would seem to cover the 
 case of over-production, when commodities lose their value for
 
 Karl Marx. 165 
 
 a time because nobody wants them. Lassalle explained this 
 depreciation of value by saying that the time of labour socially 
 necessary to produce the articles in question had diminished. 
 Marx explains it by saying that the labour is less socially 
 useful or not socially useful at all. And why is the labour not 
 socially useful ? Simply because the product is not so. The 
 social utility or inutility of the labour is a mere inference from 
 the social utility or inutility of the product, and it is therefore 
 the latter consideration that influences value. Marx tries in 
 vain to exclude the influence of that consideration, or to ex- 
 plain it as a mere subsidiary qualification of labour. Labour 
 and social utility both enter equally into the constitution of 
 value, and Marx's radical error lies in defining value in terms 
 of labour only, ignoring utility. 
 
 For what, after all, is value? Is Marx's definition of it 
 in the least correct ? No. Value is not an inherent relation 
 (whatever that may mean) of a commodity to labour ; it is 
 essentially a social estimate of the relative importance of com- 
 modities to the society that forms the estimate. It is not an 
 immanent property of an object at all ; it is a social opinion 
 expressed upon an object in comparison with others. This 
 social opinion is at present collected in an informal but effec- 
 tive way, through a certain subtle tact acquired in the market, 
 by dealers representing groups of customers on the one hand, 
 and manufacturers representing groups of producers on the 
 other ; and it may be said to be pronounced in the verdict of 
 exchange, i.e., according to Mill's definition of value, in the 
 quantity of one commodity given in exchange for a given 
 quantity of another. Now, on what does this social estimate 
 of the relative importance of commodities turn ? In other 
 words, by what is value and difference in value determined ? 
 Value is constituted in every object by its possession of two 
 characteristics : 1st, that it is socially useful ; 2nd, that it costs 
 some labour or trouble to procure it. No commodity lacks 
 value which possesses both of these characteristics; and no 
 commodity has value which lacks either of them. Now there 
 are two kinds of commodities. Some may be produced to an 
 indefinite amount by means of labour, and since all who desire 
 them can obtain them at any time for the labour they cost,
 
 1 66 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 their social desirableness, their social utility, has no influence 
 on their value, which, therefore, always stands in the ratio of 
 their cost of production alone. Other classes of commodities 
 cannot be in this way indefinitely multiplied by labour ; their 
 quantity is strictly limited by natural or other causes ; those 
 who desire them cannot get them for the mere labour of pro- 
 ducing them ; and the value of commodities of this sort will 
 consequently always stand in excess of their relative cost of 
 production, and will be really determined by their relative 
 social utility. In fact, so far from the labour required for their 
 production being any guide to their value, it is their value 
 that will determine the amount of labour which will be 
 ventured in their production. A single word may be added 
 in explanation of the conception of social utility. Of course a 
 commodity which is of no use to any one but its owner has no 
 economic value, unless it happens to get lost, and, in any case, 
 it is of no consequence in the present question. The social 
 utility of a commodity is its capacity to satisfy the wants of 
 others than the possessor, and it turns on two considerations : 
 1st, the importance of the want the commodity satisfies, and, 
 2nd, the number of persons who share the want. All com- 
 modities which derive a value from their rarity or their special 
 excellence belong to this latter class, and the vice of Marx's 
 theory of value is simply this, that he takes a law which is 
 true of the first class of commodities only to be true of all 
 classes of them. 
 
 2. Wages. Having concluded by the vicious argument now 
 explained that all value is the creation of the personal labour of 
 the workman is but the registered duration of exertion of his 
 labouring powers Marx next proceeds to show that, as things 
 at present exist, the value of these labouring powers them- 
 selves is fixed not by what they create but by what is neces- 
 sary to create or at least renovate them. The rate of wages, 
 economists have taught, is determined by the cost of the 
 production of labouring powers, and that is identical with the 
 cost of maintaining the labourer in working vigour. Marx 
 accepts the usual explanations of the elasticity of this standard 
 of cost of subsistence. It includes, of course, the maintenance
 
 Karl Marx. 167 
 
 of the labourer's family as well as his own, because he will die 
 some day, and the permanent reproduction of powers of labour 
 requires the birth of fresh hands to succeed him. It must also 
 cover the expenses of training and apprenticeship, and Marx 
 would probably agree to add, though he does not actually do 
 so, a superannuation allowance for old age. It contains, too, a 
 variable historical element, differs with climate and country, 
 and is, in fact, just the customary standard of living among 
 free labourers of the time and place. The value of a com- 
 modity is the time of labour required to deliver it in normal 
 goodness, and to preserve the powers of labour in normal 
 goodness a definite quantity of provisions and comforts is 
 necessary according to time, country, and customs. The part 
 of the labouring day required to produce this definite quantity 
 of provisions and comforts for the use of the day may be called 
 the necessary time of labour the time during which the work- 
 man produces what is necessary for keeping him in existence 
 and the value created in this season may be called necessary 
 value. But the workman's physical powers may hold on 
 labouring longer than this, and the rest of his working day 
 may accordingly be called surplus time of labour, and the value 
 created in it surplus value. This surplus value may be created 
 or increased in two ways : either by reducing or cheapening 
 the labourer's subsistence, i.e., by shortening the term of 
 necessary labour ; or by prolonging the length of the working 
 day, i.e., by increasing the term of surplus labour. There are 
 limits indeed within which this kind of action must stop. The 
 quantity of means of life cannot be reduced below the 
 minimum that is physically indispensable to sustain the 
 labourer for the day. and the term of labour cannot be 
 stretched beyond the labourer's capacity of physical endu- 
 rance. But within these limits may be played an important 
 role, and the secret of surplus value lies in the simple plan of 
 giving the labourer as little as he is able to live on, and work- 
 ing him as long as he is able to stand. A labourer works 12 
 hours a day because he cannot work longer and work perma- 
 nently and well, and he gets three shillings a day of wages, 
 because three shillings will buy him the necessities he requires. 
 In six hours' labour he will create three shillings' worth of
 
 1 68 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 value, and he works the other six hours for nothing, creating 
 three shillings' worth of surplus value for the master who 
 advances him his wages. It is from these causes that we come 
 on the present system of things to the singular result that 
 powers of labour which create six shillings a day are them- 
 selves worth only three shillings a day. This absurd conclu- 
 sion, says Marx, could never have held ground for an hour, had 
 it not been hid and disguised by the practice of paying wages 
 in money. This makes it seem as if the labourer were paid for 
 the whole day when he is only paid for the half. Under the 
 old system of feudal servitude there were no such disguises. 
 The labourer wrought for his master one day, and for himself 
 the other five, and there was no make-believe as if he were 
 working for himself all the time. But the wages system gives 
 to surplus labour that is really unpaid the false appearance of 
 being paid. That is the mystery of iniquity of the whole 
 system, the source of all prevailing legal conceptions of the 
 relation of employer and employed, and of all the illusions 
 about industrial freedom. The wages system is the lever of 
 the labourer's exploitation, because it enables the capitalist to 
 appropriate the entire surplus value created by the labourer 
 i.e., the value he creates over and above what is necessary to 
 recruit his labouring powers withal. 
 
 Now surplus value, as we have seen, is of two kinds, absolute 
 and relative. Absolute surplus value is got by lengthening 
 the term of surplus labour ; relative surplus value by shorten- 
 ing the term of necessary labour, which is chiefly done by 
 inventions that cheapen the necessaries of life. The considera- 
 tion of the first of these points leads Marx into a discussion of 
 the normal length of the day of labour ; and the consideration 
 of the second into a discussion of the effects of inventions and 
 machinery on the condition of the working classes. We shall 
 follow him on these points in their order. 
 
 3. Normal day of labour. There is a normal length of the 
 day of labour, and it ought to be ascertained and fixed by law. 
 Some bounds are set to it by nature. There is a minimum 
 length, for example, beneath which it cannot fail ; that 
 minimal limit is the time required to creat:? an equivalent to
 
 Karl Marx. 169 
 
 the labourer's living ; but as under the capitalistic system the 
 capitalist has also to be supported out of it, it can never be 
 actually shortened to this minimum. There is also a maximum 
 length above which it cannot rise, and this upper limit is fixed 
 by two sorts of considerations, one physical, the other moral. 
 1st. Physical limits. These are set by the physical endurance 
 of the labourer. The day of labour cannot be protracted 
 beyond the term within which the labourer can go on from 
 day to day in normal working condition to the end of his 
 normal labouring career. This is always looked to with respect 
 to a horse. He cannot be wrought more than eight hours 
 a day regularly without injury. 2nd. Moral limits. The 
 labourer needs time (which the horse does not, or he would 
 perhaps get it) for political, intellectual, and social wants, 
 according to the degree required by society at the time. 
 Between the maximum and minimum limit there is, however, 
 considerable play-room, and therefore we find labouring days 
 prevailing of very different length, 8 hours, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 
 even 18 hours. There is no principle in the existing industrial 
 economy which fixes the length of the day ; it must be fixed 
 by law on a sound view of the requirements of the case. 
 Marx pitches upon 8 hours as the best limit, because it affords 
 a security for the permanent physical efficiency of the labourer, 
 and gives him leisure for satisfying those intellectual and 
 social wants which are becoming every day more largely 
 imperative. He makes no use of the reason often urged for 
 the 8 hours day, that the increased intelligence it would tend 
 to cultivate in the working class would in many ways conduce 
 to such an increase of production as would justify the shorter 
 term of work. But he is very strong for the necessity of 
 having it fixed by law, and points out that even then employers 
 will need to be carefully watched or they will find ways and 
 means of extending the day in spite of the law. When the 
 day was fixed in England at 10 hours in some branches of 
 industry, some masters gained an extra quarter or half-hour by 
 taking five minutes off each meal time, and the profit made in 
 these five minutes was often very considerable. He mentions 
 a manufacturer who said to him, " If you allow me ten minutes 
 extra time every day, you put 1,000 a year into my pocket,"
 
 I/O Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 and he says that is a good demonstration of the origin of surplus 
 value, for how much of this 1,000 would be given to the man 
 whose extra ten minutes' labour had made it ? Marx enters 
 very fully into the history of English factory legislation, 
 acknowledges the great benefit it has conferred both upon the 
 labouring class and the manufacturers, and says that since the 
 Act of 1850 the cotton industry has become the model industry 
 of the country. As might be expected, he thinks the gradual 
 course taken by English legislation on the subject much 
 inferior, as a matter of principle, to the more revolutionary 
 method taken by France in 1848, when a twelve hours Act was 
 introduced simultaneously as a matter of principle for every 
 trade in the whole country ; but he admits that the results 
 were more permanent in England. 
 
 4. Effects of machinery, and the growth of fixed capital on the 
 working classes. The whole progress of industrial improve- 
 ments is a history of fresh creations of relative surplus value, 
 and always for the benefit of the capitalist who advances the 
 money. Everything that economizes labour or that adds 
 positively to its productivity, contracts the labourer's own part 
 of the working day and prolongs the master's. Division and 
 subdivision of labour, combination, co-operation, organization, 
 inventions, machinery, are all " on the one hand elements of 
 historical progress and development in the economic civilization 
 of society, but on the other are all means of civilized and refined 
 exploitation of the labourer." They not only increase social 
 wealth at his expense, but in many cases they do him positive 
 injury. These improvements have cost capitalists nothing, 
 though capitalists derive the whole advantage from them. Sub- 
 division, combination, organization, are simply natural resources 
 of social labour, and natural resources of any kind are not 
 produced by the capitalist. Inventions, again, are the work 
 of science, and science costs the capitalist nothing. Labour, 
 association, science these are the sources of the increase ; 
 capital is nowhere, yet it sits and seizes the whole. Machinery, 
 of course, is capital, but then Marx will not admit that it 
 creates any value, and contends that it merely transfers to 
 the product the value it loses by tear and wear in the process
 
 Karl Marx. 171 
 
 of production. The general effect of industrial improvements, 
 according to Marx, is 1st, to reduce wages ; 2nd, to prolong 
 the day of labour ; 3rd, to overwork one-half of the working 
 class ; 4th, to throw the rest out of employ ; and, 5th, to concen- 
 trate the whole surplus return in the hands of a few capitalists 
 who make their gains by exploiting the labourers, and increase 
 them by exploiting one another. This last point we need not 
 further explain, and the third and fourth we shall unfold under 
 the separate heads of Piecework and Relative Over-population. 
 The remaining two I shall take up now, and state Marx's views 
 about a little more fully. 
 
 (a). Industrial improvements tend to reduce wages. They 
 do so, says Marx, through first mutilating the labourer in- 
 tellectually and corporeally. As a result of subdivision of 
 labour, workmen are rapidly becoming mere one-sided 
 specialists. Headwork is being separated more and more from 
 handwork in the labourer's occupation, and this differentiation 
 of function leads to a hierarchy of wages which affords great 
 opportunity for exploiting the labourer. Muscular power is 
 more easily dispensed with than formerly, and so the cheaper 
 labour of women and children is largely superseding the dearer 
 labour of men. If this goes on much further, the manufacturer 
 will get the labour of a whole family for the wages he used to 
 pay to its head alone, and the labourer will be converted into 
 a slave-dealer who sells his wife and children instead of his 
 own labour. That this kind of slavery will find no sort of resis- 
 tance from either master or labourer, is to Marx's mind placed 
 beyond doubt by the fact that though the labour of children 
 under 13 years of age is restricted in English factories, adver- 
 tisements appear in public prints for " children that can pass 
 for 13." 
 
 (&). Industrial improvements tend to lengthen the da.y of 
 labour. Machinery can go on for ever, and it is the interest of 
 the capitalist to make it do so. He finds, moreover, a ready 
 and specious pretext in the greater lightness of the work as 
 compared with hand labour, for keeping the labourer employed 
 beyond the normal limits of human endurance. Capitalists 
 always complain that long hours are a necessity in consequence 
 of the increasing extent of fixed capital which cannot other-
 
 172 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 wise be made to pay. But this is a mistake on their part, 
 says Marx. For, according to the factory inspector's reports, 
 shortening the day of labour to 10 hours has increased produc- 
 tion and not diminished it, and the explanation is that the 
 men can work harder while they are at it, if the duration of 
 their labour is shortened. Shortening the day of labour has 
 not only increased production, but actually increased wages. 
 Mr. Redgrave, in his Report for 1860, says that during the 
 period 1839-1859 wages rose in the branches of industry that 
 adopted the ten hours' principle, and fell in trades where men 
 wrought 14 and 15 hours a day. Small wages and long hours 
 are always found to go together, because the same causes 
 which enable the employer to reduce wages enable him to 
 lengthen the labouring day. 
 
 5. Piecework. Industrial improvements tend, Marx main- 
 tains, to overwork, to undue intensification of labour, for 
 machinery can go at almost any rate all day and all night, 
 and labourers are compelled by various expedients to work up 
 to it. Among these expedients none is more strongly con- 
 demned by Marx than piecework, as encouraging over-exertion 
 and overtime. He says that though known so early as the 
 14th century, piecework only came into vogue with the large 
 system of production, to which he thinks it the most suitable 
 form of payment. He states (though this is not quite accurate) 
 that it is the only form of payment in use in workshops that 
 are under the factory acts, because in these workshops the day 
 of labour cannot be lengthened, and the capitalist has no other 
 way open to him of exploiting the labourer but by increasing 
 the intensity of the labour. He ridicules the idea of a writer 
 who thought " the system of piecework marked an epoch in 
 the history of the working man, because it stood halfway 
 between the position of a mere wage labourer depending on 
 the will of the capitalist and the position of the co-operative 
 artisan who in the not distant future promises to combine the 
 artisan and the capitalist in his own person." Better far, he 
 holds, for the labourer to stick to day's wages, for he can be 
 much more easily and extensively exploited by the piece 
 system. He contends that experience has proved this in trades
 
 Karl Marx. 173 
 
 like the compositors and ship carpenters, in which both systems 
 of payment are in operation side by side, and he cites from the 
 factory inspectors' reports of 1860 the case of a factory employ- 
 ing 400 hands, 200 paid by the piece and 200 by the day. The 
 piece hands had an interest in working overtime, and the day 
 hands were obliged to follow suit without receiving a farthing 
 extra for the additional hour or half-hour. This might be 
 stopped by further legislation, but then Marx holds that the 
 system of piece payment is so prone to abuse that when one 
 door of exploitation shuts another only opens, and legislation 
 will always remain ineffectual. Every peculiarity of the 
 system furnishes opportunity either for reducing wages or 
 increasing work. On the piece system the worth of labour 
 is determined by the worth of the work it does, and unless the 
 work possess average excellence the stipulated price is withheld. 
 There is thus always a specious pretext ready to the employer's 
 hand for making deductions from wages on the ground that 
 the work done did not come up to the stipulated standard. 
 Then again, it furnishes the employer with a definite measure 
 for the intensity of labour. He judges from the results of 
 piecework how much time it generally takes to produce a 
 particular piece, and labourers who do not possess the average 
 productivity are turned off on the ground that they are unable 
 to do a minimum day's work. Even those who are kept on 
 get lower average wages than they would on the day system. 
 The superior workman earns indeed better pay working by 
 the piece, but the general body do not. The superior workman 
 can afford to take a smaller price per piece than the others, 
 because he turns out a greater number of pieces in the same 
 time, and the employer fixes, from the case of the superior 
 workman, a standard of payment which is injurious to the 
 rest. In the end a change from day's wages to piece wages 
 will thus be found to have merely resulted in the average 
 labourer working harder for the same money. Marx, how- 
 ever, admits that when a definite scale of prices has been in 
 long use and has become fixed as a custom, there are so many 
 difficulties to its reduction that employers are obliged, when 
 they seek to reduce it, to resort to violent methods of trans- 
 forming it into time wages again. He gives an example of
 
 i 74 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 this from the strike of the Coventry ribbon-weavers in 1860, 
 in resistance to a transformation of this kind. 
 
 These are only some of the evils Marx lays at the door of 
 piecework ; he has many more charges. From rendering the 
 superintendence of labour unnecessary, it leads to abuses like 
 the sub-contracts known in this country as " the sweating 
 system," or what is a variety of the same, to contracts of the 
 employer with his manager, whereby the latter becomes re- 
 sponsible for the whole work, and employs and pays the men. 
 From making it the pecuniary interest of the labourer to work 
 overtime, piecework induces him to overstrain his powers, and 
 both to transgress the legal or normal limits of the day of 
 labour, and to raise or exceed the normal degree of the intensity 
 of labour. Marx, quoting from Dunning, says that it was 
 customary in the engineering trade in London for employers 
 to engage a foreman of exceptional physical powers, and pay 
 him an extra salary per quarter to keep the men up to his own 
 pace ; an expedient which, he adds, is actually recommended 
 to farmers by Morton in his " Agricultural Encyclopaedia." 
 He attributes to piecework, especially in its operation on 
 women and children, the degeneration of the labouring class 
 in the potteries, which is shown in the Report of the Com- 
 mission on the Employment of Children. But while Marx 
 thus objects to piecework because it leads to overwork, he 
 objects to it also because it leads to underwork. It enables 
 employers to engage more hands than they require, when they 
 entertain perhaps only an imaginary expectation of work, for 
 they know they run no risk, since paying by the piece they 
 pay only for what is done. The men are thus imperfectly 
 employed and insufficiently paid. 
 
 6. Relative Over-population. One of the worst features of 
 modern industrial development is the vast number of labourers 
 whom it constantly leaves out of employ. This Marx calls 
 relative over-population. Of absolute over-population he has 
 no fear. He is not a Malthusian. He holds that there is no 
 population law applicable to all countries and times alike. 
 Social organisms differ from one another as do animals and 
 plants ; they have different laws and conditions. Ever}- coun-
 
 Karl Marx. 175 
 
 try and age has its own law of population. A constant and 
 increasing over-population is a characteristic of the present 
 age ; it is a necessary consequence of the existing method of 
 carrying on industry ; but it is nothing in the nature of an 
 absolute over-growth ; it is only, to Marx's thinking, a relative 
 superfluity. There is plenty of work for all, more than plenty. 
 If those who have employment were not allowed to be over- 
 wrought, and if work were to-morrow to be limited to its due 
 amount for every one according to age and sex, the existing work- 
 ing population would bequite insufficient to carry on the national 
 production to its present extent. Even in England, where the 
 technical means of saving labour are enormous, this could not be 
 done except by converting most of our present " unproductive" 
 labourers into productive. There is therefore, Marx conceives, 
 no reason why any one should be out of work ; but at present, 
 what with the introduction of new machinery, the industrial 
 cycles, the commercial crises, the changes of fashion, the 
 transitions of every kind, we have always, besides the industrial 
 army in actual service, a vast industrial reserve who are either 
 entirely out of employment or very inadequately employed. 
 This relative over-population is an inevitable consequence of 
 the capitalistic management of industry, which first compels 
 one-half of the labouring community to do the work of all, and 
 then makes use of the redundancy of labour so created to 
 compel the working half to take less pay. Low wages spring 
 from the excessive competition among labourers caused by this 
 relative over-population. " Rises and falls in the rate of wages 
 are universally regulated by extensions and contractions in the 
 industrial reserve army which correspond with changes in the 
 industrial cycle. They are not determined by changes in the 
 absolute number of the labouring population, but through 
 changes in the relative distribution of the working class into 
 active army and reserve army through increase or decrease in 
 the relative numbers of the surplus population through the 
 degree in which it is at one time absorbed and at another 
 dismissed." The fluctuations in the rate of wages are thus 
 traced to expansions or contractions of capital, and not to 
 variation in the state of population. Marx ridicules the theory 
 of these fluctuations given by political economists, that high
 
 176 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 wages lead to their own fall by encouraging marriages, and so 
 in the end increasing the supply of labour, and that low wages 
 lead to their own rise by discouraging marriages and reducing 
 the supply of labour. That, says Marx, is very fine, but before 
 high wages could have produced a redundant population 
 (which would take eighteen years to grow up), wages would, 
 with modern industrial cycles, have been up, down, and up 
 again through ordinary fluctuations of trade. 
 
 Relative over-population is of three kinds : current, latent, 
 and stagnant. Current over -population is what comes from 
 incidental causes, the ordinary changes that take place in the 
 every-day course of industry. A trade is slack this season and 
 brisk the next, has perhaps its own seasons, like house-painting 
 in spring, posting in summer. Or one trade may from tempo- 
 rary reasons be busy, while others are depressed. In the last 
 half year of 1860 there were 90,000 labourers in London out of 
 employment, and yet the factory inspectors report that at that 
 very time much machinery was standing idle for want of 
 hands. This comes from the labourer being mutilated that 
 is, specialized under modern subdivision of labour, and fit for 
 only a single narrow craft. Another current cause of over- 
 population is that under the stress of modern labour the 
 workman is old before his years, and while still in middle life 
 becomes unfit for full work, and passes into the reserve. Marx 
 says this is the real reason for the prevalence of early marriages 
 among the working class. They are generally condemned for 
 being improvident, but they are really resorted to from con- 
 siderations of providence, for working men foresee that they 
 will be prematurely disabled for work, and desire, when that 
 day comes, to have grown-up children about them who shall be 
 able to support them. Other current causes are new inventions 
 and new fashions, which always throw numbers out of work. 
 Latent over-population is what springs from causes whose 
 operation is long and slow. The best example of it is the case 
 of the agricultural labourers. They are being gradually super- 
 seded by machinery, and as they lose work in the country they 
 gather to the towns to swell the reserve army there. A great 
 part of the farm servants are always in this process of transi- 
 tion, a few here, and a few there, and a few everywhere. The
 
 Karl Marx. 177 
 
 constancy of this flow indicates a latent over-population in the 
 rural districts, and that is the cause of the low wages of 
 agricultural labourers. By stagnant over-population Marx 
 means that which is shown in certain branches of industry, 
 where none of the workmen are thrown back entirely into the 
 reserve, but none get full regular employment.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE FEDERALISM OF GAEL MAELO. 
 
 MAELO and Rodbertus are sometimes spoken of as the pre- 
 cursors of German socialism. This, however, is a mistake. 
 The socialism which now exists appeared in Germany among 
 the Young Hegelians forty years ago, before the writings of 
 either of these economists were published, and their writings 
 have had very little influence on the present movement. 
 Rodbertus, it is true, communicated a decided impulse to 
 Lassalle, both by his published letter to Von Kirchmann 
 in 1853, and by personal correspondence subsequently. He 
 was a landed proprietor of strongly liberal opinions, who was 
 appointed Minister of Agriculture in Prussia in 1848, but after 
 a brief period of office retired to his estates, and devoted 
 himself to economic and historical study. He took a very 
 decided view of the defects of the existing industrial system, 
 and held in particular that, in accordance with Ricardo's law 
 of necessary wages, the labourer's income could never rise 
 permanently above the level of supplying him with a bare 
 subsistence, and consequently that, while his labour was 
 always increasing in productivity, through mechanical inven- 
 tions and other means, the share which he obtained of the 
 product was always decreasing. What was required was 
 simply to get this tendency counteracted, and to devise 
 arrangements by which the labourer's share in the product 
 might increase proportionally with the product itself, for 
 otherwise the whole working population would be left behind 
 by the general advancement of society. The remedy, he 
 conceives, must lie in the line of a fresh contraction of the 
 sphere of private property. That sphere had been again and 
 again contracted in the interests of personal development, and it
 
 The Federalism of Carl Mario. 1 79 
 
 must be so once more. And the contraction that was now 
 necessary was to leave nothing whatever in the nature of 
 private property except income. This proposal is substantially 
 identical with the scheme of the socialists ; it is just the 
 nationalization of all permanent stock ; but then he holds that 
 it could not be satisfactorily carried out in less than five 
 hundred years. Rodbertus's writings have never been widely 
 known, but they attracted some attention among the German 
 working class, and he was invited, along with Lassalle and 
 Lothar Bucher, to address the Working Men's Congress in 
 Leipzig in 1863. He promised to come and speak on the law 
 of necessary wages, but the Congress was never held in 
 consequence of the action of Lassalle in precipitating his own 
 movement, and from that movement Rodbertus held entirely 
 aloof. He agreed with Lassalle's complaints against the present 
 order of things, but he disapproved of his plan of reform. He 
 did not think the scheme of founding productive associations 
 on State credit either feasible or desirable, and he would still 
 retain the sj-stem of wages, though with certain improvements 
 introduced by law. He thought, moreover, that Lassalle erred 
 gravely in making the socialists a political party, and that 
 they should have remained a purely economic one. Besides, 
 he looked on it as mere folly to expect, with Lassalle, the 
 accomplishment in thirty years of changes which, as we have 
 seen, he believed five centuries little enough time to evolve. 
 
 Rodbertus may thus be said to have had some relations with 
 the present movement, but Mario stands completely apart from 
 it : and his large and important work, " Untersuchungen iiber 
 die Organization der Arbeit, oder System der Welt-okonomie," 
 published at Kassel in 1850-5 though original, learned, and 
 lucid remained so absolutely unknown that none of the 
 lexicons mention his name, and even an economist like 
 SchaefHe who was the first to draw public attention to it, and 
 has evidently been considerably influenced by it himself had 
 never read it till he was writing his own work on socialism 
 (1870). But though Mario cannot be said to have contributed 
 in any respect to the present socialistic movement, his work 
 deserves attentive consideration as a plea for fundamental 
 social reform, advanced by a detached and independent
 
 180 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 thinker, who has given years of patient study to the pheno- 
 mena of modern economic life, and holds them to indicate 
 the presence of a deep-seated and widespread social disease. 
 Carl Mario is the nom de plume of a German professor of 
 chemistry named "Wmkelblech, and he gives us in the preface 
 to his second volume a touching account of how he came to 
 apply himself to social questions. In 1843 he made a tour of 
 investigation through Northern Europe in connection with a 
 technological work he was engaged in writing, and visited 
 among other places the blue factory of Modum, in Norway, 
 where he remained some days, charmed with the scenery, 
 which he thought equal to that of the finest valleys of the Alps. 
 One morning he went up to a neighbouring height, whence he 
 could see the whole valley, and was calmly enjoying the view 
 when a German artisan came to ask him to undertake some 
 commission to friends in the fatherland. They engaged in con- 
 versation. The artisan went over his experiences, and re- 
 peated all the privations he and his fellows had to endure. 
 His tale of sorrow, so alien apparently to the ravishing beauty 
 around, made a profound impression on Winkelblech, and 
 altered the purpose and work of his life. " What is the 
 reason," he asked himself, " that the paradise before my eyes 
 conceals so much misery ? Is nature the source of all this 
 suffering, or is it man that is to blame for it ? I had before, 
 like so many men of science, looked, while in workshops, only 
 on the forges and the machinery, not on the men on the pro- 
 ducts of human industry, and not on the producers, and I was 
 quite a stranger to this great empire of misery that lies at the 
 foundation of our boasted civilization. The touching words 
 of the artisan made me feel the nullity of my scientific work 
 and life in its whole extent, and from that moment I resolved 
 to make the sufferings of our race, with their causes and 
 remedies, the subject of my studies." He pursued these 
 studies with the greatest industry for several years, and found 
 the extent of men's sufferings to be greatly beyond his ex- 
 pectation. Poverty prevailed everywhere among labourers 
 and among employers, too with peoples of the highest in- 
 dustrial development, and with peoples of the lowest in 
 luxurious cities, and in the huts of villagers in the rich plains
 
 The Federalism of Carl Mario. 181 
 
 of Lombardy, no less than the sterile wilds of Scandinavia. 
 He arrived at the conclusion that the causes of all this lay not 
 in nature, but in the fact that human institutions rested on 
 false economic foundations, and he held the only possible 
 remedy to consist in improving these institutions. He became 
 convinced that technical perfection of production, however 
 great, would never be able to extinguish poverty or lead to 
 the diffusion of general comfort, and that civilization was now 
 come to a stage in its development at which further progress 
 depended entirely on the advancement of political economy. 
 Political economy was, therefore, for our time the most impor- 
 tant of all sciences, and Winkelblech now determined to give 
 himself thoroughly to its study. Hitherto he had not done so. 
 " During the progress of my investigations," he says, " the doc- 
 trines of economists, as well as the theories of socialists, remained 
 almost unknown to me except in name, for I intentionally 
 abstained from seeking any knowledge of either, in order that 
 I might keep myself as free as possible from extraneous influ- 
 ences. It was only after I arrived at the results described that 
 I set myself to a study of economic literature, and came to 
 perceive that the substance of rny thoughts, though many of 
 them were not new, and stood in need of correction, departed 
 completely from the accepted principles of the science." He 
 reached the conclusion that there prevailed everywhere the 
 symptoms of a universal social disease, and that political 
 economy was the only physician that could cure it ; but that 
 the prevailing system of economy was quite incompetent for 
 that task, and that a new system was urgently and indis- 
 pensably required. To set forth such a system is the aim of 
 his book. He derides Proudhon's idea of social reforms coming 
 of themselves without design, and argues strongly that no 
 reform worthy the name can ever be expected except as the 
 fruit of economic researches. He agrees with the Socialists 
 in so far as they seek to devise a new economic system, but 
 he thinks they make a defective diagnosis of the disease, and 
 propose an utterly inadequate remedy. He counts them 
 entirely mistaken in attributing all existing evils to the un- 
 equal distribution of wealth, a deficiency of production being, 
 in his opinion, a much more important source of misery than
 
 1 82 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 any error of distribution. In fact, his fundamental objection to 
 the existing distribution is that it is not the distribution which 
 conduces to the highest production, or to the most fruitful use 
 of the natural resources at the command of society. He differs 
 from the German socialists in always looking at the question 
 from the standpoint of society in general, rather than from that 
 of the proletariat alone, and he maintains that a new organiza- 
 tion of labour is even more necessary for the interest of the 
 capitalists than for that of the labourers, because he believes 
 the present system will infallibly lead, unless amended, to 
 the overthrow of the capitalist class, and the introduction of 
 communism. His point of view is moreover purely economic 
 and scientific, entirely free from all partizan admixture, and 
 while he declares himself to be a zealous member of the re- 
 publican party, he says that he purposely abstains from inter- 
 vention in politics because he regards the political question as one 
 of very minor rank, and holds that, with sound social arrange- 
 ments, people could live more happily under the Russian 
 autocracy than, with unsound ones, they could do under the 
 French republic. The organization of labour is, in his opinion, 
 something quite independent of the form of the State, and its 
 final aim ought to be to produce the amount of wealth necessary 
 to diffuse universal comfort among the whole population without 
 robbing the middle classes. These characteristics sufficiently 
 separate him from the socialist democrats of the present day. 
 
 His book was published gradually in parts, sometimes after 
 long intervals, between 1848 and 1856, and it was finally inter- 
 rupted by his death in 1865. A second edition appeared in 
 1885, containing some additions from his manuscripts, but the 
 work remains incomplete. It was to have consisted .of three 
 parts ; 1st, a historical part, containing an exposition and esti- 
 mate of the various economic systems ; 2nd, an elementary or 
 doctrinal part, containing an exposition of the principles of 
 economic science ; and, 3rd, a practical part, explaining his plan 
 for the organization of labour. The first two parts are all we 
 possess ; the third, and most important, never appeared, which 
 must be regretted by all who recognise the evidences of original 
 power and singular candour that the other parts present. 
 
 Mario's account of the social problem is that it arises from
 
 The Federalism of Carl Mario. 183 
 
 the fact that our present industrial organization is not in 
 correspondence with the idea of right which is recognised by 
 the public opinion of the time. That idea of right is the 
 Christian one, which takes its stand on the dignity of man- 
 hood, and declares that all men, simply because they are men, 
 have equal rights to the greatest possible happiness. Up till 
 the French Revolution, the idea of right that prevailed was 
 the heathen one, which might be called the divine right of the 
 stronger. The weak might be made a slave without wrong. 
 He might be treated as a thing and not as a person or an 
 equal, who had the same right with his master or his feudal 
 superior to the greatest possible enjoyment. Nature belonged 
 to the conqueror, and his dominion was transmitted by privi- 
 lege. Inequality of right was therefore the characteristic of 
 this period ; Mario calls it monopolism. But at the French 
 Revolution the Christian idea of right rose to its due ascendancy 
 over opinion, and the sentiments of love and justice began to 
 assume a control over public arrangements. Do as you would 
 be done by, became a rule for politics as well as for private 
 life, and the weak were supported against the strong. Equality 
 of right was the mark of the new period ; Mario calls it panpol- 
 ism. This idea could not be realized before the present day, 
 because it had never before taken possession of the public 
 mind, but it has done this now so thoroughly that it cannot be 
 expected to rest till it has realized itself in every direction in 
 all the practical applications of which it is susceptible. The 
 final arbiter of institutions is always the conception of right 
 prevailing at the time ; contemporary industrial arrangements 
 are out of harmony with the contemporary conception of right ; 
 and stability cannot be looked for until this disturbance is 
 completely adjusted. 
 
 Now the first attempts that society made to effect this adjust- 
 ment were not unnaturally attended with imperfection. In 
 the warmth of their recoil from the evils of monopolism, men 
 ran into extreme and distorted embodiments of the opposite 
 principle, and they ran contrary ways. These contrary ways 
 are Liberalism and Communism. Liberalism fixed its atten- 
 tion mainly on the artificial restrictions, the privileges, the 
 services, the legal bonds by which monopoly and inequality
 
 184 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 were kept up, and it thought a perfect state of society would 
 be brought about if only every chain were snapped and 
 every fetter stripped away. It conceived the road to the 
 greatest possible happiness for every man was the greatest 
 possible freedom ; it idolized the principle of abstract liberty, 
 and it fancied if evil did not disappear, it was always because 
 something still remained that needed emancipation. Com- 
 munism, on the other hand, kept its eyes on the inequalities of 
 monopolistic society ; imagined the true road to the greatest 
 possible happiness was the greatest possible equality ; that all 
 ills would vanish as soon as things were levelled enough ; in 
 short, it idolized the principle of abstract equality. Modern 
 Liberalism and modern Communism are therefore of equal 
 birth ; they have the same historical origin in the triumph of 
 the principle of equality of right in 1789 ; they are only differ- 
 ent modes of attempting to reduce that principle to practice ; 
 and Liberalism happens to be the more widely disseminated of 
 the two, not because it represents that principle better, but 
 merely because being more purely negative than the other, it 
 was easier of introduction, and so got the start of Communism 
 in the struggle of existence. According to Mario, they are 
 both equally bad representatives of the principle, and their 
 chief good lies in their mutual criticism, by means of which 
 they prepare the way for the true system, the system of 
 Federalism, which will be presently explained. The history 
 of revolution, he says, begins in the victory of Liberalism and 
 Communism together over Monopolism ; it proceeds by the 
 conflict of the victors with one another, and it ends in the final 
 triumph of Federalism over both. 
 
 Mario next criticises the two systems of Liberalism and 
 Communism with considerable acuteness. Both the one and 
 the other are Utopias ; they are absorbed in realizing an 
 abstract principle, and they, as a matter of fact, produce 
 exactly the opposite of what they aim at. Communism seeks 
 to reach the greatest possible happiness by introducing first 
 the greatest possible equality. But what is equality ? Is it 
 equality when each man gets a coat of the same size, or is it 
 not rather when each man gets a coat that fits him ? Some 
 communists would accept the former alternative. They would
 
 The Federalism of Carl Mario. 185 
 
 measure off the same length to the dwarf and the giant, to 
 the ploughman and the judge, to the family of three and the 
 family of thirteen. But this would be clearly not equality, 
 but only inequality of a more vicious and vexatious kind. 
 Most communists, however, prefer the second alternative, and 
 assign to every man according to his needs, to every man the 
 coat that fits him. But then we must first have the cloth, 
 and that is only got by labour, and every labourer ought if 
 possible to produce his own coat. The motive to labour, how- 
 ever, is weakened on the communistic system ; and if those who 
 work less are to be treated exactly like those who work more, 
 then that would be no abolition of monopoly, but merely the 
 invention of a new monopoly, the monopoly of indolence and 
 incapacity. The skilful and industrious would be exploited 
 by the stupid and lazy. Besides, production would for the 
 same reason, insufficient inducement to labour, be diminished, 
 progress would be stopped, and therefore the average of 
 human happiness would decline. Communism thus conducts 
 to the opposite of everything it seeks. It seeks equality, it 
 ends in inequality; it seeks the abolition of monopoly, it 
 creates a new monopoly ; it seeks to increase happiness, it 
 actually diminishes it. It is a pure Utopia, and why ? Because 
 it misunderstands its own principle. Equality does not mean 
 giving equal things to every man ; it means merely affording 
 the greatest possible playroom for the development of every 
 personalitj^, and that is exactly the principle of freedom. The 
 greatest possible equality and the greatest possible freedom 
 can only be realized together ; they must spring out of the 
 same conditions, and a system of right which shall adjust these 
 conditions is just what is now wanted. 
 
 Liberalism is a failure from like causes. It seeks to realize 
 happiness by freedom ; it realizes neither. For it mistakes the 
 nature of freedom, as the Communists mistake the nature of 
 equality. It takes freedom to be the power of doing what one 
 likes, instead of being the power of doing what is right. Its 
 whole bent is to exempt as much as possible of life from 
 authoritative restraint, and to give as much scope as exigencies 
 will allow to the play of individuality. It is based on no 
 positive conception of right whatever, and looks on the State
 
 1 86 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 as an alien whose interference is something exceptional, only 
 justified on occasional grounds of public necessity or general 
 utility. It fails to see that there are really no affairs in a com- 
 munity which are out of relation to the general wellbeing, 
 and destitute of political significance. Nothing demonstrates 
 the error of this better than the effects of the Liberal regime 
 itself. For half a century the industrial concerns of the people 
 have been treated as matters of purely private interest, and 
 this policy has resulted in a political as well as economical 
 revolution. Industrial freedom, which has produced capitalism 
 in the economic field, has resulted in political life in the 
 ascendancy of a new class, a plutocracy, " the worst masters," 
 said De Tocqueville, " the world has yet seen, though their 
 reign will be short." The change which was effected by the 
 legislation of the Revolution was not a development of a 
 fourth estate, as is sometimes said ; it was really nothing more 
 than the creation of a money aristocracy, and the putting of 
 them in the place of the old hereditary nobility. The system 
 of industrial right that happens to prevail, therefore, so far 
 from being, as Liberals fancy, outside the sphere of political 
 interest, is in truth the very element on which the distribution 
 of political power, in the last analysis, depends. Nothing is 
 more political than the social question. Liberals think slight 
 of that question, but it is, says Mario, the real question of the 
 day, and it is neither more nor less than the question of the 
 existence or abolition of Liberalism, the question of the main- 
 tenance or subversion of the principle of industrial freedom, 
 the question of the ascendancy or overthrow of a money 
 aristocracy. The fight of our age is a fight against a pluto- 
 cracy bred of Liberalism. It is not, as some represent it, a 
 struggle of labourers against employers; it is a joint struggle of 
 labourers and lower bourgeoisie against the higher bourgeoisie, 
 a struggle of those who work and produce against those who 
 luxuriate idly on the fruits of others' labour. As compared 
 with this question, constitutional questions are of very minor 
 importance, for no matter whether the State be monarchy or 
 republic, if the system of industrial right that prevails in it be 
 the system of industrial freedom, the real power of the country 
 will be in the hands of the capitalist class. He who fails to
 
 The Federalism of Carl Mario. 187 
 
 see this, says Mario, fails to understand the spirit of his time 
 It is always the national idea of right that governs both in 
 social and political relations, and as long as the national idea 
 of right is that of Liberalism, we shall continue to have capi- 
 talism and a plutocracy. It is the mind that builds the body 
 up, and it is only when a new system of right has taken as 
 complete possession of the national consciousness as Liberalism 
 did in 1789, that the present social conflict will cease and a 
 better order of things come in. 
 
 From want of such a system of right from want even of 
 seeing the necessity for it, Liberalism has defeated its own 
 purpose. It sought to abolish monopoly ; it has only sub- 
 stituted for the old monopoly of birth the more grievous 
 monopoly of wealth. It sought to establish freedom ; it has 
 only established plutocratic tyranny. It has erred because it 
 took for freedom an abstraction of its own and tried to realize 
 that, just as Communism erred by taking for equality an 
 abstraction of its own and trying to realize that. The most 
 perfect state of freedom is not reached when every man has 
 the power of doing what he likes, any more than the most 
 perfect state of equality is reached when every man has equal 
 things with every other ; but the greatest possible freedom is 
 attained in a condition of society where every man has the 
 greatest possible play-room for the development of his person- 
 ality, and the greatest possible equality is attained in exactly 
 the same state of things. Real freedom and real equality are 
 in fact identical. Every right contains from the first a social 
 element as well as an individual element, and it cannot be 
 realized in the actual world without observing a due adjust- 
 ment between these two elements. Such an adjustment can 
 only be discovered by a critical examination of the economic 
 constitution of society, and must then be expressed in a distinct 
 system of industrial right, which imposes on individual action 
 its just limits. True liberty is liberty within these limits ; and 
 the true right of property is a right of property under the same 
 conditions. The fundamental fault of Liberalism, the cause 
 of its failure, is simply that it goes to work without a sound 
 theory of right, or rather perhaps without any clear theory at 
 all, and merely aims at letting every one do as he likes, with
 
 1 88 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the understanding that the State can always be called in to 
 correct accidents and excesses. 
 
 This defect is what Federalism claims to supply. It claims 
 to be the only theory that abandons abstractions and keeps 
 closely to the nature of things, and therefore to be the only 
 theory that is able to realize even approximately the Christian 
 principle of equality of right. The name furnishes no very 
 precise clue to the conclusion it designates, and it has no 
 reference to the federative form of State, for which Mario 
 expressly disavows having any partiality. He has chosen the 
 word merely to indicate the fact that society is an organic 
 confederation of many different kinds of associations families, 
 churches, academies, mercantile companies, and so on ; that 
 association is not only a natural form, but the natural form in 
 which man's activity tends to be carried on ; and that in anj r 
 sound system of industrial right this must be recognised by 
 an extension of the collective form of property and the co- 
 operative form of production. Communism, says Mario, is 
 mechanical, Liberalism is atomistic, but Federalism is organic. 
 When he distinguishes his theory from communism, it must 
 be remembered that it is from the communism which he has 
 criticised, and which he would prefer to denominate Equalism ; 
 it is from the communism of Baboeuf, which would out of 
 hand give every man according to his needs, and would 
 consequently, through impairing the motives to industry, leave 
 those needs themselves in the long run less satisfactorily 
 provided for than they are now. But his system is nearly 
 identical with the communism of the Young Hegelians of his 
 own time that is, with the German socialism of the present 
 day although he arrived at it in entire independence of their 
 agitations, and builds it on deductions peculiar to himself. 
 Like them, he asks for the compulsory transformation of land 
 and the instruments of production from private property into 
 collective property ; like them, he asks for this on grounds of 
 social justice, as the necessary mechanism for giving effect to 
 positive rights that are set aside under the present system ; 
 and he says himself, "If you ask the question, how is the 
 democratic social republic related to Federalism, the most 
 suitable answer is, as the riddle to its solution."
 
 The Federalism of Carl Mario. 189 
 
 He starts from the position that all men have equally the 
 right to property. Not merely in the sense, which is com- 
 monly acknowledged, that they have the right to property if 
 they have the opportunity of acquiring it ; but in the further 
 significance, that they have a right to the opportunity. They 
 are in fact born proprietors de jure at least, and they are so 
 for two reasons. First, God has made them persons, and 
 not things, and they have, therefore, all equally a natural 
 right to their amplest personal development. If society inter- 
 feres with this liberty of personal development if it suffers 
 any of its members to become the slaves of others, for example 
 it robs them of original rights which belong to them by the 
 mere fact of their manhood. But, secondly, property, resources 
 of some sort, being indispensable means of personal develop- 
 ment, God, who has imposed the end, has supplied the means. 
 He has given nature, the earth and the lower creation, into the 
 dominion of man, not of this or that man, or class of men, but 
 of mankind, and consequently every man has, equally with 
 every other, a right to participate in the dominion of nature, 
 a right to use its bounty to the extent required for his personal 
 development. No appropriation of nature can be just which 
 excludes this possibility and robs any man of this natural right. 
 It is, therefore, wrong to allow to any single person, or to any 
 limited number of persons, an absolute dominion over natural 
 resources in which everybody else has, by nature, a right to 
 some extent to share. He who should have complete and 
 exclusive lordship over all nature, would be lord and master 
 of all his fellow-men, and in a period after natural agents are 
 all appropriated the system of complete and absolute property 
 leaves the new-comers at the mercy of those who are already 
 in possession. They can only work if the latter give them 
 the productive instruments ; they can only reap from their 
 work so much of its fruits as the latter are pleased to leave 
 with them ; and they must perish altogether unless the latter 
 employ them. They are slaves, they are beggars ; and yet 
 they came into the world with the rights of a proprietor, of 
 which they can never be divested. Nature laid covers for 
 them as well as for the rest, and a system of property is 
 essentially unjust which ousts them from their seat at her
 
 19 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 table. The common theory of property starts from the 
 premiss, that all men have the right to property, and draws 
 the conclusion, that, therefore, some men have the right to 
 monopolize it. As usually understood, the proprietary right 
 is as much a right of robbery as a right of property, and 
 Proudhon would have been quite correct in describing property 
 as theft, if no better system of property could be devised than 
 the present. 
 
 But such a system can be devised ; one under which the 
 right of new-comers may be respected without disturbing those 
 of possessors. This can only be done by putting entirely aside 
 the complete and absolute form of property which is in so 
 much favour with Liberalism, and by making the right of 
 property in any actual possession a strictly limited and circum- 
 scribed right from the first the right not to an arbitrary 
 control over a thing, but to a just control over it. So long as 
 property is always thought of as an arbitrary and absolute 
 dominion over a thing, the proprietary right cannot possibly 
 be explained in a way that does not make it a right given to 
 some to rob others. "Why not, therefore, define property from 
 the beginning as subject to limitations, and contrive a new 
 form or system of it, in which these limitations shall for ever 
 receive due recognition, and no man be thereafter denied the 
 opportunity of acquiring as much of the bounty of nature as is 
 necessary for him to carry out his personal development ? 
 
 That is Mario's task, and it would have been an easy one, if 
 all goods, if everything that satisfies a human want, had been 
 supplied directly by nature, as air is supplied, without the 
 need of industry to procure it or the power of industry to 
 multiply it. Then the problem would be solved very simply 
 as the earlier communists desired to solve it. Every member 
 of society would be entitled to partake of nature's supplies, t s 
 he now does of air, in the measure of his need, and when those 
 supplies ran exhausted, just as when the air became vitiated, 
 society would be entitled, nay obliged, to suppress further 
 propagation. But the question is far from being so simple. 
 Nature only yields her bounties to us after labour ; they are 
 only converted into means of life by labour; and they are 
 capable of being vastly multiplied by labour. This element of
 
 The Federalism of Carl Mario. 191 
 
 labour changes the situation of things considerably, and must 
 be allowed a leading role in determining a just right and 
 system of property. The only case where a proprietary right 
 can be recognised which is unmodified by this consideration, 
 is the case of those who are unable to labour. They fall back 
 on their original right to a share in the bounty of nature in 
 the measure that their personal development requires ; in 
 other words, according to their needs. Their share does not 
 lie waste, though they are unable to work it themselves, and 
 their share belongs to them immediately because they are 
 persons, and not because they may afterwards become la- 
 bourers. Mario recognises, therefore, antecedently to labour 
 the right to existence, and this right he proposes to realize for 
 the weak and disabled by means of a compulsory system of 
 national insurance. 
 
 The other natural proprietary rights are consequent in one 
 way or another upon labour. First, there is the right to 
 labour. If every man has a right to a share in the dominion 
 of nature, then every man who is able to labour has a right to 
 obtain the natural resources that are necessary to give him 
 employment according to capacity and trade. No private 
 appropriation of these resources can divest him of his title to 
 get access to them, and if he cannot find work himself, the 
 State is bound to provide it for him in public workshops. 
 Second, every man has a right to the most profitable possible 
 application of labour to natural resources. He has an interest 
 in seeing the common stock put to the best account, and he is 
 wronged in this interest when waste is permitted, when in- 
 ferior methods are resorted to, or when the distribution .of 
 work and materials is ill arranged. Now the best arrangement 
 is when each man is equipped according to the measure and 
 quality of his powers. Nature will be then best worked, and 
 man's personal development will then be best furthered. If 
 such an arrangement cannot be effected on the system of pro- 
 perty now in vogue, while it may be under another, it is every 
 man's right to have the former system supplanted by the 
 latter. The most economical form of property is the most just. 
 Third, the next right is a right to an almost unlimited control 
 over the fruits of one's own labour. Not over the means of
 
 192 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 labour ; these can only be justly or economically held by a 
 circumscribed control; but over the fruits of labour. These 
 ought to be retained as exclusive property, for the simple 
 reason that the natural resources will be so turned to the best 
 account. On any other system of payment the motive to 
 labour is impaired, and the amount of its produce diminished. 
 Distribution by need defeats its own end ; the very needs 
 of the community would be less amply satisfied after it than 
 before it. Distribution according to work is the sound econo- 
 mic principle, and therefore the just one. Mario here leaves 
 room for the play of the hereditary principle and of competi- 
 tion to some extent, and he allows the free choice of occupation 
 on similar grounds. Men will work best in lines their own 
 tastes and powers lead them to. Everything is determined by 
 economic utility, and economic utility is supposed to be at its 
 height when the natural resources of a country are distributed 
 among its inhabitants according to the requirements of their 
 labouring powers. 
 
 This condition of things can only be realized, first, if popula- 
 tion is regulated ; second, if unproductive labour is suppressed ; 
 and third, if the means of labour are made common property. 
 The necessity for regulating population comes, of course, from 
 the limitation of the natural resources at society's command. 
 In any community there is a certain normal limit of popula- 
 tion the limit at which all the natural resources are distri- 
 buted among all the inhabitants according to their powers 
 and the community will learn when this limit is reached from 
 the number of workmen who are unable to obtain private 
 employment, and are obliged to seek work from the State. 
 Then it can regulate population by various expedients. It may 
 require the possession of a certain amount of fortune as a preli- 
 minary condition to marriage, and raise this amount according 
 to necessit3 r . It may encourage emigration. It may forbid 
 marriages under a fixed age, and to prevent illegitimacy, it 
 might give natural children the same rights as legitimate ones. 
 But Mario trusts most to the strong preventive check that 
 would be supplied by the power imparted to working men 
 under the Federal regime of improving their position. 
 
 The same necessity that makes it legitimate, and, indeed,
 
 The Federalism of Carl Mario. 193 
 
 imperative to regulate population, makes it legitimate and im- 
 perative also to suppress what Mario calls unproductive acqui- 
 sition, i.e., the acquisition by persons who are able to work of 
 any other property than they earn as the fruit of their work ; 
 and to suppress likewise all waste of the means of life and 
 enjoyment, such, for example, as is involved in the mainte- 
 nance of unnecessary horses, dogs, or other animals that only 
 eat up the products of the soil. The obligation to labour and 
 the curtailment of luxury would come into exercise before the 
 restrictions on population, and be more and more rigorously 
 enforced as the normal limit of population was approximated. 
 
 But the most important and the most necessary innovation 
 is the conversion of land and the instruments of production 
 into the form of collective property. The form in which pro- 
 perty should be held ought to be strictly determined by 
 considerations of economic utility. From such considerations 
 the Liberals themselves have introduced important changes 
 into the system of property ; they have abolished fiefs, heredi- 
 tary tenancies, entail, servitudes, church and village lands, all 
 the peculiarities of monopolistic society, because, as they said, 
 they wished to substitute a good form of property for a bad ; 
 and they at least have no right, Mario thinks, to turn round 
 now on Communists or Federalists for proposing to supersede 
 this good form of property by a better. They have themselves 
 transformed property by law, and they have transformed it on 
 grounds of economic advantage ; they have owned that the 
 economic superiority of a particular form of property imposes 
 a public obligation for its compulsory introduction. They 
 asserted the competency of the State against the monopolists, 
 and they cannot now deny it against the socialists. If the 
 private form of property is best, then let the State maintain it ; 
 but if the collective form is best, then the State is bound, even 
 on the principles of Liberals themselves, to introduce it. The 
 question can only be determined by experience of the com- 
 parative economic utility of the two. Without offering any 
 detailed proof of his proposition from experience Mario then 
 affirms that the most advantageous form of property is reached 
 when the instruments of production are the collective property 
 of associations, and the instruments of enjoyment (except wells, 
 
 o
 
 194 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 bridges, and the like) are the property of individuals. Each 
 man's house would still be his castle ; his house and the fulness 
 thereof would still belong to him ; but outside of it he could 
 acquire no individual possessions. Of land and the means of 
 labour, he should be joint-proprietor with others, or rather 
 joint-tenant with them under the Crown. Industrial property 
 would be held in common by the associations that worked it, 
 and these associations would be organized by authority with 
 distinct charters of powers and functions. 
 
 Mario thus arrives at the same practical scheme as Marx, 
 though by a slightly different road. Marx builds his claim on 
 Eicardo's theory of value and Ricardo's law of necessary wages. 
 Mario builds his on man's natural right, as a sharer in the do- 
 minion of nature, to th9 most advantageous exercise of that 
 dominion.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE SOCIALISTS OF THE CHAIE. 
 
 THE Socialists of the Chair have done themselves injustice and 
 sown their course with embarrassing misconceptions by adopt- 
 ing too hastily an infelicitous name. It is more descriptive 
 than most political nicknames, and therefore more liable to 
 mislead. It was first used in 1872 in a pamphlet by Oppen- 
 heim, then one of the leaders of the National Liberals, to 
 ridicule a group of young professors of political economy who 
 had begun to show a certain undefined sympathy with the 
 socialist agitations of Lassalle and Von Schweitzer, and to 
 write of the wrongs of the labouring classes and the evils of 
 the existing industrial system with a flow of emotion which 
 was thought to befit their years better than their position. A 
 few months later these young professors called together at 
 Eisenach a Congress of all who shared their general attitude 
 towards that class of questions. In opening this Congress 
 which was attended by almost every economist of note in 
 Germany, and by a number of the weightiest and most 
 distinguished Liberal politicians Professor Schmoller em- 
 ployed the name " Socialists of the Chair " to describe himself 
 and those present, without adding a single qualifying remark, 
 just as if it had been their natural and chosen designation. 
 The nickname was no doubt accepted so readily, partly from 
 a desire to take the edge off the sneer it was meant to convey, 
 but partly also from the nobler feeling which makes men stand 
 by a truth that is out of favour. Not that they approved of 
 the contentions of social democracy out and out, but they 
 believed there was more basis of truth in them than persons in 
 authority were inclined to allow, and besides that the truth 
 they contained was of special and even pressing importance. 
 They held, as Schmoller said, that " Social Democracy was 
 
 195
 
 196 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 itself a consequence of the sins of modern Liberalism." They 
 went entirely with the Social Democrats in maintaining both 
 that a grave social crisis had arisen, and that it had been 
 largely brought about by an irrational devotion on the part of 
 the Liberals to the economic doctrine of laissez-faire. But 
 they went further with them. They believed that the salvation 
 of modern society was to come, not indeed from the particular 
 scheme of reconstruction advocated by the Social Democrats, 
 but still from applications in one form or another of their 
 fundamental principle, the principle of association. And it 
 was for that reason it was for the purpose of marking the 
 value they set upon the associative principle as the chief source 
 of healing for the existing ills of the nations that they chose 
 to risk misunderstanding and obloquy by accepting the nick- 
 name put upon them by their adversaries. The late Professor 
 Held, who claims as a merit that he was the first to do so, 
 explains very clearly what he meant by calling himself a 
 socialist. Socialism may signify many different things, but, 
 as he uses the word, it denotes not any definite system of 
 opinions or any particular plan of social reform, but only a 
 general method which may guide various systems, and may 
 be employed more or less according to circumstances in direct- 
 ing many different reforms. He is a socialist because he would 
 give much more place than obtains at present to the associative 
 principle in the arrangements of economic life, and because 
 he cannot share in the admiration many economists express for 
 the purely individualistic basis on which these arrangements 
 have come to stand. A socialist is simply the opposite of an 
 individualist. The individualist considers that the perfection 
 of an industrial economy consists in giving to the principles of 
 self-interest, private property, and free competition, on which 
 the present order of things is founded, the amplest scope they 
 are capable of receiving, and that all existing economic evils 
 are due, not to the operation of these principles, but only to 
 their obstruction, and will gradually disappear when self- 
 interest comes to be better understood, when competition is 
 facilitated by easier inter-communication, and when the law 
 has ceased from troubling and left industry at rest. The 
 socialist, in Held's sense, is, on the other hand, one who rejects
 
 The Socialists of the Chair. 197 
 
 the comfortable theory of the natural harmony of individual 
 interests, and instead of deploring the obstructions which 
 embarrass the operations of the principles of competition, self- 
 interest, and private property, thinks that it is precisely in 
 consequence of these obstructions that industrial society con- 
 trives to exist at all. Strip these principles, he argues, of the 
 restraints put upon them now by custom, by conscience, by 
 public opinion, by a sense of fairness and kind feeling, and the 
 inequalities of wealth would be immensely aggravated, and 
 the labouring classes would be unavoidably ground to misery. 
 Industrial society would fall into general anarchy, into a liellum 
 omnium contra omnes, in which they that have would have 
 more abundantly, and they that have not would lose even what 
 they have. Held declines to join in the admiration bestowed 
 by many scientific economists upon this state of war, in which 
 the battle is always to the rich. He counts it neither the state 
 of nature, nor the state of perfection, of economic society, 
 but simply an unhappy play of selfish and opposing forces, 
 which it ought to be one of the distinct aims of political 
 economy to mitigate and counteract. Individualism has 
 already had too free a course, and especially in the immediate 
 past has enjoyed too sovereign a reign. The work of the 
 world cannot be carried on by a fortuitous concourse of hostile 
 atoms, moving continually in a strained state of suspended 
 social war, and therefore, for the very safety of industrial 
 society, we must needs now change our tack, give up our 
 individualism, and sail in the line of the more positive and 
 constructive tendencies of socialism. To Held's thinking 
 accordingly, socialism and individualism are merely two 
 contrary general principles, ideals, or methods, which may be 
 employed to regulate the constitution of economic society, 
 and he declares himself a socialist because he believes that 
 society suffers at present from an excessive application of the 
 individualistic principle, and can only be cured by an extensive 
 employment of the socialistic one. 
 
 This is all clear enough, but it is simply giving to the word 
 socialism another new meaning, and creating a fresh source of 
 ambiguity. That term has already contracted definite associa- 
 tions which it is impossible to dispel by mere word of mouth,
 
 198 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 and which constitute a refracting medium through which the 
 principles of the Socialists of the Chair cannot fail to be pre- 
 sented in a very misleading form. These writers assume a 
 special position in two relations first, as theoretical economists ; 
 and, second, as practical politicians or social reformers ; and in 
 both respects alike the term socialism is peculiarly inappro- 
 priate to describe their views. In regard to the first point, by 
 adopting that name they have done what they could to " Nico- 
 demus" themselves into a sect, whereas they might have 
 claimed, if they chose, to be better exponents of the catholic 
 tradition of the science than those who found fault with them. 
 This is a claim, however, which they would be shocked indeed 
 to think of presenting. With a natural partiality for their 
 own opinions, they exaggerated immensely the extent and also 
 the value of their divergence from the traditional or, as it is 
 sometimes called, the classical economics. In the energy of 
 their recoil from the dogmatism which had for a generation 
 usurped an excessive sway over economic science, they were 
 carried too far in the opposite direction, but they had in their 
 own minds the sensation that they were carried a great deal 
 farther than they really were. They liked to think of their 
 historical method as constituting a new epoch, and effecting a 
 complete revolution in political economy, but, as will subse- 
 quently appear, that method, when reduced to its real worth, 
 amounts to no more than an application, with somewhat 
 distincter purpose and wider reach, of the method which 
 Smith himself followed. Of this they are in some degree 
 conscious. Brentano, who belongs to the extreme right of the 
 school, says that Smith would have been a Socialist of the 
 Chair to-day if he were alive ; and Samter, who belongs to the 
 extreme left, though he is doubtful regarding Smith, has no 
 hesitation in claiming Mill, whom he looks upon as standing 
 more outside than inside the school of Smith. Their position 
 is, therefore, not the new departure which many of them 
 would fain represent it to be. They are really as natural and 
 as legitimate a line of descent from Adam Smith as their 
 adversaries the German Manchester Party who claimed the 
 authority of his name. Perhaps they are even more so, for in 
 science the true succession lies with those who carry the prin-
 
 The Socialists of the Chair. 199 
 
 ciples of the master to a more fruitful development, and not 
 with those who embalm them as sacred but sterile simulacra. 
 
 But it is as practical reformers that the Socialists of the 
 Chair suffer most injustice from their name. Since the word 
 socialism was first used by Reybaud fifty years ago, it has 
 always been connected with Utopian or revolutionary ideas. 
 Now the Socialists of the Chair are the very opposite of 
 revolutionaries both by creed and practice. None of the 
 various parties which occupy themselves with the social 
 problem in Germany is so eminently and advisedly practical. 
 Their very historical method, apart from anything else, makes 
 them so. It gives them a special aversion to political and 
 social experiments, for it requires as the first essential of any 
 project of reform that it shall issue naturally and easily out of 
 or at least be harmonious with the historical conditions of 
 the time and place to which it is to be applied. Roscher, who 
 may be regarded as the founder of the school, says that 
 reformers ought to take for their model Time, whose reforms 
 are the surest and most irresistible of all, but yet so gradual that 
 they cannot be observed at any given moment. They make, 
 therefore, on the whole a very sparing use of the socialistic 
 principle they invoke. Certainly the world, in their eyes, is 
 largely out of joint, but its restoration is to proceed gently, 
 like Solomon's temple, without sound of hammer. Some of 
 them of course go farther than others, but they would all still 
 leave us rent, wages, and profits, the three main stems of 
 individualism. They struck the idea of taxing speculative 
 profits out of their programme, and so far from having any 
 socialistic thought of abolishing inheritance, none of them, 
 except Von Scheel would even tax it exceptionally. Samter 
 stands alone in urging the nationalization of the land ; and 
 Wagner stands alone in desiring the abolition of private 
 property in ground-rents in towns ; the other members cannot 
 agree even about the expediency of nationalizing the railways. 
 They work of set purpose for a better distribution of wealth 
 for what Schmoller calls a progressive equalization of the 
 excessive and even dangerous differences of culture that exist 
 at present but they recoil from all suggestion of schemes of 
 repartition, and they have no fault to find with inequality in
 
 2OO Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 itself. On the contrary they regard inequality as being not 
 merely an unavoidable result of men's natural endowments, 
 but an indispensable instrument of their progress and civiliza- 
 tion. Schmoller explains that their political principles are 
 those of Radical Toryism, as portrayed in Lord Beaconsfield's 
 novels ; and he means that they rest on the same active 
 sympathy with the ripening aspirations of the labouring classes, 
 and the same zealous confidence in the authority of the State, 
 and in these respects are distinguished from modern Liberalism, 
 whose governing sympathies are with the interests and ideas 
 of the bourgeoisie, and which entertains a positive jealousy of 
 the action of the State. The actual reforms which the 
 Socialists of the Chair have hitherto promoted have been in 
 the main copied from our own English legislation our Factory 
 Acts, our legalization of Trade Unions, our Savings Banks, our 
 registration of Friendly Societies, our sanitary legislation, etc., 
 etc. measures which have been passed, with the concurrence 
 of men of opposite shades of opinion, out of no social theory 
 but from a plain regard to the obvious necessities of the hour. 
 So that we have been simply Socialists of the Chair for a 
 generation without knowing it, doing from a happy political 
 instinct the works which they deduce out of an elaborate 
 theory of economic politics. Part of their theory, however, 
 is, that in practical questions they are not to go by theory, and 
 the consequence is that while they sometimes lay down general 
 principles in which communism might steal a shelter, they 
 control these principles so much in their application by con- 
 siderations of expediency, that the measures they end in 
 proposing differ little from such as commend themselves to 
 the common sense and public spirit of middle-class Englishmen. 
 Their general theory had been taught in Germany for 
 twenty years before it was forced into importance by the policy 
 it suggested and the controversies it excited in connection 
 with the socialist movement which began in 1863. "Wilhelm 
 Roscher, the lately deceased professor of economics in Leipzig, 
 first propounded the historical method in his " Grundriss zu 
 Vorlesungen iiber die Staatswirthschaft nach geschichtlicher 
 Methode," published in 1843, though it deserves to be noticed 
 that in this work he spoke of the historical method as being
 
 The Socialists of the Chair. 201 
 
 the ordinary inductive method of scientific economists, and 
 distinguished it from the idealistic method proceeding by 
 deduction from preconceived ideas, which he said was the 
 method of the socialists. He had no thought as yet of repre- 
 senting his method as diverging from that of his predecessors, 
 even in detail, much less as being essentially different in 
 principle. Then the late Bruno Hildebrand, professor of 
 political science at Jena, in his work on the "National 
 Economy of the Present and the Future," published in 1847, 
 proclaimed the historical method as the harbinger and instru- 
 ment of a new era in the science, but he speaks of it only as a 
 restoration of the method of diligent observation which Adam 
 Smith practised, but which his disciples deserted for pure 
 abstractions. In 1853, a more elaborate defence and exposi- 
 tion of the historical method appeared in a work on " Political 
 Economy from the Standpoint of the Historical Method," by 
 Carl G. A. Knies, professor of national economics at Heidelberg. 
 But it was never dreamt that the ideas broached in these 
 works had spread beyond the few solitary thinkers who issued 
 them. The Free Traders were still seen ruling everything in 
 the high places of the land in the name of political economy, 
 and they were everywhere apparently accepted as authorized 
 interpreters of the mysteries of that, to the ordinary public, 
 somewhat occult science. They preached the freedom of 
 exchange like a religion which contained at once all they 
 were required to believe in economic matters, and all they were 
 required to do. There was ground for Lassalle's well-known 
 taunt : " Get a starling, Herr Schultze, teach it to pronounce 
 the word ' exchange,' ' exchange,' ' exchange/ and you have 
 produced a very good modern economist." The German 
 Manchester Party certainly gave to the principle of laissez- 
 faire, laissez-aller, a much more unconditional and universal 
 application than any party in this country thought of accord- 
 ing to it. They looked on it as a kind of orthodoxy which it 
 had come to be almost impious to challenge. It had been 
 hallowed by the consensus of the primitive fathers of the 
 science, and it seemed now to be confirmed beyond question 
 experimentally by the success of the practical legislation in 
 which it had been exemplified during the previous quarter of
 
 2O2 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 a century. The adherents of the new school never raised a 
 murmur against all this up till the eventful time of the 
 socialist agitation and the formation of the new German Empire, 
 and the reason is very plain. On the economic questions 
 which came up before that period, they were entirely at one 
 with the Free Traders, and gave a hearty support to their 
 energetic lead. They were, for example, as strenuously 
 opposed to protective duties and to restrictions upon liberty 
 of migration, settlement, and trading, as Manchester itself. 
 But with the socialist agitation of 1863, a new class of econo- 
 mic- questions came to the front questions respecting the 
 condition of the working classes, the relations of capital and 
 labour, the distribution of national wealth, and the like and 
 on these new questions they could not join the Free Traders 
 in saying " Hands off!" They did not believe with the Man- 
 chester school that the existing distribution of wealth was the 
 best of all possible distributions, because it was the distribu- 
 tion which Nature herself produced. They thought, on the 
 contrary, that Nature had little to do with the matter ; but 
 even if it had more, there was only too good cause for applying 
 strong corrections by art. They said it was vain for the Man- 
 chester party to deny that a social question existed, and to 
 maintain that the working classes were as well off as it was 
 practical for economic arrangements to make them. They 
 declared there was much truth in the charges which socialists 
 were bringing against the existing order of things, and that 
 there was a decided call upon all the powers of society, and, 
 among others, especially upon the State, to intervene with 
 some remedial measures. A good opportunity for concerted 
 and successful action seemed to be afforded when the German 
 Empire was established, and this led to the convening of the 
 Eisenach Congress in 1872, and the organization of the Society 
 for Social Politics in the following year. 
 
 Men of all shades of opinion were invited to that Congress, 
 provided they agreed on two points, which were expressly 
 mentioned in the invitation : 1st, in entertaining an earnest 
 sense of the gravity of the social crisis which existed ; and 2nd, 
 in renouncing the principle of laissez-faire and all its works, 
 The Congress was attended by 150 members, including many
 
 T/ie Socialists of the Chair. 203 
 
 leading politicians and most of the professors of political 
 economy at the Universities. Roscher, Knies, and Hildebrand 
 were there, with their younger disciples Schmoller, professor 
 at Strasburg and author of the " History of the Small Indus- 
 tries " ; Lujo Brentano, professor at Breslau, well known in 
 this country by his book on " English Gilds " and his larger 
 work on " English Trade Unions"; Professors A. "Wagner of 
 Berlin and Schonberg of Tubingen. Then there were men 
 like Max Hirsch and Duncker the publisher, both members of 
 the Imperial Diet, and the founders of the Hirsch-Duncker 
 Trade Unions ; Dr. Engel, director of the statistical bureau 
 at Berlin ; Professor von Holtzendorff, the criminal jurist ; 
 and Professor Gneist, historian of the English Constitu- 
 tion, who was chosen to preside. After an opening address 
 by Schmoller, three papers were read and amply discussed, 
 one on Factory Legislation by Brentano, a second on trade 
 Unions and Strikes by Schmoller, and a third on Labourers' 
 Dwellings by Engel. This Congress first gave the German 
 public an idea of the strength of the new movement ; and the 
 Free Trade party were completely, and somewhat bitterly, 
 disenchanted, when they found themselves deserted, not as 
 they fancied merely by a few effusive young men, but by 
 almost every economist of established reputation in the 
 country. A sharp controversy ensued. The newspapers, with 
 scarcely an exception, attacked the Socialists of the Chair 
 tooth and nail, and leading members of the Manchester party, 
 such as Treitschke the historian, Bamberger the Liberal poli- 
 tician, and others, rushed eagerly into the fray. They were 
 met with spirit by Schmoller, Held, Von Scheel, Brentano, 
 and other spokesmen of the Eisenach position, and one result 
 of the polemic is, that some of the misunderstandings which 
 naturally enough clouded that position at the beginning have 
 been cleared away, and it is now admitted by both sides that 
 they are really much nearer one another than either at first 
 supposed. The Socialists of the Chair did not confine their 
 labours to controversial pamphlets. They published news- 
 papers, periodicals, elaborate works of economic investiga- 
 tion ; they held meetings, promoted trade unions, insurance 
 societies, savings banks ; they brought the hours of labour,
 
 204 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the workmen's houses, the effects of speculation and crises, all 
 within the sphere of legislative consideration. The modera- 
 tion of their proposals of change has conciliated to a great 
 extent their Manchester opponents. Even Oppenheim, the 
 inventor of their nickname, laid aside his scoffing, and 
 seconded some of their measures energetically. Indeed, their 
 chief adversaries are now the socialists, who cannot forgive 
 them for going one mile with them and yet refusing to go 
 twain for adopting their diagnosis and yet rejecting their 
 prescription. Brentano, who is one of the most moderate, as 
 well as one of the ablest of them, takes nearly as grave a view 
 of the state of modern industrial society as the socialists them- 
 selves do ; and he says that if the evils from which it suffers 
 could not be removed otherwise, it would be impossible to 
 avoid much longer a socialistic experiment. But then he 
 maintains that they can be removed otherwise, and one of the 
 chief motives of himself and his allies in their practical work 
 is to put an end to socialistic agitation by curing the ills 
 which have excited it. 
 
 The key to the position of the Socialists of the Chair lies 
 in their historical method. This method has nothing to do 
 with the question sometimes discussed whether the proper 
 method of political economy is the inductive or the deductive. 
 On that question the historical school of economists are entirely 
 agreed with the classical school. Roscher, for example, adopts 
 Mill's description of political economy as a concrete deductive 
 science, whose a priori conclusions, based on laws of human 
 nature, must be tested by experience, and says that an 
 economic fact can be said to have received a scientific ex- 
 planation only when its inductive and deductive explanations 
 have met and agreed. He makes, indeed, two qualifying 
 remarks. One is, that it ought to be remembered that even 
 the deductive explanation is based on observation, on the self- 
 observation of the person who offers it. This will be admitted 
 by all. The other is, that every explanation is only provi- 
 sional, and liable to be superseded in the course of the pro- 
 gress of knowledge, and of the historical growth of social and 
 economic structure. This will also be admitted, and it is no 
 peculiarity of political economy. There is no science whose
 
 The Socialists of the Chair. 205 
 
 conclusions are not, modified by the advance of knowledge ; 
 and there are many sciences besides political economy whose 
 phenomena change their type in lapse of time. Roscher's 
 proviso, therefore, amounts to nothing more than a caution 
 to economic investigators to build their explanations scrupu- 
 lously on the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the 
 facts, and to be specially on their guard against applying to 
 the circumstances of one period or nation explanations and 
 recommendations which are only just regarding another. The 
 same disease may have different symptoms in a child from 
 what it has in a man, and a somewhat different type at the 
 present day from what it had some centuries ago ; and it may 
 therefore require a quite different treatment. That is a very 
 sound principle and a very self-evident one, and it contains 
 the whole essence of the historical method, which, so far as it 
 is a method of investigation at all, is simply that of other 
 economists applied under a more dominating sense of the com- 
 plexity and diversity of the phenomena which are subjected 
 to it. There is consequently with the historical school mere 
 rigour of observation and less rigour of theory, and this pecu- 
 liarity leads to practical results of considerable importance, 
 but it has no just pretensions to assume the dignity of a new 
 economic method, and it is made to appear much bigger than 
 it is by looming through the scholastic distinctions in which 
 it is usually set forth. 
 
 The historical school sometimes call their method the realistic 
 and ethical method, to distinguish it from what they are pleased 
 to term the idealistic, and selfish or materialistic method of 
 the earlier economists. They are realists because they can- 
 not agree with the majority of economists who have gone 
 before them in believing there is one, and only one, ideal of 
 the best economic system. There are, says Roscher, as many 
 different ideals as there are different types of peoples, and he 
 completely casts aside the notion, which had generally pre- 
 vailed before him, that there is a single normal system of 
 economic arrangements, which is built on the natural laws 
 of economic life, and to which all nations may at all times 
 with advantage conform. It is against this notion that the 
 historical school has revolted with so much energy that they
 
 206 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 wish to make their opposition to it the flag and symbol of a 
 schism. They deny that there are any natural laws in political 
 economy ; they deny that there is any economic solution 
 absolutely valid, or capable of answering in one economic 
 situation because it has answered in another. Roscher, Knies, 
 and the older members of the school make most of the latter 
 point ; but Hildebrand, Schonberg, Schmoller, Brentano, and 
 the younger spirits among them, direct against the former 
 some of their keenest attacks. They declare it to be a survival 
 from the exploded metaphysics of the much-abused Aufklarung 
 of last century. They argue that just as the economists of 
 that period took self-interest to be the only economic motive, 
 because the then dominant psychology that of the selfish 
 or sensual school represented it as the only real motive of 
 human action, of which the other motives were merely modi- 
 fications ; so did they come to count the reciprocal action and 
 reaction of the self-interest of different individuals to be a 
 system of natural forces, working according to natural laws, 
 because they found the whole intellectual air they breathed 
 at the time filled with the idea that all error in poetry, art, 
 ethics, and therefore also economics, had come through de- 
 parting from nature, and that the true course in everything 
 lay in giving the supremacy to the nature of things. We 
 need not stop to discuss this historical question as to the origin 
 of the idea ; it is enough here to say that the Socialists of 
 the Chair maintain that in economic affairs it is impossible 
 to make any such distinction between what is natural and 
 what is not so. Everything results from nature, and every- 
 thing results from positive institution too. There is in 
 economics either no nature at all, or there is nothing else. 
 Human will effects or affects all ; and human will is itself 
 influenced, of course, by human nature and human condition. 
 B-oscher says that it is a mistake to speak of industry being 
 forced into "unnatural " courses by priests or tyrants, for the 
 priests and tyrants are part and parcel of the people them- 
 selves, deriving all their resources from the people, and in no 
 respect Archimedeses standing outside of their own world. 
 The action of the State in economic affairs is just as natural 
 as the action of the farmer or the manufacturer ; and the
 
 The Socialists of the Chair. 207 
 
 latter is as much matter of positive institution as the former. 
 But while Roscher condemns this distinction, he does not go 
 the length his disciples have gone, and reject the whole idea 
 of natural law in the sphere of political economy. On the 
 contrary, he actually makes use of the expression, " the natural 
 laws of political economy," and asserts that, when they are 
 once sufficiently known, all that is then needed to guide 
 economic politics is to obtain exact and reliable statistics 
 of the situation to which they are to be applied. Now that 
 statement is exactly the position of the classical school on the 
 subject. Economic politics is, of course, like all other politics, 
 an affair of times and nations ; but economic science belongs 
 to mankind, and contains principles which may be accurately 
 enough termed, as Roscher terms them, natural laws, and 
 which may be applied, as he would apply them, to the 
 improvement of particular economic situations, on condition 
 that sufficiently complete and correct statistics are obtained 
 beforehand of the whole actual circumstances. Economic 
 Jaws are, of course, of the nature of ethical laws, and not of 
 physical ; but they are none the less on that account natural 
 laws, and the polemic instituted by the Socialists of the Chair 
 to expel the notion of natural law from the entire territory of 
 political economy is unjustifiable. Phenomena which are 
 the result of human action will always exhibit regularities 
 while human character remains the same ; and, moreover, they 
 often exhibit undesigned regularities which, not being imposed 
 upon them by man, must be imposed upon them by Nature. 
 While, therefore, the Socialists of the Chair have made a 
 certain point against the older economists by showing the 
 futility and mischief of distinguishing between what is natural 
 in economics and what is not, they have erred in seeking 
 to convert that point into an argument against the validity 
 of economic principles and the existence of economic laws. 
 At the same time their position constitutes a wholesome pro- 
 test against the tendency to exaggerate the completeness or 
 finality of current doctrines, and gives economic investigation 
 a beneficial direction by setting it upon a more thorough and 
 all-sided observation of facts. 
 
 But when they complain of the earlier economists being so
 
 208 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 wedded to abstractions, the fault they chiefly mean to censure 
 is the habit of solving practical economic problems by the 
 unconditional application of certain abstract principles. It is 
 the " absolutism of solutions " they condemn. They think 
 economists were used to act like doctors who had learnt the 
 principles of medicine by rote and applied them without the 
 least discrimination of the peculiarities of individual constitu- 
 tions. With them the individual peculiarities are everything, 
 and the principles are too much thrown into the shade. Eco- 
 nomic phenomena, they hold, constitute only one phase of 
 the general life of the particular nations in which they appear. 
 They are part and parcel of a special concrete social organism. 
 They are influenced they are to a great extent made what 
 they are by the whole ethos of the people they pertain to, 
 by their national character, their state of culture, their habits, 
 customs, laws. Economic problems are consequently always 
 of necessity problems of the time, and can only be solved for 
 the period that raises them. Theii very nature alters under 
 other skies and in other ages. They neither appear every- 
 where in the same shape, nor admit everywhere of the same 
 answer. They must therefore be treated historically and 
 empirically, and political economy is always an affair for the 
 nation and never for the world. The historical school inveigh 
 against the cosmopolitanism of the current economic theories, 
 and declare warmly in favour of nationalism ; according to 
 which every nation has its own political economy just as it 
 has its own constitution and its own character. Now here 
 they are right in what they affirm, wrong in what they deny. 
 They are right in affirming that economic politics is national, 
 wrong in denying that economic science is cosmopolitan. In 
 German the word economy denotes the concrete industrial 
 system as well as the abstract science of industrial systems, 
 and one therefore readily falls into the error of applying to 
 the latter what is only true of the former. There may be 
 general principles of engineering, though every particular pro- 
 ject can only be successfully accomplished by a close regard to 
 its particular conditions. In claiming a cosmopolitan validity 
 for their principles, economists do not overlook their essential 
 relativity. On the contrary, they describe their economic
 
 The Socialists of the Chair. 209 
 
 laws as being in reality nothing more than tendencies, which 
 are not even strictly true as scientific explanations, and are 
 never for a moment contemplated as unconditional solutions 
 for practical situations. Moreover Roscher, in defining his 
 task as an economist, virtually takes up the cosmopolitan 
 standpoint and virtually rejects the national. He says a 
 political economist has to explain what is or has been, and 
 not to show what ought to be ; he quotes the saying of 
 Dunoyer, Je ri impose ri-en, je ne propose merne rien, /expose; 
 and states that what he has to do is to unfold the anatomy and 
 physiology of social and national economy. He is a scientific 
 man, and not an economic politician, and naturally assumes 
 the position of science, which is cosmopolitan, and not that 
 of politics, which is national and even opportunist. 
 
 I pass now to a perhaps more important point, from which 
 it will be seen that the Socialists of the Chair are far from 
 thinking that political economy has nothing to do with what 
 ought to be. Next to the realistic school, the name they prefer 
 to describe themselves by is the ethical school. By this they 
 mean two things, and some of them lay the stress on the one 
 and some on the other. They mean, first, to repudiate the 
 idea of self-interest being the sole economic motive or force. 
 They do not deny it to be a leading motive in industrial 
 transactions, and they do not, like some of the earlier socialists, 
 aim at its extinction or replacement by a social or generous 
 principle of action. But they maintain that the course of 
 industry never has been and never will be left to its guidance 
 alone. Many other social forces, national character, ideas, 
 customs the whole inherited ethos of the people individual 
 peculiarities, love of power, sense of fair dealing, public opinion, 
 conscience, local ties, family connections, civil legislation all 
 exercise upon industrial affairs as real an influence as personal 
 interest, and, furthermore, they exercise an influence of pre- 
 cisely the same kind. They all operate ethically, through 
 human will, judgment, motives, and in this respect one of 
 them has no advantage over another. It cannot be said, 
 except in a very limited sense, that self-interest is an essential 
 and abiding economic force and the others only accidental 
 and passing. For while customs perish, custom remains ; 
 

 
 2io Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 opinions come and go, but opinion abides ; and though any 
 particular act of the State's intervention may be abolished, 
 State intervention itself cannot possibly be dispensed with. It 
 is all a matter of more or less, of here or there. The State is 
 not the intruder in industry it is represented to be. It is 
 planted in the heart of the industrial organism from the begin- 
 ning, and constitutes in fact part of the nature of things from 
 which it is sought to distinguish it. It is not unnatural for 
 us to wear clothes because we happen to be born naked, for 
 Nature has given us a principle which guides us to adapt our 
 rlress to our climate and circumstances. Reason is as natural 
 as passion, and the economists who repel the State's intrusion 
 find think they are thus leaving industry to take its natural 
 course, commit the same absurdity as the moralist who re- 
 commends men to live according to Nature, and explains living 
 according to Nature to mean the gratification as much as 
 possible of his desires, and his abandonment as much as possible 
 of rational and, as he conceives, artificial plan. The State 
 cannot observe an absolute neutrality if it would. Non-inter- 
 vention is only a particular kind of intervention. There must 
 be laws of property, succession, and the like, and the influence 
 of these spreads over the whole industrial system, and affects 
 both the character of its production and the incidence of its 
 distribution of wealth. 
 
 But, second, by calling their method the ethical method, the 
 historical school desire to repudiate the idea that in dealing 
 with economic phenomena they are dealing with things 
 which are morally indifferent, like the phenomena of physics, 
 and that science has nothing to do with them but to explain 
 them. They have certainly reason to complain that the opera- 
 tion of the laws of political economy is sometimes represented 
 as if it were morally as neutral as the operation of the law of 
 gravitation, and it is in this conception that they think the 
 materialism of the dominant economic school to be practically 
 most offensively exhibited. Economic phenomena are not 
 morally indifferent ; they are ethical in their very being, and 
 ought to be treated as such. Take, for example, the labour 
 contract. To treat it as a simple exchange between equals is 
 absurd. The labourer must sell his labour or starve, and may
 
 The Socialists of the Chair. 2 1 1 
 
 be obliged to take such terms for it as leave him without the 
 means of enjoying the rights which society awards him, and 
 discharging the duties which society claims from him. Look 
 on him as a ware, if you will, but remember he is a ware that 
 has life, that has connections, responsibilites, expectations, 
 domestic, social, political. To get his bread he might sell his 
 freedom, but society will not permit him; he may sell his 
 health, he may sell his character, for society permits that ; he 
 may go to sea in rotten ships, and be sent to work in un- 
 wholesome workshops ; he may be herded in farm bothies 
 where the commonest decencies of life cannot be observed ; and 
 he may suck the strength out of posterity by putting his 
 children to premature toil to eke out his precarious living. 
 Transactions which have such direct bearings on freedom, on 
 health, on morals, on the permanent well-being of the nation, 
 can never be morally indifferent. They are necessarily within 
 the sphere of ends and ideals. Their ethical side is one of their 
 most important ones, and the science that deals with them is 
 therefore ethical. For the same reason they come within the 
 province of the State, which is the normal guardian of the 
 general and permanent interests, moral and economic, of the 
 community. The State does not stand to industry like a 
 watchman who guards from the outside property in which he 
 has himself no personal concern. It has a positive industrial 
 office. It is, says Schmoller, the great educational institute of 
 the human race, and there is no sense in suspiciously seeking 
 to reduce its action in industrial affairs to a minimum. His 
 theory of the State is that of the Cultur-Staat, in distinction 
 from the Polizei-Staat, and the Eechts-Staat. The State can no 
 longer be regarded as merely an omnipotent instrument for the 
 maintenance of tranquillity and order in the name of Heaven ; 
 nor even as a constitutional organ of the collective national 
 authority for securing to all individuals and classes in the 
 nation, without exception, the rights and privileges which they 
 are legally recognised to possess ; but it must be henceforth 
 looked upon as a positive agency for the spread of universal 
 culture within its geographical territory. 
 
 With these views, the Socialists of the Chair could not fail 
 to take an active concern with the class of topics thrown up by
 
 212 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the socialist movement, and exciting still so much attention in 
 Germany under the name of the social question. They neither 
 state that question nor answer it like the socialists, but their 
 first offence, and the fountain of all their subsequent offending, 
 in the judgment of their Manchester antagonists, consisted in 
 their acknowledgment that there was a social question at all. 
 Not that the Manchester party denied the existence of evils in 
 the present state of industry, but they looked upon these evils 
 as resulting from obstructions to the freedom of competition 
 which time, and time alone, would eventually remove, and 
 from moral causes with which economists had no proper 
 business. The Socialists of the Chair, however, could not 
 dismiss their responsibility for those evils so easily. They 
 owned at once that a social crisis had arisen or was near at 
 hand. The effect of the general adoption of the large system 
 of production had been to diminish the numbers of the middle 
 classes, to reduce the great bulk of the lower classes per- 
 manently to the position of wage-labourers, and to introduce 
 some grave elements of peril and distress into the condition of 
 the wage-labourers themselves. They are doubtless better fed. 
 better lodged, better clad, than they were say in the middle 
 and end of last century, when not one in a hundred of them 
 had shoes to his feet, when seven out of eight on the Continent 
 were still bondsmen, and when three out of every four in 
 England had to eke out their wages by parochial relief. But, 
 in spite of these advantages, their life has now less hope and 
 less security than it had then. Industry on the great scale has 
 multiplied the vicissitudes of trade, and rendered the labourer 
 much more liable to be thrown out of work. It has diminished 
 the avenues to comparative independence and dignity which 
 were open to the journeyman under the regime of the small 
 industries. And while thus condemned to live by wages alone 
 all his days, he could entertain no reasonable hope at least 
 before the formation of trade unions that his wages could be 
 kept up within reach of the measure of his wants, as these 
 wants were being progressively expanded by the general 
 advance of culture. Moreover, the twinge of the case lies here, 
 that while the course which industrial development is taking 
 seems to be banishing hopa and security more and more from
 
 The Socialists of the Chair. 2 1 3 
 
 the labourer's life, the progress of general civilization is making 
 these benefits more and more imperatively demanded. The 
 working classes have been growing steadily in the scale of 
 moral being. They have acquired complete personal freedom, 
 legal equality, political rights, general education, a class con- 
 sciousness ; and they have come to cherish a very natural and 
 legitimate aspiration that they shall go on progressively sharing 
 in the increasing blessings of civilization. Brentano says that 
 modern public opinion concedes this claim of the working man 
 as a right to which he is entitled, but that modern industrial 
 conditions have been unable as yet to secure him in the 
 possession of it ; hence the Social Question. Now some persons 
 may be ready enough to admit this claim as a thing which it 
 is eminently desirable to see realized, who will yet demur to 
 the representation of it as a right, which puts society under 
 a corresponding obligation. But this idea is a peculiarity 
 belonging to the whole way of thinking of the Socialists of the 
 Chair upon these subjects. Some of them indeed take even 
 higher ground. Schmoller, for example, declares that the 
 working classes suffer positive wrong in the present distribution 
 of national wealth, considered from the standpoint of distri- 
 butive justice ; but his associates as a rule do not agree with 
 him in applying this abstract standard to the case. "Wagner 
 also stands somewhat out of the ranks of his fellows by 
 throwing the responsibility of the existing evils directly and 
 definitely upon the State. According to his view, there can 
 never be anything which may be legitimately called a Social 
 Question, unless the evils complained of are clearly the con- 
 sequences of existing legislation, but he holds that that is so in 
 the present case. He considers that a mischievous turn has 
 been given to the distribution of wealth by legalizing indus- 
 trial freedom without at the same time imposing certain 
 restrictions upon private property, the rate of interest, and the 
 speculations of the Stock Exchange. The State has, therefore, 
 caused the Social Question ; and the State is bound to settle it. 
 The other Socialists of the Chair, however, do not bring the 
 obligation so dead home to the civil authority alone. The duty 
 rests on society, and, of course, so far on the State also, which 
 is the chief organ of society ; but it is not to State-help alone,
 
 214 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 nor to self-help alone, that the Socialists of the Chair ask work- 
 ing men to look ; but it is to what they term the self-help of 
 society. Society has granted to the labouring classes the 
 rights of freedom and equality, and has, therefore, come bound 
 to give them, as far as it legitimately can, the amplest 
 facilities for practically enjoying these rights. To give a man 
 an estate mortgaged above its rental is only to mock him ; to 
 confer the status of freedom upon working men merely to 
 leave them overwhelmed in an unequal struggle with capital 
 is to make their freedom a dead letter. Personal and civil 
 independence require, as their indispensable accompaniment, 
 a certain measure of economic independence likewise, and 
 consequently to bestow the former as an inalienable right, and 
 yet take no concern to make the latter a possibility, is only to 
 discharge one-half of an obligation voluntarily undertaken, and 
 to deceive expectations reasonably entertained. No doubt this 
 independence is a thing which working men must in the main 
 win for themselves, and day after day, by labour, by provi- 
 dence, by association ; but it is nevertheless an important point 
 to remember, with Brentano, that it forms an essential part of 
 an ideal which society has already acknowledged to be legiti- 
 mate, and which it is therefore bound to second every effort to 
 realize. The Social Question, conceived in the light of these 
 considerations, may accordingly be said to arise from the fact 
 that a certain material or economic independence has become 
 more necessary for the working man, and less possible. It is 
 more necessary, because, with the sanction of modern opinion, 
 he has awoke to a new sense of personal dignity, and it is less 
 possible, in consequence of circumstances already mentioned, 
 attendant upon the development of modern industry. It is not, 
 as Lord Macaulay maintained, that the evils of man's life are 
 the same now as formerly, and that nothing has changed but 
 the intelligence which has become conscious of them. The 
 new time has brought new evils and less right or disposition 
 to submit to them. It is the conflict of these two tendencies 
 which, in the thinking of the Socialists of the Chair, constitutes 
 the social crisis of the present day. Some of them, indeed, 
 describe it in somewhat too abstract formulae, which exercise 
 an embarrassing influence on their speculations. For example,
 
 The Socialists of the Chair. 215 
 
 Von Scheel says the Social Question is the effect of the felt 
 contradiction between the ideal of personal freedom and equality 
 which hangs before the present age, and the increasing in- 
 equality of wealth which results from existing economic 
 arrangements ; and he proposes as the general principle of 
 solution, that men should now abandon the exclusive devotion 
 which modern Liberalism has paid to the principle of freedom, 
 and substitute in its room an adhesion to freedom plus equality. 
 But then equality may mean a great many different things, 
 and Von Scheel leaves us with no precise clue to the particular 
 scope he would give his principle in its application. He 
 certainly seems to desire more than a mere equality of right, 
 and to aim at some sort or degree of equality of fact, but what 
 or how he informs us not; just as Schmoller, while pro- 
 pounding the dogma of distributive justice, condemns the 
 communistic principle of distribution of wealth as being a 
 purely animal principle, and offers us no other incorporation of 
 his dogma. In spite of their antipathy to abstractions, many 
 of the Socialists of the Chair indulge considerably in barren 
 generalities, which could serve them nothing in practice, even 
 if they did not make it a point to square their practice by the 
 historical conditions of the hour. 
 
 Brentano strikes on the whole the most practical keynote, 
 both in his conception of what the social question is and of 
 how it is to be met. "What is needed, he thinks, very much is 
 to give to modern industry an organization as suitable to it as 
 the old guilds were to the industry of earlier times, and this is 
 to be done in great part by adaptations of that model. He 
 makes comparatively little demand on the power of the State, 
 while of course agreeing with the rest of his school in the lati- 
 tude they give to the lawfulness of its intervention in industrial 
 matters. He would ask it to bestow a legal status on trade 
 unions and friendly societies, to appoint courts of conciliation, 
 to regulate the hours of labour, to institute factory inspection, 
 and to take action of some sort on the daily more urgent sub- 
 ject of labourers' dwellings. But the elevation of the labouring 
 classes must be wrought mainly by their own well-guided and 
 long-continued efforts, and the first step is gained when they 
 have resolved earnestly to begin. The pith of the problem
 
 216 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 turns on the matter of wages, and, so far at any rate, it has 
 already been solved almost as well as is practicable by the 
 English trade unions, which have proved to the world that 
 they are always able to convert the question of wages from the 
 question how little the labourer can afford to take, into the 
 question how much the employer is able to give i.e., from the 
 minimum to the maximum which the state of the market 
 allows. That is, of course, a very important change, and it is 
 interesting to know that F. A. Lange, the able and distinguished 
 historian of Materialism, who had written on the labour ques- 
 tion with strong socialist sympathies, stated to Brentano that 
 his account of the English trade unions had converted him 
 entirely from his belief that a socialistic experiment was neces- 
 sary. Brentano admits that the effect of trade unions is partial 
 only ; that they really divide the labouring class into two 
 different strata those who belong to the trade unions being 
 raised to a higher platform, and those who do not being left as 
 they were in the gall of bitterness. But then, he observes, 
 great gain has been made when at least a large section of the 
 working class has been brought more securely within the pale 
 of advancing culture, and it is only in this gradual way section 
 by section that the elevation of the whole body can be eventu- 
 ally accomplished. The trade union has imported into the life 
 of the working man something of the element of hope which it 
 wanted, and a systematic scheme of working-class insurance is 
 now needed to introduce the element of security. Brentano 
 has published an excellent little work on that subject ; and 
 here again he asks no material help from the State. The work- 
 ing class must insure themselves against all the risks of their 
 life by association, just as they must keep up the rate of their 
 wages by association ; and for the same reasons first, because 
 they are able to do so under existing economic conditions, 
 and second, because it is only so the end can be gained con- 
 sistently with the modern moral conditions of their life i.e., 
 with the maintenance of their personal freedom, equality, and 
 independence. Brentano thinks that the sound principle of 
 working-class insurance is that every trade union ought to be- 
 come the insurance society for its trade, because every trade 
 has its own special risks and therefore requires its own insur-
 
 The Socialists of the Chair. 217 
 
 ance premium, and because malingering, feigned sickness, 
 claims for loss of employment through personal fault, and the 
 like, cannot possibly be checked except by the fund being ad- 
 ministered by the local lodges of the trade to which the sub- 
 scribers belong. The insurance fund might be kept separate 
 from the other funds of the union, but he sees no reason why 
 it should not be combined with them, as it would only consti- 
 tute a new obstacle to ill-considered strikes, and as striking in 
 itself will, he expects, in course of time, give way to some sys- 
 tem of arbitration. Brentano makes no suggestion regarding 
 the mass of the working class who belong to no trade union. 
 They cannot be dealt with in the same way, or so effectively. 
 But this is quite in keeping with the general principle of the 
 Socialists of the Chair in which they differ toto cceZo from the 
 socialists that society is not to be ameliorated by rigidly 
 applying to every bit of it the same plan, but only by a 
 thousand modifications and remedies adapted to its thousand 
 varieties of circumstances and situations.
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS. 
 
 THE idea that a radical affinity exists between Christianity and 
 socialism in their general aim, in their essential principles, in 
 their pervading spirit, has strong attractions for a certain by 
 no means inferior order of mind, and we find it frequently 
 maintained in the course of history by representatives of both 
 systems. Some of the principal socialists of the earlier part of 
 this century used to declare that socialism was only Christi- 
 anity more logically carried out and more faithfully practised ; 
 or, at any rate, that socialism would be an idle superfluity, if 
 ordinary Christian principles were really to be acted upon 
 honestly and without reserve. St. Simon published his views 
 under the title of the " Nouveau Christianisme," and asserted 
 that the prevailing forms of Christianity were one gigantic 
 heresy ; that both the Catholic and the Protestant Churches 
 had now lost their power, simply because they had neglected 
 their great temporal mission of raising the poor, and because 
 their clergy had given themselves up to barren discussions of 
 theology, and remained absolutely ignorant of the living social 
 questions of the time ; and that the true Christian regime which 
 he was to introduce was one which should be founded on the 
 Christian principle that all men are brothers ; which should be 
 governed by the Christian law, " Have ye love one to another," 
 and in which all the forces of society should be mainly conse- 
 crated to the amelioration of the most numerous and poorest 
 class. Cabet was not less explicit. He said that " if Christi- 
 anity had been interpreted and applied in the spirit of Jesus 
 Christ, if it were rightfully understood and faithfully obeyed 
 by the numerous sections of Christians who are really filled 
 with a sincere piety, and need only to know the truth to follow 
 it, then Christianity would have sufficed, and would still suffice,
 
 The Christian Socialists. 219 
 
 to establish a perfect social and political organization, and to 
 deliver mankind from all its ills." 
 
 The same belief, that Christianity is essentially socialistic, 
 has at various times appeared in the Church itself. The social- 
 ism of the only other period in modern history besides our own 
 century, in which socialistic ideas have prevailed to any con- 
 siderable extent, was, in fact, a direct outcome of Christian con- 
 viction, and was realized among Christian sects. The socialism 
 of the Anabaptists of the Reformation epoch was certainly 
 mingled with political ideas of class emancipation, and contri- 
 buted to stir the insurrection of the German peasantry ; but 
 its real origin lay in the religious fervour which was abroad at 
 the time, and which buoyed sanguine and mystical minds on 
 dreams of a reign of God. When men feel a new and better 
 power arising strongly about them, they are forward to throw 
 themselves into harmony with it, and there were people, 
 touched by the religious revival of the Reformation, who 
 sought to anticipate its progress, as it were, by living together 
 like brothers. Fraternity is undoubtedly a Christian idea, 
 come into the world with Christ, spread abroad in it by Chris- 
 tian agencies, and belonging to the ideal that hovers perpe- 
 tually over Christian society. It has already produced social 
 changes of immense consequence, and has force in it, we can- 
 not doubt, to produce many more in the future ; and it is 
 therefore in nowise strange that in times of religious zeal or 
 of social distress, this idea of fraternity should appeal to some 
 eager natures with so urgent an authority, both of condemna- 
 tion and of promise, that they would fain take it at once by 
 force and make it king. 
 
 The socialism of the present day is not of a religious origin. 
 On the contrary, there is some truth in the remark of a distin- 
 guished economist, M. Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, that the prevalence 
 of socialistic ideas is largely due to the decline of religious 
 faith among the working classes. If there is only the one life, 
 they feel they must realize their ideal here and realize it quickly, 
 or they will never realize it at all. However this may be, the 
 fact is certain that most contemporary socialists have turned 
 their backs on religion. They sometimes speak of it with a 
 kind of suppressed and settled bitterness as of a friend that has
 
 22O Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 proved faithless : " "We are not atheists : we have simply done 
 with God." They seem to feel that if there be a God, He is, 
 at any rate, no God for them, that He is the God of the rich, 
 and cares nothing for the poor, and there is a vein of most 
 touching, though most illogical, reproach in their hostility to- 
 wards a Deity whom they yet declare to have no existence. 
 They say in their heart, There is no God, or only one whom 
 they decline to serve, for He is no friend to the labouring man, 
 and has never all these centuries done anything for him. This 
 atheism seems as much matter of class antipathy as of free- 
 thought ; and the semi-political element in it lends a peculiar 
 bitterness to the socialistic attacks on religion and the Church, 
 which are regarded as main pillars of the established order of 
 things, and irreconcileable obstructives to all socialist dreams 
 The Church has, therefore, as a rule looked upon, the whole 
 movement with a natural and justifiable suspicion, and has, 
 for the most part, dispensed to it an indiscriminate condemna- 
 tion. Some Churchmen, however, scruple to assume this atti- 
 tude ; they recognise a soul of good in the agitation, if it could 
 be stripped of the revolutionary and atheistic elements of its 
 propaganda, which they hold to be, after all, merely accidental 
 accompaniments of the system, at once foreign to its essence 
 and pernicious to its purpose. It is in substance, they say, an 
 economic movement, both in its origin and its objects, and 
 so far as it stands on this ground they have no hesitation in 
 declaring that in their judgment there is a great deal more 
 Christianity in socialism than in the existing industrial regime. 
 Those who take this view, generally find a strong bond of 
 union with socialists in their common revolt against the mam- 
 monism of the church-going middle classes, and against some 
 current economic doctrines, which seem almost to canonize what 
 they count the heartless and un-Christian principles of self- 
 interest and competition. 
 
 Such, for example, was the position maintained by the 
 Christian Socialists of England thirty years ago a band of 
 noble patriotic men who strove hard, by word and deed, to 
 bring all classes of the community to a knowledge of their 
 duties, as well as their interests, and to supersede, as far as 
 might be, the system of unlimited competition by a system of
 
 The Christian Socialists. 221 
 
 universal co-operation. They inveighed against the Manchester 
 creed, then in the flush of success, as if it were the special 
 Antichrist of the nineteenth century. Lassalle himself has 
 not used harder, more passionate, or more unjust words of 
 it. Maurice said he dreaded above everything " that horrible 
 catastrophe of a Manchester ascendancy, which I believe 
 in my soul would be fatal to intellect, morality, and free- 
 dom " ; and Kingsley declared that " of all narrow, conceited, 
 hypocritical, anarchic, and atheistic schemes of the uni- 
 verse, the Cobden and Bright one was exactly the worst." 
 They agreed entirely with the socialists in condemning the 
 reigning industrial system: it was founded on unrighteous- 
 ness ; its principles were not only un-Christian, but anti- 
 Christian ; and in spite of its apparent commercial victories, 
 it would inevitably end in ruin and disaster. Some of them 
 had been in Paris and witnessed the Revolution of 1848, and 
 had brought back with them two firm convictions one, that 
 a purely materialistic civilization, like that of the July 
 Monarchy, must sooner or later lead to a like fate ; and the 
 other, that the socialist idea of co-operation contained the 
 fertilizing germ for developing a really enduring and Christian 
 civilization. Mr. J. M. Ludlow mentioned the matter to 
 Maurice, and eventually a Society was formed, with Maurice as 
 president, for the purpose of promoting co-operation and educa- 
 tion among the working classes. It is beyond the scope of 
 the present work to give any fuller account of this interesting 
 and not unfruitful movement here ; but it is to the purpose to 
 mark two peculiarities which distinguish it from other phases 
 of socialism. One is, that they insisted strongly upon the 
 futility of mere external changes of condition, unattended by 
 corresponding changes of inner character and life. " There 
 is no fraternity," said Maurice, finely, " without a common 
 Father." Just as it is impossible to maintain free institutions 
 among a people who want the virtues of freemen, so it is im- 
 possible to realize fraternity in the general arrangements of 
 society, unless men possess a sufficient measure of the industrial 
 and social virtues. Hence the stress the Christian Socialists 
 of England laid on the education of the working classes. The 
 other peculiarity is, that they did not seek in any way whatever
 
 222 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 to interfere with private property, or to invoke the assistance 
 of the State. They believed self-help to be a sounder principle, 
 both morally and politically, and they believed it to be suffi- 
 cient. They held it to be sufficient, not merely in course of 
 time, but immediately even, to effect a change in the face of 
 society. For they loved and believed in their cause with a 
 generous and touching enthusiasm, and were so sincerely and 
 absolutely persuaded of its truth themselves, that they hardly 
 entertained the idea of other minds resisting it. " I certainly 
 thought," says Mr. I. Hughes, " (and for that matter have never 
 altered my opinion to this day) that here we had found the 
 solution to the great labour question ; but I was also convinced 
 that we had nothing to do but just to announce it, and found 
 an association or two, in order to convert all England, and 
 usher in the millennium at once, so plain did the whole thing 
 seem to me. I will not undertake to answer for the rest of the 
 council, but I doubt whether I was at all more sanguine than 
 the majority." Seventeen co-operative associations in London, 
 and twenty-four in the provinces (which were all they had 
 established when they ceased to publish their Journal), may 
 seem a poor result, but their work is not to be estimated by 
 that alone. The Christian Socialists undoubtedly gave a very 
 important impetus to the whole movement of co-operation, 
 and to the general cause of the amelioration of the labouring 
 classes. 
 
 The general position of Maurice and his allies (though with 
 important differences, as will appear) has been taken up again 
 by two groups in Germany at the present day one Catholic, 
 the other Protestant in dealing with the social question which 
 has for many years agitated that country. In one respect the 
 Christian Socialists of England were more fortunate than their 
 German brethren. Nobody ever ventured to question the 
 purity of their motives. The intervention of the clergy in 
 politics is generally unpopular : they are thought, rightly or 
 wrongly, to be Churchmen first, and patriots afterwards ; but 
 it was impossible to suspect Maurice and his friends of being 
 influenced in their efforts at reform by considerations of 
 ecclesiastical or electoral interest, or of having any object at 
 heart but the social good of the nation. It is otherwise with
 
 The Christian Socialists. 223 
 
 the Christian Socialists of Germany, Neither of the two 
 German groups affects to conceal that one great aim of its 
 work is to restore and extend the influence of the Church 
 among the labouring classes; and it is unlikely that the 
 Clerical party in Germany were insensible to the political 
 advantage of having organizations of working men under 
 ecclesiastical control, though it ought to be acknowledged that 
 these organizations were contemplated before the introduction 
 of universal suffrage. But even though ecclesiastical con- 
 siderations mingled with the motives of the Christian Socialists, 
 we see no reason to doubt the genuineness of their interest in 
 the amelioration of the masses, or the sincerity of their convic- 
 tion of the economic soundness of their programme. 
 
 The Catholic group deserves to be considered first, because 
 it intervened in the discussion much sooner than the Evan- 
 gelical, and because it originated a much more important 
 movement larger in its dimensions than the other, and 
 invested with additional consequence from the circumstance 
 that being promoted under the countenance of dignitaries, it 
 must be presumed to have received the sanction of the Roman 
 Curia, and may therefore afford an index to the general 
 attitude which the Catholic Church is disposed to assume 
 towards Continental socialism. The socialist agitation had 
 no sooner broken out, in 1863, than Dr. Dollinger, then a 
 pillar of the Church of Rome, strongly recommended the 
 Catholic clubs of Germany to take the question up. These 
 clubs are societies for mutual improvement, recreation, and 
 benefit, and are composed mainly of working men. Father 
 Kolping, himself at the time a working man, had, in 1847, 
 founded an extensive organization of Catholic journeymen, 
 which, in 1872, had a total membership of 70,000, and consisted 
 of an affiliation of small journeyman clubs, with a member- 
 ship of from 50 to 400 each, in the various towns of Germany. 
 Then there were also Catholic apprentice clubs in many 
 cases in alliance with those of the journeymen ; there were 
 Catholic master clubs, Catholic peasant clubs, Catholic benefit 
 clubs, Catholic young men's clubs, Catholic credit clubs, 
 Catholic book clubs, etc., etc. These clubs naturally afforded 
 an organization ready to hand for any general purpose the
 
 224 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 members might share in common, and being composed of 
 working men, they seemed reasonably calculated to be of 
 effective service in forwarding the cause of social amelioration. 
 Early in 1864, accordingly, Bishop Ketteler, of Mayence, 
 warmly seconded Bellinger's idea, and at the same time 
 published a remarkable pamphlet on " The Labour Question 
 and Christianity," in which he unfolded his views of the causes 
 and the cure of the existing evils. 
 
 "William Immanuel, Baron von Ketteler, had been for twenty 
 years a powerful and impressive figure in the public life of 
 Germany. His high rank, social and ecclesiastical, his immense 
 energy, his weight of character, his personal disinterestedness 
 of purpose, and his intellectual vigour and acuteness, had 
 combined to give him great importance both in Church and 
 State. Born in 1811, of an ancient Westphalian family, he 
 was trained in law and politics for the public service, and 
 actually entered upon it, but resigned his post in 1838, in 
 consequence of the dispute about the Cologne bishopric, and 
 resolved to give himself to the work of the Church. After 
 studying theology at Munich and Minister, he was ordained 
 priest in 1844, and became soon afterwards pastor at Hopster, 
 in Westphalia. Being sent as member for Langerich to the 
 German National Assembly at Frankfort in 1848, he at once 
 made his mark by the vigour with which he strove for the 
 spiritual independence of the Church, by the lectures and 
 sermons he delivered on questions of the day, and especially 
 by a bold and generous oration he pronounced at the grave 
 of the assassinated deputy, Prince Lichnowsky. This oration 
 excited sensation all over Germany, and Ketteler was pro- 
 moted, in 1849, to the Hedwigsburg Church, in Berlin, and 
 in 1850 to the Bishopric of Mayence. In this position he found 
 scope for all his powers. He founded a theological seminary 
 at Mayence, erected orphan-houses and reformatories, intro- 
 duced various religious orders and congregationist schools, and 
 entering energetically into the disputes in Baden regarding 
 the place and rights of the Catholic Church, he succeeded in 
 establishing an understanding whereby the State gave up 
 much of its patronage, its supervision of theological seminaries, 
 its veto on ecclesiastical arrangements, restored episcopal
 
 The Christian Socialists. 225 
 
 courts, and assigned the Church extensive influence over 
 popular education. He was one of the bishops who authorized 
 the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, but he 
 belonged to the opposition at the Vatican Council of 1870. 
 He wrote a pamphlet strongly deprecating the promulgation 
 of the dogma of infallibility, and went, even at the last 
 moment, to the Pope personally, and implored him to abandon 
 the idea of promulgating it ; but as his objection respected 
 its opportuneness and not its truth, he did not secede with 
 Dollinger when his opposition failed, but accepted the dogma 
 himself and demanded the submission of his clergy to it. 
 Bishop Ketteler was returned to the German Imperial Diet 
 in 1871, and led the Clerical Faction in opposing the eccle- 
 siastical policy of the Government. He died at Binghausen, 
 in Bavaria, in 1877, and is buried in Mayence Cathedral. 
 Ketteler had always been penetrated with the ambition of 
 making the Catholic Church a factor of practical importance 
 in the political and social life of Germany, and with the con- 
 viction that the clergy ought to make themselves masters of 
 social and political science so as to be able to exercise a leading 
 and effective influence over public opinion on questions of 
 social amelioration. He has himself written much, though 
 nothing of permanent value, on these subjects, and did not 
 approach them with unwashed hands when he published his 
 pamphlet in 1864. 
 
 In this pamphlet, he says the labour question is one which 
 it is his business, both as a Christian and as a bishop, to deal 
 with : as a Christian, because Christ, as Saviour of the world, 
 seeks not only to redeem men's souls, but to heal their sorrows 
 and soften their condition ; and as a bishop, because the Church 
 had, according to her ancient custom, imposed upon him, as 
 one of his consecration vows, that he would, " in the name of 
 the Lord, be kind and merciful to the poor and the stranger, 
 and to all that are in any kind of distress." He considers the 
 labour question of the present day to be the very serious and 
 plain question, how the great bulk of the working classes are 
 to get the bread and clothing necessary to sustain them in 
 life. Things have come to this pass in consequence of two 
 important economic changes which he incorrectly ascribes 
 
 Q
 
 226 Contemporary Socialism, 
 
 to the political revolution at the end of last century, merely 
 because they have taken place mostly since that date the 
 spread of industrial freedom, and the ascendancy of the large 
 capitalists. In consequence of these changes the labourer is 
 now treated as a commodity, and the rate of his wages settled 
 by the same law that determines the price of every other 
 commodity the cost of its production ; and the employer is 
 always able to press wages down to the least figure which the 
 labourer will take rather than starve. Ketteler accepts en- 
 tirely Lassalle's teaching about " the iron and cruel law,' ? and 
 holds it to have been so conclusively proved in the course of 
 the controversy that it is no longer possible to dispute it with- 
 out a deliberate intention of deceiving the people. Now there 
 is no doubt that Kicardo's law of value is neither so iron nor 
 so cruel as Lassalle took it to be ; and that when Lassalle 
 alleged that in consequence of this law 96 per cent, of the 
 population of Germany had to support their families on less 
 than ten shillings a week, and were therefore in a state of 
 chronic starvation, he based his statement on a calculation of 
 Dieterici's, which was purely conjectural, and which, besides, 
 disregarded the fact that in working-class families there were 
 usually more breadwinners than one. Ketteler, however, 
 adopts this whole statement of the case implicitly, and says 
 the social problem of our day is simply how to emancipate the 
 labouring class from the operation of this economic law. " It 
 is no longer possible to doubt that the whole material exis- 
 tence of almost the entire labouring population i.e., of much 
 the greatest part of men in modern states, and of their families 
 that the daily question about the necessary bread for man, 
 wife, and children, is exposed to all the fluctuations of the 
 market and of the price of commodities. I know nothing 
 more deplorable than this fact. What sensations must it 
 cause in those poor men who, with all they hold dear, are 
 day after day at the mercy of the accidents of market price ? 
 That is the slave market of our Liberal Europe, fashioned 
 after the model of our humanist, rationalistic, anti-Christian 
 Liberalism, and freemasonry." The bishop never spares an 
 opportunity of attacking " heathen humanist Liberalism," 
 which he says has pushed the labouring man into the water,
 
 The Christian Socialists. 227 
 
 and now stands on the bank spinning fine theories about his 
 freedom, but calmly seeing him drown. 
 
 After this it might be expected that Ketteler would be all 
 for abolishing industrial freedom, and for restoring a reginif 
 of compulsory guilds and corporations ; but he is not. He 
 acknowledges that the old system of guilds had its advantages ; 
 it was a kind of assured understanding between the workman 
 and society, according to which the former adjusted his work 
 and the latter his wages. But it was the abuses of the com- 
 pulsory powers of the guilds that led to industrial freedom ; 
 and, on the other hand, industrial freedom has great counter- 
 vailing advantages of its own which he scruples to give up. 
 It has immensely increased production and cheapened com- 
 modities, and so enabled the lower classes to enjoy means of 
 life and enjoyment they had not before. Nor does Ketteler 
 approve of Lassalle's scheme of establishing productive associa- 
 tions of working men upon capital supplied by the State. Not 
 that he objects to productive associations ; on the contrary, he 
 declares them to be a glorious idea, and thinks them the 
 true solution of the problem. But he objects to supplying 
 their capital by the State, as involving a direct violation of 
 the law of property. The Catholic Church, he says, has never 
 maintained an absolute right of property. Her divines have 
 unanimously taught that the right of property cannot avail 
 against a neighbour who is in extreme need, because God 
 alone is absolute proprietor, and no man is more than a 
 limited vassal, holding under God, and on the conditions 
 which He imposes ; and one of these conditions is that any 
 man in extremities is entitled to satisfy his necessity where 
 and how he pleases.* In such a case, according to Catholic 
 
 * The bishop draws this conclusion from the principle that God had 
 directed all men to nature to obtain from it the satisfaction of their 
 necessiry wants, and that this original right of the needy cannot be 
 superseded by the subsequent institution of private property. No doubt, 
 he admits, that institution is also of God. It is the appointed way by 
 which man's dominion over nature is to be realized, because it is the way 
 in which nature is best utilized for the higher civilization of man. But 
 this purpose is secondary and subordinate to the other. And, therefore, 
 concludes the bishop, " firmly as theology upholds the right of private
 
 228 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 doctrine, it is not the man in distress that is the thief, but the 
 proprietor who would gainsay and stop him. The distressed 
 have a positive right to succour, and the State may therefore, 
 without violating any of the rights of property, tax the 
 parishes, or the proprietors, for the relief of the poor. But 
 beyond this the State has no title to go. It may legitimately 
 tax people for the purpose of saving working men from ex- 
 tremities, but not for the purpose of bettering their normal 
 position. 
 
 But where the civil authority ends the Christian authority 
 comes in, and the rich have only escaped the obligation of 
 compulsory legal enactment, to find themselves under the 
 more far-reaching obligations of moral duty and Christian 
 love. The Church declares that the man who does not give 
 alms where he ought to give it stands in the same category 
 as a thief; and there is no limit to this obligation but his 
 power of giving help, and his belief that it would be more 
 hurtful to give than to keep it. Ketteler's plan, accordingly, 
 is that the capital for the productive associations should be 
 raised by voluntary subscriptions on the part of Christian 
 people. He thinks he has made out a strong case for estab- 
 lishing this as a Christian obligation. He has shown that a 
 perilous crisis prevails, that this crisis can only be removed by 
 productive associations, that productive associations cannot be 
 started without capital, and he says it is a vain dream of 
 Huber's to think of getting the capital from the savings of 
 working men themselves, for most of the working men are in 
 a distressed condition, and if a few are better off, their savings 
 could only establish associations so few in number and so small 
 in scale, as to be little better than trifling with the evil. He 
 sees no remedy but making productive associations a scheme 
 of the Church, and appealing to that Christian philanthropy 
 and sense of duty which had already done great service of a 
 
 property, it asserts at the same time that the higher right by which all 
 men are directed to nature's supplies dare not be infringed, and that, 
 consequently, any one who finds himself in extreme need is justified, 
 when other means fail, in satisfying this extreme need where and how he 
 may (wo und wie er es vermag)." Die Arbeiter-frage und das Christen- 
 thum (p. 78).
 
 The Christian Socialists. 229 
 
 like nature as, for example, in producing capital to emanci- 
 pate slaves in Italy and elsewhere. 
 
 This remarkable proposal of the bishop seems to have fallen 
 dead. Though he wrote and laboured much in connection 
 with the labour question afterwards, he never reverted to it 
 again ; and when a Christian Socialist party was formed, 
 under his countenance, they adopted a programme which 
 made large demands not only on the intervention, but on the 
 pecuniary help of the State. It was not till 1868 that any 
 steps were taken towards the actual organization of such a 
 party. In June of that year three Catholic clubs met together 
 at Crefeld, and, after discussing the social question, agreed to 
 publish a journal (the Christliclie Sociale Blatter} to promote 
 their views. In September of the following year the whole 
 subject of the relations of the Church to the labour question 
 was discussed at a conference of the Catholic bishops of Ger- 
 many, held at Fulda, and attended by Ketteler among others. 
 This conference strongly recommended the clergy to make 
 themselves thoroughly acquainted with that and other econo- 
 mic questions, to interest themselves generally in the con- 
 dition of the working class they moved among, and even to 
 travel in foreign countries to see the state of the labourers 
 there and the effects of the institutions established for their 
 amelioration. The conference also approved of the formation 
 of Catholic Labourers' Associations, for the promotion of the 
 general elevation of their own class, but held that the Church 
 had no call, directly or officially, to take the initiative in 
 founding them. This duty was undertaken, however, later 
 in the same month, by a general meeting of the Catholic Clubs 
 of Germany, which appointed a special committee, including 
 Professor Schulte and Baron Schorlemer-Abst, for the express 
 purpose of founding and organizing Christian social clubs, 
 which should strive for the economic and moral amelioration 
 of the labouring classes. This committee set itself immediately 
 to work, and the result was the Christian Social Associations, 
 or, as they are sometimes called from their patron saint, the 
 St. Joseph Associations. They were composed of, and managed 
 by, working men, though they liked to have some man of 
 eminence never a clergyman at the head of them, and
 
 230 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 though they allowed persons of property, clergymen, and 
 especially employers of labour, to be honorary members. 
 They met every Sunday evening to discuss social questions, 
 and politics were excluded, except questions affecting the 
 Church, and on these a decided partisanship was encouraged. 
 
 The principles of this party or what may be called their 
 programme is explained in a speech delivered by Canon 
 Moufang to his constituents in Mayence, in February, 1871, 
 and published with warm approbation, in the CkristKche 
 Sociale Blatter in March. Christoph Moufang is, like Ketteler, 
 a leader of the German Clerical party, and entitled to the 
 highest esteem for his character, his intellectual parts, and his 
 public career. Born in 1817, he was first destined for the 
 medical profession, and studied physic at Bonn ; but he soon 
 abandoned this intention, and bstook himself to theology. 
 After studying at Bonn and Munich, he was ordained priest 
 in 1839. He was appointed in 1851 professor of moral and 
 pastoral theology in the new theological seminary which 
 Bishop Ketteler had founded at Mayence, and in 1854 was 
 made canon of the cathedral. Moufang entered the First 
 Hessian Chamber in 1862 as representative of the bishop, and 
 made a name as a powerful champion of High Church views 
 and of the general ecclesiastical policy of Bishop Ketteler. In 
 1868 he was chosen one of the committee to make preparations 
 for the Vatican Council ; but at the Council he belonged to the 
 opponents of the dogma of infallibility, and left Rome before 
 the dogma was promulgated. He submitted afterwards, how- 
 ever, and worked sedulously in its sense. Moufang sat in the 
 Imperial Diet from 1871 to 1877, was a leading member of the 
 Centre, and stoutly resisted the Falk legislation. He is joint- 
 editor of the Katholik, and is author of various polemical 
 writings, and of a work on the history of the Jesuits in Ger- 
 many. 
 
 Moufang takes a different view of the present duty of the 
 Church in relation to the social question from that which we 
 saw to have been taken by Ketteler. He asks for no pecuniary 
 help from the Church, nor for any special and novel kind of 
 activity whatever. The problem cannot, in his opinion, be 
 effectively and permanently solved without her co-operation,
 
 The Christian Socialists. 231 
 
 but then the whole service she is able and required to render is 
 contained in the course of her ordinary ministrations in diffus- 
 ing a spirit of love and justice and fairness among the various 
 classes of society, in maintaining her charities for the poor and 
 helpless in dispensing comfort and distress, and in offering to 
 the weary the hope of a future life. Moufang makes much 
 more demand on the State than on the Church, in this also dis- 
 agreeing with Bishop Ketteler's pamphlet. He says the State 
 can and must help the poorer classes in four different ways : 
 1st. By giving legislative protection. Just as the landlord 
 and the money-lender are legally protected in their rights by 
 the State, so the labourer ought to be legally protected in his 
 property, which are his powers and time of labour. The State 
 ought to give him legal security against being robbed of these, 
 his only property, by the operation of free competition. "With 
 this view, Moufang demands the legalization of working men's 
 associations of various kinds, the prohibition of Sunday labour, 
 the legal fixing of a normal day of labour, legal restriction of 
 labour of women and children, legal provision against un- 
 wholesome workshops, appointment of factory inspectors, and 
 direct legal fixing of the rate of wages. The last point is an 
 important peculiarity in the position of the Catholic Socialists. 
 Moufang contends that competition is a sound enough principle 
 for regulating the price of commodities, but that it is a very 
 unsound one, and a very unsafe one, for determining the price 
 of labour, because he holds that labour is not a commodity. 
 Labour is a man's powers of life ; it is the man himself, and 
 the law must see to its protection. The law protects the 
 capitalist in his right to his interest, and surely the labouring 
 man's powers of life are entitled to the same consideration. If 
 an employer says to a capitalist from whom he has borrowed 
 money : " A crisis has come, a depression in trade, and I am 
 no longer able to pay such high interest ; I will pay you two- 
 thirds or one-third of the previous rate," what does the 
 capitalist say ? He refuses to take it, and why ? Simply 
 because he knows that the law will sustain him in his claim. 
 But if the employer says to his labourer : " A depression of 
 trade has come, and I cannot afford you more than two-thirds 
 or one-third of your present wages," what can the labourer do?
 
 232 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 He has no alternative. He must take the wages offered him 
 or go, and to go means to starve. Why should not the law 
 stand at the labourer's back, as it does at the capitalist's, in 
 enforcing what is right and just ? There is no more infraction 
 of freedom in the one case than in the other. Moufang's 
 argument here is based on an illusive analogy; for in the 
 contract for the use of capital the employer agrees to pay a 
 fixed rate of interest so long as he retains the principal, and he 
 can only avail himself of subsequent falls in the money market 
 by returning the principal and opening a fresh contract ; 
 whereas in the contract for the use of labour the employer 
 engages by the week or the day, returning the principal, as it 
 were, at the end of that term, and making a new arrangement. 
 The point to be noted, however, is that Moufang's object, like 
 Ketteler's, is to deliver working men from their hand-to-mouth 
 dependence on the current fluctuations of the market ; that he 
 thinks there is something not merely pernicious but radically 
 unjust in their treatment under the present system ; and that 
 he calls upon the State to institute some regular machinery 
 a board with compulsory powers, and composed of labourers 
 and magistrates for fixing everywhere and in every trade a 
 fair day's wages for a fair day's work. 
 
 2nd. The State ought to give pecuniary help. It advances 
 money on easy terms to railway schemes ; why should it not 
 offer working men cheap loans for sound co-operative enter- 
 prises ? Of course it ought to make a keen preliminary exam- 
 ination of the projects proposed, and keep a sharp look-out 
 against swindling or ill-considered schemes ; but if the project 
 is sound and likely, it should be ready to lend the requisite 
 capital at a low interest. This proposal of starting productive 
 associations on State credit is an important divergence from 
 Ketteler, who, in his pamphlet, condemns it as a violation of 
 the rights of property. 
 
 3rd. The State ought to reduce the taxes and military 
 burdens of the labouring classes. 
 
 4th. The State ought to fetter the domination of the money 
 power, and especially to check excesses of speculation, and 
 control the operations of the Stock Exchange. 
 
 From this programme it appears that the Catholic move-
 
 The Christian Socialists. 233 
 
 ment goes a long way with the socialists in their cries of 
 wrong, but only a short way in their plans of redress. 
 Moufang's proposals may be wise or unwise, but they con- 
 template only corrections of the present industrial system, and 
 not its reconstruction. Many Liberals are disposed to favour 
 the idea of establishing courts of conciliation with compulsory 
 powers, and Bismarck himself once said, before the socialists 
 showed themselves unpatriotic at the time of the French war, 
 that he saw no reason why the State, which gave large sums 
 for agricultural experiments, should not spend something in 
 giving co-operative production a fair trial. The plans of labour 
 courts and of State credit to approved co-operative under- 
 takings are far from the socialist schemes of the abolition of 
 private property in the instruments of production, and the 
 systematic regulation of all industry by the State ; and they 
 afford no fair ground for the fear, which many persons of 
 ability entertain, of " an alliance " to use Bismarck's phrase 
 " between the black International and the red." Bishop 
 Martensen holds Catholicism to be essentially socialistic, be- 
 cause it suppresses all individual rights and freedom in the 
 intellectual sphere, as socialism does in the economic. But 
 men may detest private judgment without taking the least 
 offence at private property. A bigot need not be a socialist, 
 any more than a socialist a bigot, though each stifles the 
 principle of individuality in one department of things. If 
 there is to be any alliance between the Church and socialism, 
 it will be not because the former has been trained, under an 
 iron organization, to cherish a horror of individuality and a 
 passion for an economic organization as rigid as its own 
 ecclesiastical one, but it will be because the Church happens 
 to have a distinct political interest at the time in cultivating 
 good relations with a new political force. How far Moufang 
 and his associates have been influenced by this kind of con- 
 sideration we cannot pretend to judge, but the sympathy they 
 show is not so much with the socialists as with the labouring 
 classes generally, and their movement is meant so far to take 
 the wind from socialism, whether with the mere view of 
 filling their own sails with it or no. 
 
 No voice was raised in the Protestant Churches in Germany
 
 234 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 on the social question till 1878. They suffer from their absolute 
 dependence on the State, and have become churches of doctors 
 and professors, without effective practical interest or initiative, 
 and without that strong popular sympathy of a certain kind 
 which almost necessarily pervades the atmosphere of a Church 
 like the Catholic, which pits itself against States, and knows 
 that its power of doing so rests, in the last analysis, on its hold 
 over the hearts of the people. The Home Missionary Society 
 indeed discussed the question from time to time, but chiefly in 
 connection with the effects of the socialist propaganda on the 
 religious condition of the country ; and it was this aspect of 
 the subject that eventually stirred a section of the orthodox 
 Evangelical clergy to take practical action. They asked 
 themselves how it was that the working classes were so largely 
 adopting the desolate atheistic opinions which were found 
 associated with the socialist movement, when the Church 
 offered to gather them under her wing, and brighten their life 
 with the comforts and encouragements of Christian faith and 
 hope. They felt strongly that they must take more interest in 
 the temporal welfare of the working classes than they had 
 hitherto done, and must apply the ethical and social principles 
 of Christianity to the solution of economic problems and the 
 promotion of social reform. In short, they sought to present 
 Christianity as the labourer's friend. The leaders of this 
 movement were men of much inferior calibre to those of the 
 corresponding Catholic movement. The principal of them 
 were Rudolph Todt, a pastor at Barentheim in Old Preignitz, 
 who published in 1878 a book on " Radical German Socialism 
 and Christian Society," which created considerable sensation; 
 and Dr. Stocker, then one of the Court preachers at Berlin, a 
 member of the Prussian Diet, and an ardent promoter of 
 reactionary policy in various directions. He is a warm 
 advocate of denominational education, and of extending the 
 power of the Crown, of the State, and of the landed class ; and 
 he was a prime mover in the Jew-baiting movement which 
 excited Germany a few years ago. This antipathy to the Jews 
 has been for many years a cardinal tendency of the " Agra- 
 rians," a small political group mainly of nobles and great 
 landed proprietors, with whom Stocker frequently allies him-
 
 The Christian Socialists. 235 
 
 self, and who profess to treat all political questions from a 
 strictly Christian standpoint, but work almost exclusively to 
 assert the interests of the landowners against the growing 
 ascendancy of the commercial and financial classes, among 
 whom Jews occupy an eminent place. We mention this anti- 
 Jewish agitation here to point out that, while no doubt fed by 
 other passions also, one of its chief ingredients is that same 
 antagonism to the bourgeoisie compounded of envy of their 
 success, contempt for their money-seeking spirit, and anger 
 at their supposed expropriation of the rest of society which 
 animates all forms of continental socialism, and has already 
 proved a very dangerous political force in the French Revolu- 
 tion of 1848. 
 
 Todt's work is designed to set forth the social principles and 
 mission of Christianity on the basis of a critical investigation 
 of the New Testament, which he believes to be an authorita- 
 tive guide on economic as well as moral and dogmatic ques- 
 tions. He says that to solve the social problem, we must take 
 political economy in the one hand, the scientific literature of 
 socialism in the other, and keep the New Testament before us. 
 As the result of his examination, he condemns the existing 
 industrial regime as being decidedly unchristian, and declares 
 the general principles of socialism, and even its main concrete 
 proposals, to be directly prescribed and countenanced by Holy 
 Writ. Like all who assume the name of socialist, he cherishes 
 a marked repugnance to the economic doctrines of modern 
 Liberalism, the leaven of the bourgeoisie ; and much of his 
 work is devoted to show the inner affinity of Christianity and 
 socialism, and the inner antagonism between Christianity 
 and Manchesterdom. He goes so far as to say that every 
 active Christian who makes conscience of his faith has a so- 
 cialistic vein in him, and that every socialist, however hostile 
 he may be to the Christian religion, has an unconscious Chris- 
 tianity in his heart ; whereas, on the other hand, the merely 
 nominal Christian, who has never really got out of his natural 
 state, is always a spiritual Manchestrist, worshipping laissez 
 faire, laixsez aller, with his whole soul, and that a Manchestrist 
 is never in reality a true and sound Christian, however much 
 he may usurp the name. Christianity and socialism are en-
 
 236 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 gaged in a common work, trying to make the reality of things 
 correspond better with an ideal state ; and in doing their work 
 they rely on the same ethical principle, the love of our neigh- 
 bour, and they repudiate the Manchester idolatry of self-in- 
 terest. The socialist ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity 
 are part and parcel of the Christian system ; and the socialist 
 ideas of solidarity of interests, of co-operative production, and 
 of democracy have all a direct Biblical foundation, in the con- 
 stitution and customs of the Church, and in the apostolic 
 teaching regarding it. 
 
 Radical socialism, according to Todt, consists of three ele- 
 ments : first, in economics, communism ; second, in politics, 
 republicanism ; third, in religion, atheism. Under the last 
 head, of course, there is no analogy, but direct contradiction, 
 between Socialism and Christianity ; but Todt deplores the 
 atheism that prevails among the socialists as not merely an 
 error, but a fatal inconsistency. If socialism would but base 
 its demands on the Gospel, he says, it would be resistless, and 
 all labourers would flow to it; but atheistic socialism can 
 never fulfil its own promises, and issues a draft which Christi- 
 anity alone has the power to meet. It is hopeless to think of 
 founding an enduring democratic State on the principles of 
 liberty, equality, and fraternity, unless these principles are 
 always sustained and reinvigorated by the Divine fraternal 
 love that flows from faith in Jesus Christ. 
 
 As to the second principle of socialism, Todt says, that 
 while Holy Scripture contains no direct prescription on the 
 point, it may be inferentially established that a republic is the 
 form, of government that is most harmonious with the Chris- 
 tian ideal. His deduction of this is peculiar. The Divine 
 government of the world, he owns, is monarchical, but then it 
 is a government which cannot be copied by sinful men, and 
 therefore cannot have been meant as a pattern for them. But 
 God, he says, has established His Church on earth as a visible 
 type of His own invisible providential government, and the 
 Church is a " republic under an eternal President, sitting by 
 free choice of the people, Jesus Christ." This is both fanciful 
 and false, for Christ is an absolute ruler, and no mere minister 
 of the popular will ; and there is not the remotest ground for
 
 The Christian Socialists. 237 
 
 founding a system of Biblical politics on the constitution of the 
 Church. But it shows the length Todt is disposed to go to 
 conciliate the favour of the socialists. 
 
 But the most important element of socialism is its third or 
 economic principle communism ; and this he represents to 
 be entirely in harmony with the economic ideal of the New 
 Testament. He describes the communistic idea as consisting 
 of two parts : first, the general principles of liberty, equality, 
 and fraternity, which he finds directly involved in the Scrip- 
 tural doctrines of moral responsibility, of men's common origin 
 and redemption, and of the law of love ; and second, the trans- 
 formation of all private property in the instruments of produc- 
 tion into common property, which includes three points : (a) 
 the abolition of the present wages system ; (6) giving the 
 labourer the full product of his labour; and (c) associated 
 labour. As to the first two of these points, Todt pronounces 
 the present wages system to be thoroughly unjust, because it 
 robs the labourer of the full product of his labour ; and be- 
 cause unjust, it is unchristian. He accepts the ordinary so- 
 cialist teaching about " the iron and cruel law." He accepts, 
 too, Marx's theory of value, and declares it to be unanswer- 
 able ; and he therefore finds no difficulty in saying that Chris- 
 tianity condemns a system which in his opinion grinds the 
 faces of the labouring classes with incessant toil, filches from 
 them the just reward of their work, and leaves them to hover 
 hopelessly on the margin of destitution. If there is any 
 scheme that promises effectually to cure this condition of 
 things, Christianity will also approve of that scheme ; and 
 such a scheme he discovers in the socialist proposal of col- 
 lective property and associated labour. This proposal, how- 
 ever, derives direct countenance, he maintains, from the New 
 Testament. It is supported by the texts which describe the 
 Church as an organism under the figure of a body with many 
 members, by the example of the common bag of the twelve, 
 and by the communism of the primitive Church of Jerusalem. 
 But the texts about the Church as an organism have no real 
 bearing on the subject at all ; for the Church is not meant to 
 be an authoritative pattern either for political or for econo- 
 mic organization ; and besides, the figure of the body and its
 
 238 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 members would apply better to Bastiat's theory of the natural 
 harmony of interests than to the socialist idea of the solidarity 
 of interests. Then the common bag of the disciples did not 
 prevent them from having boats and other instruments of pro- 
 duction of their own individual property ; and we know that 
 the communism of the primitive Church of Jerusalem (which 
 was a decided economic failure, for the poverty of that 
 Church had to be repeatedly relieved by collections in other 
 parts of Christendom) was not a community of property, but, 
 what is a higher thing, a community of use, and that it was 
 not compulsory but spontaneous. 
 
 Todt, however, after seeming thus to commit himself and 
 Christianity without reserve to socialism, suddenly shrinks 
 from his own boldness, and draws back. Collective property 
 may be countenanced by Scripture, but he finds private pro- 
 perty to be as much or even more so ; and he cannot 011 any 
 consideration consent to the abolition of private property by 
 force. It was right enough to abolish slavery by force, for 
 slavery is an unchristian institution. But though private 
 property is certainly founded on selfishness, there are so many 
 examples of it presented before us in the New Testament with- 
 out condemnation, that Todt shrinks from pronouncing it to 
 be an unchristian institution. Collective property may be 
 better, but private property will never disappear till selfishness 
 is swallowed up of love ; and a triumph of socialism at present, 
 while its disciples are unbelievers and have not Christ, the 
 fount of love, in their hearts, would involve society in much 
 more serious evils than those which it seeks to remove. Todt's 
 socialism, therefore, is not a thing of the present, but an ideal 
 of the distant future, to be realized after Christian proprietors 
 have come of their own accord to give up their estates, and 
 socialists have all been converted to Christianity. For the 
 present, in spite of his stern view of the great wrong and 
 injustice the working classes suffer, Todt has no remedy to 
 suggest, except that things would be better if proprietors 
 learnt more to regard their wealth as a trust of which they 
 were only stewards, and if employers treated their workmen 
 with the personal consideration due to Christian brothers ; and 
 he thinks the cultivation of this spirit ought to be more ex-
 
 The Christian Socialists. 239 
 
 pressly aimed at in the work of the Church. This is probably, 
 after all, the sum of what Christianity has to say on the subject; 
 but it seems a poor result of so much figuring and flourishing, 
 to end in a general truth which can give no offence even in 
 Manchester. 
 
 Soon after the publication of Todt's book, Stocker and some 
 Evangelical friends founded two associations, for the purpose 
 of dealing with the social question from a Christian point of 
 view, and established a newspaper, the Staats-Socialist, to 
 advocate their opinions. Of the two associations, one, the 
 Central Union for Social Reform, was composed of persons 
 belonging to the educated classes professors, manufacturers, 
 landowners, and clergymen ; and the other, the Christian 
 Social "Working Men's Party, consisted of working men alone. 
 This movement was received on all sides with unqualified dis- 
 approbation. The press, Liberal and Conservative alike, spoke 
 with contemptuous dislike of this Mucker- Socialismus, and 
 said they preferred the socialists in blouse to the socialists in 
 surplice. The Social Democrats rose against it with virulence, 
 and held meetings, both of men and of women, at which they 
 glorified atheism and bitterly attacked the clergy and religion. 
 Even the higher dignitaries of the Church held coldly aloof or 
 were even openly hostile. Stocker met all this opposition with 
 unflinching spirit, convened public meetings in Berlin to pro- 
 mote his cause, and confronted the socialist leaders on the plat- 
 form. The movement gave promise of fair success. In a few 
 months seven hundred pastors, besides many from other pro- 
 fessions, including Dr. Koegel, Court preacher, and Dr. Buchsel, 
 a German Superintendent, had enrolled themselves in the 
 Central Union for Social Reform ; and the Christian Social 
 Working Men's Party had seventeen hundred members in 
 Berlin, and a considerable number throughout the provinces. 
 But its progress was interrupted by the Anti-Socialist Law, 
 passed soon after the same year, which put an end to meetings 
 of socialists ; and since this measure was supported, though 
 hesitatingly, by Stocker and his leading allies, that impaired 
 their influence with the labouring classes. 
 
 The principles of this party, as stated in their programme, 
 may be said generally to be that a decided social question
 
 240 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 exists, in the increasing gulf between rich and poor, and the 
 increasing want of economic security in the labourer's life ; 
 that this question cannot possibly be solved by social demo- 
 cracy, because social democracy is unpractical, unchristian, 
 and unpatriotic ; and that it can only be solved by means 
 of an extensive intervention on the part of a strong and 
 monarchical State, aided by the religious factors in the 
 national life. The State ought to provide by statute a 
 regular organization of the working classes according to their 
 trades, authorizing the trades unions to represent the labourers 
 as against their employers, rendering these unions legally 
 liable for the contracts entered into by their members, assum- 
 ing a control of their funds, regulating the apprentice system, 
 creating compulsory insurance funds, etc. Then it ought to 
 protect the labourers by prohibiting Sunday labour, by fixing 
 a normal day of labour, and by insisting on the sound sanitary 
 condition of workshops. Further, it ought to manage the 
 State and communal property in a spirit favourable to the 
 working class, and to introduce high luxury taxes, a progressive 
 income-tax, and a progressive legacy duty, both according to 
 extent of bequest and distance of relationship. These very 
 comprehensive reforms are, however, held to be inadequate 
 without the spread of a Christian spirit of mutual consideration 
 into the relations of master and workman, and of Christian 
 faith, hope, and love into family life. Moreover they are not 
 to be expected from a parliamentary government in which the 
 commercial classes have excessive influence, and hence the 
 Christian Socialists lay great stress on the monarchical element, 
 and would give the monarch absolute power to introduce social 
 reforms without parliamentary co-operation and even in face 
 of parliamentary opposition. We have seen that Todt was 
 disposed to favour a republican form of government, but 
 probably, like the Czar Nicholas, he has no positive objection 
 to any other save the constitutional. His party has certainly 
 adopted a very Radical social programme, but it is above all a 
 Conservative group, seeking to resist the revolutionary and 
 materialistic tendencies of socialism, and to rally the great 
 German working class once more round the standard of God, 
 King, and Fatherland.
 
 The Christian Socialists. 241 
 
 Dr. Stocker lias during the past year resuscitated his 
 Christian Socialist organization under the name of the Social 
 Monarchical Union, but without any prospect of much success ; 
 for its founder, as the result of his twelve years' bustling in 
 the troubled waters of politics, has fallen out of favour alike 
 with court, Church, and people. He has lost his place as royal 
 chaplain, he is bitterly distrusted by the working classes, and 
 his socialist opinions are a great rock of offence to his eccle- 
 siastical brethren. A congress under Church auspices was 
 held at Berlin on May 28th and 29th, 1890, and it was called 
 the Evangelical Social Congress, as was explained by Professor 
 A. Wagner, the economist, in his inaugural speech, to avoid 
 being connected with the Christian Socialists. Dr. Stocker read 
 a paper at it on social democracy, which raised a storm of dis- 
 sension, mainly for its attack upon the Jews. This congress, 
 it may be noted, asked nothing from Government but a little 
 attention to the housing of the poor, and its chief recommenda- 
 tions were (1) that every parish be organized under the social- 
 political as well as spiritual supervision of the clergy ; (2) that 
 Evangelical Working Men's Unions be established in all indus- 
 trial centres ; (3) that benevolent or friendly societies be orga- 
 nized for all trades, such as exist now in mining ; (4) that since 
 social democracy threatened the Divine and human order of 
 society, and could only be successfully opposed by the power of 
 the gospel, a responsible mission lay upon the Church to com- 
 bat and counteract it. This mission was to be accomplished 
 in two ways : first, by awakening in all Evangelical circles the 
 conviction that the present social crisis was due to a universal 
 national guilt, the guilt of materialistic learning and living ; 
 and, second, by awakening masters to a sense of their duty to 
 their men, as morally their equals, and by awakening the men 
 to a sense of the moral vocation of the masters. In other words, 
 the social mission of the Church, according to the dominant 
 opinion at this congress, was just to do its ordinary work of 
 preaching repentance, faith, and love, and was much better 
 represented by Dr. Stocker's Home Missionary Society than by 
 his Social Monarchical Union. 
 
 On this question of the duty of the Church with regard to 
 the social amelioration of the people, there are everywhere two 
 
 B
 
 242 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 opposite tendencies of opinion. One says there is no specific 
 Christian social politics, and that the Church can never have 
 a specific social-political programme. Slavery is undoubtedly 
 inconsistent with the moral spirit of the gospel, but St. Paul 
 was not an emancipationist in practical life. He neither raises 
 the question of emancipation as a matter of political agitation, 
 nor does he bid, or beg, his friend Philemon to set Onesimus 
 at liberty, but to receive him as a brother beloved ; just as 
 any of St. Paul's successors might enjoin a Christian master 
 to treat his Christian servant, Christianity is an inspiration, 
 and may be expected to change the character of social relations 
 as it changes the character of men ; but political programmes 
 are always things of opportunity and temporary compromise, 
 and it would be very unadvisable to run at any moment a 
 Christian political party, because it would necessarily maks 
 Christianity responsible for imperfections incident to party 
 politics, and lessen rather than help the weight of its testimony 
 in the world. 
 
 Then, on the other hand, there are those who hold that there 
 is a specific Christian social politics ; that there is a distinct 
 social and political system, either directly enjoined by Holy 
 Writ, or inferentially resulting from it, so as to be truly a 
 system of Divine right. That is the claim put forward by Dr. 
 Stocker for his system of social monarchy, and it is the position 
 of sundry other groups of socialists, who base their policy on the 
 agrarian ordinances of Moses, or the communism of the primi- 
 tive Churches, or the general spirit of the teaching of Jesus 
 Christ. But Christian Socialism, in any of these forms, is evi- 
 dently at a discount in the Evangelical Church in Germany ; 
 and the representative men in that Church, whatever they 
 may do as private citizens, would seem to refrain, perhaps too 
 jealously, from formulating in the name of religion any demands 
 for the action of the State in the social question. 
 
 Indeed,, among Protestants, what is called Christian Social- 
 ism is little more than a vagrant opinion in any country , but 
 among Catholics it has grown into a considerable international 
 movement, and has in several States especially in Austria 
 left its mark on legislation. The movement was started in 
 Austria by a Protestant, Herr Rudolph Meyer, the well-known
 
 The Christian Socialists 243 
 
 author of the " Emancipationskampf des Arbeit " and other 
 works ; but he was influentially and effectively seconded by 
 Prince von Liechtenstein, Counts Blome and Kuefstein, and 
 Herr von Vogelsang, who is now editor of the special organ of 
 the movement, the Vaterland, of Vienna. In France there had 
 long been a school of Catholic social reformers, the disciples of 
 the Economist Le Play, and they are still associated in the 
 Society of Social Peace, and advocate their views in the perio- 
 dical La Beforme Sociale. They are believers in liberty, how- 
 ever, and would not be called socialists. But there are now 
 two newer schools of Catholic social reformers, who declare their 
 aim to be the re-establishment of Christian principles in the 
 world of labour, but are divided on the point of State interven- 
 tion. 
 
 The school who believe in State intervention are the more 
 numerous ; they are led by Count Albert de Mun and the 
 Marquis de la Tour de Pin Chambly, have a separate organ, 
 L 'Association Catholique, and are supported by a large organi- 
 zation of Catholic workmen's clubs, founded by Count de 
 Mun. There were 450 of these clubs in 1880, and they com- 
 bine the functions of a religious club, a co-operative store, and 
 a friendly society. The school who uphold the principle of 
 liberty also publish an organ, L 1 Union Economique, edited by 
 the Franciscan Father le Basse, and their best known leaders 
 are two Jesuit priests, Fathers Forbes and Caldron. There is 
 likewise a Catholic Socialist movement in Switzerland and 
 Belgium, in both cases strongly in favour of State intervention; 
 and, indeed, Italy is the only Catholic country in which the 
 Church holds aloof from the social movement, forgetting the 
 unusual miseries of. the people in an ignoble sulk over the loss 
 of the Pope's temporal power. 
 
 The friends of this movement have now held three inter- 
 national congresses at Liege. The third was held in Septem- 
 ber, 1890, under the presidency of the bishop of the diocese, 
 and was attended by 1500 delegates, including eight or ten 
 bishops and many Catholic statesmen and peers from all 
 countries. Lord Ashburnham and the Bishops of Salford and 
 Nottingham represented England, and there were representa- 
 tives from Germany, Poland, Austria, Spain, and France, but
 
 244 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 none from Italy. The Pope himself sent a special envoy with 
 an address, and among letters from eminent Catholic leaders 
 who were unable to be present in person was one from Cardinal 
 Manning, which made a little sensation, but was received with 
 decided sympathy, though the Pope afterwards disavowed it 
 to some extent. The Cardinal expressed strong approval of 
 trade unions, and of State intervention to fix the hours of 
 labour to eight hours for miners and ten hours for less arduous 
 trades, and he declared his conviction that no pacific solution of 
 the conflict between capital and labour was possible till the 
 State regulated profits and wages according to some fixed scale 
 which should be subject to revision every three or four years, 
 and by which all free contracts between employers and 
 employed should be adjusted. 
 
 The Congress went over the whole gamut of social questions, 
 and exhibited the usual conflict of opinion between the party 
 of liberty and the party of authority; but the party of 
 authority, the " Statolaters " as the}' are called, had evidently 
 the great majority of the assembly. The party of liberty 
 were chiefly Frenchmen and Belgians, men like Fathers 
 Forbes and Caudron, already mentioned, or M. Woeste, the 
 leader of the Catholic party in Belgium, who said he believed 
 in moral suasion only, and that he feared the State and hated 
 Caesarism. The party of authority were German and English. 
 But whatever they thought of State intervention, all parlies 
 were one about the necessity of Church intervention. With- 
 out the Catholic Church there could be no solution of the 
 social question. Cardinal Manning said, a few days before the 
 Congress, that the labour question now raised everywhere 
 must go on till it was solved somehow, and that the only 
 universal influence that could guide it was the presence and 
 prudence of the Catholic Church. The Congress passed recom- 
 mendations about technical education, better homes for work- 
 ing people, shorter hours, intemperance, strikes, prison labour, 
 international factory legislation. It proposed the institution 
 of trade unions, comprising both employers and employed, as 
 the best means of promoting working-class improvement. In 
 the towns these unions might have distinct sections for the 
 different trades ; but in the country this subdivision was not
 
 The Christian Socialists. 245 
 
 requisite. Every parish should have its trade union, and the 
 whole should be united in a federation like the Boerenbond, 
 or Peasants' League, lately established in some parts of 
 Belgium, and which the Congress recommended to the atten- 
 tion of Catholics. It recommended also the establishment 
 of a pension fund for aged labourers under State guarantee, 
 but without any compulsory exaction of premiums, and with- 
 out any special State subsidy ; and it received with favour 
 a proposal by the Spanish divine, Professor Rodriguez de 
 Cegrada, of Valencia, for papal arbitration in international 
 labour questions. 
 
 This Catholic Socialist movement shows no disposition to 
 coquet with revolutionary socialism ; on the contrary, its 
 leaders often say one of their express objects is to counteract 
 that agitation to produce the counter-revolution, as they 
 sometimes put it. They are under no mistake about the 
 nature or bearing of socialist doctrines. Our Christian 
 Socialists in London accept the doctrines of Marx, and hold 
 the labourer's right to the full product of his labour to be a 
 requirement of Christian ethics, and the orators at English 
 Church Congresses often speak of socialism as if it were a 
 higher perfection of Christianity. But Catholic Socialists 
 understand their Christianity and their socialism better than 
 to make any such identifications, and regard the doctrines and 
 organizations of revolutionary socialism in the spirit of the 
 firm judgment expressed in the Pope's encyclical of 28th 
 December, 1878, which said that " so great is the difference 
 between their (the socialists') wicked dogmas and the pure 
 doctrine of Christ that there can be no greater ; for what par- 
 ticipation has justice with injustice, or what communion has 
 light with darkness ? " This plain, gruff renunciation is on 
 the whole much truer than the amiable patronage of a very dis- 
 tinguished Irish bishop at the Church Congress of 1887, who said 
 socialism was only a product of Christian countries, (what of the 
 socialism of savage tribes, or of the Mahdi, or of the Chinese ?) 
 that the sentiment and aspiration of socialism were distinctly 
 Christian, and that every Christian is a bit of a socialist, and 
 every socialist a bit of a Christian. Socialism may proceed 
 from an aspiration after social justice, but a mistaken view of
 
 246 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 social justice is, I presume, really injustice ; and, as the Pope 
 says, what communion can there practically be between justice 
 and injustice ? Idolatry is a mistaken view of Divine things 
 a distortion of the religious sentiment ; but who would on that 
 account call it Christian ? The socialist may be at heart a 
 lover of justice ; he may love it, if you will, above his fellows ; 
 but what matters the presence of the sentiment if the system 
 he would realize it by is ruled essentially by a principle of 
 injustice? Justice, the greatest and rarest of the virtues, is 
 also the most difficult and the most easily perverted. It needs 
 a balance of mind, and in its application to complicated and 
 wide-reaching social arrangements, an exactitude of knowledge 
 and clearness of understanding which are ill replaced by 
 sentimentalism, or even by honest feeling ; and the fault of 
 the current talk about Christian Socialism and the identity 
 of socialism with Christianity is that it does not conduce to 
 this clearness of understanding, which is the first requisite for 
 any useful dealing with such questions. If socialism is just, 
 it is Christian that seems the sum of the matter. But do 
 socializing bishops believe it to be just ? Do they believe, 
 as all socialists believe, that it is unjust for one man to be paid 
 five thousand pounds a year, while his neighbours, with far 
 harder and more drudging work, cannot make forty pounds ? 
 or do they believe it wrong for a man to live on interest, or 
 rents, or profits ? or would they have the law lay its hands 
 on property and manufactures, in order to correct this wrong 
 and give every man the income to which he would be entitled 
 on socialist principles ? It is good, no doubt, to have more 
 equality and simplicity and security of living ; but these as- 
 pirations are neither peculiar to Christianity nor to socialism.
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 ANARCHISM. 
 
 THE Jatesfc offspring of revolutionary opinion and the most 
 misshapen is anarchism. Seven or eight years ago the word 
 was scarcely known ; but then, as if on a sudden, rumours of 
 the anarchists and their horrid " propaganda of deed " echoed 
 in, one upon another, from almost every country in the old 
 world and the new. To-day they were haranguing mobs of 
 unemployed in Lyons and Brussels under a black flag the 
 black flag of hunger, which, they explained, knows no law. 
 To-morrow they were goading the peasants of Lombardy or 
 Naples to attack the country houses of the gentry, and lay 
 the vineyards waste. Presently they were found attempting 
 to assassinate the German Emperor at Niederwald, or laying 
 dynamite against the Federal Palace at Bern ; or a troop of 
 them had set off over Europe on a quixotic expedition of miscel- 
 laneous revenge on powers that be, and were reported succes- 
 sively as having killed a gendarme in Strasburg, a policeman 
 in Vienna, and a head of the constabulary in Frankfort. Before 
 these reports had time to die in our ears, fresh tales would arrive 
 of anarchists pillaging the bakers' shops in Paris, or exulting 
 over the murder of a mining manager at Decazeville, or fling- 
 ing bombs among the police of Chicago ; and it seemed as if a 
 new party of disorder had broke loose upon the world, busier 
 and more barbarous than any that went before it. 
 
 It is no new party, however; it is merely the extremer 
 element in the modern socialist movement. Mr. Hyndman 
 and other socialists would fain disclaim the anarchists alto- 
 gether, and are fond of declaring that they are the very 
 opposite of socialists that they are individualists of the 
 boldest stamp. But this contention will not stand. There 
 are individualist anarchists, no doubt. The anarchists of 
 
 247
 
 248 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Boston, in America, are individualists ; one of the two groups 
 of English anarchists in London is individualist ; but these 
 individualist anarchists are very few in number anywhere, and 
 the mass of the party whose deeds made a stir on both sides of 
 the Atlantic is undoubtedly more socialist than the socialists 
 themselves. I have said in a previous chapter that the 
 socialism of the present day maybe correctly described .in three 
 words as Revolutionary Socialist Democracy, and in every one 
 of these three characteristics the anarchists go beyond other 
 socialists, instead of falling short of them. They are really 
 more socialist, more democratic, and more revolutionary than the 
 rest of their comrades. They are more socialist, because they 
 are disposed to want not only common property and common 
 production, but common enjoyment of products as well. They 
 are more democratic, because they will have no government 
 of any kind over the people except the people themselves 
 no king or committee, no representative institutions, either 
 imperial or local, but merely every little industrial group of 
 people managing its public affairs as it will manage its indus- 
 trial work. And they are more revolutionary, for they have 
 no faith, even temporarily, in constitutional procedure, and 
 think making a little trouble is always the best way of bring- 
 ing on a big revolution. Other socialists prepare the way for 
 revolution by a propaganda of word ; but the anarchists 
 believe they can hasten the day best by the propaganda of 
 deed. Like the violent sections of all other parties, they 
 injure and discredit the party they belong to, and they often 
 attack the more moderate section with greater bitterness than 
 their common enemy ; but they certainly belong to social- 
 ism, both in origin and in principle. There were anarchists 
 among the Young Hegelian socialists of Germany fifty years 
 ago. The Anti-socialist Laws bred a swarm of anarchists 
 among the German socialists in 1880, who left under Most and 
 Hasselmann, and carried to America the seed which led to the 
 outrages of Chicago. The Russian nihilists were anarchists 
 from the beginning; they broke up the International with 
 their anarchism twenty years ago, and they are among the 
 chief disseminators of anarchism in England and France to- 
 day, because to the Russians anarchism is only the socialism
 
 Anarchism. 249 
 
 and the democracy of the rural communes in which they were 
 born. Socialists themselves are often obliged to admit the 
 embarrassing affinity. Dr. and Mrs. Aveling complain, in their 
 " Labour Movement in America," that while " the Chicago 
 capitalist wanted us to be hanged after we had landed, Herr 
 Most's paper, Die Freiheit, was for shooting us at sight " ; that 
 " anarchism ruined the International movement, threw back 
 the Spanish, Italian, and French movements for many years, 
 has proved a hindrance in America, and so much or so little 
 of it as exists in England is found by the revolutionary 
 socialist party a decided nuisance" ; but they admit that " well 
 nigh every word spoken by the chief defendants at the Chicago 
 trial could be endorsed by socialists, for they then preached 
 not anarchism, but socialism. Indeed/' they add, " he that 
 will compare the fine speech by Parsons in 1886 with that of 
 Liebknecht at the high treason trial at Leipzig will find the 
 two practically identical." 
 
 So far, then, as their socialism goes, there is admittedly no 
 real difference between Parsons, the Chicago anarchist, and 
 Liebknecht, the leader of the German socialists. Indeed, as I 
 have said, the anarchists seem to show a tendency even to out- 
 bid the socialists in their socialism. Socialists generally say 
 that, while committing all production to the public authority, 
 they have no idea of interfering with liberty of consumption. 
 Their opponents argue, in reply, that they would find an inter- 
 ference with consumption to be an inevitable result of their 
 systematic regulation of production; but they themselves always 
 repudiate that conclusion. They would make all the instru- 
 ments of production common property, but leave all the 
 materials of enjoyment individual property still. Ground 
 rents, for example, would belong to the public ; but every man 
 would own his own house and furniture, at least for life, if he 
 had built it by his own labour, or bought it from his own 
 savings, because a dwelling house is not an instrument of pro- 
 duction, but an article of enjoyment or consumption. But some 
 of the more representative spokesmen of the anarchists would 
 not leave this last remnant of private property standing, and 
 strongly contend for the old primitive plan, still in use among 
 savage tribes, of giving those who are in want of anything a
 
 250 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 claim a right to share the enjoyment of it with those who 
 happen to have it. They would municipalize the houses as 
 well as the ground rents, and no one should be allowed a right 
 to a spare bed or a disengaged sofa so long as one of the least 
 of his brethren huddled on straw in a garret in the slums, or 
 slept out on a bench in Trafalgar Square. In a recent number 
 of Freedom, for example, Prince Krapotkin announces that 
 " the first task of the Revolution will be to arrange things so 
 as to share the accommodation of available houses according to 
 the needs of the inhabitants of the city, to clear out the slums 
 and fully occupy the villas and mansions." Anarchist opinions 
 are no doubt capricious and variable. There are as many 
 anarchisms as there are anarchists, it has been said. But this 
 tendency to go further than other socialists, in superseding in- 
 dividual by common property, has repeatedly appeared in some 
 of their most representative utterances. 
 
 The Jurassian Federation of the International adopted a reso- 
 lution at their Congress in 1880, in which they say : " We 
 desire collectivism, with all its logical consequences, not only in 
 the sense of the collective appropriation of instruments of pro- 
 duction, but also of the collective enjoyment and consumption 
 of products. Anarchist communism will in this way be the 
 necessary and inevitable consequence of the social revolution, 
 and the expression of the new civilization which that revolution 
 will inaugurate." 
 
 Their principal difference with the other branch of the 
 socialists, however, and that from which they derive their 
 name is upon the government of the socialistic society. An- 
 archy as a principle of political philosophy was first advocated 
 by Proudhon, and he meant by it, not of course a state of chaos 
 or disorder, but merely a state without separate political or civil 
 institutions, " a state of order without a set government." 
 " The expression, anarchic government," he says, " implies a 
 sort of contradiction. The thing seems impossible, and the 
 idea absurd ; but there is really nothing at fault here but the 
 language. The idea of anarchy in politics is quite as rational and 
 positive as any other. It consists in this, that the political 
 function be re-absorbed in the industrial, and in that case social 
 order would ensue spontaneously out of the simple operation of
 
 Anarchism. 251 
 
 transactions and exchanges. Every man might then be justly 
 called autocrat of himself, which is the extreme reverse of 
 monarchical absolutism " (" Die Princip Federatif," p. 29). He 
 distinguishes anarchy from democracy and from communistic 
 government, though his distinctions are not easy to apprehend 
 exactly. Communism, he says, is the government of all by all ; 
 democracy, the government of all by each ; and anarchy, the 
 government of each by each. Anarchy is, in his opinion, the 
 only real form of self-government. People would manage their 
 own public affairs together like partners in a business, and no 
 one would be subject to the authority of another. Govern- 
 ment is considered a mere detail of industrial management ; 
 and the industrial management is considered to be in the 
 hands of all who co-operate in the industry. The specific 
 preference of anarchism, therefore, seems to be for some form 
 of direct government by the people, in place of any form of 
 central, superior, or representative government ; and naturally 
 its political communities must be small in size, though they 
 may be left to league together, if they choose, in free and 
 somewhat loose federations. The anarchists are accordingly 
 more democratic in their political theory than the socialists 
 more strictly so called, inasmuch as they would give the 
 people more hand in the work of government, though of 
 course they preposterously underrate the need and difficulty of 
 that work. 
 
 On some minor points they contradict one another, and quite 
 as often contradict themselves. Proudhon, for example, would 
 still, even in anarchist society, retain the local policeman and 
 magistrate ; but anarchists of a stricter doctrine would either 
 have every man carry his own pistol and provide for his own 
 security, or, as the Boston anarchists prefer, apparently, would 
 have public security supplied like any other commodity by an 
 ordinary mercantile association in Proudhon's words, " by 
 the simple operation of transactions and exchanges." Emerson 
 said the day was coming when the world would do without 
 the paraphernalia of courts and parliaments, and a man who 
 liked the profession would merely put a sign over his door, 
 " John Smith, King." This is too much division of function 
 however for anarchists generally, and they would have every
 
 252 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 industrial group do its government as it did its business by 
 general co-operation. Just as in Russia every rural commune 
 has its own trade, and the inhabitants of one are all shoemakers, 
 while the inhabitants of another are all tailors, so in anarchist 
 society, according to the more advanced doctrine, every separate 
 group would have its own separate industry, because, in fact, 
 the separate industry makes it a separate group. And it would 
 be managed by all its members together, not by anything in 
 the nature of a board, for it is important to recollect that anar- 
 chists of the purest water entertain as much objection to the 
 domination of a vestry or a town council as to that of a king 
 or a cabinet. Some who side with them, especially old sup- 
 porters of the French Revolutionary Commune, have still a 
 certain belief in a municipal council ; but the Russian anar- 
 chists, at any rate, look upon this as a piece of faithless accom- 
 modation. Prince Krapotkin, I have already mentioned, thinks 
 the first business of the contemplated revolution must be to 
 redistribute the dwelling houses, so as to thin the slums and 
 quarter their surplus population in the incompletely occupied 
 villas or mansions of the West End. That is a very large task, 
 which it will seem, to an ordinary mind, obviously impossible 
 for the vast population of a great city like London to execute in 
 their own proper persons at an enormous town meeting ; yet, 
 if I understand Prince Krapotkin, it is this preposterous pro- 
 posal he is actually offering as a serious contribution to a more 
 perfect system of government. " For," says he, " sixty elected 
 persons sitting round a table and calling themselves a Muni- 
 cipal Council cannot arrange the matter on paper. It must be 
 arranged by the people themselves, freely uniting to settle the 
 question for each block of houses, each street, and proceeding 
 by agreement from the single to the compound, from the parts 
 to the whole ; all having their voice in the arrangements, and 
 putting in their claims with those of their fellow-citizens ; just 
 as the Russian peasants settle the periodical repartition of the 
 communal lands." And how do the Russian peasants settle 
 the periodical repartition of the communal lands? Stepniak 
 gives us a very interesting description of a meeting of a 
 Russian mir in his " Russia Under the Tsars " (vol. i. p. 2). 
 " The meetings of the village communes, like those of the
 
 Anarchism. 253 
 
 Landesgemeinde of the primitive Swiss cantons, are held under 
 the vault of heaven, before the Starosta's house, before a tavern, 
 or at any other convenient place. The thing that most strikes 
 a person who is present for the first time at one of these meet- 
 ings is the utter confusion which seems to characterize its 
 proceedings. Chairman there is none. The debates are scenes 
 of the wildest disorder. After the convener has explained his 
 reasons for calling the meeting, everybody rushes in to express 
 his opinion, and for a while the debate resembles a free fight 
 of pugilists. The right of speaking belongs to him who can 
 command attention. If an orator pleases his audience, inter- 
 rupters are promptly silenced ; but if he says nothing worth 
 hearing, nobody heeds him, and he is shut up. "When the 
 question is somewhat of a burning one, and the meeting begins 
 to grow warna, all speak at once, and none listen. On these 
 occasions the assembly breaks up into groups, each of which 
 discusses the subject on its own account. Everybody shouts 
 his arguments at the top of his voice. Charges and objurga- 
 tions, words of contumely and derision, are heard on every 
 hand, and a wild uproar goes on from which it does not seem 
 possible that any good can result. 
 
 " But this apparent confusion is of no moment. It is a 
 necessary means to a certain end. In our village assemblies 
 voting is unknown. Controversies are never decided by a 
 majority of voices; every question must be settled unanimously. 
 Hence the general debate, as well as private discussions, must 
 be continued until a proposal is brought forward which con- 
 ciliates all interests, and wins the suffrage of the entire mir. 
 It is, moreover, evident that to reach this consummation the 
 debates must be thorough and the subject well threshed out ; 
 and in order to overcome isolated opposition, it is essential for 
 the advocates of conflicting views to be brought face to face, 
 and compelled to fight out their differences in single combat." 
 
 But beneath all this tough and apparently acrimonious strife 
 a singular spirit of forbearance reigns. The majority will not 
 force on a premature decision. Debate may rage fast and 
 furious day after day, but at last the din dies. A common 
 understanding is somehow attained, and the mir pronounces 
 its deliverance, which is accepted, in the rude belief of the
 
 254 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 peasants, as the decree of God Himself. In this way tens of 
 thousands of Russian villages have been, no doubt, managing 
 their own petty business with reasonable amity and success 
 for centuries, and the political philosophy of Russian writers 
 like Bakunin and Prince Krapotkin, who have propagated 
 anarchism in the west of Europe, is merely the naive sugges- 
 tion that the form of government which answers not intoler- 
 ably for the few trivial concerns of a primitive Russian village 
 would answer best for the whole complex business of a great 
 developed modern society. 
 
 The anarchists carry their dislike to authority into other 
 fields besides the political and industrial. They will have no 
 invisible master or ruler any more than visible. They renounce 
 both God and the devil, and generally with an energy beyond 
 all other revolutionists. Some of the older socialists were 
 believers ; St. Simon, Fourier, Leroux and Louis Blanc were 
 all theists ; but it is rare to find one among the socialists of 
 the present generation, and with the anarchists an aggressive 
 atheism seems an essential part of their way of thinking. They 
 will own no superior power or authority of any kind employer, 
 ruler, deity, or law. The Anarchist Congress of Geneva in 
 1882 issued a manifesto, which began thus : 
 
 " Our enemy, it is our master. Anarchists that is to say, 
 men without chiefs we fight against all who are invested or 
 wish to invest themselves with any kind of power whatsoever. 
 Our enemy is the landlord who owns the soil and makes the 
 peasant drudge for his profit. Our enemy is the employer who 
 owns the workshop, and has filled it with wage-serfs. Our 
 enemy is the State, monarchical, oligarchic, democratic, work- 
 ing class, with its functionaries and its services of officers, magis- 
 trates, and police. Our enemy is every abstract authority, 
 whether called Devil or Good God, in the name of which priests 
 have so long governed good souls. Our enemy is the law, always 
 made for the oppression of the weak by the strong, and for the 
 justification and consecration of crime." 
 
 Among other restraints, they entertain often a speculative 
 opposition to the restraint of the legal family, and sometimes 
 advocate a return to aboriginal promiscuity and relationship by 
 mothers ; but this is only an occasional element in their agita-
 
 Anarchism. 255 
 
 tion. It is plain, however, that when law is believed to be 
 oppression, crime and lawlessness come to be humanity. 
 
 I have now shown that the anarchists, so far from represent- 
 ing an opposite movement to revolutionary social democracy, 
 are really ultra-socialist and ultra-democratic, and it seems 
 hardly necessary to show that they are ultra-revolutionary. 
 All social democrats contemplate an eventual revolution, but 
 some see no objection meanwhile to take part in current 
 politics ; while others, a more witnessing generation, practise 
 an ostentatious abstention, and call themselves political absten- 
 tionists. Some, again, think and desire that the revolution will 
 come by peaceful and lawful means ; others trust to violence 
 alone. The anarchists outrun all. They refuse to have 
 anything to do with any politics but revolution, and with any 
 revolution but a violent one, and they think the one means of 
 producing revolution now or at any future time is simply to 
 keep exciting disorder and class hatred, assassinating State 
 officers, setting fire to buildings, and paralyzing the bourgeoisie 
 with fear. All anarchists are not of this sanguinary mind, 
 and it is interesting to remember that Proudhon himself 
 wrote Karl Marx in 1846, warning him against " making a 
 St. Bartholomew of the proprietors," and opposed resort to 
 revolutionary action of any kind as a means of promoting 
 social reform. " Perhaps," he says, " we think no reform is 
 possible without a coup de main, without what used to be called 
 a revolution, and which is only a shake. I understand that 
 decision and excuse it, for I held it for a long time myself, but 
 I confess my latest studies have completely taken it away from 
 me. I believe we have no need of any such thing in order to 
 succeed, and that consequently we ought not to postulate 
 revolutionary action as a means of social reform, because that 
 pretended means is nothing more nor less than an appeal 
 to force, to arbitrary power, and is therefore a contradiction, 
 I state the problem thus : to restore to society, by an economic 
 combination, the wealth which has been taken from society 
 by another economic combination." ("Proudhon's Corre- 
 spondence," ii. 198.) 
 
 But whatever individual anarchists may hold or renounce, 
 the general view of the party is as I have stated. A meeting
 
 256 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 of 600 anarchists chiefly Germans and Austrians, but includ- 
 ing also some Russians, Spaniards, and Frenchmen was held 
 at Paris on the 20th April, 1884, and passed a resolution urgently 
 recommending the extirpation of princes, capitalists, and par- 
 sons, by means of " the propaganda of deed."* The Congress 
 held at London in 1881, which sought to re-establish the Inter- 
 national on purely anarchist lines, adopted a declaration of 
 principles, containing, among other things, the following : " It 
 is matter of strict necessity to make all possible efforts to 
 propagate by deeds the revolutionary idea and the spirit of 
 revolt among that great section of the mass of the people which 
 as yet takes no part in the movement, and entertains illusions 
 about the morality and efficacy of legal means. In quitting 
 the legal ground on which we have generally remained 
 hitherto, in order to carry our action into the domain of 
 illegality which is the only way leading to revolution, it is 
 necessary to have recourse to means which are in conformity 
 with that end. . . . The Congress recommends organiza- 
 tions and individuals constituting part of the International 
 Working Men's Association to give great weight to the study 
 of the technical and chemical sciences as a means of defence 
 and attack."t In the first French revolution Lavoisier and 
 other seven and twenty chemists were put to the guillotine 
 together, on the express pretence, " We have no need of 
 savants" ; but now "Technology" is a standing heading in 
 the anarchist journals; a revolutionary organization has its 
 chemical department as well as its press department ; and 
 anarchist tracts often end with the standing exhortation, 
 " Learn the use of dynamite," as socialist tracts end with 
 the old admonition of 1848, " Proletarians of all nations, 
 unite." 
 
 The object of this policy of violence is partly, as we see from 
 the above quotations, to inflame the spirit of revolt and dis- 
 order in the working classes ; and it is partly to terrorize the 
 bourgeoisie, so that they may yield in pure panic all they 
 
 * Much interesting information on this subject is given from official 
 sources in a recent anonymous work, " Socialismus und Anarchismus in 
 Europa und Nordamerika wahrend der Jahre 1883 bis 1886." 
 
 t Garin, " L'Anarchie et les Anarchistes," p. 48.
 
 Anarchism. 257 
 
 possess. But for its expressly violent policy, anarchism would 
 be the least formidable or offensive manifestation of contem-. 
 porary socialism. For, in the first place, its specific doctrine is 
 one which it is really difficult to get the most ordinary common 
 sense puzzled into accepting. Men in their better mind may 
 be ready enough to listen to specious, or even not very specious, 
 schemes of reform that hold out a promise of extirpating 
 misery, and in their worse mind they may be quite as prone 
 to think that if everybody had his own, there would be fewer 
 rich ; but they are not likely to believe we can get on without 
 law or government of any sort. Even the vainest will feel that 
 however superfluous these institutions may be for themselves, 
 they are still unhappily indispensable for some of their neigh- 
 bours. Then in the next place this doctrine of the anarchists 
 is as great a stumbling-block to themselves as it is to other 
 people, for they carry their objection to government into their 
 own movement, and can consequently never acquire that 
 concentration and unity of organization which is necessary for 
 any effectual conspiracy. They are always found constituted 
 in very small groups very loosely held together, and small as 
 the several groups may be, they are always much more likely 
 to subdivide than to consolidate. Even the few anarchist 
 refugees in London who might be expected to be knit into 
 indissoluble friendship by their common adversity have broken 
 into separate clubs, and the " Autonomic " and the " Morgen- 
 rothe " though they have hardly more than a hundred 
 members between them, and all belong to the same socialist 
 variety of anarchist doctrine remain as the Jews and the 
 Samaritans. It is said to be a subject of speculative discussion 
 among anarchists whether two members are sufficient to con- 
 stitute an anarchist club. This laxity of organization is a natural 
 result of the dislike to authority which the anarchists cultivate 
 as a cardinal principle. Subjection to an executive committee 
 is as offensive to their feelings and as contrary to their prin- 
 ciples as subjection to a monarch. The dread of subjection 
 keeps them disunited and weak. As Machiavelli says, the 
 many ruin a revolutionary society, and the few are not enough. 
 A small group may concoct an isolated crime, but it can do 
 little towards the social revolution.
 
 258 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 The anarchist policy the propaganda of deed consists, 
 however, exactly in this concoction of isolated crimes and out- 
 rages. Some of the continental powers are conferring at this 
 moment on the propriety of taking international efforts against 
 the anarchists, and the question may at least be reasonably 
 raised before our own Government, whether a policy of pro- 
 miscuous outrage like this should continue to be included 
 among political offences, securing protection against extradi- 
 tion, and whether the propaganda of deed and the use of 
 dynamite should not rather be declared outside the limits of 
 fair and legitimate revolution, as, by the Geneva Convention, 
 explosive bullets are put outside the limits of fair or legitimate 
 war.
 
 CHAPTEE IX. 
 
 RUSSIAN NIHILISM. 
 
 HAXTHAUSEN pronounced a confident opinion in 1847, when most 
 of the continental nations were agitated with rumours of revo- 
 lution, that Russia at any rate was safe from the danger, in- 
 asmuch as she enjoyed an absolute protection against all such 
 revolutionary agitation in her communistic rural institutions. 
 There was no proletariat in Russia, every man in the country 
 being born to a share in the land of the township he belonged 
 to ; and without a proletariat, concluded the learned professor, 
 there was neither motive nor material for social revolt. This 
 belief became generally accepted, and passed, indeed, for years 
 as a political commonplace ; but perhaps never has a political 
 prognostication so entirely reasonable proved on experience so 
 utterly fallacious. Instead of sparing or avoiding Russia, revo- 
 lutionary agitation has grown positively endemic in that 
 country ; it is more virulent in its type, and apparently more 
 deepseated than elsewhere ; and, stranger still, not the least of 
 its exciting causes has been that very communistic agrarian 
 system which was thought to be the surest preservation 
 against it. 
 
 In its earlier period, before the emancipation of the serfs, 
 the Russian revolutionary movement was largely inspired by 
 an extravagant idealization of the perfections of the rural 
 commune, and now since the emancipation it is fed far more 
 formidably by an actual experience of the commune's defects. 
 The truth is that the communistic land system of Russia, so 
 far from preventing the birth of a proletariat, is now of itself 
 begetting the most numerous and the most helpless proleta- 
 riat in the world. The emancipation dues would have been a 
 serious burden under any social arrangements, but they have 
 proved so much heavier under the communistic system of 
 
 259
 
 2(5o Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Russia than they would have been elsewhere that the system 
 itself is beginning to give way. "With an unlimited stock of 
 good land, all is plain sailing under any social institutions ; but 
 when land is limited in extent and every new-comer has the 
 right to cut in and get an equal share with those already in 
 possession, excessive subdivision is inevitable, and the point is 
 soon reached where any fresh impost or outgoing destroys the 
 profitableness of cultivation, and converts the right to the land 
 from an asset into a liability. This is what is now happening 
 in Russia. It appears there are already more paupers in 
 St. Petersburg proportionally to population than in any other 
 European capital, and as many as a third of the inhabitants 
 of the provinces are either entirely landless, or, more unhappy 
 still, find their land, instead of a benefit, to be only a grievous 
 burden of which they cannot shake themselves clear. I shall 
 have occasion later on to recur to this new economic develop- 
 ment in rural Russia, which is very interesting to the student 
 of socialism on its own account, but which will concern us in 
 the present chapter more particularly in its bearing on the 
 operations and prospects of the revolutionary party in that 
 country. 
 
 The revolutionary or nihilist movement in Russia has 
 passed through several successive phases ; but there is no good 
 reason for denying its continuity, nor any impropriety, as is 
 sometimes alleged, in the retention of the name of Nihilism, 
 which it bore when it first engaged the attention of Western 
 Europe, although it may be quite true that the word is more 
 descriptive of the earlier developments of the movement than of 
 the later. In its first stage, before the Emancipation Act, it was 
 scarce more than an intellectual fermentation an intellectual 
 revolt all round, if you will shaping more and more in its 
 political ideas towards democratic socialism, but as yet entirely 
 unorganized, and content to expend its force in violent opinions 
 without recourse to action. Then, second, the Emancipation Act 
 gave it organization, purpose, malignity, and made it, in short, 
 the nihilism we know, converting it into the engine of the 
 bitter discontent of the landed classes, who were seriously 
 straitened and many of them ruined by the operation of that 
 great reform. Third, while the impoverishment of thousands
 
 Russian Nihilism. 261 
 
 of landed families was the first result of the Emancipation Act, 
 its slower but more serious result has been the impoverishment 
 of the peasantry, and nihilism is now assuming a more agrarian 
 character, and promoting the social revolution under the old 
 Eussian cry for " the black division." 
 
 For the origin of nihilism we must go back half a century 
 to a little company of gifted young men, most of whom rose to 
 great distinction, who used at that time to meet together at 
 the house of a rich merchant in Moscow, for the discussion of 
 philosophy and politics and religion. They were of the most 
 various views. Some of them became Liberal leaders, and 
 wanted Russia to follow the constitutional development of the 
 Western nations ; others became founders of the new Slavo- 
 phil party, contending that Russia should be no imitator, but 
 develop her own native institutions in her own way ; and there 
 were at least two among them Alexander Herzen and 
 Michael Bakunin who were to be prominent exponents of 
 revolutionary socialism. But they all owned at this period 
 one common master Hegel. Their host was an ardent He- 
 gelian, and his young friends threw themselves into the study 
 of Hegel with the greatest zeal. Herzen himself tells us in his 
 autobiography how assiduously they read everything that came 
 from his pen, how they devoted nights and weeks to clearing 
 up the meaning of single passages in his writings, and how 
 greedily they devoured every new pamphlet that issued from 
 the German press on any part of his system. From Hegel, 
 Herzen and Bakunin were led, exactly like Marx and the 
 German Young Hegelians, to Feuerbach, and from Feuerbach 
 to socialism. Bakuuin, when he retired from the army, rather 
 than be the instrument of oppressing the Poles among whom 
 he was stationed, went for some years to Germany, where he 
 lived among the Young Hegelians and wrote for their organ, 
 the HalUsche Jahrbiicher ; but before either he or Herzen ever 
 had any personal intercommunication with the members of 
 that school of thought, they had passed through precisely the 
 same development. Herzen speaks of socialism almost in the 
 very phrases of the Young Hegelians, as being the new " ter- 
 restrial religion," in which there was to be neither God nor 
 heaven ; as a new system of society which would dispense
 
 262 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 with an authoritative government, human or Divine, and 
 which should be at once the completion of Christianity and 
 the realization of the Revolution. " Christianity," he said, 
 " made the slave a son of man ; the Revolution has emanci- 
 pated him into a citizen. Socialism would make him a man" 
 
 This tendency of thought was strongly supported in the 
 Russian mind by Haxthausen's discovery and laudation of the 
 rural commune of Russia. The Russian State was the most 
 arbitrary, oppressive, and corrupt in Europe, and the Russian 
 Church was the most ignorant and superstitious ; but here at 
 last was a Russian institution which was regarded with envy 
 even by wise men of the west, and was really a practical anti- 
 cipation of that very social system which was the last work of 
 European philosophy. It was with no small pride, therefore, 
 that Alexander Herzen declared that the Muscovite peasant in 
 his dirty sheepskin had solved the social problem of the nine- 
 teenth century, and that for Russia, with this great problem 
 already solved, the Revolution was obviously a comparatively 
 simple operation. You had but. to remove the Czardom, the 
 services, and the priesthood, and the great mass of the people 
 would still remain organized in fifty thousand complete 
 little self-governing communities living on their common land 
 and ruling their common affairs as they had been doing long 
 before the Czardom came into being. And what, after all, was 
 the latest dream of philosophical socialism but a world of com- 
 munities like these? The new formula of civilization had 
 merely come back to the old Russian mir. 
 
 All Russian writers draw a kindly and charming picture of 
 the mir, the rude village council, in which the heads of families 
 have for ages managed their common land, distributed their 
 taxes, and settled all the burning problems of the hamlet with 
 remarkable freedom, fairness, and mutual respect. They meet 
 together on some open space perhaps in front of the tavern, 
 which is itself one of their common possessions ; they beat out 
 their question there till they are unanimous ; for the mir will 
 know nothing of decision by majorities the will of the mir is 
 believed to be the will of God Himself, and it must be no 
 divided counsel. They argue sometimes long and keenly, and, 
 as their interest waxes, they will raise many voices at once, or
 
 Russian Nihilism. 263 
 
 perhaps break up into separate groups, each discussing the 
 subject apart ; but presently, out of all the apparent disorder, 
 the acceptable decision is somehow found, and peace reigns 
 again in the village street. In these meetings they have the 
 deepest feeling and habit of freedom ; and even when a political 
 question arises affecting their interests a question of taxes 
 or of administration they make no scruple to speak in the 
 plainest terms of the Government and the officials, and they 
 are never interfered with. "Nobody but God," they say, 
 " dare judge the mir" and the Czar, at any rate, respects the 
 tradition. That rude assembly is the only free institution in 
 Russia. Even revolutionary manifestoes have been publicly 
 read at its meetings, and socialist addresses publicly delivered. 
 And this instinctive spirit of freedom is attended there with 
 the instinctive spirit of equality. A recent Russian writer 
 observes that a Russian peasant would be quite unable to 
 understand the sort of respect the English labourer shows to 
 a gentleman. With its freedom, its equality, its strong family 
 sentiment, its common property, its self-government, the mir is 
 really the social democratic republic political philosophers have 
 projected, and a Russian who dislikes the State and loves the 
 mir is, without more ado, a social revolutionist of the anarchist 
 type. The favourite ideal among Russian revolutionists for 
 the last fifty years has accordingly all along been the anarchist 
 ideal of a free federation of local industrial communities with- 
 out any separate political organization ; for the anarchist ideal 
 is natural to the Russian situation. 
 
 Revolutionary opinions were very rife in Russia during the 
 reign of Nicholas ; but under his iron rule they were never 
 suffered to be spoken above the breath. His ascension to the 
 throne in 1825 had been greeted by a revolution a very 
 abortive one, it is true, but unfortunately sufficient to set every 
 fibre of the young Czar's strong nature inflexibly against all 
 the liberal tendencies encouraged by his father, and to stop the 
 political development of the country for a generation. A hand- 
 ful of constitutional reformers united three years before in 
 a secret society to promote peasant emancipation, the common 
 civil liberties, and stable instead of arbitrary law gathered 
 a crowd to a public place in the capital, and shouted for " the
 
 264 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Archduke Constantine and a Constitution." Most part of the 
 crowd had so little idea why they had come together that 
 they thought Constitution was the name of the Archduke 
 Constantino's wife; and the most distinguished man among 
 the conspirators Pestel. the poet said, as he was going to 
 execution, " I wished to reap the harvest before sowing the 
 seed." He had done worse he really kept the seed from being 
 sown for thirty years to come. All freedom of opinion was 
 ruthlessly suppressed ; every means of influencing the public 
 mind was stopped ; there was no liberty of printing, speaking, 
 or meeting ; there was no saving grace but ignorance, for 
 people of reading and intelligence lived under perpetual 
 liability to most unreasonable suspicion. Alexander Herzen, 
 for example, was banished to the Asiatic frontier while still 
 a very young man, merely because he happened to make the 
 casual remark in a private letter to his father, which was 
 opened in the post, that a policeman had a few days before 
 killed a man in the streets of St. Petersburg. 
 
 But this system of lawless and unrighteous repression nursed 
 a deep spirit of revolt against constituted authority in the 
 heart of the people, and among the younger minds a kind of 
 passion for the most extreme and forbidden doctrines. All the 
 wildest phases of nihilist opinion in the sixties were already 
 raging in Russia in the forties. Haxthausen says he was 
 astounded, when he visited the Russian universities and 
 schools, to find the students at every one of them given over, 
 as he says, to political and religious notions of the most all- 
 destructive description. "It is a miasma," he says. And 
 although the only political outbreak of Nicholas's reign, the 
 Petracheffsky conspiracy of 1849, was little more than a petty 
 street riot, a storm of serious revolt against the tyranny of 
 the Czar was long gathering, which would have burst upon 
 his head after the disasters to his army in the Crimea, had 
 he survived them. He saw it thickening, however, and on 
 his death-bed said to his son, the noble and unfortunate 
 Alexander II., " I fear you will find the burden too heavy." 
 The son found it eventually heavy enough, but in the mean- 
 time he wisely bent before the storm, relaxed the restraints 
 the father had imposed, and gave pledges of the most liberal
 
 Russian Nihilism. 265 
 
 reforms in every department of State judicial administration, 
 local government, popular education, serf emancipation. People 
 believed completely in the young Czar's sincerity, awaited with 
 great expectations the measures he would propose, and mean- 
 while indulged to the top of their bent in the practical liberties 
 they were already provisionally allowed to enjoy, and gave 
 themselves up to a restless fervour for liberty and reform. 
 
 An independent press was not among the liberties conceded, 
 but Russian opinion at this period found a most effective voice 
 in a newspaper started in London by Alexander Herzen, called 
 the Kolokol (Bell), which for a number of years made a great 
 impression in Russia by the accuracy of its information on 
 Russian affairs, by the boldness of its criticisms of the Govern- 
 ment, and by the ease with which it got smuggled into uni- 
 versal circulation. When Herzen was sent to the Urals as a 
 dangerous person, he was appointed, very anomalously per- 
 haps it was to keep him there to an administrative and 
 judicial post, in which he would have apparently to sen- 
 tence others while under sentence himself; but he grew 
 weary of his banishment, and was permitted to exchange it 
 for the more complete, but much more agreeable, banishment 
 from Russia altogether. After visiting Germany and France, 
 and after witnessing, with deep interest and deeper disappoint- 
 ment, some of the revolutions of 1848, and writing that they 
 had failed because their promoters were not prepared to follow 
 them up with a positive social programme, as if, he says, the 
 mere destruction of a Bastile were a revolution, he settled in 
 England, and learnt there, as his son assures us, that revolu- 
 tion itself was but a vain expedient, and that gradual reform 
 was the only effectual method of lasting social amelioration. 
 
 It was probably while he was learning this lesson it was cer- 
 tainly entirely in this spirit that he began his political agitation 
 on the accession of Alexander II. The moment the new Czar 
 ascended the throne, Herzen addressed to him a famous letter, 
 demanding amends for the ills his father, Czar Nicholas, had 
 done the people, a complete breach with the old system, and 
 the introduction of thoroughgoing Liberal reforms, and more 
 especially the emancipation of the serfs. It was in the same 
 spirit he conducted his agitation in the Kolokol. Without
 
 266 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 neglecting to ventilate his socialist and philosophical views, 
 he welcomed the contemplated reforms as being in themselves 
 true remedies for popular grievances, and intended in perfect 
 good faith by the Czar to be so ; and his chief care in all his 
 criticisms always was to secure that these reforms should be 
 real and thorough, that the judicial body should be inde- 
 pendent, the educational arrangements efficient ; above all, 
 that the peasants should not be deprived, in the emancipation 
 arrangements, of a foot of the land they then possessed, or 
 made to pay terms for their emancipation which would be too 
 heavy for them to meet. And perhaps the most popular and 
 stirring part of his paper was always his exposure of existing 
 abuses, and his criticism of the conduct of officials. The 
 journal was written with wit, vigour, and accurate know- 
 ledge; and, as it spoke what most men thought, but few 
 would as yet venture to say, it was greedily read and dis- 
 tributed, and was for some years a remarkable power in the 
 country. Herzen was the hero of the young. Herzenism, we 
 are told, became the rage, and Herzenism appears to have 
 meant, before all, a free handling of everything in Church or 
 State which was previously thought too sacred to be touched. 
 This iconoclastic spirit grew more and more characteristic of 
 Russian society at this period, and presently, under its influence, 
 Herzenism fell into the shade, and nihilism occupied the scene. 
 
 "We possess various accounts of the meaning and nature of 
 nihilism, and they all agree substantially in their description 
 of it. The word was first employed by Turgenieff in his novel 
 " Fathers and Sons," where Arcadi Petrovitch surprises his 
 father and uncle by describing his friend Bazaroff as a nihilist. 
 
 " A nihilist," said Nicholas Petrovitch. " This word must 
 come from the Latin nihil, nothing, as far as I can judge, and 
 consequently it signifies a man who recognises nothing." 
 
 '' Or rather who respects nothing," said Paul Petrovitch. 
 
 " A man who looks at everything from a critical point of 
 view," said Arcadi. 
 
 " Does not that come to the same thing ? " asked his uncle. 
 
 " No, not at all. A nihilist is a man who bows before no 
 authority, who accepts no principle without examination, no 
 matter what credit the principle has.' r
 
 Russian Nihilism. 267 
 
 " Yes, before we had Hegelians ; now we have nihilists. 
 We shall see what you will do to exist in nothingness, in a 
 vacuum, as if under an air pump." 
 
 Koscheleff, writing in 1874, gives a similar explanation of 
 nihilism. " Our disease is a disease of character, and the most 
 dangerous possible. We suffer from a fatal unbelief in every- 
 thing. We have ceased to believe in this or in that, not 
 because we have studied the subject thoroughly and become 
 convinced of the untenability of our views, but only because 
 some author or another in Germany or England holds this or 
 that doctrine to be unfounded. Our nihilism is a thing of a 
 quite peculiar character. It is not, as in the West, the result 
 of long falsely directed philosophical studies and ways of think- 
 ing, nor is it the fruit of an imperfect social organization. It 
 is an entirely different thing from that. The wind has blown 
 it to us, and the wind will blow it from us again. Our 
 nihilists are simply Radicals. Their loud speeches, their fault- 
 finding, their strong assertions, are grounded on nothing. 
 They borrow negative views from foreign authors, and repeat 
 them and magnify them ad nauseam, and treat persons of 
 another way of thinking as absurd and antiquated people who 
 continue to cherish exploded ideas and customs. The chief 
 cause of the spread of this (I will not say doctrine, for I cannot 
 honour it with such a name, but) sect is this, that it imparts its 
 communications in secret conversations, so that, for one thing, 
 it cannot be publicly criticised and refuted, and, for another, it 
 charms by the fascination of the forbidden." 
 
 The same view precisely is given by Baron Fircks (" Schedo 
 Ferroti ") in his very elaborate and thoughtful account of 
 nihilism in his VAcenir de la Russie. It was merely, he said, 
 the critical spirit the spirit of intellectual revolt carried to 
 an extreme and running amuck against all accepted principles 
 in religion, in politics, in domestic and social life. It was 
 a common infirmity of contemporary society, and was in 
 no way peculiar to Russia ; but while that may be true, it 
 has undoubtedly as perhaps the Baron would admit been 
 carried into more extravagant manifestations in Russia than 
 elsewhere. 
 
 Nor are the reasons of this extravagance far to seek. First,
 
 268 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the Russians are, in national character, singularly impression- 
 able, volatile, and predisposed to run to extremes. Diderot says 
 they were rotten before they were ripe. Second, they are mere 
 children in political experience, and even in intellectual training. 
 Their education is in general shallow, and they are liable to the 
 vagaries of the half educated. Third, both Baron Fircks and 
 Koscheleff think nihilism was largely due to the arbitrary 
 government of the country. The Czar and the bureaucracy 
 have themselves had much to do with destroying respect for 
 law and authority by their capricious habits of administration. 
 Laws were proclaimed to-day and repealed to-morrow, or 
 even broken by the very officials engaged in administering 
 them. Even in the days of Nicholas, Herzen complained 
 bitterly of this constant inconstancy of the law ; he said the 
 Russian Government was " infatuated with innovation," that 
 " nothing was allowed to remain as it was," that " everything 
 was always being changed," that " a new ministry invariably 
 began its work by upsetting that of its predecessors." Russia 
 being a Functionary State, not a Law State, to employ a useful 
 German distinction, the decrees of officials take the place 
 elsewhere filled by fixed laws established by legislative 
 authority ; and where these decrees are continually changing, 
 reverence for the law is impossible. 
 
 But in all this there was no practical political disaffection 
 before the Emancipation Act. The nihilists had as yet a 
 vague belief in the Czar and the coming reforms ; they felt 
 that the Russian people were at lasb to have a chance of 
 showing the rich genius that lay in them, and their whole 
 anxiety was to have the people adequately trained for this 
 great destiny. It was the common talk that the future be- 
 longed to Russia ; and that she was already beginning to out- 
 shine all other nations in literature, in art, in science, in music. 
 " Some young people among us," says Turgenieff, " have dis- 
 covered even a Russian arithmetic. Two and two do make 
 four with us as well as elsewhere, but more pompously, it 
 would seem. All this is nothing but the stammering of men 
 who are just awaking." 
 
 , Under these influences the energies of the nihilists took a 
 different outlet than plotting. Instead of founding secret
 
 Russian Nihilism. 269 
 
 societies, they founded Sunday schools. For to their mind 
 the first need of the time, above even political liberty, was 
 popular education. As to liberty, the measure they practically 
 enjoyed at the gracious pleasure of the Czar for the present 
 contented them, inasmuch as it seemed an earnest of the better 
 securities that were expected to follow ; but they could not with 
 any satisfaction look round them and see the Russian people, 
 for whom they were prophesying such a great career, still 
 lying in almost aboriginal ignorance. The stuff was indeed 
 there which should yet astonish the world, but it must first be 
 made. To " make the people," as they phrased it, was the 
 task the nihilists now undertook, and they threw themselves 
 into it with the zeal of apostles. They put on shabby clothes 
 to avoid any offensive superiority to their poorer neighbours, 
 and they wore green spectacles to correct the even more 
 intolerable inequality of personal beauty, for, as they were fond 
 of saying, they had put off the old man and were now new 
 men created again by Buchner and Feuerbach in the gospel of 
 humanity ; but with all their extravagances they earned on 
 for some years a most active and no doubt useful work in 
 the Sunday schools and reading circles which they rapidly 
 established everywhere. 
 
 Although this movement fell eventually under the suspicion 
 of the Government, as in despotic countries any movement will, 
 it seems to have had no political, or what the authorities call 
 " ill-intentioned " purpose. It was pervaded with patriotic and 
 humanitarian feeling, and though no doubt many of the nihilists 
 who took part in it held as extreme opinions in politics as they 
 did in everything else, yet these opinions were mere matters 
 of speculation. It is certain that democratic and revolutionary 
 socialism was a very popular doctrine among the nihilists, even 
 at that earliest period of their history, for their most represen- 
 tative man during that period was Tchernycheffsky, the editor 
 of the Contemporary magazine, and a political economist of some 
 note in his day ; and Tchernycheffsky was undoubtedly a demo- 
 cratic and revolutionary socialist. He belonged to a younger 
 generation than Herzen and Bakunin, but, like them, he had 
 been led to socialism through Hegel and Feuerbach, and he 
 expounded his ideas in a famous romance entitled, "What is to
 
 270 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 be done ? " which the Government allowed him to write, and 
 even to publish, while in prison for sedition in 1862, though they 
 suppressed the book sternly when they saw it beginning to 
 make a sensation. 
 
 But although revolutionary and socialistic principles may 
 have been very considerably entertained by the nihilists from 
 the first, there was no practical revolutionary or socialistic 
 organization before the emancipation of the serfs. Up till then 
 nihilism may be said to have been a benignant growth, if I may 
 use a medical expression, and it was that great historical 
 measure that converted it into the malignant and deadly 
 trouble which we best know. The Russian Radicals, including 
 the socialists, were strongly disappointed with that measure 
 from the outset, because they thought it inflicted serious in- 
 justice on the peasantry. It deprived them, they said, of much 
 of the land they had hitherto enjoyed as of right, and which 
 was necessary for their comfortable subsistence, while it im- 
 posed on them for what they got excessive dues which their 
 holdings would never be able to bear; and so the first Land and 
 Liberty League was founded in 1863. But it was not the 
 peasants, or the peasants' friends it was the small landed 
 gentry who were the first to feel the effects of the Emancipa- 
 tion Act, and to raise the standard of revolt. The Act made a 
 serious change in their fortunes. Although the landlords were 
 allowed most liberal terms of compensation for the enforced 
 emancipation of their serfs, few of them actually received a 
 kopeck, because they were almost all of them already deeply 
 indebted to Government, and Government applied the compen- 
 sation money to cancel their old debts, and gave up the policy 
 of granting any more mortgages in the future. Then a great 
 part of the land which was formerly cultivated by means of 
 the serfs was now found to be too poor to afford the expense of 
 paid labour ; the landlords had neither stock nor implements to 
 work it, if it were more fertile, the peasantry having in the old 
 days tilled tne field for them with their own horses and ploughs ; 
 nor had they any means of raising the stock on credit, and, 
 besides, most of them were complete absentees, engaged as 
 Government or railway officials, or in other professional 
 work, and knew nothing whatever about the business of
 
 Russian Nihilism. 271 
 
 agriculture. The smaller landlords have therefore been com- 
 pelled to sell their estates to the larger, or to leave much of 
 their ground entirely uncultivated. In Moscow there were 633 
 separate estates in 1861, before the emancipation, but only 422 
 in 1877, and not more than one-fifth of the land that was culti- 
 vated in that province in 1861 continued in cultivation in 1877. 
 Many of the sons of the smaller proprietors were at the univer- 
 sities studying for one of the professions, and had either to give 
 up their studies altogether for want of means, or were put on 
 shorter allowances, which was scarcely less annoying, and was 
 indeed a great cause of revolutionary opinions at the universi- 
 ties. Many more of the sons of the gentry were in the army, 
 and the pay of a Russian officer being extremely small, they 
 had been accustomed to receive allowances from home, without 
 which, indeed, they could hardly live ; and now in the altered 
 circumstances of the family these allowances were perforce 
 suddenly stopped. Much of the revolutionary discontent that 
 exists in the Russian army to such a serious extent that 200 
 arrests were made in March, 1885, and Government appointed 
 a special commission of inquiry into the subject, has come from 
 this source, and is practically a revolt against insufficient pay. 
 But what happened at the universities and in the army hap- 
 pened in other departments of Russian life ; the Emancipation 
 Act had left on every shore some wreckage of the gentry, an 
 upper-class and educated proletariat, whose distress might be 
 due originally to their own improvidence or ignorance, but 
 was undoubtedly first driven into an acute state by an act 
 of Government, and therefore clamoured for vengeance on the 
 Government that produced it. 
 
 The clamour of the victims of the Emancipation Act naturally 
 woke up all the earlier discontents of the country. The Poles 
 and the dissenting sects, with all their ancient wrongs, seem to 
 have contributed but a small contingent to the nihilist ranks ; 
 but the Jews, subject to a barbarous and often very acute per- 
 secution, have filled the secret societies from the beginning with 
 many of their most determined members, and have supplied a 
 great part of the " Nihilistesses " ; and even though the Revo- 
 lutionary Executive Committes has latterly issued a proclama- 
 tion against the Jews, mainly on the ground of the extortion
 
 272 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 practised by Jewish money- 1 Anders on the peasantry, there are 
 still, as appears very abundantly from the nihilist trials of 1890, 
 many Jews among the revolutionists. 
 
 Then there are thirteen millions of native heretics in Russia, 
 sects of various sorts springing up like the early Quakers from 
 the bosom of the people, and filled with a rude spirit of freedom 
 and a tendency towards socialistic ideas in their condemnation 
 of luxury and accumulation, their hatred of war and military 
 government, and their belief in fraternity and mutual assist- 
 ance. Some writers allege that these sects are an important 
 factor in the revolutionary movement ; but though they cer- 
 tainly have suffered many wrongs from Government, they do 
 not seem to have furnished any great quota to the revolution- 
 ary ranks. They are the freethinkers of the unlettered classes, 
 however, and their ideas no doubt have some influence in 
 preparing these classes for socialist principles. But there is 
 another class very numerous in Russia, who are the natural 
 allies of revolution the " illegal men " who. for various reasons, 
 go about on false passports, and are thus living in revolt 
 already. And to all these diverse sources of disaffection must 
 be added the aggravation arising at the moment from the 
 tyrannical and arbitrary measures to which the Government 
 resorted on the first outburst of complaints. 
 
 In 1862, perceiving the discontent raised by the Emancipa- 
 tion Act, Government took alarm, and withdrew or curtailed 
 the liberties it had for a few years allowed the people to enjoy. 
 It stopped some newspapers and warned a number more ; it 
 prohibited the Sunday schools and reading clubs altogether ; 
 it banished many persons on mere suspicion to remote 
 provinces ; and for a greater example it cast the eminent 
 writer Tchernycheffsky into prison on a charge of exciting the 
 peasantry to revolt, and after leaving him there without trial 
 for nearly two years, brought him out at length to a public 
 square in St. Petersburg, read out to him a sentence of trans- 
 portation, broke a sword over his head, and sent him to the 
 Siberian mines for the rest of his life. There he still remains, 
 broken now both in mind and bod}^ but probably doing more 
 harm to the Government by his wrongs than he could ever 
 have done by his pen, for nihilists have for twenty-seven years
 
 Russian Nihilism. 273 
 
 been constantly exciting popular sympathy by descriptions 
 of his martyrdom and demands for his release. 
 
 It was while this alienation against the Government was 
 thickening that Michael Bakunin escaped from Siberia, and 
 it was by emissaries sent by Bakunin to Russia that the 
 first successful attempt was made to incite and organize all 
 these revolutionary materials into a revolutionary movement. 
 When Bakunin came back in 1862 and joined Herzen in 
 London, the two old friends found their ideas had parted far 
 asunder during their long separation. Herzen had, from his 
 twelve years' observation of affairs, broadened from revolutionist 
 to statesman, and had no patience now for the extravagance 
 of the young Russian patriots who visited him in London. 
 " Our black earth," he would say, " needs a deal of draining." 
 And there is a remarkable letter which he wrote shortly before 
 his death, and apparently to Bakunin himself, in which he 
 says : 
 
 " I will own that one day, surrounded by dead bodies, 
 by houses destroyed with balls and bullets, and listening 
 feverishly as prisoners were being shot down, I called with 
 my whole heart and intelligence upon the savage force of 
 vengeance to destroy the old criminal world, without thinking 
 much of what was to come in its place. Since that time 
 twenty years have gone by; the vengeance has come, but it 
 has come from the other side, and it is the people who have 
 borne it, because they comprehended nothing either then or 
 since. A long and painful interval has given time for passions 
 to calm, for thoughts to deepen ; it has given the necessary 
 time for reflection and observation. Neither you nor I have 
 betrayed our convictions ; but we see the question now from a 
 different point of view. You rush ahead, as you did before, 
 with a passion of destruction, which you take for a creative 
 passion ; you crush every obstacle ; you respect history only in 
 the future. As for me, on the contrary, I have no faith in the 
 old revolutionary methods, and I try to comprehend the march 
 of men in the past and in the present, to know how to 
 advance with them without falling behind, but without going 
 on so far before as you, for they would not follow me they 
 could not follow me ! " 
 
 T
 
 274 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Herzen gradually lost hold over the wilder forces in Russia, 
 lie was even openly denounced as a reactionary by the revolu- 
 tionist Dolgourouki ; and when he alienatad the more moderate 
 parties likewise by his support of the Polish insurrection of 
 1863, his spell vanished, and during the remaining seven 
 years of his life his influence was of little account. 
 
 Bakunin was more in unison with the troubled spirit of the 
 times. While Herzen had been ripening in political wisdom 
 under the ampler intellectual life to which his exile intro- 
 duced him, Bakunin's twelve years' confinement had maddened 
 him into a fanatic, and instead of curing him of revolutionary 
 propensities, only fixed the idea of revolution in his mind like 
 a mania. When he came to London a huge, haggard man, 
 always excited, always talking, he used to speak of himself as 
 a Prometheus unbound, and he was to live henceforth for the 
 undoing of the powers and systems that were. He was never 
 found without a group of conspirators and refugees of all 
 shades and nationalities about him. With some reminiscences 
 of socialistic philosophy remaining in the background of his 
 mind, his only real interest now was revolution, and he seemed 
 always thenceforth to look on his socialism as a means of revo- 
 lution rather than on revolution as a means to socialism. His 
 socialism itself had grown less sane it was no longer the 
 anarchism of the old da3 7 s : it was what he called " amorphism ? ' 
 society not merely without governmental institutions, but 
 without institutions of any kind ; and he was domineered by 
 the thought of a universal revolution, in which all States 
 and Churches and all institutions religious, political, judicial, 
 financial, academical, and social should perish in a common 
 destruction. " Amorphism " and ; ' Pan-destruction " are not 
 articles of a rational creed, but they were propagated with 
 almost preternatural energy by Bakunin. The \vork of exciting 
 revolution and disorder of any kind was the main business of 
 his life till he died in 1876. Others might play a waiting game, 
 but for him the work of the revolutionist was revolution ; and 
 he ought to be incessantly promoting it, not by word only, 
 but by deed, by an unremitting terrorism, by shooting a 
 policeman when you can't reach a king, and destroying a 
 Bastile if you cannot overturn an empire. In his " Revolu-
 
 Russian Nihilism. 275 
 
 tiouary Catechism," written in cipher, but read by the public 
 prosecutor at a Russian nihilist trial in 1871, he says (I quote 
 the passage from M. de Laveleye) : 
 
 " The revolutionist is a man under a vow. He ought to 
 have no personal interests, no business, no sentiments, no 
 property. He ought to occupy himself entirely with one 
 exclusive interest, with one thought and one passion : the 
 E-svol ution. . . . He has only one aim, one science : 
 destruction. For that and nothing but that he studied 
 mechanics, physics, chemistry, and medicine. He observes 
 with the same object, the men, the characters, the positions 
 and all the conditions of the social order. He despises and 
 hates existing morality. For him everything is moral that 
 favours the triumph of the Revolution. Everything is im- 
 moral and criminal that hinders it. ... Between him 
 and society there is war to the death, incessant, irreconcilable, 
 He ought to be prepared to die, to bear torture, and to kill 
 with his own hands all who obstruct the revolution. So much 
 the worse for him if he has in this world any ties of parentage, 
 friendship, or love ! He is not a true revolutionist if these 
 attachments stay his arm. In the meantime he ought to live 
 in the middle of society, feigning to be what he is not. He 
 ought to penetrate everywhere, among high and low alike ; 
 into the merchant's office, into gthe church, into the Govern- 
 ment bureaux, into the army, into the literary world, into the 
 secret police, and even into the Imperial Palace. . . . He 
 must make a list of those who are condemned to death, and 
 expedite their sentence according to the order of their relative 
 iniquities. ... A new member can only be received into 
 the association by a unanimous vote, and after giving proofs 
 of his merit not in word but in action. Every ' companion ' 
 ought to have under his hand several revolutionists of the second 
 or third degree, not entirely initiated. He ought to consider 
 them part of the revolutionary capital placed at his disposal, 
 and he ought to use them economically, and so as to extract 
 the greatest possible profit out of them, . . . The most 
 precious element of all are women, completely initiated, and 
 accepting our entire programme. Without their help we can 
 do nothing."
 
 276 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Bakunin naturally turned his first attention to his own 
 country, and the subsequent development of Russian affairs 
 show sufficiently distinct signs of his ideas and influence. 
 
 In 1865 he sent a young medical student named Netchai'eff 
 to Moscow, to work among the students there, and Netcha'ieff 
 had, by 1869, established a number of secret societies, which he 
 linked together under the name of the Russian Branch of the 
 International "Working Men's Association. This organization 
 was not very numerous no Russian secret society is but in 
 1873 as many as eighty-seven persons were brought to trial for 
 connection with it, and in 1866 one of its members, a working 
 man called Karakasoff, who was suffering from an incurable 
 disease, made the first attempt on the life of the Czar an 
 event which had most important effects on the course of 
 Russian politics. It rang out the era of reform, and rang in 
 the era of reaction. The popular concessions which the Czar 
 had already given he now began to withdraw. The people 
 had never got, as they expected, an independent judiciary 
 perhaps in an autocratic country a judiciary independent of 
 the executive is hardly possible but they had enjoyed some 
 pretence of public trial, and now that pretence was done away, 
 and Karakasoff and his companions were not brought before 
 the court at all, but tried and condemned by an extraordinary 
 commission, with a military^ officer of approved ferocity at 
 its head. Administrative trial and administrative condem- 
 nation became again the regular rule in Russia ; and though 
 these things were borne in the days of Nicholas as almost 
 matters of course, they were now deeply resented as fresh 
 invasions of right and direct breaches of imperial promises. 
 Then the bodies to which a certain amount of the local govern- 
 ment of the country, the management of roads, schools, poor, 
 health, etc., had been entrusted, were obstructed in the exercise 
 of their powers, or gradually deprived of their powers altogether, 
 and forced into complete dependence on the imperial executive. 
 The students at the universities began to be interfered with in 
 their sick and benefit societies and their reading circles ; their 
 studies in the class-rooms were restricted to what was thought 
 a safe routine ; and even their private lives and motions were 
 watched with an exasperating espionage. People felt the hand
 
 Russian Nihilism. 277 
 
 of the despot pressing back upon them everywhere, and they 
 felt it with a most natural and righteous recoil. This reac- 
 tionary policy, which has continued ever since this return to 
 the hated old methods of arbitrary and repressive rule 
 produced, as was inevitable, deep and general discontent at 
 the very moment when the great historical measure of serf 
 emancipation was desolating the families of the landed gentry, 
 province after province ; and when the execution of the Emanci- 
 pation Act was completed in 1870, Russian society was already 
 quivering with dangerous elements of revolt. 
 
 From that time evidences of an active revolutionary propa- 
 ganda multiplied rapidly every year. In 1871 and 1872 the 
 writings of the German socialists were translated and ran 
 into great favour. Even of Marx's far from popular work, 
 " Capital," a large edition was eagerly bought up, and ladies 
 of position baptized their children in the name of Lassalle. 
 Secret societies were discovered both north and south. From 
 1873 to 1877 nihilist arrests, nihilist prosecutions, nihilist con- 
 flicts with the police, were the order of the day, till at length, 
 in 1878, the young girl, Vera Sassulitch, fired the shot at the 
 head of the Russian police which began that long vendetta 
 between the revolutionists and the executive, in which so many 
 officials perished, and eventually, in 1881, after many un- 
 successful attempts, the Czar himself was so cruelly assassinated. 
 
 The ardent youth of Russia, who, in 1861, were still giving 
 themselves to the work of Sunday schools and reading circles, 
 were, in 1871, throwing their careers away to go out, like the 
 first apostles, without scrip or two coats, and propagate among 
 the rude people of the provinces the doctrines of modern revolu- 
 tionary socialism, and by 1881 had become absorbed in sheer 
 terrorism, in avenging the official murder of comrades without 
 trial by the revolutionary murder of officials, in contriving 
 infernal plots and explosions, and trying vainly to cast out 
 devils by the prince of devils. 
 
 Stepniak attributes the impetus which the socialist agita- 
 tion received in 1871 to the impression produced in Russia by 
 the Paris Commune ; but it would perhaps be more correct 
 simply to ascribe it to the exertions of two active Russian 
 revolutionists, who were themselves associated with the Com-
 
 278 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 munard movement, and who happened to enjoy at this period 
 unusual facilities of communication with the younger mind of 
 Russia. One was Bakunin, who had himself organized an 
 insurrection at Lyons on the principles of the Commune six 
 months before the outbreak at Paris in March, 1871 ; and the 
 other was Peter Lavroff, the present Nestor of Russian nihilism, 
 who actually took part in the Paris Commune itself. Lavroff, 
 who had been a colonel in the Russian army, and professor in 
 the military college of St. Petersburg, was compromised in the 
 attempt of Karakasoff in 1866 and administratively banished 
 to Archangel ; but, as happens so singularly often in Russia, he 
 escaped in 1869, and lived to edit a revolutionary journal in 
 Zurich, and play for a time no inconsiderable part in making 
 trouble in Russia. At present, communications between the 
 active revolutionists who are at work in Russia and their 
 predecessors who have withdrawn to "Western Europe are 
 entirely interrupted ; but they were still abundant twenty 
 years ago. Partly in consequence of the reactionary educa- 
 tional policy of the Government, young Russians nocked at that 
 tame to Switzerland for their education, and were there con- 
 veniently indoctrinated into the new gospel of the Inter- 
 national. Bakunin and Lavroff were both in Zurich, and in 
 the year 1872 there were 239 Russian students, male and 
 female, in Zurich alone. These young people were, of course, 
 in continual intercourse with the older refugees. Bakunin and 
 Lavroff both held stated and formal lectures on socialism and 
 revolution, which were always succeeded by open and animated 
 discussions of the subject treated in them. A little later there 
 were, according to Professor Thun, four distinct groups among 
 the Russian revolutionists in Zurich, some of them caused by 
 personal quarrels. But from the first there were always two, 
 one of whom swore by Bakunin, and the other by Lavroff. 
 
 Bakunin was an anarchist an " amorphist " even, as we 
 have seen and he believed in the propaganda of deeds. 
 Every little village, he thought, should make its own revolu- 
 tion ; and if it could not make a revolution, it might always be 
 making a riot, or an explosion, or a fire, or an assassination of 
 some official, or something else to raise panic or confusion. 
 All this seemed to Lavroff and his friends to be unmitigated
 
 Russian Nihilism. 279 
 
 folly. They too believed in revolution ; but in their view re- 
 volution, to be successful, must be organized and simultaneous ; 
 it must, above all, first have the peasantry on its side ; and 
 therefore, instead of the mad and premature propaganda of 
 deed, the true policy for the present was manifestly " going into 
 the people," as they termed it that is, an itinerant mission 
 to indoctrinate the people into the faith of the coming revo- 
 lution. Then, again, Lavroff, though, like almost all Russian 
 revolutionists, an anarchist, was not, like most of them, pre- 
 pared to dispense all at once with the State. He thought the 
 new society would eventually be able to do without any central 
 authority, but not at first, nor for a considerable time, the 
 length of which could not now be more precisely determined. 
 In this Lavroff and his party stood much nearer the Social 
 Democrats of Germany than other Russian nihilists, and they 
 hava come nearer still since then, They have cast off the 
 Russian commune, of which the early nihilists made so great 
 an idol. They see that it is an old-world institution doomed 
 to dissolution, and rapidly undergoing the process. 
 
 The two tendencies diverging both in principle and in tac-i 
 tics appeared in Russia as well as Zurich. At first the more 
 peaceful method prevailed. Lavroff's idea of '' going into the 
 people " was the enthusiasm of the hour, and brought upon the 
 scene the typical nihilist missionary the young man of good 
 birth who laid down station and prospects, learnt a manual 
 trade, browned his hands with tar and his face by smearing it 
 with butter and lying in the sun, put on the peasant's sheep- 
 skin, and then, with a forged pass, procured at the secret nihilist 
 pass factory, and a few forbidden books in his wallet, set off 
 " without road " to be a peasant with peasants, if by any 
 means he could win them over to the cause ; and the still more 
 remarkable young woman who went through a marriage cere- 
 mony to obtain the right of independent action, and the moment 
 the ceremony was over, left father and mother and husband 
 and all in order to work among the peasants of the Volga as a 
 teacher or nurse, and live on milk and groats according to 
 Tchernycheffsky's prescription in " What is to be Done ? " 
 Stepniak justly remarks that " the type of propagandist of the 
 first lustre of 1870-80 was religious rather than revolutionary.
 
 2 So Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 His hope was socialism, his God the people. Notwithstanding 
 all the evidence to the contrary, he firmly believed that from 
 one day to the other the revolution was about to break out, as 
 in the middle ages people believed at certain periods in the 
 approach of the day of judgment." (" Underground Russia," 
 p. 30.) 
 
 For some years these ascetic devotees might be found in 
 every corner of Irjad Russia, working as shoemakers or 
 joiners most of them (why these were the favourite trades does 
 not appear), or as hawkers of images or tea, or, perhaps, like 
 Prince Krapotkin, as painters. Some of them went as horse- 
 dealers, from a dreamy idea that the horses might prove use- 
 ful in the day of revolution. They all belonged to one or 
 other of the secret societies which, as we have seen, began 
 to spring up about 1863, and grew numerous in the next ten or 
 fifteen years. None of these societies, however, was of any 
 great importance. Professor Thun mentions four varieties of 
 them. First, the Malikowsy, a handful of apparently harmless 
 and amiable enthusiasts a kind of Russian Quakers who 
 believed in one Malikov, and called themselves " God-men/' 
 because they held every man had a " divine spark " in him, and 
 was therefore every other man's equal and brother. Second, 
 the Bakunists, who adopted Bakunin's programme of "deeds," 
 but did not, till 1875, think of putting it to practice, Third, 
 the Lavrists, who sent the money to print LavrofFs newspaper in 
 Zurich, the EnAvant, and who seem to have gradually imbibed 
 German socialism to the extent of thinking the Russian com- 
 mune a reactionary and decaying institution not worth stirring 
 a finger to preserve, and who called for the nationalization of 
 land and capital. And fourth, much the most important 
 society, the Tchaikowskists, founded in 1869 by one Tchaikow- 
 ski, who is now a teacher in London, but was then a student at 
 St. Petersburg. Prince Krapotkin belonged to this society, 
 and so did Sophia Perowskaia. It was at first a convivial 
 and mutual improvement club, but from discussing forbidden 
 subjects and circulating among its members forbidden books it 
 grew into natural antagonism to Government, and became a 
 focus of revolutionary agitation. Most of the 193 socialists 
 who were tried in 1874-7 belonged to it, and that protracted
 
 Russian Nihilism. 281 
 
 trial killed the society and put an end to the mission " into the 
 people." 
 
 Government had marked the new propaganda with great 
 jealousy. In Russia, no propaganda among the peasants can 
 remain unobserved. "When a stranger arrives at a Russian 
 village, he is immediately the common talk, whatever he 
 says passes from mouth to mouth, and he may even be invited to 
 state his views publicly in the mir. A mission conducted under 
 these conditions soon attracted the notice of the authorities, who, 
 in 1874, discovered it in thirty-seven different provinces of 
 Russia, and arrested as many as 774 of the propagandists. 
 Some of these were at once banished administratively to 
 Siberia, and of the rest, 193 were, four years afterwards, brought 
 up for trial and condemned. With these apprehensions the 
 nihilist movement collapsed for the moment. Thun states 
 that Lavroffs newspaper during that period adopted a tone of 
 despair, and the revolutionists who escaped arrest recognised 
 very clearly that their scheme of " going into the people " was 
 a complete mistake, and that some safer and more effective 
 system of tactics must be concocted. They fell upon two 
 different expedients. The first was the plan of nihilist coloni- 
 zation. To avoid detection by the authorities, a band of 
 revolutionists settled down in a given district in a body, got 
 personally acquainted with the peasantry about them, and then, 
 after acquiring a sufficient knowledge of their characters, pro- 
 ceeded with due prudence to impart their ideas to those who 
 seemed most trustworthy, hoping in this way to be able, un- 
 observed, eventually to leaven the whole lump. The other 
 plan they now resorted to was an approach to the tactics of 
 Bakunin, and in the very year, 1876, in which that old revolu- 
 tionist died, they began a series of socialist demonstrations at 
 Odessa, Kasan, and elsewhere, which made a little local sensa- 
 tion at the time. This was the very opposite kind of tactics to 
 the cautious system of colonization that was pursued simulta- 
 neously with it, but there is always in revolutionary organiza- 
 tion only a step between reticence and rashness. Open demon- 
 strations like those practised at that period were simply suicidal 
 folly in Russia, where the forces of the Government were so 
 immeasurably superior to the forces of the demonstrationists.
 
 282 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 In 1878 they changed tactics again, inaugurating that 
 system of terrorism by which they are best known in the 
 West, and which has given them a name there at which the 
 world turns pale. The determination to adopt this system of 
 tactics sprang from an accidental circumstance. The day after 
 the trial of the 193 ended, one of their comrades, the young 
 woman Vera Sassulitch, called on General Trepoff, the head 
 of the St. Petersburg police, on pretence of business, and while 
 he was reading her papers, shot him with a revolver, flung 
 her weapon on the ground, and allowed herself to be quietly 
 arrested ; and when she was brought up for trial, pled justifica- 
 tion on the ground that her act was merely retaliation on the 
 General for having subjected a friend of hers, a young medical 
 student, to a brutal and causeless flogging while in prison on 
 a political charge. The court having acquitted her, she was 
 received by the public with every demonstration of enthusiasm, 
 and it was this remarkable public sympathy that made the 
 revolutionaries terrorists. They resolved to take up V. Sassu- 
 litch's idea of retaliation, and apply it on a great scale. The 
 whole public of Russia was at that time considerably flushed 
 with indignation against the imperial Government. The war 
 in Turkey had revealed, as wars always do, a great deal of 
 rottenness in the public administration ; it had brought nothing 
 but humiliation and debt upon the country, and it had exacted 
 cruel sacrifices from the people merely to confer on the Bul- 
 garians the political and constitutional liberty which was still 
 denied to the Russians themselves. For the moment the old 
 cry for a constitution rose again in St. Petersburg and Moscow, 
 and there was a deep feeling far beyond the circles of the revo- 
 lutionists that an end should be put to the autocratic regime. 
 The revolutionists found powerful encouragement in all this 
 outbreak of displeasure. Stepniak, who was himself one of the 
 most active of them at that period, says their real strength lay, 
 not in their numbers which he admits to have been few but 
 in the general sympathy they received from what he calls the 
 revolutionary nation around them. They had however special 
 wrongs of their own to avenge ; hundreds of their friends had 
 been transported without trial ; and in the case of the 193, 
 whose trial was just over, the few who had been acquitted were
 
 Russian Nihilism. 283 
 
 nevertheless denied their liberty by the Czar, and banished 
 administratively to Siberia after all ; so that while Russian 
 society was clamouring on public grounds for the downfall 
 of the autocratic system, the revolutionists, for revenge, deter- 
 mined upon the death of the autocrat himself. The various 
 secret societies had united into a single body, called first 
 the "Troglodytes," and then "Land and Liberty," for the 
 better prosecution of the nihilist colonization scheme ; but in 
 1879 they broke again into two parties, one of which, the Will 
 of the People party, adopted terrorism as its exclusive busi- 
 ness for the time, issued, through its famous executive com- 
 mittee, sentences of death on the Czar and the State officials ; 
 and after making ten attempts on high officials, five of them 
 fatal, and four attempts on the Czar himself, finally succeeded 
 in their fifth on the 13th of March, 1881. "With this party the 
 political side of their programme overshadowed the socialistic, 
 and their first demand from the new Czar was for a consti- 
 tution. 
 
 The other party the party of the Black Division is an 
 agrarian party, living on the growing discontent of the 
 peasantry, and nursing their cry for what in Russia is known 
 as the Black Division. It is an old belief among the Russian 
 people that when the land possessed at any time by the com- 
 munes should become too small for the increasing population of 
 the communes, there would be a new division of all the land ot 
 the country, including, of course, the great estates now owned 
 by the noblesse, so that every inhabitant might be once more 
 accommodated with his proper share of the soil. This great 
 secular redistribution is the black division, and it belongs as 
 naturally to the Russian peasants' system of agrarian ideas as 
 the little local and periodical divisions that take place within 
 the communes themselves. The Black Division section of the 
 revolutionists are terrorist in their methods like the other 
 section, but they care nothing about a constitution, which they 
 say is only a demand of the bourgeoisie, but of no interest or 
 good to the peasant at all. They have the old aversion to 
 centralized government, which we have seen to be almost the 
 tradition of Russian revolutionists ; they are all for strengthen- 
 ing the communes, and for a light federal connection : and
 
 284 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 of all phases of the Russian revolutionary movement under 
 the reign of the present Czar theirs is the most important, 
 because it is founding itself on real and deepening rural dis- 
 content, and becoming substantially a peasants' cry for more 
 land and less rent and taxes. 
 
 I have already referred to the astonishing growth of a 
 Russian proletariat since the Emancipation Act. Professor 
 Janson, an eminent Russian statistician, calculated that as 
 many as a fourth of the people of St. Petersburg 229,000 out 
 of 876,000 got public relief in the year 1884. Stepniak, in 
 his recent work on the Russian peasantry, asserts that a third 
 of the rural population, or 20,000,000 souls in all, are in the 
 condition of absolute proletarians, and his account of the 
 situation is entirely supported by the descriptions of a com- 
 petent and unprejudiced German economist, Professor Al- 
 phonse Thun, who speaks partly from the results of official 
 inquiries instituted by the Russian Government into the 
 subject, and partly from his own personal observation during 
 a continuous residence of two years in the country. As the 
 subject is of importance to the student of socialistic institutions 
 as well as of the nihilist movement, I shall make no apology 
 for devoting some observations to its explanation. 
 
 In the first place, though it has never been well understood 
 in Western Europe, some ten per cent, of the Russian rural 
 population have no legal claim to a share of the land at all ; 
 these are old men who are past working, widows with children 
 too young to be able to work, and men who at the time of 
 the Emancipation were personal servants of the great land- 
 owners, and consequently not members of any village com- 
 mune. Men of this last class may reside in a village, and may 
 keep a shop or practise a trade there ; but not being born 
 villagers, they possess no right to participate in the distribution 
 of the village land. They are as much outside the commun- 
 istic system as the nobles or the foreign residents. Russian 
 citizenship alone is not enough to give a right to the land ; 
 local birth in a commune is also an essential pre-requisite, and 
 ability to work is another. A family gets one share for every 
 able-bodied member it contains ; the share is therefore called 
 a " soul " of land ; and although between one distribution and
 
 Russian Nihilism. 285 
 
 another the widow may still retain the "soul " that belonged 
 to her husband, and hire a hand to work it, yet on the next 
 redistribution she must give it up unless she has a son who 
 in the meantime has grown to man's estate. The landless 
 widow and orphan must have been an occasional incident of 
 the Russian village system from all times ; but the incursion 
 of dismissed domestic menials with no birthright in the com- 
 mune has arisen only in recent years, when, in consequence of 
 a conspiracy of causes, so many of the nobility have been 
 obliged to reduce their establishments. 
 
 In the next place, a communistic tenure which gives every 
 new comer a right to share in the land of his native village 
 on an equal footing with those who are already in possession 
 could hardly fail to lead to excessive subdivision, and in Russia 
 at this moment scarce one family in a hundred has land 
 enough to furnish its maintenance for half the year. The 
 usual size of holding is ten acres, of which cultivated as they 
 are on the old three-field system one third is always fallow, 
 and the remainder, in consequence of the rude method of agri- 
 culture that prevails, yields only two, or at most three, returns 
 of the seed. They have no pasture, because at the time 
 of the emancipation they preferred to take out their whole 
 claim in arable ; and, having no pasture, they cannot keep 
 cattle as they formerly did because they cannot get manure. 
 According to the information of Professor Thun, in 1872 8 per 
 cent, of the families had no cow, and 4 per cent, no horse ; and 
 Stepniak says the inventory of horses taken for military pur- 
 poses in 1882 showed that one-fourth of the peasant families had 
 then no horse. Russia is, in fact, a vast continent of crofters, 
 practising primitive husbandry on mere " cat's-plots " of laud, 
 and depending for the greater part of their subsistence on 
 some auxiliary trade. In one respect they have the advantage 
 over our Scotch crofters ; they practise, in many cases, skilled 
 trades. Of course they work as ploughmen or fishermen when 
 that sort of work is wanted, or they will hire a piece of waste 
 land from a neighbouring owner and bring it into rude culti- 
 vation ; but every variety of craft is to be found among them. 
 They are weavers, hatters, cabinet-makers, workers in metals; 
 they make shoes, or images, or candles, or musical instruments,
 
 286 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 or grindstones ; they dress furs, they knit lace, they train 
 singing-birds. According to the official inquiry, most of the 
 goods of some of the best commercial houses of Moscow, 
 trading in Parisian silk hats and Viennese furniture, are 
 manufactured by these peasants in their rural villages. A 
 curious and very remarkable characteristic is mentioned by 
 Thun : not only has every Russian his bye-industry, but every 
 village has a different bye-industry from its neighbour. One 
 is a village of coopers a very thriving trade, it appears ; 
 another a village of tailors a declining one, in consequence 
 of the competition of ready-made stuff from the towns ; another 
 and there are several such may be a village of beggars, 
 with mendicity for their second staff ; and another a village of 
 seamen, going in a body in spring to the Baltic or the Volga, 
 and leaving only their women and children to tend the farm 
 till their return in the autumn. The Russians always work in 
 artels whether at home or abroad, and to work in artels they 
 must of course follow the same industry. Their individual 
 earnings in their auxiliary occupations are comparatively good ; 
 they make three-fourths of their annual income from that 
 source ; but it seems every trade is now overcrowded, and 
 there is some difficulty in obtaining constant employment. 
 
 Then the burdens of the peasantry are very heavy. In 
 Russia the superior classes enjoy many exemptions from taxa- 
 tion, and the public revenue is taken mainly from the peasant 
 classes. The annual redemption money they have to pay to 
 the State for their land is a most serious obligation, and 
 between one thing and another the burdens on the land in a 
 vast number of cases exceed its net return very considerably. 
 Professor Thun states, that in 2,009 cases of letting holdings 
 which had occurred in the province of Moscow at the time he 
 wrote, the average rent received was only 3 roubles 56 kopecks 
 per " soul " (land-share), while the average taxation was 10 
 roubles 30 kopecks. Stepniak says that in the thirty-seven 
 provinces of European Russia the class who were formerly 
 State peasants pay in taxes of every description no less than 
 92'75 per cent, of the average net produce of their land ; and 
 that the class who were formerly serfs of private owners pay 
 as much as 192'25per cent, of the net produce of theirs. Land-
 
 Russian Nihilism, 287 
 
 owning on these terms is manifestly a questionable privilege, 
 and the moujik pays his land taxes as the Scotch crofter has 
 sometimes to pay his rent, not out of the produce of his hold- 
 ing, but out of the wages of his auxiliary labour ; but the 
 Scotch crofter, under his system of individual tenure, has one 
 great resource which is wanting to the other : he can always 
 cut the knot of his troubles by throwing up his holding, if he 
 chooses, and emigrating. To the Russian peasant emigration 
 brings no relief. He is born a proprietor, and cannot escape 
 the obligation of his position wherever he may go. He may 
 try to let his ground and in many cases he does but, as we 
 see, he cannot often get enough rent to meet the dues. He 
 may leave his village, if he will, but his village liabilities travel 
 with him wherever he may settle. He cannot obtain work 
 anywhere in Russia without showing his pass from his own 
 commune ; and since, under the principle of joint liability that 
 rules in the communistic system, the members of the commune 
 who remain at home would have to pay the emigrant's arrears 
 if he failed to pay them himself, they are not likely to renew 
 the pass to a defaulter. The Russian peasants are thus nearly 
 as much adstricti glebce as they ever were ; they are now under 
 the power of the commune as completely as they were before 
 under the power of their masters ; and their difficulty is still 
 how they can possibly obtain emancipation. Sometimes they 
 will defy the commune, forego the advantage of a lawful 
 pass, crowd the ranks of that large body in Russia who are 
 known as the " illegal men," and sometimes, we are assured 
 by Professor Thun, a whole village, every man and every 
 family, will secretly disappear in a body and seek refuge from 
 the tax-collector by settling in the steppes. The natural right 
 of every man to the land is thus, in the principal country 
 where any attempt is made to realize it, nothing but a harass- 
 ing pecuniarjr debt. 
 
 Now this class of worse than landless emigrants men who 
 carry their land as a perpetual burden on their back from 
 which they can get no respite is already very numerous in 
 Russia. Thun says there are millions of them. As far back as 
 1872, nearly half the town population of Moscow and more 
 than a fifth of the population of the landward district were
 
 288 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 strangers, who were inscribed members of rural communes 
 elsewhere ; and in many purely country districts some 14 per 
 cent, of the people have no houses because they are not living 
 in the villages they belong to. Sir Robert Morier says in his 
 report to the Foreign Office in September, 1887, on Pauperism 
 in Russia (p. 2) : " It is officially stated that in each of the 
 larger provinces, such as Kursk, Tambow, Kostroma, etc., over 
 100,000 peasants have abandoned the plot of ground granted 
 to them (8 acres) on one pretext or another in order to seek 
 means of subsistence elsewhere, (This probably means flock- 
 ing to the larger towns.) The number of beggars in 71 
 Governments was stated to be 300,000, of which 182,000 were 
 peasant proprietors. This number is, however, far below the 
 mark." But, as we learn from Stepniak, the bulk of the land- 
 less peasants, i.e. those who no longer cultivate their holdings, 
 do not leave their native villages, but seek employment as 
 hirelings in the village itself or in its neighbourhood, and 
 wander as day labourers from one master to another. Their 
 families continue to live in their old cottage in the village, 
 and the father returns to it when out of employment. 
 
 Their land is generally taken by a class of small usurers 
 (koulaks} who have grown up in every Russian village since 
 the emancipation. These koulaks are in most cases fellow- 
 peasants who have saved some money, but they are frequently 
 strangers who have come and opened a store in the place, and 
 have no right of their own to a share in the land and in the 
 councils of the village. Stepniak mentions one province where 
 as much as from 24 to 36 per cent, of the land is concentrated 
 into the hands of these rich usurers. Even the peasants who 
 still retain their land in their own hands are often deeply 
 indebted to them, and in some cases part with bits of their 
 land without parting with all ; and the general tendency of 
 the present economic situation is to divide the peasantry of 
 every village into a class of comparatively rich peasants, on the 
 one hand, holding and cultivating most of the land, and a 
 larger class of rural proletarians, without land and having 
 nothing to live by but their manual trade. The tendency, in 
 short, is towards the break-up of the communal tenure, and 
 instead of the Russian Commune invading Europe, as Cavour
 
 Russian Nihilism, 289 
 
 once said there was fear it would do, we are likely to see the 
 individual tenure of Western Europe invading Russia and 
 superseding primitive rural institutions in that country, as it 
 has already superseded them in others. " It is quite evident," 
 says Stepniak, " that Russia is marching in this direction. If 
 nothing happens to check or hinder the process of interior dis- 
 integration in our villages, in another generation we shall have 
 on one side an agricultural proletariat of sixty or seventy 
 millions, and on the other a few thousand landlords, mostly 
 former koulaks and mir-eaters, in possession of all the land." It 
 is legally permissible at present for a Russian commune, if it so 
 choose, to abolish its communal system of property and adopt 
 individual property instead of it ; and although this has been 
 very seldom done as yet, we are told by Thun that the rich 
 peasants and the very poor peasants are both strongly in favour 
 of the step, because it would give the one permanent ownership 
 of the land and the other permanent relief from its burdens. 
 When a commune gets divided in this way into a rich class of 
 members and a poor class, the old brotherliness and mutual 
 helpfulness of the Russian village are said by the same 
 authority always to disappear and a more selfish spirit to take 
 their place ; but then it should be remembered how much 
 easier it is to assist a neighbour out of a little difficulty of the 
 way than to meet the unremitting claims of a class that have 
 sunk into permanent poverty. Anyhow, the temptation is 
 equally strong on both parties to escape from the worries of 
 their present situation through the rich buying out the poor. 
 
 Another tendency working in the same direction is the rapid 
 dissolution of the old system of large house-communities that 
 prevailed before the emancipation. The average household 
 has been reduced from seven and a half to five souls, the 
 married children setting up houses of their own instead of 
 dwelling under one roof with their father and grandfather. 
 The house is a mere hut, with no furniture but a table and a 
 wooden bench used by night for a bed, but still the separate 
 menage has increased to an embarrassing extent the expenses of 
 the peasant's living at the very time that other circumstances 
 have reduced his resources. The reason for the break-up of 
 the house-communities has been the desire to escape partly 
 
 u
 
 2 go Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 from the tyranny of the head of the household, but chiefly 
 from the incessant quarrels that prevailed between the several 
 members about the amount they each contributed to the 
 common funds as compared with the amount they ate and 
 drank out of them. One of the brothers goes to St. Petersburg 
 during the winter months as a cabman and brings back a 
 hundred roubles, while another gets work as a forester near 
 home, and earns no more than twenty-five. Now, according 
 to an author quoted by Stepniak, who is describing a family 
 among whom he has lived, the question always is : " Why 
 should he (the forester) consume with such avidity the tea 
 and sugar dearly purchased with the cabman's money ? And 
 in general, why should this tea be absorbed with such greedi- 
 ness by all the numerous members of the household by the 
 elder brother, for instance, who alone drank something like 
 eighty cups a day (the whole family consumed about nine 
 hundred cups per diem) whilst he did not move a finger 
 towards earning all this tea and sugar ? Whilst the cabman 
 was freezing in the cold night air. or busying himself with 
 some drunken passenger, or was being abused and beaten by a 
 policeman on duty near some theatre, this elder brother was 
 comfortably stretched upon his belly, on the warm family 
 oven, pouring out some nonsense about twenty-seven bears 
 whom he had seen rambling through the country with their 
 whelps in search of new land for settlement." And so the 
 quarrel goes round ; always the old difficulty of meum and 
 tmim, so hard to reconcile except under a regime of individual 
 property. 
 
 In fact, the shifts to which the Russian peasantry, like 
 other peasantries elsewhere, have been reduced to solve this 
 difficulty in the management of their common land constitute 
 one main cause of their agricultural backwardness and their 
 consequent poverty. Elisee Reclus calculates that if the 
 Russian fields were cultivated like those of Great Britain, 
 Russia could produce, instead of six hundred and fifty million 
 hectolitres of corn annually, about five milliards, which would 
 be sufficient to feed a population of five hundred million souls. 
 A few lessons in good husbandry will do much more for the 
 comfort of a people than many changes of social organization ;
 
 Russian Nihilism. 291 
 
 but good husbandry is virtually impossible under a sj^stem of 
 unstable tenure, which turns a man necessarily out of his hold- 
 ing every few years for the purpose of a new distribution of 
 the land, and which compels him to take his holding, when he 
 gets it, in some thirty or forty scattered plots. Redistributions, 
 it is true, do not occur so very frequently as we might suppose. 
 As Russian land is all cultivated on a three years' rotation, one 
 might be apt to look for a new distribution every three years, 
 but that almost never occurs. Thun states that in the province 
 of Moscow during the twenty years 1858-1878 the average 
 interval of distribution was 12^ years, four rotations ; that 49 
 per cent, of the communes had a distribution only once in 15 
 years, and 37 per cent, only once in 20 years. The dislike to 
 frequent distributions is growing, on the obvious and very 
 reasonable ground that they either discourage a man from 
 doing well by his land, or they inflict on him the grave in- 
 justice of depriving him of the ground he has himself improved 
 before he has reaped from it the due reward of his labour. 
 The tendency towards individual property is therefore strongly 
 at work here, and as this system of periodical redistribution is 
 established merely to give every man that natural right by 
 virtue of his birth to a share in the land, which is now in so 
 many cases such a delusive irony, the resistance to the new 
 tendency cannot be expected to be very resolute. The runrig 
 system of cultivation, which prevails in Russia in the same 
 form as it did in the Highlands of Scotland, does not give any 
 similar appearance of decay. Stepniak says the peasants still 
 prefer that arrangement because it allows room for perfect 
 fairness perfect reconciliation of the meum and tuum in the 
 distribution of their most precious commodity, the land, which 
 alwaj^s presents great variety as to quality of soil and situation 
 with respect to roads, water, the village, etc. Under a com- 
 munal system with many members this method of arrange- 
 ment is almost indispensable to avoid quarrels and prevent the 
 indolent from shirking their proper share of the work, but its 
 agricultural disadvantages are so great that it never long resists 
 an improving husbandry. Although an owner, the Russian 
 peasant, in consequence of the shifting nature of his subject, is 
 said by Stepniak to have none of that passionate feeling of
 
 292 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 ownership and that profound delight in his land which are 
 characteristic of the peasant proprietors of the West, but 
 he has what is really the same thing a deep sense of 
 personal dignity from its possession, and he feels himself 
 to have lost caste if he is forced to give up his holding and 
 become a mere batrak, or wage labourer. All the pride of 
 ownership is already there, and in the changes of the imme- 
 diate future it will have plenty of opportunity for asserting 
 its place. 
 
 Under the pressure of this singular economic movement, the 
 nihilist agitation is now developing largely into a peasants' cry 
 for more land and less rent and taxes. As I have said, the 
 Russian peasantry look for the great black division once in an 
 age. The u Old Believers " mix this idea up with their dreams 
 of a great millennial reign, and keep on thinking that the day 
 after to-morrow is to bring in the happy period before the 
 end of the world, when truth is to prevail and the land is to 
 be equally divided among all ; and a feeling easily gets about 
 among the peasantry generally that the " black division " is at 
 last coming. Such a feeling was very widespread during the 
 reign of the late Czar, and, indeed, is still so. Rumours fly 
 every now- and then from hamlet to hamlet like wildfire, no 
 one knows whence or how, that the division is to be made in a 
 month, or a week, or a year ; that the Czar has decreed it, and 
 when it does not come, that the Czar's wishes have for the time 
 been thwarted, as they had so often been thwarted before, by 
 the selfish machinations of the nobility. For the peasant has 
 a profound and touching belief in his Czar. There may be 
 agrarian socialism in his creed, but it is not the agrarian 
 socialism of the schools. The first article of his faith and it 
 would appear to be the natural faith of the peasant all the 
 world over is that the earth is the Lord's and not the nobi- 
 lity's ; but his second is that the Czar is the Lord's steward, 
 sent for the very purpose of dividing the land justly among 
 his people. If the peasant hopes for the black division, he 
 hopes for it from the Czar. The Emancipation Act has been 
 far from giving him the land or the liberty he looked for, but 
 he believes and nothing will shake him out of the belief 
 that the Emancipation Law which the Czar actually decreed
 
 Russian Nihilism. 293 
 
 was a righteous law that would have met all the people's 
 wishes and claims, but that this law has been altered seriously 
 to their disadvantage, under the influence of the nobility, in 
 the process of carrying it into execution. But his confidence 
 always is that the Czar will still interfere and put everything 
 to rights. And when, only a few years ago, the revolutionist 
 Stephanovitch stirred up some disturbances in Southern Russia, 
 which were commonly dignified at the time with the name of 
 a peasants' insurrection, he was only able to succeed in doing 
 what he did by first going to St. Petersburg with a petition 
 from the peasants of the district to the Czar, and then issuing 
 on his return a false proclamation in the Czar's name, com- 
 manding the people to rise against the nobility, who were 
 declared to be persistently obstructing and defeating his 
 Majesty's good and just intentions for his loyal people's wel- 
 fare. If an imperial proclamation were issued to the contrary 
 effect a proclamation condemning or repudiating the opera- 
 tions of the peasants the latter would refuse to believe it to 
 be genuine. That occurs again and again about this very idea 
 of the black division, which has obtained possession of the 
 brains of the rural population. It often happens that in a 
 season of excitement, like the time of the Russo- Turkish war, 
 or of famine, like the winter of 1880-81, the rumours and ex- 
 pectations of the black division become especially definite and 
 lively, and lead to meetings and discussions and disturbances 
 which the Government think it prudent to stop. In 1879 the 
 Minister of the Interior, with this object in view, issued a cir- 
 cular contradicting the rumours that were spread abroad, which 
 was read in all the villages and affixed to the public buildings. 
 It stated, as plainly as it was possible to state anything, that 
 there would be no redistribution, and that the landlords would 
 retain their property ; but it produced no effect. Professor 
 Engelhardt wrote one of his published '' Letters from a Village " 
 at that very moment, and states that the moujiks would not 
 understand the circular to mean anything more than a request 
 that they would for a time abstain from gossiping at random 
 about the coining redistribution. One of their reasons for 
 making this odd misinterpretation is curious. The circular 
 warned the people against " evil-intentioned " persons who
 
 294 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 disseminated false reports, and gave instructions to the author- 
 ities to apprehend them. These evil-intentioned persons were, 
 of course, the nihilist agitators, who were making use of these 
 reports to foment an agrarian insurrection ; but the peasants 
 took these enemies of the Government to be the landlords and 
 others who had, they believed, set themselves against the re- 
 distribution movement and prevented the benevolence and 
 righteous purposes of the Czar from descending upon his people. 
 In some parts of Russia there has sprung up since 1870 a group 
 of peasantry known as " the medalmen," who have persuaded 
 themselves that the Czar not only wants to give them more 
 land, but has long since decreed their exemption from all 
 taxation except the poll tax. They say, moreover, that he 
 struck a medal to commemorate this gracious design of his, 
 which has been, as usual, so wickedly frustrated by his sub- 
 ordinates ; and that even, as things are, one has but to get 
 hold of one of these medals and show it to the collector, and 
 the collector is bound to give the holder the exemption he 
 wants. The medals to which so much virtue is ascribed are 
 merely the medals struck to commemorate the Emancipation 
 of the Serfs ; but the " medalmen," who are generally men that 
 have parted with their land, sold their houses, and settled at 
 the mines, pay very high prices for one of these medals, wear 
 it constantly about their necks, and think it will secure 
 them a genuine respite from the burden of taxation they have 
 to bear. 
 
 The nihilist propagandists think and the idea seems very 
 remarkable that this childish and ignorant confidence in the 
 Czar will not be able to stand much longer the strain of the 
 increasing difficulties of the rural situation. The propagan- 
 dists make it their business to keep alive the idea of the black 
 division in the hearts of the moujilcs, and make use of every 
 successive disappointment at its continued delay as an instru- 
 ment of alienating the affections of the people from the throne. 
 A peasantry are very slow to throw over old sentiments, and 
 will suffer long before breaking with the past, but they take a 
 sure grip of their own interest, and they will turn sometimes 
 very decisively and very gregariously to new deliverers. The 
 Russian peasants see themselves settled on plots of ground too
 
 Russian Nihilism. 295 
 
 small to work with profit, and overburdened with taxes ; they 
 have to pay sixty per cent, of all their earning? in dues of all 
 kinds on their land ; and they cast their eyes abroad and see 
 two-thirds of the country still unpossessed by the people, one- 
 half still owned by the State, and one-sixth by the greater 
 landowners ; and with the communistic ideas in which they 
 have been nursed, they feel that it is time for a new division 
 of the greater order to take place. A gigantic crofter question 
 is impending, and this agrarian agitation for more land is 
 likely enough to make nihilism a more formidable thing in the 
 future than it has been in the past. Hitherto it has taken little 
 hold of the peasantry. At first it was a movement of educated 
 young Russia merely, and might be counted with the ordinary 
 intellectual excesses of youth. It only became a serious poli- 
 tical force after the Emancipation Act; but it was still a 
 movement of the upper classes, and in spite of immense exer- 
 tions it has remained so. The situation, however, is rapidly 
 changing, and with the rise so remarkable in many ways of 
 a numerous rural proletariat in the country that was supposed 
 to enjoy special protection against it, with the growing distress 
 and discontent of the peasantry, with the louder and more 
 persistent cries for the black division, which their hereditary 
 conception of agrarian justice suggests to them as the only 
 solution of their troubles, who will say what to-morrow may 
 bring forth? 
 
 Meanwhile the Will of the People party has continued its 
 activity. We still hear occasionally of murders, and demon- 
 strations, and arrests, and discoveries of nihilist plots on the 
 life of the Czar or of high servants of the Crown, and of 
 alarming discoveries of the hold the movement was taking in 
 the army. But, according to one of the most recent writers 
 on the subject, the author of " Socialisrnus und Anarchismus, 
 1883-1886," who admits, however, that it is very difficult to 
 obtain authentic information about it under the rigorous system 
 of repression at present practised by the Russian authorities, a 
 small section of this party, whom he calls the followers of 
 Peter Lavroff, have been developing more in line with German 
 Social Democracy, and have organized themselves into a 
 society called the Labour Emancipation League, which pre-
 
 296 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 fers peaceful means of agitation, and in March, 1885, published 
 its programme, demanding (1) a constitution, (2) the nation- 
 alization of land, (3) the handing over of factories to the pos- 
 session of societies of productive labourers, (4) free education, 
 (5) abolition of a standing army, and (6) full liberty of asso- 
 ciation and meeting. The same writer states, however, that 
 this socialist group are not numerous, and that the various 
 robberies, murders, plots against the Czar's life, incitements of 
 peasant disturbances, seizures of weapons and printing presses 
 that keep on occurring, show that the nihilists, as the others 
 still appear to be called, are much the most active and the most 
 important section of the revolutionary party. He mentions 
 also that in 1884 considerable sensation was produced by the 
 discovery of an anarchist secret society in "Warsaw, with 
 several magistrates at its head, which aimed at creating a 
 revolution in Poland, Prussian and Austrian Poland, as well 
 as Russian, and rebuilding the Polish nation on a socialist 
 basis. On the apprehension of its leaders it dissolved, but 
 sprang to life again almost immediately in two separate 
 organizations one directly allied with the Russian Terrorists, 
 and the other, under the influence of a Jew named Men- 
 delssohn, suppressing its Polish nationalism for the present, 
 and linking itself with the Russian socialists presumably the 
 followers of Lavroff just mentioned.
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 SOCIALISM AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 
 
 THE renewal of the socialist agitation has not been unpro- 
 ductive of advantage, for it has led to a general recognition 
 that the economic position of the people is far from satis- 
 factory and is not free from peril, and that industrial develop- 
 ment, on the lines on which it has hitherto been running, 
 offers much less prospect than was at one time believed of 
 effecting any substantial, steady, and progressive improvement 
 in their condition. It is only too manifest that the immense 
 increase of wealth which has marked the present century has 
 been attended with surprisingly little amelioration in the 
 general lot of the people, and it is in no way remarkable that 
 this fact should tend to dishearten the labouring classes, and 
 fill reflecting minds with serious concern. Under the influence 
 of this experience economists of the present day meet social- 
 ism in a very different way from Bastiat and the economists of 
 1848. They entertain no longer the same absolute confidence 
 in the purely beneficent character of the operation of the 
 principles at present guiding the process of industrial evolu- 
 tion, or in the sovereign virtue of competition, unassisted and 
 uncorrected, as an agency for the distribution as well as the 
 production of wealth ; and they no longer declare that there 
 is not and cannot possibly be a social question. On the con- 
 trary, some of them take almost as unfavourable a view of the 
 road we are on as the socialists themselves. Mr. Cairnes, one 
 of the very ablest of them, says : " The fund available for 
 those who live by labour tends, in the progress of society, 
 while growing actually larger, to become a constantly smaller 
 fraction of the entire national wealth. If, then, the means of 
 any one class of society are to be permanently limited to this 
 fund, it is evident, assuming that the progress of its members 
 keeps pace with that of other classes, that its material condi- 
 
 297
 
 298 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 tion in relation to theirs cannot but decline. Now, as it would 
 be futile to expect, on the part of the poorest and most 
 ignorant of the population, self-denial and prudence greater 
 than that actually practised by the classes above them, the 
 circumstances of whose life are so much more favourable than 
 theirs for the cultivation of these virtues, the conclusion to 
 which I am brought is this, that unequal as is the distribution 
 of wealth already in this country, the tendency of industrial 
 progress on the supposition that the present separation 
 between industrial classes is maintained is towards an in- 
 equality greater still. The rich will be growing richer ; and 
 the poor, at least relatively, poorer. It seems to me, apart 
 altogether from the question of the labourer's interest, that 
 these are not conditions which furnish a solid basis for a pro- 
 gressive social state ; but having regard to that interest, I 
 think the considerations adduced show that the first and 
 indispensable step towards any serious amendment of the 
 labourer's lot is that he should be, in one way or other, lifted 
 out of the groove in which he at present works, and placed in 
 a position compatible with his becoming a sharer in equal pro- 
 portion with others in the general advantages arising frcm 
 industrial progress." ("Leading Principles," p. 340.) He 
 thinks it beyond question that tLe condition of the labouring 
 population is not so linked to the progress of industrial 
 improvements that we may count on it rising pari passu with 
 that progress ; because, in the first place, the labourer can 
 only benefit from industrial inventions which cheapen com- 
 modities that enter into his expenditure, and the bulk of his 
 expenditure is on agricultural products, which are prevented 
 from being cheapened by the increase of population always 
 increasing the demand for them; and, second, the labourer is 
 practically more and more divorced from the control of capital, 
 and reduced to the position of a recipient of wages, and there 
 is no tendency in wages to grow pari pas.m with the growth 
 of wealth, because the demand for labour, on which, in the 
 last analysis, the rate of wages depends, is always in an in- 
 creasing degree supplied by inventions which dispense with 
 labour. He is thus debarred from participating in the advan- 
 tages of industrial progress either as consumer or as producer :
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 299 
 
 as consumer, by over-population ; as producer, by his divorce 
 from capital. Mr. Cairnes, like most economists, differs from 
 socialists in thinking that the first requisite for any material 
 improvement in the condition of the labouring classes lies in 
 effective restraints on population, but he says that " even a 
 very great change in the habits of the labouring classes as 
 bearing upon the increase of population a change far greater 
 than there seems any solid ground for expecting would be 
 ineffectual, so long as the labourer remains a mere receiver of 
 wages, to accomplish any great improvement in his state ; any 
 improvement at all commensurate with what has taken place 
 and may be expected hereafter to take place in the lot of 
 those who derive their livelihood from the profits of capital " 
 (p. 335). Here he is entirely at one with socialists in believing 
 that the only surety for a sound industrial progress lies in 
 checking the further growth of capitalism by the encourage- 
 ment of co-operative production, which, by furnishing the 
 labouring classes with a share in the one fund that grows with 
 the growth of wealth, the fund of capital, offers them " the 
 sole means of escape from a harsh and hopeless destiny " 
 (p. 338). Mr. Cairnes, then, agrees with the socialists in declar- 
 ing that the position of the wage-labourer is becoming less 
 and less securely linked with the progressive improvement of 
 society, and that the only hope of the labourer's future lies 
 in his becoming a capitalist by virtue of co-operation ; only, 
 of course, he is completely at issue with them in regard to the 
 means by which this change is to be effected, believing that 
 its introduction by the direct intervention of the State would 
 be unnecessary, ineffectual, and pernicious. 
 
 I am disposed to think that Mr. Cairnes takes too despondent 
 a view of the possibilities of progress that are comprised in the 
 position of the wage-labourer, but it is precisely that view that 
 has lent force to the socialist criticism of the present order of 
 things, and to the socialist calls for a radical transformation 
 by State agency. The main charges brought by socialists 
 against the existing economy are the three following, all of 
 which, they allege, are consequences of the capitalistic manage- 
 ment of industry and unregulated competition : 1st, that it 
 tends to reduce wages to the minimum required to give the
 
 3OO Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 labourer his daily bread, and that it tends to prevent them 
 from rising above that minimum ; 2nd, that it has subjected 
 the labourer's life to innumerable vicissitudes, made trade 
 insecure, mutable and oscillatory, and created relative over- 
 population; and, 3rd, that it enables and even forces the 
 capitalist to rob the labourer of the whole increase of value 
 which is the fruit of his labour. These are the three great 
 heads of their philippic against modern society : the hopeless 
 oppression of the " iron and cruel law " of necessary wages, 
 the mischief of incessant crises and changes and of the chaotic 
 regime of chance, and the iniquity of capital in the light of 
 their doctrine of value. Let us examine them in their order. 
 
 I. Socialists found their first charge partly on their inter- 
 pretation of the actual historical tendency of things, and partly 
 on the teaching of Ricardo and other economists on natural 
 wages. Now, to begin with the question of historical fact, the 
 effect which has been produced by the large system of pro- 
 duction on the distribution of wealth and the general condi- 
 tion of the working class is greatly misconceived by them. 
 So far as the distribution of wealth is concerned, the principal 
 difference that has occurred may be described as the decadence 
 of the lower middle classes, a decline both in the number of 
 persons in proportion to population who enjoy intermediate 
 incomes, and also in the relative amount of the average income 
 they enjoy. Their individual income may be higher than that 
 of the corresponding class 150 or 200 years ago, but it bears 
 a less ratio to the average income of the nation. The reason 
 of this decline is, of course, obvious. The yeomanry, once a 
 seventh of our population, and the small masters in trade have 
 gradually given way before the economic superiority of the 
 large capital or other causes, and modern industry has as yet 
 produced no other class that can, by position and numbers, 
 fill their room ; for though, no doubt, the great industries call 
 into being auxiliary industries of various kinds, which are still 
 best managed on the small scale by independent tradesmen, 
 the number of middling incomes which the greater industries 
 have thus contributed to create has been far short of the num- 
 ber they have extinguished. The same causes have, of course,
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 301 
 
 exercised very important effects on the economic condition of 
 the working class. They have reduced them more and more 
 to the permanent position of wage-labourers, and have left 
 them relatively fewer openings than they once possessed for 
 investing their savings in their own line, and fewer oppor- 
 tunities for the abler and more intelligent of them to rise to a 
 competency. This want may perhaps be ultimately supplied 
 under existing industrial conditions by the modern system of 
 co-operation, which combines some of the advantages of the 
 small capital with some of the advantages of the large, though 
 it lacks one of the chief advantages of both, the energetic, 
 uncontrolled initiative of the individual capitalist. But at 
 present, at any rate, it is premature to expect this, and as 
 things stand, many of the old pathways that linked class with 
 class are now closed without being replaced by modern sub- 
 stitutes, and working men are more purely and permanently 
 wage-labourers than they used to be. But while the wage- 
 labourer has perhaps less chance than before of becoming any- 
 thing else, it is a mistake to suppose, as is sometimes done, 
 that he is worse off, or even, as is perhaps invariably imagined, 
 that he has a less share in the wealth of the country than he 
 had when the wealth of the country was less. On the con- 
 trary, the position of the wage-labourer is really better than it 
 has been for three hundred years. If we turn to the period of 
 the English Revolution, we find that the income which the 
 labourer and his family together were able to earn was habi- 
 tually insufficient to maintain them in the way they were 
 accustomed to live. Sir M. Hale, in his " Discourse Touching 
 the Poor," published in 1683, says the family of a working 
 man, consisting of husband, wife, and four children, could not 
 be supported in meat, drink, clothing, and house-rent on less 
 than 10.s\ a week, and that he might possibly be able to make 
 that amount, if he got constant employment, and if two of his 
 children, as well as their mother, could earn something by 
 their labour too. Gregory King classifies the whole labouring 
 population of the country in his time, except a few thousand 
 skilled artisans, among the classes who decrease the wealth of 
 the country, because, not earning enough to keep them, they 
 had to obtain occasional allowances from public funds. We
 
 302 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 do well to grieve over the pauperism that exists now in Eng- 
 land. A few years ago, one person in every twenty received 
 parochial support, and one in thirty does so yet. These 
 figures, of course, refer to those in receipt of relief at one time, 
 and not to all who received relief during a year. But for 
 Scotland we have statistics of both, and the latter come as 
 nearly as possible to twice as many as the former. If the 
 same proportion rules in England, then every fifteenth person 
 receives relief in the course of the year.* But in King's time, 
 out of a population of five millions and a half, 600,000 were in 
 receipt of alms, i.e., more than one in ten ; and if their children 
 under 16 years of age were included, their number would 
 amount to 900,000, or one in six. Now, while the labourers' 
 wages were then, as a rule, unequal to maintain them in the 
 way they lived, we know that their scale of living was much 
 below that which is common among their class to-day. The 
 only thing which was much cheaper then than now was 
 butcher meat, mutton being only 2d. a lb., and beef, l^d. ; but 
 half the population had meat only twice a week, and a fourth 
 only once. The labourer lived chiefly on bread and beer, and 
 bread was as dear as it is now. Potatoes had not come into 
 general use. Butter and milk were cheaper than now, but 
 were not used to the same extent. Fuel, light, and clothing 
 were all much dearer, and salt was so much so as to form an 
 appreciable element in the weekly bill. When so many of the 
 staple necessaries of life were high in price, the labourer's 
 wages naturally could not afford a meat diet. Nothing can 
 furnish a more decisive proof of the rise in the real remunera- 
 tion of the wage-labourer since the Revolution than the fact 
 that the wages of that period were insufficient to maintain the 
 lower standard of comfort prevalent then, without parochial 
 aid, while the wages of the same classes to-day are generally 
 able to maintain their higher standard of comfort without 
 such supplementary assistance. Then the hours of labour 
 were, on the whole, longer ; the death rate in London was 1 
 in 27, in place of 1 in 40 now ; and all those general advantages 
 
 * The proportion in England for 1857, according to official figures, was 
 3 times the number for one day, but whether that proportion continues 
 still we have no means of knowing.
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 303 
 
 of advancing civilization, which are the heritage of all, were 
 either absentor much inferior. 
 
 These facts sufficiently show that if the rich have got richer 
 since the Revolution, the poor have not got poorer, and that the 
 circumstances of the labouring class have substantially im- 
 proved with the growth of national wealth. As far as their 
 mere money income is concerned there is some reason for think- 
 ing that the improvement has been as near as may be propor- 
 tional with the increase of wealth. The general impression is 
 the reverse of this. It is usual to hear it said that while the 
 labourers' circumstances have undoubtedly improved absolutely, 
 they have not improved relatively, as compared with the pro- 
 gress in the wealth of the country and the share of it which 
 other classes have succeeded in obtaining. But this impres- 
 sion must be qualified, if not entirely rejected, on closer exa- 
 mination. Data exist by which it can be to some extent tested, 
 and these data show that while considerable alterations have 
 been made in the distribution of wealth since the rise of the 
 great industries, these alterations have not been unfavourable 
 to the labouring classes, but that the proportion of the wealth 
 of the country which falls to the working man to-day is very 
 much the same is indeed rather better than worse than the 
 proportion which fell to his share two hundred years ago. 
 Gregory King made an estimate of the distribution of wealth 
 among the various classes of society in England in 1688, 
 founded partly on the poll-books, hearth-books, and other offi- 
 cial statistical records, and partly on personal observation and 
 inquiry in the several towns and counties of England ; and Dr. 
 C. Davenant, who says he had carefully examined King's 
 statistics himself, checking them by calculations of his own and 
 by the schemes of other persons, pronounces them to be " very 
 accurate and more perhaps to be relied on than anything that 
 has been ever done of a like kind." Now, a comparison of 
 King's figures with the estimate of the distribution of the 
 national income made by Mr. Dudley Baxter from the returns 
 of 1867, will afford some sort of idea though of course only 
 approximately, and perhaps not very closely so of the changes 
 that have actually occurred. King takes the family income as 
 the unit of his calculations. Baxter, on the other hand, specifies
 
 304 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 all bread-winners separately men, women, and children ; but 
 to furnish a basis of comparison, let us take the men as repre- 
 senting a family each, and if so, that would give us 4,006,260 
 working-class families in the country in 1867. This is cer- 
 tainly a high estimate of their number, because in 1871 there 
 were only five million of families in England ; and according 
 to the calculations of Professor Leone Levi, the working class 
 comprises no more than two-thirds of the population, and 
 would consequently consist in 1871 of no more than 3.300,000 
 families. If we were to take this figure as the ground of our 
 calculations, the result would be still more striking ; but let us 
 take the number of working-class families to have been four 
 millions in 1867. The average income of a working-class 
 family in King's time was 12 12s. (including his artisan and 
 handicraft families along with the other labourers) ; the average 
 income of a working class family now is 81. The average 
 income of English families generally in King's time was 32 ; 
 the average income of English families generally now is 162. 
 The average income of the country has thus increased five-fold, 
 while the average income of the working class has increased six 
 and a half times. The ratio of the working class income to the 
 general income stood in King's time as 1 : 2, and now as 1 : 2. 
 In 1688, 74 per cent, of the whole population belonged to the 
 working class, and they earned collectively 26 per cent, of the 
 entire income of the country ; in 1867 according to the basis 
 we have adopted, though the proportion is doubtless really less 
 80 per cent, of the whole population belonged to the working 
 class, and they earned collectively 40 per cent, of the entire 
 income of the country. Their share of the population has 
 increased 6 per cent. ; their share of the income 14 per cent. 
 
 Now, I am far from adducing these considerations with the 
 view of suggesting that the present condition of the working 
 classes or the present distribution of wealth is even approxi- 
 mately satisfactory, but I think they ought to be sufficient to 
 disperse the gloomy apprehensions which trouble many minds 
 as if, with all our national prosperity, the condition of the 
 poorer classes were growing ever worse and could not possibly, 
 under existing industrial conditions, grow any better ; to pre- 
 vent us from prematurely condemning a system of society,
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 305 
 
 whose possibilities for answering the legitimate aspirations of 
 the working class are so far from being exhausted, that it may 
 rather be said that a real beginning has hardly as yet been 
 made to accomplish them ; and to give ground for the hope 
 that the existing economy, which all admit to be a most 
 efficient instrument for the production of wealth, may, by wise 
 correction and management, be made a not inadequate agency 
 for its distribution. 
 
 The socialists are not more fortunate in their argument from 
 the teaching of economists than in their account of the actual 
 facts and tendency of history. The " iron and cruel law " of 
 necessary wages is, as expounded by economists, neither so 
 iron nor so cruel as Lassalle represented it to be. They taught 
 that the price of labour, like the price of everything else, 
 tended to settle at the level of the relative cost of its produc- 
 tion, and that the cost of its production meant the cost of 
 producing the subsistence required to maintain the labourer in 
 working vigour and to rear his family to continue the work of 
 society after his day ; but they always represented this as a 
 minimum below which wages would not permanently settle, 
 but above which they might from other causes remain for a 
 continuity considerably elevated, and which, even as a mini- 
 mum, was in an essential way ruled by the consent of the 
 labouring classes themselves, and dependent on the standard of 
 living they chose habitually to adopt. If the rate of wages 
 were forced down below the amount necessary to maintain that 
 customary standard of living, the marriage rate of the labour- 
 ing classes would tend to fall and the rate of mortality to rise 
 till the supply of labour diminished sufficiently to restore the 
 rate of wages to its old level. And conversely, if the price of 
 labour rose above that limit, the marriage rate among the 
 labouring class would tend to rise and the rate of mortality to 
 fall, till the numbers of the working population increased to 
 such an extent as to bring it down again. But the rate of 
 marriage depended on the will and consent of the labouring 
 class, and their consent was supposed to be given or withheld 
 according as they themselves considered the current wages 
 sufficient or insufficient to support a family upon. The amount 
 of the labourer's " necessary " subsistence was never thought. 
 
 x
 
 306 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 to be a hard and fast limit inflexibly fixed by physical condi- 
 tions. It was not a bare living; it was the living which had 
 become customary or was considered necessary by the labourer. 
 Its amount might be permanently raised, if in consequence of 
 a durable rise of wages a higher standard of comfort came to 
 be habitual and to be counted essential, and the addition so 
 made to it would then become as real an element of natural 
 or necessary wages in the economic sense as the rest. Its 
 amount might also permanently fall, if the labourers ceased to 
 think it necessary and contentedly accommodated their habits to 
 the reduced standard, and there might thus ensue a permanent 
 degradation of the labourer, such as took place in Ireland in 
 the present century, when the labouring class adjusted them- 
 selves to reduction after reduction till their lower standard of 
 living served, in the first place, to operate as an inducement to 
 marriage instead of a check on it, because marriage could not 
 make things worse, and at least lightened the burdens of life 
 by the sympathy that shared them ; and served, in the second 
 place, to impair the industrial efficiency of the labourer till he 
 was hardly worth better wages if he could have got them. So 
 far then was the doctrine of economists from involving any 
 " iron or cruel " limit that they always drew from it the 
 lesson that it was in the power of the labouring classes to elevate 
 themselves by the pleasant, if somewhat paradoxical, expedient 
 of first enlarging their scale of expenditure. " Pitch your 
 standard of comfort high, and your income will look after itself," 
 is scarcely an unfair description of the rule of prudent impru- 
 dence they inculcated on working people. They believed that 
 the chief danger to which that class was exposed was their 
 own excessive and too rapid multiplication, and they considered 
 the best protection against this danger to lie in the powerful 
 preventive of a high scale of habitual requirements. 
 
 Moreover, Ricardo distinctly maintained that though the 
 natural rate of wages was determined as he had explained, yet 
 the operation of that natural law might be practically suspended 
 in a progressive community for an indefinite period, and that 
 the rate of wages actually given might even keep on advancing 
 the whole time, because capital was capable of increasing much 
 more rapidly than population. The price of labour, he taugM,
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 307 
 
 would in that case be always settled by the demand for it 
 which was created by the accumulation of capital, and the sole 
 condition of the accumulation of capital was the productive 
 power of labour. The rate of wages in a progressive community 
 might therefore almost never be in actual fact determined by . 
 this "iron and cruel law" at all, and so there is not the smallest 
 ground for representing economists as teaching that the 
 present system compels the rate of wages or the labourer's 
 remuneration to hover to and fro over the margin of indigence. 
 
 Lassalle, then, built his agitation on a combination of errors. 
 He was wrong in his interpretation of the tendency of actual 
 historical development ; he was wrong in his interpretation of 
 the doctrine of economists ; and now, to complete the confusion, 
 that doctrine is itself wrong. If we are at all to distinguish a 
 natural or normal rate of wages from the fluctuating rates of 
 the market, that natural or normal rate will be found really to 
 depend, not on the cost of producing subsistence, but on the 
 amount or rate of general production, or the amount of pro- 
 duction per capita in the community, or, in other words, on 
 the average productivity of labour. It is manifest that this 
 would be so in a primitive condition of society in which 
 industry was as yet conducted without the intervention of a 
 special employing class, for then the wages of labour would 
 consist of its product, and be, in fact, as Smith says, only 
 another name for it. It would depend, however, not exclu- 
 sively on the individual labourer's own efficiency, but also on 
 the fertility of the soil and the general efficiency of the rest 
 of the labouring community. While according to his own 
 efficiency he would possess a greater or smaller stock of articles, 
 which, after providing for his own wants, he might exchange 
 for other articles produced by his neighbours ; the quantity he 
 would get in exchange for them would be great or small 
 according to the degree of his neighbour's efficiency. The 
 average real remuneration of labour, or the average rate of 
 wages, in such a community would therefore correspond with 
 the average productivity of its labour. But the same principle 
 holds good in the more comj : le.i organization of industrial society 
 that now exists, though its operation is more difficult to trace. 
 
 The price of labour is now determined by a struggle between
 
 308 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the labourer and the employer, and the fortunes of the struggle 
 move between two very real, if not very definitely marked, 
 limits, the lower of which is constituted by the smallest 
 amount which the labourer can afford to take, and the higher 
 by the largest amount which the employer can afford to give. 
 The former is determined by the amount necessary to support 
 life, and the latter by the amount necessary to secure an ade- 
 quate profit. Now the space between these two limits will be 
 always great or small in proportion to the general productivity 
 of labour in the community. The general productivity of 
 labour acts upon the rate of wages in two ways, immediately 
 and mediately. Immediately, because, as is manifest, efficient 
 labour is worth more to the employer than inefficient; and 
 mediately, as I shall presently show, because it conduces to a 
 greater diversion of wealth for productive purposes, and so 
 increases the general demand for labour. In modern society, 
 as in primitive, the labourer not only obtains a higher re- 
 muneration if he is efficient himself, but gathers a higher 
 remuneration from the efficiency of his neighbours. 
 
 This will be obvious at once to any one who reflects on the 
 improved remuneration of the common unskilled labourers. 
 The man who works with pick and shovel makes, according to 
 Mr. Mulhall's estimate, 30 a year now, while he only made 
 12 a year in 1800, when bread was about twice as dear, and 
 yet he probably did quite as good a day's work then as he does 
 now, except so far as his better wages have themselves helped 
 his powers of labour, through affording him a more liberal diet, 
 and in that case the same question is raised, How did he come 
 to get these better wages ? It was not on account of an in- 
 crease in his own production, for that was the effect, not the 
 cause ; it was on account of the general increase in the pro- 
 ductivity of all labour round about him. The great improve- 
 ment in industrial processes have brought in more plentiful 
 times, and he shares in the general plenty, though he may not 
 have directly contributed to its production. He gets more for 
 the same work, not merely because people in general, with 
 their larger surplus, can afford to give him more, but because, 
 having more to devote to industrial investment, they increase 
 the demand for labour till they are obliged to give him more.
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 309 
 
 The proximate demand for labour is, of course, capital, but 
 the amount of capital which a community tends to possess in 
 other words, the amount of wealth it tends to detach for in- 
 dustrial investment bears a constant relation to the amount 
 of its general production. There is a disposition among econo- 
 mists to speak of the quantity of a nation's savings, as if it was 
 something given and complete that springs up independently 
 of industrial conditions, and as irrespectively of the purpose to 
 which it is to be applied as the number of eggs a fowl lays or 
 the amount of fruit a tree bears. But, in reality, it is not so. 
 The amount of a nation's savings is no affair of chance ; it is 
 governed much more by commercial reasons than is sometimes 
 supposed. It is no sufficient account of the matter to say that 
 men save because they have a disposition to save, because there 
 is a strong cumulative propensity in the national character. 
 They save because they think to get a profit by saving, and 
 the point at which the nation stops saving is the point at 
 which this expectation ceases to be gratified, the point at 
 which enough has been accumulated to occupy the entire 
 field of profitable investment which the community offers at 
 the time. Some part of a nation's savings will always have 
 originated in a desire to provide security for the future, but, 
 as this part is less subject to fluctuation, it exercises less in- 
 fluence in determining the extent of the whole than the more 
 variable part, which is only saved when there is sufficient hope 
 of gain from investing it. There may be said to be a natural 
 amount of capital in a country, in at least as true a sense as 
 there is a natural price of labour, or a natural price of com- 
 modities. Capital has its bounds in the general industrial 
 conditions and stature of the community, but it moves and 
 answers these conditions with much more elasticity than the 
 wage-fund theory used to acknowledge. It is, as Hermann 
 said, a mere medium of conveyance between consumer and 
 consumer, and has its size decreed for it by the quantities it 
 has to convey. The general demand for commodities is a 
 demand for capital. It creates the expectation of profit which 
 capital is diverted from expenditure to gratify, and since it is 
 itself in another aspect the general supply of commodities, it 
 furnishes the possibilities for meeting the demand for capital
 
 310 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 which it creates. This whole argument may seem to be 
 reasoning in a circle or wheeling round a pivot, and so in a 
 sense it may be, for the wheel of industry is circular. The 
 rate of wages depends on the demand for labour ; the demand 
 for labour depends on the amount of capital ; the amount of 
 capital depends on the aggregate production of and demand for 
 commodities ; and the amount of aggregate production depends 
 on the average productivity of labour. It is but a more cir- 
 cuitous way of saying the same thing as the older economists 
 said, when they declared the rate of wages to depend on the 
 supply of capital, as compared with population ; but it shows 
 that the supply of capital is a more elastic element than they 
 conceived, that it adjusts and re-adjusts itself more easily and 
 sensitively to industrial conditions, including perhaps even 
 those of population, and that it is governed in a very real way 
 by the great primary factor that determines the whole size 
 and scale of the industrial system in all its parts, the general 
 productivity of labour. Taking one country with another, the 
 rate of wages will be found to observe a certain proportion to 
 the amount of production per capita in the community. 
 
 This view will be confirmed by a comparison of the actual 
 rate of wages prevalent in different countries. Lord Brassey 
 has published an important body of positive evidence tending 
 to show that the cost of labour is the same all over the world, 
 that for the same wages you get everywhere the same work, 
 and that the higher price of labour in some countries than 
 in others is simply due to its higher efficiency. Mr. Cairnes, 
 who did not accept this conclusion unconditionally, had, how- 
 ever, himself previously estimated that a day's labour in 
 America produced as much as a day and a third's in Great 
 Britain, to a day and a half s in Belgium, a day and three- 
 fourths' or two days' in France and Germany, and to five 
 days' labour in India. Now, when due regard is had for the 
 influence of special historical circumstances, it will be found 
 that the rate of wages observes very similar proportions in 
 these several countries. In America it is higher than the 
 relative productivity of the country would explain, because a 
 new country with boundless natural resources creates a per- 
 manently exceptional demand for labour ; because the facilities
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 311 
 
 with which, land can be acquired and wrought, even by men 
 without previous agricultural training, affords a ready correc- 
 tion to temporary redundancies of labour; and because the 
 labour itself is more mobile, versatile, and energetic in a 
 nation largely composed of immigrants. Other modifying in- 
 fluences also interfere to preclude the possibility of a precise 
 correspondence between national rates of wages and national 
 amounts of production per capita, for different countries vary 
 much in the extent of the fixed capital they employ to econo- 
 mize personal labour. But enough has been said to show that, 
 .if a natural rate of wages is to be sought at all, it must be 
 looked for, not in the cost of the production of subsistence, but 
 in the rate of the production of commodities ; and while the 
 standard of living and the price of labour tend to some extent 
 to keep one another up, the higher standard of living prevalent 
 among labourers in some countries is a consequence much more 
 than a condition of the higher rate of wages, which the higher 
 productivity of labour in those countries occasions. 
 
 There is therefore no ground for Lassalle's representation 
 that the law of necessary wages condemns ninety-six persons 
 in every hundred to an existence of hopeless misery to enable 
 the other four to ride in luxury. The principles that goveni 
 the rate of wages are much more flexible than he supposed, 
 and the experience of trade unions has sufficiently demonstrated 
 that it is within the power of the wage-labourers themselves 
 to effect by combination a material increase in the price of 
 their labour. Trade unions have taken away the shadow of 
 despondency that lay over the hired labourer's lot. Their 
 margin of effective operation is strictly limited ; still such a 
 margin exists, and they have turned it to account. They 
 have put the labourer in a position to hold out for his price ; 
 they have converted the question of wages from the question, 
 how little the labourer can afford to take, into the question, 
 how much the employer can afford to give. They have been 
 able, in trades not subject' to foreign competition, to effect a 
 permanent rise in wages at the expense of prices, and they can 
 probably, in all trades, succeed in keeping the rate of wages 
 well up to its superior limit, viz., to the point at which, while 
 the skilful employers might still afford to give more, the un-
 
 312 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 skilful could not do so without ceasing to conduct a profitable 
 business and being driven out of the field altogether. For 
 unskilful management tells as ill on wages as inefficient 
 labour. On the other hand, high wages, like many other 
 difficult conditions, undoubtedly tend to develop skilful 
 management. The employer is put on his mettle, and all his 
 administrative resource is called into action and keen play. 
 They who, like socialists, inveigh against this modern despot, 
 ought to reflect how much less possible it would have been for 
 wages to have risen, if industry had been in the hands of hired 
 managers who were not put to their mettle, because they had 
 no personal stake in the result. It must not be forgotten, 
 however, that while trade unions are able to keep the rate of 
 wages up to its superior limit, they have no power to raise that 
 limit itself. This can only be done by an increase in the 
 general productivity of labour, and, in fact, the action of trade 
 unions could not have been so effective as it has been, unless 
 the high production of the country afforded them the condi- 
 tions for success. And since, in consequence of their action 
 and vigilance, the rate of wages in the trades they represent 
 may be now taken as usually standing close to its superior 
 limit, the chief hope of any further substantial improvement in 
 the future must now be placed in the possibility of raising that 
 limit by an increased productivity. 
 
 Of this the prospect is really considerable and promising. 
 Of course labourers will never benefit to the full from improve- 
 ments in the productive arts, until by some arrangement, or 
 by many arrangements, they are made sharers in industrial 
 capital ; but they will benefit from these improvements, 
 though in less measure, even as pure wage-labourers. Their 
 unions will be on the watch to prevent the whole advantage of 
 the improvement from going towards a reduction of the price 
 of the commodity they produce, and such reduction in the 
 price of the commodity as actually takes place will enable its 
 consumers to spend so much the more of their means on com- 
 modities made by other labourers, and to that extent to in- 
 crease the demand for the labour of the latter. But the field 
 from which I expect the most direct and extensive harvest to 
 the working class is the development of their own personal
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 313 
 
 efficiency. At present neither employers nor labourers seem 
 fully alive to the resources which this field is capable of yield- 
 ing, if it were wisely and fairly cultivated. Both classes are 
 often so bent on immediate advantage that they lose sight of 
 their real and enduring interest. It is doubtful whether em- 
 ployers are more slow to see how much inadequate remunera- 
 tion and uncomfortable circumstances impair efficiency and 
 retard production, or labourers to perceive how much limiting 
 the general rate of production tends to reduce the general rate 
 of wages. In labour requiring mainly physical strength, con- 
 tractors sufficiently appreciate the fact that their navvies must 
 be well fed if they are to stand to their work, and that an 
 extra shilling a day makes a material difference in the output. 
 But in all forms of skilled labour, likewise, analogous condi- 
 tions prevail. Just as slave-labour is inefficient because it is 
 reluctantly given, and is wanting in the versatility and re- 
 sourcefulness that comes from general intelligence, so is free 
 labour less efficient or more efficient in exact proportion to its 
 fertility of resource and to the hopefulness and cheerfulness 
 with which it is exerted ; and both conditions are developed 
 in the working class in precise ratio with their general com- 
 fort. The intelligent workman takes less time to learn his 
 trade, needs less superintendence at his work, and is less 
 wasteful of materials ; and the cheerful workman, besides 
 these merits, expends more energy with less exhaustion. But 
 men can have no hope in their work while they live purely 
 from hand to mouth, and you cannot spread habits of intelli- 
 gence among the labouring class, if their means are too poor 
 or their leisure too short to enable them to participate in the 
 culture that is going on around them. 
 
 But if employers are apt to take too narrow a view of the 
 worth of good wages as a positive source of high production, 
 labourers are apt to take equally narrow views of the worth 
 of high production as a source of good wages. The policy of 
 limiting production is expressly countenanced by a few of their 
 trade unions, with the concurrence, I fear, of a considerable 
 body of working-class opinion. This is shown in their idea of 
 " making work," in their 'prohibition of "chasing" i.e., of a 
 workman exceeding a given average standard of production
 
 314 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 and in their prejudice against piecework. Their notion of 
 making work is irrational. They think they can make work by 
 simply not doing it, by spinning it out, by going half speed, 
 under the impression that they are in this way leaving the 
 more over to constitute a demand for their labour to-morrow. 
 And so, in the immediate case in hand and for the particular 
 time, it may sometimes be. But if this practice were to be 
 turned into a law universal among working men, if all labourers 
 were to act upon it everywhere, then the general production of 
 the country would be immediately reduced, and the general 
 demand for labour, and the rate of wages, would inevitably fall 
 in a corresponding degree. Instead of making work, they 
 would have unmade half the work there used to be, and have 
 brought their whole class to comparative poverty by contract- 
 ing the ultimate sources from which wages come. The true 
 way to make work for to-morrow is to do as much as one can 
 to-day. For the produce of one man's labour is the demand 
 for the produce of another man's. There is nothing more diffi- 
 cult for any class than to reach an enlightened perception of 
 its own general interest. 
 
 The objection usually made to " chasing " and piecework is 
 that they always end in enabling employers to extract more 
 work out of the men without giving them any more pay, and 
 that they conduce to overstraining. Now piecework, without 
 a fixed list of prices, is of course liable to the abuse which, it is 
 alleged, masters have made of it. But with a fixed list of prices 
 the labourers ought, with the aid of their unions, to be as able 
 to hold their own against the encroachments of the masters 
 under piecework as under day work, and piecework is so de- 
 cidedly advantageous, both to masters and to men, that it 
 would be foolish for the former to refuse the reasonable conces- 
 sion of a fixed list of prices ; and it would be equally foolish for 
 the latter to oppose the system under the delusive fear of a 
 danger which it is amply in their own power to meet. There 
 is a good deal of force in the view of Mr. William Denny, that 
 piecework will prove the best and most natural transition from 
 the present system to a regime of co-operative production, 
 because it furnishes many kinds of actual opportunities for 
 practising co-operation ; but whatever may be the promise of
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 
 
 3*5 
 
 piecework for the age that is to come, there is no question about 
 its promise for the life that now is. Mr. Denny, speaking from 
 experience in his own extensive shipbuilding works at Dum- 
 barton, says that " a workman under piecework generally in- 
 creases his output in the long run partly by working hard, 
 but principally by exercising more intelligence and arranging 
 his work better by about 75 per cent., while the total amount 
 of his wages increases by about 50 per cent., making a distinct 
 saving in the wages portion of the cost of a given article of 
 about 14 per cent." (" The Worth of Wages," p. 19.) * Similar 
 testimony is given by Goltz, Boehmert, and a writer in Engels' 
 Zeitschrift for 1868, as to the effect of the introduction of piece- 
 work into continental industries, and Roscher ascribes much of 
 the industrial superiority of England to the prevalence of piece- 
 work here. According to Mr. Howell, more than seventy per 
 cent, of the work of this country is done at present by the piece, 
 and the Trades' Union Commission found it the accepted rule 
 in the majority of the industries that came under their in- 
 vestigation ; in fact, in all except engineering, ironfounding, 
 and some of the building trades. The engineers entertain a 
 
 * Mr. Denny was led by subsequent experience to a much less favour- 
 able view of the efficacy of piecework as an instrument of working-class 
 progress. He wrote me in June, 1886 (ten years after the publication of 
 the pamphlet I have quoted above) an interesting and valuable letter on this 
 subject, which is published in full in Dr. Bruce's biography of him ("Life 
 of William Denny," p. 113). A larger experience of piecework, he said, had 
 convinced him that, excepting in cases where rates can be fixed and made a 
 matter of agreement between the whole body of the men in any works and 
 their employers, piecework prices have not a self-regulating power, and 
 are liable, under the pressure of competition, to be depressed below what 
 he would consider a proper level. And this was chiefly, if not, indeed, 
 exclusively, the case with those lump jobs which were undertaken by 
 little copartneries of workmen, and afforded the occasions for practising 
 co-operation from which he had drawn the hopes I have mentioned above. 
 He came to see that in all kinds of work for which it was difficult to fix 
 regular rates, the beneficial operation of payment by the piece on wages was 
 much more uncertain than he previously supposed, except in the hands of a 
 good master, who was not an absentee. But for ordinary work, I think he 
 still adhered to his favourable opinion of the effect of the piece system in 
 increasing the worker's earnings. He said he had nothing to modify about 
 the figures adduced in his pamphlet, and I understood him to continue to 
 count them representative of the general operation of pieceworking.
 
 316 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 strong objection to it, and their union has sometimes expelled 
 members who have persisted in taking it. But the system 
 works smoothly enough when an established price-list has 
 become a recognised practice of the trade. The objection that 
 the piece system leads to careless, scamped and inferior work, 
 can hardly be considered a genuine working-class objection. 
 That is the look-out of the masters, and they find it easier to 
 check quality than to check quantity. Another reason some- 
 times given against piecework is that under it some men get 
 more than their share in the common stock of work, but there 
 lurks in this reason the same fallacy which lies in the notion of 
 " making work," the fallacy of seeking to raise the level of 
 wages by limiting production, and so diminishing the common 
 stock of work of society. Labourers seem sometimes to harbour 
 an impression as if they were losing something when their 
 neighbours were making more than themselves. Work appears 
 to them no doubt in consequence of the fluctuations and inter- 
 mittent activity of modern trade to come in bursts and wind- 
 falls, nobody knows whence or how, and they are sometimes 
 uneasy to see the harvest being apparently disproportionately 
 appropriated by more active and efficient hands. But in the 
 end, and as a steady general rule, they are gainers and not 
 losers by the efficiency of the more expert workmen, because 
 productivity, so far from drying up the sources of work, is the 
 very thing that sets them loose. 
 
 A more important objection is the danger of overstraining, 
 against which of course the working class are wise to exercise a 
 most jealous vigilance. But, in the first place, it is easy to ex- 
 aggerate this danger. It is not really from any deepened drain 
 on the physical powers of the workmen, so much as from a 
 quickening of his mental life in his work, that increase in his 
 productivity is to be expected. Mr. Denny, it will be observed, 
 attributes the additional output under piecework not nearly so 
 much to harder labour as to the exercise of more intelligence 
 and to a better arrangement of the work. But, in the next 
 place, to my mind the great advantage of piecework is that 
 it affords a sound economic reason for shortening the day of 
 labour. The work being intenser, demands a shorter day, and 
 being more productive, justifies it. If the figures I have quoted
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 317 
 
 from Mr. Denny are at all representative, then a labourer, work- 
 ing by the piece, can turn out 40 per cent, more in eight hours 
 than working by the day he can do in ten. Differences may be 
 expected to obtain in this respect in different trades and kinds of 
 work, so that there possibly cannot be any normal day of labour 
 for all trades alike, and each must adjust the term of its labour 
 to its own circumstances. But wherever piecework can increase 
 the rate of production to the extent mentioned by Mr. Denny, 
 the day of labour may be shortened with advantage, and it can 
 apparently do so in the very trades that most strongly object to it. 
 A fact mentioned by Mr. Nasmyth, in his remarkable evidence 
 before the Trades Union Commission, opens a striking view 
 of the possibilities of increasing production through develop- 
 ing the personal efficiency of the labouring class, and of doing 
 so without requiring any severe strain. " When I have been 
 watching men in my own work," he says, " I have noticed that 
 at least two-thirds of their time, even in the case of the most 
 careful workmen, is spent, not in work, but in criticising with 
 the square or straight-edge what they have been working, so 
 as to say whether it is right or wrong." And he adds " I have 
 observed that wherever you meet with a dexterous workman, 
 you will find that he is a man that need not apply in one case 
 in ten to his straight-edge or square." And why are not all 
 dexterous, or, at least, why are they not much more dexterous 
 than they now are ? Mr. Nasmyth's answer is, because the 
 faculty of comparison by the eye is undeveloped in them, and 
 he contends that this faculty is capable of being educated in 
 every one to a very much higher degree than exists at present, 
 and that its development ought to be made a primary object of 
 direct training at school. " If you get a boy," he says, " to be 
 able to lay a pea in the middle of two other peas, and in a 
 straight line with these two, that boy is a vast way on in the 
 arts." He has gone through a most valuable industrial appren- 
 ticeship before he has entered a workshop at all. If, through 
 training the eye, workmen can save two-thirds of their time, 
 it is manifest that there is abundant scope for increasing pro- 
 ductivity and shortening the day of labour at the same time. 
 Industrial efficiency is much more a thing of mind than of 
 muscle. Jeder Arbeiter ist auch Kopfarbeiter. All work is also
 
 318 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 head work. Skill is but a primary labour-saving apparatus 
 engrafted by mind on eye and limb, and it is in developing the 
 mental faculties of the labourers by well-directed training, both 
 general and technical, that the chief conditions for their further 
 improvement lie. Their progress in intelligence may therefore 
 be expected to increase their productivity so as to justify a 
 shortening of their day of labour, and the leisure so acquired 
 may be expected to be used so as to increase their intelligence. 
 Any advance men really make in the scale of moral and mental 
 being tends in this way to create the conditions necessary for 
 its maintenance. 
 
 We sometimes hear the same pessimist prophecy about 
 shorter hours as we have heard for centuries about better 
 wages, that they will only seduce the working class to in- 
 creased dissipation. But experience is against this view. Of 
 course more leisure and more pay are merely means which the 
 labourer may according to his habits use for his destruction as 
 easily as for his salvation. But the increase in the number of 
 apprehensions for drunkenness that frequently accompanies a 
 rise in wages proves neither one thing nor another as to the 
 general effect of the rise on the whole class of labourers who 
 have obtained it; it proves only that the more dissipated 
 among them are able to get oftener drunk. Nor can the 
 singular manifestations which the full hand sometimes takes 
 with the less instructed sections of the working class, especially 
 when it has been suddenly acquired, furnish any valid infer- 
 ence as to the way it would be used by the working class in 
 general, particularly if it were their permanent possession. 
 The evidence laid before the House of Lords Committee on 
 Intemperance shows that the skilled labourers of this country 
 are becoming less drunken as their wages and general position 
 are improving ; and Porter, in his " Progress of the Nation," 
 adduces some striking cases of a steady rise of wages making 
 a manifest change for the better in the habits of unskilled 
 labourers. He mentions, on the authority of a gentleman who 
 had the chief direction of the work, that " the formation of a 
 canal in the North of Ireland for some time afforded steady 
 employment to a portion of the peasantry, who before that 
 time were suffering all the evils so common in that country
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 319 
 
 which result from precariousness of employment. Such work 
 as they could previously get came at uncertain intervals, and 
 was sought by so many competitors that the remuneration was 
 of the scantiest amount. In this condition the men were im- 
 provident to recklessness. Their wages, insufficient for the 
 comfortable maintenance of their families, were wasted in pro- 
 curing for themselves a temporary forgetfulness of their misery 
 at the whisky shop, and the men appeared to be sunk into a 
 state of hopeless degradation. From the moment, however, 
 that work was offered to them which was constant in its 
 nature and certain in its duration, and on which their weekly 
 earnings would be sufficient to provide for their comfortable 
 support, men who had been idle and dissolute were converted 
 into sober, hardworking labourers, and proved themselves kind 
 and careful husbands and fathers ; and it is stated as a fact 
 that, notwithstanding the distribution of several hundred 
 pounds weekly in wages, the whole of which would be con- 
 sidered as so much additional money placed in their hands, 
 the consumption of whisky was absolutely and permanently 
 diminished in the district. During the comparatively short 
 period in which the construction of this canal was in progress, 
 some of the most careful labourers men who most probably 
 before then never knew what it was to possess five shillings at 
 any one time saved sufficient money to enable them to emi- 
 grate to Canada, where they are now labouring in indepen- 
 dence for the improvement of their own land " (p. 451). It 
 may be difficult to extirpate drunkenness in our climate even 
 with good wages, but it is certainly impossible with bad, for 
 bad wages mean insufficient nourishment, comfortless house 
 accommodation, and a want of that elasticity after work which 
 enables men to find pleasure in any other form of enjoyment. 
 As with better wages, so with shorter hours. The leisure 
 gained may be misused, especially at first ; but it is neverthe- 
 less a necessary lever for the social amelioration of the labour- 
 ing class, and it will more and more serve this purpose as it 
 becomes one of their permanent acquisitions. There can be no 
 question that long hours and hard work are powerful predis- 
 posing causes to drunkenness. Studnitz mentions that several 
 manufacturers in America had informed him that they had
 
 320 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 invariably remarked, that with solitary exceptions here and 
 there, the men who wrought for the longest number of hours 
 were most prone to dissipation, and that the others were more 
 intelligent, and formed on the whole a better class. Part of 
 the prejudice entertained by working men against piecework 
 comes from the fact that it is very often accompanied with 
 overtime, and when that is the case, it generally exerts an 
 unfavourable effect on the habits of the workman. Mr. Apple- 
 garth said, in his evidence before the Trades Union Com- 
 mission, that nothing degraded the labourer like piecework 
 and overtime. Mr. George Potter stated, in his evidence 
 before the Select Committee on Masters and Operatives in 
 1860, that it was a common saying among working people 
 with regard to a man who works hard by piecework and over- 
 time, that such a man is generally a drunkard. He ascribed 
 much of the intemperance of the labouring class to the practice 
 of working " spells " i.e., heats of work at high pressure on 
 the piece and overtime system instead of steadily ; and he 
 says " When I was at work at the bench, I worked to a firm 
 where there was much overtime and piecework, and I found 
 that the men at piecework were men who generally spent five 
 or six times more money in intoxicating drink, for the purpose 
 of keeping up their physical strength, than the men at day 
 work. I find, on close observation, that the men working at 
 piecework are generally a worse class of men in every way, 
 both in intelligence and education, and in pecuniary matters." 
 Now, the ill effects which issue from piecework combined with 
 overtime could not accrue from piecework combined with 
 shorter hours. Besides, in a case of this kind it is sometimes 
 difficult to say which is cause and which effect, or how much 
 the one acts and reacts on the other. For both Mr. Potter and 
 the manufacturers mentioned by Studnitz represent the men 
 who wrought longest as being not only more drunken, but less 
 intelligent and educated, and, in fact, as being every way in- 
 ferior ; and we can easily understand how men of unsteady 
 habits should prefer to work " spells," and try to make up by 
 excessive work three days in the week, for excessive drinking 
 the other three. 
 
 Dissipation and overtime generally go together, but neither
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 321 
 
 of them is a necessary accompaniment of piecework. The 
 best check to both is probably the spread of general education 
 among the working class, for the better educated workmen are 
 even at present usually found against them ; and the spread of 
 general education I do not speak here of technical among 
 the working class is more fruitful than even piecework itself 
 in opening up fresh reserves of industrial efficiency in our 
 labouring manhood. Roscher has pointed out how a stimulant 
 like piecework produces in a fairly well-educated district twice 
 the result it produces in a comparatively illiterate one. Taking 
 the figures of Goltz on rural labour in different German States, 
 he shows that while the earnings of pieceworkers were only 
 11 per cent, higher than the earnings of day- workers in Osna- 
 bruck, they were as much as 23 per cent, higher in Hesse. 
 Mr. Peshine Smith mentions that the Board of Education in 
 Massachusetts procured from overseers of factories in that 
 State a return of the different amounts of wages paid and the 
 degree of education of those who received them. Most of the 
 work was done by the piece, and it was found that the wages 
 earned rose in exact ratio with the degree of education, from 
 the foreigners at the bottom who made their mark as the 
 signature of their weekly receipts to the girls at the top who 
 did school in winter and worked in factories in summer. In 
 some branches of industry many new improvements remain 
 unused because the workpeople are too ignorant to work them 
 properly. Moreover, for the supreme quality of resourceful- 
 ness, education is like hands and feet, and if we may judge 
 from the number of useful labour-saving inventions which 
 working men give us even now, we cannot set limits to the 
 number they will give when the whole labouring class will 
 have got the use of their mind by an adequate measure of 
 general education, and when, as we may hope, they will have 
 got leisure to use it in through a shortening of the day of 
 labour. The possibilities of this last source are very well 
 illustrated by an experiment of Messrs. Denny. In 1880 they 
 established in their ship-building yard at Dumbarton an 
 award scheme for recompensing inventions made by their 
 workmen for improving existing machinery or applying it to 
 a new class of work, or introducing new machinery in place of 
 
 Y
 
 322 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 hand labour, or discovering any new method of arranging or 
 securing work that either improved its quality or economized 
 its cost. Mr. William Denny stated, after the scheme had 
 been nearly seven years in operation, that in that time as many 
 as 196 awards had been given for inventions which were 
 thought useful to adopt, that three times that number had 
 been submitted for consideration, and that besides being 
 beneficial in causing so many useful improvements to be 
 made, the scheme had the effect of making the workmen of 
 all departments into active thinking and planning beings 
 instead of mere flesh and blood machines. 
 
 I cannot, therefore, take so dark a view as is sometimes 
 entertained of the futurity of the wage-labourer, even if he 
 were compelled to remain purely and permanently such. His 
 ^ position has substantially improved in the past, and contains 
 considerable capabilities for continued improvement in the 
 future. Of course the action of trade unions, besides being 
 confined to the limits I have described, is subject to the 
 further restriction, that it can only avail for the labourers who 
 belong to them, and is indeed founded on the exclusion or 
 diminution of the competition of others. They impose limita- 
 tions on the number of apprentices, and prescribe a certain 
 standard of efficiency, loosely ascertained, as a condition of 
 membership. There can be no manner of objection to the 
 latter measure, nor does the former, though it is manifestly 
 liable to abuse and is sometimes vexatious in its operation, 
 seem to be practically worked so as to diminish the labour in 
 any particular industry beneath the due requirements of trade, 
 or to create an unhealthy monopoly. Then, though the trade 
 unionists gather their gains by keeping off the competition of 
 others, it cannot be said that these others are necessarily in 
 any worse position than they would have occupied if trade 
 unions had never come into existence. It may even be that 
 through the operation of custom, which will always have an 
 influence in settling the price of labour, a certain benefit may 
 be reflected upon them from a rise in the usual price effected 
 by trade union agency. But in any case, it is no sound objec- 
 tion to an agency of social amelioration that its efficiency is 
 only partial, for it is not so much to any single panacea, as to
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 
 
 the application of a multitude of partial remedies, that we can 
 most wisely trust for the accomplishment of our great aim. 
 
 II. The second main count in the socialist indictment of the 
 present industrial system is that it has multiplied the vicissi- 
 tudes of trade, and so imposed an incurable and distressing 
 insecurity upon the labourer's lot. The rapidity of technical 
 transformation and the frequency of commercial crises create, 
 it is alleged, a perpetual over-population, driving ever-increas- 
 ing proportions of the labourers out of active employment into 
 what Marx calls the industrial reserve, the hungry battalions 
 of the half-employed or the altogether unemployed. In regard 
 to technical transformation, the effects of machinery on the 
 working class are now tolerably well understood. Individuals 
 suffer in the first instance, but the class, as a whole, is eventu- 
 ally a great gainer. Machinery has always been the means of 
 employing far more hands than it superseded, when it did 
 supersede any (for it has by no means invariably done so). 
 There is no way of " making work " like producing wealth. 
 The increased production due to machinery cheapens the 
 particular commodities produced by it, and thus enables the 
 purchasers of these commodities to spend more of their income 
 on other things, and so practically to make work for other 
 labourers. But even in the trades into which the machinery 
 has been imported, the effect of its introduction has been to 
 multiply, instead of curtailing, employment. Take the textile 
 trades much the most important of the machine industries. 
 Mr. Mulhall, in his " Dictionary of Statistics " (p. 338), gives 
 the following statistics of the textile operatives in the United 
 Kingdom at various dates : 
 
 Year. 
 1835 
 1850 
 1880 
 
 Men. Women. Children. Total. 
 
 82,000 167,000 104,0(30 353,000 
 
 158,000 329,000 109,000 596,000 
 
 232,000 543,000 201,000 976,000 
 
 Marx and others dwell much on the fact, that machinery leads 
 frequently to the substitution of female for male labour ; but 
 the preceding table shows that while female labour has been
 
 324 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 largely multiplied, male labour has been scarcely less so, and 
 besides, a more extensive engagement of women is in itself no 
 public disadvantage. For half the question of our pauperism 
 is really the question of employment for women, it being so 
 much more difficult to find work for unemployed women than 
 for unemployed men ; and if the course of industrial transfor- 
 mation opens up new occupations that are suitable for them, it 
 is so far entirely a social gain, and no loss. No doubt, though 
 the good accruing from industrial transformation far out- 
 weighs the evil, yet evil does accrue from it, and evil of the 
 kind alleged, the tendency to develop local or temporary re- 
 dundancies of labour. But then that is an evil with which we 
 have never yet tried to cope, and it may probably be dealt with 
 as effectively on the present system as on any other. Socialism 
 would stop it by stopping the progress which it happens to 
 accompany, and would therefore envelop society in much more 
 serious distress than it sought to remove. In Marx's remark- 
 able survey of English industrial history almost every conquest 
 of modern civilization is viewed with regret ; but it is mani- 
 festly idle to think of forcing society back now to a state in 
 which there should be no producing for profit, but only for 
 private use, no subdivision of labour, no machinery, no steam, 
 for these are the very means without which it would be im- 
 possible for our vastly increased population to exist at all. 
 What may be done to meet the redundancies of labour that 
 are always with us is a difficult but pressing question which 
 I cannot enter upon here. State provision of work even in 
 producing commodities which are imported from abroad, and 
 which might therefore be produced in State workshops without 
 hurting home producers has many drawbacks, but the prob- 
 lem is one that ought to be faced, and something more must 
 be provided for the case than workhouse and prison. 
 
 In regard to commercial crises, they are rather lessening than 
 increasing. They may be more numerous, for trade is more 
 extensive and ramified, but they are manifestly less violent 
 than they used to be. The commercial and financial crises of 
 the present century have been moderate in their effects as com- 
 pared with the Darien scheme, Law's speculations in France, 
 or the Tulip mania in the Low Countries, and under the
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 325 
 
 influence of the beneficial expansion of international commerce 
 and the equally beneficial principle of free trade, we enjoy 
 now an absolute immunity from the great periodical visitation 
 of famine which was so terrible a scourge to our ancestors. 
 Facts like these are particularly reassuring for this reason, that 
 they are the result, partly of better acquaintance with the 
 principles of sound commercial and financial success, and partly 
 of the equalizing effect of international ramifications of trade, 
 and that these are causes from which even greater things may 
 be expected in the future, because they are themselves progres- 
 sive. There is no social system that can absolutely abolish 
 vicissitudes, because many of them depend on causes over 
 which man has no possible control, such as the harvests of the 
 world, and others on causes over which no single society of 
 men has any control, such as wars ; and, besides, it is possible 
 to do a great deal more under the existing system than is at 
 present done, to mitigate and neutralize some of their worst 
 effects. To provide the labouring population with the security 
 of existence, which is one of their pressing needs, a sound 
 system of working class insurance must be devised, which shall 
 indemnify them against all the accidents and reverses of life, 
 including temporary loss of work as well as sickness and age, 
 and it is not too much to hope, from the amount of attention 
 which the subject is at present attracting, that such a system 
 will be obtained. As far as yet appears, the scheme proposed 
 by Professor Lujo Brentano, to which I have already referred, 
 is, on the whole, the soundest and most satisfactory in its 
 general principles that has been advanced. 
 
 Again, much of the instability of trade arises from, the want 
 of commercial statistics, and the consequent ignorance and 
 darkness in which it must be conducted. More light would 
 lessen at once the mistakes of well-meaning manufacturers and 
 the opportunities of illegitimate and designing speculation. 
 Socialists count all speculation illegitimate, because they fail 
 to see that speculation, conducted in good faith, exercises a 
 moderating influence upon the oscillations of prices, preventing 
 them from falling so low, or rising so high, as they would 
 otherwise do. Speculation has thus a legitimate and beneficial 
 work to perform in the industrial system, and if it performed
 
 326 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 its work rightly, it ought to have the opposite effect from that 
 ascribed to it by socialists, and to conduce to the stability of 
 trade, instead of shaking it. But unhappily an unscrupulous 
 and fraudulent spirit too often presides over this work. 
 Schaeffle, who is not only an eminent political economist, 
 but has been Minister of Commerce to one of the great powers 
 of Europe, says that when he got acquainted with the bourse, 
 he gave up believing any longer in the economic harmonies, 
 and declared theft to be the principle of modern European 
 commerce. Socialists always take the bourse to be the type of 
 capitalistic society, and the fraudulent speculator to be the type 
 of the bourse, and however they may err in this, there is one 
 point at any rate which it is almost impossible for them to 
 exaggerate, and that is the mischief accruing to the whole com- 
 munity and, as is usual with all general evils, to the working 
 class more than any other from the prevalence of unsound 
 trading and inflated speculation. Confidence is the very quick 
 of modern trade. The least vibration of distrust paralyzes 
 some of its movements and depresses its circulation. Enter- 
 prise in opening new investments is indeed more and more 
 indispensable to the vitality of modern industry, but the 
 mischiefs of misdirected enterprise are as great as the benefits 
 of well-directed. Illegitimate speculation is very difficult to 
 deal with. It can never be reached by a public opinion which 
 worships success and bows to wealth with questionless devo- 
 tion. Nor is it practicable for the State to put it down by 
 direct measures. But the State may perhaps mitigate it some- 
 what by helping to procure a good system of commercial 
 statistics, for unsound speculation thrives in ignorance, and 
 may be to some extent prevented by better knowledge. The 
 socialist demand for commercial statistics is therefore to be 
 approved. They would benefit everybody but the dishonest 
 dealer. They would not only be a corrective against unsound 
 speculation, but they would tend to smooth the conflicts be- 
 tween capital and labour about the rate of wages, and the 
 working class in America press the demand on the ground 
 of their experience of the benefits they have already derived 
 from the Labour Statistical Bureaux established in certain of 
 the States there. Some of our own most weighty economic
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 327 
 
 authorities are strongly in favour of a measure of this kind. 
 Mr. Jevons, for example, says : " So essential is a knowledge of 
 the real state of supply and demand to the smooth procedure of 
 trade, and the real good of the community, that I conceive it 
 would be quite legitimate to compel the publication of requisite 
 statistics. Secrecy can only conduce to the profit of speculators 
 who gain from great fluctuations of prices. Speculation is 
 advantageous to the public only so far as it tends to equalize 
 prices, and it is therefore against the public good to allow 
 speculators to foster artificially the inequalities of prices by 
 which they profit. The welfare of millions, both of consumers 
 and producers, depends on an accurate knowledge of the stocks 
 of cattle and corn, and it would therefore be no unwarrantable 
 interference with the liberty of the subject to require any 
 information as to the stock in hand. In Billingsgate fish- 
 market it has been a regulation that salesmen shall fix up in 
 a conspicuous place every morning a statement of the kind 
 and amount of their stock ; and such a regulation, whenever 
 it could be enforced on other markets, would always be to the 
 advantage of every one except a few traders." (" Theory of 
 Political Economy," p. 88.) 
 
 III. The next principal charge brought by socialists against 
 the present order of things is that it commits a signal injustice 
 against the labouring class, by suffering the capitalists who 
 employ them to appropriate the whole increase of value which 
 results from the process of production, and which, as is alleged, 
 is contributed entirely by the labour of the artizans engaged 
 in the process. I have already exposed the fallacy of the 
 theory of value on which this claim is founded, and I need not 
 repeat here what for convenience sake has been stated in 
 another place. (See chap. iii. pp. 160-6). Value is not con- 
 stituted by time of labour alone, except in the case of commo- 
 dities admitting of indefinite multiplication ; it is constituted 
 in all other cases by social utility ; and the importance of this 
 distinction is especially manifest in treating of the very point 
 that comes before us here the value of labour. Why is one 
 kind of labour paid dearer than another ? Why is an organizer 
 of manual labour better paid than the manual labourer himself?
 
 328 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Why is the railway chairman better paid than the railway 
 porter ? Or why has the judge a better salary than the police- 
 man? Is it because he exerts more labour, more socially 
 necessary time of labour ? No ; the porter works as long as 
 the chairman, and the policeman as long as the judge. Is it 
 because more time of labour has been expended in the pre- 
 paration and apprenticeship of the higher paid functionaries ? 
 No; because the railway chairman may have undergone no 
 special training that thousands of persons with much poorer 
 incomes have not also undergone, and the education of 
 the judge cost no more than the education of other barris- 
 ters who do not earn a twentieth part of his salary. The 
 explanation of differences of remuneration like these is not 
 to be found in different quantities of labour, but in different 
 qualities of labour. One man's work is higher, rarer, more 
 excellent, possesses, in short, more social utility than another's, 
 and for that reason is more valuable, as value is at present 
 constituted. It is thus manifest that the theory which declares 
 value to be nothing but quantity of labour, nothing but time of 
 labour, is inconsistent with some of the most obvious and im- 
 portant phenomena of the value of different kinds of labour. 
 Many forms of labour are much more remunerative than 
 others, nay, much more remunerative than many applications 
 of capital, and the difference of remuneration is in no way 
 whatever connected with the quantity of labour or the time of 
 labour undergone in earning it. Socialists may perhaps answer 
 that this ought not to be so ; that if things were as they should 
 be, the railway chairman, the station-master, the inspector, the 
 guard, and the porter would be paid by the same simple 
 standard of the duration of their labour in the service of the 
 line a standard which would probably reverse the present 
 gradation of their respective salaries ; but if they make that 
 answer, they change their ground ; they no longer base their 
 claim for justice to the labourer on value as it is constituted, 
 but on value as t they think it oughi to be constituted. Their 
 theory of value would in that case not be what it pretends to 
 be, a scientific theory of the actual constitution of value, but a 
 Utopian theory of its proper and just constitution. It would 
 be tantamount to saying, Every man, according to our ideas of
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 329 
 
 of justice, ought to be paid according to the value of his work, 
 and the value of his work, according to our ideas of justice, 
 ought to be measured by the time the socially necessary time 
 it occupied. But this whole argument is manifestly based 
 on nothing better than their own arbitrary conceptions of 
 justice, and it needs no great perspicacity to perceive that 
 these conceptions of justice are entirely wrong. In fact, the 
 common sense of men everywhere would unhesitatingly pro- 
 nounce it unjust to requite the manager who contrives, 
 organizes, directs, with only the same salary as the labourer 
 who executes under his direction, because, while both may 
 spend the same time of labour, the service rendered by the 
 one is much more valuable than the service rendered by the 
 other. Let every man have according to his work, if you will; 
 but then, in measuring work, the true standard of its value is 
 not its duration but its social utility, the social importance of 
 the service it is calculated to render. 
 
 This criterion of social utility is the principle that ought 
 to guide us in answering the question that is really raised 
 by the particular socialist charge now under consideration, 
 the question of the justice of interest on capital. Interest is 
 just because capital is socially useful, and because the owner 
 of capital, in applying it to productive purposes, renders a 
 service to society which is valuable in the measure of its social 
 utility. Of course the State might perform this service itself. 
 It might compulsorily abstract from the produce of each year 
 a sufficient portion to constitute the raw materials and in- 
 struments of future production ; but, as a matter of fact, the 
 State does not do so. It leaves the service to be rendered 
 spontaneously by private persons out of their private means. 
 The service rendered by these persons to production is as indis- 
 pensable as the service rendered by the labourers, and the 
 justice of interest stands on exactly the same ground as the 
 justice of wages. The labourer cannot produce by labour alone, 
 without materials and implements, any more than the capitalist 
 can produce by materials and implements alone, without labour; 
 and the possessor of capital needs a reward to induce him to 
 advance materials and implements just as much as the labourer 
 needs a reward to induce him to labour. Nobody will set aside
 
 33 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 a portion of his property to provide for future production if he 
 is to reap no advantage from doing so, and if the produce will 
 be distributed in exactly the same way whether he sets it apart 
 or not. It would be as unjust as it would be suicidal to with- 
 hold the recompense to which this service is entitled, and 
 without which nobody would do it. 
 
 The real question for socialists to answer is, not whether it 
 is just to pay private capitalists for the service society accepts 
 at their hands, but whether society can perform this service 
 better, or more economically, without them; whether, in short, 
 the abolition of interest would conduce to any real saving in 
 the end? This practical question, crucial though it be, is one, 
 however, to which they seldom address themselves they prefer 
 expatiating in cloudier regions. Tlie question may not, with 
 our present experience, admit of a definitive and authoritative 
 answer ; but the probabilities all point to the conclusion that 
 capitalistic management of production, costly as it may seem 
 to be, is really cheaper than that by which socialism would 
 supersede it. Capitalistic management is proverbially un- 
 rivalled for two qualities in which bureaucratic management 
 is as proverbially deficient economy and enterprise. Socialists 
 complain much of the hosts of middlemen who are nourished 
 on the present system, the heartless parasites who eat the 
 bread of society without doing a hand's turn of real good ; but 
 their own plan would multiply vastly the number of un- 
 necessary intermediaries depending on industry. Under the 
 regime of the capitalist there are, we may feel sure, no useless 
 clerks or overseers, for he has the strongest personal interest in 
 working his business as economically as possible. But with 
 the socialist mandarinate, the interest lies the other way, and 
 the tendency of the head officials would be to multiply their 
 subordinates and assistants, so that by abolishing the 
 capitalist, society would not by any means have got rid of 
 middlemen and parasites. There would be as much waste of 
 labour as before. Lord Brassey is certainly right in attri- 
 buting the industrial superiority of Great Britain as much 
 to the administrative skill and economy of her employers as 
 to the efficiency of her labourers. Individual capitalists are 
 more enterprising, as well as more economical managers, than
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 331 
 
 boards. Their keenly interested eyes and ears are ever on the 
 watch for opportunities, for improvements, for new openings ; 
 and having to consult nothing but their own judgment, they are 
 much quicker in adapting themselves to situations and taking 
 advantage of turns of trade. They will undertake risks that 
 a board would not agree to, and they will have entered the 
 field and established a footing long before a manager can get 
 his directors to stir a finger. Now this habit of being always 
 on the alert for new extensions, and new processes, and new 
 investments, is of the utmost value to a progressive community, 
 and it cannot be found to such purpose anywhere as with the 
 capitalistic despot the socialists denounce, whose zeal and 
 judgment are alike sharpened by his hope of personal gain and 
 risk of personal loss. Studnitz informs us that in 1878 he 
 found the mills of New York standing idle, but those of 
 Philadelphia all going, and his explanation is that the ibrmer 
 were under joint-stock management and the latter belonged to 
 private owners. The present tendency towards a multiplica- 
 tion of joint-stock companies is a perfectly good one, because, 
 for one thing, it helps to a better distribution of wealth ; but 
 society would suffer if this tendency were to be carried so far 
 as to supersede independent private enterprise altogether, and 
 if joint-stock companies were to become the only form of con- 
 ducting business. And if private enterprise is more advan- 
 tageous than joint-stock management, because it has more 
 initiative and adaptability, so joint-stock management is for 
 the same reason more advantageous than the official centralized 
 management of all industry.* 
 
 If there is any force in these considerations, it seems likely 
 that we should make a bad bargain, if we dismissed our capi- 
 talists and private employers, in the expectation that we could 
 do the work more cheaply by our own public administration. 
 And the mistake would be especially disappointing for this 
 reason, that in the ordinary progress of society in wealth and 
 security the rate of interest always tends to fall, and that 
 various forces are already in operation that may not unreason- 
 ably be expected to reduce the rate of profits as well. Profits, 
 
 * More will be found on this subject in the chapter on "State Social- 
 ism,'' under the sub-heading " State Socialism and State Management.''
 
 332 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 as distinguished from interest, are the earnings of management, 
 and the minimum which employers will be content to take is 
 at present largely determined by the entirely wrong principle 
 that their amount ought to bear a direct proportion to the 
 amount of capital invested in the business. In spite of com- 
 petition, customary standards of this kind are very influential 
 in the adjustment of such matters; they are the usual criteria 
 of what are called fair profits and fair wages; they always 
 carry with them strong persuasives to acquiescence ; and then, 
 from their very nature, they are very dependent on public 
 opinion. I am not sanguine enough to believe with the Ameri- 
 can economist, President F. A. "Walker, that employers will ever 
 come to be content with no other reward than the gratification 
 of power in the management of a great industrial undertaking ; 
 but there is nothing extravagant in expecting that, through 
 the influence of public opinion and the constant pressure of 
 trade unions, a fairer standard of profits may be generally 
 adopted, with the natural consequence of allowing a rise of 
 wages. 
 
 But whether these expectations are well grounded or no, one 
 thing is plain, the only thing really material to the precise 
 issue at present before us, and that is, that while interest and 
 profits may be both unfair in amount, just as rent may be, or 
 wages, or judicial penalties, neither of them is unjust in 
 essence, because they are merely particular forms of remunerat- 
 ing particular services, which are now actually performed by 
 the persons who receive the remuneration, and which, under 
 the socialist scheme, would have to be performed and in all 
 probability neither so well nor so cheaply by salaried func- 
 tionaries. 
 
 "With these remarks, we may dismiss the specific charge of 
 injustice brought by socialists against the present order of 
 things, and the specific claim of right for the labouring class 
 which they prefer. Let us now submit their proposals to a 
 more practical and decisive test will they or will they not 
 realize the legitimate aspirations, the ideal of the working class ? 
 Does socialism offer a better guarantee for the realization of 
 that ideal than the existing economy ? I believe it does not.
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 333 
 
 What is the ideal of the working class ? It may be said to be 
 that they shall share part passu in the progressive conquests of 
 civilization, and grow in comfort and refinement of life as other 
 classes of the community have done. Now this involves two 
 things first, progress; second, diffusion of progress; and 
 socialism is so intent on the second that it fails to see how 
 completely it would cut the springs of the first. Some of its 
 adherents do assert that production would be increased and 
 progress accelerated under a socialistic economy, but they offer 
 nothing in support of the assertion, and certainly our past 
 experience of human nature would lead us to expect precisely 
 the opposite result. The incentives and energy of production 
 would be relaxed. I have already spoken of the loss that 
 would probably be sustained in exchanging the interested zeal 
 and keen eye of the responsible capitalist employer for the 
 perfunctory administration of a State officer. A like loss would 
 be suffered from lightening the responsibility of the labourers 
 and lessening their power of acquisition. Under a socialist 
 regime they cannot by any merit acquire more property than 
 they enjoy in daily use. and they cannot by any fault fail to 
 possess that. Now socialist labourers are not supposed, any 
 more than socialist officials, to be angels from heaven ; they 
 are to carry on the work of society with the ordinary human 
 nature which we at present possess ; and in circumstances like 
 those just described, unstirred either by hope or fear, our 
 ordinary human nature would undoubtedly take its ease and 
 bask contentedly in the kind providence of the State which 
 relieved it of all necessity for taking thought or pains. The 
 inevitable result would be a great diminution of production, 
 which, with a rapidly increasing population (and socialism 
 generally scouts the idea of restraining it), would soon prove 
 seriously embarrassing, and could only be obviated by a resort 
 to the lash ; in a word, by a return to industrial slavery. Now, 
 with a lessening production, progress is clearly impossible, and 
 the more evenly the produce was distributed, the more certain 
 would be the general decline. 
 
 Socialists ignore the civilizing value of private property and 
 inheritance, because they think of property only as a means 
 of immediate enjoyment, and not as a means of progress and
 
 334 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 moral development. They would allow private property only 
 in what is sometimes termed consumers' wealth. You might 
 still own your clothes, or even purchase your house and garden. 
 But producers' wealth, they hold, should be common property, 
 and neither be owned nor inherited by individuals. If this 
 theory were to be enforced, it would be fatal to progress. 
 Private property has all along been a great factor in civiliza- 
 tion, but the private property that has been so has been much 
 more producers' than consumers'. Consumers' wealth is a 
 limited instrument of enjoyment; producers' is a power of 
 immense capability in the hands of the competent. Socialists 
 are really more individualistic than their opponents in the 
 view they take of the function of property. They look upon 
 it purely as a means for gratifying the desires of individuals, 
 and ignore the immense social value it possesses as a nurse 
 of the industrial virtues and an agency in the progressive 
 development of society from generation to generation. 
 
 There is still another and even more important spring of 
 progress that would be stifled by socialism freedom. Free- 
 dom is, of course, a direct and integral element in any worthy 
 human ideal, for it is an indispensable condition for individual 
 development, but here it comes into consideration as an equally 
 indispensable condition of social progress. Political philoso- 
 phers, like W. von Humboldt and J. S. Mill, who have pled 
 strongly for the widest possible extension of individual free- 
 dom, have made their plea in the interests of society itself. 
 They looked on individuality as the living seed of progress ; 
 without individuality no variation of type or differentiation of 
 function would be possible ; and without freedom there could 
 be no individuality. Under a regime of socialism freedom 
 would be choked. Take, for example, a point of great im- 
 portance both for personal and for social development, the 
 choice of occupations. Socialism promises a free choice of 
 occupations ; but that is vain, for the relative numbers that 
 are now required in any particular occupation are necessarily 
 determined by the demands of consumers for the particular 
 commodity the occupation in question sets itself to supply. 
 Freedom of choice is, therefore, limited at present by natural 
 conditions, which cause no murmuring ; but these natural
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 335 
 
 conditions would still exist under the socialist regime, and yet 
 they would perforce appear in the guise of legal and artificial 
 restrictions. It would be the choice of the State that would 
 determine who should enter the more desirable occupations, 
 and not the ichoice of the individuals themselves. The ac- 
 cepted would seem favourites ; the rejected would complain of 
 tyranny and wrong. Selection could not be made by competi- 
 tive examination without treason against the principles of a 
 socialist state, nor by lot without a sacrifice of efficiency. The 
 same difficulties would attend the distribution of the fertile 
 and the poor soils. Even consumption would not escape State 
 inquisition and guidance, for an economy that pretended to do 
 away with commercial vicissitudes must take care that a 
 change of fashion does not extinguish a particular industry 
 by superseding the articles it produces. Socialism would 
 introduce, indeed, the most vexatious and all-encompassing 
 absolutist government ever invented. It would impose on 
 its central executive functions that would require omniscience 
 for their discharge, and an authority so excessive that E. von 
 Hartmann is probably right in thinking that obedience could 
 only be secured by fabricating for it the illusion of a Divine 
 origin and reinforcing loyalty by superstition. The extensive 
 centralized authority given to government in France has un- 
 doubtedly been one of the main causes of the instability of the 
 political system of that State, and a socialist rule, with its 
 vastly greater prerogatives, could only maintain its ascendancy 
 by being fabulously hedged with the divinity of a Grand 
 Lama. A military despotism would be at least more con- 
 sistent with modern conditions ; but a military despotism 
 socialists abjure, and yet believe that they can exact from 
 free and equal citizens an almost animal submission to an 
 authority they elect themselves. 
 
 Progress is only possible on the basis of industrial freedom 
 and private property ; and in the socialist controversy there is 
 no question about the necessity of progress. That is an as- 
 sumption common to both sides ; socialists of the present day 
 acknowledge it as implicitly as the general opinion of the time. 
 They are no sharers in Mill's admiration for the stationary 
 state; they utterly ridicule his Malthusian horror of a pro-
 
 336 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 gressive population ; and, profoundly impressed as they are 
 with the vital need for a better distribution of -wealth, they 
 hesitate to sacrifice for it an increasing production. On the 
 contrary, they claim for their system that it would stimulate 
 progress, as well as spread its blessings, better than the system 
 that exists, and Lassalle at all events frankly declared that 
 unless socialism increased production, it would not be economic- 
 ally justifiable. But tried by this test, we have seen reason 
 to find it wanting. The problem to which it addresses itself, 
 the institution of a sound and healthy distribution of wealth, 
 is probably the greatest social problem of the time ; but 
 socialism fails to solve it, because no distribution can be sound 
 and healthy which destroys the conditions of further progress. 
 The true solution must adhere to the lines of the present 
 industrial system, the lines of industrial freedom and private 
 property. 
 
 It is one thing, however, to say that the principles of in- 
 dustrial freedom and private property are essential to a healthy 
 distribution, and it is quite another thing to hold that the 
 distribution is then healthiest and most perfect when these 
 principles enjoy the most absolute and unconditional operation. 
 If socialism errs by suppressing them, laissez-faire runs into 
 the opposite error of giving them unlimited authority. Laissez- 
 faire is perhaps hardty any longer a living faith. But even 
 when men still believed in the economic harmonies, they 
 always taught that the best and justest distribution of wealth 
 was that which issued out of the free competition of in- 
 dividuals, and that if this distribution ever turned out to be 
 really faulty or partial, it was only because the competition 
 was not free or perfect enough ; because some of the com- 
 petitors were not sufficiently enlightened as compared with 
 others, or not sufficiently mobile with their labour or capital ; 
 in other words, because the competition was not conducted on 
 equal terms. This theory manifestly makes the justice of the 
 distribution effected by free competition to depend on the false 
 assumption of the natural equality of the competitors, and 
 therefore as manifestly implies that unless men are equal in 
 talents and opportunities, the system of unlimited freedom 
 may produce a distribution that is seriously unjust. Laissez-
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 337 
 
 faire thus had a germ of socialism in its being, and even when 
 its ascendancy seemed to be highest, it was already being 
 practically replaced by a larger and more energetic theory of 
 social politics which imposed on the State the duty of cor- 
 recting many of the evils of the present distribution of wealth, 
 and promoting, if not equality of all conditions, yet certainly 
 amelioration of the inferior conditions. Instead of maintaining 
 equal freedom, for weak and strong, the State was to take 
 the part of the weak against the strong, in order to secure 
 to all citizens a real participation in progressive civilization. 
 It is said truly enough that the effect of such interferences 
 is not to destroy liberty, but to fulfil it, because, apart from 
 them, the labour contract is no more a free contract for 
 labourers living from hand to mouth than the capitulation of 
 a beleaguered garrison when their provisions have run down is 
 a free capitulation, and the legal intervention is necessary in 
 order to make the men first really free. Legal freedom is no 
 more an end in itself than legal intervention ; both are merely 
 means of giving men real freedom and enabling them effectu- 
 ally to work out their complete and normal vocation as human 
 beings. I shall treat more fully of the true theory of social 
 politics in a subsequent chapter on State Socialism ; but here, 
 in connection with its relation to industrial freedom, it will 
 be enough to say that the restraints it proposes are neither 
 meant nor calculated to impair real freedom, and that it is 
 separated from socialism by its constant care to develop rather 
 than supersede individual responsibility, to facilitate the spread 
 of private property rather than suppress it, and to remove ob- 
 stacles that are making men's own efforts a nullity rather than 
 to substitute for those efforts the providence of the State. 
 
 If, then, there is any truth in these considerations if the 
 general acquisition of private property, and not its universal 
 abolition, is the demand of the working-class ideal then the 
 business of social reform at present ought to be to facilitate 
 the acquisition of private property ; to multiply the oppor- 
 tunities of industrial investment open to the labouring classes, 
 and to devise means for credit, for saving, for insurance, and 
 the like. While, for reasons already explained, I have been
 
 33$ Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 unaVe to agree with Mr. Cairnes' despondent view of the 
 economic position of the wage-paid labourers, I am entirely 
 at one with him in conceiving the surest means to their pro- 
 gressive amelioration to lie in participation, by one means or 
 another, in industrial capital. Much good may be done by a 
 wider extension of trade unions, and a better organization of 
 working class insurance ; but the labourers must not rest con- 
 tent till they have found their way, under the new conditions 
 of modern trade, to become capitalists as well as labourers. 
 Co-operative production seems- the most obvious solution of this 
 problem; but it is a mischievous, though a common mistake, 
 to regard it as the only solution. The fortunes of the working 
 class are not all embarked in one bottom, and their salvation 
 may be expected to fulfil itself in many ways. I cannot share 
 in the lamentation sometimes made because some of the earlier 
 productive associations have departed from the strict and 
 original form of co-operation, under which all the shareholders 
 in the business were labourers and all the labourers share- 
 holders. In the present situation of affairs, variety of experi- 
 ment is desirable, for only out of many various experiments 
 can we eventually discover which are most suitable to the 
 conditions and fittest to survive. Co-operative production 
 would perhaps have been further advanced to-day, if co- 
 operators had not been so faithful in their idolatry of their 
 original ideal, and had fostered instead of discouraging varia- 
 tions of type, which may yet justify their superiority by 
 persisting and multiplying. As it is, co-operative production 
 has not been such a complete failure as it is sometimes repre- 
 sented ; it can show at least a few very signal tokens of success 
 and great promise. It is often declared to be inapplicable to 
 the great industries, because they require more capital and 
 better management than co-operative working men are usually 
 able to furnish. But in the town and neighbourhood of Old- 
 ham there are 100 co-operative spinning mills, with a capital 
 of close on 8,000,000. They are managed entirely by working 
 men, their capital is contributed in 5 shares by working men, 
 and they have during the last ten years paid dividends varying 
 from 10 to 45 per cent. These are joint-stock companies rather 
 than co-operative societies in the stricter sense ; but they are
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 339 
 
 joint-stock companies of working men, and they furnish to 
 working men in an effective and successful way that partici- 
 pation in the industrial capital of the country which is really 
 what is wanted. The Oldham workman prefers to hold shares 
 in a different mill from that he works in, because he feels 
 himself more free to exercise his voice as a shareholder there, 
 and he prefers to carry his labour to the mill where he gets 
 the best wages and the best treatment, without being obliged 
 to change his investment when he changes his workshop. The 
 advantage of the Oldham system over the stricter co-operative 
 type is therefore the old advantage of freedom. It suits the 
 English character better, and the only wonder is why it is 
 still, after more than sixteen j^ears' successful experience, con- 
 fined exclusively to a single locality. It has been stated that 
 there are a thousand operatives working at these mills who 
 are worth 1000 to 2000, and besides the mills, there are 
 co-operative stores, building societies, and other working-class 
 companies in Oldham, with a combined capital of 3,500,000. 
 In all these ways the zone of participators in property broadens, 
 and hope and stimulus are introduced into the labourer's life. 
 The truth seems to be that the great need of the working man 
 is not so much money to invest as opportunity and motive 
 for investment. The amount lodged in savings banks, the 
 amount raised by trade unions, the amount wasted in drink, 
 the amount wasted in inefficient household economy, which 
 might be much lessened by better instruction in the arts of 
 cookery and household management all show that large 
 numbers of the working class possess means at their disposal 
 to constitute at least the beginnings of their emancipation, 
 if good opportunities were open to them of using it advan- 
 tageously in productive enterprise. Co-operation and profit- 
 sharing are not the only means by which this might be 
 realized. Private firms might initiate a practice of reserving 
 a certain amount of their capital to constitute a kind of stock 
 for their workmen to invest their savings in, under if that 
 were legalized limited liability. One advantage of this plan 
 over the ordinary industrial partnership would be, that while, 
 like it, it would enhance the workmen's zeal in their work, 
 it could not possibly have the effect of reducing wages, because
 
 340 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the stock would be a free investment, and would probably not 
 be taken up by all or by more than a majority of the workmen. 
 Again, with a reform of our land laws, small investments in 
 land will certainly be facilitated, especially among the agri- 
 cultural class. 
 
 Socialists would no doubt condemn all such investments for 
 the same reason as they generally condemn the co-operative 
 movement, because they would tend to create " a new class 
 with one foot in the camp of the bourgeoisie and the other in 
 the camp of the proletariat." But that is precisely one of 
 their chief advantages, and in making this objection socialists 
 only betray how completely they ignore the operation of those 
 portions of human nature that are the real forces and factors 
 of social progress. It is only by linking a lower class to a 
 higher that you can raise the level of the whole, and every 
 pathway the working class makes into a comfortable equality 
 with the lower bourgeoisie will constitute at once an oppor- 
 tunity and a spur for others to follow them, which will exercise 
 an elevating effect upon the entire body. If it were generally 
 open to all the labouring classes to begin by being wage- 
 labourers and end by sharing in some degree in the industrial 
 capital of the country, this would raise the level of the whole 
 of those who after all remained wage-labourers still, as well 
 as of those who succeeded in gaining a better competency. It 
 would give them all something to keep looking forward to 
 during their working life, something to save for and strive 
 after, and a higher standard of comfort would get diffused 
 and considered necessary in the class generally through the 
 example of the better off. For the more comfortably situated 
 working men whether they have won their comfort by co- 
 operation or otherwise have not passed out of their class. 
 They have, as is alleged, one foot in the camp of the prole- 
 tariat still. They live and move and have their being among 
 working people, and constitute by their presence and social 
 connections a stimulating and elevating agency. It is through 
 connections like these that the ideas of comfort and culture 
 that prevail among an upper class permeate through to a 
 lower, and thus elevate the general standard of living upon 
 which the level of wages so much depends. Even the minor
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 341 
 
 inequalities in the ranks of the working class are not without 
 their use in quickening their exertions to maintain the standard 
 of respectability which they have won or inherited. Econo- 
 mists were not wrong in ascribing so much influence as they 
 always have done to men's tenacity in adhering to their 
 customary standard of life. Many striking illustrations of its 
 beneficial operation might be mentioned. I select one, because 
 it concerns an aspect of the condition of the labouring classes 
 of this country that is at present attracting much attention 
 their house accommodation. In all our large cities, the house 
 accommodation of the working class has hitherto been about 
 as bad as bad could be, but there is one singular exception it 
 is Sheffield. Porter drew attention to the fact many years 
 ago. " The town itself," he says, " is ill built and dirty beyond 
 the usual condition of English towns, but it is the custom 
 for each family among the labouring population to occupy a 
 separate dwelling, the rooms of which are furnished in a very 
 comfortable manner. The floors are carpeted, and the tables 
 are usually of mahogany. Chests of drawers of the same 
 material are commonly seen, and so in many cases is a clock 
 also, the possession of which article of furniture has often 
 been pointed out as the certain indication of prosperity and 
 of personal responsibility on the part of the working man." 
 ("Progress of the Nation," p. 523.) The same condition of 
 things still prevails, for at the meeting of the British Associa- 
 tion in Sheffield in 1879 Dr. Hime read a paper on the vital 
 statistics of the town, in which he says : "Although handsome 
 public buildings are not a prominent feature in the town, still 
 there are few towns in England where the great bulk of the 
 population is so well provided for in the way of domestic 
 architecture. Overcrowding is very rare ; cellar dwellings are 
 unknown ; and almost every family has an entire house, a 
 most important agent in securing physical as well as moral 
 health." (Transactions of British Association, 1879.) Now this 
 is a fact of the highest interest, and we naturally ask what 
 peculiarity there is in the trade or circumstances of Sheffield, 
 in the first place, to create such an exceptional excellence in 
 the standard of working class house accommodation, and, in 
 the next place, to maintain it. One thing is certain : it is not
 
 34 2 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 due to better wages. There are trades in Sheffield very highly 
 paid, but the labourers belonging to them are described by the 
 anonymous author of " An Inquiry into the Moral, Social, and 
 Intellectual Condition of the Industrious Classes of Sheffield " 
 (London, 1839), as being much less comfortable in their circum- 
 stances than the others. This writer speaks of some trades 
 in which " the workmen are steady, intelligent, and orderly, 
 seldom the recipients of charity or parochial relief. They 
 depend on their own exertions for the respectable maintenance 
 of their families, and when trade is depressed they strive to 
 live on diminished wages, or fall back on resources secured by 
 industry and economy. This healthy and vigorous condition 
 is not attributable to high wages. The workmen in the edge- 
 tool trade are extravagantly remunerated, and yet, as a body, 
 they are perhaps as irregular and dissipated in their habits as 
 any in the town. Their families, in time of good trade, feel 
 few of the advantages of prosperity, and when labour is little 
 in demand, they are the first to need 1 the aid of charity. These 
 differences are familiar to the most superficial observer of the 
 social and moral condition of the workmen in the several 
 branches " (p. 14). But the same writer mentions a peculiarity 
 in the trade of Sheffield which, he says, marks it off from every 
 other manufacturing town, and that peculiarity may serve to 
 provide us with the explanation we are seeking. " With us," 
 he says, "the distinctions between masters and men are not 
 always well marked. Persons are to a great extent both. The 
 transition from the one to the other is easy and frequent in 
 those branches where the tools are few and simple, and the 
 capital required extremely small, which applies to the whole 
 of the cutlery department." " The facility with which men 
 become masters causes extraordinary competition, and its in- 
 evitable result, insufficient remuneration." " Here merchants 
 and manufacturers cannot become princes. . . . There is 
 not sufficient play for large fortunes. The making of fortunes 
 is with us a slow process. It is, however, far from being 
 partial. . . . The longer period required in the making of 
 them allows the mind time to adapt itself to its improved 
 circumstances, not merely the speculative and money-getting 
 part of the understanding, but the whole of its social, moral,
 
 Socialism and the Social Question. 343 
 
 and intellectual powers, without which, means are a question- 
 able good. Wealth and intelligence are accordingly with us 
 more generally associated than in towns where immense for- 
 tunes are rapidly made. In the latter case, there is no time 
 for adaptation, nor is it deemed necessary or at all important, 
 where money is the measure by which all things are estimated, 
 Another evil dependent on this sudden elevation in life is the 
 great distance which is immediately placed between employer 
 and employed " (p. 15). Class and class are thus better knit 
 together in Sheffield than elsewhere. The exceptional facility 
 of becoming masters seems to be the particular instrumentality 
 which has brought down the ideas and habits of comfort of 
 the bourgeoisie and spread them among the working class, 
 and which has always prevented the great mass of the latter 
 from sinking contentedly into a lower general standard of life. 
 It introduced among them that social ambition, which is the 
 most effective spur to progress, and the best preservative 
 against decline. The fact that the exceptionally good house 
 accommodation which prevails among the labouring population 
 of Sheffield is not owing to exceptional, or even at all superior, 
 wages, is one of much hope and encouragement. What is 
 possible in Sheffield cannot be impossible elsewhere ; and what 
 is possible in the matter of house accommodation cannot be 
 hopeless in other branches of consumption. 
 
 I shall be told that in all this I am only repeating the foolish 
 idea of the French princess, who heard the people complain 
 they could not get bread, and asked why then they did not 
 buy cake. Where combinations are possible, it will be said, 
 investments may be also possible ; but the great majority of 
 the working class are not in a position to combine, and it is 
 mere mockery to tell people to save and invest who can hardly 
 contrive to cover their backs. To this I reply, that there is no 
 reason to assume that trade unions have reached the utmost 
 extension of which they are susceptible, or to despair of their 
 introduction into the hitherto unorganized trades. It was only 
 lately common to deny the possibility of combination among 
 agricultural labourers, and yet, scattered as they are, they have 
 shown themselves not only able to combine, but to raise wages 
 effectively by means of their combinations. We have now
 
 344 Contemporary Socialism, 
 
 very powerful unions of unskilled day labourers, and a be- 
 ginning has been made of an efficient organization even 
 among needlewomen. It is true that, even when organiza- 
 tion has spoken its last word, much of the distressing poverty 
 that now exists would probably still remain, because we must 
 not disguise from ourselves the fact that much of that poverty 
 is the direct fruit of vice, disease, or indolence. But socialism 
 could not cope with this mass of misery any better than the 
 present system, for men don't drink and loaf and enter into 
 improvident marriages or illicit alliances because they happen 
 to be paid for their labour by contract with a capitalist instead 
 of valuation by a State officer, and they certainly would not 
 cease doing any of these things because an indulgent State 
 undertook to save them from the natural penalties of doing 
 them.
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 STATE SOCIALISM. 
 
 I. State Socialism and English Economics. 
 
 STATE socialism has been described by M. Leon Say as a 
 German philosophy which was natural enough to a people 
 with the political history and habits of the Germans, but which, 
 in his opinion, was ill calculated to cross the French frontier, 
 and was contrary to the very nature of the Anglo-Saxons. 
 Sovereign and trader may be incompatible occupations, as 
 Adam Smith asserts, but in Germany, at least, they have never 
 seemed so. There, Governments have always been accustomed 
 to enter very considerably into trade and manufactures, partly 
 to provide the public revenue, partly to supply deficiencies of 
 private enterprise, and partly, within more recent times, for 
 reasons of a so-called " strategic " order, connected with the 
 defence or consolidation of the new Empire. The German 
 States possess, every one of them, more Crown lands and 
 forests, in proportion to their size, than any other countries in 
 Europe, some of them, indeed, being able to meet half their 
 public expenditure from this source alone ; and besides their 
 territorial domain, most of them have an even more extensive 
 industrial domain of State mines, or State breweries, or State 
 banks, or State foundries, or State potteries, or State railways, 
 and their rulers are still projecting fresh conquests in the same 
 direction by means of brandy and tobacco monopolies. But in 
 England things stand far otherwise. She has sold off most 
 of her Crown lands, and is slowly parting with, rather than 
 adding to, the remainder. She abolished State monopolies in 
 the days of the Stuarts, as instruments of political oppression, 
 and she has abandoned State bounties more recently as nurses 
 of commercial incompetency. She owes her whole industrial 
 
 345
 
 346 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 greatness, her manufactures, her banks, her shipping, her rail- 
 ways, to some extent her very colonial possessions, to the 
 unassisted energy of her private citizens. England has been 
 reared on the principle of freedom, and could never be brought, 
 M. Say might not unreasonably conclude, to espouse the opposite 
 principle of State socialism, unless the national character 
 underwent a radical change. And yet, while he was still 
 writing, he was confounded to see signs, as he thought, of this 
 alien philosophy obtaining, not simply an asylum, but really 
 an ascendancy in this country. It appeared to M. Say to be 
 striking every whit as strong a root in our soil and climate as 
 it had done in its native habitat, and he is disposed to join in 
 the alarm, then recently sounded at Edinburgh by Mr. Goschen, 
 that the soil and climate had changed, that the whole policy, 
 opinion, and feeling of the English people with respect to the 
 intervention of the public authority had undergone a revolution. 
 Mr. Goschen had, in raising the alarm, shown some perplexity 
 how far to condemn the change and how far to praise it, but 
 he was quite clear upon its reality, and was possessed by a 
 most anxious sense of its magnitude and gravity. " We can- 
 not," said he, " see universal State action enthroned as a prin- 
 ciple of government without misgiving." Mr. Herbert Spencer 
 took up the cry with more vehemence, declaring that the age 
 of British freedom was gone, and warning us to prepare for 
 " the coming slavery." M. de Laveleye, who is unquestionably 
 one of the most careful and competent foreign observers of our 
 affairs, followed Mr. Spencer, and although, being himself a 
 State socialist, he welcomed this alleged new era as much as 
 Mr. Spencer deprecated it, he gave substantially the same 
 description of the facts ; he said, England, once so jealous for 
 liberty, was now running ahead of all other nations on the 
 career of State socialism. And that seems to have become an 
 established impression both at home and abroad. The French 
 Academy of Moral and Political Sciences has devoted several 
 successive sittings to the subject ; the eminent German eco- 
 nomist, Professor Nasse, has discussed it and with much 
 excellent discrimination in an article on the decline of 
 economic individualism in England ; and it is now the current 
 assumption of the journals and of popular conversation in this
 
 State Socialism. 347 
 
 country, that a profound change has come over the spirit of 
 English politics in the course of the present generation a 
 change from the old trust in liberty to a new trust in State 
 regulation, and from the French doctrine of laissez-faire to the 
 German doctrine of State socialism. 
 
 But this assumption, notwithstanding the currency it has 
 obtained and the distinguished authorities by whom it is sup- 
 ported, is in reality exaggerated and undiscriminating. While 
 marking the growing frequency of Government interventions, 
 it makes no attempt to distinguish between interventions of 
 one kind and interventions of another kind, and it utterly fails 
 to recognise that English opinion whether exhibited in legis- 
 lative work or economic writings was not dominated by the 
 principle of laissez-faire in the past any more than in the 
 present, but that it really has all along obeyed a fairly well- 
 defined positive doctrine of social politics, which gave the 
 State a considerable concurrent role in the social and industrial 
 development of the community. The increasing frequency of 
 Government interventions is in itself a simple and unavoidable 
 concomitant of the growth of society. With the rapid trans- 
 formations of modern industrial life, the increase and concen- 
 tration of population, and the general spread of enlightenment, 
 we cannot expect to retain the political or legislative inactivity 
 of stationary ages. As Mr. Hearn remarks, " All the volumes 
 of the statutes, from their beginning under Henry III. to the 
 close of the reign of George II., do not equal the quantity of 
 legislative work done in a decade of any subsequent reign." 
 (" Theory of Legal Duties and Rights," p. 21.) The process 
 has been continuous and progressive, and it suffered no inter- 
 ruption in the period which is usually supposed to have been 
 peculiarly sacred to laissez-faire. On the contrary, that period 
 will be found to exceed the period that went before it in legis- 
 lative activity, exactly as it has in turn been itself exceeded by 
 our own time. On any theory of the State's functions, an 
 increase in the number of laws and regulations was inevitable ; 
 it was only part and portion of the natural growth of things ; 
 but such an increase affords no evidence, not even a presump- 
 tion, of any change in the principles by which legislation is 
 governed, or in the purposes or functions for which the power
 
 34-S Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 of the State is habitually invoked. A mere growth of work is 
 not a multiplication of functions ; to get a result, we must first 
 analyze the work done and discriminate this from that. 
 
 Now, in the first place, when compared with other nations, 
 England has been doing singularly little in the direction the 
 distinctively socialistic direction of multiplying State indus- 
 tries and enlarging the public property in the means of pro- 
 duction. Municipalities, indeed, have widened their industrial 
 domain considerably ; it has become common for them to take 
 into their own hands things like the gas and water supply of 
 the community which would in any case be monopolies, and 
 their management, being exposed to an extremely effective 
 local opinion, is generally very advantageous. But while local 
 authorities have done so much, the central Government has 
 held back. Many new industries have come into being during 
 the present reign, but we have nationalized none of them 
 except the telegraphs. We have added to the Post-Office the 
 departments of the Savings Bank and the Parcels Post ; we 
 have, for purely military reasons, extended our national dock- 
 yards and arms factories since the Crimean war, but without 
 thereby enhancing national confidence in Government manage- 
 ment ; we have, for diplomatic purposes, bought shares in the 
 Suez Canal ; we have undertaken a few small jobs of testing 
 and stamping, such as the branding of herrings ; but we are 
 now the only European nation that has no State railway ; we 
 have refrained from nationalizing the telephones, though 
 legally entitled to do so ; and we very rarely give subventions 
 to private enterprises. This is much less the effect of deliberate 
 political conviction than the natural fruit of the character and 
 circumstances of the people, of their powerful private resources 
 and those habits of commercial association which M. Chevalier 
 speaks of with so much friendly envy, complaining that his 
 own countrymen could never be a great industrial nation 
 because they had no taste for acquiring them. In the English 
 colonies, where capital is more scarce, Government is required 
 to do very much more ; most of them have State railways, and 
 some New Zealand, for instance State insurance offices for 
 fire and life. These colonial experiments will have great weight 
 with the English public in settling the problem of Government
 
 State Socialism. 349 
 
 management under a democracy, and if they prove successful, 
 will undoubtedly influence opinion at home to follow their 
 example ; but as things are at present, there is no appearance 
 of any great body of English opinion moving in that direction. 
 But while England has lagged behind other nations in this 
 particular class of Government intervention, there is another 
 class in which she has undoubtedly run far before them all. If 
 we have not been multiplying State industries, we have been 
 very active in extending and establishing popular rights, by 
 means of new laws, new administrative regulations, or new 
 systems of industrial police. In fact, the greater part of our 
 recent social legislation has been of this order, and it is of that 
 legislation M. de Laveleye is thinking when he says England is 
 taking the lead of the nations in the career of State socialism. 
 But that is nothing new ; if we are in advance of other nations 
 in establishing popular rights to-day, we have been in advance 
 of them in that work for centuries already. That peculiarity 
 also has its roots in our national history and character, and is 
 no upstart fashion of the hour. Now, without raising the ques- 
 tion whether the rights which our recent social legislation has 
 seen fit to establish, are in all cases and respects rights that 
 ought to have been established, it is sufficient for our present 
 purpose to observe that at least this is obviously a very dif- 
 ferent class of intervention from the last, because if it does not 
 belong to, it is certainly closely allied with, those primary 
 duties which are everywhere included among the necessary 
 functions of all government, the protection of the citizen from 
 force and fraud. To protect a right, you must first establish 
 it ; you must first recognise it, define its scope, and invest it 
 with the sanction of authority. With the progress of society 
 fresh perils emerge and fresh protections must be devised ; the 
 old legal right needs to be reconstructed to meet the new 
 situation, or a new right must be created hitherto unknown 
 perhaps, unless by analogy, to the law. But even here the 
 novelty lies, not in the principle for all right is a protection 
 of the weak, or ought to be so but in the situation alone ; in 
 the rise of the factory system, which called for the Factory 
 Acts ; in the growth of large towns, which called for Health 
 and Dwellings Acts ; in the extension of joint-stock companies,
 
 35 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 which called for the Limited Liability Acts ; in the monopoly 
 of railway transportation, which called for the regulation of 
 rates ; or in the spread of scientific agriculture, which required 
 the constitution of a new sort of property, the property of a 
 tenant-farmer in his own unexhausted improvements. 
 
 This peculiarity of the industrial and social legislation of 
 England has not escaped the acute intelligence of Mr. Goschen. 
 Mistrustful as he is of Government intervention, Mr. Goschen 
 observes with satisfaction that the great majority of recent 
 Government interventions in England have been undertaken 
 for moral rather than economic ends. After quoting Mr. 
 Thorold Rogers' remark, that these interventions generally 
 had the good economic aim of preventing the waste of national 
 resources, he says : " But I believe that certainly in the case 
 of the Factory Acts, and to a great extent in the case of the 
 Education Acts, it was a moral rather than an economic influ- 
 ence the conscientious feeling of what was right rather than 
 the intellectual feeling of ultimate material gain it was 
 the public imagination touched by obligations of our higher 
 nature which supplied the tremendous motive-power for 
 passing laws which put the State and its inspectors in the 
 place of father or mother as guardians of a child's education, 
 labour, and health." (" Addresses," p. 62.) 
 
 The State interfered not because the child had a certain capi- 
 tal value as an instrument of future production which it would 
 be imprudent to lose, but because the child had certain rights 
 certain broad moral claims as a human being which the 
 parents' natural authority must not be suffered to violate or 
 endanger, and which the State, as the supreme protector of all 
 rights, really lay under a simple moral obligation to secure. 
 Reforms of this character are naturally inspired by moral in- 
 fluences, by sentiments of justice or of humanity, by a feeling 
 that wrong is being done to a class of the community who are 
 placed in a situation of comparative weakness, inasmuch as 
 they are deprived whether through the force of circumstances 
 or the selfish neglect of their superiors of what public opinion 
 recognises to be essential conditions of normal human existence. 
 Now, most of the legislation which has led Mr. Goschen to de- 
 clare that universal State action is now enthroned in England
 
 State Socialism. 351 
 
 has belonged to this order. It has been guided by ethical and 
 not by economic considerations. It has been employed mainly 
 in readjusting rights, in establishing fresh securities for just 
 dealing and humane living; but it has been very chary of 
 following Continental countries in nationalizing industries. 
 When therefore Mr. Spencer tells M. de Laveleye that the 
 reason why England is extending the functions of her Govern- 
 ment so much more than other nations " is obviously because 
 there is great scope for the further extension of them here, 
 while abroad there is little scope for the further extension of 
 them," his explanation is singularly inappropriate. England 
 has not been extending the functions of Government all round, 
 but she has moved in the direction where she had less scope to 
 move, and has stood still in the direction where she had more 
 scope to move than other countries. And it is important to 
 keep this distinction in mind when we hear it so often stated 
 in too general terms that we have discarded our old belief in 
 individual liberty and set up " universal State action " in its 
 place. 
 
 But those who complain of England having broken off from 
 her old moorings, not only exaggerate her leanings to authority 
 in the present, but they also ignore her concessions to authority 
 in the past. English statesmen and economists have never 
 entertained the rigid aversion to Government interference that 
 is vulgarly attributed to them, but with all their profound 
 belief in individual liberty they have always reserved for the 
 Government a concurrent sphere of social and economic activity 
 what may even be designated a specific social and economic 
 mission. A few words may be usefully devoted to this English 
 doctrine of social politics here, not merely because they may 
 serve to dispel a prevailing error, but because they will furnish 
 a good vantage-ground for seizing and judging of a principle 
 of government which is to-day in every mouth, but unfor- 
 tunately bears in every mouth a different meaning the prin- 
 ciple of State socialism. 
 
 It is commonly believed that the English doctrine of social 
 politics is the doctrine of laissez-faire, and our economists are 
 continually reviled as if they sought to leave the world to the 
 play of self-interest and competition, unchecked by any ideas
 
 35 2 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 of social justice or individual human right. But in truth the 
 doctrine of laissez-faire has never been held by any English 
 thinker, unless, perhaps, Mr. Herbert Spencer. Mr. Spencer's 
 first work, " Social Statics," was an exposition of the theory 
 that the end of all government was the liberty of the in- 
 dividual, the realization for every citizen of the greatest 
 amount of liberty it was possible for him to enjoy without 
 interfering with the corresponding claims of his fellow-citizens. 
 The individual had only one right the right to equal freedom 
 with ever\-body else, and the State had only one duty the 
 duty of protecting that right against violence and fraud. It 
 could not stir beyond that task without treading on the right 
 of some one, and therefore it ought not to stir at all. It had 
 nothing to do with health, or religion, or morals, or education, 
 or relief of distress, or public convenience of any sort, except 
 to leave them sternly alone. It must, of course, renounce the 
 thought of bounties and protective duties, but it must also 
 give up marking plate, minting coin, and stamping butter ; 
 it must take no part in building harbours or lighthouses or 
 roads or canals ; and even a town council cannot without 
 offence undertake to pave or clean or light the streets under 
 its jurisdiction. It is only fair to say that Mr. Spencer refuses 
 to be bound now by every detail of his youthful theory, but 
 he has repeated the substance of it in his recent work, " The 
 Man versus The State," which is written to prove that the 
 only thing we want from the State is protection, and that the 
 protection we want most of late is protection against our pro- 
 tector. 
 
 This theory is certainly about as extreme a development of 
 individualism as could well be entertained ; and though it has 
 been even distanced in one or two points by Wilhelm von 
 Humboldt who objected, for example, to marriage laws* no 
 
 * It is only fair to this eminent man to remember that his mature 
 opii lious must not be looked for in his essay, " Ideen zu einem Versuch 
 die Granzen dor Wirksamkeit des Staats zu bestimmen," which was writ- 
 ten in his early youth, and never published until after its author's death. 
 Although in this work he condemns all State education, he lived to be a 
 famous Minister of Education himself, and to take a great part in estab- 
 lishing the Prussian system of public instruction.
 
 State Socialism. 353 
 
 important English writer has ventured near it, The description 
 of the State's business as the business of protecting the citizens 
 from force and fraud, has indeed been familiar in our literature 
 since the days of Locke, and isolated passages may be cited 
 from the works of various political thinkers, which, if taken by 
 themselves, would seem to deny to the State any right to act 
 except for purposes of self-protection. John Stuart Mill him' 
 self speaks sometimes in that way, although we know, from the 
 chapter he devotes to the subject of Government interference 
 in his "Principles of Political Economy," that he really as- 
 signed to the State much wider functions. When we examine 
 the writings of English economists and statesmen, and the 
 principles they employ in the discussion of the social and indus- 
 trial questions of their time, it seems truly strange how they 
 ever came to be credited with any scruple on ground of 
 principle to invoke the power of the State for the solution of 
 such questions when that seemed to them likely to prove of 
 effectual assistance. 
 
 The social doctrine which has prevailed in England for the 
 last century is " the simple and obvious system of natural 
 liberty " taught by Adam Smith ; but the simple and obvious 
 system of natural liberty is a very different thing from the 
 system of laissez-faire with which it is so commonly con- 
 founded. Its main principle, it is true, is this : "Every man," 
 says Smith, " as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, 
 is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own 
 way, and to bring both his industry and capital into com- 
 petition with those of any other man or order of men. The 
 Sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempt- 
 ing to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable 
 delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human 
 wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient: the duty of 
 superintending the industry of private people and of directing 
 it towards the employments most suitable to the interests of 
 the society." (" "Wealth of Nations," book iv., chap, ix.) But 
 while the Sovereign is discharged from an industrial duty 
 which he is incapable of performing satisfactorily, he is far 
 from being discharged from all industrial responsibility what- 
 soever, for Smith immediately proceeds to map out the limits 
 
 A A
 
 354 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 of his functions as follows : "According to the system of natural 
 liberty, the Sovereign has only three duties to attend to three 
 duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to 
 common understandings : first, the duty of protecting the society 
 from the violence or invasion of other independent societies ; 
 second, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member 
 of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other 
 member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administra- 
 tion of justice ; and thirdly, the duty of erecting and main- 
 taining certain works and certain public institutions which it 
 can never be for the interest of any imdividual or small number 
 of individuals to erect and maintain ; because the profit could 
 never repay the expense to any individual or small number of 
 individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay 
 it to a great society." 
 
 The State is required to protect us from other evils besides 
 the evils of force and fraud infectious diseases, for example, 
 are in the context mentioned expressly and to supply us with 
 many other advantages besides the advantage of protection. 
 Some of these advantages are of a material or economic order, 
 and others of an intellectual or moral. The material advan- 
 tages consist for the most part of provisions for facilitating the 
 general commerce of the country such things as roads, canals, 
 harbours, the post, the mint or provisions for facilitating par- 
 ticular branches of commerce: and among these he instances 
 the incorporation of joint-stock companies endowed by charter 
 with exclusive trading privileges ; and the reason which, ac- 
 cording to Smith, entitles the State to intervene in this class of 
 cases, and which at the same time prescribes the length to 
 which its intervention may legitimately go, is that individuals 
 are unable to do the work satisfactorily themselves, or that, the 
 State has from its nature superior qualifications for the task. 
 The intellectual or moral advantages which Smith asks from the 
 State are mostly provisions for sustaining the national manhood 
 and character, such as a system of compulsory military training 
 or a system of compulsory and if not gratuitous, still cheap 
 education ; and it is important to mark that he asks for these 
 measures, not on the ground of their political or military expe- 
 diency, but on the broad ground that cowardice and ignorance
 
 State Socialism. 355 
 
 are in themselves public evils, from which the State is as much 
 bound, if it can, to save the people, as it is bound to save them 
 from violence or fraud. Of military training he observes: "To 
 prevent that sort of mental mutilation, deformity, and wretched- 
 ness which cowardice necessarily involves in it from spreading 
 themselves through the great body of the people, would deserve 
 the serious attention of Government, in the same manner as it 
 would deserve its most serious attention to prevent a leprosy 
 or any other loathsome and offensive disease, though neither 
 mortal nor dangerous, from spreading itself among them, though 
 perhaps no other public good might result from such attention 
 besides the prevention of so great a public evil." (" "Wealth of 
 Nations," book v., chap, i.) And he proceeds to speak of educa- 
 tion : " The same thing may be said of the gross ignorance and 
 stupidity which in a civilized society seems so frequently to 
 benumb the understanding of all the inferior ranks of people. 
 A man without the proper use of the intellectual faculties of a 
 man is, if possible, more contemptible than even a coward, and 
 seems to be mutilated and deformed in a still more essential part 
 of the character of human nature. Though the State was to 
 derive no advantage from the instruction of the inferior ranks 
 of people, it would still deserve its attention that they should 
 not be altogether uninstructed." Compulsory militai'y training 
 and a system of national education would no doubt be con- 
 ducive to the stricter ends of all government ; the one would 
 strengthen the defences of the nation against foreign enemies 
 and the other would tend to the diminution of crime at home ; 
 but Smith, it will be seen, explicitly refuses to take that ground. 
 The State's duty in the case would be the same, though no 
 such results were to follow, for the State has other duties to 
 perform besides the maintenance of peace and the repression 
 of crime. It would probably be admitted, he thinks, that it 
 was as incumbent on the State to take steps to arrest the pro- 
 gress of a " mortal and dangerous " disease as it was to stop a 
 foreign invasion; but he goes further, and contends that it was 
 equally incumbent on the State to arrest the progress of a 
 merely "loathsome and offensive" disease, for the simple reason 
 that such a disease was a mutilation or deformity of our physical 
 manhood. And just as the State ought to prevent the mutilation
 
 356 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 and deformity of our physical manhood, so the State ought to 
 prevent the mutilation and deformity of our moral and intellec- 
 tual manhood, and was bound accordingly to provide a system 
 of military training and a system of popular education, to 
 prevent people growing up ignorant and cowardly, because the 
 ignorant man and the coward were men without the proper use 
 of the faculties of a man, and were mutilated and deformed in 
 essential parts of the character of human nature. At bottom 
 Smith's principle is this that men have an original claim a 
 claim as original as the claim to safety of life and property to 
 all the essential conditions of an unmutilated and undeformed 
 manhood, and that is really only another expression for the 
 principle that lies at the foundation of all civil and human 
 right, that men have a right to the essential conditions of a 
 normal humanity, to the presuppositions of all humane living, 
 to the indispensable securities for the proper realization of our 
 common vocation as human beings. The right to personal 
 liberty to the power of working for ends of our own prescrib- 
 ing, and the right to property to the power of retaining what 
 we have made, to be the instrument of further activities for the 
 ends we have prescribed for ourselves rest really on no other 
 ground than that the privileges claimed are essential conditions 
 of a normal, an unmutilated and undeformed manhood, and it 
 is on this broad ground that Adam Smith justifies the State's 
 intervention to stop disease and supply education. 
 
 Smith held but a poor opinion of the capacities of Govern- 
 ment management, and especially of English Government 
 management, which, he asserted, was characterized in times 
 of peace by " the slothful and negligent profusion that was 
 natural to monarchies," and in times of war by " all the 
 thoughtless extravagance " that was peculiar to democracies ; 
 but nevertheless he had no hesitation in asking Government to 
 undertake a considerable number of industrial enterprises, 
 because he believed that these were enterprises which Govern- 
 ment with all its faults was better fitted to conduct success- 
 fully than private adventurers were. On the other hand, 
 Smith entertained the highest possible belief in individual 
 liberty, but he had never any scruple about sacrificing liberty 
 of contract where the sacrifice was demanded by the great
 
 State Socialism. 357 
 
 moral end of Government the maintenance of just and hu- 
 mane dealing between man and man. For example, the sup- 
 pression of the truck S3"stem, which is sometimes condemned 
 as an undue interference with freedom of contract, was 
 strongly supported by Smith, who declared it to be "quite 
 just and equitable," inasmuch as it merely secured to the 
 workmen the pay they were entitled to receive and " imposed 
 no real hardship on the masters it only obliged them to pay 
 that value in money which they pretended to pay, but did not 
 really pay, in goods." It was only a just and necessary pro- 
 tection of the weaker party to a contract against an oppressive 
 exaction to which, like the apothecary in " Romeo and Juliet," 
 his poverty might have consented, but not his will. Precisely 
 analogous is Smith's position concerning usury laws. Usury 
 laws are seldom defended now ; for one thing, money has be- 
 come so abundant that the competition of lender with lender 
 may be trusted to as a better security for fair and reasonable 
 treatment of borrowers than a Government enactment could 
 provide. But Smith in his day was strongly in favour of fixing 
 a legal rate of interest, because he thought it was necessary 
 to prevent the practice of extortion by unscrupulous dealers on 
 necessitous clients. His views on truck and usury show that 
 he had no sympathy with those who contend that the State 
 must on no account interfere with grown-up people in the 
 bargains they may make, inasmuch as grown-up people may 
 be expected to be quite capable of looking effectively after 
 their own interest. Smith recognised that grown-up people 
 were often in natural circumstances where it was practically 
 impossible for them to assert effectively not their interests 
 merel}', but even their essential claims as fellow-citizens ; and 
 that therefore it was the State's duty to come to the aid of 
 those whose own economic position was weak, and to force 
 upon the strong certain responsibilities or at least secure for 
 the weak certain broad, positive conditions which just and 
 humane dealing might demand. 
 
 Now, in these ideas about truck and usury, as in the pro- 
 posals previously touched upon for checking the growth of 
 disease or cowardice or ignorance, is not the principle of social 
 politics that is applied by Smith precisely the principle that
 
 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 runs through our whole recent social legislation factory, sani- 
 tary, and educational the principle of the State's obligation 
 to secure the people in the essential conditions of all normal 
 manhood ? German writers often take Smith for an exponent, 
 if not for the founder, of what they call the Eechtstaat theory 
 the theory that the State is mainly the protector of right ; 
 but in reality Smith's doctrine corresponded pretty closely 
 with their own Kultur-und-Wohlfahrtstaat theory the theory 
 that the State is a promoter of culture and welfare ; and if 
 further proof were wanted, it might be found in the fact that 
 in his doctrine of taxation he departs altogether from the eco- 
 nomic principle, which is popularly associated with the Eecht- 
 staat idea, and is supposed to be a corollary of it, that a tax is 
 a quid pro quo, a price paid for a service rendered, and ought 
 therefore to be imposed on individuals in proportion to the 
 service they respectively receive from the State ; and instead 
 of this economic principle he lays down the broad ethical one, 
 that a tax is a public obligation which individuals ought to 
 be called upon to discharge in proportion to their respective 
 abilities. The rich cannot fairly be said to get more good from 
 the State than the poor ; they probably get less, because they 
 are better capable of providing for their own defence ; but the 
 rich are able to do more good to the State than the poor, and 
 because they are able, they are bound. 
 
 Such is the social doctrine of Adam Smith, and it is mani- 
 festly no doctrine of rigid individualism, calling out for free- 
 dom at any price, or banning all interference with the natural 
 play of self-interest and competition. The natural liberty for 
 which the great English economist contended was not the 
 mere ghost of liberty worshipped by Mr. Spencer. An 
 ignorant man might be free, as an imprisoned man was free, 
 within limits, but he was not free within normal human limits. 
 He had not the use of his mind ; he was wanting in an essen- 
 tial part of his manhood. First make him a man a whole, 
 complete, competent man, fit for man's vocation then make 
 him free. There is a common metaphysical distinction be- 
 tween the formal freedom of the will and the material freedom 
 of the will. The drunkard, the lunatic, is formally free, for he 
 exerts his choice, but he is materially enslaved. The difference
 
 State Socialism. 359 
 
 between liberty according to Mr. Spencer and liberty accord- 
 ing to Adam Smith is something analogous. The liberty 
 Smith desires is a substantial liberty ; it is clothed with a body 
 a definite body of universal human rights which the State 
 is bound to realize as it would realize liberty itself. The reason 
 of his difference from the laissez-faire theory of Mr. Spencer, 
 which is so often erroneously attributed to him, is that he 
 takes a much broader and more practical view of the original 
 moral rights of individuals than such ultra-individualists are 
 accustomed to do. "While they hold that the State is there 
 only to secure to individuals reality and equality of freedom, 
 he holds it is there to secure them reality and equality of 
 all moral rights. He would supply all alike, therefore, with 
 certain material securities the material conditions necessary 
 to secure their moral rights with equal completeness, and he 
 would protect them in the enjoyment of those conditions 
 against the assaults of poverty and misfortune no less than 
 the assaults of murderers and thieves. But beyond this line 
 he would refuse to go ; if he stands clearly out in advance of 
 the laissez-faire position of equality of legal freedom, he 
 stands equally clearly far short of the socialistic position of 
 equality of material conditions. 
 
 Now this doctrine of the great founder of English political 
 economy has been substantially the doctrine of his successors 
 as well. It would be beyond my present scope to trace the 
 history of the doctrine of social politics through the writings 
 of the whole succession of English economists, nor is it neces- 
 sary. I shall choose a representative economist from the 
 group who are generally reckoned the most narrow and 
 unsympathetic, who are accused of having shifted political 
 economy off the broader lines on which it had been launched by 
 Smith, who are counted the great idolaters of self-interest and 
 natural law, and the scientific associates of the much-abused 
 Manchester school viz., the disciples of Ricardo. Bicardo 
 himself touches only incidentally on the functions of the State, 
 but he then does so to defend interventions, such as minting 
 money, marking plate, testing drugs, examining medical can- 
 didates, and the like, which are meant to guard people against 
 deceptions they are themselves incompetent to detect. More-
 
 360 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 over, lie was a strong advocate for at least one important 
 extension of the State's industrial role he would establish 
 a National Bank of issue with exclusive privileges ; and it is 
 not uninteresting to remember that in his place in Parliament 
 he brought forward the suggestion of a system of Government 
 annuities for the accommodation of working men, which was 
 introduced by Mr. Gladstone half a century later, and has been 
 denounced in certain quarters as that statesman's first step in 
 socialism, and that he was one of a very small minority who 
 voted for a Parliamentary inquiry into the social system of 
 Robert Owen. 
 
 But if Ricardo is comparatively silent on the subject, we 
 fortunately possess a very ample discussion of it by one of 
 his leading disciples, J. R. McCulloch. "When Ricardo died, 
 James Mill wrote to McCulloch, " As you and I are his two 
 and only genuine disciples, his memory must be a point of 
 connection between us ; " and it was on McCulloch that the 
 mantle of the master descended. His " Principles of Political 
 Economy," which may be said to be an exposition of the 
 system of economics according to Ricardo, was for many years 
 the principal textbook of the science, and will still be admitted 
 to be the best and most complete statement of what, in the 
 cant of the present day, is called orthodox political economy. 
 McCulloch, indeed, is more than merely the expositor of that 
 system ; he is really one of its founders, the author of one of 
 its most famous dogmas, at least in its current form, the now 
 exploded doctrine of the Wages fund ; and of all the adherents 
 of this orthodox tradition, McCulloch is commonly considered 
 the hardest and most narrow. There are economists who are 
 supposed to show a native generous warmth which all the 
 severities of their science are unable to quell. John Stuart 
 Mill is known to have come under St. Simonian influences 
 in his younger days, and to have been fond ever afterwards of 
 calling himself a socialist ; and Professor Sidgwick, in our own 
 day, is often credited and not unjustly with a like breadth 
 of heart, and in publishing his views of Government inter- 
 ference, he gives them the name of " Economic Socialism." 
 But in selecting McCulloch, I select an economist the rigour 
 of whose principles has never been suspected, and yet so
 
 State Socialism. 361 
 
 striking is the uniformity of the English tradition on this 
 subject, that in reality neither Mill nor Mr. Sidgwick 
 professes a broader doctrine of social politics, or goes a step 
 further, or more heartily on the road to socialism than that 
 accredited champion of individualism, John Ramsay Mc- 
 Culloch. 
 
 McCulloch's " Principles " contains from the second edition 
 in 1830 onward to the last author's edition in 1849 a special 
 chapter on the limits of Government interference ; and the 
 chapter starts with an explicit repudiation of the doctrine of 
 laissez-faire, which was then apparently only beginning to 
 come into vogue in England. 
 
 " An idea," says McCulloch, " seems however to have been 
 recently gaming ground that the duty of the Government with 
 regard to the domestic policy of the country is almost entirely 
 of a negative kind, and that it has merely to maintain the 
 security of property and the freedom of industry. But its duty 
 is by no means so simple and easily denned as those who sup- 
 port this opinion would have us to believe. It is certainly true 
 that its interference with the pursuits of individuals has been, 
 in very many instances, exerted in a wrong direction, and 
 carried to a ruinous excess. Still, however, it is easy to see 
 that we should fall into a very great error if we supposed that 
 it might be entirely dispensed with. Freedom is not, as some 
 appear to think, the end of government ; the advancement of 
 the public prosperity and happiness is its end ; and freedom is 
 valuable in so far only as it contributes to bring it about. In 
 laying it down, for example, that individuals should be per- 
 mitted, without let or hindrance, to engage in any business or 
 profession they may prefer, the condition that it is not injurious 
 to others is always understood. No one doubts the propriety 
 of a Government interfering to suppress what is or might 
 otherwise become a public nuisance ; nor does any one doubt 
 that it may advantageously interfere to give facilities to com- 
 merce by negotiating treaties with foreign powers, and by 
 removing such obstacles as cannot be removed by individuals. 
 But the interference of Government cannot be limited to cases 
 of this sort. However disinclined, it is obliged to interfere in an 
 infinite variety of ways and for an infinite variety of purposes.
 
 362 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 It must, to notice only one or two of the classes of objects 
 requiring its interference, decide as to the species of contract 
 to which it will lend its sanction, and the means to be adopted 
 to enforce true performance ; it must decide in regard to the 
 distribution of the property of those who die intestate, and the 
 effect to be given to the directions in wills and testaments ; 
 and it must frequently engage itself, or authorize individuals 
 or associations to engage, in various sorts of undertakings 
 deeply affecting the rights and interests of others and of 
 society. The furnishing of elementary instruction in the 
 ordinary branches of education for all classes of persons and 
 the establishment of a compulsory provision for the support 
 of the destitute poor are generally also included, and appar- 
 ently with the greatest propriety, among the duties incumbent 
 on administration " (p. 262). 
 
 He allows State ownership and State management of in- 
 dustrial works, wherever State ownership and management are 
 more efficient for the purpose than private enterprise in other 
 words, where they are more economical as in the cases of the 
 coinage, roads, harbours, postal communication, etc. He would 
 expropriate land for railway purposes, grant a monopoly to 
 the railway company, and then subject it to Government con- 
 trol in the public interest; he would impose many sorts of 
 restrictions on freedom of contract, freedom of industry, free- 
 dom of trade, freedom of property, and freedom of bequest ; 
 and, what is more important, he recognises clearly that with 
 the growth of society fresh interferences of a serious character 
 will be constantly called for, which may in some cases involve 
 the application of entirely new principles, or throw on the 
 Government work of an entirely new character. 
 
 For example, he is profoundly impressed with the dangers 
 of the manufacturing system, which he saw growing and 
 multiplying all around him, and so far from dreaming that the 
 course of industry should remain uncontrolled, he even ven- 
 tures, in a remarkable passage, to express the doubt whether 
 it may not " in the end be found that it was unwise to allow 
 the manufacturing system to gain so great an ascendancy as 
 it has done in this country, and that measures should have 
 been early adopted to check and moderate its growth " (p. 191).
 
 State Socialism. 363 
 
 He admits that a decisive answer to this question could only 
 be given by the economists of a future generation, after a 
 longer experience of the system than was possible when he 
 wrote, but he cannot conceal the gravest apprehension at the 
 preponderance which manufactures were rapidly gaining in 
 our industrial economy. And his reasons are worthy of 
 attention. The first is the destruction of the old moral ties that 
 knit masters and men together. 
 
 " But we doubt whether any country, how wealthy soever, 
 should be looked upon as in a healthy, sound state, where the 
 leading interest consists of a small number of great capitalists, 
 and of vast numbers of workpeople in their employment, but 
 unconnected with them by any ties of gratitude, sympathy, or 
 affection. This estrangement is occasioned by the great scale 
 on which labour is now carried on in most businesses; and 
 by the consequent impossibility of the masters becoming 
 acquainted, even if they desired it, with the great bulk of 
 their workpeople. . . . The kindlier feelings have no share 
 in an intercourse of this sort ; speaking generally, everything 
 is regulated on both sides by the narrowest and most selfish 
 views and considerations ; a man and a machine being treated 
 with about the same sympathy and regard " (p. 193). 
 
 The second reason is the suppression of the facilities of ad- 
 vancement enjoyed by labourers under the previous regime. 
 " Owing to the greater scale on which employments are now 
 mostly carried on, workmen have less chance than formerly of 
 advancing themselves or their families to any higher situation, 
 or of exchanging the character of labourers for that of masters " 
 (p. 188). For the majority of the working-class to be thus, as 
 he expresses it, " condemned as it were to perpetual helotism," 
 is not conducive to the health of a nation. The third reason 
 is the comparative instability of manufacturing business. It 
 becomes a matter of the most serious concern for a State, 
 " when a very large proportion of the population has been, 
 through their agency, rendered dependent on foreign demand, 
 and on the caprices and mutations of fashion " (p. 192). That 
 also is a state of things fraught with danger to the health of 
 a community. McCulloch always treats political economy as 
 if he defined it and the definition would be better than his
 
 364 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 own as the science of the working of industrial society in 
 health and disease ; and he always throws on the State a con- 
 siderable responsibility in the business of social hygiene ; going 
 so far, we have seen in the passages just quoted, as to suggest 
 whether a legal check ought not to have been imposed on the 
 free growth of the factory system, on account of its bad effects 
 on the economic position of the labouring class. We had 
 suffered the system to advance too far to impose that check 
 now, but there were other measures which, in his opinion, the 
 Legislature might judiciously take in the same interest. It is 
 of course impossible, by Act of Parliament, to infuse higher 
 views of duty or warmer feelings of ordinary human regard 
 into the relations between manufacturers and their workmen ; 
 but the State might, according to McCulloch, do something to 
 mitigate the modern plague of commercial crises, by a policy 
 of free trade, by adopting a sound monetary system, by secur- 
 ing a continuance of peace, and by " such a scheme of public 
 charity as might fully relieve the distresses without insulting 
 the feelings or lessening the industry of the labouring classes " 
 (p. 192). 
 
 As with commercial crises, so with other features of the 
 modern industrial system ; wherever they tend to the deteriora- 
 tion of the labouring class, McCulloch always holds the State 
 bound to intervene, if it can, to prevent such a result. He 
 would stop the immigration of what is sometimes called pauper 
 labour of bodies of workpeople brought up in an inferior 
 standard of life because their example and their competition 
 tend to pull down the native population to their own level. 
 The example he chooses is not the Jewish element in the East 
 End of London, but the much more important case of the 
 Irish immigration into Liverpool and Glasgow ; and while he 
 would prefer to see Government taking steps to improve the 
 Irish people in Ireland itself, he declares that, if that is not 
 practicable, then "justice to our own people requires that 
 measures should be adopted to hinder Great Britain from being 
 overrun with the outpourings of this officina pauperum, to 
 hinder Ireland from dragging us down to the same hopeless 
 abyss of pauperism and wretchedness in which she is sunk " 
 (p. 422). This policy may be wise, or it may not, but it shows
 
 State Socialism. 365 
 
 very plainly what appears so often in his writings how 
 deeply McCulloch's mind was penetrated with the conviction 
 that one of the greatest of all the dangers from which the 
 State ought to do what it well can to preserve the people, was 
 the danger of falling to a lower standard of tastes and require- 
 ments, and thereby losing ambition and industry, and the very 
 possibility of rising again. 
 
 " This lowering of the opinions of the labouring class with 
 respect to the mode in which they should live is perhaps the 
 most serious of all the evils that can befall them. . . . The 
 example of such individuals or bodies of individuals as submit 
 quietly to have their wages reduced, and who are content if 
 they get only mere necessaries, should never be held up for 
 public imitation. On the contrary, everything should be done 
 to make such apathy be esteemed discreditable. The best 
 interests of society require that the rate of wages should be 
 elevated as high as possible that a taste for comforts and 
 enjoyments should be widely diffused, and, if possible, inter- 
 woven with national habits and prejudices. Very low wages, 
 by rendering it impossible for increased exertions to obtain any 
 considerable increase of advantages, effectually hinder them 
 from being made, and are of all others the most powerful cause 
 of that idleness and apathy that contents itself with what can 
 barely continue animal existence " (p. 415). 
 
 And he goes on to refute the idea of Benjamin Franklin, 
 that high wages breed indolent and dissipated habits, and to 
 contend that they not only improve the character and efficiency 
 of the labourer, but are in the end a source of gain, instead 
 of loss, to the employer. But, although the maintenance of a 
 high rate of wages is so great an object of public solicitude, it 
 was an object which it was, in McCulloch's judgment, outside 
 the State's province, simply because it was outside its power, 
 to do anything directly to promote, because while authority 
 could fix a price for labour, it could never compel employers 
 to engage labour at that price ; and consequently its inter- 
 ference in such a way would only end in injury to the class 
 it sought to befriend, as well as to the trade of the country in 
 general. Still, McCulloch is far from wishing to repel the 
 State's offices or the offices of public opinion in connection
 
 366 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 with the business altogether. In the passage just quoted he 
 expressly makes an appeal to public opinion for an active 
 interference in a direction where, he believes, its interference 
 might be useful ; and as for the action of the State, he approves, 
 for one thing, of the legalization of trades unions, and, for 
 another, of the special instruction of the public, at the national 
 expense, in the principles on which a high rate of wages 
 depend. 
 
 In regard to the Factory Acts, while he would have the 
 hours of labour in the case of grown-up men settled by the 
 parties themselves, because he thought them the only persons 
 competent to settle them satisfactorily, he strongly supported 
 the interference of the Legislature, .on grounds of ordinary 
 humanity, to limit the working day of children and women, 
 because " the former are naturally, and the latter have been 
 rendered, through custom and the institutions of society, unable 
 to protect themselves" (p. 426) ; and he seconded all Lord 
 Shaftesbury's labours down to the Ten Hours Act of 1847, to 
 which he objected on the ground that it involved a practical 
 interference with all adult factory labour. On the other hand, 
 he was in favour of the principle of employers' liability for 
 accidents in mines and workshops, because there seemed no 
 other way of saving the labourers from their own careless- 
 ness, except by making the masters responsible for the enforce- 
 ment of the necessary regulations (p. 307). 
 
 But McCulloch's general position on this class of questions is 
 still better exemplified in the view he takes of the State's duty 
 on a matter of great present interest, the housing of the poor. 
 Here he has no hesitation in throwing the principal blame for 
 the bad accommodation of the working-classes of that day, for 
 the underground cellar dwellings of Liverpool and Manchester, 
 the overcrowded lodging-houses of London, and the streets of 
 cottages unsupplied with water or drainage, on " the culpable 
 inattention of the authorities." Mr. Goschen vindicates the 
 legitimacy of Government interference with the housing of 
 the people, on the ground that it is the business of Govern- 
 ment to see justice done between man and man. When a man 
 hired a house, Government had a right to see that he got a 
 house, and a house meant a dwelling fit for human habitation.
 
 State Socialism. 367 
 
 The inspection of houses is, according to this idea, only a case 
 of necessary protection against fraud, like the institution of 
 medical examinations, the assaying of metals, or the testing of 
 drugs ; and protection against fraud is admitted everywhere to 
 be the proper business of Government. McCulloch bases his 
 justification of the intervention on much broader grounds. 
 Government needs no other warrant for condemning a house 
 that is unfit for human habitation but the simple fact that the 
 house is unfit for human habitation, and it makes no difference 
 whether the tenant is cheated into taking the bad house, or 
 takes it openly because he prefers it. In fact, the strongest 
 reason, in McCulloch's opinion, for invoking Government inter- 
 ference in the case at all, is precisely the circumstance that so 
 many people actually prefer unwholesome houses from motives 
 of economy. 
 
 " Such cottages," he says, " being cheap, are always sure to 
 find occupiers. Nothing, however, can be more obvious than 
 that it is the duty of Government to take measures for the 
 prevention and repair of an abuse of this sort. Its injurious 
 influence is not confined to the occupiers of the houses referred 
 to, though if it were, that would be no good reason for declin- 
 ing to introduce a better system. But the diseases engendered 
 in these unhealthy abodes frequently extend their ravages 
 through all classes of the community, so that the best interests 
 of the middle and higher orders, as well as of the lowest, are 
 involved in this question. And, on the same principle that we 
 adopt measures to guard against the plague, we should en- 
 deavour to secure ourselves against typhus, and against the 
 brutalizing influence, over any considerable portion of the 
 population, of a residence amid filth and disease " (p. 308). 
 
 The last clause is remarkable. The State is required to 
 protect the people from degrading influences, to prevent them 
 from being brutalized through the avarice or apathy of others, 
 and to prevent them being brutalized through the avarice or 
 apathy of themselves. It is not what many persons would 
 expect, but here we have political economy, and the most 
 " orthodox " political economy, forcing people to go to a dearer 
 market for their houses, in order to satisfy a sentiment of 
 humanity, and imposing on the State a social mission of a
 
 368 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 broad positive character the mission of extirpating brutalizing 
 influences. Yet, expected or not, this is really the ordinary 
 tradition of English economists it is the principle laid down 
 by Smith of obliging the State to secure for the people an un- 
 mutilated and undeformed manhood, to provide for them by 
 public means the fundamental conditions of a humane existence. 
 
 McCulloch's position comes out more clearly still in the 
 reasons he gives for advocating a compulsory provision for the 
 able-bodied poor, and a national system of popular education. 
 With regard to the impotent poor, he is content with saying 
 that it would be inhumanity to deny them support, and in- 
 justice to throw their support exclusively on the benevolent. 
 A poor-rate is sometimes defended on what are professed to be 
 strictly economical grounds, by showing that it is both less 
 mischievous and less expensive than mendicity ; but what 
 strikes McCulloch is not so much the wastefulness of private 
 charity in the hands of the benevolent as the injustice of suffer- 
 ing the avaricious to escape their natural obligations. Few, 
 however, have much difficulty in finding one good reason or 
 another for making a public provision for the impotent poor ; 
 the crux of the question of public assistance is the case- of the 
 able-bodied poor. A provision for the able-bodied poor is 
 practically a recognition in a particular form of " the right to 
 labour," and the right to labour resounds with many revolu- 
 tionary terrors in our English ears, although it has, as a matter 
 of fact, been practised quietly, and most of the time in one of 
 its most pernicious forms, in every parish of England for 
 nearly three hundred years. 
 
 Now on this question McCulloch was a convert. He con- 
 fessed to the Committee on the State of the Poor in Ireland, in 
 1830, that he had changed his views on the subject entirely 
 since his previous evidence in 1825. He had formerly been, 
 he said, "too much imbued with mere theory, with the 
 opinions of Malthus and Townsend " ; but he had become a 
 firm believer in the necessity and the public advantage of a 
 legal provision for the able-bodied poor, and he strongly re- 
 commended the introduction of such a system into Ireland, in 
 the first instance as an instrument of individual relief, but also 
 as an effectual engine of social improvement. He gives the
 
 State Socialism. 369 
 
 reasons for his conversion partly in his evidence, and partly in a 
 more systematic form in his " Principles of Political Economy." 
 First, Malthus had attributed to the Poor Law itself effects 
 which really sprang from certain bad arrangements that had 
 been engrafted on the English system of relief, but were not 
 essential to it viz., the allowance system, and the law known 
 as Gilbert's Act, which deprived parishes of the right to refuse 
 relief except in workhouses, and forced them to provide work 
 for paupers, if paupers desired it, at or near their own houses. 
 These two arrangements, in McCulloch's opinion, converted 
 the English provision for the able-bodied poor from what we 
 may term a wise and conditional right of labour into an unwise 
 and dangerous one. In the second place, he had come to see 
 that a legal provision for the poor, instead of having, as was 
 alleged, a necessary tendency to multiply pauperism, had in 
 reality a natural tendency to prevent its growth, because it 
 gave the landlords and influential ratepayers a strong pecuniary 
 as well as moral interest in producing that result. Its effect 
 was thus to establish in every parish a new local stimulus to 
 social improvement, and it was on account of this effect of a 
 Poor Law that McCulloch thought it would be specially benefi- 
 cial to Ireland, because there was nothing Ireland needed more 
 than just such a local stimulus. In the third place, he had 
 become more and more profoundly impressed with the in- 
 creasing gravity of the vicissitudes and fluctuations of employ- 
 ment to which English labourers were subject since England 
 became mainly a manufacturing country, and that unhappy 
 feature of manufacturing industry was his principal reason for 
 invoking legislative assistance. A purely agricultural country, 
 he thought, might be able to do without a Poor Law, because 
 agricultural employment was comparatively steady ; but in a 
 manufacturing country a Poor Law was indispensable, on ac- 
 count of the long periods of depression or privation which were 
 normal incidents in the life of labour in such a country, and on 
 account of the pernicious effect which these periods of priva- 
 tion would, if unchecked, be certain to exercise upon the 
 character and habits of the labouring classes, through " lower- 
 ing their estimate of what is required for their comfortable 
 and decent subsistence." ("Political Economy," p. 448.) 
 
 B B
 
 3/o Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 "During these periods of extraordinary privation the labourer, 
 if not effectually relieved, would imperceptibly lose that taste 
 for order, decency, and cleanliness which had been gradually 
 formed and accumulated in better times by the insensible opera- 
 tion of habit and example, and no strength of argument, no 
 force of authority, could again instil into the minds of a new 
 generation, growing up under more prosperous circumstances, 
 the sentiments and tastes thus uprooted and destroyed by the 
 cold breath of penury. Every return of temporary distress 
 would therefore vitiate the feelings and lower the sensibilities 
 of the labouring classes " (p. 449). 
 
 McCulloch quotes these words from Barton, but he quotes 
 them to express his own view, and their teaching is very 
 explicit on the duty of Government to the unemployed in 
 seasons of commercial distress. In such seasons of " extra- 
 ordinary privation " the State is called upon to take "effectual" 
 measures extraordinary measures, we may infer, if extra- 
 ordinary measures were necessary for the relief of the un- 
 employed, not merely to save them from starvation, but to 
 prevent them from losing established habits of "order, decency, 
 and cleanliness " ; from getting their feelings vitiated, their 
 sensibilities impaired, so that they were in danger of remain- 
 ing content with a worse standard of living, and sinking to a 
 lower scale in the dignity of social and civilized being. In a 
 word, it is held to be the duty of the State to prevent, if it can, 
 the temporary reverses of the labouring class from resulting in 
 its permanent moral decadence ; and as the object of the State's 
 intervention is to preserve the dignity, the self-respect, the 
 moral independence and energy of the labouring class, the 
 manner of the intervention, the choice of actual means and 
 steps for administering the relief, must, of course, be governed 
 by the same considerations. " The true secret of assisting the 
 poor," says McCulloch, borrowing the words of Archbishop 
 Sumner, " is to make them agents in bettering their own con- 
 dition, and to supply them, not with a temporary stimulus, but 
 with a permanent energy " (p. 475). 
 
 The same principles come out even more strongly in McCul- 
 loch's remarks on national education. He says, "the providing 
 of elementary instruction for all classes is one of the most
 
 State Socialism. 371 
 
 pressing duties of Government " (p. 473) ; and the elementary 
 instruction he -would provide would not stop at reading and 
 writing, but would include even a knowledge of so much 
 political economy as would explain " the circumstances which 
 elevate and depress the rate of wages" (p. 474). It was the 
 duty of Government to extirpate ignorance, because, " of all 
 obstacles to improvement, ignorance was the most formidable"; 
 and it was its duty to establish Government schools for the 
 purpose, because charity schools impaired the self-respect and 
 sense of independence which were themselves first essentials of 
 all social improvement. 
 
 "No extension of the system of charity and subscription 
 schools can ever fully compensate for the want of a statutory 
 provision for the education of the public. Something of degra- 
 dation always attaches to the fact of one's having been brought 
 up in a charity school. The parents who send children to such 
 an institution, and even the children, know that they have 
 been received only because they are paupers unable to pay for 
 their education ; and this consciousness has a tendency to 
 weaken that state of independence and self-respect, for the 
 want of which the best education may be but an imperfect 
 substitute. But no such feeling could operate on the pupils of 
 schools established by the State " (p. 476). 
 
 There is no question with McCulloch about the right of the 
 State to take steps to forward the moral progress, or to prevent 
 the moral decadence, of the community or any part of the 
 community under its care ; that is simply its plain and 
 primary duty, though there may be question with the State, 
 as with other agencies, whether particular measures proposed 
 for the purpose are really calculated to effect it. 
 
 After this long, and I fear tedious, account of the opinions 
 of McCulloch, it would be needless to call more witnesses to 
 refute those who so commonly accuse English economists of 
 teaching an extreme individualism. For McCulloch may be 
 said to be their own witness ; they hold him up as the hardest 
 and narrowest of a hard and narrow school ; one of the ablest 
 of them, Mr. J. K. Ingram, who writes McCulloclrs memoir 
 in the Encyclopedia Britannica, going so far as to accuse him 
 of exhibiting " a habitual deadness in the study of social
 
 372 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 questions to all but material considerations." "We have adduced 
 enough to disprove that statement. The reader of McCulloch's 
 writings is constantly struck to observe how habitually his 
 judgment of a social question is governed by ethical rather 
 than economic considerations, and how his supreme concern 
 always seems to be to guard the labouring poor from falling 
 into any sort of permanent decadence, and to place them 
 securely on the lines of progressive elevation. But perhaps a 
 word may be required about the Manchester school. Mr. 
 Ingram states and again his statement probably agrees with 
 current prepossessions that McCulloch occupied ' ; substanti- 
 ally the same theoretic position as was occupied at a somewhat 
 later period by the Manchester school" (Encyc. Brit., art. 
 " Political Economy "). We have seen what McCulloch's theo- 
 retic position really was, and it is certainly not the Manchester 
 doctrine of popular anathema ; it is not the Manckesterismus of 
 the German schools. But the Manchester men can scarcely 
 be said to have properly had anything in the nature of a 
 general theoretic position. They were not a school of political 
 philosophy they were a band of practical politicians leagued 
 to promote particular reforms, especially two reforms in inter- 
 national policy which involved large curtailments of the role 
 of Government viz., free trade with other countries, and non- 
 intervention in their internal affairs ; but they were far from 
 thinking that, because it would be well for the State to abstain 
 from certain specific interferences, it would be well for it to 
 abstain from all ; or that if the State had no civilizing mission 
 towards the people of other countries, it had therefore no 
 civilizing mission towards its own. Cobden, for example to 
 go no farther was a lifelong advocate of a national system 
 of education ; he was a friend of factory legislation for women 
 and children, and, with respect to the poor, he taught in one 
 of his speeches the semi-socialistic doctrine that the poor had 
 the first right to maintenance from the land that they are, 
 as it were, the first mortgagees. The Manchester school is 
 really nothing but a stage convention, a convenient polemical 
 device for marking off a particular theoretical extreme regard- 
 ing the task of the State ; but the persons in actual life who 
 were presumed to compose the school were no more, all of
 
 State Socialism. 373 
 
 them, adherents of that theory than Scotchmen, off the stage, 
 have all short kilts and red hair. And as for that theory itself, 
 the theory of lai*sez-faire, it has never in England been really 
 anything more than it is now, the plea of alarmed vested 
 interests stealing an unwarranted, and I believe an unwel- 
 come, shelter under the segis of economic science. English 
 economists, from Smith to McCulloch, from McCulloch to Mr. 
 Sidgwick, have adhered with a truly remarkable steadiness to 
 a social doctrine of a precisely contrary character a social 
 doctrine which, instead of exhibiting any unreasonable aversion 
 to Government interference, expressly assigns to Government 
 a just and proper place in promoting the social and industrial 
 development of the community. In the first place, in the 
 department of production, they freely allow that just as there 
 are many industrial enterprises in the conduct of which indi- 
 vidual initiative must, for want of resources or other reasons, 
 yield to joint-stock companies, so there are others for which 
 individuals and companies alike must give place to the State, 
 because the State is by nature or circumstances better fitted 
 than either to conduct them satisfactorily ; and in the next 
 place, in the department of distribution, while rating the 
 moral or personal independence of the individual as a supreme 
 blessing and claim, they have no scruple in calling on the 
 State to interfere with the natural liberty of contract between 
 man and man, wherever such interference seems requisite to 
 secure just and equitable dealing, to guard that personal inde- 
 pendence itself from being sapped, or to establish the people 
 better in any of the other elementary conditions of all humane 
 living. We sometimes take pride at the present day in pro- 
 fessing a distrust for doctrinaire or metaphysical politics, and 
 we are no doubt right ; but that reproach cannot justly be 
 levelled against the English economists. They were not Dutch 
 gardeners trying to dress the world after an artificial scheme ; 
 that is more distinctive of the social systems they opposed. 
 Their own system indeed was to study. Nature, to discover the 
 principles of sound natural social growth, and to follow them ; 
 but they had no idea on that account of leaving things to 
 grow merely as they would, or of renouncing the help of good 
 husbandry. They had, as we have seen, a positive doctrine of
 
 374 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 social politics, which required from the State much more than 
 the protection of liberty and the repression of crime ; they 
 asked the State to undertake such industrial work as it was 
 naturally better fitted to perform than individuals or associa- 
 tions of individuals, and they asked the State to secure to 
 the body of the citizens the essential conditions of a normal 
 and progressive manhood. 
 
 Now this doctrine which may be called the English doc- 
 trine of social politics seems to furnish a basis of considerable 
 practical value for discriminating between a wholesome and 
 effective participation by Government in the work of social 
 reform, on the one hand, and those pernicious and dangerous 
 forms of intervention on the other, which may be correctly 
 known by the name of State socialism. 
 
 II. The Nature and Principle of State Socialism. 
 
 Few words are at present more wantonly abused than the 
 words socialism and State socialism. They are tossed about 
 at random, as if their meaning, as was said of the spelling of 
 former generations, was a mere affair of private judgment. 
 There is, in truth, a great deal of socialism in the employment 
 of the word ; little respect is paid to the previous appropriation 
 of it ; and especially since it has become, as has been said, 
 hoffahig, men press forward from the most unlikely quarters, 
 claim kindred with the socialists, and strive for the honour of 
 being called by their name. Many excellent persons, for ex- 
 ample, have no better pretext to advance for their claim than 
 that they also feel a warm sentiment of interest in the cause 
 of the poor. Churchmen whose duties bring them among the 
 poor are very naturally touched with a sense of the miseries 
 they observe, and certain of them, who may perhaps without 
 offence be said to love the cause well more than wisely, come 
 to public platforms and declare themselves socialists socialists, 
 they will sometimes explain, of an older and purer confession 
 than the Social Democratic Federation, but still good and 
 genuine socialists merely because the religion they preach is 
 a gospel of moral equality before God, and of fraternal responsi- 
 bility among men, whose very test in the end is the test of
 
 State Socialism. 375 
 
 human kindness " Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the 
 least of these My brethren, ye did it not to Me." But socialism 
 is not a feeling for the poor, nor yet for the responsibilities of 
 society in connection with their poverty ; it is neither what 
 is called humanitarianism, nor what is called altruism ; it is 
 not an affair of feeling at all, but of organization, and the 
 feeling it breathes may not be altruistic. The revolutionary 
 socialists of the Continent, for instance, are animated by as 
 vigorous a spirit of self-interest and an even more bitter class 
 antagonism than a trade union or a land league. They fight 
 for a particular claim of right the utterly unjustifiable claim 
 to the whole product of labour and they propose to turn the 
 world upside down by a vast scheme of social reconstruction 
 in order to get their unjust, delusive, and mischievous idea 
 realized. The gauge of their socialism, therefore, must, after 
 all, be looked for in their claim and their remedy, and not in 
 the vague sympathies of a benevolent spectator who, without 
 scrutinizing either the one or the other, thinks he will call 
 himself a socialist because he feels that there is much in the 
 lot of the poor man that might be mended, and that the rich 
 might be very properly and reasonably asked to make some 
 sacrifices for their brethren's sake out of their abundance. The 
 philanthropic spectator suffers- from no scarcity of words to 
 express his particular attitude if he desires to do so ; why then 
 should he not leave socialists the enjoyment of their vocable ? 
 
 There is often at the bottom of this sentimental patronage 
 of socialism the not unchivalrous but mistaken idea that the 
 ordinary self-interest of the world has been glorified by econo- 
 mists into a sacred and all-sufficing principle which it would 
 be interfering with the designs of Providence to restrict, and 
 that therefore it is only right to side with socialism as a protest 
 against the position taken by the apologists of the present 
 system of things, without being understood to commit one's self 
 thereby to the particular system which socialism may propose 
 to put in its place. But while the economists think very rightly 
 that self-interest must always be regarded as the ordinary 
 guide of life, and that the world cannot be reasonably expected 
 to become either better, or better off, if everybody were to look 
 after other people's interests (which he knows nothing about)
 
 376 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 instead of looking after his own (of which he at least knows 
 something), they are far from showing any indifference to the 
 danger of self-interest running into selfishness. On the con- 
 trary, they have constantly insisted as the evidence I have 
 already produced abundantly proves that where the self- 
 interest of the strongly placed failed to subject itself spon- 
 taneously to the restraints of social justice and the responsibilities 
 of our common humanity, it was for society to step in and 
 impose the restraints that were just and requisite, and to do 
 so either by public opinion or by public authority in the way 
 most likely to be practicable and effectual. Another thing our 
 sentimental friends forget is that the socialists of the present 
 day have no thought of substituting any other general economic 
 motive in the room of self-interest. If they had their schemes 
 realized to-morrow, men would still be paid according to the 
 amount of their individual work, and each would work so far 
 for his own hand. His daily motive would be his individual 
 interest, though his scope of achievement would be severely 
 limited by law with the view of securing a better general level 
 of happiness in the community. The question between econo- 
 mists and socialists is not whether the claims of social justice 
 are entitled to be respected, but whether the claims which one 
 or other of them make really are claims of social justice or no. 
 Still, so firm is the hold taken by the notion that the socialists 
 are the special champions of social justice, that one of our most 
 respected prelates has actually defined socialism in that sense. 
 The Bishop of Rochester (now of Winchester), in his Pastoral 
 Letter to his Clergy at the new year of 1888, takes occasion, 
 while warning the younger brethren against the too headlong 
 philanthropy which " scouts what is known as the science of 
 political economy," to describe socialism as " the science of 
 maintaining the right proportion of equity and kindness while 
 adjudicating the various claims which individuals and society 
 mutually make upon each other." In reality, socialism would 
 be better defined as a system that outsteps the right proportion 
 of equity and kindness, and sets up for the masses claims that 
 are devoid of proportion and measure of any kind, and whose 
 injustice and peril often arise from that very circumstance. 
 If bishops carry the term off to one quarter, philosophers
 
 State Socialism. 377 
 
 carry it to another. Some identify socialism with the associa- 
 tive principle generally, and see it manifested in the growth 
 of one form of organization as much as in the growth of an- 
 other, or at most they may limit it to the intervention of the 
 associative principle in things industrial, and in that event they 
 would consider a joint-stock company, or a co-operative store, 
 or perhaps a building like Queen Anne's Mansions, or the 
 common-stair system of Scotland, to be as genuine exhibitions 
 of socialism as the collectivism or anarchism of the Continental 
 factions or the State monopolies of Prince Bismarck. But a 
 joint-stock company is no departure from it is rather an exten- 
 sion of the present regime of private property, free competition, 
 and self-interest ; and why should it be described by the same 
 name as a system whose chief pretension is to supersede that 
 regime by a better? Another very common definition of 
 socialism perhaps the most common of all, and the last to 
 which I shall refer here is that socialism is the general prin- 
 ciple of giving society the greatest possible control over the 
 life of the individual, in contradistinction to the opposite prin- 
 ciple of individualism, which is taken to be the principle of 
 giving the individual the greatest possible immunity from the 
 control of society. Any extension of the authority of the State, 
 any fresh regulation of the transactions of individual citizens, 
 is often pronounced to be socialistic without asking what the 
 object or nature of the regulations may be. Socialism is iden- 
 tified with any enlargement, and individualism with any con- 
 traction, of the functions of government. But the world has 
 not been made on this socialist principle alone, nor on this 
 individualist principle alone, and it can neither be explained 
 nor amended by means of the one without the other. Abstrac- 
 tions of that order afford us little practical guidance. The 
 socialists of real life are not men who are bent on increasing 
 Government control for the mere sake of increasing Govern- 
 ment control. There are broad tracts of the individual's life 
 they would leave free from social control ; they would give 
 him, for example, full property in his house and furniture 
 during his lifetime, and the right to spend his income, once he 
 had earned it, in his own way. Their scheme, if carried out, 
 might be found to compel them to restrict this latter right,
 
 3/8 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 but their own desire and belief undoubtedly is that the indi- 
 vidual would have more freedom of the kind then than he has 
 now. They seek to extend Government control only because, 
 and only so far as, they believe Government control to be 
 necessary and fitted to realize certain theories of right and 
 well-being which they think it incumbent on organized society 
 to realize ; and consequently the thing that properly char- 
 acterizes their position is not so much the degree of their con- 
 fidence in the powers of the State as the nature of the theories 
 of right for which they invoke its intervention. And just as 
 socialists do not enlarge the bounds of authority from the mere 
 love of authority, so their opponents do not resist the enlarge- 
 ment from the mere hatred of authority. They raise no 
 controversy about the abstract legitimacy of Government 
 encroachments on the sphere of private capital or of legal 
 enlargements of the rights or privileges of labour. There is 
 no socialism in that ; the socialism only comes in when the 
 encroachments are made on a field where Government adminis- 
 tration is unlikely to answer, and where the rights conferred 
 are rights to which labour can present no just and reasonable 
 claim. 
 
 It will be objected that this is to reduce socialism to a mere 
 matter of more or less. The English economists, it will be 
 said, practised a little socialism, because they allowed the use 
 of State means to elevate the condition of the working classes, 
 or to provide for the wants of the general community ; and the 
 Continental Social Democrats only practise a little more social- 
 ism when they cry for a working-class State or for the progres- 
 sive nationalization of all industries. But in practical life the 
 measure is everything. So many grains of opium will cure ; so 
 many more will kill. The important thing for adjusting claims 
 must always be to get the right measure, and the objection to 
 socialistic schemes is precisely this, that they take up a theory 
 of distributive justice which is an absolutely wrong measure, 
 or else some vague theory of disinheritance which contains no 
 measure at all. They would nationalize industries without 
 paying any respect to their suitability for Government man- 
 agement, simply because they want to see all industries nation- 
 alized ; and they would grant all manner of compensating
 
 State Socialism. 379 
 
 advantages to the working class as instalments of some vague 
 claim, either of economic right from which they are alleged to 
 have been ousted by the system of capitalism, or of aboriginal 
 natural right from which they are said to have been disin- 
 herited by the general arrangements of society itself. "What 
 distinguishes their position and makes it socialism is therefore 
 precisely this absence of measure or of the right measure, and 
 one great advantage of the English doctrine of social politics 
 which I have expounded, is that it is able to supply this 
 indispensable criterion. That doctrine would limit the in- 
 dustrial undertakings of the State to such as it possessed 
 natural advantages for conducting successfully, and the State's 
 part in social reform to securing for the people the essential 
 conditions of all humane living, of all normal and progressive 
 manhood. It would interfere, indeed, as little as possible with 
 liberty of speculation, because it recognises that the best way 
 of promoting social progress and prosperity is to multiply the 
 opportunities, and with the opportunities the incentives, of 
 talent and capital ; but, while giving the strong their head, in 
 the belief that they will carry on the world so far after them, 
 it would insist on the public authority taking sharp heed that 
 no large section of the common people be suffered to fall per- 
 manently behind in the race, to lose the very conditions of 
 further progress, and to lapse into ways of living which the 
 opinion of the time thinks unworthy of our common humanity. 
 Now State socialism disregards these limits, straying generally 
 far beyond them, and it may not improperly be denned as the 
 system which requires the State to do work it is unfit to do in 
 order to invest the working classes with privileges they have 
 no right to get. 
 
 The term State socialism originated in Germany a few years 
 ago to express the antithesis not of free, voluntary, or Christian 
 socialism, as seems frequently to be imagined here, but of 
 revolutionary socialism, which is always considered to be social- 
 ism proper, because it is the only form of the system that is of 
 any serious moment at the present day. State socialism has 
 the same general aims as socialism proper, only it would carry 
 out its plans gradually by means of the existing State, instead 
 of first overturning the existing State by revolution and estab-
 
 380 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 lishing in its place anew political organization for the purpose, 
 the Social Democratic Republic. There are socialists who 
 fancy they have but at any moment to choose a government 
 and issue a decree, as Napoleon once did "Let misery be 
 abolished this day fortnight" and misery would be abolished 
 that day fortnight. But the State socialists are unable to 
 share this simple faith. They are Stats socialists not be- 
 cause they have more confidence in the State than other 
 socialists, but because they have less. They consider it utterly 
 futile to expect a democratic community ever to be able to 
 create a political executive that should be powerful enough to 
 carry through the entire socialistic programme. Like the Social 
 Conservatives of all countries, like our own Young England 
 parfcy, for example, or the Tory Democrats of the present gene- 
 ration, they combine a warm zeal for popular amelioration with 
 a profound distrust of popular government ; but when compared 
 with other socialists, they take a very sober view of the capacity 
 of government of any kind ; and although they believe impli- 
 citly in the " Social Monarchy of the Hohenzollerns," they doubt 
 whether the strongest monarchy the world has ever seen would 
 be strong enough to effect a socialistic reconstruction of the 
 industrial system without retaining the existence for many 
 centuries to come of the ancient institutions of private pro- 
 perty and inheritance. 
 
 All that is at least very frankly acknowledged by Rodbertus, 
 the remarkable but overrated thinker whom the State social- 
 ists of Germany have chosen for their father. Rodbertus was 
 always regarded as a great oracle by Lassalle, the originator oi 
 the present socialist agitation, and his authority is constantly 
 quoted by the most eminent luminary among the State social- 
 ists of these latter days, Professor Adolph Wagner, who says 
 it was Rodbertus that first shed on him " the Damascus light 
 that tore from his eyes the scales of economic individualism." 
 Rodbertus had lived for a quarter of a century in a political 
 sulk against the Hohenzollerns. Though he had served as a 
 Minister of State, he threw up his political career rather than 
 accept a constitution as a mere royal favour ; he refused to 
 work under it or recognise it by so much as a vote at the polls. 
 But when the power of the Hohenzollerns became established
 
 State Socialism. 381 
 
 by the victories of Koniggratz and Sedan, and when they 
 embarked on their new policy of State socialism, Rodbertus 
 developed into one of their most ardent worshippers. Their 
 new social policy, it is true, was avowedly adopted as a corrective 
 of socialism, as a kind of inoculation with a milder type of the 
 disease in order to procure immunity from a more malignant ; 
 but Bismarck contended at the same time that it was nothing 
 but the old traditional policy of the House of Prussia, who had 
 long before placed the right of existence and the right of labour 
 in the statute-book of the country, and whose most illustrious 
 member, Frederick the Great, used to be fond of calling himself 
 " the beggars' king." Under these circumstances Rodbertus 
 came to place the whole hope of the future in the " Social Mon- 
 archy of the Hohenzollerns," and ventured to prophesy that a 
 socialist emperor would yet be born to that House who would 
 rule possibly with a rod of iron, but would always rule for the 
 greatest good of the labouring class. Still, even under a 
 dynasty of socialist emperors Rodbertus gave five hundred 
 years for the completion of the economic revolution he contem- 
 plated, because he acknowledged it would take all that time 
 for society to acquire the moral principle and habitual firmness 
 of will which would alone enable it to dispense with the insti- 
 tutions of private property and inheritance without suffering 
 serious injury. 
 
 In theory Rodbertus was a believer in the modern social 
 democratic doctrine of the labourer's right to the full product 
 of his labour the doctrine which gives itself out as " scientific 
 socialism," because it is got by combining a misunderstanding 
 of Ricardo's theory of wages with a misunderstanding of the 
 same economist's theory of value and which would abolish 
 rent, interest, profit, and all forms of "labourless income," 
 and give the entire gross product to the labourer, because by 
 that union of scientific blunders it is made to appear that the 
 labourer has produced the whole product himself. Rodbertus, 
 in fact, claimed to be the author of that doctrine, and fought 
 for the priority with Marx, though in reality the English 
 socialists had drawn the same conclusions from the same blun- 
 ders long before either of them ; but author or no author of it, 
 his sole reason for touching: the work of social reform at all
 
 382 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 was to get that particular claim of right recognised. Yet for 
 five hundred years Rodbertus will not wrong the labourers by 
 granting them their full rights. He admits that without the 
 assistance of the private capitalist during that interval labour- 
 ers would not produce so much work, and therefore could not 
 earn so much wages as they do now ; and consequently, in spite 
 of his theories, he declines to suppress rent and interest in the 
 meantime, and practically tells the labourers they must wait 
 for the full product of labour till the time comes when they 
 can produce the full product themselves. That is virtually to 
 confess that while the claim may be just then, it is unjust 
 now ; and although Eodbertus never makes that acknowledg- 
 ment, he is content to leave the claim in abeyance and to put 
 forward in its place, as a provisional ideal of just distribution 
 more conformable to the present situation of things, the claim 
 of the labourer to a progressive share, step for step with the 
 capitalist, in the results of the increasing productivity given 
 to labour by inventions and machinery. He thought that at 
 present, so far from getting the whole product of labour, the 
 labourer was getting a less and less share of its products every 
 day, and though this can be easily shown to be a delusive fear, 
 Rodbertus's State socialism w r as devised to counteract it. 
 
 For this purpose the first requisite was the systematic man- 
 agement of all industries by the State. The final goal was to 
 be State property as well as State management, but for the 
 greater part of five centuries the system would be private 
 property and State management. Sir Rowland Hill and the 
 English railway nationalizes proposed that the State should 
 own the lines, but that the companies should continue to work 
 them ; Rodbertus's idea, on the contrary, is that -the State 
 should work, but not own. But then the State should manage 
 everything and everywhere. Co-operation and joint-stock 
 management were as objectionable to him as individual man- 
 agement. He thought it a mere delusion to suppose, as some 
 socialists did, that the growth of joint-stock companies and 
 co-operative societies is a step in historical evolution towards 
 a socialist regime. It was just the opposite ; it was individual 
 property in a worse form, and he always told his friend Lassalle 
 that it was a hopeless dream to expect to bring in the reign
 
 State Socialism. 383 
 
 of justice and brotherhood by his plan of founding productive 
 associations on State credit, because productive societies really 
 led the other way, and created batches of joint-stock property, 
 which he said would make itself a thousand times more bit- 
 terly hated than the individual property of to-day. One 
 association would compete with another, and the group on a 
 rich mine would use their advantage over the group on a poor 
 one as mercilessly as private capitalists do now. Nothing 
 would answer the end but State property, and nothing would 
 conduce to State property but State management. 
 
 The object of all this intervention, as we have said, is to 
 realize a certain ideal or standard of fair wages the standard 
 according to which a fair wage is one that grows step by step 
 with the productive capacity of the country ; and the plan 
 Rodbertus proposes to realize it by is practically a scheme of 
 compulsory profit-sharing. He would convert all land and 
 capital into an irredeemable national stock, of which the 
 present owners would be constituted the first or original 
 holders, which they might sell or transfer at pleasure but not 
 call up, and on which they should receive, not a fixed rent or 
 rate of interest, but an annual dividend varying with the pro- 
 duce or profits of the year. The produce of the year was to be 
 divided into three parts : one for the landowners, to be shared 
 according to the amount of stock they respectively held ; a 
 second for the capitalists, to be shared in the same way ; and 
 the third for the labourers, to be shared by them according to 
 the quantity of work they did, measured by the time occupied 
 and the relative strain of their several trades. This division 
 was necessarily very arbitrary in its nature ; there was no 
 principle whatever to decide how much should go to the land- 
 owners, and how much to capitalists, and how much to 
 labourers ; and although there was a rule for settling the price 
 cf labour in one trade as compared with the price of labour in 
 another, it is a rule that would afford very little practical 
 guidance if one came to apply it in actual life. At all events, 
 Rodbertus himself toiled for years at a working plan for his 
 scheme of wages, but though he always gave out that he had 
 succeeded in preparing one, he steadily refused to disclose it 
 even to trusted admirers like LassaUe and Rudolph Meyer, on
 
 3^4 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the singular pretext tliat the world knew too little political 
 economy as yet to receive it, and at his death nothing of the 
 sort seems to have been discovered among his papers. Is it 
 doing him any injustice to infer that he had never been able 
 to arrive at a plan that satisfied his own mind as to its being 
 neither arbitrary nor impracticable ? 
 
 Now this is a good specimen of State socialism, because it 
 is so complete and brings out so decisively the broad char- 
 acteristics of the system. In the first place, it desires a pro- 
 gressive and indiscriminate nationalization of all industries, 
 not because it thinks they will be more efficiently or more 
 economically managed in consequence of the change, but 
 merely as a preliminary step towards a particular scheme of 
 social reform ; in the next place, that scheme of social reform 
 is an ideal of equitable distribution which is demonstrably 
 false, and is admittedly incapable of immediate realization ; in 
 the third place, a provisional policy is adopted in the mean- 
 while by pitching arbitrarily on a certain measure of privileges 
 and advantages that are to be guaranteed to the labouring 
 classes by law as partial instalments of rights deferred or com- 
 pensations for rights alleged to be taken away. 
 
 It may be that not many State socialists are so thorough- 
 going as Rodbertus. Few of them possibly accept his theory 
 of the labourer's right which is virtually that the labourer 
 has a right to everything, all existing wealth being considered 
 merely an accumulation of unpaid labour and few of them 
 may throw so heavy a burden on the State as the whole 
 production and the whole distribution of the country. But 
 they all start from some theory of right that is just as false, 
 and they all impose work on the State which the State cannot 
 creditably perform. They all think of the mass of mankind as 
 being disinherited in one way or another by the present social 
 system, perhaps through the permission of private property 
 at all, perhaps through permission of its inequalities. M. de 
 Laveleye, indeed, goes a step further back still. In an article 
 he has contributed on this subject to the Contemporary Review, 
 he uses as his motto the saying of M. Ren an that Nature is in- 
 justice itself, and he would have society to correct not merely 
 the inequalities which society may have itself had a share in
 
 State Socialism. 385 
 
 establishing, but also the inequalities of talent or opportunity 
 which are Nature's own work. Accordingly, M. de Laveleye 
 describes himself as a State socialist, because he thinks " the 
 State ought to make use of its legitimate powers for the estab- 
 lishment of the equality of conditions among men in proportion 
 to their personal merit." Equality of conditions and personal 
 merit are inconsistent standards, but if they were harmonious, 
 it would be beyond the power of the State to realize them for 
 want of an effective calculus of either. 
 
 Few State socialists, however, profess the purpose of correct- 
 ing the differences of native endowment ; for the most part, 
 when they found their policy on any theoretic idea at all, they 
 found it on some idea of historical reparation. In this country, 
 socialist notions always crop up out of the land. German 
 socialists direct their attack mainly on capital, but English 
 socialism fastens very naturally on property in land, which in 
 England is concentrated into unnaturally few hands : and a 
 "claim is very commonly advanced for more or less indefinite 
 compensation to the labouring class on account of their alleged 
 disinheritance, through the institution of private property, from 
 their aboriginal or natural rights to the use of the earth, the 
 common possession of the race. That is the ground, for 
 example, which Mr. Spencer takes for advocating land nation- 
 alization, and Mr. Chamberlain for his various claims for 
 " ransom." The last-comer is held to have as good a right to 
 the free use of the earth as the first occupant ; and if society 
 deprives him of that right for purposes of its own, he is main- 
 tained to be entitled to receive some equivalent, as if society 
 does not already give the new-comer vastly more than it took 
 away. His chances of obtaining a decent living in the world, 
 instead of being reduced, have been immensely multiplied 
 through the social system that has resulted from the private ap- 
 propriation of land. The primitive economic rights whose loss 
 socialists make the subject of so much lamentation are gener- 
 ally considered to be these four : (1) the right to hunt ; (2) the 
 right to fish ; (3) the right to gather nuts and berries ; and (4) 
 the right to feed a cow or sheep on the waste land. Fourier 
 added a fifth which was certainly a right much utilized in 
 early times the right of theft from people over the border of 
 
 C
 
 386 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the territory of one's own tribe. Let that right be thrown in 
 with the rest ; then the claim with which every English child 
 is alleged to be born, and for which compensation is asked, is 
 the claim to a thirty-millionth part of the value of these five 
 aboriginal uses of the soil of England ; and what is that worth? 
 "Why, if the "prairie value" of the soil is estimated at the high 
 figure of a shilling the acre per annum, it would only give 
 every inhabitant something under half a crown, and when 
 compensation is demanded for the loss of this ridiculous 
 pittance, one calls to mind what immensely greater compensa- 
 tions the modern child is born to. Civilization is itself a social 
 property, a common fund, a people's heritage, accumulating 
 from one generation to another, and opening to the new-comer 
 economic' opportunities and careers incomparably better and 
 more numerous than the ancient liberties of fishing in the 
 stream or nutting in the forest. The things actually demanded 
 for the poor in liquidation of this alleged claim may often be 
 admissible on other grounds altogether, but to ask them in the- 
 name of compensation for the loss of those primitive economic 
 rights even though it was done by Spencer or Cobden 
 is certainly State socialism. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain's famous ." ransom " speeches are an example 
 of that. There was nothing socialist about the substance of his 
 proposals. He expressly disclaimed all sympathy with the 
 idea of equality of conditions ; he hesitated about applying the 
 graduated taxation* principle to anything but legacies ; he 
 explicitly said he would do nothing to discourage the cumula- 
 tive principle in the rich, or the habit of industry in the poor ; 
 he asked mainly for free schools, free libraries, free parks, and 
 other things of a like character ; but then he asked for them 
 as a penalty for wrong-doing, instead of an obligation of 
 ability as a ransom to be paid by the rich, or by society 
 generally, for having ousted the poor out of their aboriginal 
 rights. Mr. Chamberlain merely pled for useful social reforms 
 in a socialistic spirit. 
 
 The favourite theory on which the German State socialists 
 proceed seems to be that men are entitled to an equalization of 
 opportunities, to an immunity, as far as human power can 
 secure it, from the interposition of chance and change. That
 
 State Socialism. 387 
 
 at least is the view of Professor Adolph Wagner, whose position 
 on the subject is of considerable consequence, because he is the 
 economist-in-ordinary to the German Government, and has 
 been Prince Bismarck's principal adviser in connection with 
 all his recent social legislation. Professor Wagner may be 
 taken as the most eminent and most authoritative exponent 
 of the theory of State socialism, and he recently developed 
 his views on the subject afresh in some articles in the Tubin- 
 gen Zeitschrift fur die Gesammten Staatsicissenschaften for 1887, 
 on " Finanz-politik und Staatsozialismus." According to 
 Wagner, the chief aim of the State at present in taxation and 
 in every other form of its activity ought to be to alter the 
 national distribution of wealth to the advantage of the working 
 class. All politics must become social politics ; the State must 
 turn workman's friend. For we have arrived at a new historical 
 period ; and just as the feudal period gave way to the absolu- 
 tist period, and the absolutist period to the constitutional, 
 so now the constitutional period is merging in what ought 
 to be called the social period, because social ideas are very 
 properly coming more and more to influence and control every- 
 thing, alike in the region of production, in the region of distri- 
 bution, and in the region of consumption. Now, according 
 to Wagner, the business of the State socialist is simply to 
 facilitate the development of this change to work out the 
 transition from the constitutional to the social epoch in the 
 best, wisest, and most wholesome way for all parties concerned. 
 He rejects the so-called "scientific socialism" of Marx and 
 Rodbertus and Lassalle, and the practical policy of the social 
 democratic agitation ; and he will not believe either that a 
 false theory like theirs can obtain a lasting influence, or that a 
 party that builds itself on such a theory can ever become a 
 real power. But, at the same time, he cannot set down the 
 socialistic theory as a mere philosophical speculation, or the 
 socialistic movement as merely an artificial product of agita- 
 tion. The evils of both lie in the actual situation of things ; 
 they are products necessary products, he says of our modern 
 social development ; and they will never be effectually quieted 
 till that development is put on more salutary lines. They 
 have a soul of truth in them, and that soul of truth in the
 
 388 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 doctrines and demands of radical socialism is what State 
 socialism seeks to disengage, to formulate, to realize. It is 
 quite true, for example, that the present distribution of wealth, 
 with its startling inequalities of accumulation and want, is 
 historically the effect, first, of class legislation and class ad- 
 ministration of law ; and second, of mere blind chance operat- 
 ing on a legal regime of private property and industrial 
 freedom, and a state of the arts which gave the large scale of 
 production decided technical advantages. In one of his former 
 writings, Professor Wagner contended that German peasants 
 lived to this day in mean thatched huts, simply because their 
 ancestors had been impoverished by feudal exactions and ruined 
 by wars which they had no voice in declaring ; and he seems 
 to be now as profoundly impressed with the belief that the 
 present liberty allowed to unscrupulous speculators to utilize 
 the chances and opportunities of trade at the cost of others 
 is producing evils in no way less serious, which ought to be 
 checked effectively while there is yet time. So long as such 
 tendencies are left at work, he says it is idle trying to treat 
 socialism with any cunning admixture of cakes and blows, 
 or charging State socialists with heating the oven of social 
 democracy. State socialists, he continues, comprehend the 
 disease which Radical socialists only feel wildly and call down 
 fire to cure, and they are as much opposed to the purely work- 
 ing-class State of the latter, as they are to the purely constitu- 
 tional State of our modern Liberal ismus vulgaris, as Wagner 
 calls it. 
 
 The true Social State lies, in his opinion, between the two. 
 WTiat the new social era demands the era which is already, 
 he thinks, well in course of development, but which it is the 
 business of State socialism to help Providence to develop 
 aright is the effective participation of poor and rich alike in 
 the civilization which the increased productive resources of 
 society afford the means of enjoying ; and this is to be brought 
 about in two ways: first, by a systematic education of the 
 whole people according to a well-planned ideal of culture, and 
 second, by a better distribution of the income of society among 
 the masses. Now, to carry out these requirements, the idea 
 of liberty proper to the constitutional era must naturally be
 
 State Socialism. 389 
 
 finally discarded, and a very large hand must be allowed to 
 the public authority in every department of human activity, 
 whether relating to the production, distribution, or consump- 
 tion of wealth. In the first place, in order to destroy the effect 
 of chance and of the utilization of chances in creating the 
 present accumulations in private hands, it is necessary to divert 
 into the public treasury as far as possible the whole of that part 
 of the national income which goes now, in the form of rent, 
 interest, or profit, into the pockets of the owners of land and 
 capital, and the conductors of business enterprises. Wagner 
 would accordingly nationalize (or municipalize) gradually so 
 much of the land, capital, and industrial undertakings of the 
 country as could be efficiently managed as public property or 
 public enterprises, and that would include all undertakings 
 which tend to become monopolies even in private hands, or 
 which, being conducted best on the large scale, are already 
 managed under a form of organization which, in his opinion, 
 has most of the faults and most of the merits of State manage- 
 ment viz., the form of joint-stock companies. He would in 
 this way throw on the Government all the great means of 
 communication and transport, railways and canals, telegraphs 
 and post, and all banking and insurance ; and on the muni- 
 cipalities all such things as the gas, light, and water supply. 
 Although he recognises the suitability of Government manage- 
 ment as a consideration to be weighed in nationalizing an 
 industry, he states explicitly that the reason for the change he 
 proposes is not in the least the fiscal or economic one that the 
 industry can be more advantageously conducted by the 
 Government, but is a theory of social politics which requires 
 that the whole economic work of the people ought to be more 
 and more converted from the form of private into the form of 
 public organization, so that every working man might be a 
 public servant and enjoy the same assured existence that other 
 public servants at present possess. 
 
 In the next place, since many industries must remain in 
 private hands, the State is bound to see the existence of the 
 labourers engaged in private works guaranteed as securely as 
 those engaged in public works. It must take steps to provide 
 them with both an absolute and a relative increase of wages
 
 39 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 by instituting a compulsory system of paying wages as a 
 percentage of the gross produce ; it must guarantee them a 
 certain continuity of employment ; must limit the hours of 
 their labour to the length prescribed by the present state of 
 the arts in the several trades ; and supply a system of public 
 insurance against accidents, sickness, infirmity, and age, 
 together with a provision for widows and orphans. 
 
 In the third place, all public works are to be managed on 
 the socialistic principle of supplying manual labourers with 
 commodities at a cheaper rate than their social superiors. 
 They are to have advantages in the matters of gas and water 
 supply, railway fares, school fees, and everything else that is 
 provided by the public authority. 
 
 In the fourth place, taxation is to be employed directly to 
 mitigate the inequalities of wealth resulting from the present 
 commercial system, and to save and even increase the labourer's 
 income at the expense of the income of other classes. This 
 is to be done by the progressive income-tax, and by the 
 application of the product of indirect taxation on certain 
 articles of working-class consumption to special working-class 
 ends. For example, he thinks Prince Bismarck's proposed 
 tobacco monopoly might be made "the patrimony of the 
 disinherited." 
 
 In the fifth place, the State ought to take measures to wean 
 the people not only from noxious forms of expenditure, like the 
 expenditure on strong drink, but from useless and waste- 
 ful expenditure, and to guide them into a more economic, 
 far-going, and beneficial employment of the earnings they 
 make. 
 
 Now for all this work, involving as it does so large an 
 amount of interference with the natural liberty of things, 
 "Wagner not unreasonably thinks that a strong Government is 
 absolutely indispensable a Government that knows its own 
 mind, and has the power and the will to carry it out ; a 
 Government whose authority is established on the history and 
 opinion of the nation, and stands high above all the contending 
 political factions of the hour. And in Germany, such an 
 executive can only be found in the present Empire, which is 
 merely following " Frederician and Josephine traditions " in
 
 State Socialism. 391 
 
 coining forward, as it did in the Imperial message of November, 
 1881, as a genuine " social monarchy." 
 
 In this doctrine of Professor Wagner we find the same 
 general features we have already seen in the doctrine of 
 Rodbertus. It is true he would not nationalize all industries 
 whatsoever ; he would only nationalize such industries as the 
 State is really fit to manage successfully. He admits that 
 uneconomic management can never contribute to the public 
 good, and so far he accepts a very sound principle of limitation. 
 But then he applies the principle with too great laxity. He 
 has an excessive idea of the State's capacities. He thinks that 
 every business now conducted by a joint-stock company could 
 be just as well conducted by the Government, and ought 
 therefore to be nationalized ; but experience shows railway 
 experience, for example that joint-stock management, when 
 it is good, is better than Government management at its best. 
 Then Professor "Wagner thinks every industry which has a 
 natural tendency to become in any case a practical monopoly 
 would be better in the hands of the Government ; but Govern- 
 ment might interfere enough to restrain the mischiefs of 
 monopoly as it does in the case of railways in this country, 
 for example without incurring the liabilities of complete 
 management. Professor Wagner would in these ways throw a 
 great deal of work on Government which Government is not 
 very fit to accomplish successfully, and he would like to throw 
 everything on it, if he could overcome his scruples about its 
 capabilities, because he thinks industrial nationalization would 
 facilitate the realization of his particular views of the equitable 
 distribution of wealth. It is true, again, that Wagner's theory 
 of equitable distribution is not the theory of Rodbertus he 
 rejects the right of labour to the whole product; but his 
 theory, if less definite, is not less unjustifiable. It is virtually 
 the theory of equality of conditions which considers all in- 
 equalities of fortune wrong, because they are held to come 
 either from chance, or what is worse from an unjust utiliza- 
 tion of chance, and which, on that account, takes comparative 
 poverty to constitute of itself a righteous claim for compensa- 
 tion as against comparative wealth. Now, a state of enforced 
 equality of conditions would probably be found neither possible
 
 39 2 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 nor desirable, but it is in its very conception unjust. It may 
 be well, as far as it can be done, to check refined methods of 
 deceit, or cruel utilizations of an advantageous position, but it 
 can never be right to deprive energy, talent, and character of 
 the natural reward and incentive of their exertions. The 
 world would soon be poor if it discouraged the skill of the 
 skilful, as it would soon cease to be virtuous if it ostracized 
 those who were pre-eminently honest or just. The idea of 
 equality has been a great factor in human progress, but it 
 requires no such outcome as this. Equality is but the respect 
 we owe to human dignity, and that very respect for human 
 dignity demands security for the fruits of industry to the 
 successful, and security against the loss of the spirit of personal 
 independence in the mass of the people. But while that is so, 
 there is one broad requirement of that same fundamental 
 respect for human dignity which must be admitted to be 
 wholly just and reasonable the requirement which we have 
 seen to have been recognised by the English economists that 
 the citizens be, as far as possible, secured, if necessary by 
 public compulsion and public money, in the elementary con- 
 ditions of all humane living. The State might not be right if 
 it gave the aged a comfortable superannuation allowance, or 
 the unemployed agreeable work at good wages ; but it is only 
 doing its duty when, with the English law, it gives them 
 enough to keep them, without taking away from the one the 
 motives for making a voluntary provision against age, or from 
 the other the spur to look out for work for themselves. 
 
 It will be said that this is a standard that is subject to a 
 certain variability ; that a house may be considered unfit for 
 habitation now that our fathers would have been fain to 
 occupy ; that shoes seem an indispensable element of humane 
 living now, though, as Adam Smith informs us, they were still 
 only an optional decency in some parts of Scotland in his time. 
 But differences of this nature lead to no practical difficulty, 
 and the standard is fixity of measure itself when compared 
 with the indefinite claims that may be made in the name of 
 historical compensation, or wild theories of distributive justice, 
 and it makes a wholesome appeal to recognised obligations of 
 humanity instead of feeding a violent sense of unbounded
 
 State Socialism. 393 
 
 hereditary wrong. At all events, it presents the true equality 
 equality of moral rights over against the false equality of 
 State socialism equality of material conditions ; and it is able 
 to present a better face against that system, because it re- 
 cognises a certain measure of material conditions among the 
 original moral rights. For this reason the English theory of 
 social politics is the best practical criterion for discriminating 
 between socialistic legislation and wholesome social reforms. 
 The State socialistic position cannot be advantageously attacked 
 from the ground of Mr. Spencer and the adherents of laissez- 
 faire, who merely say, Let misfortune and poverty alone ; 
 whether remediable or irremediable, they are not the State's 
 aiFairs. The two theories nowhere come within range ; but the 
 English theory meets State socialism at every point, almost 
 hand to hand, for it admits the State's competency to deal 
 with poverty and misfortune, and to alter men's material con- 
 ditions to the extent needed for the practical realization of 
 their full moral rights. 
 
 III. State Socialism and Social Reform. 
 
 On this English theory of social politics, the State, though 
 not socialist, is very frankly social reformer, and those schools 
 of opinion, which are usually thought to have been most averse 
 to Government intervention, have been among the most earnest 
 in pressing that role upon the State. Cobden, I. presume, may 
 be taken as a fair representative of the Manchester school, and 
 Cobden, with all his love of liberty, loved progress more, and 
 thought the best Government was the Government that did 
 most for social reform. When he visited Prussia in 1838, he 
 was struck with admiration at the paternal but improving rule 
 he found in operation there. " I very much suspect," he said, 
 " that at present for the great mass of the people Prussia 
 possesses the best Government in Europe. I would gladly 
 give up my taste for talking politics, to secure such a state of 
 things in England. Had our people such a simple and econo- 
 mical Government, so deeply imbued with justice to all, and 
 aiming so constantly to elevate mentally and morally its popu- 
 lation, how much better would it be for the twelve or fifteen
 
 394 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 millions in the British Empire, who, while they possess no 
 electoral rights, are yet persuaded they are freemen ! " So far 
 from thinking, as the Manchester man of polemics is always 
 made to think, that the State goes far enough when it secures 
 to every man liberty to pursue his own interest his own way, 
 as long as he does not interfere with the corresponding right 
 of his neighbours, the Manchester man of reality takes the 
 State severely to task for neglecting to promote the mental 
 and moral elevation of the people ; the chief end of Govern- 
 ment being to establish not liberty alone, but every other 
 necessary security for rational progress. The theory of laissez- 
 faire would of course permit measures required for the public 
 safety, but what Cobden calls for are measures of social ameli- 
 oration. Provisions for the better protection of person and 
 property, as they exist, against violence or fraud, make up but 
 a small part of legitimate State duty, compared wiih provisions 
 for their better development, for enlarging the powers of the 
 national manhood, or the product of the national resources. 
 The institution of property itself is a provision for progress, 
 and could never have originated under the system of laissez- 
 faire, which now makes it a main branch of State work to 
 defend it. In the form of permanent and exclusive possession, 
 it is undoubtedly a contravention of the equal freedom of all 
 to the use of their common inheritance, committed for the 
 purpose of securing their more productive use of it. It inter- 
 feres with their access to the land, and with the equality of 
 their opportunities, but then it enhances and concentrates the 
 energies of the occupants, and it doubles the yield of the soil. 
 It promotes two objects, which are quite as paramount con- 
 cerns of the State as liberty itself it improves the industrial 
 manhood of the nation, and it increases the productivity of the 
 natural resources ; and institutions that conduce to such results 
 are not really infractions of liberty, but rather complements 
 of it, because they give people an ampler use of their own 
 powers, and create, by means of the increase of production they 
 work, more and better opportunities than those they take 
 away. 
 
 Now the lines of legitimate intervention prescribed by the 
 necessities of progress, and already followed in the original
 
 State Socialism. 395 
 
 institution of property, will naturally, when extended through 
 our complicated civilization, include a very considerable and 
 varied field of social and industrial activity, and this has been 
 all along recognised by the English economists and statesmen. 
 While opposed to the State doing anything either moral or 
 material for individuals, which individuals could do better, or 
 with better results, for themselves, they agreed in requiring 
 the State, first, to undertake any industrial work it had superior 
 natural advantages for conducting successfully ; and second, 
 to protect the weaker classes effectively in the essentials of all 
 rational and humane living in what Adam Smith calls " an 
 undeformed and unmutilated manhood" not only against 
 the ravages of violence or fear or insecurity, but against those 
 of ignorance, disease, and want. Smith, we know, would even 
 save them from cowardice by a system of military training, 
 and from fanaticism by an established Church, because, he 
 said, cowardice and fanaticism were as great deformities of 
 manhood as ignorance or disease, and prevented a man from 
 having command of himself and his own powers quite as 
 effectually as violence or oppression. Laws which give every 
 man better command and use of his own energies are in mani- 
 fest harmony with liberty, and for the State to do such indus- 
 trial work as it has special natural advantages for doing is 
 conformable with the principle of free-trade itself, which has 
 always prescribed to men and nations as the best rule for their 
 prosperity, that they should concentrate their strength on the 
 branches of industry they possess natural advantages for culti- 
 vating, and give up wasting their labour on less productive 
 employment. Mr. Chamberlain is certainly wrong in thinking 
 over-government an extinct danger under democratic institu- 
 tions, a mere survival from times of oppression which haunts 
 the people still, though they are their own masters, with foolish 
 fears of over-governing themselves. In reality, the danger has 
 much more probably increased, as John Stuart Mill believed, 
 for if we cannot over-govern ourselves, we can very easily and 
 cheerfully over-govern one another, and a majority may impose 
 its brute will with even less scruple than a monarch ; but how- 
 ever that may be, those who tremble most sincerely for the 
 ark of liberty cannot see any undue contraction of the field of
 
 396 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 individual action in an extension of authority for either of the 
 two purposes here specified, for the purpose of undertaking 
 industrial work which private initiative cannot prosecute so 
 advantageously, or of making more secure to the weaker 
 citizens those primary conditions of normal humanity, which 
 are really their natural right. The first of these purposes is 
 quite consistent with the principles of men like W. von Hum- 
 boldt, who contend that the best means of national prosperity 
 is the cultivation to the utmost of the individual energy of the 
 people, and who are opposed to Government interference be- 
 cause it represses or supplants that energy. They welcome 
 everything that tends to economize and develop energy, to 
 place things in the hands of those that can do them best, and 
 generally to increase the productive capacity of the whole 
 community. They believe that machinery, division of labour, 
 factory systems, keenest conditions of competition, however 
 they may at first seem to contract men's opportunities of 
 employment, always end in multiplying them, and, because 
 they increase or economize the productive powers of those 
 actually employed, really expand the field of employment for 
 all. Now Government management would of course have a 
 like operation wherever Government management effected a 
 like economy or increase in the productive powers of society, 
 and would really expand the field of individual initiative 
 which it appeared to contract ; and those who believe most in 
 individual energy and its power of seeking out for itself the 
 most advantageous new outlets, will find least to complain of 
 in an intervention of authority which releases men from work 
 ill-suited to their powers to do, and sends them into work 
 where their powers can be more fruitfully occupied. 
 
 The second purpose of legitimate intervention seems even 
 less open to objection from that side. The State is asked to 
 go in social reform only as far as it goes in judicial adminis- 
 tration it is asked to secure for every man as effectively as it 
 can those essentials of all rational and humane living which 
 are really every man's right, because without them he would 
 be something less than man, his manhood would be wanting, 
 maimed, mutilated, deformed, incapable of fulfilling the ends 
 of its being. Those original requirements of humane existence
 
 State Socialism. 397 
 
 are dues of the common nature we wear, which we cannot see 
 extinguished in others without an injury to our own self- 
 respect, and the State is bound to provide adequate securities 
 for one of them as much as for another. The same reason 
 which justified the State at first in protecting person and 
 property against violence, justified it yesterday in abolishing 
 slavery, justifies it to-day in abolishing ignorance, and will 
 justify it to-morrow in abolishing other degrading conditions 
 of life. The public sense of human dignity may grow from 
 age to age and be offended to-morrow by what it tolerates 
 to-day, but the principle of sound intervention is all through 
 the same that the proposed measure is necessary to enable 
 men to live the true life of a man and fulfil the proper ends of 
 rational being. A thoughtful French writer defends State 
 intervention for the purpose of social amelioration as being a 
 mere duty of what he calls reparative justice. Popular misery 
 and decadence, he would say, is always very largely the result 
 of bad laws and other bad civil conditions, as we see it plainly 
 to have been in the case of the Irish cottiers, the Scotch crofters, 
 and the rural labourers of England, and when the community 
 has really inflicted the injury, the community is bound in the 
 merest justice to repair it. And the obligation would not be 
 exhausted with the repeal of bad laws ; it would require the 
 positive restoration to the declining populations of the condi- 
 tions of real prosperity from which they fell. But though this 
 is a specific ground which may occasionally quicken the State's 
 remedial action with something of the energy of remorse, it is 
 no extension of its natural and legitimate sphere of interven- 
 tion, and the State might properly take every measure neces- 
 sary for the effectual restoration of a declining section of the 
 population to conditions of real prosperity on the broad and 
 simple principle already laid down, that the measure is neces- 
 sary to put those people in a position to fulfil their vocation as 
 human beings. Hopeless conditions of labour are as contrary 
 to sound nature, and as fatal to any proper use of man's ener- 
 gies, as slavery itself, and their mere existence constitutes a 
 sufficient cause for the State's intervention, apart from any 
 special responsibility the State may bear for their historical 
 origin. Even the measure of the required intervention is no
 
 398 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 way less, for if its purpose is to preserve some essential of full 
 normal manhood, its only limit is that of being effectual to 
 serve the purpose. The original natural obligation of the State 
 needs no expansion then from historical responsibilities to cover 
 any effectual form of remedial action against the social decad- 
 ence of particular classes of the population, whether it be the 
 constitution of a new right like the right to a fair rent, the 
 adoption of administrative measures like the migration of re- 
 dundant inhabitants, or the provision of wise facilities for the 
 rest by the loan of public money, 
 
 It is plain, therefore, that we have here within the lines of 
 accepted and even " orthodox " English theory a doctrine of 
 social politics which gives the Government an ample and per- 
 fectly adequate place in the promotion of all necessary social 
 reform ; and if we are all socialists now, as" is so often said, it 
 is not because we have undergone any change of principles on 
 social legislation, but only a public awakening to our social 
 miseries. The Churches, for example, while they left Lord 
 Shaftesbury to fight his battles for the helpless alone, have now 
 shared in this social awakening, and show not only a general 
 ardour to agitate social questions, but even some pains to under- 
 stand them ; but the Churches did not neglect Lord Shaftesbury 
 fifty years ago, because they thought his Factory Bills pro- 
 ceeded from unsound views of the State's functions, but merely 
 because their interest was not then sufficiently aroused in the 
 temporal welfare of the poor, and with all their individual 
 charities they responded little to the grievances of social classes. 
 We are all socialists now, only in feeling as much interest in 
 these grievances as the socialists are in the habit of doing, but 
 we have not departed from our old lines of social policy, and 
 there is no need we should, for they are broad enough to satisfy 
 every claim of sound social reform. 
 
 It is only when these lines are transgressed that, strictly 
 speaking, socialism begins; and though it is hopeless to think 
 of confining the vulgar use of the word to its strict signification, 
 it is at least essential to do so if we desire any clear or firm 
 grasp of principle. The socialism of the present time extends 
 the State's intervention from those industrial undertakings it 
 is fitted to manage well to all industrial undertakings what-
 
 State Socialism. 399 
 
 ever, and from establishing securities for the full use of men's 
 energies to attempting to equalize in some way the results of 
 their use of them. It may be shortly described as aiming at 
 the progressive nationalization of industries with a view to the 
 progressive equalization of incomes. The common pleas for 
 this policy are, first, the necessity of introducing a distribution 
 of wealth more in accordance with personal merit by neutral- 
 izing the effects of chance, which at present throw some into 
 opulence without any co-operation from their own labour, and 
 press thousands into penury in spite of their most honest exer- 
 tions ; and second, the advantage society would reap from the 
 mere economy of the resources at present wasted in unnecessary 
 competition. Both pleas are, however delusive ; it is neither 
 good nor possible to suppress chance, and if competition in- 
 volves some loss, it yields a much more abounding gain. 
 
 A sense of the blind play of chance in all things human lies 
 indeed beneath all work of social relief. " Hodie mihi, eras 
 tibi," wrote the good Regent Murray over his lintel to avert 
 the grudge of envy, and the same feeling of the uncertainty of 
 fortune quickens the thought of pity. Men reflect how much 
 of their own comfort they owe to good circumstances rather 
 than good deserts, and how much more bad circumstances have 
 often to do with poverty than bad guiding. To change these 
 bad conditions so far as to preserve for every man intact the 
 essentials of common progressive manhood is a proper object 
 of social work. But while mitigating the operation of chance 
 to that extent is well, to try and suppress its operation alto- 
 gether would be injurious, even if it were possible. For there 
 is no pursuit under the sun in which chance has not its part 
 as well as skill, and skill itself is often nothing but a quick 
 grasp of happy chance. To discourage the alert from seizing 
 good opportunities on the wing, by confiscating the results and 
 distributing them among the languid and inactive, is the same 
 thing as to discourage them by like means from exerting all 
 their industry in any other way. It violates their individual 
 right with no better effect than to cripple the national pro- 
 duction. They are entitled to the best conditions for the suc- 
 cessful use of their individual energies, and the best conditions 
 for the use of individual energies are the true securities for
 
 400 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 national progress. The sound policy is not the greater equal- 
 ization of opportunities, but their greater utilization. It may 
 be right to make ships seaworthy and their masters competent 
 navigators, but if one of them gets delayed in a calm or dis- 
 abled by a storm, while another has caught a fair wind and is 
 carried on to port, it would answer no good purpose to equalize 
 their gains for the mere correction of the inequality in their 
 opportunities. It would relax in both masters alike the supreme 
 essentials of all successful labour activity, vigilance, enter- 
 prise. State action with respect to the quips and arrows of 
 fortune ought to go as far but no farther than State action with 
 respect to the crimes and hostilities of men, or with respect to 
 evil forces of nature like those of infectious diseases it ought 
 to content itself with effectually protecting the primary con- 
 ditions of sound manhood against their outrages. It may do 
 what it can, not merely to relieve the unfortunate in their 
 extremity, but to prevent their coming to extremity, to arrest, 
 if possible, their decline, to check or soften the trade fluctuations 
 that often swamp them, and to facilitate their self-recovery ; 
 but, when it goes on to suppress or equalize the operation of 
 fortune, it destroys the good with the evil, and even if it re- 
 moved the tares, would find it had only spoiled the harvest of 
 wheat. The present industrial system has its defects, but it 
 certainly has one immense advantage which would be forfeited 
 under socialism it tends to elicit to their utmost the talents 
 and energies alike of employers and employed. The languor 
 of the " Government stroke " and the slow mechanism of a 
 State department are unfavourable to an abundant production. 
 The general slackening of industry, and the extinction of those 
 innumerable sources of active initiative which at present are 
 so busy pushing out new and fruitful developments, are too 
 great a price to pay for the suppression of the evils of com- 
 petition. To effect some economies in the use of capital, we 
 damage or destroy the forces by which capital is produced, and 
 really lose the pound to save the penny. 
 
 Even from the standing-point of a good distribution of 
 wealth, if by a good distribution we mean, not an equal dis- 
 tribution of the produce, however small the individual share, 
 but, what is surely much better, a high general level of com-
 
 State Socialism. 401 
 
 fort, though, considerable inequalities may remain, then an 
 abundant production is still the most indispensable thing, for 
 it is the most certain of all means to that high general level 
 of comfort. Even in those agricultural countries where this 
 result is promoted by a land system favouring peasant pro- 
 perties, the result is largely due to the fact that occupying 
 ownership is itself the best condition for high production ; and 
 if we compare the principal modern industrial nations, we shall 
 find labour enjoying the best real remuneration in those where 
 the rate of production is highest, where employers are most 
 competent, machinery most perfected, and labour itself per- 
 sonally most efficient. And, on the other hand, while the 
 general level of comfort rises under a policy that develops pro- 
 ductivity even at the risk of widening inequality, the general 
 level of comfort always sinks under the contrary policy which 
 sacrifices productivity to socialistic ideas and claims. 
 
 We have practical experience of the working of socialism in 
 various forms, and under the most opposite conditions of culture, 
 and the experience is everywhere the same. Custom in Samoa, 
 for example, gives a man a pretty strict right to go to his 
 neighbour and requisition what he wants, or even to quarter 
 himself in the house without payment, as long as he pleases. 
 No one dares to refuse, for fear of losing credit and suffering 
 reproach. Originating as a well-meant refuge for the dis- 
 tressed, the system has become still more a subterfuge for the 
 lazy, and Dr. Turner sums up his account of it by saying, 
 " This communistic system is a sad hindrance to the indus- 
 trious, and eats like a canker-worm at the roots of individual 
 and national progress." The disheartening of the industrious 
 has an even worse effect than the encouragement of the in- 
 dolent ; the more they make, the more subject they are to the 
 imposition. The English agricultural labourers belong to a 
 very different state of society from the savages of Samoa. They 
 are of an energetic race, which if it does not positively love 
 work, has probably as little aversion to it as any nation in the 
 world, and seems often really to delight in the hardest exertion; 
 but in England the effect of giving the poor a similar socialistic 
 right was precisely the same as in Samoa. While we are sup- 
 posed to have been advancing in socialism with our Factory 
 
 D D
 
 402 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Acts, we were really retreating from it in our Poor Law. The 
 old English laws which for centuries first fixed labourers' 
 wages, and then made up the deficiencies of the wages, if such 
 occurred, out of the poor rates, were certainly socialistic, and 
 the commission that inquired into their working sixty j^ears 
 ago reported that their worst effect had been to make the 
 labourers such poor workers that they were hardly worth the 
 wages they got. The men were by law unable to earn more 
 if they worked more, or to lose anything if they worked less, 
 and so their very working powers drooped and withered. As 
 most modern socialists put their trust entirely in the old motive 
 of self-interest, and propose to pay every man according to his 
 work, their only resource against such a result would be a stern 
 system of poor-law administration, like the English, and that 
 would of course involve a departure from their favourite ideal 
 of furnishing the dependent poor with as decent and com- 
 fortable a living as the independent poor gain for themselves 
 by their work. The change from Samoa to rural England is 
 probably not so great as the change from rural England to 
 Brook Farm and the other experimental communities of the 
 United States, companies of cultivated and earnest people, 
 corning from one of the best civilized stocks, and settling under 
 the favourable material conditions of a new country for the 
 very purpose of working out a socialist ideal. Yet in these 
 American communities, socialistic institutions led to precisely 
 the same results as they did in England and in Samoa, a 
 slackening of industry, and a deterioration of the general level 
 of comfort. No doubt, as Horace Greeley said, who knew these 
 communities well, and lived for a time in more than one of 
 them, there came to them along with the lofty souls, who are 
 willing to labour and endure, " scores of whom the world is 
 quite worthy, the conceited, the crotchety, the selfish, the 
 headstrong, the pugnacious, the unappreciated, the played-out, 
 the idle, the good-for-nothing generally, who, finding them- 
 selves utterly out of place, and at a discount in the world as it 
 is, rashly conclude that they are exactly fitted for the world as 
 it ought to be." But the proportion of difficult subjects would 
 not be larger in Brook Farm or New Harmony than it is in the 
 ordinary world outside, and in these communities they would
 
 State Socialism. 403 
 
 be under the constant influence of leaders of the highest char- 
 acter and an almost religious enthusiasm. If the new and 
 better economic motives, which romantic socialists like Mr. 
 Bellamy always assure us are to carry us to such great things 
 as soon as the suppression of the present pecuniary motive 
 allows them to rise into operation if the love of work for its 
 own sake, the sense of public duty, the desire of public appre- 
 ciation, could be expected to prevail anywhere to any purpose, 
 it would be among the gifted and noble spirits who founded 
 the community of Brook Farm. But the late W. H. Channing, 
 who was a member of the community and looked back upon 
 it with the tenderest feelings, explains its failure by saying : 
 " The great evil, the radical, practical danger, seemed to be a 
 willingness to do work half thorough, to rest in poor results, 
 to be content amidst comparatively squalid conditions, and to 
 form habits of indolence."* 
 
 The idleness of the idle was one of the chief standing 
 troubles in all the socialistic experiments of the United States. 
 Mr. Noyes gives us an account of forty-seven communistic 
 experiments which had been made under modern socialist 
 influences in the United States and had failed, while Mr. 
 Nordhoff, on the other hand, furnishes a like account of 
 seventy-two communities, established mainly under religious 
 influences (fifty-eight of them belonging to the Shakers alone), 
 which have been not merely social but economic successes, 
 some of them for more than a hundred years ; and one is 
 struck with the degree in which the idler difficulty has con- 
 tributed to the failure of the forty-seven, and in which the 
 continual and comparatively successful conflict with that diffi- 
 culty by means of their peculiar system of religious discipline 
 has aided in the success of the other seventy-two. Mr. Noyes 
 is himself founder of the Oneida community, and bases his 
 descriptions of the rest on information supplied by men who 
 were members of the communities he describes, or on the 
 materials collected by Mr. Macdonald, a Scotch Owenite, who 
 visited most of the American communities for the purpose 
 of describing them. No causes of failure are more often 
 
 * Frothingham's " W. H. Channing : a Memoir," p. 18.
 
 404 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 mentioned by him than " too many idlers " and " bad manage- 
 ment." Not that industry was relaxed all round. On the 
 contrary, it seems to have been a peculiarity of the Owenite 
 and Fourierist communities, that the industrious wrought 
 much harder (and in most of them for much poorer fare) than 
 labourers of ordinary life. Macdonald was surprised at the 
 marvellous industry he saw as he watched them, and would 
 say to himself: " If you fail, I will give it up, for never did I 
 see men work so well and so brotherly with each other." But 
 then a little way off he would come on people who " merely 
 crawled about, probably sick (he charitably suggests), just 
 looking on like myself at anything which fell in their way." 
 A very common feeling among members of these communities 
 seems to have been that they were far more troubled with 
 idlers than the Test of the world, because their system itself 
 presented special attractions to that unwelcome class. " Men 
 came," says one of the Trumbull Phalanx, " with the idea that 
 they could live in idleness at the expense of the purchasers 
 of the estate, and their ideas were practically carried out, 
 while others came with good heart for the work." The same 
 testimony is given about the Sylvania Association. "Idle and 
 greedy people," says the writer of this testimony, " find their 
 way into such attempts, and soon show forth their character 
 by burdening others with too much labour, and in times of 
 scarcity supplying themselves with more than their allowance 
 of various necessaries, instead of taking less." Idle and greedy 
 people, no doubt, did get into these communities, but these 
 idle and greedy people constitute, I fear, a very large propor- 
 tion of mankind, and the point is that socialistic institutions 
 unfortunately offer them encouragement and opportunity. 
 The experience of American communism directly contradicts 
 John Stuart Mill's opinion, that men are not more likely to 
 evade their fair share of the work under a socialistic system 
 than they are now. That difficulty in one form or another 
 was their constant vexation. The members of Owen's com- 
 munity at Yellow Springs belonged in general to a superior 
 class ; but one of them, in stating the causes of the failure 
 of that community, says : " The industrious, the skilful, and 
 the strong saw the products of their labour enjoyed by the
 
 State Socialism. 405 
 
 indolent, and the unskilled, and the improvident, and self-love 
 rose against benevolence. A band of musicians insisted that 
 their brassy harmony was as necessary to the common happi- 
 ness as bread and meat, and declined to enter the harvest field 
 or the workshop. A lecturer upon Natural Science insisted 
 upon talking only while others worked. Mechanics whose 
 day's labour brought two dollars into the common stock 
 insisted that they should in justice work only half as long as 
 the agriculturist, whose day's work brought only one." The 
 same evil, according to R. D. Owen, contributed to the fall 
 of New Harmony ; " there was not disinterested industry," he 
 says, " there was not mutual confidence." A lady who was 
 a member of the Marlboro' Association in Ohio, a socialistic 
 experiment that lasted four years and then failed, attributes 
 the failure to " the complicated state of the business concerns, 
 the amount of debt contracted, and the feeling that each 
 would work with more energy, for a time at least, if thrown 
 upon his own resources, with plenty of elbow-room, and 
 nothing to distract his attention." 
 
 The magnitude of this difficulty only appears the greater 
 when we turn from the forty-seven socialistic experiments 
 which have failed to the seventy-two which have thriven. 
 The Shakers and Rappists are undoubtedly very industrious 
 people, who, by producing a good article, have won and kept 
 for years a firm hold of the American market, and being, in 
 consequence of their institution of celibacy, a community of 
 adult workers exclusively, every man and every woman being 
 a productive labourer, the wonder is they are not wealthier 
 and more prosperous even than they are. Their economic 
 prosperity is based, as economic prosperity always is and 
 must be, on their general habits of industry, and the natural 
 tendency of socialistic arrangements to relax these habits is 
 in their case effectually, though not without difficulty, counter- 
 acted by their religious discipline. Idleness is a sin ; next to 
 disobedience to the elders, no other sin is more reprobated 
 among them, because no other sin is at once so besetting and 
 so dangerous there, and the conquest and suppression of idle- 
 ness is a continual object of their vigilance, and of their 
 ordinary devotional practice. Mr. Nordhoff publishes a few of
 
 406 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 their most popular hymns, and one is struck with the space 
 the cultivation of personal industry seems to occupy in their 
 thoughts. " Old Slug," as they delight to nickname the idler, 
 is the " Old Adam " of the Shakers, and a public sentiment 
 of hatred and contempt for the indolent man is sedulously 
 fostered by them. As they not only work, but also live under 
 one another's constant supervision, and within earshot of one 
 another's criticism, they more than replace the eye of the 
 master by the keener and more sleepless eye of moral and 
 social police. And if all this discipline fails, they have the 
 last resource of expulsion. They easily make the idler too 
 uncomfortable to remain. " They have," says Mr. Nordhoff, 
 " no difficulty in sloughing off persons who come with bad or 
 low motives." They exercise, in short, the power of dismissal, 
 the last sanction in ordinary use in the old state of society. 
 Not that they make any virtue of strenuous labour. They 
 work moderately, and avoid anything like fatigue or exhaus- 
 tion. They frankly acknowledged to Mr. Nordhoff, once and 
 again, that three hired men taken in from the ordinary world 
 would do as much work as five or six of their members. Their 
 wants are few and simple, and they are satisfied with the 
 moderate exertion that suffices to supply them ; but they will 
 tolerate no shirking of that in any shape or form, and this 
 alone saves them from disaster. The experiences of these 
 successful Shaker and Rappist communities serve, therefore, 
 to show, even better than the experiences of the unsuccessful 
 Owenite and Fourierist communities, the gravity that the 
 idleness difficulty would assume in a general socialistic regime, 
 which possessed nothing in the nature of the power of dis- 
 missal, and in which we could not calculate either on the 
 formation of an effective public opinion against idleness, or on 
 its effective application if it were formed. The men who 
 founded the unsuccessful communities were far superior to the 
 Shakers in business ability and education, and they had more 
 money to begin their experiments with, but where they failed 
 the Shakers have succeeded through the indirect economic 
 effects of their rigorous religious discipline. But the evi- 
 dence is as plain in the one case as in the other as to the 
 natural, and even powerful, effect of socialistic arrangements
 
 State Socialism. 407 
 
 in relaxing the industry of many sorts and conditions of 
 men. 
 
 The same sources of evidence prove with equal clearness 
 the development under socialistic institutions of two other 
 concurrent causes of decline. I have already quoted Mr. 
 Channing's statement that the Brook Farm community showed 
 a disposition to be content with comparatively squalid condi- 
 tions of life. Mr. Nordhoff would probably not use the word 
 squalid of anything he saw in the Shaker and Rappist com- 
 munities he describes, except perhaps in certain instances of 
 the state of the public streets ; and in some points, such as the 
 scrupulous cleanness of the interior of their houses, he would 
 set them far above their neighbours you could eat your 
 dinner, he says, off their floors. Still the people he found 
 everywhere content, if not exactly with squalid, certainly 
 with poor and dull and rough conditions of life, much poorer, 
 duller, and rougher than they might easily be. They enjoyed 
 equality, security from harassing anxiety for the morrow, 
 abundance even for their limited wants, independence from 
 subjection to a master, but they were weak in the ordinary 
 springs of progress. The spirit of material improvement was 
 not much abroad among them. Give me the stationary state 
 of society and contentment, you may exclaim ; but then even 
 this stationary state is only maintained in these sequestered 
 communities by the constant play of peculiar religious influ- 
 ences which cannot be counted on everywhere, and it would 
 soon change into a declining state in the great seething world 
 outside if it were not effectively counter- worked by the most 
 powerful incentives to progress. Now the same equalizing 
 social arrangements which destroy one of the most essential 
 of these incentives by guaranteeing men the results of industry 
 without its exertion, enfeeble a second by predisposing them 
 to rest content with the lower conditions of life to which they 
 are reduced. 
 
 A third cause of decline to which the American experience 
 shows socialistic institutions to be incident is a certain weak- 
 ness in the management, produced sometimes by divided 
 counsels, sometimes by the delay involved in getting the 
 sanction of a Board to every little detail of business, and
 
 408 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 sometimes by a difficulty which we find also shattering similar 
 experiments in France, that men were raised to the Committee 
 by their gifts of persuasion rather than their gifts of adminis- 
 tration. Well-meaning persons, with a great itch for managing 
 things, and a great turn for bungling them, for whom there is, 
 tinder the present order of society, a considerable safety-valve 
 in philanthropy, contrive in a socialistic community to get 
 appointed on the Council of Industry, and play sad havoc 
 with the common good. While they preached and wasted, 
 the really practical men who, with better power of talk, might 
 have confounded them, could only sulk and grumble, and 
 eventually lost heart in their work, and all interest and con- 
 fidence in the concern. This had much to do, according to 
 Mr. Meeker, an old Fourier! st, with the ruin of the North 
 American Phalanx, one of the most important of the trans- 
 atlantic experiments, and it was the main cause apparently 
 of the downfall of the community of Coxsackie " They had 
 many persons engaged in talking and law-making who did 
 not work at any useful employment ; the consequences were 
 that after struggling on for between one and two years the 
 experiment came to an end." A socialist State would prob- 
 ably have as many difficulties with this bustling but unsatis- 
 factory class of persons as a socialist Phalanx, nor would the 
 evils of divided counsels and departmental delays be a whit 
 milder ; and the extension of State management to branches 
 of work for which it had not otherwise some sort of special 
 natural qualification would have the same kind of ruinous 
 operation. 
 
 In spirit and effect, therefore, as may be palpably seen from 
 these actual experiments, the equalizing institutions of socialism 
 stand quite apart from the very restricted use of State manage- 
 ment and the remedial or invigorating legislation that a sound 
 social policy prescribes. When England is accused of heading 
 the nations in the race of State socialism, because England has 
 nationalized the post and telegraph service, and passed a series 
 of factory and agrarian Acts for the protection of the weaker 
 classes of the people, the accusation is made without proper dis- 
 crimination. It is not the frequency of the intervention, but 
 its purpose and consequences that make it socialistic. If the
 
 State Socialism. 409 
 
 post is better managed by the State than by private initiative, 
 if the factory and agrarian laws merely reinstate weaker classes 
 in the conditions essential for a normal human life, and neither 
 seek nor produce that equalization of the differences of fortune 
 or skill which is fatal to any high and progressive general level 
 of comfort, then there is no State socialism in it at all. State 
 management is not pushed beyond the limit of efficiency, nor 
 popular rights beyond the positive claims of social justice. Let 
 us go a little further into detail. 
 
 IV. State Socialism and State Management. 
 
 What are the conditions of efficient State administration ? 
 The State possesses several natural characteristics which give 
 it a decided advantage as an industrial manager, some for one 
 branch of work, some for another. It has stability, it has per- 
 manency, and it has what is perhaps its principal industrial 
 superiority unrivalled power of securing unity of administra- 
 tion, since it is the only agency that can use force for the pur- 
 pose. On the other hand, it has one great natural defect, its 
 want of a personal stake in the produce of the business it con- 
 ducts, its want of that keen check on waste and that pushing 
 incentive to exertion which private undertakings enjoy in the 
 eye and energy of the master. This is the great taproot from 
 which all the usual faults of Government management spring 
 its routine, red-tape spirit, its sluggishness in noting changes 
 in the market, in adapting itself to changes in the public taste, 
 and in introducing improved methods of production. Govern- 
 ment servants may very generally be men of a higher stamp 
 and training than the servants of a private company, but they 
 are proverbial, on the one hand, for a certain lofty disdain of 
 the humble but valuable virtue of parsimony, and, on the other, 
 for an unprogressive, unenterprising, uninventive administra- 
 tion of business. 
 
 Now the branches of industry which the State is fitted to 
 carry on are of course those in which its great fault happens 
 to have small scope for play, and in which its great merit 
 or merits have great scope for play ; those, for example, which 
 gain largely in efficiency or economy by a centralized ad minis-
 
 4io Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 tration, and suffer little harm comparatively from a routine 
 one. That is the reason Governments always manage the 
 postal service well. In post-office work the specific industrial 
 superiority of Government carries its maximum of advantage, 
 and its specific industrial defect does its minimum of injury. 
 The carrying and delivery of letters from one part of the 
 empire to another require, for efficiency, a single co-ordinated 
 system, and, on the other hand, those operations themselves are 
 of so unvariable and routine a character that little harm is done 
 by their being carried on in a routine spirit ; they involve so 
 little capital expenditure the entire capital of the department 
 in England is only 80,000 that the opportunity for waste and 
 corruption is slight ; and being conducted much more largely 
 under the public eye than the affairs of other departments of 
 State, they are consequently subject to the constant and inter- 
 ested criticism of the people whose wants they are meant to 
 satisfy. The same reason explains why Government dockyards 
 and arms factories are always managed so unsatisfactorily. 
 There is, on the one hand, no need in them for any higher unity 
 of administration than is wanted in any ordinary single busi- 
 ness establishment ; but, on the other, progressiveness and 
 adaptability are of the first moment, routine and obstruction 
 to improvement being indeed among their worst dangers. 
 Then the risk of prodigality and corruption is high, for their 
 capital expenditure is greafc, and the check of public criticism 
 very distant and ineffectual. So exceptional a business is the 
 post, that the telegraphs, though managed by the same depart- 
 ment, have never bean, managed with the same success. They 
 were bought at first at a ransom, they have involved an in- 
 creasing loss nearly ever since, and the public have to pay 
 practically as much for their telegrams perhaps more than 
 the public of the United States pay to their telegraph companies. 
 Even in the postal department, Government administration 
 shows the usual official slowness in adopting much-needed and 
 even lucrative reforms. Of this, a good example occurred only 
 the other day. It was not until a Boys' Messenger Company 
 was already in the field and doing the work, that the Post- 
 master-General was brought to recognise, as he said, " the 
 desirability of providing a more rapid means of transmitting
 
 State Socialism. 411 
 
 single letters for short distances and under special circum- 
 stances than at present exists." 
 
 It ought of course to be acknowledged that State management 
 in England is tried under the very worst possible conditions, 
 inasmuch as it is tied to the fortunes and exigencies of political 
 party. No business could be expected to thrive where the 
 supreme control is placed in the hands of a good parliamentary 
 debater, who knows nothing about the special work of the 
 department he undertakes ; where, even at that, this inexperi- 
 enced hand is changed for another inexperienced hand every 
 three or four years ; where policy shifts without continuity, to 
 dodge the popular breeze of to-day, or to catch the popular 
 breeze of to-morrow ; and where the actual incumbent of office, 
 is always able to evade censure by throwing the responsibility 
 on his predecessors, who are out of office. "Well may a saga- 
 cious man like Mr. Samuel Laing, with large experience of 
 administration both in the affairs of State and of private com- 
 panies, exclaim : " I often think what the result would be if 
 the railway companies managed their affairs on the same 
 principles as the nation applies to its naval and military expen- 
 diture. Suppose the Brighton Board were turned out every 
 three years, and a new Board came in with new views and a 
 new policy, and new men at the head of the locomotive, 'traffic. 
 and other spending departments, how long would it be before 
 expenses went up and dividends down ? " If State management 
 is to succeed if it is to have fair play it must be entirely 
 divorced from party fortunes, while subject, of course, to the 
 criticism of Parliament, under some system like that adopted 
 in Victoria for the management of the railways. In such 
 circumstances the question of the advisability of Government 
 assuming the management of any industry, is a question of 
 balancing the probable gains from the greater unity of the 
 administration against the probable losses from its greater 
 inertia. 
 
 There are some exceptional branches of industry in which 
 Government does better than private persons, because private 
 persons have too little interest to do the work well, or even to 
 do it at all, and there are others in which the State's very want 
 of personal interest is its advantage instead of its drawback.
 
 412 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Forestry is the best example of the first sort. One generation 
 must plant, and another cut down, so that the present owner is 
 often unwilling to incur the expense of a speculation of which 
 he is unlikely to live to reap the fruits ; but the natural per- 
 manence of the State leads it to do more justice to this import- 
 ant branch of production, and experience everywhere shows 
 that State forests are more productive than private ones. In 
 Prussia and Belgium they are nearly twice as productive. The 
 average annual produce of all forests in Prussia (including 
 State forests) is 0'36 thaler per Morgen, but the produce of 
 State forests alone is O66 thaler per Morgen. In Belgium the 
 produce of all forests is 19*33 francs per hectare, and of State 
 forests 34 - 42 francs.* The erection of lighthouses is also a 
 public service, which falls to the State because of individual 
 inability ; it cannot be undertaken in any way to make it re- 
 munerative to private adventurers. 
 
 The best example of an industrial work for which the State's 
 want of personal interest is its advantage is the Mint. Nobody 
 would trust the stamp of a private assayer as he trusts the 
 stamp of the Government, because the private assayer could 
 never succeed in placing his personal disinterestedness so abso- 
 lutely above the suspicion of fraud. The policy of the official 
 attestation of the quality of commodities is often disputed on 
 the ground that it discourages improvement above the pass 
 standard, but it is never doubted that if a brand is wanted, the 
 brand to command most confidence is the brand of the Crown. 
 Our own Government, out of the infinity of commodities offered 
 for sale, attests none but six butter, herrings, plate, gun bar- 
 rels, chains, and anchors articles in which the dangers of 
 deterioration probably exceed the chances of improvement, and 
 in the case of some of these six there is a strong feeling abroad 
 that the State's intervention is doing more harm than good. 
 Scotch herrings have suffered lately in the German markets, 
 because they were worse cured than the Norwegian, and the 
 herring brand was blamed for the unprogressiveness of the 
 cure. This class of interventions, therefore, is neither numerous 
 now, nor likely to become very numerous in the future. 
 
 * Reseller's "Finnnz-Wissenschaft," p. 63.
 
 Stale Socialism. 413 
 
 A- more important class of undertakings in which the State's 
 industrial advantage lies in its superiority to the temptations 
 of self-interest, is that of industries which naturally assume 
 something of the character of a monopoly, and in which self- 
 interest lacks both the check on its rapacity, and the spur to 
 its activity supplied by effective competition. It is true of 
 more things than railways that when combination is possible, 
 competition is impossible, and the growth of syndicates, trusts 
 and pooling arrangements at the present day has led to con- 
 siderable agitation for State interference, especially in the 
 case of commodities like salt and coal, which are necessaries of 
 life. Our experience of these things is as yet limited, but so 
 far as it has gone it seems to show that the public dangers 
 dreaded from them are apt to be exaggerated. The combina- 
 tions fear to raise the price to the public so high as to provoke 
 competition, and in most cases in America have not raised it at 
 all, drawing their advantage rather from the reduction in ex- 
 pense of management, and the saving of capital ; and the 
 State would not be likely to manage industries producing for 
 the markets any better than, or even so well as, the more 
 keenly interested board of private directors. But if the balance 
 of evidence seems against public management in this class of 
 monopolies, it stands, I think, decidedly in favour of public 
 management in another and not unimportant class. The gas 
 and water supply of towns is a monopoly, and though the 
 point is not undisputed, it appears to answer better on the 
 whole in public than in private hands, because the manage- 
 ment has no interest to serve except the interest of the public. 
 Experience has not been everywhere the same, but usually it 
 has been that under municipal control the quality of the gas 
 has been improved and the price reduced. But this is muni- 
 cipal management of course, not State management, and the 
 difference is material, inasmuch as municipal management, in 
 the case of gas and water supply, is the management of the 
 production of things of general consumption under the direct 
 control of the very people who consume them, so that it is con- 
 stantly exposed to effective public criticism, perhaps as good a 
 substitute as things admit of for the eye of the master. The 
 natural defect of public management is so mitigated by this
 
 414 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 circumstance, that probably of all forms of public management, 
 municipal management is the best, and when applied to 
 branches of production that tend to become monopolies at any 
 rate, it answers well. The question is entirely different with 
 proposals that are sometimes made for converting into muni- 
 cipal monopolies branches of production such, for example, as 
 the bread supply of the community which are carried on by 
 individual management under effective competition. To do 
 as well as joint-stock management uncontrolled by competition 
 is one thing ; to do as well as individual management subject 
 to competition is another ; and so long as public management 
 replaces nothing but the former class of enterprises, which are 
 in any case a sort of natural monoplies, it will never contract 
 the vast field of individual enterprise to any very serious 
 extent. 
 
 "When we pass from municipal monopolies to State monopo- 
 lies, the problem becomes more grave. The two largest current 
 proposals of this kind are those of land nationalization and rail- 
 way nationalization. The former proposal, though much more 
 noisily advocated than the other, has incomparably the weaker 
 case. For apart altogether from the mischief of making every 
 rent settlement a political question, and looking at the matter 
 merely in its economic aspect, land, of all things, is that which 
 is least suited for centralized administration, and yields its best 
 results under the minute concentrated supervision of individual 
 and occupying ownership. The magic of property is now a 
 proverbial phrase ; it is truer of land than anything else, and it 
 merely means that for land interested administration is every- 
 thing, comprehensive administration nothing, that the zeal of 
 the resident owner to improve his own land knows no limit, 
 whereas the obstructive forces of routine and official inertia 
 have nowhere more power to blight than in land management. 
 In Adam Smith's time, as he mentions in the " Wealth of 
 Nations," the Crown lands were everywhere the least produc- 
 tive lands in their respective countries, and the experience is the 
 same still. It is so even in Prussia, in spite of its economical 
 and skilled bureaucracy. Professor Eoscher says it is a com- 
 mon remark in Germany that Crown lands sell for a greater 
 number of years' purchase than other lands, because they are
 
 State Socialism. 4 1 5 
 
 known to be less improved, and are therefore expected to yield 
 better results to the energ} T of the purchaser, and he quotes 
 official figures for 1857, showing that the domain land of Prus- 
 sia had not risen in value so much as the other land in the 
 country. Great expectations are often entertained from the 
 unearned increment, though there is not likely to be much of 
 that in agricultural land for years to come ; but what is a much 
 more important consideration for the community is the earned 
 increment, and under State management the earned increment 
 would infallibly decline. Of course, this does not exclude the 
 necessity of strict State control, so far as required by justice, 
 humanity, and the growth and comfort of the general commu- 
 nity. Under land nationalization here I have not considered 
 schemes which do not give the State any real ownership in the 
 land more than it at present enjoys, or, at any rate, place no 
 real management of the land in its hands. The rival schemes 
 of Mr. A. R. Wallace and Mr. Henry George are really only 
 more or less objectionable methods of increasing the land-tax. 
 
 The question of a State railway is not so easily determined. 
 There are certainly few branches of business where unity of 
 administration is more advantageous, or where the public would 
 benefit more from affairs being conducted from the public 
 point of view of developing the greatest amount of gross traffic, 
 instead of from the private point of view of making the greatest 
 amount of net profit. A railway differs from other enterprises, 
 because it affects all others very seriously for good or ill ; it 
 may for the sake of more profit give preferences that are hurt- 
 ful to industrial development, or deny facilities that are essen- 
 tial to it. A private company may find it more profitable to 
 carry a less quantity at a high rate than a greater quantity at 
 a low, and it cannot be expected to run a line that does not pay, 
 though the general community might benefit greatly more by 
 the increase of traffic which the line creates than covers the 
 loss incurred by running it. Now it is impossible to exagger- 
 ate the importance of having a public work like a railway, 
 which can help or hinder every trade in the land, conducted 
 from a public point of view instead of a private, and the pre- 
 sent discussion in this country on rates and fares points to the 
 desirability of changes to which private companies are not
 
 4i 6 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 likely to resort of their own accord, nor the railway commis- 
 sion to be able to compel them. But, on the other hand, it is 
 equally impossible to exaggerate the risks of the undertaking. 
 The post office, with its capital of 80,000, is a plaything to the 
 railways with their capital of 800,000,000, and their revenue 
 little short of that of the State itself. The operations are of 
 a most varied nature, and only some of them could be exposed 
 to effective criticism. The mere transaction of purchase excites 
 in many minds a not unreasonable fear. If Government made 
 a bad bargain with the telegraph companies, it would be sure 
 to make a worse with the railway companies, who are fifty 
 times more powerful ; and besides, it would very likely have to 
 borrow its money at a higher figure, for though it could borrow 
 two millions at 3 per cent., it could not therefore borrow eight 
 hundred millions, for the simple reason that the number of people 
 who want 3 per cent, is limited, most holders of stock preferring 
 investments which, though more risky, offer a prospect of more 
 gain. If in trying to balance these weighty pros and equally 
 weighty cons one turns to the experience of State railways, he 
 will find that as yet it affords few very sure or decisive data, 
 because it varies in the different countries and times, and has 
 been very diiferently interpreted. 
 
 Of the Continental State railways, those of Belgium and 
 Germany are usually counted the most favourable examples. 
 But Mr. Hadley, in his excellent work on Railway Transporta- 
 tion, shows that the State lines of Belgium were conducted in 
 an extremely slovenly, perfunctory way until 1853, when pri- 
 vate lines began to increase and compete with them, and that 
 though the low rates which this competition was the means 
 of introducing still remain after the private lines have been 
 largely bought out, there has been, on the other hand, latterly 
 a decline in the profits of the State system, an increasing ten- 
 dency to slackness and inertia in the management, and growing 
 complaints of creating posts to reward political services, and 
 manipulating accounts to suit Government exigencies. In 
 Germany the rates are certainly low and the management 
 economical, but complaints are made that less is done for the 
 encouragement of the national resources, and unprofitable 
 traffic is more severely declined than by the private railways.
 
 State Socialism. 417 
 
 On the whole, probably the best State railway system is that 
 of Victoria ; charging low rates, self-supporting, offering every 
 encouragement to industrial development ; and the opinion of 
 England will probably be largely determined by further 
 observation of that experiment. 
 
 The sister colony of New Zealand has made a successful 
 experiment in another department of industrial enterprise, life 
 insurance, for which Government management indeed is highly 
 adapted, because, in the first place, it is a business in which 
 absolute security is of the last consequence, and there is no 
 security like Government guarantee ; and in the second, it is a 
 business in which the calculations of the whole administration 
 are virtually matters of mechanical routine. The Government 
 office was only opened in 1871, under the influence of a wide- 
 spread distrust of private offices, caused by recent bankruptcies, 
 and it now transacts one-third of the life insurance business of 
 the colony ; it has probably tended to encourage life insurance, 
 for while there are only 26 policies per 1000 of population in 
 the United Kingdom, there are 80 per 1000 in New Zealand, 
 and its management is much cheaper than that of any other 
 insurance company in the colony, except the Australian United. 
 The proportion of expenses to revenue in the Australian 
 United is 13'66 per cent., in the Government Office 17'23, and 
 in none of the other companies (whose gross business, however, 
 is much smaller) is it under 43'02. 
 
 Adam Smith thought there were only four branches of 
 enterprise which were fitted to be profitably conducted by a 
 joint-stock company. We have seen .in our day almost every 
 branch of industry conducted by such companies, and an idea 
 is often expressed that whatever a joint-stock company can do, 
 Government can do at least quite as well, because the defect 
 of both is the same. The defect is the same, but Government 
 has it in larger measure. Joint-stock management is certainly 
 much less productive in most industries than private manage- 
 ment. The Report of the Massachusetts Labour Bureau for 
 1878 contains some curious statistics on the subject. There 
 were then in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 10.395 
 private manufacturing establishments, employing in all 166,583 
 persons, and 520 joint-stock manufacturing establishment. 
 
 E E
 
 4i 8 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 employing 101,337 persons, and the private establishments, 
 while they paid a much higher average rate of wages than the 
 joint-stock, produced at the same time not far from twice as 
 much for the capital invested. The average wages per head in 
 the private establishments was 474'37 dollars a year, and in the 
 joint-stock was 383'47 dollars a year ; while the produce per 
 dollar of capital was 2'58 dollars' worth in the private, and 1'37 
 dollars' worth in the joint-stock, and though part of this differ- 
 ence is attributed to the circumstance that private manufac- 
 turers sometimes hire their factories and companies do not, the 
 substance of it is believed to be due to the inferiority of the 
 joint-stock management. Anyhow, that circumstance could 
 have no influence in producing the very marked difference in 
 the wages given by the two classes of enterprise, and the 
 higher wages would not, and could not, be given unless the pro- 
 duction was higher. If all the industries of the country, then, 
 were put under joint-stock management, the result would be (1) a 
 general reduction in the amount produced, and (2) a consequent 
 reduction in the general remuneration of the working classes, 
 and the general level of natural comfort ; and the result would 
 be still worse under universal Government management. One 
 of the labourer's greatest interests is efficient management, and 
 if he suffers from the replacement of individual employers by 
 joint-stock companies, he would suffer much more by the re- 
 placement of both by the State, excepting only in those few 
 departments of business for which the State happens to possess 
 peculiar advantages and aptitude. 
 
 V. State Socialism and Popular Eight. 
 
 The limits of the legitimate intervention of the public 
 authority with respect to the moral development of the com- 
 munity are prescribed by a different rule from those with 
 respect to its material development. Efficiency is still, indeed, 
 a governing consideration, for perhaps more measures for 
 popular improvement fail from sheer ineffectuality than from 
 any other reason. The history of social reform is strewn thick 
 with these dead-letter measures. There is a cry and a lamenta- 
 tion, and a feeling that something must be done ; and an Acb
 
 State Socialism. 419 
 
 of Parliament is passed containing injunctions which no Act 
 of Parliament can enforce, or which address themselves to mere 
 accidental circumstances, and leave the real causes of the evil 
 entirely unaffected. And there would be no impropriety in 
 describing impracticable or ill-directed legislation of this kind 
 as being socialistic, for, besides the old association of socialism 
 with impracticable schemes, impracticable legislation is always 
 unjust legislation, and unjust legislation for behoof of the 
 labouring class is essentially socialistic. Every State inter- 
 ference necessarily involves a certain restriction of the liberty 
 or other general rights of some class of persons ; and although 
 this restriction would be perfectly justifiable if it actually 
 secured the prior or more urgent right of another and perhaps 
 much more numerous class of persons, it is injustice, and 
 nothing but injustice, when it merely hurts the former class 
 without doing any good to the latter. It may hurt both 
 classes even well-meaning meddling often does ; but what I 
 desire to bring out here is that labour legislation, which may 
 have been entirely just and free from socialism in its intention, 
 may be unjust and full of socialism in its result. We may 
 therefore, without any fault, include under the head of State 
 socialism that common sort of proposal which, without urging 
 any wrong claim, merely asks the State to do the wrong thing 
 to do either something it cannot do at all, or something that 
 will not answer the purpose intended. It is socialistic not 
 because it is impracticable, but because it is unjust. 
 
 Since well-meant legislation may thus become urgent, and 
 therefore socialistic for want of result, it is plain that the 
 efficiency of the intervention is a very important consideration 
 in determining the State's duty with respect to popular rights. 
 But the primary consideration here is the extent of the moral 
 claim which the individual, by reason of his weakness, has upon 
 the resources of society, and it is upon that consideration that 
 the division of conflicting political theories on the subject turns. 
 All the several theories are agreed that the enlargement of 
 popular rights, when the enlargement is required by a just 
 popular claim, is entirely within the proper and natural pro- 
 vince of the State ; where they differ, and differ seriously, is 
 partly in their views of the justice of particular elements in
 
 42O Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the popular claim of the time being, but more especially in 
 their whole conception of the nature and extent of the popular 
 claim in general. There are still some persons to be found 
 contending that there are no such things as natural rights, and 
 there are plenty who cannot hear the words without a sensa- 
 tion of alarm. But it is now generally admitted, even by those 
 who adopt the narrowest political theories, that legal rights 
 are merely the ratification of moral rights already existing, and 
 that the creation of new legal rights for securing the just 
 aspirations of ill-protected classes of the people belongs to the 
 ordinary daily duties of ail civil government. Mr. Spencer 
 very readily admits that some of the latest constituted rights 
 in this country the new seamen's right of the Merchant 
 Shipping Act, and the new women's right of the Married 
 Women's Property Act are perfectly justifiable for the pre- 
 vention in the one case of seamen being fraudulently betrayed 
 into unseaworthy ships, and in the other of women being 
 robbed of their own personal earnings. But then the new 
 rights which he would most condemn the right to public 
 assistance, the right to education, the right to a habitable 
 dwelling, the right to a fair rent are quite as susceptible of 
 justification on the ground of natural justice as either the right 
 to a seaworthy ship or the right to one's own earnings. Mr. 
 Spencer's theory errs by unduly contracting men's natural 
 claim. They have a right to more than equal freedom ; they 
 have a right, to use Smith's phrase, to an undeformed and 
 unmutilated humanity, to that original basis of human dignity 
 which it is the business of organized society to defend for its 
 weaker members against the assaults of fortune as well as the 
 assaults of men. That is what I have called, for the sake of 
 distinction, the English theory of social politics. On the other 
 hand, socialism unduly extends this claim. The right to fair 
 wages is one thing ; the State could not realize it, but it at 
 least represents no unjust aspiration ; but the right to an equal 
 dividend of the national income, claimed by Utopian socialists, 
 including Mr. Bellamy at the present day, and the right to the 
 full produce of labour claimed by the revolutionary socialists, 
 and meaning, as explained by them, the right to the entire 
 product of labour and capital together, are really rights to
 
 State Socialism. 421 
 
 unfair wages, and the whole objection to them is that they are 
 at variance with social justice. If we keep these distinctions 
 in view, we shall be able to discriminate between interventions 
 of authority which are innocent, and interventions which are 
 tainted with State socialism. Take an illustration or two, 1st, 
 of interventions for settling the claims of the poor in society in 
 general, and 2nd, of interventions for adjusting the differences 
 between one class and another, between employer and labourer, 
 between landlord and tenant, and the like. 
 
 1. Under the first head, the most important question is the 
 question of public assistance. Prince Bismarck created a con- 
 siderable European sensation when he first announced his new 
 social policy in 1884, by declaring in favour of the three claims 
 of labour, which have been so commonly regarded as the very 
 alpha and omega of social revolution the right to existence 
 for the infirm, the right to labour for the able-bodied, and the 
 right to superannuation for the aged. " Give the labourer," 
 he said, " the right to labour when he is able-bodied ; give 
 him the right to relief when he is sick ; give him the right to 
 maintenance when he is old ; and if you do so if you do not 
 shrink from the sacrifice, and do not cry out about State 
 socialism whenever the State does anything for the labourer 
 in the way of Christian charity then I believe you will destroy 
 the charm of the "Wyden (i.e.. Social Democratic) programme." 
 These three rights are really two, the right of relief when one 
 is sick and of maintenance when one is old being only different 
 phases of the right to existence. Now the right to existence 
 and the right to labour are in themselves both perfectly just 
 claims, but the construction Prince Bismarck gave them passed 
 decidedly over into State socialism. 
 
 The right to existence is seldom called in question. Malthus, 
 it is true, said a man had a right to live only as he had a right 
 to live a hundred years if he could. He might as well have 
 argued that a man had a right to escape murder only as he 
 had a right to escape murder for a hundred years if Tie could. 
 It is really because he cannot that he has the right it is be- 
 cause he cannot protect himself against violence that he has 
 a right to protection from the State, and because, and as far as, 
 he cannot protect himself against starvation that he has a just
 
 422 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 claim upon the State for food. And his claim is obviously 
 bounded in the one case as in the other by the ability of society. 
 If society cannot protect him, it is of course absurd to talk of 
 any right to its protection, but if society can, society ought. 
 To suffer a fellow-citizen to die of hunger is felt by a civilized 
 community to be at least as just a disgrace to its government 
 as it would be to leave him a prey to the knife of the assassin, 
 or to the incursions of marauders from over the enemy's border. 
 But as the State furnishes protection against human violence 
 by its courts of justice, and against disease by its sanitary laws, 
 so it furnishes protection against famine and indigence by its 
 legal provision of relief. The claim of the perishing stands on 
 the same footing as any other claim which is an admitted right 
 of man to-day ; it is a claim to an essential condition of normal 
 manhood to existence itself. But then, if the right to exist- 
 ence must be admitted, it can only be admitted where the 
 individual is, for whatever reason, unable to make provision 
 for himself, and it can only be admitted in such measure and 
 form as will not discourage other individuals from trying to 
 make independent provision for themselves before their day 
 of disability comes, because that, in turn, is the way prescribed 
 by normal manhood and true human dignity. 
 
 What State socialists claim, however, is not the right to 
 existence, but the right to decent and comfortable existence 
 the right to the style of living which is customary among the 
 independent poor. The labourer ought, in their eyes, to be 
 treated as a public servant, and his sick pay and his pension 
 ought both to be commensurate with the claims and dignity 
 of honest labour. Now it is of course impossible not to sym- 
 pathize much with this view, but the difficulty is that if you 
 make assisted labour as good as independent labour, j-ou shall 
 soon have more assisted labour than you can manage, you 
 shall have weakened the push, energy, and forethought of your 
 labouring class, you shall have really done much to destroy 
 that very dignity of labour which you desire to establish. 
 The State may probably, with great advantage, do more for 
 working-class insurance than it at present does. It could con- 
 duct the business of the burial benefit and the superannuation 
 benefit better than any private company or friendly society,
 
 State Socialism. 423 
 
 "because it could offer a surer guarantee and the business is 
 routine ; Mr. Gladstone's excellent annuity scheme has remained 
 sterile only because it has not been pushed, and the canvasser 
 and collector are indispensable in working-class 'insurance. 
 But the socialist proposal is that the State ought to give every 
 man a pension after a certain age, irrespectively altogether of 
 his own contributions. Mr. "Webb is one of its most recent 
 advocates, and, according to the useful figures he has taken 
 the trouble to obtain, there are in the United Kingdom 
 1,700,000 persons over sixty-five years of age, of whom 
 1,300,000 contrive to pension themselves, either by their own 
 savings or the assistance of their families, while the remaining 
 400,000 are supported by the rates at an average cost of ten 
 guineas a year. Mr. Webb's proposal is that in order to save 
 the feelings of the 400,000 dependants you are to make the 
 other 1,300,000 persons dependants along with them, and give 
 ten guineas a year all round. But you cannot make a public 
 dole a pension by merely calling it a pension. A pension is a 
 payment made by one's actual employer for work done it is 
 wages, and the man who has earned his own pension, or has 
 provided it by his own saving, feels himself and is an inde- 
 pendent man. It is right to maintain the 400,000 whether 
 out of national or parochial funds is a detail but sound policy 
 would rather aim at raising the 400,000 to be as the 1,300,000, 
 than at lowering the 1,300,000 to the level of the 400,000. 
 With Mr. Webb it is not a question of giving the 400,000 
 better allowances than they receive at present which might 
 be most reasonably entertained but it is a mere question of 
 not suffering them to be looked down on by the 1,300,000 
 who have 'fought their own way, and that is not possible, 
 nor, with all respect for them, is it, from a public point of 
 view, desirable. It is right to support those who cannot 
 support themselves, but it is neither right nor wise to remove 
 all distinctidn between the dependent poor and the inde- 
 pendent. 
 
 But the line between State socialism and sound social politics 
 in the matter of public assistance may perhaps be better shown 
 in another branch of Poor Law administration the right to 
 labour for the able-bodied. The socialist right to labour is the
 
 424 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 right of the unemployed to get labour in their own trades and 
 at good or current rates of wages. That is the right which 
 Bismarck substantially admitted in his famous speech. He 
 said there was a crowd of suitable undertakings which the 
 State could establish to furnish the unemployed with a fair 
 day's wage for a fair day's work. It is also practically the 
 right which prevailed in England between 1782, when Gilbert's 
 Act abolished the old workhouse test, and 1835, when the new 
 Poor Law restored it. Gilbert's Act gave the able-bodied poor 
 the right (1) to obtain from the guardians work near their own 
 residence and suited to their respective strength and capacity ; 
 
 (2) to receive for their labour all the money earned by it ; and 
 
 (3) if that sum fell short of their requirements, to have the 
 difference made up out of the parochial funds. The effect of 
 that, as we know, was, that public relief became too desirable, 
 the dependants on it multiplied, the poor rate rose, the wages 
 of labour fell, the very efficiency of the labourer himself 
 withered, and the new Poor Law reverted to the workhouse 
 test, which, harsh though it was considered to be, was in reality 
 a necessary defence of the character and comfort of the labour- 
 ing class from further decadence. 
 
 To provide the unemployed with work in their own trades 
 is only to increase the evil you wish to remedy, for the very 
 existence of the unemployed shows that those particular trades 
 are slack at the time, that there is no demand for the articles 
 they produce, and consequently any attempt by the State to 
 throw fresh supplies of these articles on the already over- 
 stocked market can have no other effect than to increase the 
 depression and turn out of employ the men that are still at 
 work. Paying relief work at the common market rate of 
 wages is attended with the same objection. The remedy only 
 aggravates the disease, and what ought to be merely the 
 labourer's temporary resource against adversity tends to grow 
 into his regular staff of life. Eelief wages, while sufficient for 
 the family's support, should remain below the current rates so 
 as to give the labourer an effective inducement to seek better 
 employment as soon as better employment can possibly be 
 obtained. The true and natural defence against misfortune 
 is the man's own personal exertion and provision, and the pur-
 
 State Socialism. 425 
 
 pose of the public intervention is to stimulate and assist, not 
 to supplant, that vis medicatrix natures. 
 
 But under these limitations a right to labour is a just claim 
 of the unfortunate. It is admitted in the English Poor Law, 
 and it is admitted in the Scotch parochial practice, which 
 constructively considers want of employment a form of sickness 
 or accident, and it requires in both countries to be better real- 
 ized than it is. 1st : although it is unadvisable to give every 
 man work at his own trade, and although the choice of trades 
 for relief purposes is attended with as much difficulty as the 
 choice of those for prison labour is found to be, yet certainly 
 the circle of relief trades ought to be extended beyond stone- 
 breaking and oakum-picking. Socialists themselves are among 
 the foremost in complaining of the competition of prison labour 
 with honest labour, although they fail to see that precisely the 
 same objection attends the competition of relieved labour in 
 public workshops with unrelieved labour in regular private 
 employment. The kind of work most free from objection on 
 this score would probably be the production of articles now 
 imported from abroad, and there are a great many trades in 
 which, while we make most of their products at home, we 
 import particular articles or sorts of articles for one reason or 
 another. Some of these might be found suitable for the pur- 
 pose in view. Or the men in the public workshops might be 
 employed in making a variety of things used in public offices, 
 imperial or local. 2nd : what is even more important, a dis- 
 tinction ought to be made between the industrious poor and 
 that residuum of confirmed failures for whom the stoneyard 
 test is really intended, and the former ought not to be made to 
 feel themselves any way degraded in their work, their small 
 remuneration being trusted to act as a sufficient preventive 
 against their permanent dependence on the public for employ- 
 ment. 3rd : then a third and most important requisite is to 
 supplement the public provision of work with a public pro- 
 vision of information about the demand for labour over the 
 country from day to day, so as not merely to support the men 
 in adversity, but to facilitate their restoration to their normal 
 condition of prosperity. 
 
 For we ought to recognise that though the problem of the
 
 426 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 unemployed is not, as many persons imagine, one of increasing 
 gravity in our time although, on the contrary, if we go back 
 thirty years, sixty years, or a hundred years, we always find 
 worse complaints and more distressing sufferings from that 
 cause than at present, yet it is certainly a constant problem. 
 The unemployed we have always with us, and even their 
 numbers vary less from time to time than we are apt to sup- 
 pose. Trades dependent on fine weather are, of course, slack 
 in winter, but then trades dependent on fashion are slack in 
 summer, while there are some large trades such as the shoe- 
 makers that are made brisk by bad weather. Even a general 
 commercial crisis which throws the workpeople of many trades 
 idle, makes those of others busy. The building trades are 
 always busy in bad times, because money and labour are then 
 cheap, and the opportunity is seized of building or extending 
 factories, and laying down plant of every description. It was 
 so to a very remarkable extent during the Lancashire cotton 
 distress of 1862 ; it was so all over England in the depression 
 of 1877-78, and the same fact was observed again in Scotland, 
 and commented upon by the factory inspector in 1886. Other 
 trades are brisker in a crisis for less happy causes, e.g., the 
 bakers for the melancholy reason that the working classes are 
 more generally driven from meat to bread. These natural 
 corrections or compensations elicited by the depression itself 
 prevent the numbers of the unemployed from growing so very 
 much larger in a crisis than in ordinary times that their case 
 would not be overtaken satisfactorily by the general systematic 
 provision of relief work, if that were once established. The 
 excess is met now so effectually by a few special local efforts, 
 that we have sometimes far fewer able-bodied paupers in bad 
 years than in good. The number of able-bodied paupers was 
 very much less in the bad years 1876-1878 than in the good 
 years immediately after them, or in the still better years im- 
 mediately before them. The problem being, then, so largely 
 constant from season to season, and from cycle to cycle, ought 
 clearly to be solved by a permanent and systematic provision. 
 
 The same principle which governs this right to labour 
 the principle of preventing degradation and facilitating self- 
 recovery governs other social legislation for the unfortunate
 
 State Socialism. 427 
 
 besides the Poor Law. It lies at the bottom of the homestead 
 exemptions of America, and our own prohibition of arrestment 
 of tools and wages for debt, and our occasional measures for 
 cancelling arrears. It is the principle laid down by Pitt when 
 he said that no temporary occasion should be suffered to force 
 a British subject to part with his last shilling. He had a right 
 to his last shilling, because he had a right to an undegraded 
 humanity. The last shilling stopped his fall, and perhaps 
 helped him to rise again. 
 
 Many persons will admit the right to public assistance, 
 because it seems limited to saving men from extremities, who 
 will see nothing but socialism of a perilous sort in other public 
 provisions, for which popular claims are advanced. Schools, 
 museums, libraries, parks, open spaces, footpaths, baths, are 
 certainly means of intellectual and physical life, which keep 
 the manhood of a community in normal vigour ; but, it will be 
 asked, if the State once begins to supply such things, where 
 is it to stop? Is free education to go beyond the primary 
 branches? What length are you to go? is the question Mr. 
 Spencer always raises as a bar to your going at all. But the 
 same question of degree can be raised about everything, about 
 the duties Mr. Spencer himself imposes upon the State as 
 really as about those he refuses to sanction. In the matter of 
 protection, for instance, how many policemen are we required 
 to detail to a district ? Or how great an army and navy are 
 we to maintain ? During the excitement about the Jack the 
 Ripper murders there was much clamour about the police 
 being too few, and we are subject to periodical panics as to our 
 imperial defences, in the course of which no two persons agree 
 in answering the question, what length are we to go? The 
 question can only be settled of course fay measuring the length 
 of our necessities with the length of our purse, and the same 
 class of considerations rules in the other case, the importance 
 and cost of the given provision to a community of such educa- 
 tion and culture, together with the impossibility of getting 
 it adequately supplied without public agency. The opinion 
 of the time may vary as to what is essential for a whole and 
 wholesome manhood, and its resources may vary as to what 
 may be easily borne to supply it ; but the same variation takes
 
 428 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 place with respect to the duties of national defence, or the 
 administration of justice. The objection is therefore nothing 
 more or less than the very ancient and famous logical fallacy 
 with which the Greek sophists used to nonplus their anta- 
 gonists. As in other affairs, the problem so far will settle itself 
 practically as it goes along, and the important distinction to 
 bear in mind is that to give every man the essential conditions 
 of all humane living is a very different kind of aim from giving 
 every man the same share in the national production, or a lien 
 on his neighbour's luck or industry or alertness. 
 
 2. From rights realizing general claims of the unfortunate on 
 society at large, let us now pass to rights realizing special claims 
 of certain weaker classes of society against certain stronger 
 classes. The most typical examples of this sort of legislation 
 are the intervention of the State between buyer and seller, 
 between landlord and tenant, between employer and labourer, 
 for the judicial determination of a fair price, a fair rent, or fair 
 wages, or for the regulation of the conditions of labour, and 
 tenure of land. Professor Sidgwick declares the Irish and 
 Scotch Land Acts, which provide for the judicial determination 
 of a fair rent, to be the most distinctively socialistic measures 
 the English Legislature has yet passed ; but in reality these 
 Land Acts are not a bit more socialistic than the laws which 
 fix a fair price for railway rates and fares, and much less 
 socialistic than the old usury Acts which sought to determine 
 fair interest. Such interferences with freedom of contract as 
 these are, of course, only justifiable when the absence of 
 effective competition places the real power of settlement of 
 terms practically in the hands of one side alone, and conduces, 
 therefore, inevitably to the serious injury and oppression of 
 the other. Parliament controls railway charges because the 
 railway companies enjoy a monopoly of most important busi- 
 ness, and might use their monopoly to wrong the public, and 
 when Parliament is asked, as it sometimes is, to discourage 
 corners, rings, syndicates, or pooling combinations, it is on the 
 ground that these various agencies are attempts, more or less 
 successful, to exclude competition for the purpose of exacting 
 from the public more than a fair price. On the other hand, 
 the reason why we have given up fixing fair interest now is
 
 State Socialism. 429 
 
 because we have come to see that competition, being very 
 effective among money-lenders, fixes it far better for us without 
 the intervention of the law, and, of course, an unnecessary 
 interference with freedom of contract is nothing but pernicious. 
 But, although for ordinary commercial loans the competition 
 of lenders is a sufficient security for the fair treatment of 
 borrowers, it affords no protection against extortion to the very 
 necessitous man, who must accept any terms or starve. His 
 poverty leaves him no proper freedom to make a contract, and 
 the law still condemns oppressive rates of usury, to which, as 
 the Apothecary says in "Romeo and Juliet," the poor man's 
 poverty, but not his will, consents. In such a case, accordingly, 
 an authoritative prescription of fair interest is only a necessary 
 requirement of justice and humanity. 
 
 The public determination of fair rent stands on precisely the 
 same ground. The rent of large farms, like the interest on 
 ordinary commercial loans, may be safely left to be settled by 
 commercial competition, because large farms are taken by men 
 of capital as a business speculation, and landlords cannot exact 
 more rent than the farms will bear without driving capital out 
 of agriculture into other branches of production, and so reducing 
 the demand for that class of farms to an extent that will bring 
 the rent down to its proper level again. But the rent of small 
 holdings, like the interest on loans to persons in extremity, is 
 ruled by other considerations. Cottier tenants, between their 
 numbers and their necessities, are continually driven into 
 offering rents the land can never be made to pay, and thereby 
 incurring for the rest of their days the burden of a lengthening 
 chain of arrears little better than Oriental debt-slavery. Other 
 work is hard to find ; the land being limited in supply is a 
 natural monopoly ; and the State merely steps in to save the 
 tenantry from the injurious effects of their own over-competi- 
 tion for an essential instrument of their labour, and, through 
 their labour, of their very existence. The interference, there- 
 fore, is perfectly justifiable if the machinery it institutes can 
 carry out the purpose efficiently, and there is this difference 
 between a court for fixing rent and a court for fixing the price 
 of bread, or beer, or labour, that it is only doing work which 
 in the natural course of things is very usually done by peri-
 
 430 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 odical and independent valuation, instead of by the ordinary 
 higgling of the market. It has always been the custom on 
 many large estates to call in a valuator from the outside for 
 the revision of the rents, and a valuator appointed by the 
 Crown cannot be expected to do the work any less effectively 
 than a valuator appointed by the landlord. Moreover, the 
 tendency of opinion seems to be towards the simplication of 
 the process by some self-working scheme, a sliding scale for 
 apportioning an annual rent to the annual production. 
 
 State intervention in the determination of the rate of wages 
 is often proposed either for the purpose of settling trade dis- 
 putes on the subject, or for the purpose of suppressing what is 
 called starvation wages and fixing a legal minimum rate. As 
 for arbitration in trade disputes, the object is, of course, in no 
 way socialistic, for it is strictly allied with the ordinary judicial 
 work of the State, and a public and permanent tribunal would 
 probably answer the purpose much better than a private and 
 merely occasional one ; for even although it might not be able 
 to enforce its judgments in all cases by compulsion on the 
 parties, it would be more likely than the other to command 
 their confidence and secure by its moral authority their 
 voluntary submission, and this authority would increase with 
 the experience of the court. 
 
 In certain cases compulsory arbitration seems to be required. 
 There are trades in which the public interest may require 
 strikes to be prohibited, in order to prevent a whole com- 
 munity suffering grave privations, perhaps being starved of its 
 supply of a necessary of life. The Trades Union Act imposes 
 express restrictions on combinations among the labourers at gas 
 and water works, and the recent railway strike in Scotland, 
 which not only paralyzed trade for a time, but stopped the 
 supply of coal to whole districts in the middle of the severest 
 winter of the last part of the century, suggested to many 
 minds the propriety of similar interference in railway disputes. 
 But if the State interfered to stop the strike, the State must 
 needs in equity interfere to decide upon the cause of quarrel. 
 And happily these are the very cases which are best fitted for 
 compulsory arbitration, because the trades concerned are not 
 subject to the market fluctuations to which other trades are
 
 State Socialism. 431 
 
 liable, and are therefore better suited for fixed settlements of 
 definite and considerable duration. 
 
 But what socialists claim is a universal determination of 
 normal wages, so as to give every man the full product of his 
 labour, as the full product of his labour is understood upon 
 their theory. For the present, however, they are content to 
 ask for at least the establishment of a legal minimum rate of 
 wages ; in fact, an international minimum rate of wages and 
 an international eight hours working day are the two demands 
 on which their agitation is in the meantime most strenuously 
 concentrated. In their recent policy they have reverted to the 
 kind of remedies they used to speak of with such lofty disdain 
 as mere palliatives, and have only preserved their separate 
 identity from other reformers by asking for these palliatives 
 in their least practicable form. An international compulsory 
 minimum wage is impossible, for even a national one is so, 
 and that is the only objection, but a very x sufficient one, to 
 the proposal. If you could wipe out starvation wages by pass- 
 ing an Act of Parliament, let the Act be passed to-morrow, for 
 starvation wages is surely the worst and most exasperating of 
 all the enemies of humane living. To starve for want of power 
 to work is bad ; to starve for want of work is worse ; but to 
 work and yet starve, to work a long, long day without obtain- 
 ing the bread that should be its natural reward, is a -third and 
 worst degree of misfortune, for it mocks the fitness and equity 
 of things, and seizes the mind like a wrong. If it is right to 
 suppress starvation by law, it would seem more right still to 
 suppress starvation wages ; and if the socialist contention were 
 in the least true, that in consequence of the " iron and cruel 
 law " all wages are starvation wages, and all work sweaters' 
 work, that work and starve is the inevitable rule under the 
 present system of things, there would be no good answer to 
 their demand for the abolition of the present system of things. 
 But as a matter of fact working and starving is the condition 
 of only exceptional groups of workpeople, and the right to a 
 minimum wage, in the sense of a wage above starvation point, 
 would have no bearing on the great majority of the labouring 
 classes, inasmuch as they stand already on a considerably 
 higher level of remuneration.
 
 432 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Ought the State, however, to fix a legal minimum of wages 
 for the protection of the exceptional groups of workpeople to 
 whose situation such a measure might have relation? The 
 objection to this course comes less from want of justice in the 
 claim than from want of power in the State to realize it. 
 The fixing of a legal minimum rate of wages is a task which 
 it is beyond the State's power to accomplish, except by paying 
 up the minimum out of its own funds ; for, though the law 
 fixed a minimum to-morrow, it could not compel employers to 
 engage workmen at that minimum ; and if employers found it 
 unprofitable to do so, the only effect of the legislation would 
 be to throw numbers of men out of work, and make their 
 maintenance at the legal minimum an obligation of the public 
 treasury. Of the results of paying wages out of the rates we 
 have had plenty of experience. To suppress starvation wages 
 in this way by direct statute is merely impossible, however, 
 and there would be no taint of socialism in it, if it could be 
 done. Much less can the like objection be made against any 
 milder remedies. The only danger is that they would not 
 prove effectual, and would address themselves to false causes. 
 Take the sweating system of the East End of London, in 
 which, bad conditions of labour always going together, we find 
 starvation wages combined with long hours and unwholesome 
 work-rooms. Two of the favourite remedies are the abolition 
 of sub-contracting and the prohibition of pauper Jewish im- 
 migration ; but neither of these things is the cause of sweating. 
 The sweating contractor of the East End is not a sub-con- 
 tractor at all ; he is the only contractor in the business, and 
 even if he were a sub-contractor, we know that sub-contractors 
 often pay far better wages than the chief contractor can, be- 
 cause they know their men better, and get better work out of 
 them. 
 
 A temporary increase in the Jewish immigration may 
 occasion a temporary aggravation of the difficulty, but the 
 permanent causes lie elsewhere, and even in the way of 
 aggravation a matter of a thousand Jews more, or a thousand 
 Jews less, cannot play an all-important part in a system affect- 
 ing some hundred thousand workpeople. Sweating is no more 
 incident to Jewish labour than to English labour. The cheap
 
 State Socialism. 433 
 
 clothing trade of Birmingham is certainly in the hands of Jews, 
 yet sweating is or at least was when the factory inspector 
 reported in 1879 absolutely unknown. The wages, he said, 
 were good, the hours were not long, and there were no over- 
 crowded dens. On the other hand, sweating has not only been 
 for years endemic in the East End of London, but has even 
 appeared in a very acute form, apart from any alien influence, 
 in the tailoring trade in Melbourne, the paradise of working 
 people, as it is sometimes not unjustly denominated. The 
 sweating there was conducted largely by ladies who took in 
 bands of learners, and, according to the evidence before the 
 Shopkeepers' Commission of 1883, every second house in some 
 of the suburbs was a shop of that kind. There was an excessive 
 influx of labour into that trade, because little other work could 
 be found for women who entertained, as they do generally in 
 that colony, a prejudice against both factory labour and 
 domestic service. On the other hand, this overflow was 
 diverted in Birmingham into other channels by the com- 
 parative abundance of light employments the district afforded. 
 But apart from temporary or local circumstances that serve to 
 aggravate things or alleviate them, the tailor trade is every- 
 where naturally subject beyond all others to over-competition : 
 (1) because the work can be done at home ; (2) because it can 
 be learnt in a few weeks or months well enough to earn starva- 
 tion wages in a long day at some sorts of work ; (3) because it 
 needs as little capital for the contractor to start business as it 
 needs training for the operatives ; and (4) because the operatives 
 being scattered about in their own homes, or in small work- 
 shops here and there, have a natural difficulty in coming to 
 any concerted action that might otherwise mitigate the effects 
 of the over-competition, and if there is any general remedy for 
 sweating, it must deal with these causes. To replace home- 
 work by common work in wholesome workshops, as far as that 
 can be done, might interfere with what some poor persons 
 found a convenient resource, but would do no harm to the 
 working class generally. The work it was less convenient for 
 some to do would be done by others. The change would 
 remove at once one of the evils of sweating the unhealthy 
 work-places and it would contribute to remove the others, 
 
 F F
 
 434 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 first by facilitating combination, and second by improving the 
 personal efficiency of the labourer and the amount of his 
 production. Dr. Watts, of Manchester, speaking from long 
 experience, tells us in his " Facts of the Cotton Famine " 
 (p. 44) that " men often care more about being employed in a 
 good mill (i.e., a mill with plenty of room, air, and light) than 
 about the exact price per pound for spinning, or per piece for 
 weaving, for they know practically what is the effect of these 
 conditions upon the weekly wages." Various measures have 
 been suggested which have some such end in view the com- 
 pulsory registration of the contractor's workrooms and his 
 outworkers, the requiring him to provide workshops for all his 
 hands, the joint liability of the clothier with him for the 
 wholesomeness of the workplaces, the erection of public work- 
 shops where workpeople may be accommodated for hire ; they 
 may be open to various objections and there is no space to 
 indicate or discuss them here but if they are effectual for the 
 purpose contemplated, that purpose saves them at least from 
 the reproach of socialism. 
 
 The international compulsory eight hours day is attended 
 with like difficulty. The eight hours day is no necessary plank 
 of socialism, though socialists have at present united to de- 
 mand it. Rodbertus, the most learned and scientific of modern 
 socialists, always contended that the normal working-day ought 
 not to be of uniform length, but should vary inversely with 
 the relative strain of the several trades, and Mr. Bellamy, 
 under his system of absolute equality of income, makes differ- 
 ences in the hours of labour answer the purpose of regulating 
 the choice of occupation, and preventing too many persons 
 running into the easier trades, and too few into the harder. 
 Nor, indeed, apart from the element of universal compulsion, 
 has the eight hours day anything of socialism in it at all. In 
 some trades it is probably a simple necessity for protecting the 
 workpeople in normal conditions of health ; but above all its 
 sanitary benefits it would confer upon the workpeople of every 
 trade alike the much grander blessing of admitting them to a 
 reasonable share of the intellectual, social, domestic, religious, 
 and political life of their time. If the State could bestow upon 
 them this sovereign blessing without forcing them to accept
 
 State Socialism. 435 
 
 a reduction of wages, which might deprive them of things even 
 more essential for their elevation, and which would only breed 
 among them an intolerable discontent, by all means let the 
 State declare the glad decree. But experience shows that in 
 matters of this kind the State and especially the democratic 
 State is a very limited agent, and cannot successfully enforce 
 its decrees upon unwilling trades. In certain special cases, 
 when the short day is demanded for the purpose of averting 
 admitted dangers to health, as with the miners, or for the 
 safety of the public, as with the railway service, there is a 
 recognised stringency of obligation which is exceptional ; but 
 in the great run of trades the question is virtually one of mere 
 preference between an hour's leisure and an hour's pay, and 
 in these circumstances a law has too little moral authority 
 behind it to be practically enforceable by penalties in the 
 absence of decided working-class opinion in its favour in the 
 affected trades. In Victoria more than fifty separate trades 
 have obtained the eight hours day without any parliamentary 
 assistance, and almost the only remaining trades which do not 
 yet enjoy it are the very trades which have been protected by 
 an eight hours Factory Act since 1874. As soon as the Act 
 was passed, the operatives, men and women both, petitioned 
 the Chief Secretary for its suspension, and it has remained in 
 suspended animation to this day. A democratic government 
 cannot risk incurring the discontent of a body of the people 
 merely to prevent them from working an hour more when 
 they want to earn a little more. California has had an Eight 
 Hours Act on the statute-book for even a longer period, but it 
 has remained a mere dead letter, because employers began to 
 pay wages by the hour or the piece, and the men found they 
 did not earn so much in the short day as they used to earn in 
 the long. The same thing has happened in others of the 
 American States, and the friends of the eight hours movement 
 in that country are beginning to think that the reason their 
 long and often hot struggle has hitherto been so fruitless is 
 because they have been wasting their strength in political 
 agitation when they ought to have been cultivating and 
 organizing opinion among the working class themselves trade 
 by trade. The weakness of statutory eight hours movements
 
 436 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 has generally flowed from two sources. One is that what 
 their promoters really wanted was not shorter hours, but more 
 wages. Numbers of them sought only to shorten regular time 
 in order to lengthen overtime, and numbers more got them- 
 selves persuaded that a general reduction of hours was the 
 grand means of effecting a general rise of wages, either by 
 removing the competition of the unemployed, or in some other 
 way ; and it has often been only the few always the very elite 
 of labour who fought for the eight hours day because they 
 valued the leisure enough to make, if necessary, some little 
 sacrifice for so noble a boon. When, therefore, wages, instead 
 of rising, begin to get reduced, general disappointment is in- 
 evitable, and they get reduced and reduced lower than they 
 otherwise might be through the second weakness of such 
 movements, which is simply this, that a trades union which is 
 not strong enough to get an eight hours day by their own un- 
 aided efforts, without the assistance of the law, is not strong 
 enough to prevent their wages from sinking, and in this matter 
 the law can do nothing to help them. The eight hours day 
 can only be an abiding possession if it come through the 
 successive growth of opinion and organization in one trade 
 after another. The history of the movement in Victoria is the 
 history of such successive triumphs of opinion and organiza- 
 tion ; as soon as a trade has come to want the eight hours day 
 earnestly enough to be willing to sacrifice something for it, the 
 trade has always got it. In the result they have had to sacri- 
 fice very little ; scarce one of them suffered a fall of wages by 
 the change, for the simple reason that there was no serious fall 
 in their daily production. The difference between the ten 
 hours day and the eight hours day in Victoria was not two 
 hours, but only three-quarters of an hour, for at least in the 
 important trades the old day was ten hours, with an hour 
 and a quarter off for meals ; and in eight hours with only one 
 break the men probably did near as much as they did before 
 in the eight hours and three-quarters with a double break. 
 Still, most of the trades took twenty or five-and-twenty years 
 before they ventured to join the movement ; and though no 
 country in the world is so much under the control of working- 
 class opinion as Victoria, the proposal of a general legal eight
 
 State Socialism. 437 
 
 hours day which has repeatedly come before the Legislature 
 has never been carried into law. 
 
 In one sense the eight hours day is the least socialistic of all 
 reforms proposed in the interest of the working class, for it is 
 impossible to make the other classes of society pay for the boon. 
 It may not, perhaps, be quite certain that there will be any- 
 thing to pay for it at all, for many people assure us produc- 
 tion will suffer nothing by the change, and some promise us 
 it will be even increased. But one thing at least is certain : 
 if there is anything to pay, it is the working classes themselves 
 who in the end will and must pay it. The reduction can 
 make no great difference to employers, except on running con- 
 tracts, or where for any reason they refuse to keep their plant 
 in use by an extra shift, for in the matter of wages they will 
 do under an eight hours system exactly what they do now 
 pay the men for the amount of work they get out of them and 
 no more ; and as they thus produce their goods at the old cost, 
 they can export them at the old price. It need not, therefore, 
 have any permanent effect worth speaking of on the general 
 trade of the country. But if the men do less, their wages 
 will be less too,* and nothing can long keep them what they 
 were. This wages question is the eight hours question ; and 
 while it is a question for the men more than for the masters, 
 it is essential they should keep clear of all misconception in 
 deciding it. 
 
 There is no way of getting ten hours' pay for eight hours' 
 work except by doing the work of ten hours in the eight. An 
 Eight Hours Act would give working men no new power to 
 raise the rate of wages ; and if they cannot by combination 
 get twelve hours' pay for ten hours' work to-day, they cannot 
 by combination get ten hours' pay for eight hours' work to- 
 morrow. It is, indeed, a very current delusion, that a restric- 
 tion of production must increase wages by necessitating the 
 employment of the unemployed, whose competition tends at 
 present to prevent wages from rising. But that effect could 
 only occur if the same demand for commodities remained, and 
 
 * For proof of the position that the rate of wages is determined by the 
 amount of production, see pp. 307-11.
 
 438 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 although that might be the case if the restriction were confined 
 to a single branch of industry, while all the rest continued to 
 produce as much as before, it would not be so if the restriction 
 were carried out simultaneously all round. The various trades 
 are one another's customers ; the commodities one supplies con- 
 stitute the demand for the labour of the others ; and if the supply 
 is reduced all round, the demand will be reduced all round. To 
 say there is at any moment a fixed amount of work that has to 
 be done whatever the produce of the labour, is, as Professor 
 Marshall very happily observes, to set up a "Work Fund Dogma 
 exactly analogous to the old "Wages Fund Doctrine of the 
 schools, and, he might have added, a dogma even more 
 dangerous to the prosperity of the working-man. Yet the idea 
 is abroad ; it appears in the trade-union policy of " making 
 work " that is, making work for to-morrow by not doing it 
 to-day; it is a kind of mercantilist delusion of the present 
 century, by which each trade is to cut some advantage for 
 itself out of the sides of the others until they all come to prac- 
 tise the trick in turn and fall to mysterious ruin together. 
 
 If the eight hours day is to raise wages, it will not be by 
 limiting production, but by improving it. That the produc- 
 tivity of labour is capable of improving nay, that it is certain 
 to improve to such an extent as to earn by-and-by more wages 
 in an eight hours day than it now does in a ten is scarce 
 matter of doubt. Apart from the influence of machinery and 
 invention, there is a great reserve of personal efficiency, espe- 
 cially in English labour, still capable of development. Mr. 
 Nasmyth, the inventor of the steam-hammer, said that he 
 noticed when watching his men at work, that most of them 
 spent at least two-thirds of their time, not in working, but in 
 criticising their work with the square and the straight-edge, 
 which the few dexterous workmen among them almost never 
 required to use. An increase of dexterity might, therefore, 
 make up for a reduction of the day in these trades even to four 
 hours. But the present question is about the probable effect 
 of the reduction itself upon the efficiency of labour, and ex- 
 perience certainly does not justify those who declare that it 
 would increase the daily product. The effect of a reduction 
 from ten hours or nine to eight is, of course, an entirely different
 
 State Socialism. 439 
 
 question from the effect of a reduction from twelve or thirteen 
 to ten, because the last two hours' labour in a very long and 
 exhausting day may bear little comparison with the last two 
 hours of a shorter day ; and of the exact effect of the particular 
 reduction from ten to eight we possess but scanty evidence, 
 though much might easily be obtained, one would think, from 
 establishments that run, as many do, ten hours in summer and 
 eight hours in winter, or ten hours in busy times and eight 
 hours in slack. We have some American evidence of this sort, 
 but it is very contradictory, a few employers saying that quite 
 as much work was done in the eight hours as in the ten, and 
 others that as much would have been done had the men made 
 a better use of their leisure, while several more complained 
 that the men really did less, and that their energies were posi- 
 tively slackened under the short hours this also perhaps being 
 a result of the use they made of their leisure. In Victoria the 
 production seems to have been reduced a little, but really so 
 little as to have no very perceptible results, and the leisure is 
 used so well that the working class have made a distinct rise 
 in the scale of being, and have developed a remarkable love of 
 outdoor sports, and spare energy enough to produce some of 
 the most famous cricketers and scullers in the world. There 
 are some trades in which it is possible for production to 
 diminish and yet wages to remain the same, because the 
 difference can be thrown into the price of the product. These 
 are trades supplying a commodity in general and necessary 
 demand of which the consumers will stand a very considerable 
 rise in the price before they will seriously shorten their pur- 
 chases. Coal is a good example of such a commodity, and the 
 miners are therefore very happily situated for the adoption of 
 an eight hours day. They are more able than most other 
 trades to prevent such a measure from resulting in any fall of 
 wages, and consequently a legal enactment on the subject is 
 less likely with them to create subsequent disappointment, and 
 remain dead letter. They need State help in the matter less 
 than most trades, for they are strong and well organized ; but 
 an Eight Hours Act would be more easily enforced among them. 
 Very few trades, however, are in this exceptional position. On 
 the whole, the risk of material loss incurred by the reduction
 
 44O Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 is slight compared with, the certainty and greatness of the 
 moral gain ; the material loss will, in any case, be soon made 
 up by industrial improvements, if things progress as they are 
 doing ; and if the reduction is more likely to come through the 
 union and organization of the trades themselves rather than 
 by either national or international action, the trades at least 
 need have no serious fear to make the venture. 
 
 The idea of settling questions of this kind by international 
 action, which was started at first from the side of the employers 
 as a convenient obstructive, but has since been taken up with 
 great zeal by the young German Emperor and the socialists, is 
 obviously delusive. It ignores the possibilities of the case, for 
 who, in the first place, is to adjust the complicated details of 
 this international handicap, and rf they were adjusted, who is 
 to enforce them ? No country is likely to be very strict in en- 
 forcing those parts of the settlement by which it lost some 
 point of advantage, and those are the only parts for which 
 any such settlement was wanted at all. Besides, international 
 labour treaties are quite unnecessary. Experience all over the 
 world shows that a short-hour State suffers nothing in the 
 competition with a long-hour State. "When Massachusetts be- 
 came a ten-hour State, her manufacturers never found them- 
 selves at any disadvantage in competing with those of the 
 neighbouring eleven-hour States of New England, and they 
 would have still less to fear from rivals who employed, not the 
 same Anglo-Saxon labour as they did themselves, but the less 
 efficient labour of Germany or France. The ten-hour day 
 was its own reward. It improved the efficiency of the work- 
 people to the degree where, in concert with improvements in 
 the management, also due to the shortening of the day, the 
 product of ten hours in Massachusetts was equal to the product 
 of eleven elsewhere. If the same result were to follow the 
 adoption of an eight hours day, which, however, has still to be 
 tested by experiment, there is of course no more reason why 
 one country should wait for another in adopting the eight 
 hours day than in adopting the policy of free trade.
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE AGRAKTAN SOCIALISM OF HENRY GEORGE. 
 
 MR. GEORGE sent his " Progress and Poverty " into the world 
 with the remarkable prediction that it would find not only 
 readers but apostles. " Whatever be its fate," he says, " it 
 will be read by some who in their heart of hearts have taken 
 the cross of a new crusade. . . . The truth I have tried to 
 make clear will not find easy acceptance. If that could be, it 
 would have been accepted long ago. If that could be, it would 
 never have been obscured. But it will find friends those 
 who will toil for it, suffer for it : if need be, die for it. This is 
 the power of the truth" (p. 393). Mr. George's prediction is 
 not more remarkable than its fulfilment. His work has had an 
 unusually extensive sale ; a hundred editions in America, and 
 an edition of 60,000 copies in this country are sufficient evi- 
 dences of that; but the most striking feature in its reception 
 is precisely that which its author foretold ; it created an army 
 of apostles, and was enthusiastically circulated, like the testa- 
 ment of a new dispensation. Societies were formed, journals 
 were devised to propagate its saving doctrines, and little 
 companies of the faithful held stated meetings for its reading 
 and exposition. It was carried as a message of consolation to 
 the homes of labour. The author was hailed as a new and 
 better Adam Smith, as at once a reformer of science and a 
 renovator of society. Smith unfolded " The Nature and Causes 
 of the "Wealth of Nations," but to Mr. George, we were told, 
 was reserved the greater part of unravelling " the nature and 
 causes of the poverty of nations," and if the obsolete science of 
 wealth had served to make England rich, the young science 
 of poverty was at length to make her people happy with the 
 money. Justice and Liberty were to begin their reign, and our 
 eyes were to see to quote Mr. George's own words " the City 
 
 441
 
 442 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 of God on earth, with its walls of jasper arid its gates of pearl " 
 (p. 392). 
 
 The fervour of this first reception may as was perhaps only 
 natural have suffered some abatement since, but it affords a 
 striking proof how largely modern society is disquieted by the 
 results of our vaunted industrial civilization. Even those 
 amongst us who are most unwilling to disparage the improve- 
 ment that has really taken place during the last hundred years 
 in the circumstances of the people, still cannot help feeling 
 that the improvement has fallen far short of what might have 
 been reasonably expected from the contemporaneous growth 
 of resources and productive power. But numbers of people 
 will not allow that any improvement has occurred at all, and 
 deliver themselves to an unhappy and unwarranted pessimism 
 on the whole subject. Because industrial progress has not 
 extinguished poverty, they conclude that it has not even 
 lessened it ; that it has no power to lessen it ; nay, that its real 
 tendency is to aggravate it, that it increases wealth with the 
 one hand, but increases want with the other, so that civiliza- 
 tion has developed into a purely upper-class feast, where the 
 rich are grossly overfilled with good things, and the poor are 
 sent always emptier and emptier away. Invention, they tell 
 us, has followed invention ; machinery has multiplied the 
 labourer's productivity at least tenfold ; new colonies have 
 been founded, new markets and channels of commerce opened 
 in every quarter of the globe ; gold-fields have been discovered, 
 free trade has been introduced, railways and ocean steamers 
 have shortened time and space themselves in our service. 
 Each and all of these things have excited hopes of introducing 
 an era of popular improvement, and each and all of them have 
 left these hopes unfulfilled. They think, therefore, they now 
 do well to despair, and they fortify themselves in their gloom 
 by citing the opinion of Mr. Mill, that " it is questionable 
 whether all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened 
 the day's toil of any human being," without observing that 
 Mr. Mill immediately follows up that opinion by expressing 
 the confident assurance that it was " in the nature and the 
 futurity " of these inventions to effect that improvement. 
 These gloomy views have in France received the name of
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 443 
 
 Sisyphism, because they represent the working class under the 
 present industrial system as being struck with a curse like that 
 of Sisyphus, always encouraged by fresh technical advantages 
 to renewed expectations, and always doomed to see their 
 expectations perish for ever. 
 
 Now, it was upon these despondent and burdened souls that 
 Mr. George counted so confidently, and, as time has shown, 
 so correctly, for his apostles and martyrs ; and he counted so 
 confidently upon them because he had himself borne their 
 sorrows, and drunk of their despair, and because he now 
 believed most entirely that his discoveries would bring " in- 
 expressible cheer " to their minds, as, in the same circum- 
 stances, they had already brought inexpressible cheer to his 
 own. " When I first realized," he says, "the squalid misery 
 of a great city " that is, of the latest and most characteristic 
 product of industrial development " it appalled and tormented 
 me, and would not let me rest for thinking of what caused it 
 and how it could be cured " (p. 395). Poverty seemed to him 
 to be most abounding and most intense in precisely the most 
 advanced countries in the world. " Where the conditions to 
 which material progress everywhere tends are most fully 
 realized that is to say, where population is densest, wealth 
 greatest, and the machinery of production and exchange most 
 highly developed we find the deepest poverty, the sharpest 
 struggle for existence, and the most enforced idleness " (p. 4). 
 Nay, poverty, he thought, seemed "to take a darker aspect" 
 in every community at the very moment when it might be 
 reasonably expected to brighten at the moment when the 
 community made a distinct advance in material civilization, 
 when " closer settlements and a more intimate connection with 
 the rest of the world and greater utilization of labour-saving 
 machinery make possible greater economies in production and 
 exchange, and wealth increases in consequence, not merely in 
 the aggregate, but in proportion to population " (p. 4). This 
 process of impoverishment might, he says, escape observation 
 in an old country, because such a country has generally con- 
 tained from time immemorial a completely impoverished class, 
 who could not be further impoverished without going out of 
 existence altogether, but in a new settlement like California,
 
 444 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 where he resided, poverty might be seen almost in the act of 
 being produced by progress before one's very eyes. While the 
 colony had nothing better than log cabins or cloth shanties, 
 " there was no destitution," though there might be no luxury. 
 But " the tramp comes with the locomotive, and aim-houses 
 and prisons are as surely the marks of ' material progress ' 
 as are costly dwellings, rich warehouses, and magnificent 
 churches " (p. 4). " In the United States it is clear that 
 squalor and misery, and the vices and crimes that spring from 
 them everywhere, increase as the village grows to the city, and 
 the march of development brings the advantages of improved 
 methods of production and exchange. It is in the older and 
 richer sections of the Union that pauperism and distress are 
 becoming most painfully apparent. If there is less deep 
 poverty in San Francisco than in New York, it is not because 
 San Francisco is yet behind New York in all that both cities 
 are striving for? When San Francisco reaches the point 
 where New York now is, who can doubt that there will also 
 be ragged and barefooted children in her streets ? " (p. 6). The 
 prospect alarmed and agitated him profoundly. It deprived 
 him, as it has deprived so many of the continental socialists, of 
 all religious belief, for if the real order of things make an ever- 
 deepening poverty to be the only destiny of the mass of man- 
 kind, it seemed vain to dream of a controlling Providence or an 
 immortal life. " It is difficult," says he, " to reconcile the idea 
 of human immortality with the idea that nature wastes men 
 by constantly bringing them into being where there is no room 
 for them. It is impossible to reconcile the idea of an intelligent 
 and beneficent Creator with the belief that the wretchedness 
 and degradation, which are the lot of such a large proportion 
 of human kind, result from His enactments ; while the idea 
 that man mentally and physically is the result of slow modifi- 
 cations perpetuated by heredity, irresistibly suggests the idea 
 that it is the race life, not the individual life, which is the 
 object of human existence. Thus has vanished with many of 
 us, and is still vanishing with more of us, that belief which in 
 the battles and ills of life affords the strongest support and 
 deepest consolation " (p. 396). 
 
 The inquiry Mr. George undertook was consequently one of
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 445 
 
 the most vital personal concern to himself, and we are glad to 
 think that it has been the means of restoring to him the faith 
 and hope he prizes so much. " Out of this inquny," he tells 
 us, " has come to me something I did not think to find, and a 
 faith that was dead revives " (p. 395). 
 
 It may be ungracious to disturb a peace won so sorely and 
 offered so sincerely to others, but the truth is, Mr. George has 
 simply lost his faith by one illusion and recovered it again by 
 another. He first tormented his brain with imaginary facts, 
 and has then restored it with erroneous theories. His argu- 
 ment is really little better than a prolonged and, we will own, 
 athletic beating of the air ; but since both the imaginary facts 
 and the erroneous theories of which it is composed have 
 obtained considerable vogue, it is well to subject it to a critical 
 examination. I shall therefore take up successively, first, his 
 problem ; second, his scientific explanation ; and third, his 
 practical remedy. 
 
 I. Mr. George's Problem. 
 
 He states his problem thus : " I propose to seek the law 
 which associates poverty with progress and increases want with 
 advancing wealth " (p. 8). The first rule of scientific investi- 
 gation is to prove one's fact before proceeding to explain it. 
 " There are more false facts than false theories in the world," 
 and a short examination whether a phenomenon actually exists 
 may often relieve us from a long search after its law. Mr. 
 George, however, does not observe this rule. He seeks for 
 the law of a phenomenon without first verifying the pheno- 
 menon itself nay, apparently without so much as suspecting 
 that it ought to be verified. He assumes a particular view of 
 the social situation to be correct, because he assumes it. But 
 his assumption is a purely subjective and, as will presently be 
 shown, delusive impression. "We imagine our train to be going 
 back when a parallel train is going faster forward, and we are 
 apt to take the general condition of mankind to be retro- 
 grading when we fix our eyes exclusively on the rapid and 
 remarkable enrichment of the fortunate few. "What Mr. 
 George calls "the great enigma of our time" is just the 
 enigma of the apparently receding train, and he proceeds to
 
 446 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 solve it by coiling himself in a corner and working out an 
 elaborate explanation from his own inner consciousness " by 
 the methods of political economy," instead of taking the simple 
 and obvious precaution of looking oiit of the opposite carriage- 
 window and testing, by hard facts, whether his impression 
 was correct. Had he taken this precaution, had he resorted 
 to an examination of the actual state of the facts, he would 
 have found good reason to change his impression ; he would 
 have found that on the whole poverty is not increasing, that 
 in proportion to population it is considerably less in the more 
 advanced industrial countries than in the less advanced ones, 
 and that he had simply mistaken unequal rates of progress 
 for simultaneous movements of progress and decline. His 
 impression, it must be admitted, is a prejudice of considerable 
 currency ; there are many who tell us, as he does, that want 
 is growing part passu with wealth, and even gaining on it ; 
 that if the rich are getting richer, the poor are at the same 
 time getting poorer ; but it is a question of fact, and yet no 
 one has ever seriously tried to prove the assertion by an 
 appeal to fact. That Mr. George should have neglected to 
 submit it to such a test is the more remarkable, because he 
 was, as he has told us, " tormented " in mind by it, and 
 because he acknowledges that it is a "paradox" i.e., 
 against the reason of the case, and that it is also, to some 
 extent at least, against appearances. He owns, for example, 
 that " the average of comfort, leisure, and refinement has been 
 raised," and that though the lowest class may not share in 
 these gains, yet even they have in some ways improved. " I 
 do not mean," he says, " that the condition of the lowest class 
 has nowhere nor in anything been improved, but that there 
 is nowhere any improvement which can be credited to in- 
 creased productive power. I mean that the tendency of what 
 we call material progress is in no wise to improve the condition 
 of the lowest class in the essentials of healthy, happy human 
 life. Nay, more, that it is to still further depress the condition 
 of the lowest class. The new forces, elevating in their nature 
 though they be, do not act upon the social fabric from under- 
 neath, as was for a long time hoped and believed, but strike it 
 at a point intermediate between top and bottom. It is as
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 447 
 
 though an immense wedge were being forced, not underneath 
 society, but through society. Those who are above the point 
 of separation are elevated, but those who are below are 
 crushed down" (p. 5). From this passage it would appear 
 that, according to Mr. George, the condition of all except the 
 lowest class has improved in consequence of material progress, 
 and that the condition of the lowest class has improved in 
 spite of it. He does not undertake, it seems, to affirm of any 
 class that it has, as a matter of actual fact, become impover- 
 ished in the course of social development, but only that there 
 is a tendency in the increase of productive power in " the 
 new productive forces " in " material progress " to impover- 
 ish the lower strata of society. But then he contends that 
 these forces are practising exactly the same tendency on some 
 of the highest strata, on classes that we know have been 
 growing richer and richer every day. For he tells us that 
 these new forces, entering our social system like a wedge, 
 depress all who happen to be on the wrong side ; and we shall 
 presently discover that this unhappy company on the wrong 
 side of the wedge embraces many groups of persons who will 
 be excessively astonished to learn that they are there. It 
 includes, not only the poor labourers who live on wages, but 
 the great capitalists who live on profits ; the great cotton 
 spinners, ironmasters, brewers, bankers, contractors ; the very 
 men, in short, of all the world, whom the new productive 
 forces have most conspicuously and enormously enriched. I 
 shall revert to this preposterous conclusion later on, but at 
 present it is enough to say that a tide, which so many have 
 swum against and swum to fortune, cannot be very formid- 
 able, and at all events can furnish no clue whatever to the 
 possible condition of those who are exposed to it. For that 
 we have only one resort. It is a plain question of fact is 
 poverty really increasing ? Are the poor really getting poorer ? 
 And this can only be competently decided by the ordinary 
 inductive evidence of facts. The data of this kind which we 
 possess for settling the question may not be so exact as would 
 be desirable, but there is no higher tribunal to which we can 
 appeal. The question must be answered by them, or not 
 answered at all.
 
 448 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 Now any data we have all conduct to the conclusion that 
 poverty is not increasing. If poverty were increasing with 
 the increase of wealth, it would show itself either in an 
 increase of pauperism, or in a decline in the general standard 
 of living among the labouring classes, or in a fall in the 
 average duration of life, and these symptoms would be most 
 acute in the countries that are most wealthy and progressive. 
 Now, let us take England as a crucial case of a country in a 
 very advanced stage of industrial development. Is English 
 pauperism greater now than it was before the " new produc- 
 tive forces " ent2red the country ? Is the general standard of 
 living among the labouring classes lower ? Is the average 
 duration of life less ? Are poverty and the various symptoms 
 of poverty more acute in England than in more backward 
 countries ? 
 
 In a foot-note to the passage last quoted from his book, Mr. 
 George explains that the improvement he recognises in the 
 lot of the lowest class does not consist in greater ability to 
 obtain the necessaries of life. Does he mean, because more 
 things are now reckoned among the necessaries of life? If 
 so, we fear there is no chance of that difficulty being removed, 
 nor indeed is there any reason for desiring it to be so. Men's 
 wants will always increase with their incomes, and the struggle 
 to make both ends meet may in that case indefinitely continue. 
 But the fact remains that they have more wants satisfied 
 than before, that they realize a higher standard of life, and 
 that is the mark, and indeed the substance, of a more diffused 
 comfort and civilization. It is true that as the general 
 standard of living rises, people feel the pinch of poverty at a 
 higher level than before, and become pauperized for the want 
 of comforts that are now necessary, but which formerly few 
 ever dreamt of possessing. To have no shoes is a mark of 
 extreme indigence to-day ; it was the common lot a century 
 ago. People may be growing in general comfort, and yet 
 their ability to obtain necessaries remain stationary, because 
 their customary circle of necessaries may be always widening. 
 The real sign of an advancing poverty is when the circle of 
 recognised necessaries is getting narrow, and yet men have 
 more difficulty in obtaining them than before ; in other words,
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 449 
 
 1st, when the average scale of living falls; and 2nd, when 
 a larger proportion of the people are unable to obtain it, 
 reduced though it be. Now, in England, the contrary has 
 happened ; the general standard of living has risen, and the 
 proportion of those who are unable to obtain it has declined. 
 
 In a preceding chapter I adduced evidence to show how 
 greatly improved the working-class standard of living now is 
 from what it was two hundred years ago, in the good old 
 times socialist writers like to sing of, when men had not yet 
 sought out many inventions and the world was not oppressed 
 by the large system of production. But let us tap the line 
 between then and now at what point we may, and we find 
 the same result ; the tendency is always to a better style of 
 living. Mr. Giffen, for example, in his address, as President 
 of the Statistical Society, on 20th November, 1883, compares 
 the condition of the working classes to-day with their con- 
 dition half a century since, and concludes from official returns 
 that while the sovereign goes as far as it did then in the 
 purchase of commodities, money wages have increased from 
 30 to 100 per cent., and, at the same time, the hours of labour 
 have been reduced some 20 per cent. Except butcher-meat 
 and house-rent, every other element of the working man's 
 expenditure is cheaper, and butcher-meat was fifty years ago 
 hardly an element of his expenditure at all, and the kind of 
 house he then occupied was much inferior, as a rule, to what 
 he occupies now, bad as the latter may in many cases be. 
 
 But while the general standard of comfort has been rising, 
 the proportion of the population who are unable to obtain it 
 has been diminishing. I have already stated that King 
 estimated the number of persons in receipt of relief in England 
 and Wales in 1688 at 900,000. Now in 1882 the average 
 number in receipt of relief at one and the same time was, 
 according to official returns, 803,719 ; and if we are right in 
 doubling that figure to find the whole number of paupers 
 relieved in the course of the year (that being the proportion 
 borne in Scotland), then we may conclude that there are some 
 1,600,000 paupers in England and "Wales at the present day. 
 That is to say, with nearly five times the population, we have 
 less than twice the pauperism. The result is far from being 
 
 Q Q
 
 450 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 entirely gratifying ; a million and a half of paupers (-with more 
 than half as many again in Ireland and Scotland) constitute a 
 very grave problem, or rather ganglion of problems ; but the 
 fact supplies a decisive enough refutation of the pessimist idea 
 that the actual movement of pauperism has been one of in- 
 crease instead of one of decrease. 
 
 During these two hundred years there is no period in which 
 wealth and productive power multiplied more rapidly than the 
 last thirty years, and, therefore, if Mr. George's ideas were 
 correct, there is no period that should show such a marked 
 increase of pauperism. What do we find ? We find that 
 pauperism has steadily declined in England during that period. 
 The decrease has been gradual and attended with no such 
 striking interruptions as were frequently exhibited in former 
 times. But the most remarkable feature about it is that the 
 number of able-bodied paupers has diminished by nearly a 
 half; from 201,644 in 1849 to 106,280 in 1882. That is the 
 very class of paupers whom Mr. George represents it to be the 
 special effect of increasing productive power to multiply, and 
 yet, though wealth and productive power have made almost 
 unexampled progress, and though the population has also 
 considerably risen in the interval, we have not more than half 
 as many of this class of paupers now as we had thirty years 
 ago. No doubt this result is due in part to a better system of 
 administering relief, just as it is due in part to the growth of 
 trade unions and friendly societies, to the extension of savings 
 banks, and to other agencies. But if Mr. George's principle is 
 true, could such a result have taken place at all ? If " material 
 progress " has a tendency to multiply " tramps " or able-bodied 
 paupers, the tendency must be weak, indeed, when a little 
 judicious management on the part of public bodies, or of work- 
 ing men themselves, would not only counteract it, but turn 
 the current so strongly the other way. But the truth is that 
 the " tramp " has never been so little of a care in this country 
 as at the present hour, and that it is to material progress we 
 owe his disappearance. He was a very serious problem to our 
 ancestors for centuries and centuries. The whole history of 
 our social legislation is a history of ineffectual attempts to deal 
 with vagrants and sturdy beggars, and we are less troubled
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 451 
 
 with them now mainly because industrial progress has given 
 them immensely more opportunities of making an honest and 
 regular living. Industrial progress has all along been creating 
 work and annihilating tramps, but it has all along been 
 followed by absurd and perverse complaints like Mr. George's, 
 that it was only creating tramps and annihilating opportu- 
 nities of work. Mr. G-eorge says the tramp comes with the 
 locomotive, but a writer in 1673 (quoted by Sir F. Eden, 
 " State of the Poor," I., 190) declared that he came with the 
 stage-coach. He pictures the happy age before stage-coaches, 
 when (as Mr. George says of California) there might be no 
 luxury, but there was no destitution, when every man kept 
 one horse for himself and another for his groom. But with 
 the introduction of the stage-coach the scene was changed. 
 People got anywhere for a few shillings, and ceased to keep 
 horses. They were so much the richer themselves, but their 
 grooms were ruined and thrown upon the world without horse 
 or home. Now class privations like these are incidental to 
 industrial transformations, and in an age of unusual industrial 
 transitions like ours, they may be expected to be unusually 
 numerous. But the effect of material progress on the whole is 
 to prevent such privations rather than cause them. It multi- 
 plies temporary redundancies of labour, but it multiplies still 
 more the opportunities for permanently relieving them. Why 
 are we now free from the old scourges of famine and famine 
 prices ? Partly because of free trade, but mainly because of 
 improved communications, because of the steamer and the 
 locomotive. Even commercial crises are getting less severe in 
 their effects. The distress among our labouring classes during 
 the American Civil War was nothing compared with the 
 suffering under the complete paralysis of industry that followed 
 the close of the great continental war in 1815. Miss Martineau 
 tells us of that time : " The poor abandoned their residences, 
 whole parishes were deserted, and crowds of paupers, in- 
 creasing in numbers as they went from parish to parish, 
 spread wider and wider this awful desolation." (History of 
 England, I. 39.) No such severe redundancy of labour has 
 taken place since then, and the redundancies that attend 
 changes of fashion or of mechanical agency, though they un-
 
 45 2 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 doubtedly constitute a serious difficulty, are yet lightened and 
 not aggravated by the various and complex ramifications of 
 modern industry. Except a new colony, there is no place 
 where new-comers are so easily taken on as in a highly 
 developed industrial country. There are more poor in Norway 
 than in England, and they are increasing; yet in Norway there 
 is no rent and no great cities. Mr. George may say, and in 
 fact he does say, that in old countries the number of paupers is 
 reduced by simple starvation ; but if that were so, the death- 
 rate would be increasing. But in England the death-rate is 
 really diminishing. Let us again quote from Mr. Giffen's 
 address : " Mr. Humphreys, in his able paper on ' The Recent 
 Decline in the English Death-Rate,' showed conclusively 
 that the decline in the death-rate in the last five years, 1876- 
 80, as compared with the rates on which Dr. Farr's English 
 Life Table was based rates obtained in the years 1841-45 
 amounted to from 28 to 32 per cent, in males at each quinquen- 
 nial of the 20 years, 6-25, and in females at each quinquennial 
 from 5-25, to between 24 and 35 per cent. ; and that the effect 
 of this decline in the death-rate was to raise the mean duration 
 of life among males from 39*9 to 41'9 years, a gain of two years 
 in the average duration of life. Mr. Humphreys also showed 
 that by far the larger proportion of the increased duration of 
 human life in England was lived at useful ages, and not at the 
 dependent ages of either childhood or old age. No such change 
 could have taken place without a great increase in the vitality 
 of the people. Not only had fewer died, but the masses who 
 had lived must have been healthier and suffered less from 
 sickness than they did. From the nature of the figures also 
 the improvement must also have been among the masses, and 
 not among a select class whose figures threw up the average. 
 The improvement, too, actually recorded obviously related to a 
 transition stage. Many of the improvements in the condition 
 of the working classes had only taken place quite recently. 
 They had not, therefore, affected all through their existence 
 any but the youngest lives. When the improvements had 
 been in existence for a longer period, so that the lives of all 
 who are living had been affected from birth by the changed 
 conditions, we might infer that even a greater gain in the
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 453 
 
 mean duration of life will be shown. As it was the gain was 
 enormous. Whether it was due to better and more abundant 
 food and clothing, to better sanitation, to better knowledge of 
 medicine, or to these and other causes combined, improvement 
 had beyond all question occurred." The decline of pauperism 
 in this country then is not due to any increasing mortality in 
 the classes from which the majority of the paupers come ; but 
 it is one among many other proofs that these classes have 
 profited, like their neighbours, by the course of material pro- 
 gress. They may not have profited in the same degree as 
 some others, or in the degree we think desirable and believe to 
 be yet possible for themselves. But they have profited. The 
 situation is really, as we have said, one of unequal rates of pro- 
 gress, and not one of simultaneous progress and decline. 
 
 And this Mr. George seems, at a later stage of his argument, 
 freely to admit. For when he comes to state " the law which 
 associates poverty with progress and increases want with 
 advancing wealth," he explains that he does not contend that 
 poverty is associated with progress at all, but only that a 
 lessening proportion of the gross produce of society falls to 
 some classes ; that want may possibly not in the least increase 
 with advancing wealth ; that all classes may be the wealthier 
 for the growth of wealth; and practically, that the only 
 evidence of the poverty of the poor is the greater richness of 
 the rich. It seems he is not explaining in any wise why the 
 poor are getting poorer, but only why they are not getting 
 rich so fast as some of their neighbours. We must quote 
 chapter and verse for this extraordinary vacillation about the 
 very problem he wants to solve. " Perhaps," he says, in the 
 last paragraph of Book III., chapter vi. (p. 154), "it may be 
 well to remind the reader, before closing this chapter, of what 
 has been before stated that I am using the word wages, not 
 in the sense of a quantity, but in the sense of a proportion. 
 When I say that wages fall as rent rises, I do not mean that 
 the quantity of wealth obtained by labourers as wages is 
 necessarily less, but that the proportion which it bears to the 
 whole produce is necessarily less. The proportion may dimmish 
 while the quantity remains the same, or even increases. If the 
 margin of cultivation descends from the productive point, which
 
 454 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 we will call twenty-five, to the productive point we will call 
 twenty, the rent of all lands that before paid rent will increase 
 by this difference, and the proportion of the whole produce 
 which goes to labourers as wages will to the same extent 
 diminish ; but if in the meantime the advance of the arts or 
 economies that become possible with greater population have 
 so increased the productive power of labour that at twenty the 
 same exertion will produce as much wealth as before at twenty- 
 five, labourers will get as wages as great a quantity as before, 
 and the relative fall of wages will not be noticeable in any 
 diminution of the necessaries or comforts of the labourer, but 
 only in the increased value of land and the greater comforts 
 and more lavish expenditure of the rent-receiving class." It 
 thus turns out that the alleged impoverishment of the 
 labouring classes through the increasing wealth of society 
 the sad and desolating spectacle that " tormented " Mr. George 
 " so that he could not rest " the cruel mystery that robbed 
 him even of his religious faith, and moved him to write his 
 powerful but inconclusive book this was no real impoverish- 
 ment at all, but only an apparent one. It is not so much as 
 " noticeable " in " any diminution of the necessaries or com- 
 forts of the labourer " ; it is noticeable only in " the greater 
 comforts and more lavish expenditure of the rent-receiving 
 class." The poverty of the labourer consists in the greater 
 wealth of the landlord. The poor are not poorer ; they only 
 seem poorer, because certain of the rich have got so much 
 richer. The problem is thus, on Mr. George's own showing, 
 just the mock problem of the apparently receding train. 
 
 But let us take up this new issue. Mr. George's assertion 
 now is that wages are a less proportion of the gross produce of 
 the country than they were, because rent absorbs a corres- 
 pondingly larger proportion than it did. Is that so? Mr. 
 George does not think of showing that it is : he assumes it. 
 without apparently having the smallest pretence of fact for his 
 assertion. His assumption is entirely wrong. Rent is a much 
 smaller proportion of the gross produce of the country than it 
 was, and wages are not only in their aggregate a larger pro- 
 portion of the aggregate produce of the country, but in their 
 average a larger proportion of the per capita production.
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 455 
 
 There is no need to rest in random assumptions on the matter. 
 The gross annual produce of the United Kingdom is reckoned at 
 present at twelve hundred millions sterling, and the rent of the 
 land at less than seventy millions, or about one seventeenth of 
 the whole. In the time of King and Davenant, 200 years ago or 
 so, the annual produce of England and Wales was forty-three 
 millions, and the rent of land ten millions little less than 
 one-fourth. (Davenant's "Works, iv., 71.) It is hardly worth 
 while,- however, making a formal assertion of so self-evident a 
 proposition as that rent constitutes a much smaller fraction of 
 the national income now that wealth is invested so vastly in 
 trade and manufactures, than it did when agriculture was the 
 one great business of life ; but it is perhaps better worth show- 
 ing that rent does not absorb a greater proportion even of the 
 agricultural produce of the country than it used to do. Rent 
 has risen nearly 200 per cent, in the course of the last hundred 
 years, but it does not take one whit a larger share of the gross 
 produce of the land than it took then. 
 
 According to the calculations of Davenant and King, the 
 gross produce of agriculture amounted, at the time of the Re- 
 volution, to four rents, or, allowing for tithes, to three rents ; 
 but this was only on the arable. The produce of other land, 
 natural pasture and forest land and the like, came to less than 
 two rents ; so that while the rent of arable was not more than 
 a third of the produce (or, to state it exactly, 27 per cent.), the 
 rent of land generally was more nearly a half. The figures are 
 
 Gross Produce. Kent. 
 
 Arable Land 9,079,000 2,480,000 
 
 Other Land 12,000,000 7,000,000 
 
 Total 21,079,000 9,480,000 
 
 (Davenant's Works, iv., 70.) Arthur Young, a century later, 
 declares that the doctrine of three rents was already exploded, 
 and that farmers had begun to expend so much on high culti- 
 vation that they would be very ill content if they produced 
 no more than three rents. In fact, he declares that even in 
 former times rent could never have amounted to a third of the 
 produce, except on lands of the very first quality, and that a 
 fourth was more probably the average proportion. In his
 
 45 6 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 "Political Arithmetic," published in 1779 (Part II., pp. 27, 31), 
 he estimated the gross agricultural produce of England 
 (exclusive of Wales) at 72,826,827, and the gross agricultural 
 rental at 19,200,000, or 26 per cent., very nearly one-fourth 
 of the produce. To come down nearer our own time, 
 M'Culloch estimated the gross agricultural produce of England 
 and Wales in 1842-3 to have been 141,606,857, and the gross 
 agricultural rental 37,795,905, or 26 per cent, of the produce. 
 (" Statistical Account of the British Empire," 3rd Edition, p. 
 553.) The gross agricultural produce of the United Kingdom 
 is now 270 millions sterling, and the gross agricultural rental 
 70 millions. Mr. Mulhall, indeed, estimates it at only 58 
 millions ; but at 70 millions it would be, as nearly as possible, 
 26 per cent., curiously enough the same figure exactly as in 
 1843 and in 1779, and almost the same as in 1689. 
 
 So far of rent ; now as to wages. I have already, in a for- 
 mer chapter (p. 301), produced some evidence to show that the 
 average labourer's wages bears a higher proportion to the 
 average income of the country than it did in former times, or, 
 in other words, that the labourer enjoys a higher per capita 
 share of the gross annual produce of the country as measured 
 in money, and I need not repeat that evidence here. Mr. Mul- 
 hall has made some calculations which confirm the conclusions 
 there drawn. (" Dictionary of Statistics," p. 246.) He com- 
 pares the income of the people of the United Kingdom at the 
 three epochs of 1688, 1800, and 1883. He divides the people into 
 classes and numbers them by families, stating the total income 
 of each class and the total number of families among whom it 
 was divided. I select the two columns containing the results 
 for the whole population and the results for the working class. 
 
 (1) Number of Families : 
 
 A.D. 1688. A.D. 1800. A.D. 1883. 
 Whole Nation . . 1,200,000 1,780,000 6,575,000 
 
 Working Class . . 759,000 1,117,000 4,629,000 
 
 (2) Earnings: 
 
 A.D. 1688. A.D. 1880. A.D. 1883. 
 
 Whnlft 1 
 
 45,000,000 230,000,000 1,265,000,000 
 Nation J 
 
 j 11,000,000 78,000,000 447,000,000
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 457 
 
 A single glance at these tables will show that the aggregate 
 wages of the country constitutes a slightly better proportion of 
 its aggregate annual income at present than in 1800, and a 
 decidedly better proportion than in 1688. But if we look, not 
 to the aggregate income of the class, but to the average 
 income of the individual families it contains, the result is 
 in nowise more favourable to Mr. George's assumption. The 
 following table will show that : 
 
 (3) Average Income of Families : 
 
 A.D. 1688. A.D. 1880. A.D. 1883. 
 
 "Whole Nation .... 37 129 189 
 
 Working Class. ... 14 69 96 
 
 The average working-class income was thus 37 per cent, of 
 the average income of the country in 1688 ; 53 per cent, of 
 it in 1800; and 51 per cent, of it in 1883. The difference 
 between the last two epochs is so indecisive that we may 
 count them practically identical. The real position of affairs 
 then as to the proportion of wages to national produce is 
 this, that wages enjoy a considerably larger share of that 
 produce now than they did at the end of the seventeenth 
 century, and about the same proportion as they enjoyed at the 
 end of the eighteenth. If, accordingly, Mr. George resolves to 
 stick by the point of proportion, he would therefore have no 
 more solid ground to stand on than on the point of quantity. 
 Rent, as a proportion of the entire wealth of the country, has 
 enormously declined, and even as a proportion of agricultural 
 wealth has not increased. Wages as a proportion have not 
 declined, but rather risen. 
 
 These, among other things, are indications that we have 
 been concluding too hastily that concentration of wealth is 
 the characteristic tendency of the time, and ignoring the 
 existence of many minor and less conspicuous forces which 
 have been working in the contrary direction. The real 
 prospect at present is towards diffusion. The enormous 
 accumulations that have marked the last hundred and fifty 
 years have owed their existence largely to causes that cannot 
 be expected to endure ; in the case of land, to vicious laws 
 directly favouring aggregations ; and in the case of trade, to
 
 458 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the unparalleled rapidity of tlie transformations and exten- 
 sions industry has undergone during the period. Great in- 
 equalities are natural to such a time. Huge fortunes are made 
 by pioneers, and will not be easily made by their successors. 
 Railway contracting will never produce again a millionaire like 
 Mr. Brassey, but it will continue to furnish the means of many 
 moderate fortunes and competencies. So with every other 
 new branch of industry, or new field of investment. The 
 lucky person who is the first to occupy it may rise to great 
 riches, but his successors will divide the custom, and instead 
 of one large fortune, there will be a considerable number of 
 small ones. Mr. George himself admits that the opportunities 
 of making large fortunes are growing more limited, but oddly 
 enough he considers the fact to be a signal evidence of " the 
 march of concentration." In his " Social Problems " (p. 59) 
 he writes : " An English friend, a wealthy retired Manchester 
 manufacturer, once told me the story of his life. How he 
 went to work at eight years of age, helping to make twine, 
 when twine was made entirely by hand. How, when a young 
 man, he walked to Manchester, and having got credit for a 
 bale of flax, made it into twine and sold it. How, building 
 up a little trade, he got others to work for him. How, when 
 machinery began to be invented, and steam was introduced, 
 he took advantage of them, until he had a big factory and 
 made a fortune, when he withdrew to spend the rest of his 
 days at ease, leaving his business to his son. ' Supposing you 
 were a young man now,' said I, ' could you walk into Man- 
 chester and do that again ? ' ' No,' replied he, ' no one could. 
 I couldn't with fifty thousand pounds in place of my five 
 shillings.' " The true moral of this little story is of course 
 that it is more difficult to amass a huge fortune in that par- 
 ticular line now than when machinery was young, and that 
 a man with 50,000 to start with must now content himself 
 with a much poorer figure than Mr. George's lucky friend 
 made out of nothing. "Would Mr. George compute what 
 limit could be set to the sum his friend might have amassed, 
 had he started in those golden days with 50,000 instead of 
 five shillings? Even as things stood, his solitary success 
 did not distribute the wealth of Manchester any the better
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 459 
 
 among his fellow-spinners who were not fortunate enough 
 to get credit for a bale of flax, or pushing enough to ask for it, 
 and were not in a position to take advantage of the first 
 introduction of a new power, and rise with it to great wealth. 
 That the stream of things is now making for more moderate 
 fortunes, and more of them, is confirmed by the testamentary 
 statistics of the previous ten years published some time ago by 
 the Spectator newspaper. These figures show that the number 
 of fortunes of the first rank left during that period has been 
 very .much less than it was in the preceding ten years, but 
 that the number of moderate fortunes has been very much 
 larger. 
 
 What the future may hide in it I shall not venture to divine. 
 It will no doubt bring upon industry fresh transformations, but 
 we can hardly expect them to be so numerous or so rapid as 
 in the brilliant era of industrial progress and colonial develop- 
 ment we have passed through, and some at least of the changes 
 that are in store for us point, as I have shown in the introduc- 
 tory chapter of this book, to a greater diffusion rather than a 
 greater concentration in the future. Mr. George says : " All 
 the currents of the time run to concentration. To successfully 
 resist it we must throttle steam and discharge electricity from 
 human service " (p. 232). Now steam has undoubtedly been a 
 great concentrator, but electricity, which is likely to take its 
 place in the future, will to all appearance be as great a dis- 
 tributor. Mr. George is equally mistaken regarding the real 
 effect of the other " currents of the time." " That concentra- 
 tion is the order of development," says he, " there can be no 
 mistaking the concentration of people in large cities, the 
 concentration of handicrafts in large factories, the concentra- 
 tion of transportation by railroad and steamship lines, and 
 of agricultural operations in large fields. The most trivial 
 businesses are being conpentrated in the same way errands 
 are run and carpet sacks are carried by corporations " (p. 232). 
 The concentration of people in cities is not the same thing 
 as the concentration of the wealth of those cities in the 
 hands of a few individuals. The centralization of labour 
 in cities has assisted the birth of the trade union and the 
 co-operative society, which are among the best agencies for
 
 460 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 diffusing wealth ; and the growth of joint-stock companies 
 is a strange proof of a tendency to greater concentration of 
 wealth, for the joint-stock company is really an instrument 
 of the small capital, enabling it by combination to compete 
 successfully with the larger ; and as to agriculture, the real 
 tendency, in this country at any rate, seems to be to lesser 
 holdings. When we complain of the inequalities of our time 
 and I am far from desiring to underrate their extent or 
 to palliate their mischievousness we are apt to forget how 
 largely the real and natural process of evolution is after all 
 one of distribution, how much the most conspicuous of the 
 inequalities have been incidental to a transition period, and 
 due to causes of a temporary nature, and how many indications 
 we possess that they are not unlikely to be corrected and 
 moderated in the future course of social development. Some 
 of the official returns made in connection with the income tax 
 show that the immense increase of wealth of the last thirty 
 years has been far from being reaped by any single class, but 
 has been shared pretty evenly by all the classes included in 
 those returns. We possess detailed accounts of the number 
 of persons paying income tax in each grade of income under 
 Schedule D, from the year 1849, and if we compare the figures 
 of that year with those of 1879, we shall obtain a fair index 
 to the movement of distribution during those thirty years. 
 Schedule D, it is true, includes only incomes derived from 
 trades and professions, but these incomes may fairly enough 
 be taken as sufficiently characteristic to afford a trustworthy 
 indication of the general movement. While population in- 
 creased in the thirty years by 22 per cent., the number of 
 incomes liable to income-tax increased by 161 per cent., and 
 of these, the incomes that have increased in much the largest 
 proportion are precisely those middling or lower middling 
 incomes which I have before shown to have unfortunately 
 declined since 1688. While the number of incomes over 
 1,000 a year has increased by 165 per cent., the number of 
 incomes between 150 and 400 a year has increased by 
 256 per cent. Mr. Goschen, in his inaugural address as Pre- 
 sident of the Royal Statistical Society in December, 1887, pro- 
 duced later evidence showing the continuance, and even growth
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 461 
 
 of the same tendency. He showed from the Income Tax 
 Returns that, in spite of the increase of population between 
 1877 and 1886, the number of incomes over 1,000 a year had 
 decreased by 2*40 per cent., and the number of incomes be- 
 tween 500 and 1,000 had remained the same, while the 
 number of incomes between 150 and 500 had increased 21'4 
 per cent. He showed from the statistics of certain selected 
 public companies, that in the ten years from 1876 to 1886 the 
 number of their shareholders had increased by 72 per cent., 
 while the average capital per shareholder had decreased from 
 443 to 323. He drew similar conclusions from the probate 
 and inhabited house duty figures, and from several other 
 sources. (See Journal of Statistical Society, December, 1887.) 
 These figures prove that the tendency of things, so far as 
 it concerns the classes above the labourers, is not to further 
 and exclusive concentration, but rather towards a wider and 
 beneficial diffusion ; and in regard to the labouring classes, it 
 is admitted by all even by the extremest social pessimists 
 that the upper and middle strata of them have participated in 
 the progress of wealth equally with their neighbours. There 
 remains only the lowest class of all, and their emancipation is 
 the serious task of social reform in the immediate future ; but 
 that class is even now not increasing in the ratio of popula- 
 tion ; its misery comes from many causes, most of them moral 
 and physical rather than economic ; and though it presents 
 difficult and trying problems, there is no reason for renoun- 
 cing the hope which alone can sustain social reformers to 
 success. 
 
 31. Mr. George's Explanation. 
 
 If there is any force in the foregoing observations, it is plain 
 that there is no such problem as Mr. George has undertaken to 
 explain, and we are therefore exempted from all necessity of 
 examining his explanation. But to Mr. George's own mind 
 his explanation of the appearance that troubled him really con- 
 stitutes the demonstration of it ; at any rate, he offers no other. 
 The question of the increase of poverty is of course a question 
 of fact, that cannot be settled by a, priori deduction alone ; but 
 Mr. George seems to think otherwise. He is too bent on prov-
 
 462 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 ing it to be necessary to think of asking whether it is actual, 
 and even a man of science like Mr. A. R. Wallace, while re- 
 gretting that Mr. George had not chosen to build his proposals 
 on ground of fact, declares that he adopted an equally legiti- 
 mate method in deducing his results " from the admitted prin- 
 ciples and data of political economy." (" Land Nationalization," 
 p. 19.) Moreover, most of the social pessimism of the present 
 time draws its chief support, exactly like Mr. George's, from the 
 supposed bearing of certain received economic doctrines ; and 
 our task would therefore be incomplete if we did not follow Mr. 
 George on this " high priori road " on which he so boldly fares 
 forth, and performs, as will presently be seen, many a remark- 
 able feat. 
 
 Before beginning his explanation, he throws the problem 
 itself into what he conceives to be a more suitable scientific 
 form. " The cause," says he, " which produces poverty in the 
 midst of advancing wealth is evidently the cause which ex- 
 hibits itself in the tendency everywhere recognised of wages to 
 a minimum. Let us therefore put our inquiry into this compact 
 form : Why, in spite of increase in productive power, do wages 
 tend to a minimum which will give but a bare living ? " (p. 10). 
 The problem, as thus restated, is clearly, be it observed, one 
 of quantity, not of proportion. A bare living is not a relative 
 share, but a definite amount, of produce. But the tendency in 
 wages to such a minimum, which he asserts to be everywhere 
 recognised, is really not recognised at all. In alleging that 
 it is so, Mr. George evidently alludes to the doctrine of 'wages 
 taught by E-icardo and his school ; but what they recognised 
 in wages was a tendency, not to a minimum that would give but 
 a bare living, but to a minimum that would give a customary 
 living; in other words, that would sustain the labourers in the 
 standard of comfort customary among their own class. The 
 economic minimum is not the absolute minimum of a bare 
 living ; it is, as Mr. George himself elsewhere puts it, " the 
 lowest amount on which labourers will consent to live and 
 reproduce," that is, not the lowest amount on which any 
 individual labourer will do so, but the lowest amount which 
 labouring people in general consider it necessary to earn before 
 they will undertake the responsibility of marriage. If they
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 463 
 
 were to get less than this, it was contended, they would refrain 
 from marrying to an extent that would tell sufficiently on the 
 supply of labour to force wages up again to their old level. 
 This level was the minimum to which wages constantly tended, 
 but then it was always higher than a bare living ; it was deter- 
 mined by the standard of requirements current among the 
 labouring class at the time ; and it was recognised to be 
 capable of rising if that standard rose. True, Bicardo and the 
 economists of his generation entertained very poor hopes of any 
 such rise, because the working classes of their time, being with- 
 out the intelligence, the ideas of comfort, the higher wants 
 that are powerfully operative among the working classes of 
 our day, were generally seen to " take out " their better wages 
 when they chanced to get them in nothing but earlier mar- 
 riages, which in the end brought their wages down again. We 
 have happily now to do with a more aspiring and a less uni- 
 formly composed working class. It is perhaps more aspiring 
 in some measure because it is less uniformly composed. It 
 contains many ranks and inequalities and standards of social 
 refinement and comfort, and the presence of these side by side 
 develops a more active tendency upward, which, by supplying 
 a stronger check than before on improvident marriages, will 
 enable the labourers, class after class of them, to appropriate 
 securely more and more of the common domain of advancing 
 civilization. "We have had abundant experience of a rise in 
 the standard of life, and a rise in the rate of wages, both re- 
 maining as permanent possessions of sections of the labouring 
 class. But if Bicardo and his school had less faith than they 
 reasonably might have had in the possibility of a permanent 
 upward tendency in wages, they certainly never dreamt of 
 believing in any permanent downward tendency. According 
 to their doctrine the rate of wages moved up and down within 
 certain limits, but always tended to come back to a particular 
 figure the amount necessary to give the labourer the living 
 customary among his class. This figure was really no more a 
 minimum than it was a maximum ; wages were supposed to 
 fall sometimes below it, as they were supposed to rise some- 
 times above it ; and to speak of it as a minimum that would 
 give but a bare living is completely to misrepresent its nature.
 
 464 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 The assumption from which Mr. George starts is thus in no 
 wise an admitted principle of political economy, and would 
 therefore not answer the test of legitimacy laid down by Mr. 
 Wallace. It has no ground outside of Mr. George's own imag- 
 ination. Economists would solve his problem, " why in spite 
 of increased productive power wages tend to a minimum that 
 will give but a bare living ? " by simply denying his fact, and 
 having done with it. But Mr. George persuades himself that 
 they would answer it otherwise, and devotes the next section 
 of his book to an elaborate confutation of the false answers he 
 supposes they would return to it. They would either explain 
 it, he thinks, by their theory of the wages fund, or they would 
 explain it by their theory of population ; and so before con- 
 fiding to us his own explanation, he considers it necessary to 
 stop and clear these two venerable theories out of his way. I 
 am not concerned to defend these theories ; their truth would 
 not make Mr. George's own view any the falser, nor their 
 falsehood make it any the truer. One of them indeed was 
 dead and buried before Mr. George attacked it, though I am 
 bound to say it would never have fallen before the particular 
 line of attack he directs against it. The wages fund doctrine, 
 which played a considerable role both in its original form as 
 taught by Senior, and in its subsequent form as modified by 
 M'Culloch, was refuted by Mr. Thornton in 1869, was almost 
 instantly abandoned by the candid mind of Mr. Mill, and is 
 now rarely met with as a living economic doctrine. The 
 wages fund is still regarded of course as having its limit in 
 capital, and in the conditions which generate capital, but since 
 these conditions include among other things the number and 
 efficiency of the labourers, the amount of the wages fund is no 
 longer represented as at any given moment a fixed and pre- 
 determined quantity susceptible of no possible alteration to 
 meet the exigencies of the labour market, and when once this 
 characteristic was given up, the wages fund doctrine was seen 
 to have degenerated into little more than a stately truism. 
 The Malthusian theory of population is not in the same way 
 discredited, but it likewise is now generally stated with some 
 reserve. It has become well understood that the earlier econo- 
 mists assigned it too absolute and universal a validity, and that
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 465 
 
 it is not, as they thought, a law for all ages, and especially and 
 happily not a law for our own. It is true of an era of progres- 
 sive population and diminishing return from agriculture, but 
 for our day it has been robbed of its terrors by free trade and 
 steam navigation, which have connected our markets with 
 continents of virgin soil, and carried us virtually into an era of 
 increasing return of indefinite duration. The population ques- 
 tion was one of serious practical import for our fathers, and as 
 they saw people marrying and giving in marriage, while every 
 fresh bushel of food was extracted with increasing difficulty 
 from an exhaustible soil, they looked with a reasonable dread 
 to the future, and saw no way of hope except in the practice 
 of a heroic continence. But we live in another time. "We 
 find population increasing and yet bread cheapening, simply 
 because the locomotive which alarmed Mr. George by taking 
 the tramp to California has brought back plenty to the rest 
 of the world. It is due to the material progress he preaches 
 against that we are the first generation who can afford to make 
 light of the population question, and leave our remote posterity 
 to deal with the peril when it shall actually arrive. 
 
 Mr. George, however, is not content with disputing these 
 doctrines ; he insists on replacing them with others exactly 
 opposite to them in purport, and for which he claims a like 
 universal validity. He propounds a new population theory, 
 and a new wages fund theory of his own. The more popu- 
 lation abounds, the more will subsistence superabound, is his 
 comfortable counter-proposition to Malthusianism. " I assert," 
 says he, " that in any given state of civilization a greater 
 number of people can collectively be better provided for than 
 a smaller. ... I assert that the new mouths which an 
 increasing population calls into existence, require no more 
 food than the old ones, while the hands they bring with them 
 can in the natural order of things produce more. I assert that, 
 other things being equal, the greater the population, the 
 greater the comfort which an equitable distribution of wealth 
 would give to each individual " (p. 99). In a word, his teach- 
 ing is that " other things being equal " over-population is a 
 ridiculous impossibility. What may be all concealed under 
 the reservation, "other things being equal," he does not en- 
 
 H H
 
 466 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 lighten us, but it avowedly contains at least one presupposition 
 of decisive importance to the question, the presupposition of 
 the unlimited productiveness of the soil. Mr. George denies 
 the law of diminishing return. "We shall presently find him, 
 in his doctrine about rent, basing his whole book on the opera- 
 tion of this law. But here in his doctrine about population it 
 suits him to deny it, and he does so on singularly fantastical 
 grounds (p. 93). He denies it on the ground that " matter is 
 eternal, and force must for ever continue to act," as if the in- 
 destructibility of matter was the same thing as its infinite 
 productiveness. " As the water that we take from the ocean 
 must again return to the ocean, so the food we take from the 
 reservoirs of nature is, from the moment we take it, on its way 
 back to those reservoirs. What we draw from a limited 
 extent of land may temporarily reduce the productiveness of 
 that land, because the return may be to other land or may be 
 divided between that land and other land, or perhaps all land ; 
 but this possibility lessens with increasing area, and ceases 
 when the whole globe is considered. That the earth could 
 maintain a thousand billions of people as easily as a thousand 
 millions is a necessary deduction from the manifest truths that 
 at least, as far as our agency is concerned, matter is eternal 
 and force must for ever continue to act. . . . And from 
 this it follows that the limit to the population of the globe can 
 only be the limit of space. Now this limitation of space this 
 danger that the human race may increase beyond the possi- 
 bility of finding elbow-room is so far off as to have for us no 
 more practical interest than the recurrence of the glacial period 
 or the final extinguishment of the sun " (p. 94-5). If this pas- 
 sage means anything, it means that the race may go on multi- 
 plying as long as it finds room to stand on, and that even when 
 that limit is reached it can only be squeezed to death and not 
 starved. It can in no case apparently be starved. Subsistence 
 cannot possibly run short, for the inherent powers of the soil 
 are not permanently destructible. But he might as well argue 
 that man must be omnipotent because he is immortal. The 
 question is not one of the durability of the productive powers 
 of the earth it is one of their limited or unlimited productive 
 capacity. Up to a certain point they may yield the same
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 467 
 
 return at the same cost year after year in scecula sccculorum, 
 but will they yield more? Manifestly not. Every bushel 
 they give after that is got at continuously increasing cost. 
 Now of course wherever population increases so much, com- 
 pared with the land at its disposal, that this increasing cost 
 must be incurred in order to find them food, the epoch of 
 diminishing return in agriculture has arrived, and the peril of 
 over-population is already present. Happily, as we have said, 
 that time is not yet, but it will come long, long before the 
 human race fails to find elbow-room in this planet. 
 
 Mr. George himself admits that in a country of inconsider- 
 able extent, or in a small island, such as Pitcairn's Island, 
 over-population is quite possible before elbow-room is near 
 exhausted (p. 74) and in making the admission he virtually 
 surrenders his case. He admits in detail what he denies in 
 gross. For is not the soil of a small island or an inconsiderable 
 country as eternal as the soil of a continent ? The only dif- 
 ference is that it is not so extensive, and therefore comes to 
 the epoch of diminishing return sooner. That is all. The 
 reason why he makes an exception of such an island is because 
 its inhabitants " are cut off from communication with the rest 
 of the world, and consequently from the exchanges which are 
 necessary to the improved modes of production resorted to 
 as population becomes dense " (p. 74). But if density of popu- 
 lation is such a sure improver of production as Mr. G-eorge 
 represents it to be elsewhere, why should it fail here ? And 
 if it fail anywhere, how can he argue that it must succeed 
 everywhere ? Once he admits, as he does in this passage, 
 that subsistence has a definite limit in the modes of production 
 that happen to be known in any age and country, and that 
 population has a definite limit for such age and country in 
 the amount of subsistence which the known modes of pro- 
 duction are capable of extracting from the soil, he really 
 admits all that Malthusians generally contend for, and coming 
 to curse, he has really blessed them altogether. The limit of 
 subsistence which he here recognises the limit imposed by 
 the state of the arts is far within the limit which he has 
 just been denying, the natural limit to the inherent fertility 
 of the soil, on which economists base their law of diminishing
 
 468 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 return. The former point is far sooner reached than the 
 latter. Men will starve because they don't know how to 
 make the best use of nature long before they will starve be- 
 cause nature is used up ; and it is exactly that earlier limit 
 on which Malthusians lay stress. 
 
 But except for this inconsistent admission in the case of a 
 petty isolated island, Mr. George persistently refuses to recog- 
 nise any kind of limit to subsistence, either in the productive 
 capacity of the soil or in the state of the arts. He seems to 
 fancy that land will go on yielding larger and larger harvests 
 ad infinitum to accommodate an increasing population, and 
 that even if it failed to do so, new inventions or improved 
 processes of production would be constantly discovered when 
 they were needed, and keep the supply of food always equal 
 to the demand. With these crude assumptions in his head, 
 he arrives very easily at his own peculiar theory, which is, 
 that subsistence tends to increase faster than population, be- 
 cause the growth of population itself affords the means of such 
 economies and organization of labour as multiply immensely 
 the productive capacity of each individual labourer. A hundred 
 labourers, he is fond of arguing, will produce much more than 
 a hundred times the amount that one will, and it is therefore 
 clear folly to think of population as capable of encroaching on 
 subsistence. On the contrary, it seems almost fitter to speak 
 of it as a means of positively economizing subsistence. Mr. 
 George's mistake arises from ignoring the fact that subsistence 
 depends on the productive capacity of land as well as on the 
 productive capacity of labour, and the productive capacity of 
 land is not indefinitely progressive. 
 
 Mr. George's new wages fund theory is based on a precisely 
 analogous misconception of the real conditions of the case, and 
 is just as much in the air as his population theory. " Wages," 
 he says, " cannot be diminished by the increase of labourers, 
 but on the contrary, as the efficiency of labour manifestly 
 increases with the number of labourers, the more labourers, 
 other things being equal, the higher wages should be " (p. 62). 
 Just as he has already argued that food can never run short 
 before an advancing population, because the new hands can 
 produce much more than the new mouths can consume, as if
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 469 
 
 the hands span it out of their own finger nails ; so he now 
 argues that wages can never decline for want of capital to 
 employ labourers, because the capital that employs them is 
 made by the labourers themselves. They are paid, he declares, 
 not out of the capital of their employers, but out of the pro- 
 duct of their own labour. Mr. F. A. Walker, the eminent 
 American economist, had already taught a similar doctrine, 
 but with the reservation that while wages were really paid out 
 of the produce of the labour they remunerated, they were 
 usually advanced out of the employer's capital. But Mr. 
 George throws aside this reservation, and declares boldly that 
 wages are neither paid nor advanced out of capital, and that 
 if any advance is made in the transaction at all, it is the 
 labourer who makes it to the employer, not the employer to 
 the labourer. " In performing his labour, he (the labourer) is 
 advancing in exchange ; when he gets his wages, the exchange 
 is completed. During the time he is earning the wages, he 
 is advancing capital to his employer ; but at no time, unless 
 wages are paid before work is done, is the employer advancing 
 capital to him " (p. 49). 
 
 In this contention Mr. George relies much on the analogy 
 of the " self-employing " labour of primitive society. When 
 men live by gathering eggs, he tells us, the eggs they gather 
 are their wages. No doubt ; but in our complicated civiliza- 
 tion we don't live by gathering eggs from day to day, but 
 by sowing the seed in spring which is to yield us food only 
 in harvest by preparing work for the market which may 
 take weeks, months, even years before it is marketable. The 
 energetic Sir John Sinclair is said to have once danced at a 
 ball in the evening dressed in a suit the wool of which was 
 still growing on the sheep's back in the morning ; but rapidity 
 like that is naturally foreign to ordinary commerce. The 
 successive operations of clipping, fulling, teasing, spinning, 
 dying, weaving, cutting, sewing, occupy considerable time. 
 So with other things. Houses, ships, railways, are not built 
 in a day, or by a single workman. The product of a single 
 workman's work for a day at any of these things has no value 
 apart from the product of the other workmen's work, nor has 
 the work of them all any value unless the work is, or is to
 
 4/O Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 be, completed. The wages paid during the period of con- 
 struction, therefore, cannot possibly have come out of the work 
 for which they were paid, but must have been advanced 
 otherwise. "Who advances them? Clearly not the labourer 
 himself, for he receives them. And yet that is what Mr. 
 George unhesitatingly asserts, and his argument is as courage- 
 ous as it is ingenious. He does not shrink from applying it 
 to the extremest case you like to suggest the Great Eastern, 
 the Gothard Tunnel, the Suez Canal ; even in these cases the 
 labourers, who spent months and years in doing the work, 
 were paid out of the work itself, out of the Great Eastern, 
 out of the Gothard Tunnel, out of the Suez Canal. " For," 
 says Mr. George, " a work that is incomplete is not valueless, 
 it is not unexchangeable ; money may be raised on it by 
 mortgage or otherwise, and as this money is raised on the 
 product of the labourer's work, the wages it is employed to 
 pay are really paid out of that product." But this only shifts 
 the question a little : it does not answer it. "Where does this 
 lent money come from? Certainly not from the work it is 
 lent on. Perhaps not, Mr. George will rejoin, again shifting 
 his ground, but it comes from the product of the contempor- 
 aneous work of other labourers. " It is not necessary to the 
 production of things that cannot be used as subsistence or 
 cannot be immediately utilized that there should have been a 
 previous production of the wealth required for the main- 
 tenance of the labourers while the production is going on. 
 It is only necessary that there should be, somewhere within 
 the circle of exchange, a contemporaneous production of sub- 
 sistence for the labourers, and a willingness to exchange this 
 subsistence for the thing on which the labour is being be- 
 stowed " (p. 51). But this is only passing round the dilemma. 
 For this contemporaneous production has itself the same diffi- 
 culty to face ; it has to sustain its labourers during the time 
 taken to complete their work; and it can only do so, according 
 to Mr. George's explanation, by raising the means through a 
 mortgage on the unfinished work. It borrows to pay its own 
 wages, but is apparently able to lend to pay other people's. 
 Mr. George has a happy method of carrying on the affairs of 
 society by mutual accommodation. Peter is a shoemaker who
 
 I 
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 471 
 
 wants money to buy leather to make shoes and food to main- 
 tain him till the shoes are made. Paul is a carpenter who is 
 in a like case, and wants money to buy food and timber. 
 Peter borrows the money he needs from Paul on mortgage, 
 and then Paul in turn borrows what he needs from Peter, on 
 the same terms. Utopia is a pleasanter world than ours, and 
 an 10 U probably goes a long way in it ; but here on this hard 
 earth Peter would certainly make no shoes nor Paul any 
 chairs, unless he had either himself saved enough to purchase 
 the materials, or found a neighbour who had done so and was 
 ready to make him an advance. Except for this neighbour 
 he could not work at all, and could not therefore " create any 
 wages," and the amount of work he got and wages he earned 
 would manifestly depend greatly on the amount of capital 
 this stranger possessed and was disposed to invest in such an 
 enterprise. 
 
 It is true that the wages of labour will be guided in amount 
 by the quantity of the product, but they are not on that 
 account actually paid out of the product. And it is true that 
 the labourer gives value for his wages certainly he would not 
 otherwise be employed but that value is not usually market- 
 able until some time, in many cases years, after the wages 
 have been enjoyed, and therefore cannot have been the source 
 whence these wages came. The wages were paid out of the 
 saved results of previous labour that is, out of capital and Mr. 
 George has absolutely no conception of the amount of capital 
 that is necessary to carry on the work of industry. He says 
 we live from hand to mouth, and so in a sense we do. Our 
 capital is being constantly consumed and constantly repro- 
 duced again, and economists are fond of showing, from the 
 speedy recovery of a civilized state after a devastating war, 
 how short a time it would really take to replace it entirely. 
 But until it is replaced every inhabitant undergoes considerable 
 privations, which simply means that the rate of wages has 
 fallen for want of it. There are some trades, like the baker's, 
 where the product is actually sold before the wages are paid ; 
 and there are many, like the whaler's mentioned by Mr. 
 George, where the labourers can afford to wait long terms for 
 part at least of their remuneration (no great sign, by the way,
 
 472 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 of the minimum of a bare living) ; but even in these much 
 capital must be set aside before a single hand is engaged. 
 The whalers, for example, must be furnished with a ship to 
 start with, and be provisioned for the voyage ; and if these 
 requisites are not forthcoming, they must go without work and 
 wages altogether, or take work at inferior terms in a market 
 glutted by their own arrival in it. Mr. George speaks lightly 
 of the labourers who excavated the Suez Canal advancing 
 value to the company who employed them, and yet before a 
 single pick or spade was stuck into the sand of the Isthmus 
 the company had laid out, in preliminary expenses and 
 machinery, as much as six millions sterling more than a third 
 of the whole cost of the Canal. They had then to pay other 
 five or six millions in wages before the work fetched a single 
 fee ; and yet Mr. George will have us believe that those five 
 or six millions actually came out of the profits, merely because 
 the projectors hoped and believed they might eventually come 
 out of them. Labourers give an equivalent to the capitalists 
 for their wages, but their wages are really paid out of the 
 capital which their employers have saved for the purpose of 
 purchasing that equivalent. I may have bought a cow in the 
 hope of recouping myself by selling her milk, but I did not 
 therefore pay her price out of the milk money for nobody 
 would have sold her to me if he had to wait for that ; I 
 bought her out of money I had previously saved, and from 
 the same source exactly, and no other, do capitalists buy 
 labour. 
 
 But, objects Mr. George, that cannot be ; wages cannot be 
 paid out of capital, because they are often lowest when, as 
 shown by the low rate of interest, capital is most abundant. 
 But Mr. George here confounds existent capital with empk^ed 
 capital. It is only the capital actually employed that tells on 
 wages ; the low rate of interest merely shows that there has 
 been an increase in unemployed capital, and since that is gene- 
 rally a correlative of a diminution of employed capital, it is 
 but natural that low interest should be attended by low wages. 
 Low wages are a consequence of unemployed labour, unem- 
 ployed labour a consequence of unemployed capital, and un- 
 employed capital a consequence of unfavourable industrial
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 473 
 
 conditions which labour, either with capital or without it, 
 cannot evade or reverse. 
 
 So far then of Mr. George's views on population and the 
 wages fund, for which much value, as well as originality, has 
 been claimed. The chapters in which he states them are 
 certainly among the most impressive and characteristic in his 
 book. Nowhere else does he display more strikingly his re- 
 markable acuteness, fertility, and literary power, and nowhere 
 else are these high qualities employed more fruitlessly from 
 sheer want of grasp of the elements of the problems he dis- 
 cusses. These chapters are after all, however, something of a 
 digression from the main business of the book, and they have 
 perhaps detained us too long from Mr. George's own explana- 
 tion of the supposed growth of poverty. 
 
 His explanation is this : " The reason why, in spite of the 
 increase of productive power, wages constantly tend to a mini- 
 mum which will give but a bare living is that with increase in 
 productive power, rent tends to even greater increase " (p. 199). 
 " Rent swallows up the whole gain, and pauperism accompanies 
 progress " (p. 158). " The magic of property," it seems, has 
 an unsuspected malignancy ; but, in the present case, its spell 
 is really exercised only over Mr. George's own vision. For 
 who, with his eyes open, would believe for a moment what Mr. 
 George so gravely asserts, that of the whole gain won by our 
 multiplied productive power, none whatever has gone to the 
 great bankers, and brewers, and cotton spinners, and iron- 
 masters, and corn factors, and shipbuilders, and stockbrokers, 
 and railway contractors ; that our Rothschilds, and Brasseys, 
 and Barings, and Bairds, the great plutocrats of the time, the 
 possessors of the largest fortunes in the country, the very men 
 and classes who have been most conspicuously enriched through 
 the material progress of the nation, have all the while been 
 conducting a hard struggle against a fatal tendency in their 
 incomes to sink to a bare living, and had to feed, exactly like 
 the manual labourers, from the crumbs that fall from the land- 
 owners' table. The assertion is too violent and preposterous to 
 merit serious refutation. Everybody knows that the greatest 
 part of the wealth of modern society is not concentrated in the
 
 474 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 hands of the landlords at all, that it has not accrued from rent, 
 and that it would not be a farthing the less though private 
 property in land were abolished to-morrow. 
 
 But violent and preposterous as Mr. George's conclusion is, 
 it has not been arrived at without the exercise of much per- 
 verse ingenuity. Having been brought by his examination of 
 the wages fund and population theories to the conviction that 
 the key to his riddle was not to be discovered in the condi- 
 tions that regulated production, he concludes that it must, 
 therefore, be sought in the conditions that regulate distribution. 
 His problem is thus one in the distribution of wealth, and it 
 must be explained, if it is to be explained at all, by the laws 
 of distribution. To investigate these laws, therefore, becomes 
 now his object, and the first step he takes is a truly amazing 
 one. At the very outset he throws the most important class 
 of participators in the distribution the class that appropriates 
 the largest share out of court altogether, and he proceeds to 
 settle the whole question as if they never got a penny, and as if 
 the entire spoil were divided among their neighbours. People 
 who live on profits, it seems, have no locus standi in a question 
 of distribution, and the case must be considered as if the parties 
 exclusively concerned were the people who live on wages, the 
 people who live on interest, and the people who live on rent. 
 " With profits," he says, " this inquiry has manifestly nothing 
 to do. We want to find what it is that determines the division 
 of their joint produce between land, labour, and capital, and 
 profits is not a term that refers exclusively to any one of these 
 three divisions. Of the three parts into which profits are 
 divided by political economists, namely compensation for risk, 
 wages of superintendence, and returns for the use of capital, 
 the latter falls under the term interest, which includes all the 
 returns for the use of capital and excludes everything else ; 
 wages of superintendence falls under the term wages, which 
 includes all returns for human exertions and excludes every- 
 thing else ; and compensation for risk has no place whatever, 
 as risk is eliminated when all the transactions of a community 
 are taken together" (pp. 113-4). 
 
 Now we have to do Here with no mere difference of termin- 
 ology. Profits may be employers' wages, if you like to call
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 475 
 
 them so ; but it is a fatal confusion to suppose that, because 
 you have called them employers' wages, you are therefore 
 entitled to treat them as if they were governed by the same 
 laws and conditions as labourers' wages. The truth is that 
 they are governed by opposite conditions, and that the pith of 
 the labour question is just the conflict between these two kinds 
 of wages for the better share in the distribution. The battle of 
 labour is not against the employer receiving fair interest on his 
 capital in proportion to its quantity, but against the amount of 
 additional profit which the employer claims as wages of super- 
 intendence, and which he also rates in proportion to capital 
 invested insread of rating it in proportion to his own trouble or 
 efficiency. One of the chief hopes of the workman resides in 
 the possibility of breaking down this erroneous criterion of fair 
 remuneration for superintendence, and so getting the employers 
 to content themselves with smaller profits than they have been 
 in the habit of considering indispensable. Profits and wages 
 have thus opposite and conflicting interests in the distribution, 
 but Mr. George, having once disguised the one in the garb of 
 the other, is imposed on by the disguise himself, and treats 
 them in his subsequent speculations as if they were the same 
 thing, or at any rate what in the present connection is equally 
 pernicious in its effects as if their respective shares in the 
 distribution were determined by precisely the same conditions. 
 The result is, as might be expected, a series of singular 
 contretemps springing from mistaken identity, like those we 
 are familiar with on the comic stage. The manufacturing 
 millionaire appears before us as the victim of the same harsh 
 destiny as the penniless crossing-sweeper, and the banker of 
 Lombard Sireetis overshadowed by the same blighting poverty 
 as the lumper of "Wapping. Proudhon, in a powerful passage, 
 describes pauperism as invading modern society at both ex- 
 tremes ; it invaded the poor in the positive form of natural 
 hunger ; it invaded the rich in the unnatural but more devour- 
 ing form of insatiable voracity. The burden of Mr. George's 
 prophetic vision contains no such refinements. He sees a huge 
 wedge driven through the middle of society ; and on the under- 
 side of that enchanted wedge he sees the merchant princes of 
 the world eating the bread of poverty with their lowest depend-
 
 476 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 ents. Mr. George's classification of profits under wages there- 
 fore involves much more than a mere change of nomenclature, 
 for it has led him to pass off this absurd vision as a literal 
 description of things as they are. By that classification he 
 has really put out of his own sight the most important factor 
 in the settlement of the question he is discussing, and so he 
 begins playing Hamlet by leaving the part of Hamlet out. 
 
 Having simplified matters by throwing profits out of the 
 cast, Mr. George's next step is to assign the leading role to 
 rent. In the whole drama of the modern distribution of wealth, 
 no part is more striking or more often misunderstood than the 
 part played by rent. Wages never cease to cost much and to 
 be worth little, but rent seems to have the property of going 
 on growing while the landlords themselves sleep or play. This 
 fact has impressed Mr. George so profoundly that, losing sight 
 of things in their true connection and proportions, he declares 
 that the growth of rent is the key to the whole situation, and 
 that neither wages nor any other kind of income, not derived 
 from land, can ever draw any advantage from the increase of 
 prosperity, because rent always steps in before them and runs off 
 with the spoil. He professes to found this conclusion on Bicardo's 
 theory of rent, which he accepts, not only as being absolutely 
 true, but as being too self-evident to need discussion. Indeed, he 
 seems disposed, like some others, to have his fling at Mill for 
 calling it ihepons asinorum of political economy ; but we shall 
 presently discover various grounds for suspecting that he has 
 not crossed the bridge successfully himself, and that here, as 
 elsewhere, he has been led seriously astray by looking at things 
 through the mist of doctrines he has only imperfectly mastered. 
 Anyhow, he offers his theory as a deduction from Ricardo's 
 law of rent, and this deduction claims particular attention be- 
 cause it is the corner-stone of his speculations, and constitutes 
 what he would consider his most original and important con- 
 tribution to economic science. He says that the law of rent 
 itself " has ever since the time of Ricardo . . . been clearly 
 apprehended and fully recognised. But not so its corollaries. 
 Plain as they are, the accepted doctrine cf wages . . . has 
 hitherto prevented their recognition. Yet, is it not as plain as 
 the simplest geometrical demonstrat'on that the corollary of
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 477 
 
 the law of rent is the law of wages, when the division of the 
 produce is simply between rent and wages ; or the law of 
 wages and interest together, when the division is into rent, 
 wages, and interest " (p. 120). It is really plainer. It is a 
 mere truism. In any simple division, if you know how much 
 one of the factors gets, you know how much is left for the 
 others, and if you like to dignify your conclusion by the name 
 of corollary, you are free to do so. But the real point is this, 
 whether the share obtained by rent is fixed irrespectively of 
 the share obtained by wages and interest, or whether, on the 
 contrar}', it does not presuppose the previous determination of 
 the latter. There is no doubt, at any rate, as to how Ricardo 
 Mr. George's own authority regarded the matter. Accord- 
 ing to his celebrated theory, wages and interest are satisfied 
 first, and then rent is just what is over. Rent is simply surplus 
 profit. In hiring land, the farmer hires a productive machine, 
 and under the influence of competition gives, for the use of 
 that productive machine for a year, the whole amount of 
 its annual produce which remains as a surplus after paying 
 the wages of his labourers, and allowing interest on his capital, 
 and what he considers a fair profit for nis own work of super- 
 intendence. A certain current rate of wages and a certain 
 current rate of profit are presupposed, and after these demands 
 are met, then if the land has yielded anything more, that sur- 
 plus is what is paid as rent. Ricardo always presumes that 
 land that cannot produce enough to meet these demands will 
 not be cultivated at all, and that the poorest land actually 
 under cultivation is land that meets them and does no more ; 
 in other words, that leaves nothing over for rent. Let us take 
 Ricardo's law as it is stated by Mr. George himself (p. 118) : 
 " The rent of land is determined by the excess of its produce 
 over that which the same application can secure from the least 
 productive land in use." The standard by which, according 
 to this law, the amount of rent is supposed to be determined, 
 is the produce of the least productive land in use. Now, what 
 is the least productive land in use ? It is land that produces 
 just enough to pay the wages the labourers upon it are content 
 to work for, and the profits the farmer of it is content to farm 
 for. How that rate of wages and that rate of profits are fixed
 
 478 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 is no matter here ; but one thing is clear and it is enough for 
 our present purpose that they cannot be determined, as Mr. 
 George represents them as being, by a law of rent which pre- 
 sumes and is conditioned by their operation. Ricardo's law 
 virtually explains rent in terms of wages and profits, and it 
 would therefore be the height of absurdity to re-explain wages 
 and profits in terms of rent. And if that is so, the circumstance 
 which excites Mr. George's surprise, that economists have 
 always so clearly apprehended the law of rent itself, and yet 
 failed so completely to recognise the corollaries which he 
 plumes himself on being the first to deduce from it, admits of 
 a very simple explanation : the economists understood the law 
 they expounded, and were better reasoners than to employ it 
 as a demonstration of its own postulates. 
 
 This will become still plainer, if we look more closely at the 
 fact which has struck Mr. George so much the constant rise 
 of rent in modern society. He attributes that rise to many 
 causes ; in fact, there are few things that will not, in his opinion, 
 raise rent. Progress of population will do so ; but if population 
 is stationary, it will be done all the same by progress in the 
 arts ; the spread of education will do it ; retrenchment of public 
 expenditure will do it; extending the margin of cultivation 
 will do it ; and so will artificial contraction of that margin by 
 speculation. In short, he is so haunted by the idea, that he 
 seems to believe that so long as rent is suffered to survive at 
 all, whatever we do will only conduce to its increase. Every 
 step of progress we take extends its evil reign, and if progress 
 were to reach perfection, rent would drive wages and interest 
 completely off the field and appropriate " the whole produce " 
 (p. 179). These fears are not sober, but they could never have 
 risen had Mr. George first mastered the theory of rent he founds 
 them on. For rent, being the price paid by producers for the 
 use of a productive machine, cannot rise unless the price of the 
 product rises first (or its quantity, if so be that it does not 
 increase so much as to reduce its price), for unless the price 
 of agricultural produce rises, the farmer cannot afford to pay 
 a higher rent for the land than he paid before. No part of 
 Ricardo's theory is more elementary or more unchallenged than 
 this, that the rent of land constitutes no part of the price of
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 479 
 
 bread, and that high, rent is not the cause of dear bread, but 
 dear bread the cause of high rent. Rent cannot rise further 
 or faster than the price of bread (or meat, of course) will allow 
 it, and the price of bread is beyond the landowner's control. 
 He cannot raise it. but once it rises, he can easily raise rent in 
 a corresponding degree. If a rise of rent depends on a rise in 
 the price of bread, what does a rise in the price of bread depend 
 on ? On two things which Mr. George ignores or misunder- 
 stands the progress of population and the diminishing return 
 in agricultural production. The growth of population increases 
 the demand for food so much as to raise its price, and renders 
 it profitable to resort to more difficult soils or more expensive 
 methods for additional supplies. The price will then remain 
 at the figure fixed by the cost of the costliest portion that is 
 brought to market. 
 
 Now Mr. George laughs at the idea of increase of population 
 causing any difficulty about the supply of food population, 
 which he is never tired of telling us, is the very thing most 
 wanted to multiply that supply, and possesses a power of 
 multiplying it in even a progressive ratio to its numbers. 
 '* The labour of 100 men," he says, " other things being equal, 
 will produce much more than one hundred times as much as 
 the labour of one man " (p. 163). And he laughs in the same 
 way at the idea of a diminishing return in agriculture, as if, 
 says he, matter were not eternal, and as if an increasing popu- 
 lation did not of itself increase the productive capacity of the 
 land through increasing the productive capacity of the labour 
 upon it. These two misunderstandings lie at the bottom of all 
 Mr. George's vagaries about rent, and they are perhaps natural 
 to a speculator, resident in a rich new colony, which, as he 
 describes it himself, " with greater natural resources than 
 France, has not yet a million people." No doubt in a country 
 at that particular stage of its historical development, increase 
 of population may involve an increase, and even a more than 
 proportional increase, of food as well as of other commodities ; 
 but that particular stage is a temporary and fleeting one, 
 and the world in general is very differently situated from the 
 State of California thirty years ago. Where there is plenty of 
 good land, the increase of population occasions no increase in
 
 480 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the cost of producing food, because there is no need to resort 
 to poorer land for the purpose ; and while food is got as cheaply 
 as before, other things are got much more easily and abun- 
 dantly in consequence of the economies of labour and the many 
 mutual services which result from the increased numbers of 
 the community. But that state of matters only continues so 
 long as there remains no occasion to resort to poorer soils for 
 the production of food, and that time is long past in most 
 countries of the world. Mr. George no doubt contends that in 
 all countries it is just the same as in California, because even 
 though it may have become more difficult in some places to 
 produce food, it has become everywhere much easier to produce 
 other commodities, and (so he argues) the production of any 
 kind of commodity is practically equivalent to the production 
 of food, for it can always be exchanged for food. So it can, if 
 food is there to exchange for it ; but the very question is 
 whether food is there, or is there in the same relative quantity. 
 If I say it is more difficult to get food, it is no answer to tell 
 me that is is much easier to get other things. And because 
 other things may be multiplied indefinitely at the same cost, 
 that is no reason for denying that food can only be multiplied 
 indefinitely at increasing cost. Yet Mr. George reasons as if 
 it were. This confusion is repeated again and again in the 
 course of his book, and has evidently had much influence on 
 his whole speculations. He describes the advantages which 
 the colonist derives from the arrival of other settlers. " His 
 land yields no more wheat or potatoes than before, but it does 
 yield far more of all the necessaries and comforts of life. His 
 labour upon it will bring no heavier crops, and we will suppose 
 no more valuable crops, but it will bring far more of all the 
 other things for which men work " (p. 168). That is true, but 
 it is not to the purpose. The new settler required a market, 
 and population brought it ; but although population up to a 
 certain point is beneficial, you cannot for that reason declare 
 that beyond that point it cannot possibly become embarrassing ; 
 for on Mr. George's own hypothesis the ground yields no more 
 wheat and potatoes than before, and the limit to convenient 
 population is prescribed by the amount of food the ground 
 yields, and not by the quantity of other commodities which
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 481 
 
 skilled labour can produce. If population were to exceed what 
 that stock of food would adequately serve, then new-comers 
 would find little comfort in Mr. George's rhetorical common- 
 place that they had two hands and only one mouth. His simple 
 confidence, that they never can be at a less, because they can 
 get food by exchange as well as by direct production, is a mere 
 dream, because he forgets that the people they are to exchange 
 with are in the same case as themselves. They can only give 
 food in exchange for other things so long as they raise more 
 food than serves their own numbers, and when their numbers 
 increase beyond that point, they will have no food to sell. The 
 limit to subsistence is not the productive capacity of labour, 
 but the productive capacity of land. 
 
 Mr. George's argument rests on another very curious fallacy. 
 He builds his whole theory of distribution on the fact of the ex- 
 tension of the margin of cultivation from better to worse soils, 
 but in the same breath he denies the existence of the very 
 conditions that alone make that fact possible. Nobody would 
 resort to worse land unless the better were unable to furnish 
 indefinite supplies at the old cost, i.e., unless the principle of 
 diminishing return prevailed in agriculture. Nor would any 
 one resort to worse land until it paid him to do so, i.e., until 
 the produce of this worse land became, through a rise in its 
 price or through improvements in the art of agriculture, equal 
 in net value to the produce previously yielded by the worst 
 land then in cultivation. Mr. George denies the principle of 
 diminishing return. He denies " that the recourse to lower 
 points of production involves a smaller aggregate of produce 
 in proportion to the labour expended." He denies this, " even 
 where there is no advance in the arts and the recourse to lower 
 points of production is clearly the result of the increased de- 
 mand of an increased population. For," says he, " increased 
 population of itself, and without any advance of the arts, im- 
 plies an increase in the productive power of labour " (p. 163). 
 But the question is, does it imply any increase in the produc- 
 tive power of the soil ? Mr. George contends that it does, but 
 only on the superior soils, not on the inferior. Increasing 
 population, in his opinion, renders all labour so much more 
 effective that " the gain in the superior qualities of land will 
 
 i i
 
 482 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 more than compensate for the diminished production on the 
 land last brought in " (p. 165). Now to all this there is one 
 simple answer: why then resort to inferior soils at all? If 
 crowding on the superior soils can make those soils indefinitely 
 productive, why go farther and fare worse ? There can be no 
 reason for having recourse to worse land, but that the better 
 has ceased to yield enough at the old cost. Organization and 
 economy of labour are excellent things, but they cannot press 
 from the udder more milk than it contains, or rear on the 
 meadow more sheep than it will carry, or grow on a limited 
 area available for cultivation more than a definite store of 
 food. 
 
 But while Mr. George denies that there is anything to force 
 people to poorer soils, he supposes at the same time that they 
 go freely in order to get a less profit. He holds the amount of 
 return obtained from cultivating the least productive land 
 in use to be the lowest rate of return for which anybody will 
 invest his capital, and therefore to serve in some sense as a 
 standard rate of remuneration for all applications of capital 
 and labour. Nobody, he declares, will work for less than he 
 can make on land that pays no rent. But will any one work 
 such land for less than he can make in other industries? That 
 is what Mr. George supposes to be done every day, although 
 he laughs at the idea of there being any necessity for doing it. 
 It need not be said that men are not such lunatics. They are 
 really forced to go to worse soils because the better cannot in- 
 crease their yield indefinitely at the same cost, and they never 
 go till they possess a reasonable expectation of making as much 
 out of the worse land as they did before out of the better. 
 
 From all these remarkable misconceptions of the working of 
 rent, and of the theory of Ricardo on the subject, which he 
 professes to follow, he draws his first law of distribution, which 
 is nevertheless, so far as it goes, undoubtedly correct: "Rent 
 depends on the margin of cultivation, rising as it falls and fall- 
 ing as it rises " (p. 155). 
 
 To find the law of rent, he has told us, is to find at the same 
 time its correlatives, the laws of wages and interest, and these 
 laws accordingly he states thus : " Wages depend on the 
 margin of cultivation, falling as it falls and rising as it rises.
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 483 
 
 Interest (its ratio with wages being fixed by the net power of 
 increase which attaches to capital) depends on the margin 
 of cultivation, falling as it falls and rising as it rises " (p. 
 156). He is not content, however, with merely inferring these 
 two laws as corollaries from the law of rent, but thinks it 
 necessary to construct for wages and interest a certain inde- 
 pendent connection with the movement of the margin of culti- 
 vation. To do so, he first reduces interest, as he had already 
 reduced profits, to a form of wages ; he then erects all the 
 different forms of wages (i.e., every form of income except rent) 
 into a single hierarchical system, in which there are many 
 different rates of remuneration, occasioned by the necessity of 
 compensating different risks and exertions, but all moving up 
 and down concurrently with a certain general rate of wages at 
 the bottom of the scale ; and he finally connects this general 
 or standard rate of wages with the margin of cultivation, by 
 saying that no one would work at anything else for less than 
 he can make on land open to him free of rent, and that there- 
 fore the income made by cultivating such land must be the 
 lowest going. 
 
 Mr. George's view of the nature of interest is peculiar. He 
 considers it to be the natural increase of capital, the fruit of 
 inherent reproductive powers, like the increase of a calf into 
 a cow, or of a hen into a hen and chickens ; and because 
 interest comes in this way freely from nature, he believes the 
 private appropriation of it to be thoroughly just, although he 
 presently gives precisely the same reason for declaring rent 
 to be theft. It is unnecessary to discuss either the truth or 
 the consistency of this doctrine here, and I refer to it now 
 merely to explain that although Mr. George thus justifies 
 interest as being the price of a natural force, he introduces 
 it into his theory of the origin of poverty, as the price of 
 human labour. " The primary division of wealth," he says, 
 " is dual, not tripartite. Capital is but a form of labour, and 
 its distinction from labour is in reality but a subdivision, just 
 as the division of labour into skilled and unskilled would be. 
 In our examination we have reached the same point as would 
 have been attained had we simply treated capital as a form 
 of labour, and sought the law which divides the produce
 
 484 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 between rent and wages ; that is to say between the possessors 
 of the two factors, natural substance and powers and human 
 exertion which two factors, by their union, produce all 
 wealth " (p. 144). The difference between interest and wages 
 is but as the difference between the wages of skilled labour 
 and the wages of unskilled ; the wages of skilled labour is 
 only the wages of unskilled, plus some consideration for the 
 skill, or for the time spent in training, or for drawbacks of 
 various kinds ; and the wages of unskilled labour is fixed by 
 the amount that can be made on land that pays no rent. 
 Profits, salaries, stipends, fees are, in the same way as interest, 
 declared to be modes of wages. The 50,000 a year of the 
 merchant prince, it seems, is just the 50 of the day-labourer, 
 with 49,950 added to compensate him for the additional perils 
 or drawbacks or discomforts of his life. All incomes, except 
 the landowner's, row in the same boat, and the day-labourer's 
 sets the stroke. When the margin of cultivation descends, he 
 is the first to suffer, and then all the rest suffer with him. If 
 he loses 10 a year, they successively lose 10 too ; the doctor 
 or bank-agent will have 490, instead of 500; the railway 
 chairman, 4,990, instead of 5,000; the merchant prince, 
 49,990, instead of 50,000; and their loss is the landlord's 
 gain. Here then we see the whole mystery of iniquity as Mr. 
 George professes to unravel it. " The wealth produced in 
 every community is divided into two parts by what may be 
 termed the rent line, which is fixed by the margin of cultiva- 
 tion, or the return which labour and capital could obtain from 
 such natural opportunities as are free to them without payment 
 of rent. From the part of produce below this line, wages and 
 interest must be paid. All that is above goes to the owners 
 of land" (p. 121). 
 
 Mr. George here confounds the margin of cultivation with 
 the margin of appropriation. When economists speak of an 
 extension of the margin of cultivation, they mean a resort to 
 less productive land, and that is always accompanied by a rise 
 of rent; but an extension of the margin of appropriation may 
 be a resort to more productive land, and jnay occasion a fall 
 of rent, as has been done in Europe to-day through appro- 
 priation in America. But what in reality he builds his argu-
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 485 
 
 ment on is neither the movement of the margin of cultivation, 
 nor the movement of the margin of appropriation, but simply 
 the existence of abundance of unappropriated land. "Wh^re 
 that exists, rent will, of course, bs low, and wages will be 
 high, for nobody will give much for land when he can get 
 plenty for nothing at a little distance off. and nobody will work 
 at anything else for less than he can make on land that he 
 may have for nothing. For such land supplies labourers with 
 an alternative. It is not the best of alternatives, for it needs 
 capital before one can make use of it, and it takes time before 
 any return is made from it. A diversity of national industries, 
 for example, is better, and raises wages more effectively. 
 Agricultural wages are higher in the manufacturing counties 
 of England than in the purely agricultural ; and they are 
 higher in the manufacturing Eastern States of Mr. George's 
 own country than in the purely agricultural States of the 
 West, which possess the largest amount of unappropriated 
 land. The reason of this is twofold : other industries increase 
 the competition for labour generally, and create, at the same 
 time, a better market for farm produce. Unoccupied land 
 would act though less effectually in the same way as an 
 alternative ; but few countries are fortunate enough to possess 
 much of it, and as Mr. George does not propose to interfere 
 with the occupation of land, but only to tax the occupiers, he 
 has no scheme for showing how countries that have it not are 
 to get it. It is easy, of course, to call it from the vasty deep. 
 " Put to any one capable of thought," says Mr. George, " this 
 question : ' Suppose there should arise from the English Chan- 
 nel or the German Ocean a Neman's land on which common 
 labour to an unlimited amount should be able to make ten 
 shillings a day, and which would remain unappropriated and 
 of free access like the commons which once comprised so large 
 a part of English soil. What would be the effect upon wages 
 in England ? ' He would at once tell 3*011 that common wages 
 throughout England must soon increase to ten shillings a 
 day " (p. 207). Perhaps so ; but a little more thought would 
 teach him that " a Neman's land on which common labour to 
 an unlimited amount should be able to make ten shillings a 
 day" must be itself unlimited in extent, and could not be
 
 486 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 accommodated in the English Channel. Apart from preter- 
 natural conditions, it could not afford remunerative employment 
 to more than a definite number of occupants and cultivators, 
 and when it came to be entirely occupied, England would 
 stand exactly as it does at present. If the millennium of the 
 working class is to depend on the discovery of a Neman's land 
 of infinite expansibility, it must be indefinitely postponed. 
 
 But supposing such an alternative existed and did influence 
 the amount employers pay their workmen, how is it to influ- 
 ence in the same direction the amount they reserve to them- 
 selves ? It is true, as a matter of fact, that wages and interest 
 generally rise and fall together, for the simple reason that they 
 are generally subject to the same influences. When capital is 
 busily employed, so is necessarily labour, and then both wages 
 and interest are high ; when capital is largely unemployed, so 
 is naturally labour also, and then both wages and interest are 
 low. But an influence like that which is now adduced by Mr. 
 George does not act on labourer and employer alike. It sup- 
 plies the labourer with an alternative which strengthens his 
 hands in his battle for wages with employers. Does it then at 
 the same time strengthen the employer in his battle with the 
 labourer? Does it first raise wages at the expense of profits, 
 and then raise profits at the expense of wages? It clearly 
 cannot. To argue as if the existence of alternative work 
 which benefits the labourer, must benefit the employer in the 
 same degree, and as if the want of it must injure the employer 
 because it injures the labourer, is simply to misunderstand the 
 very elements of the case. One might as well argue that 
 because the heights of Alma were a decided strategical advan- 
 tage to the Russians, who were posted on them, they were 
 therefore an equal advantage to the Allies, who had to scale 
 them. 
 
 Laws of distribution, which are founded on a series of such 
 arbitrary absurdities as those which I have successively ex- 
 posed, are manifestly incapable of throwing any rational light 
 on the causes of poverty, or giving any practical guidance to 
 its amelioration. But, absurd as they may be, they are at 
 least propounded with considerable parade, and we are there- 
 fore quite unprepared for the strange turn Mr. George next
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 487 
 
 chooses to take. It will be remembered that the only reason 
 why he undertook to search for these laws at all was, that 
 by means of them he might explain why wages tended to sink 
 to a minimum that would give but a bare living; but now 
 that he has discovered those laws, he declines to apply them 
 to the solution of this problem. He will not draw the very 
 conclusion he has laid down all his apparatus to establish. He 
 will not solve the problem he has promised us to solve; in fact, 
 he tells us he never meant to solve it; he never thought or 
 said wages tended to sink to a minimum that would give a 
 bare living ; he never said they tended to sink at all ; all he 
 meant to assert was that if they increased, they did not in- 
 crease so fast as the national wealth generally. He used " the 
 word wages not in the sense of a quantity, but in the sense of 
 a proportion" (p. 154). He will not therefore, after all, show 
 us why the poor are getting poorer ; but he will read for us, 
 if we like, another riddle, why they are not growing rich so 
 fast as some of their neighbours. In the name of the patient 
 reader, I may be permitted to lodge a humble but firm protest 
 against this eccentric and sudden change of front. Mr. George 
 ought really to have decided what problem he was to write 
 about before he began to write at all, and we may therefore 
 for the present dismiss both his problem and his explanation 
 till he makes up his mind. 
 
 III. Mr. George's Remedy. 
 
 After our experience of his problem and his explanation, 
 we cannot indulge expectations of finding any serious or 
 genuine worth in the practical remedy Mr. George has to 
 prescribe ; and we hear, without a thought of incongruity, the 
 lofty terms in which, like other medicines we know of, it is 
 advertised to the world by its inventor as a panacea for every 
 disease society is heir to. ' ; What I propose," he says, " as the 
 simple yet sovereign remedy which will raise wages, increase 
 the earnings of capital, extirpate pauperism, abolish poverty, 
 give remunerative employment to whoever wishes it, afford 
 free scope to human powers, lessen crimes, elevate morals and 
 taste and intelligence, purify government, and carry civilization 
 to yet nobler heights, is to appropriate rent by taxation"
 
 488 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 (p. 288). And the direction for applying the remedy is equally 
 simple : it is to " abolish all taxation save that upon land 
 values" (ibid.). This remedy is currently described as the 
 nationalization of land ; but nationalization of land is a phrase 
 which stands for several very different and even conflicting 
 ideas. With the usual fatality of revolutionary parties, the 
 English land nationalizes are already broken into three sepa- 
 rate organizations, and represent at least three mutually in- 
 compatible schemes of opinion. There is first the socialist 
 idea of abolishing both individual ownership and individual 
 occupation of land, and cultivating the soil of the country by 
 means of productive associations or rural communes. Then 
 there is the exactly opposite principle of Mr. A. R. Wallace 
 and his friends, who are so much in love with both individual 
 ownership and individual occupation that their whole aim is 
 to compel us all by law to become occupying owners of land, 
 whether we have any mind to be so or no. And, finally, we 
 have the scheme of Mr. George, which must be carefully dis- 
 tinguished from the others, because he would destroy individual 
 ownership but leave individual occupation perfectly intact. 
 His non-interference with individual occupation is remarkable, 
 because, as we have seen, he declares the cause of poverty 
 to be the exclusion of unemployed labour from the opportunity 
 of cultivating land, and because that exclusion is chiefly due 
 to the prior occupation of the land by earlier settlers. Mr. 
 George, however, thinks he can provide a plentiful supply of 
 unoccupied land, at a nominal price, for an indefinite number 
 of new-comers without disturbing any prior occupant. He 
 would do it by merely abolishing the private owner and asking 
 the occupant to pay his rent to the State instead of to a 
 landlord, and he explains to us how it is that this simple 
 expedient is to effect the purpose he desires. " The selling 
 price of land would fall ; land speculation would receive its 
 death-blow ; land monopolization would no longer pay. Mil- 
 lions and millions of acres, from which settlers are now shut 
 out by high prices, would be abandoned by their present 
 owners, or sold to settlers upon nominal terms. And this not 
 merely on the frontiers, but within what are now considered 
 profitable districts. . , . And even in densely populated
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 489 
 
 England would such a policy throw open to cultivation many 
 hundreds of thousands of acres now held as private parks, 
 deer preserves, and shooting grounds. For this simple device 
 of placing all taxes on the value of land would be in effect 
 putting up the land at auction to whoever would pay the 
 highest rent to the State. The demand for land fixes its value, 
 and hence if taxes were placed so as to very nearly consume 
 that value, the man who wished to hold land without using 
 it would have to pay very nearly what it would be worth to 
 any one who wanted to use it " (p. 309). 
 
 Putting up land to auction will not secure cheap or nomin- 
 ally rented farms to an indefinite number of new-comers, 
 unless there is an indefinite supply of land to divide into farms, 
 but in the present world that is not so ; and when the existing 
 stock of agricultural land is exhausted, and every man has his 
 farm, but there is no more for any new-comer, what is Mr. 
 George's remedy then ? Abolition of property in land will of 
 course abolish all trading in such property ; but trading in 
 landed property does not restrict its occupation. The land 
 speculator, while he holds the land, of course keeps out another 
 competitor from the ownership, but he keeps nobody from its 
 occupation and cultivation. He is surely as ready as anybody 
 else to make money, if money is to be made, by letting it. even 
 by putting it up to auction, if Mr. George prefers that mode of 
 letting. The transfer of the power of letting to the State will 
 not secure a tenant any faster. And as to the private parks, 
 deer forests and shootings of England, Mr. George forgets that 
 they are, most of them, at present rented, and not, as he seems 
 to fancy, owned by their occupants, and that it would not 
 make a straw of difference to them whether they paid their 
 rents to the Crown factor or to the landlord's agent. Since 
 Mr. George does not prohibit the making of fortunes, he can- 
 not prevent commercial kings from America or great brewers 
 from England hiring forests in the Scotch Highlands. And 
 since, in spite of his celebrated declaration, that "to the landed 
 estates of the Duke of Westminster the poorest child that is 
 born in London to-day has as much right as has his eldest son," 
 he would still leave the Duke a princely income from the rents 
 of the buildings upon his estates, and would suffer him to enjoy
 
 490 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 it without paying a single tax or rate on it all (p. 320). 
 why should the Duke give up his forest in Assynt, merely 
 because the Crown is to draw the rent instead of the Duke 
 of Sutherland? Mr. George accordingly proposes a remedy 
 that would remedy nothing, but leave things just as they 
 are. Deer forests and the like may not be the best use 
 of the land, but the particular change Mr. George suggests 
 would not suppress them or even in the slightest degree 
 check their spread, and would not throw the ground now occu- 
 pied by them into the ordinary market for cultivation. And, 
 besides, even if it did, the land so provided for new-comers 
 would necessarily soon come to an end, and with it Mr. 
 George's" simple and sovereign remedy," at least in its specific 
 operation. 
 
 But it is noteworthy that in his lectures in this country 
 in 1884, Mr. George made little account of the specific opera- 
 tion of his remedy as a means of furnishing unemployed 
 labourers with a practicable alternative in agricultural pro- 
 duction, to which they might continue indefinitely to resort, 
 and that he preferred for the most part drawing his cure for 
 poverty from the public revenue which the confiscation of rent 
 would place at the disposal of the community. Now as to this 
 aspect of his remedy, it is surely one of the oddest of his 
 delusions to dream of curing pauperism by multiplying the 
 recipients of poor relief, and taking away from it, as he claims 
 credit for doing, through the countenance of numbers, that 
 reproach which has hitherto been the strongest preventive 
 against it. Besides, he and his friends greatly exaggerate the 
 amount of the fund the country would derive from the rent of 
 its ground. It would really fall far short of paying the whole 
 of our present taxation, not to speak of leaving anything over 
 for wild schemes of speculative beneficence. The rural rent 
 of the country is only seventy millions, and that sum includes 
 the rent of buildings, which Mr. George does not propose to 
 touch, and which would probably in the aggregate balance the 
 ground rent of towns, which he includes in his confiscation 
 project. Now our local taxation alone conies very near that 
 figure, and certainly the people generally can scarcely be ex- 
 pected to rise from a condition of alleged poverty to one of
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 49 1 
 
 substantial wealth, or even comfort, through merely having 
 their local rates paid for them. 
 
 The result would therefore be poor, even if no compensation 
 were to be made to the present receivers of the rent ; but with 
 the compensation price to pay, it would be really too ridicu- 
 lously small to throw a whole nation into labour and disorder 
 for. Much may be done much must be done to make the 
 land of the country more available and more profitable for the 
 wants of the body of the people, but not one jot of what is 
 required would be done by mere nationalization of the owner- 
 ship, or even done better on such a basis than on that which 
 exists. The things that are requisite and necessary would 
 remain still to be done, though land were nationalized to- 
 morrow, and they can be equally well done without introduc- 
 ing that cumbrous innovation at all. "With compensation the 
 scheme is futile ; without it, it is repugnant to a healthy moral 
 sense. Mr. George indeed regards confiscation as an article of 
 faith. It is of the essence of the message he keeps on preach- 
 ing with so much conviction and courage and fervour. Private 
 property in land, he tells us, is robbery, and rent is theft, and 
 the reason he offers for these strong assertions is that nothing 
 can rightly be private property which is not the fruit of human 
 labour, and that land is not the fruit of human labour, but the 
 gift of God. As the gift of God, it was, he believes, intended 
 for all men alike, and therefore its private appropriation seems 
 to him unjust. Under these circumstances he considers it as 
 preposterous to compensate landowners for the loss of their 
 land, as it would be to compensate thieves for the restitution 
 of their spoil. To confiscate land is only to take one's own, 
 Mr. George has no difficulty about the sound of the word, nor 
 is he troubled by any subtleties as to the length it is proper to 
 go in the work. Mr. Mill, whose writings probably put Mr. 
 George first 011 this track, proposed to intercept for national 
 purposes only the future unearned increase of the rent of land, 
 only that portion of the future increase of rent which should 
 not be due to the expenditure of labour and capital on the soil. 
 Mr. George would appropriate the entire rent, the earned in- 
 crease as well as the unearned, the past as well as the future ; 
 with this exception, that interest on such improvements as are
 
 49 2 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 the fruit of human exertion, and are clearly distinguishable 
 from the land itself , would be allowed fora moderate period. 
 He says in one place, " But it will be said : These are improve- 
 ments which in time become indistinguishable from the land 
 itself ! Very well; then the title to the improvements becomes 
 blended with the title to the land ; the individual right is lost 
 in the common right. It is the greater that swallows up the 
 less, not the less that swallows up the greater. Nature does 
 not proceed from man, but man from nature, and it is into the 
 bosom of nature that he and all his works must return again " 
 (p. 242). And in another place, speaking of the separation of 
 the value of the land from the value of the improvements, he 
 says : " In the oldest country in the world no difficulty what- 
 ever can attend the separation, if all that be attempted is to 
 separate the value of the clearly distinguishable improvements 
 made within a moderate period, from the value of the land, 
 should they be destroyed. This manifestly is all that justice 
 or policy requires. Absolute accuracy is impossible in any 
 system, and to attempt to separate all the human race has done 
 from what nature originally provided would be as absurd as 
 impracticable. A swamp drained, or a hill terraced by the 
 Romans, constitutes now as much a part of the natural ad- 
 vantages of the British Isles as though the work had been done 
 by earthquake or glacier. The fact that after a certain lapse 
 of time the value of such permanent improvements would be 
 considered as having lapsed into that of the land, and would be 
 taxed accordingly, could have no deterrent effect on -such im- 
 provements, for such works are frequently undertaken upon 
 leases for years " (p. 302). The sum of this teaching seems to 
 be that Mr. George would recognise no separate value in any 
 improvements except buildings, and would be disposed to ap- 
 propriate even them after such lapse of time as would make it 
 not absolutely unprofitable to erect them. 
 
 What Mr. George fails to perceive is that agricultural land 
 is in no sense more a gift of God, and in no sense less an 
 artificial product of human labour, than other commodities 
 than gold, for example, or cattle, or furniture, in which he 
 owns private property to be indisputably just. Some of the 
 richest land in England lies in the fen country, and that land
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 493 
 
 is as much the product of engineering skill and prolonged 
 labour as Portland Harbour or Menai Bridge. Before the days 
 of Sir Cornelius Vermuyden it was part of the bottom of the 
 sea. and its inhabitants, as they are described by Camden, 
 trode about on stilts, and lived by snaring waterfowl. Some 
 of the best land in Belgium was barren sand-heaps a hundred 
 years ago, and has been made what it is only by the continuous 
 and untiring labour of its small proprietors. " God made the 
 sea, man made the dry land," is a proverb among the Dutch, 
 who have certainly made their own country as much as Mr. 
 George has made his book. In these cases the labour and 
 the results of the labour are obvious, but no cultivated land 
 exists anywhere that is not the product of much labour 
 certainly much more labour than Mr. George seems to have 
 any idea of. In the evidence taken before the recent Crofters' 
 Commission, Mr. Greig, who conducted the Duke of Suther- 
 land's improvements in the Strath of Kildonan, stated that 
 the cost of reclaiming 1,300 acres of land there, and fur- 
 nishing them with the requisite buildings for nine variously 
 sized farms, was 46,000. Apart from the buildings, the mere 
 work of reclamation alone is generally estimated to have cost 
 20 an acre, and in another part of the same estates an equally 
 extensive piece of reclamation is said to have cost 30 an acre. 
 By means of this great expenditure of capital and labour, land 
 that would hardly fetch a rent of a shilling an acre before was 
 worth twenty or thirty shillings an acre after. Not the build- 
 ings only, but the land itself has been made what it is by 
 labour. It has been adapted to a useful office by human skill 
 as really as the clay is by the potter, or the timber by the 
 wright. Deduct from the rent of these reclaimed acres the 
 value contributed by human labour, and how much would 
 remain to represent the gift of God ? And would it be greater 
 or less than would remain after a like process applied, say, to a 
 sovereign or to a nugget of gold ? Mr. George has no scruple 
 about the justice of private property and inheritance in the 
 nugget, and indeed in all kinds of movable wealth. " The 
 pen with which I am writing," he says, for example, " is justly 
 mine. No other human being can rightfully lay claim to it, 
 for in me is the title of the original producers who made it "
 
 494 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 (p. 236). The original producer of the nugget appropriated 
 what was surely a gift of God as much as the clays or loams 
 of husbandry ; and if he, as Mr. George admits, has " a clear 
 and indefeasible title to the exclusive possession and enjoy- 
 ment " of his nugget, and may transmit that title by bequest 
 or sale unimpaired for an unrestricted period of time, why is 
 the original producer of agricultural land to be held up as 
 more than half a thief, and the present possessor as one 
 entirely ? And if a proprietor has spent 20,000 in buildings, 
 and 26,000 in reclamations, in order to convert the surface of 
 the earth into useful arable soil, why is he to be allowed rent 
 on the 20,000, and denied it on the 26,000? 
 
 So far as the distinction between gifts of nature and pro- 
 ducts of labour goes, movable wealth and immovable stand 
 on precisely the same' footing. Both are alike gifts of nature, 
 and both are alike products of labour. In thinking otherwise 
 Mr. George is certainly supported by the high authority of 
 Mr. Mill, who has also failed to recognise how far arable land 
 was really an artificial product. He says : " The land is not 
 of man's creation, and for a person to appropriate to himself a 
 mere gift of nature, not made to him in particular, but which 
 belonged to all others until he took possession of it, is prlnia 
 facie an injustice to all the rest " (Dissert, iv., 289). But what 
 is of man's creation? He finds his materials already created, 
 and he merely appropriates them, and adapts them to his own 
 uses by labour, exactly as he does with the soil that in his 
 hands becomes fruitful fields. Land is as much a creation of 
 man as anything else is, and everything is as much a gift of 
 God as land. That distinction is therefore of no possible help 
 to us. The true ground for observing a difference between the 
 right of property in land and the right of property in other 
 things must be sought for elsewhere. It is not because land 
 is a gift of nature, while other things are products of labour, 
 but because land is at once limited in quantity, and essential 
 to the production of the general necessaries of life. These are 
 the characteristics that make land a unique and exceptional 
 commodity, and require the right of property in it to be sub- 
 ject to different conditions from the right of property in other 
 products of lalbour. The justification of the restriction of that
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 495 
 
 right in the case of land accordingly rests neither on theological 
 dogma nor on metaphysical distinction, but on a plain practical 
 social necessity. Where land is still abundant, where popu- 
 lation is yet scanty as compared with the land it occupies, 
 there is no occasion for interference ; the proprietor might enjoy 
 as absolute a title as Mr. George claims over his pen, without 
 any public inconvenience, but, on the contrary, with all the 
 public benefit that belongs to absolute ownership in other 
 things. But as soon as population has increased so much as to 
 compel recourse to inferior soils for its subsistence, it becomes 
 the duty of society to see that the most productive use possible 
 is being made of its land, and to introduce such a mode of 
 tenure as seems most likely effectually to secure that end. 
 Under these circumstances private property in land requires 
 an additional justification, besides that which is sufficient for 
 other things ; it must be conducive to the best use of the land. 
 Societj" has become obliged to husband its resources ; if it will 
 do so most efficiently by means of private property, private 
 property will stand ; if not, then it must fall. Of course land 
 is not the only kind of property that is subject to this social 
 claim. All property is so held, but in the case of other things 
 the claim seldom comes into open view, because it is only on 
 exceptional occasions that it is necessary to call it into active 
 operation. Provisions are among the things Mr. George con- 
 siders not gifts of God but products of labour, but in a siege 
 private property in provisions would absolutely cease, and the 
 social right would be all in all. These products of labour would 
 be nationalized at that time because in the circumstances the 
 general interests of the community required them to be so, and 
 the reason why they are not nationalized at other times is at 
 bottom really this, that the general interest of the community 
 is better served by leaving them as they are. In some parts 
 of the world all products of labour actually are nationalized ; 
 in Samoa, for example, a man who wants anything has a latent 
 but recognised claim to obtain it from any man who has it ; 
 but Dr. Turner explains that the result is most pernicious, 
 because while it has extinguished absolute destitution, it has 
 lowered the level of prosperity and prevented all progress, no 
 man caring to labour when he cannot retain the fruits of his
 
 496 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 labour. Civilized communities, however, have always perceived 
 the immense public advantage of the institution of private 
 property, and the right to such property, of whatever kind, 
 really rests in the last analysis on a social justification, and is 
 held subject to a social claim, if any reason occurred to exert 
 it. In this respect there is nothing peculiar about land. The 
 only peculiarity about land is that a necessity exists for the 
 practical exercise of the claim, because landed property involves 
 the control of the national food supply, and of other primary 
 and essential needs of the community. The growth of popu- 
 lation forces more and more imperatively upon us the necessity 
 of making the most of our land, and consequently raises the 
 question how far private property in such a subject is con- 
 ducive to that end. 
 
 Now, in regard to capital invested in trade or manufactures, 
 it has always been justly considered that the private interest of 
 its possessor constitutes the best guarantee for its most pro- 
 ductive use, because the trader or manufacturer is animated 
 by the purely commercial motive of gaining the greatest pos- 
 sible increase out of the employment of his capital. But it 
 must be admitted that the private interest of the landlord does 
 not supply us with so sure a guarantee. He desires wealth no 
 doubt as well as the trader, but he is not so purely influenced 
 by that desire in his use of his property. He is apt to sacrifice 
 the most productive use of land or, in other words, his purely 
 pecuniary interest to considerations of ease or pleasure, or 
 social importance, or political influence. He may consolidate 
 farms, to the distress of the small tenants and the injury of the 
 country generally, merely because there is less trouble in 
 managing a few large farmers than a number of small ; or he 
 may refuse to give his tenants those conditions of tenure that are 
 essential to efficient cultivation of the land, merely to keep them 
 more dependent on himself in political conflicts. Mr. George, 
 however, has a strong conviction that even the purely pecuniary 
 interest of the private owner tends to keep land out of cultiva- 
 tion, but he builds his conclusion on the special experiences 
 of land speculation rather than on the general facts of land- 
 .owning. Of course if there were no land-owning, there would 
 be no land speculation ; but to abolish land-owning merely to
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 497 
 
 cure the evils of land speculation is, if I may borrow an illus- 
 tration of his own. tantamount to burning a house to roast a 
 joint. Besides, all that is alleged is that speculation keeps a 
 certain amount of land in America out of the market. In other 
 countries it suffers from a contrary reproach. The evil of the 
 bandes noires of France and the Landmetzger of Germany is 
 their excessive activity in bringing land into the market, by 
 which they have aggravated the pernicious subdivision of 
 estates that exist. In America the effect of speculation may 
 be different, but at any rate keeping land out of the market is 
 one thing, keeping it out of cultivation is another ; and it is 
 hard to see how speculation should prevent the extension of 
 cultivation, because cultivation may be as well undertaken by 
 tenant as proprietor, and why should a speculator, who buys 
 land to sell it in a few years at a high profit, object to taking 
 an annual rent in the interval from an}- one who thought it 
 would pay him to hire the land ? It would not be fair to con- 
 demn the landlord for the sins of the land speculator, even if 
 the latter were all that Mr. George's curious horror of him 
 represents him to be, and if he exercised any of the irrationally 
 extravagant effects which Mr. George ascribes to his influence 
 over the economy of things ; but as a matter of fact a sober 
 judgment can discover no possible reason why the private 
 interest of a land speculator as such should stand in the way 
 of the cultivation of the soil he happens to hold. "What con- 
 cerns us here, however, is not the private interest of the 
 speculator, but the private interest of the landlord, whether a 
 speculative purchaser or not. Now, much land lies waste at 
 present through the operation of the Game Laws, which estab- 
 lish an artificial protection of sport as an alternative industry 
 against agriculture, but then the general institution of private 
 property in land must not be credited with the specific effects 
 of the Game Laws, and need not be suppressed in order to get 
 rid of them. The abolition of these laws would place the culture 
 of wild animals and the culture of domestic animals on more 
 equal terms in the commercial competition, and would probably 
 restore the balance of the landlord's pecuniary advantage in 
 favour of the latter. Besides, it is not a question of ownership 
 but of occupation of land that is really involved. If the land 
 
 K K
 
 498 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 were nationalized to-morrow, the State would have to decide 
 whether it would let as much land as had hitherto been let to 
 sporting tenants ; and of course it can decide that, if it chooses, 
 now. 
 
 So far as I am able to judge, there is only one respect in 
 which the pecuniary interest of the landlord appears to be 
 unfavourable to an extension of cultivation. There is probably 
 a considerable quantity of land that might be cultivated with 
 advantage to the community generally by labourers who ex- 
 pected nothing from it but the equivalent of ordinary wages, 
 and which is at present suffered to lie waste, because its pro- 
 duce would be insufficient to yield anything more than wages, 
 and would afford nothing to the capitalist farmer as profit or 
 to the landlord as rent. How far this operates I have, of course, 
 no means of knowing ; but here again one may deal with 
 waste ground if it were judged requisite to do so, without 
 resorting to any revolutionary schemes of general land 
 nationalization. Of course much land is kept in an inferior 
 condition, or perhaps absolutely waste, through want of capital 
 on the part of its owners, but the same result would happen 
 under the nationalization plan, through want of capital on the 
 part of the tenants. Mr. George does not propose to supply 
 any of the necessary capital out of public funds, but trusts to 
 the enterprise and ability of the tenants themselves to furnish 
 it ; so that the occupier would be no better situated under the 
 State than he would be under an embarrassed landlord, if he 
 enjoyed compensation for his improvements. In either case 
 he would improve as far as his own means allowed, and he 
 would improve no further. But if by nationalization of land 
 we get rid of the embarrassed landlord, we lose at the same 
 time the wealthy one, and the tenants of the latter would be 
 decidedly worse off under the State, which only drew rents, 
 but laid out no expenses. The community, too, and the general 
 cultivation of the country would be greatly the losers. Mr. 
 George has probably little conception of the amount of money 
 an improving landlord thinks it necessary to invest in main- 
 taining or increasing the productive capacity of his land. A 
 convenient illustration of it is furnished by the evidence of Sir 
 Arnold Kemball, commissioner of the Duke of Sutherland,
 
 The Agrarian Socialism of Henry George. 499 
 
 before the recent Crofters' Commission. Sir Arnold gave in 
 an abstract of the revenue and expenditure on the Sutherland 
 estates for the thirty years 1853-1882, and it appears that the 
 total revenue for that period was 1,039,748, and the total 
 expenditure (exclusive of the expenses of the ducal establish- 
 ment in Sutherland) was 1,285,122, or a quarter of a million 
 more than the entire rental. Here, then, is a dilemma for Mr. 
 George : With equally liberal management of the land on the 
 part of the State, how is he to endow widows and pay the taxes 
 of the bourgeoisie out of the rents ? And without such liberal 
 management how is he to promote the spread of cultivation 
 better than the present owners ? 
 
 The production of food, however, is only one of those uses 
 of the land in which the public have a necessary and growing 
 interest. They require sites for houses, for churches, for 
 means of communication, for a thousand purposes, and the 
 landlord often refuses to grant such altogether, or charges an 
 exorbitant price for the privilege. He has refused sites to 
 churches from sectarian reasons ; for labourers' cottages in 
 rural districts for fear of increasing the poor-rate; in small 
 towns with a growing trade from purely sentimental objections 
 to their growth ; he has refused rights of way to people in 
 search of pure air, for fear they disturbed his game, and he 
 has enclosed ancient paths and commons which had been the 
 enjoyment of all from immemorial time. I do not speak of the 
 ground rent in large cities where owners are numerous, be- 
 cause that, though a question of great magnitude, involves 
 peculiarities that separate it from the allied question of rural 
 ground-rent, and make it more advantageously treated on its 
 own basis. But in country districts where owners are few, 
 and the possession of land therefore confers on one man power 
 of many sorts over the growth and comfort of a whole com- 
 munity, that power ought certainly to be closely controlled by 
 the State. Its tyrannical exercise has probably done more 
 than anything else to excite popular hostility against land- 
 lordism, and to lend strength to the present crusade for the 
 total abolition of private property in land. But here again 
 the cure is far too drastic for the disease. What is needed is 
 merely the prevention of abuses in the management of land,
 
 500 Contemporary Socialism. 
 
 and that will be accomplished better by regulations in the 
 interest of the community than by any scheme of complete 
 nationalization. A sound land reform must in this country 
 at least set its face in precisely the contrary direction. It 
 must aim at multiplying, instead of extirpating, the private 
 owners of land, and at nursing by all wise and legitimate 
 means the growth of a numerous occupying proprietary. State 
 ownership by itself is no better guarantee than private owner- 
 ship by itself for the most productive possible use of the land ; 
 indeed, if we judge from the experience of countries where it 
 is practised, it is a much worse one ; but by universal consent 
 the best and surest of all guarantees for the highest utilization 
 of the land is private ownership, coupled with occupation by 
 the owner.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Agriculture, Russian, 291. 
 
 Albrecht, the Prophet, 137. 
 
 Alexander II., Czar, 264, 205; death, 
 283. 
 
 Alliance, Eepublican Socialist, 47. 
 
 Amorphism, 274. 
 
 Anabaptist Socialism, 219. 
 
 Anarchism, 4 ; in France, 47 ; Aus- 
 tria, 55 ; Italy, 58 ; Spain, 62 ; 
 Portugal, 66 ; Belgium, 70 ; Hol- 
 land, 73; Switzerland, 74; Bos- 
 ton, 77, 248 ; United States, 80 ; 
 London, 86 ; Melbourne, 91 ; ul- 
 tra - socialistic, 249 ; ultra-demo- 
 cratic, 250; ultra-revolutionary, 
 255 ; anti-religious, 254 ; War- 
 saw, 296. 
 
 AnarcJiist, The, 86. 
 
 Anarchists, Congress at Geneva, 
 254. 
 
 Applegarth, Mr., 320. 
 
 Arbitration, Papal, 245 ; courts of, 
 431. 
 
 Arendal Congress, 66. 
 
 Ashburnham, Lord, 243. 
 
 Austria, Socialism in, 54 ; condition 
 of people in, 56. 
 
 Aveling, Dr. and Mrs., on America, 
 81 ; on Knights of Labor, 84 ; 
 on Anarchists, 249. 
 
 B. 
 
 Babbage, C., 26. 
 
 Baboeuf , C. G., 17, 188. 
 
 Bakunin, M., in Italy, 57 ; Hegelian, 
 261 ; with. German Hegelians, 
 261 ; escape, 273 ; in London, 274 ; 
 Amorphism, 274; Lyons insur- 
 rection, 278 ; in Zurich, 278. 
 
 Bamberger, M., 203. 
 
 501 
 
 Barton, Mr., 370. 
 
 Bastiat, M., 297. 
 
 Bax, Belfort, 84. 
 
 Baxter, Dudley, 303. 
 
 Beaconsfield, Lord, 210. 
 
 Bebel, A., 34 : on armaments, U7 ; 11 , 
 125. 
 
 Becker, B., 108. 
 
 Beesley, Professor, 149. 
 
 Beggars in Russia, 286. 
 
 Belgium, Socialism, 45, 70 ; forests, 
 412 ; railways, 416. 
 
 Bellamy, E., 79, 403, 434. 
 
 Besant, Mrs., 88. 
 
 Bismarck, Prince, State Socialism, 
 12 ; Rodbertus on, 34 ; peasant- 
 catching, 52 ; right to labour, 
 421. 
 
 Black Division Party, The, 283. 
 
 Black Division, The, 292. 
 
 Black Hand, The, 62. 
 
 Blanc, Louis, 2, 3, 95, 122; theist, 
 254. 
 
 Blanquists, 53. 
 
 Boeckh, Professor, 97. 
 
 Boehmert, V., 315. 
 
 Boerenbond, The, 245. 
 
 Bonar, Mr., quoted, 75. 
 
 Boston Anarchists, 77. 
 
 Boycotting, 42. 
 
 Birmingham, 433. 
 
 Brassey, Lord, 310, 330. 
 
 Brentano, Professor L., on A. Smith, 
 198 ; on condition of people, 204 ; 
 working-class claims, 213 ; trade 
 unions, 216 ; working class insur- 
 ance, 216. 
 
 Brimstone League, 148. 
 
 Brissot, M., 16. 
 
 Brook Farm, 402. 
 
 Brousse, M., 50. 
 
 Broussists, 51, 52. 
 
 LL
 
 502 
 
 Index. 
 
 Buchsel, Dr , 239. 
 Buda Pest Congress, 54. 
 Burns, John, 85. 
 Burt, T., M.P., 86. 
 
 C. 
 
 Cabet, 3. 
 
 Cairnes, Professor, on Mill, 5; on 
 working-class prospects, 297 ; cost 
 of labour, 310. 
 
 California, 435. 
 
 Carpenter, E., 89. 
 
 Castelar, E., 61. 
 
 Catholic Church on employer's re- 
 sponsibility, 72. 
 
 Catholic Socialists, 223. 
 
 Catholic Workmen's Clubs, 223, 
 229 ; in France, 243. 
 
 Caudron, Father, 243, 244. 
 
 Cavour, Count, 288. 
 
 Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J., M.P., 
 ransom, 385, 386; overgovern- 
 ment, 395. 
 
 Channing, W. H., 403. 
 
 Chevalier, Michel, 348. 
 
 China, Socialist Clubs, 92. 
 
 Christian Socialism in England, 
 87, 220 ; Germany, 223 ; Austria, 
 242 ; France, 243. 
 
 Christian Social Association, 229. 
 
 Christian Social Politics, 242. 
 
 Church, Primitive Communism of, 
 237. 
 
 Clemenceau, M., 47. 
 
 Coaches, Stage, 451. 
 
 Cobden, R., 221 ; on Government 
 intervention, 372; on Prussian 
 Government, 393. 
 
 Colins, M., 2. 
 
 Colinsian Socialists, 2, 72. 
 
 Colonization, Nihilist, 281. 
 
 Companies, Joint Stock, 417. 
 
 Communards, 46. 
 
 Commune, Paris, 277; Russian, 
 259, 289. 
 
 Communist League, 142, 144. 
 
 Conciliation Courts, 35. 
 
 Congress at Halle, 33, 37; Gotha, 
 88 ; Havre, 47, 48 ; Wyden, 44, 126, 
 421; Zurich, 76; Eisenach, 202; 
 D'Etienne, 50; Buda Pest, 54; 
 Lisbon, 66 : Arendal, 86 ; Stock- 
 holm, 67 ; Copenhagen, 69 ; New- 
 ark, U.S.A., 80; Leipzig, 103, 179; 
 Geneva, 150. 
 
 Co-operative production, 338, 339. 
 
 Copenhagen Congress, 59. 
 Costa, A., 58. 
 Councils of Labour, 35. 
 Crises, Commercial, 323, 451. 
 
 D. 
 
 Dave, V., 86. 
 
 Davenant, Dr., 303, 455. 
 
 Davitt, Michael, 90. 
 
 Dawes, Mr., quoted, 60. 
 
 Day of labour, Normal, 240, 434. 
 
 Day of labour, Eight hours, 36, 
 
 52 ; Cardinal Manning on, 244 ; 
 
 international compulsory, 434 ; in 
 
 Victoria, 435 ; California, 435. 
 Death-rate, 452. 
 
 Delitzsch. See Schultze-Delitzsch. 
 Democracy, relation to socialism, 
 
 16, 18; American and Continental, 
 
 20. 
 
 Denmark, socialism, 67. 
 Denny, William, 315, 322. 
 Distribution of incomes, 456. 
 Dockyards, English, 410. 
 Dolgourouki, the revolutionist, 
 
 274. 
 
 Dollinger, Dr. von, 223. 
 Donnigsen, Helena von, 106. 
 Dynamite, 256. 
 
 E. 
 
 Egaiix, Conspiracy of, 17. 
 
 Eight Hour Day. See Day of 
 
 labour. 
 
 Eisenach Congress, 202. 
 Ely, Professor, 77, 80. 
 Emancipation of serfs, 270, 284, 
 
 286. 
 
 Engel, Dr., 31, 203. 
 Engelhardt, Professor, 293. 
 Engels, F., 93, 131, 142, 146. 
 England, Socialism in, 83. 
 Equality, Love of, 24. 
 Equality of conditions, 385. 
 Ethical School of Economics, 209. 
 Eudes, General, 53. 
 
 F. 
 
 Fabian Society, 88. 
 Familistere of Guise, 2. 
 Farmer, Small, 27, 28, 30. 
 Federalism of C. Mario, 178. 
 Ferroti (Schedo), 267. 
 Ferroul, M., 52. 
 Feuerbach, Friedrich, 138. 
 Feuerbach, L., 131, 132.
 
 Index. 
 
 503 
 
 Fleischmann, M., 42. 
 
 Fluctuations, Commercial, 323. 
 
 Forbes, Father, 243. 
 
 Forestry, 412. 
 
 Fourier, 23, 254. 
 
 France, Liberty in, 21 ; socialism, 
 
 45 ; municipal socialism, 50. 
 Franklin, B., 13; on high wages, 365. 
 Fraternity, 269. 
 Freiligrath, F., 146. 
 Froebel, F., 130. 
 Frohme, M., 35. 
 Fulda Conference, 229. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gallenga, A., on unemployed in 
 Italy, 59. 
 
 Game Laws, 497. 
 
 Geneva Congress, 150. 
 
 George, Henr}-, United Labour 
 Party, 78 ; a semi-socialist, 78 ; 
 Mayoralty of New York, 79 ; in 
 Australia, 90 ; " Progress and 
 Poverty," 440 ; his problem, 445 ; 
 his explanation, 461 ; theory of 
 population, 464 ; of wages, 465 ; 
 profits, 474; rent, 476; his remedy, 
 486 ; land nationalization, 485. 
 
 Germany, Socialism in, 33 ; Crown 
 lands and industries, 345. 
 
 Giffen, R., 449. 452. 
 
 Gilbert's Act, 424. 
 
 Glennie, J. S., 34. 
 
 Gneist, Professor, 203. 
 
 Goethe, 127. 
 
 Goltz, T. von der, on piecework, 315. 
 
 Goschen, Right Hon. G. J., State 
 intervention, 346 ; rationale of 
 Factory Acts, 350; distribution 
 of wealth, 460. 
 
 Gotha Congress, 38. 
 
 Gotha Programme, 38, 40. 
 
 Graham, Mr. Cunninghame, M.P., 
 85. 
 
 Greig, George, 490. 
 
 Greeley, Horace, on socialist com- 
 munities. 402. 
 
 Gronlund, L., 81. 
 
 Guesde, J., 48, 50, 73. 
 
 Guesdists, 51, 52. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hadley, Professor, 416. 
 
 Hale, "Sir M., 301. 
 
 Halle Congress, 33, 37, 41. 
 
 Hartmann, E. von, 355. 
 
 Hasselmann, 45, 72. 
 
 Havre Congress, 47. 
 
 Haxthausen, Professor, 259, 262. 
 
 Headlam, Rev. S., 84, 88. 
 
 Hearn, Professor, 347. 
 
 Hegel, 131, 261. 
 
 Hegelians, Young, 3, 5, 130, 139. 
 
 Heine, H., on Lassalle, 96, 98 ; 
 
 on parties, 126. 
 Held, Professor, 196. 
 Herder, 127. 
 Hermann, 309. 
 Herring brand, 412. 
 Herzen, Alexander, 261, 262, 264, 
 
 265 ; letter renouncing revolu- 
 tionism, 273, 274. 
 Herzenism, 266. 
 
 Hildebrand, Professor B., 201, 203. 
 Hill, Sir R., 382. 
 Hime, Dr., Sheffield, quoted, 341. 
 Hirsch, Max, 203. 
 Hoedel, 33. 
 
 Holland, Socialism in, 72. 
 House Communities of Russia, 
 
 Dissolution of, 289. 
 Housing of poor, in Sheffield, 341; 
 
 McCulloch's view, 367. 
 Howell, G., M.P., on piecework, 
 
 315. 
 
 Hughes, Thomas, 222. 
 Humboldt, A. von., 98, 102. 
 Humboldt, W. von., on freedom, 
 
 334 ; on marriage, 353 ; on energy, 
 
 396. 
 
 Humphreys, Mr., 482. 
 Hyndman, H. M., 84. 
 
 Icarians, 2, 77. 
 
 " Illegal Men," 257. 
 
 Incomes, Distribution of, 486. 
 
 Increment, Unearned, 488. 
 
 Ingram, Dr. J. K., 371. 
 
 Insurance, National, 423; in New 
 Zealand, 417. 
 
 International Working Men's Asso- 
 ciation in France, 46 ; Italy. 57 ; 
 Spain, 60, 62 ; Denmark, 68 ; Bel- 
 gium, 70 ; Holland, 70 ; Jurassian 
 Federation, 73 ; origin, 147 ; Paris 
 Commune, 152 ; disruption, 153 ; 
 in Russia, 276. 
 
 International Working People'* 
 Association, U.S.A., 80. 
 
 International ity. 126.
 
 504 
 
 Index. 
 
 Ireland, Poor Law, 385. 
 
 Iri>h labour, 365. 
 
 "Iron and Cruel Law," view of 
 
 Lassalle. 121 ; of Ketteler, 226 ; 
 
 of Todt, 237 ; refuted, 300. 
 Italy, Socialism in, 57. 
 
 J. 
 
 Jacobites, 126. 
 
 Janson, Professor, pauperism in St. 
 
 Petersburg, 284. 
 Jevons, Professor W. Stanley, 
 
 commercial statistics, 327. 
 Jews become Nihilists. 271, 296. 
 Jurassian Federation, 73, 250. 
 Justice, 84. 
 
 K. 
 
 Karakasoffs attempt, 276. 
 
 Kemball, Sir Arnold, 495. 
 
 Ketteler, Bishop, 224; iron and 
 cruel law, 226 ; right of property, 
 227 ; part of Church in Social 
 Question, 228. 
 
 Kildonan Strath improvements, 
 490. 
 
 King, Gregory, occupiers of land, 
 29 ; classes of population, 301 ; 
 distribution of wealth, 303 ; rent 
 of land, 454. 
 
 Kingsley, Charles, 221. 
 
 Knies, Professor, 201. 
 
 Knights of Labor, 82. 
 
 Koegel, Dr., 139. 
 
 Kolping, Father, 223. 
 
 Koscheleff, 267. 
 
 Krapotkin, Prince, 45 ; Lyons an- 
 archist, 48; English anarchism, 
 86 ; housing the poor, 250 ; the 
 Municipal Councils, 252 ; painter, 
 280. 
 
 Labour, Cost of. in different coun- 
 tries, 310. 
 
 Labour Department of State, 35. 
 
 Labour Emancipation League of 
 Russia, 295. 
 
 Labouring class prospects, 297, 312. 
 
 Labour, Knights of. 82. 
 
 Labour Party of Belgium, 71. 
 
 Labour Statistical Bureaux, 326. 
 
 Laf argue, P., 52. 
 
 " Land and Liberty " Society, 283. 
 
 Land, diminishing return, 467 ; an 
 
 artificial product, 489 ; Mill on, 
 491 ; speculation in, 493 ; reform, 
 496. 
 
 Landmetzger, 484. 
 
 Land Nationalization in Belgium, 
 72 ; in England. 89. 
 
 Land Restoration League, 90. 
 
 Laing, Samuel, 411. 
 
 Laisant, M., 64. 
 
 Laissez-faire, 336, 352; repudiated 
 by McCulloch, 361 ; never adopted 
 in England, 373; and property, 
 394. 
 
 Lange, F. A., 216. 
 
 Laveleye, E. de, on Italian peasantry, 
 59; no revolutionary Metropolis 
 in Italy, 60 ; Spanish socialist 
 clubs, 61 ; the Portuguese, 65 ; the 
 Scandinavians, 67; Belgian so- 
 cialism, 71 ; State Socialism in 
 England, 346; professes State 
 Socialism, 384. 
 
 Lavergne, M. de, on French and 
 English rural population, 46. 
 
 Lavrists, 280. 
 
 Lavroff, P., 278 ; his principles, 279 ; 
 followers, 295. 
 
 Lassalle, F., 92 ; Heine, 96 ; cha- 
 racter, 96 ; epitaph, 97 ; a revolu- 
 tion, 97 ; Humboldt, 98 ; Countess 
 Hatzfeldt's defence, 99; theft 
 of cassette, 100; conviction for 
 treason, 101 ; literary work, 102 ; 
 " Working Men's Programme," 
 103; summary of, 109; General 
 "Working Men's Association, 105; 
 progress of propaganda, 105; 
 Helena von Donnigsen, 106 ; death, 
 108; apotheosis, 108; reply to 
 Schultze-Delitzsch, 114 ; new so- 
 cialistic constitution of property, 
 116; anarchic socialism of exist- 
 ing regime, 117; Ricardo's doc- 
 trine of value, 119 ; ' ; iron and 
 cruel law," 121 ; productive 
 societies, 122; a national socialist. 
 124; letter to Feuerbach, 172; 
 on the modern economists, 201 ; 
 popularity in Russia. 277 ; on 
 increase of production, ii:!'i. 
 
 Le Basse, Father, 243. 
 
 Ledru-Rollin, quoted, 22. 
 
 Leipzig Congress, 103, 179. 
 
 Leo XIII., 243 ; encyclical, 245. 
 
 Le Play, 284. 
 
 Leroux, P., 3. 
 
 Leroy-Beaulieu, Paul, 219.
 
 Index. 
 
 505 
 
 Lessing, 127. 
 
 Levi, Professor Leone, 304. 
 
 Liberalism, Mario on, 185. 
 
 Liberty in America, 20 ; in France, 
 21 ; under democracy, 24. 
 
 Lichtenstein, Prince, 243. 
 
 Liebknecht, W., 34; on revolution, 
 42 ; peasant catching, 42 ; religion, 
 42 ; future socialist State, 43 ; 
 expulsion from General Working 
 Men's Association of Germany, 
 125; foundation of Social Demo- 
 cratic Labour Party, 125 ; speech 
 at Leipzig, 249. 
 
 Liege, Congress, 243. 
 
 Lilyenkrantz, Jacquette, 69. 
 
 Limitation of production, 313. 
 
 Limousin, M., minimum of social- 
 ism, 14. 
 
 Lisbon Congress, 66. 
 
 Locke, John. 353. 
 
 London, death-rate, 302. 
 
 Ludlow, Edmund, 127. 
 
 Ludlow, J. M., 221. 
 
 M. 
 
 Mably, 161. 
 
 Macaulay, Lord, quoted, 214. 
 
 Macdonald, Mr., Owenite, 403. 
 
 Machiavelli, secret societies, 257. 
 
 Malet, Mr., 45. 
 
 Malikowsy, 280. 
 
 Malthus, T. E., 369, 421. 
 
 Malthusianism, 17. 
 
 Manchester Party of Germany, 201, 
 212. 
 
 Manchester School, view of Maurice, 
 221 ; of Kingsley, 221 ; of Todt, 
 235 ; their real doctrine, 372. 
 
 Manning, Cardinal, Liege letter, 
 244. 
 
 Marlboro' Association, 405. 
 
 Mario, Carl 178. 
 
 Marr, W., 136, 137. 
 
 Marshall, Professor A., 437. 
 
 Martensen, Bishop, Catholicism and 
 socialism, 233. 
 
 Marx, Karl, historical necessity of 
 socialism, 23 ; social revolution 
 impossible without English par- 
 ticipation, 83 ; despair of English 
 participation, 84; reception of 
 Das Kapital, 127 ; life, 129 ; Young 
 Hegelian, 130 ; early views, 139 ; 
 Communist League, 142; com- 
 munist manifesto, 144 ; Inter- 
 
 national, 149 ; inaugural address 
 to, 151 ; summary of Das 
 Kapital, 156; value, 160; wages, 
 161 ; normal workday, 161 ; 
 machinery, 170; piecework, 172; 
 over-population, 174 ; letter from 
 Proudhon, 255 ; popularity in 
 Eussia, 277. 
 
 Massachusetts, Joint Stock manage- 
 ment in, 417. 
 
 Maurice, F. D., 11, 221. 
 
 McCulloch, J. E., disciple of Eicardo, 
 360; Wages fund, 360; laissez- 
 faire, 361 ; State management, 
 362 ; factory system, 363 ; pauper 
 labour, 364 ; factory legislation, 
 366 ; housing the poor, 366 ; poor 
 law, 368; agricultural produce, 
 456. 
 
 " Medalmen," 294. 
 
 Meeker, Mr., Fourierist, 408. 
 
 Melbourne anarchists, 91. 
 
 Menger, Prof. A., historical neces- 
 sity of socialism, 23. 
 
 Meyer, Eudolph, 242, 383. 
 
 Michel, Louise, 48. 
 
 Mill, James, 360. 
 
 Mill, John Stuart, profession of so- 
 cialism, 5 ; liberty, 334 ; province 
 of Government, 353 ; over-govern- 
 ment in democracy, 395 ; in- 
 dustrial habits under socialism, 
 404 ; unearned increment, 488 ; 
 land, 472. 
 
 Ministry of Labour, 35. 
 
 Mint, The, 412. 
 
 Mir, The, 252, 262. 
 
 Molinari, G. de, 3, 45. 
 
 Montefiore, L., 97. 
 
 Morelly, 16. 
 
 Morier, Sir E., 288. 
 
 Morris, William, 84, 85. 
 
 Most, John, 44, 80, 248. 
 
 Moufang, Canon, 230, 231. 
 
 Mulhall, M., wages, 308; textile 
 workers, 323 ; agricultural rent, 
 456. 
 
 Mun, Count A, de, 243. 
 
 Municipal management, 413. 
 
 Municipal socialism in France, 51. 
 
 Mutualists, 3. 
 
 N. 
 
 Napoleon L, 380. 
 
 Nasmyth, James, manual dexterity, 
 317, 440.
 
 506 
 
 Index. 
 
 Nasse, Professor E., economic in- 
 dividualism in England, 346. 
 
 Neale, E. Vansittart, 87. 
 
 Netchaieff, 276. 
 
 Newark Congress, 80. 
 
 New Zealand, State insurance, 348. 
 
 Nicholas, Czar, 263, 264. 
 
 Niewenhuis, D., 72. 
 
 Nihilism, Russian, 45, 259 ; name, 
 266. 
 
 Nobiling, 33. 
 
 No Man's land, 482. 
 
 Nordhoff, Mr., 40:;. 
 
 North American Phalanx, 408. 
 
 Norway, Socialism in, 66 ; the poor, 
 452. 
 
 Noyes, Mr., 403. 
 
 O. 
 
 Oldham, co-operative mills, 338. 
 Old Believers, 292. 
 Oppenheim, M., 195. 
 Overtime, 320. 
 Owen, E. D., 405. 
 Owen, Eobert, 77, 360. 
 Owenites, 2, 11, 77, 148 ; in America, 
 404. 
 
 P. 
 
 Palm, 67. 
 
 Pan-destruction, 274. 
 
 Parsons, 249. 
 
 Patriotism, disparaged by socialists, 
 126 ; by great writers, 127. 
 
 Paul, St., slave emancipation, 242. 
 
 Pauperism, St. Petersburg, 260; 
 aged, 423; England, 449; able- 
 bodied, 450 ; Norway, 452. 
 
 Peasant proprietary, prospects, 27 ; 
 in the International, 46. 
 
 Peasants' League in Belgium, 245. 
 
 Pensions, National, 423. 
 
 Perowskaia, Sophia, 280. 
 
 Pestel, 264. 
 
 Peukert, 55. 
 
 Piecework, 314 
 
 Pio, 68. 
 
 Poles, The, 271. 
 
 Poor Law, England, 402; McCul- 
 loch, 368 ; S. Webb, 423. 
 
 Population theory, 464. 
 
 Porter, G. E., good wages and 
 temperance, 318; working class 
 houses in Sheffield, 341. 
 
 Portugal, Socialism in, 65. 
 
 Possibilists, 50, 51. 
 
 Post-office management, 410. 
 Potter, George, piecework, 320. 
 Production, Limitation of, 313. 
 Productive associations, 79. 
 Profit-sharing, 339. 
 Propaganda of Deed, 256. 
 Property, diffusion, 23 ; advantages 
 
 of institution, 333. 
 Proudhon, anarchy, 250 ; letter to 
 
 Marx, 255 ; pauperism, 475. 
 Prussia, socialism, 31 ; condition of 
 
 people, 31 ; occupation of land, 
 
 32 ; forests, 42. 
 
 R. 
 
 Eailways, State, 416. 
 
 Eappists, 405. 
 
 Eealistic School of Economics, 205. 
 
 Eeclus, Elisee, anarchist, 48 ; on 
 Eussian agriculture, 290. 
 
 Eenan, E., 384. 
 
 Eent, Fair, 429 ; agricultural, 456 ; 
 H. George, 476. 
 
 Eepublican Socialist Alliance in 
 France, 54. 
 
 Eevolutionist, The complete, 275. 
 
 Eeybaud, M., 179. 
 
 Eicardo, D.,law of value, 226; "iron 
 law of wages," 300; real theory 
 of wages, 306 ; province of Go- 
 vernment, 359 ; National Bank, 
 360; working class annuities, 360; 
 rent, 477. 
 
 Eight to existence, 421. 
 
 Eight to labour, in Convention of 
 1793, 22 ; Bismarck on, 421 ; in 
 English Poor Law, 424. 
 
 Eights, Natural, 420; Primitive 
 economic, 385. 
 
 Eodbertus on Bismarck's social 
 policy, 34 ; differences from Las- 
 salle, 123 ; social question. 127 ; 
 relation to socialist movement, 
 178; converts Wagner, 380; ac- 
 knowledges Hohenzollerns, 381 ; 
 views, 381. 
 
 Eodriguez de Capada, Professor, 
 245. 
 
 Eogers, Professor Thorold, 350. 
 
 Eoscher, Professor W., time as re- 
 former, 199; historical method, 
 200,204 ; Eisenach Congress, 203 ; 
 economic ideal, 205 ; task as eco- 
 nomist, 207; piecework, 321. 
 
 Eousseau, J. J., 16. 
 
 Euge, Arnold, 131.
 
 Index. 
 
 507 
 
 Euskin, John, 88. 
 Russia, Nihilism in, 259. 
 Russo- Turkish war, 282. 
 
 S. 
 
 St. Etienne Congress, 50. 
 
 St. Joseph associations, 229. 
 
 St. Petersburg pauperism, 260. 
 
 St. Simon, 218, 254. 
 
 Samoa, Socialist customs in, 401, 492. 
 
 Samter, Y., on Mill, 198. 
 
 Sassulitch. Vera, 277, 282. 
 
 Say, Leon, State Socialism, 345. 
 
 Schseffle. Professor, 326. 
 
 Scheel, Professor von., social ques- 
 tion, 215. 
 
 Schmoller, Professor, 195 ; on So- 
 cialists of Chair, 200; Eisenach 
 Congress, 203; Province of Govern- 
 ment, 211 ; distributive justice, 
 213. 
 
 Schonberg, Professor, 203, 213. 
 
 Schorlemer-Abst, Baron, 229. 
 
 Schulte, Professor, 229. 
 
 Schultze-Delitzsch, 4 ; co-operative 
 societies, 103; Lassalle's reply, 
 114. 
 
 Schweitzer, Dr. von, 124. 
 
 Self-interest, 375. 
 
 Senior, N. W., 464. 
 
 Shakers, 405. 
 
 Shaw, G., Bernard, 88. 
 
 Sheffield, socialists, 89 ; housing of 
 working-class, 341. 
 
 Shuttleworth, Canon, 88. 
 
 Sidgwick, Professor, 360, 428. 
 
 Sinclair, Sir John, 469. 
 
 Sisyphism, 443. 
 
 Smith, Adam, as viewed by Social- 
 ists of the Chair, 198; on Govern- 
 ment trading, 345; his theory 
 of social politics, 353; national 
 education, 354 ; military training, 
 355 ; English Government man- 
 agement, 356 ; truck, 357 ; usury. 
 357 ; corporate management, 417. 
 
 Smith, E. Peshine, effect of educa- 
 tion on wages, 321. 
 
 Social Democratic Party in Ger- 
 many, 33 ; in Eeichstag, 34 ; 
 France, 48; programme, 49 ; Italy. 
 58; Spain, 61 ; 'Norway, 66 ; Den- 
 mark, 69 ; Belgium, 70 ; Holland, 
 73; Switzerland, 74; U.S.A., 80; 
 England, 84 ; Scotland, 90 ; Syd- 
 ney, 91. 
 
 Social Monarchical Union, 241. 
 
 Social Politics, English theory, 373 : 
 Christian, 242. 
 
 Social Reform, Central Union for, 
 239. 
 
 Socialism, before 1848, 2 ; contem- 
 porary, 3; labourers' claim of 
 right, 7 ; variable use of word, 8 ; 
 inequitableness its ruling cha- 
 racteristic, 9; old and new, 10; 
 minimum of. 14 ; relation to de- 
 mocracy, 15 ; Christian, 224 ; 
 State, 345 ; meanings of word,374. 
 
 Socialist Laws of Germany, 33. 
 
 Socialists of the Chair, 195. 
 
 Society of Public Utility in Switzer- 
 land, 76. 
 
 Society of Social Peace, 243. 
 
 Spain, Socialism in, 60 ; anarchism, 
 62 ; condition of people, 64. 
 
 Spectator, The, testamentary sta- 
 tistics, 459. 
 
 Speculation, 493. 
 
 Spencer, Herbert, believes in social- 
 ist ideal of society, 8 ; the coming 
 slavery, 346; functions of Govern- 
 ment, 351, 352 ; land nationali- 
 zation, 385 ; natural rights, 420. 
 
 Stahl, quoted, 16. 
 
 State management, 409. 
 
 State railways, 415. 
 
 State Socialism, 345; in Germany, 
 379. 
 
 State, The, 211. 
 
 Statistics, Commercial, 326. 
 
 Stein, Professor L. von, 94, 132. 
 
 Stephanovitch, 293. 
 
 Stepniak, on mir, 252; Paris Com- 
 mune, 277 ; Russian proletariat, 
 284 ; Russian peasantry, 285, 286, 
 288; break-up of the Russian 
 Commune, 289 ; Russian agri- 
 culture, 291. 
 
 Stocker, Dr., 234, 236, 241, 242. 
 
 Stockholm Congress, 67. 
 
 Strachey, Mr., 68. 
 
 Strikes,"44. 
 
 Studnitz, A., 320, 331. 
 
 Suez Canal, 348. 
 
 Sumner, Archbishop, 370. 
 
 Sunday Schools, Nihilist, 269, 272. 
 
 Surplus Value, Marx's doctrine, 167. 
 
 Sweating System, 432. 
 
 Sweden, Socialism in, 66. 
 
 Switzerland, Socialism in, 73; So- 
 ciety of Public Utility, 76 ; secret 
 societies, 136. 
 
 Sylvania Association, 404.
 
 508 
 
 Index. 
 
 T. 
 
 Taylor, Helen, 84. 
 
 Tchaikowsky, 280. 
 
 Tchernychetfsky, 269, 272. 
 
 Telegraphs, State management of, 
 410. 
 
 Thompson, William, anticipation 
 of Marx's doctrine, 148. 
 
 Thornton, W. T., 464. 
 
 Thuenen, J. von, natural wages, 
 121. 
 
 Thun, Professor A., 278, 281, 284, 
 285, 287. 
 
 Tocqueville, A. de, socialism and 
 democracy, 19 ; democratic pas- 
 sion for equality, 24 ; middle- 
 class materialization, 24; political 
 necessity of religion, 25 ; the 
 plutocracy, 186. 
 
 Todt, R., 234. 
 
 Trade Unions, 311. 
 
 Tramps, 450. 
 
 Treitschke, H., 203. 
 
 Trepoff, Assassination of General, 
 
 OQ9 
 
 Trial of the, 193, 280. 
 Troglodytes, Secret Society, 283. 
 TrumbuU Phalanx, 404. 
 Tucker, B. R., 91. 
 Turgenieff, 266. 
 Turner, Dr., Samoa, 401, 492. 
 
 U. 
 
 Unemployed, 424. 
 Unionism, The New, 85, 86. 
 United States, Liberty in, 20; 
 
 socialism, 77 ; nationalism, 79 ; 
 
 anarchism, 80. 
 
 V. 
 
 Vaillant, M., 53. 
 
 Value, Marx's doctrine, 160 ; true 
 
 theory, 327. 
 " Versailles," The, 126. 
 
 Victoria, State railways, 411,417; 
 
 eight hours day, 436. 
 Volrnar, Herr von, 35. 
 Vogt, K., 148. 
 
 W. 
 
 Wages Fund, 464, 465. 
 
 Wages, " iron law," 226, 237, 300 ; 
 rise since English Revolution, 
 301; Ricardo's theory, 306; true 
 theory, 307 ; fair, 430 ; minimum, 
 431. 
 
 Wagner, Professor A., ground- 
 rents, 199, State and the social 
 question, 213 : Evangelical Social 
 Congress, 241 ; converted by Rod- 
 bertus, 380 ; his State Socialism, 
 387. 
 
 Walker, President F. A., 332, 469. 
 
 Wallace, A. R., 89, 485. 
 
 Warren, Josiah, 77. 
 
 Watts, Dr. J., 434. 
 
 Webb, Sidney, 88 ; State pensions 
 for the aged, 423. 
 
 Weitling, W., 80, 137. 
 
 Westminster, Duke of, 486. 
 
 Wieland, 127. 
 
 Will of the People Party, 283, 295. 
 
 Winchester, Bishop of, definition 
 of socialism. 376. 
 
 Winkelblech, Professor, 180. 
 
 Woeste, M., 244. 
 
 Working classes, prospects, 297, 
 312 ; habits, 318 ; legitimate aspi- 
 rations, 333. 
 
 Workmen's Chambers, 35. 
 
 Wyden Congress, 44, 126. 
 
 Y. 
 
 Yellow Springs, 404. 
 Young, Arthur, 455. 
 Young England Party, 380. 
 
 Z. 
 
 Zurich Congress, 76.
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS ON THE FIUST EDITION. 
 
 " A WORK of commanding ability and great practical value. It deserves 
 to be studied by everybody who wishes to understand a series of ques- 
 tions which are just now attracting a large share of attention. . . . 
 Admirably adapted to dissipate erroneous impressions on the subject." 
 Scotsjnan. 
 
 ' The reader will find much to interest him in Mr. Eae's volume. His 
 introductory chapter is well worth studying, as are also his sketches of 
 Lassalle, Karl Marx, and Professor "Winlcelblech." Times. 
 
 " Mr. Eae has made a special study of the various phases of Continental 
 socialism, and has therefore peculiar qualifications for this part of his 
 task. . . . With a special recommendation of the last chapter, we 
 take leave of a useful and ably written book." Saturday Review. 
 
 " Mr. John Eae has already won his spurs as a writer on socialism. 
 The book on that subject which he has just published is the best of its 
 kind, in English at least, that we have seen. Holding an intermediate 
 position between the socialists and the Manchester School, Mr. Eae has 
 just that amount of sympathy with the aims of the socialists which 
 enables him to look at the problems involved from their point of view, 
 and thus to meet their errors fully and directly while doing justice to 
 them in some respects in which hitherto they have hardly received it." 
 Westminster Review. 
 
 " In Mr. Eae's interesting volume full information will be found 
 respecting the leaders of the socialistic movement in Europe, and a clear 
 statement of their teaching." Literary World. 
 
 " A very admirable piece of work, displaying thorough research in the 
 presentation of the various forms of socialistic theorj 7 , keen discrimina- 
 tion in their analysis, and a masterly comprehension of the whole 
 economic situation. Mr. Eae's essay on Nihilism is as good as anything 
 that we have seen on this mysterious subject, but there are few persons 
 who are interested in the history of the present century that will not be 
 glad to read the whole book, and some parts of it more than once. We 
 will only add that the analysis of Mr. Henry George's theories is 
 extremely well done. It undermines the very foundations on which Mr. 
 George's structure is built, and the whole fabric dissolves before our 
 eyes." Evening Post (New York). 
 
 " These studies attracted much attention when they first appeared, and 
 readers will be glad to meet them again in this book. A short analysis 
 could not do justice to Mr. Eae's work. What characterizes the work 
 most, is the impression derived from it as a whole; it is the conscientious- 
 ness and sincerity with which the author has studied the writers he 
 discusses. The judgments he pronounces are his own. Those who wish, 
 if not a new, yet a more enlarged idea of the principle socialistic theories, 
 will find pleasure in following the effect which they produce on an 
 enlightened mind, the remarks they suggest to him, and the objections he 
 makes to them." Journal des Economistes (Paris). 
 
 " It is the best English text-book on the important subject of which it 
 treats, and like all good text-books, it whets the reader's appetite." 
 Glasgoiv Herald.
 
 POLITICAL SCIENCE AND 
 ECONOMY. 
 
 POLITICAL SCIENCE; Or, The State Theoretically and Practi- 
 cally Considered. By THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, D.D., 
 LL.D.j late President of Yale College. 2 vols., 8vo, $5.00, 
 
 THE BOSTON TRANSCRIPT. "No work * Political Science has ever been 
 published In America which covers so wide ground and which treats the sub- 
 ject so fairly and impartially, and with so thorough knowledge and judgment." 
 
 THE CINCINNATI GAZETTE. This work Is Indeed one of the most im 
 portant contributions of the century to the science of natural and national law ana 
 ethics." 
 
 THE N. Y. TRIBUNE. "In the discussion of the marlfold questions suggested 
 by the general theme of the work Dr. Woolsey exhibits 'he same cautiousness of 
 judgment, moderation of tone, and vigor of expression which characterize his 
 previous writings. His volumes abound with the signs of profound study and 
 copious erudition as well as of original thought." 
 
 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. 
 
 Designed as an Aid in Teaching and in Historical Studies. 
 By THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, D.D., LL.D-, late President 
 of Yale College. Fifth edition, revised and enlarged. Crown 
 8vo, $2.50. 
 
 A complete outline of that grand system of etliical j'\risprudence 
 which holds, as it were, in one community the nations of Christendom. 
 Its appendix contains a most useful list of the principal treaties since 
 the Reformation. The work has no rival as a text book. 
 
 Special attention Is directed to the fact that this FIFTH EDITION of Dr. 
 Woolsey's International Law is entirely re-written and enlarged, and in printed 
 from new plates. 
 
 THE ST. LOUIS REPUBLICAN. "A compendium treatise, Intended not for 
 lawyers nor for those having the profession of law in view, but for young men who 
 are cultivating themselves by the study of historical and political Science. While 
 the work gives the state of the law of nations as It is, It compares the actual la*v 
 irtth the standard of justice, and, by exhibiting the progress of science In r. 
 bistorical way, brings it into connection with the advances of tmmaoUj KY* 
 tfvilization."
 
 STANDARD TEXT BOOKS. 
 
 POLITICAL ECONOMY. By ARTHUR LATHAM PERRY, Pro- 
 fessor of History and Political Economy in Williams College. 
 Crown 8vo, $2.50. 
 
 Professor Perry's book has passed through many editions and has 
 recently been subjected to a thorough revision and recasting. His 
 work is a complete exposition of the Science of Political Economy both 
 historically and topically, his style is admirably clear and racy ; his 
 illustrations are forcible and well chosen, and he has made a subject 
 interesting and open to the comprehension of any diligent student, 
 which has often been left by writers vague and befogged and bewilder- 
 ing. This work has stood excellently the test of the class room, and 
 has been adopted by many of the chief educational institutions in this 
 country. Among them are Yale College. Bowdoin College, Dartmouth, 
 Trinity, Wesleyan, University of Wooster, Denisou University, 
 Rutgers College, New York University, Union College, and many other 
 colleges and normal and high schools. 
 
 T. D. WOOLSEY, President of Tale College. "Tour book Interests students 
 more than any I have ever Instructed from." 
 
 THE NEW YORK TIMES. "As a manual for general reading and popular 
 Instruction, Prof. Perry's book is far superior to any work on the subject before 
 issued In the United States." 
 
 THE NATION. "We cordially recommend this book to all, of -whatever school 
 of political economy, who enjoy candid statement and full and logical discussion.'* 
 
 THE INDEPENDENT. "There Is more common sense In this book than In any 
 of the more elaborate works on the same subject that have preceded it. It is the 
 most Interesting and valuable one that has been given to the American public on 
 this Important subject." 
 
 INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL ECONOMY. By ARTHUR 
 LATHAM PERRY, Professor of History and Political Econ- 
 omy in Williams College. Revised edition. 12mo, S1.50. 
 
 FROM THE PREFACE. "Ihave endeavored In this book so to laythe founda- 
 tions of Political Economy In their whole circuit, that they will never need to be 
 disturbed afterwards by persons resorting to it for their early Instruction, how- 
 ever long and however far these persons may pursue their studies in this science." 
 
 THE N. Y. EVENING POST. "This work Is not meant In any way to take 
 the place of Its author's larger treatise, but rather to occupy a field which, in the 
 nature of the case, that work cannot occupy. It Is net an abridgment of that 
 work but a separate treatise, Intended primarily for the use of students and 
 readers whose time for study is small, but who wish to learn the broad principles 
 of the science thoroughly and -well, especially with reference to the scientific 
 principles which are Involved In the practical discussions of our time. We 
 need scarcely add, with respect to a writer so well known as he, that his thinking 
 Js sound as well as acute, or that his doctrines are those which the greatest 
 toasters of political science have approved., 1 '
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS' 
 
 AMERICAN POLITICAL ECONOMY. By FRANCIS BOWEN, 
 Professor of Natural Religion and Moral Philosophy in 
 Harvard College. 8vo, $2.50. 
 
 This treatise presents views compatible with the idea that " every 
 country has a political economy of its own, suitable to its own physical 
 circumstances of position on the globe, and to the character, habits, 
 and institutions of the people." 
 
 THE PHILADELPHIA AGE. -If our members of Congress would vote them- 
 selves a copy of this book, and read it, fewer wild schemes would be concocted 
 by them, and a great saving of time and the people's money would be secured." 
 
 THE SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN. "His arguments are worth considering, 
 and his whole book Is of high value to any American to study economical ques- 
 tions." 
 
 CONTEMPORARY SOCIALISM. By JOHN RAE, M.A. 
 8vo, $2.50. 
 
 Such a book as this which Mr. Rae has written a thorough history 
 &nd analysis by a man of singularly candid and liberal mind, equally 
 without prejudice and fanaticism has long been needed and earnestly 
 wished for by every student of socialism, and in all countries. 
 
 THE LONDON SATURDAY REVIEW.- "A useful and ably written book." 
 
 THE CONGREGATIONALISM "No subject more needs thorough and Im- 
 partial discussion at present than this, and the work before us by John Rae is em- 
 inently able and helpful. It Is distinguished in a remarkable degree by breadth of 
 view and the grasp of underlying and widely reaching principles, and also by hla 
 minuteness of detail and the careful relation o. facts and figures in support of its 
 position." 
 
 COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM, In their History and Theory. 
 A Sketch. By THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, D.D., LL.D., 
 late President of Yale College. 12mo, $1.50. 
 
 This book is the only comprehensive review of its subject, withir 
 email compass, yet exactly meeting the needs of the reader, that is ac- 
 cessible in English. The candor of the discussion is remarkable ; the 
 book is the argument of a perfectly fair reasoner, painting nothing iu 
 too dark colors, but taking his opponents at their best. 
 
 THE N. Y. COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER. "The work Is an epitome of the 
 Uistory of the socialistic and communistic movement, and will prove a most vain- 
 ible text book to all who have not made themselves familiar with thie jrrec, 
 ^abject."
 
 AX ADDITION TO TffEODOR MOMKSE^S HISTORY OF RO3TB. 
 
 THE PROVINCES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. From Caesar t 
 Diocletian. By THEODOR MOMMSEN. Translated wit/ 
 the author's sanction and additions, by William P. Dickson 
 D.D., LL.D. With ten maps, by Professor Kiepert. 2 vols., 
 8vo, $6.00. 
 
 CONTENTS: The Northern Frontier of Italy Spain The Gallic 
 Provinces Roman Germany and the Fret. Germans Britain The 
 Danubian Lands and the Wars on the Danube Greek Europe Asia 
 Minor The Euphrates Frontier and the Parthians Syria and the 
 Land of the Nabatamns Judea and the Jews Egypt The African 
 Provinces. 
 
 N. Y. SUN. " Professor Mommsen's work goes further ;than any other ex- 
 tant, or now looked for, to provide us with a key to the mediaeval history of the 
 Mediterranean world." 
 
 PROF. W. A. PACKARD, in Presbyterian Review. "The author draws the 
 wonderfully rich and varied picture of the conquest and administration of that 
 great circle of peoples and lands which formed the empire of Rome outside of 
 Italy, their agriculture, trade, and manufactures, their artistic and scientific life, 
 through all degrees of civilization, with such detail and completeness as could 
 iave come from no other hand thaa that of this great master of historical research 
 In all Its departments, guided by that gift of historical imagination, for which ha 
 is equally eminent " 
 
 THE HISTORY OF GREECE. By Prof. Dr. ERNST CURTIUS. 
 
 Translated by Adolphus William Ward, M. A., Fellow of St, 
 Peter's College, Cambridge, Prof, of History in Owen's Col- 
 lege, Manchester. Uniform with Mommsen's History of 
 Rome. Five volumes, crown 8vo, gilt top. Pr'ce per set, 
 S10.00. 
 
 LONDON ATM EN^UM. "Professor Cnrtlns' eminent scholarship Is a suffi- 
 cient guarantee for the trustworthiness of his history, while thj skill with which 
 %e groups his facts, and his effective mode of narrating them, combine to render 
 It no less readable than sound. Prof. Curtlus everywhere maintains the true 
 tlgnity and impartiality of history, and ty la evident his sympathies are on the 
 de of justice, humanity, and progress." 
 
 LONDON SPECTATOR. "We cannot express our opinion of Dr. Curtlus' 
 book better than by saying that It may be fitly ranked with Theodor Mommsen's 
 freat work." 
 
 N. Y. DAILY TRIBUNE. -"Aa an Introduction to the study of Grecian history, 
 Ho previous work Is comparable to the present for vivacity and plcturestiua 
 beauty, while In sound learning and accuracy of statement It Is not inferior t* 
 Ji elaborate productions which enrich the literature of the age."
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 Box 951388 
 
 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed.