THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES h THE NEW SOCIALISM WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR THE GIRLHOOD OF MARY OUEEN OF SCOTS IVith Photogravure Portraits, \2s. net. " For such a task Miss Stoddart was uncommonly well qualified. To her womanly instincts, her level head, her facile and graceful pen, have been added an intimate personal knowledge of those parts of France in which the lot of the Scottish Queen was cast, an even more remark- able knowledge of the history of the period, and a patient perseverance which is so essential in historical research." — D. Hay Fleming, LL.D., in The Bookman. THE LIFE OF THE EMPRESS EUGENIE Third Edition. Illustrated, lOJ. dd. net. "Miss Stoddart's 'Life of the Empress Eugenie' is an exception to the rule that biographies of living people are undesirable. The Empress has now become as much a historical figure of the past as if she had been dead for many years. . . . Miss Stoddart has told her romantic story well ; it will hold the reader with unflagging interest. No one, I think, could have told it better than Miss Stoddart has done." — Sphere. LONDON: HODDER AND STOUGHTON THE NEW SOCIALISM AN IMPARTIAL INQUIRY BY JANE T. STODDART HODDER AND STOUGHTON LONDON MCMIX First Edition, October igog Second Edition, November igog PREFACE The present book occupies, so far as I am aware, new ground among English books on Socialism. The larger historical books on the subject stop short of recent years, and leave unchronicled much Socialist thought and action of the utmost importance. My aim has been to give as briefly and fairly as possible an account of the Socialist movement over the world during the last ten years. Like everything else. Socialism has undergone a process of change, and must be studied in the works of its latest authorities. Extreme utterances of individuals have been largely disregarded. In such a movement as Socialism much exaggeration was inevitable. But Socialism has its great thinkers and students, men as candid, as thoughtful, and as earnest as any to be found in other camps. These thinkers are constructive as well as destructive. They are not afraid to acknowledge the immense difficulties that have to be conquered ere the goal is reached, and they have taken them up in earnest, admitting in many cases that they are not yet completely solved. That Socialism is a movement full of mighty import to mankind, and that the questions which it raises may at any moment present themselves in their most practical form, is now obvious to all. It is only by understanding what Socialists ask for, and why they ask it, by studying their views and arguments in their best, most considered and most impressive form that any fruitful discussion can be carried on. It is in this spirit that I have endeavoured to set forth the main points in the recent literature of Socialism. The chief books pub- lished on the Continent as well as the English literature of the subject have been thoroughly examined, and every effort has been made to secure a just and accurate account of the main issues. The periodical literature of Socialism has also been investigated to the best of my ability. It is so extensive that an absolutely complete knowledge is unattainable, but I hope that few important omissions will be found. In the Supplement I have given chapters on Revolutionary Syndicalism ; Recent Developments of American Socialism ; and Notes on Australian Socialism. There are good reasons for separat- V 1672152 vi PREFACE ing these from the main part of the book. The serious Socialists are more and more striving after precision of language, and much that is called Socialistic is not genuine Socialism. The years 1897-98, the Jubilee period of the Communist Manifesto, form the natural point of departure for a study of the New Socialism. In 1898 Marx had been dead fifteen years, and Liebknecht, in his old age, was living with his memories. The veteran campaigner rejoiced in the overthrow of Bismarck and in the electoral results which made his party numerically the strongest in Germany. He did not survive to see the full eflfects of the criticism which was brought to bear on the Marxian system, nor could he have anticipated the results of the new Marxian revival under Sorel, which we know as Revolutionary Syndicalism. Stu- dents all over Europe have recognized that the years 1897-98 mark a parting of the ways. From that point onwards we can distinguish the three great modern groups — Revisionists, Orthodox Marxians and Revolutionaries. It is hardly needful to insist on the enormous progress of the Socialist movement all over the world during these years. The American Socialist, Robert Hunter, in his new book. Socialists at Work^ puts the world Socialist vote at 7,434,616. This represents the vote obtained by the various national parties at the latest elections up to 1907. In Great Britain, at the general elec- tion of 1906, according to xht Reformers' Tear-hook^ 274,631 votes were cast for the Socialists, 98,902 for the " Labour Party," and 156,930 for the Trade Unionists. In Germany, in 1907, though the Socialists were apparently defeated, they polled three and a quarter million votes, a quarter of a million more than in 1903, and over a million more than in 1898. Bebel said that the elections had shown that every third man over twenty-five in Germany was a Social Democrat. In Austria the Socialists had an overwhelming success at the general election in May 1907, the first under universal suffrage. They polled 1,041,948 votes, a third of the total vote cast. In Belgium, in 1904, the Socialist vote was 469,094. In France, in 1906, it was about 900,000, as compared with half a million (roughly) in 1893. In Italy, in 1904, the Socialists polled 320,000, but these figures convey no adequate idea of the strength of the party. The suffrage in Italy is restricted by a literary test, and over 4,000,000 working men are excluded from the ballot. While the utmost care has been taken to ensure accuracy, it is hardly possible to avoid error in a subject so large and complicated, and I shall gratefully receive and acknowledge any corrections. Quotations have been taken in all cases from original sources. J. T. S. CONTENTS CHAP. Preface The Scope of the Inquiry .... Notes on the Literature .... I. Socialism in Transition : Obsolete Theories II. The General Programme of Socialism III. Socialists and Expropriation IV. The Question of Compensation . V. The Question of Inheritance VI. Socialists and Small Property-Owners VII. Practical Working of the Socialist State VIII. The Commandeering of Lives under Socialism IX. The Rewards of Labour under Socialism . X. Socialism and the Family .... XI. Socialism and Religion .... XII. Is there a Christian Socialism ? . XIII. The Press under Socialism .... XIV. Patriotism, Armaments, and Foreign Policy XV. The Dream of Internationalism XVI. At the Grave of Karl Marx vii PAGE V I 4 21 29 • 38 . 46 • 55 . 64 • 73 . 82 92 lOI . 118 • 135 ■ 144 • 154 . 163 • 171 PAGE viii CONTENTS SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTERS I. Revolutionary Syndicalism I. LEADERS AND PRINCIPLES .... 183 II. THE TEACHING OF GEORGES SOREL . . . 19O III. TRADES-UNIONS AND THE GENERAL STRIKE . I99 IV. THE GENERAL STRIKE: VIEWS OF SOCIALIST LEADERS 205 V. PROSPECTS OF THE PARTY OF VIOLENCE . . 217 II. Recent Developments of American Socialism I. HISTORICAL notes 225 II. AN AMERICAN SOCIALIST LECTURER : MR. JOHN SPARGO ........ 230 III. ' WHY IS THERE NO SOCIALISM IN THE UNITED STATES?' ....... 233 III. Notes on Australian Socialism I. socialism WITHOUT DOCTRINES . . . 243 ii. the career of william lane . . 247 iii. views of a german workman at melbourne . 250 iv divisions of australian socialists . 254 v. the newer labour legislation . . . 260 Index .... 265 THE SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY The writer's purpose in the following pages might be summed up in that saying of Dunoyer which is quoted by Werner Sombart as the motto of his best-known book : "7^ ne propose rien; je nHmpose rien; j''exposey The title, The New Socialism^ has been chosen because the international Socialist literature which is here dealt with belongs almost entirely to the last ten years. The word " impartial " has been used as separating this work, at least in intention, from anti-Socialist writings like those of M. Yves Guyot, whose mental attitude is defined in the title of one of his books, La Comedie Socialiste. In the preface to a later volume M. Guyot writes — "My purpose in the following pages has been to reduce to their true value the Socialistic sophisms with which some clever and often unscrupulous men amuse idle inquirers and draw the masses after them." ..." What has become," asks M. Guyot, " of the Utopias of Fourier and Cabet, Louis Blanc's scheme for the organization of work, Proudhon's bank of exchange, the question of the right to work, Lassalle's iron law of wages, the predictions of the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Engels r " ^ "to" We search the writings of this distinguished French publicist in vain for words of true sympathy with the poor. Like an anti-Socialist Fran9ois Villon, he claims that the winds have carried away all the older theories. * Sophismes socialistes et Faits ^conomiques. F61ix Alcan. 1908. B I 2 THE NEW SOCIALISM He does not ask what seeds they left behind — seeds which are germinating at this hour. The icy hardness of the earlier individualistic literature is represented in France by M. Guyot and in England by Mr. W. H. Mallock. Such writers are so much occupied in exposing the fallacies of the prophets of Socialism that they ignore the appeal of the unemployed and hungry. Mr. Mallock makes merry over the increasing number of persons " who claim for their own opinions the title of socialistic, but whose quarrel with the existing system is very far from apparent, while less apparent still is the manner in which they propose to alter it. The persons to whom I refer consist mainly of academic students, professors, clergymen, and also of emotional ladies, who enjoy the attention of footmen in faultless liveries and say their prayers out of prayer-books with jewelled clasps." ^ The anti-Socialist delights in laying bare every ex- travagant suggestion of early nineteenth century thinkers. Mr. Mallock discusses humorously the phalansteries of Fourier, " which appear to have been im.aginary antici- pations of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Here, lapped in luxury, they were to feast at common tables ; and be- tween meals the men were to work in the fields singing, while a lady accompanied their voices on a grand piano under a hedge." ^ This kind of badinage must be singularly unpleasing to those who have studied the works of Mr. Charles Booth, Mr. Rowntree, or Mr. Chiozza Money; who realize how vast is the army of the poor, how trifling the minority of the well-to-do, and what multitudes, amidst ^ A Critical Examination of Socialism, pp. 4, 5. Murray. 1908. 2 Ibid. p. 7. THE SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY 3 our modern civilization, are living on the verge of hunger. M.Guyot allies himself with the editor of theSpectator,hut in his Letters to a Working Man and his leading articles, Mr. St. Loe Strachey repeatedly says that if he thought Socialism would cure the ills which make the world so dark he would be a Socialist to-morrow. We may quote this passage from the Spectator of February i, 1908 — " I am no more content than are the Socialists with things as they are, and I most earnestly desire that they should be made better, and would gladly consent to any and every pecuniary sacrifice demanded by the Socialists if I thought that such sacrifices would provide a remedy." That sentence is axiomatic for every honest-minded student of Socialism to-day. If it could be proved that Socialism would raise the condition of the poor and provide for them a more generous share of the world's wealth, only the meanest spirits would shrink from accepting its name and principles. The vision of a world without poverty is the most alluring of dreams. The dying words of Erasmus, " Domine fac finem,^'' " Lord, make an end," must rise in the hearts of all who have understood the sufferino-s of the disinherited masses. B 2 NOTES ON THE LITERATURE The literature of Socialism is so extensive that a lifetime might easily be devoted to its mastery. The bibliography of Stammhammer is the best o^uide to the older books and pamphlets. It ends with 1898, the year in which our own special study begins, and as the two volumes of Stammhammer (1893 and 1899) ^^^ °^ ^^^ shelves of the British Museum, we need not borrow anything from his pages. The British Museum Library, it may be said in passing, is very imperfectly provided with recent Socialist books and periodicals. The student will find it advisable to become a sub- scriber to various foreign periodicals. The writer grate- fully acknowledges constant help received from Die Neue Zeit, which is under the control of Karl Kautsky, the intellectual leader of modern Marxian Socialism.-^ Almost every issue of this weekly journal contains at least one article of permanent value. Kautsky is in touch with the newest Socialist movements in every part of the world. American, Australian, French and British Socialists are amonor his contributors. His own articles, with their breadth of knowledge, transparent honesty, and firm grasp of the international situation, have something also of the popular frankness of Luther's phraseology. The expres- sions which Georg Ellinger applies to Luther's style, ^ Die Neue Zeit is published by Paul Singer at Stuttgart. 4 NOTES ON THE LITERATURE 5 *' unvergleichlich kernig^^^ " derb-volkstumlich,^^ are ap- plicable to that of Kautsky, While the views of this distinguished thinker may be best understood by a careful study of his magazine, his books are indispensable to the inquirer. We may mention especially Das Erfurter Pro- gramme and Karl Marx'' Oekonomische hehren? Kaut- sky's work on the agrarian question,^ has attracted much attention on the Continent. His famous reply to Bernstein was published ten years ago in Stuttgart.* Among his smaller publications we may mention Die Soziale Revolution ^ and Die Sozialdemokratie und die katholische Kirche.^ Many of Kautsky's writings have been translated into French, and we note that an eminent American Socialist, Mr. Robert Hunter, in his new book. Socialists at Work, recommends Die Agrarfrage under its French title. Kautsky deserves to be studied in his native tongue. A very useful German magazine is Sozialistische Monatshefte,^ edited by Dr. J. Bloch. Among the con- tributors we find not only the chief German Socialists of the younger school, but many foreign writers. For ex- ample, the magazine for May 6, 1909, had an article by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald on The Crisis in English Social- ism; and this was followed by a paper by Eduard Bernstein dealing with the Edinburgh Congress. In March of this year, Paul Gohre discussed the difficult question of the secessions of working people from the Lutheran Church, {Kirche und Kirchenaustrittsbewegung). Most of the 1 Stuttgart. J. H. W. Dietz Nachf. 1907. 8th edition. 2 Same publishers. 1906. nth edition. 2 Die Agrarfrage. Same publishers. 1899. ■• Bernstein und das Soaialdemokratische Programm. Same publishers. ^ Berlin. Buchhandlung Vorwiirts. 1907. 2nd edition. * Same publishers. 1906. 2nd edition. '' Berlin, W., Potsdamer Strassc, 121 H. The numbers appear fortnightly. 6 THE NEW SOCIALISM articles in the Monatshefte are written in a bright, popular style, and the magazine keeps its readers fully in touch with the main currents of Socialist thought. The writer has drawn constant help from the Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik^ which is now edited by Edgar Jaffe in association with Werner Sombart and Max Weber.^ We can hardly exaggerate the importance of the work which German Sociologists are doing through the pages of this review. Professor Werner Sombart of Berlin is one of the chief living authorities on international Socialism. He is best known to the wider public by his book entitled Sozialismus und Soziale Bewegung? His learned work, Der moderne Kapitalismus, is necessary for the historical student in the field of modern economics. Prof. Aloys Schulte, in a note to his celebrated book. The Fuggers in Rome^ praises Werner Sombart's study of the great Augsburg banking firm.^ The inspiring influence of Prof. Sombart is felt on every page of the Archiv. In French periodical literature we may mention especi- ally ha Revue Socialiste, edited by Eugene Fourniere, as representing the more moderate tendencies of the party. M. Fourniere is one of the chief contributors to his own magazine. His volumes of essays are well worth reading. In Italy the chief Reformist journal is Critica Sociale, which is published in Milan. This represents the views of Turati and his school, but it also gives a comprehensive survey of the general Socialist movement. We have found in recent numbers, well-informed contributions ^ This review is a new series of the Archi'u fur Soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik. Tubingen. Mohr. 2 Revised and enlarged edition. 1908. Gustav Fischer. Jena. ^ Die Fugger in Rom., vol. i. p. 2, Note. NOTES ON THE LITERATURE 7 on English Parliamentary measures and many excellent reviews. The History of Socialis M For the English historical beginner, Mr. Kirkup's History of Socialism (A. & C. Black, 3rd edition, 1906) is the best manual. It is the fruit of many years of patient study, and its worth may best be appreciated by comparing it with the lectures of Prof. Karl Diehl of Konigsberg, which were published for the first time in 1906, and cover some of the same ground.-^ Dr. John Rae's work. Contemporary Socialism (Son- nenschein), is in its third edition, and carries us to 1900. Clearness of style and fulness of information are its char- acteristics. A popular history to be named with these is Mr. Goddard H. Orpen's translation of Emile de Laveleye's book. The Socialism of To-day (Leadenhall Press). A classical American work is Morris Hillquit's History of Socialism in the United States (Funk & Wagnalls). The historian's task has been accomplished not only on the wider and more general scale, but in the minuter branches of specialism. Workers in the field of German Socialism, tor example, will find constant help from Mr. W. H. Dawson's books, Bismarck and State Socialism and German Socialism and Lassalle (Sonnenschein). Students of Saint Simonism cannot afford to neglect Mr. A. J. Booth or M. Janet. The writings of Prof. Ely are the best for inquirers into the history of the earlier American Socialism who have not time to read the cele- brated books of Noyes and Sartorius von Waltershausen. ^ Ueber Sozialismus, Kommuniimus und Anarchismus, Gustav Fischer. Jena. 1 906, 8 THE NEW SOCIALISM For the history of German Socialism, Mehring is, of course, a standard authority, but for France there has been no adequate successor, in Werner Sombart's opinion, to Lorenz von Stein. We may recommend, however. Prof. Georges Weill's large volume, Histoire du Mouve- ment social en France (i 852-1902). This was published in 1905 by Felix Alcan, Paris. Dr. Weill's careful biblio- graphy gives a long list of works on French social questions published before 1904. The Principles of Socialis M The most scholarly work in our language on the prin- ciples of Socialism is that of Prof. Flint (1894). The first eight chapters of the book were enlarged from papers originally published in Good Words for 1890-91. Prof. Flint mentions in his preface that the series originated in a course of lectures delivered a few winters previously before an audience chiefly of working men. His book provides, especially in the supplementary notes, waymarks to the literature before 1890. Prof. Flint's great work deserves to be better known on the Continent. It is a curious fact that Prof. Masaryk of Prague should suppose that Prof. Flint belongs to the group of English " Chris- tian Socialists," fixing his place, in a bibliography, between the names of the Revs. M. Kaufmann and Stewart D. Headlam. In the department of philosophic Socialist literature, admirable work has been done by the Germans and Italians. To take one name from among many German authors, we find that Masaryk's book. Die philosophischen und soziologischen Grundlagen des Marxismus (Vienna, 1899), is quoted with respectful attention by such a leader NOTES ON THE LITERATURE 9 as M. Vandervelde. The works of the late Prof. Antonio Labriola, of Filippo Turati, S. Merlino, Benedetto Croce, Achille Loria, Eugenio Rignano and Enrico Ferri show the remarkable productivity of Italian Socialist authors of the various schools during recent years. A book which deserves praise among the most recent Italian publica- tion is that of Bonomi, Le Fie Nuove del Socialismo (Remo Sandron, 1907). Attention should also be called to the work of an " Italianized German," Dr. Robert Michels, entitled II Proletariato e la Borghesia nel movimento socialista italiano (Turin, Fratelli Bocca, 1908). A reviewer in Le Mouvement Socialiste for January 1909 remarks that " the book of Michels is without doubt the fullest, the most serious, the most patient study that has been published on the Italian Socialist movement in these later times, whether from the analytical or the psychological point of view." Michels is one of the best-known leaders of Revolutionary Syndicalism. Among the newer Russian writers, the best is Dr. Michael Tugan-Baranowsky, author of Der moderne Sozialismus in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Dres- den, 1908. O. V. Bohmert). Although the St. Petersburg professor's book is not a large one, we have found it singularly instructive. Eduard Bernstein does justice to its merits in a long review which appeared in the Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft in May of the present year. Tugan- Baranowsky proclaims himself a Socialist, though not exactly a Marxian Socialist in the strict sense of the word. As Bernstein says, he looks towards a form of Commun- ism as the ultimate solution. Meanwhile, he thinks that the gradual realization of Socialist principles will be the best way of reaching the goal. He is firmly opposed to lo THE NEW SOCIALISM the catastrophic theory. He believes that all kinds of work ought, under a Socialist state, to receive equal rewards, with the exception of the specially rough and toilful tasks, which should be remunerated on a higher scale. In his opinion, Socialists ought to be ready to draw out the plan of their future state. " Without a clear con- ception of such a State organization," as Bernstein says, " there is no sense in calling oneself a Socialist and in fighting for some unknown end which we call Socialism or Communism." In the field of Constructive Socialism the following books deserve special mention : Le Socialisme a PCEuvre^ edited by Georges Renard; ^ Neue Staatslehre^ by the late Dr. Anton Menger,^ and his small posthumous work Volkspolitik. A very interesting book is that of Lucien Deslinieres, L\4ppUcation du Systeme Collectiviste.^ The smaller books and pamphlets of Georges Renard should not be neglected. They represent the most intelli- gent and ingenious theories of French Reformist Socialism. We may mention the following : Le Regime Socialiste; ^ V Homme est-il lihre? ^ Paroles d'Jvenir; ^ and the well- known series of tracts addressed To Peasants, To Women, To Soldiers, e.tcJ Three very prolific writers who have scattered much of their best work in ephemeral publications are Jean Jaures, Emile Vandervelde and Eduard Bernstein. Etudes Socialistes, by M. Jaures, is a book very widely known. ^ Parts of it have been translated into English. M. Jaures writes constantly in the daily newspaper L^Humanite. ' Paris. Corn6Iy. 1907. 2 jgna, Fischer. ^ Librairie de la Revue Socialiste. 1899. ^ Felix Alcan. ^ 5 game publisher. * Soci6t6 nouvelle de Librairie et d'Edition. 1904. ' Librairie de la Revue Socialiste. ^ Paris. Ollendorff. 1902. 6th edition NOTES ON THE LITERATURE ii A well-written biographical study of Jaures is that of Gustave Tery.-^ M. Vandervelde, the eminent Belgian leader, contributes to all the chief European Socialist reviews. We may recommend especially his volume Essais Socialistes,^ but the student should know as intimately as possible other books and articles. M. Vandervelde is one of the most illustrious living leaders of Socialism. The great work he has done on behalf of the oppressed Congo slaves endears him to English readers. Eduard Bernstein is, in the fullest sense of the word, an international writer. We can hardly take up any Socialist magazine without meeting his name. His most noted book is Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aiifgahen der Sozialdemokratie } A volume of his essays was collected in 1900 under the title Zur Theorie und Geschichte des Socialismus.^ Students of Bernstein should consult a careful article which appeared in the Archiv fUr Sozialwissenschaft for March 1909 under the title, " Neuere Schriften von Eduard Bernstein." It Is from the pen of Dr. David Koigen.^ Bernstein's Dokumente des Sozialismus should not be neglected. The bibliographies and lists of magazine articles are especially useful. On the question of Socialism and Agriculture, a standard work is that of Dr. Eduard David. ^ A formal list of the English works consulted has not been thought necessary, as full references are given In the notes. The indispensable Socialist newspapers are The ' Felix Juven. Paris. ^ Filix Alcan. Paris. 1906. •' 12th thousand. 1906. Stuttgart. * Berlin. Ferd. Diimmler. '' The works reviewed are (l) Par/amentarismus und Sozialdemokratie. 1906 ; (2) Dcr Streik ; sein fVesen und sein Wtrken ; (3) Vols. i. and ii. of Bernstein's Geschichte der Berliner Arheiterbeivegung. 1907. ^ Socialismui und Landwirtschaft. Berlin. 1903. Verlag der So%iaIistiichen Monalshefte. 12 THE NEW SOCIALISM Clarion, the Labour Leader and Justice. The recently- founded Socialist Review is full of interesting matter and is watched with careful attention by its foreign contem- poraries. Much has been gathered from the small, pithy volumes of the Labour Ideal Series, published by Mr. George Allen. We may mention especially The Socialist and the City, by Mr. F. W. Jowett, M.P.; From Serfdom to Socialism, by Mr. Keir Hardie, M.P.; The Socialist's Budget, by Mr. Philip Snowden, M.P.; The Socialist's Church, by the Rev. Stewart D. Headlam; Labour and the Empire, by Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald, M.P., and The Woman Socialist, by Mrs. Snowden. The volumes of the Socialist Library, edited by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald,^ may also be recommended. Mr. Macdonald's own works, especially Socialism and Society (1906) and Socialism (1907),^ should be carefully con- sulted. Under the title, Fabian Socialist Series^ some of the most celebrated of the Fabian tracts have recently been published in revised editions. Socialism and Religion Some of the earlier literature of " Christian Socialism " is out of date. All that was loftiest and purest in the ideals of Maurice and Kingsley has been absorbed into modern Liberalism. Brentano's well-known book on the Christian Socialist movement in England (1883) possesses only an historic interest. This is true also of the writings of such Continental Christian Socialists as Bishop von ^ Independent Labour Party, 23 Bride Lane, E.G. 2 T. C. and E. C. Jack. » A. C. Fifield. NOTES ON THE LITERATURE 13 Ketteler and Canon Moufang. We are surprised, in read- ing such an important book as Nitti's Catholic Socialism^ by the width of the gulf that separates so-called " Social- ism " within the Church of Rome from the ideals of modern social democracy. The most helpful of recent works on Christian Socialism are, for England, that of Mr. A. V. Woodworth,^ and for France that of M. Henri Joly.^ Father Adderley has published ^ Little Primer of Christian Socialism. Paul Gohre's well-known work, Die Evan gelisch-Soziale Bewe- gung, has been translated into English. Dr. Heinrich Meyer-Benfey's FrieJrich Naumann is the most useful of the smaller recent German works. ^ To those, like the writer, who subscribed regularly to Die Hilfe under Naumann's editorship, the little book calls up some happy memories. We may mention also Pastor Martin Wenck's book. Die Geschichte der National- sozialen} A large and important book, written from the general Socialist standpoint, is that published last year by August Erdmann under the title Die Christliche Arheiterhewegung in Deutschland.^ A learned series of articles has recently been appearing in the Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft under the general title, " The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches." ^ The author is Prof. Ernst Troeltsch of Heidelberg, who is known in this country by his studies in Reformation theology. He has discussed in the Archiv the attitude of the Churches towards social questions from the earliest dawn of Christianity. At the time of writing, Prof. ^ Christian Socialism in England. Sonnenscheln. 1903. ^ Le Socialisme Chretien. Hachette. * Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. GSttingen. 1904. '' Buch-verlag der " Hilfe." Berlin. 1905. ^ J. H. W. Dietz Nachf. Stuttgart. 1908. * Die Sozialle/iren der christlichen Kirchen. 14 THE NEW SOCIALISM Troeltsch is entering on the subject of social teaching in the Protestant Churches. Among works of miscellaneous interest which have been helpful to the writer, the following may be mentioned : iJIdee du Juste Prix^ by Alfred de Tarde; -^ Les Systemes Socialistes et P Evolution economique, by Maurice Bour- guin; ^ Le Socialisme en 1907, by Emile Faguet; Aus Meinem Leben^ by A. E. F. Schaeffle ^ (very interesting to those who have read Dr. Schaeffle's well-known books on Socialism); Pamphlets Socialistes, by Paul Lafargue; * Le Determinisme Economique de Karl Marx, by Paul Lafar- gue; ^ Principes Socialistes, by Gabriel Deville; ^ La Lutte pour la Democratie, by Marc Sangnier; ^ Les Democrates Chretiens, by the Abbe Gayraud; ^ L^CEuvre de Mille- rand, by A. Lavy; ^ Travail et Travailleurs, by A. Mil- lerand; ^^ New Worlds for Old, by H. G. Wells; ^^ F. D. Maurice, by C. F. G. Masterman; ^^ Modern Socialism, edited by R. C. K. Ensor (Harpers); La Comedie Social- iste; ^^ La Tyrannie Socialiste; ^* Sophismes socialistes et Fails economique s,^^ all three by Yves Guyot. American Socialism To the Archiv fUr Sozialwissenschaft for 1905 (Vol. XX. pp. 633-703) Werner Sombart contributed a long and important study entitled " Quellen und I^iteratur zum Studium der Arbeiterfrage und des Sozialismus in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika (1902-4). This article, which occupies about seventy pages of the Archiv, deals ^ Felix Alcan. 1907. ^ Armand Colin. 1907. 3rd Edition.- ^ Berlin. 1905. 2 vols. •* Giard et Briire. Paris. 1900. ^ Giard et Bri^re. 1909. ^ Giard et Brifere. 1898. '' Perrin et Cie. Paris. 1908. * yictor LecofFre. Paris. 1899. ^ Paris. Soci^tl Nou-velle de Librairie et d' Edition. 1902. ^^ Charpentier. Paris. 1908. " Constable. 1908. '^ Mowbray. 1907. ^^ Charpentier. 1897. ^"' Ch. Delagrave. Paris. 1895. i"* F^lix Alcan. Paris. 1908. NOTES ON THE LITERATURE 15 with the official publications, the party literature of the trades-unionists, the capitalists who opposed them, the Social Reformers and the Socialists proper. A further section is occupied with American scientific literature on social questions. The student of American Socialism will find in Prof. Sombart's work an indispensable and thoroughly reliable guide. It is no mere formal list of titles. Almost every one of the more important publications mentioned is dis- cussed with the care of a critical expert, and although the period covered is nominally only three years, the author throws light on the whole field of American Socialism. Prof. Sombart praises especially the work of Morris Hill- quit, History of Socialism in the United States. Mr. Hillquit, in his view, is a worthy successor to Sartorius von Waltershausen and S. Cognetti de Martiis. Along with this essay we may mention Werner Som- bart's short work, Warum giht es in den Vereinigten Staaten keinen Sozialismus? ^ Among this year's American books the following de- serve special praise : Socialism in Theory and Practice, by Morris Hillquit; ^ Socialism, by John Spargo,^ and Social- ists at Work, by Robert Hunter.^ The writer has found special pleasure in reading Robert Hunter's new book. The International Socialist Review of Chicago is well conducted and keeps its readers in touch with the European developments of Socialism. Australasian Socialism Students of Australian economic progress will find the most reliable statistics in the recently published Official ^ Tilbingen. Mohr. ^ Macmillan. 1909. ^ Macmillan. 1909. * Macmillan. 1909. 1 6 THE NEW SOCIALISM Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia (i 901— 1908; No. II., 1909), edited by Mr. G. EI. Knibbs, the Com- monwealth statistician. This is the latest work which the writer has obtained from official sources. The preface is dated March 31, 1909. The New Zealand Official Yearbook (latest edition, 1908) has a chapter on the "Labour Laws of the Dominion," and the Journal of the Department of Labour^ issued under the direction of the lion. A. W. Hogg (1909), should also be consulted. In this field we must once more acknowledge our in- debtedness to the Archiv. In 1907 two articles appeared under the signature of " Kathe Lux " which deal fully with the literature from 1890 to 1905. The title of the articles is " Arbeiterbewegung und Arbeiterpolitik in Australasien von 1890 bis 1905." The Socialist literature is carefully included. In 1908 Dr. Robert Schachner con- tributed to the Archiv instructive papers on Australian labour questions.-^ A standard book is that of William Pember Reeves, State Experiments in Australia and Nezv Zealand? The student should consult also Democracy versus Socialism^ by Max Hirsch (Melbourne);^ Newest Eng- land^ by Henry Demarest Lloyd,* and La Democratic en Nouvelle-Zelande, by Andre Siegfried.^ The frankness of this French writer may be judged by the fact that he entitles one of his chapters, " Le Snobisme dans la Societe Neo-Zelandaise." Dr. Victor S. Clark's book. The Labour Movement in Australasia,^ is accepted by Australasians as an authorita- tive work. ^ Schiedsgerichte und Lohnausschiisse in Australien. ^ Grant Richards. 1902. '^ Macmillan. 1901. ■* Gay and Bird. 1902. * Armand Colin. Paris. 1904. ' Constable. 1906. NOTES ON THE LITERATURE 17 A very interesting new book is that of Mr. A. St. Ledger, Australian Socialism.^ The writer desires to thank Australian Socialist editors who have supplied, for the purpose of this book, news- papers which are not easily accessible in Eng;land. The Literature of Syndicalism Although the movement known as " Revolutionary Syndicalism " has grown up in France and Italy during the last ten years only, it has already an extensive litera- ture. The views of its leaders are expressed most fully and ably in Le Mouvement Socialist e, Prof. Hubert Lagardelle's magazine. During the years 1 899-1 904, Le Mouvement Socialiste was a general Socialist review; since 1904 it has been the organ of the extremist opinions put forward by Georges Sorel and his school. Among the contributors have been Edouard Berth, Dr. Robert Michels, Arturo Labriola, Enrico Leone, Victor Griffuelhes and Emile Pouget. A corresponding, though less important, Italian publica- tion is the Divenire Sociahy which was founded in Rome in 1905 by Enrico Leone. An authority on Italian Syn- dicalism, Giuseppe Prezzolini, complains that Leone's organ, as compared with Lagardelle's, is out of direct touch with the working-classes. Various articles from Le Mouvement Socialiste have appeared in Italian transla- tions in the Divenire Sociale. The work of Robert Michels may be found in both periodicals. Arturo Labriola's journalistic writings appear chiefly in the Pagine Libere, Lugano, but he, like Lagardelle, * Macmillan. i 909. 1 8 THE NEW SOCIALISM scatters his work very widely. Among the most interest- ing of recent essays on Syndicalism were those published in 1908 by Lagardelle in the Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft under the title "Die syndikalistische Bewegung in Frank- reich." Georges Sorel's writings, especially his Reflexions sur la Violence and L.a Decomposition du Marxisme deserve attentive reading. Sorel is almost worshipped by the rank and file of Syndicalists. Prezzolini, whose book, La Teoria Sindacalista (1909), contains a careful examination of Sorel's teaching, says that by the unanimous admission of friends and opponents he is " capo-scuola, messia, pro- feta^ maestro del sindacalismo franco-italianoP Sorel himself owed much to Fernand Pelloutier, the most able organizer of the working-classes that modern France has produced. Pelloutier's opinions approached very near to Anarchism. Like many of the extremer Socialists, he sprang from the middle classes. Tributes to his work may be found in Sorel's writings; and his celebrated book, Histoire des Bourses du Travail, has profoundly influenced later writers on French working- class movements. Pelloutier died in the early prime of life amid great bodily affliction (March 1901). Sorel con- tributed a preface to his History of the Labour Exchanges, which appeared posthumously in 1902. The name of Fernand Pelloutier suggests that of Leon de Seilhac, whose volume, Syndicats ouvriers. Federations, Bourses du Travail (1902), will be found helpful by the student; and that of Daniel Halevy, author of Essais sur le Mouvement ouvrier en France (1901). These books are written in a calm, impartial spirit, and are rich in trustworthy information. NOTES ON THE LITERATURE 19 The small red volumes belonging to the Bibliotheque du Mouvement Socialist e (Marcel Riviere) should not be neglected. These are chiefly reprints from the magazine. Among those which deserve special mention are No. I., Syndicalisme et Socialisme^ to which most of the leaders contribute; No. II., La Confederation GenSrale du Travail^ by ]£mile Pouget; No. IV., UAction Syndicaliste, by Victor Griffuelhes, and No. VI., Les Nouveaux Aspects du Socialisme, by E. Berth. Sorel's small book, mentioned above, La Decomposition du Marxisme, also belongs to this series (No. III.). A very helpful volume is Lagardelle's collection of articles, etc., reprinted from his magazine, under the title La Greve Generale et le Socialisme : Enquete Inter- nationale (Paris. Cornely). Among recent Italian contributions to the subject, several are mentioned by Prezzolini in his excellent bibliography.^ These include : // Sindacalismo, by E. Leone (1905); Che cosa e il Sindacalismo ? by E. Leone (1907); Riforme e Rivoluzione Sociale, by A. Labriola (1906); // Sindacalismo, by O. Dinale (1905). An excellent and very learned work on the general strike is that of Dr. Elsbeth Georgi, Theorie und Praxis des Generalstreiks in der modernen Arheiterhewegung (Fischer. Jena. 1908). It is highly praised by Bernstein in the Archiv (May 1909, pp. 809-811). Dr. Georgi coins the word Klassenstreik to summarize the many varied conceptions of the general strike, but her choice of this expression does not meet with Herr Bernstein's approval. We may mention further Mermeix's book, Le Syndical- La Teoria Sindacalista. 1909. Naples. Francesco Perrella. C 2 20 THE NEW SOCIALISM isme contre le Socialismey^ and that of Paul Louis, Histoire du Mouvement Syndical en France (1907).^ From all of these much useful information may be gathered. ^ Readers of Mermeix's works must be on their guard against occasional blunders and misprints. For instance, he always refers to Fernand Pelloutier as "Frederic" Pelloutier. He names the author of Neivs from Noivhere as " Charles Morice " {sic). '^ Paul Louis is a trustworthy writer on many phases of Socialism. CHAPTER I SOCIALISM IN transition: obsolete theories It is the fashion to say that Marxian Socialism is dead, and time has certainly proved its most destructive critic. Stone after stone, Werner Sombart remarks, was taken out of the stately building, a whole army of moles had long been undermining the soil beneath it, and it fell at last in a night, silently as the Campanile of Venice.-^ We are apt to forget that this great change in the atti- tude of Socialists towards some of the doctrines of Marx and Engels has been of comparatively recent growth. The spirit of moderation has been slowly spreading in all European countries since the historic Erfurt Congress of 1 89 1, when the German Socialists definitely broke with the more revolutionary section of the party. But it was not till 1897 that Eduard Bernstein raised his voice in a bold and far-reaching criticism of certain Marxian theories. As the close personal friend and literary heir of Engels, as a journalist of commanding ability who had lived much in England and Switzerland and was accustomed to ex- amine all political questions from the international stand- point, Bernstein had at that time, and has still, a lars^e following among the Social Democrats of Germany. He set out his criticisms in Karl Kautsky's magazine. Die Neue Zeity through which the pure spirit of Marx had for ^ Sozialismus und Soaiale Bezuegung, p. 72, edition of 1908. 21 22 THE NEW SOCIALISM fifteen years been distilled. Bernstein's articles, which were republished in the following year in book form,^ created an immense sensation in Germany, and their influence is seen in almost every work on Socialism which has appeared since 1898. In the introduction to his hardly less famous reply, Bernstein and the Social Democratic Programme,'^ Kautsky says that Bernstein's book was the first sensational work which German Socialism had pro- duced. Sensational it may well have appeared to orthodox Marxians of twelve years ago, for it subjected the old doo^mas to a relentless criticism based on the facts of modern economic experience. Bernstein's long contro- versy with Kautsky may be followed in its later develop- ments in the collected volume of his essays, On the Theory and History of Socialisniy^ and in innumerable magazine articles. In a rejoinder to Kautsky which appeared in For- wdrts in October 1899, he represents his opponent as sorrowing over his downfall in Ophelia's words on Hamlet — " O, what a noble mind is here o'er-thrown ! " And he defends himself in Hamlet's words to Guilden- stern — "I am but mad north-north-west ; when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw." ^ What were the principles on which Bernstein and others have brought powerful criticism to bear, and which would now be ranked by many Socialists as more or less obsolete theories ? 1 The title is Die Voraussetz.ungen des Sozialismus und die Aujgahen der Sozia/demokratie. The edition of 1906 is marked : Twelfth thousand. 2 Stuttgart. 1899. 3 Fourth edition, 1904. ■* Zur Theorie und Geschichte des Socialismus, Part III., p. 150. OBSOLETE THEORIES 23 The Theory of a sudden upheaval of society by way of social revolution} Marx and Engels, it must be remembered, were borne away on the gale of revolutionary passion. They were wandering, disinherited souls, who were dreaming for themselves and humanity of " a Paradise Lost and a Paradise Regained." ^ The fall of mankind, in their view, was accomplished with the earliest acquisition of private property, and they imagined that the victory of Socialism would restore an Eden bliss, undisturbed by fightings without or within, a high eternal noon of peace and prosperity.^ They fancied that this blissful state would be in- augurated by a terrible revolution in which the disinherited and down-trodden masses would conquer and overthrow their oppressors, taking back for the common enjoyment of mankind all that private property which had been unrighteously acquired by individuals. The practical effect of such teaching, as Bernstein saw, was to paralyze humanity on its path of progress. Just as in the year A.D. 1000 men expected the end of the world and paused from common industry, so the watchers for the Marxian 1 The expressions Zusammenbruchstheorle and KatastropJientheorie will be familiar to students of the Bernstein-Kautsky controversy. ' Werner Sombart, op. cit. p. 74. ^ Werner Sombart says on this point : " Do not forget that they (Marx and Engels) drew up their doctrines amidst the thunder of the battles of revolution. . . . Think how full a measure of wrath and hate must have gathered itself within the souls of these emigrants, who through all their lives had experienced nothing but mockery, scoffing, hatred, contempt and persecution from their powerful opponents. Try to realize what a supernatural amount of self-discipline and self-control they must have needed if they were not, at every chance that offered, to bite the hated enemy in the calf." — Op. cit. p. 75, 24 THE NEW SOCIALISM revolution stood gazing up into the clouds. Bernstein says : "I have opposed the view that we are approaching a break-up of the present bourgeois society, which may be expected in tlie near future : and that Social Democrats should determine their tactics by the expectation of such a great social catastrophe or make them relatively dependent upon it." II The Theory that Capital is rapidly being concentrated in a few handsy with the result that the masses are becoming more and more impoverished. The Communist Manifesto was published while Eng- land was still in the " hungry forties," and while Europe was passing through the agony of revolution. Marx was an impassioned sympathizer with the people's cause. In his view the suffering of the myriad toilers dominated all the past and future. He heard a cry from the people like that of Simeon Stylites on his pillar — " I think that I have borne as much as this — Or else I dream, — and for so long a time, If I may measure time by yon slow light And this high dial, which my sorrow crowns — So much — even so." Marx did not see the slow light dawning upon the horizon. He saw the rich growing richer and the poor poorer, until the tortured millions rose in desperation against their oppressors and achieved freedom amidst fire and blood. Bernstein pointed out, in opposition to Marx, that in the fifty years which had elapsed since the publication of OBSOLETE THEORIES 25 the Manifesto, the number of capitalists, far from dimin- ishing, had steadily increased, and that every new capital- ist, on however small a scale, became, by the fact of his having something to lose, a recruit to the ranks of the property-holders in the " war of classes." Bernstein's opponents point to the growth of trusts and the tendency towards the swallowing up of small busi- nesses as proof that Marx was a true prophet. Kautsky complains of " short-breathed criticism " of the master, and believes that time will justify his teaching. That Marx and Engels were completely out in their time- reckoning nobody can deny. A profound and gloomy fatalism governed their philosophy. They believed that the economic and social revolution was controlled by an in- exorable necessity, that "high, uno'erleaped mountains" hemmed man in on every side, leaving him but a narrow margin for free action. They foreshadowed a growth of misery, oppression, serfdom, degeneration and exploita- tion. The artisan, instead of rising with the progress of industry, was to sink to pauperism, and pauperism was to develop more quickly than population and riches. From pauperism was to be engendered the spirit of revolt, till at last " the hour of capitalistic property strikes, and the expropriators are themselves expropriated." ^ But, as Prof. Sombart remarks, after quoting figures to show the steady increase in the number of capitalists during recent years, " the nearer we get to the moment of the break-up of the capitalistic system, the more ' expro- priators ' we see swarming around. The business of expropriation will always grow harder! " The acknowledgment that Marx had erred on points 1 It has been pointed out that Marx's theory of the concentration of capital was borrowed from Louis Blanc, 26 THE NEW SOCIALISM of such vital importance meant the vanishing of the doctrine of a scientific Socialism.-^ Marx and Engels fancied that they could put a new science in the place of the vague dreams of Utopian thinkers. They failed, because there can be no invariable laws governing the Socialist movement. " The believing Marxist," writes Werner Sombart, " learned to understand that faith, whether religious or political, must not seek its justification in any scientific truth, and that the refutation of a scientific theory cannot penetrate into those deep places in which faith is anchored — into the depths of the heart, where our ideals and our final judgments rest. He understood that the strength of Socialism cannot possibly be rooted in the scientific theses of individual men, even if these men were Marx and Engels, but only in the fulness of passion, in the will for action, which are ever born anew at the sight of the imperfect state of this world, as compared with our ideal longings and demands."^ Ill The Theory that Socialism must necessarily he in antagonism to religion. At the Erfurt Congress of 1891 it was declared that religious belief was a private concern for the individual, with which Socialism, as such, had nothing to do. The question of the relationship between Socialism and religion will occupy us in a later chapter. It is admitted by most of the great non-Christian Socialist writers of the Con- tinent that a remarkable change has taken place. ^ On the question of a scientific Socialism we may quote the words of Bernstein in his essay, fVie ist ivhsetisc/iaftlic/ier Sozialismus mdgUch ? " I may summarize my views in these words : There is as much scientific Socialism possible as is necessary — that is to say, as much as can reasonably be demanded from the doctrines of ^ movement which aims at creating fundamentally new things." — P. 38. ^ Op. cit. p. 99. OBSOLETE THEORIES 27 For many of the elder Socialists the world seemed to be dominated by a fierce imperial eagle, whose two heads — capital and religion — must be struck off before humanity could flourish. Now it is recognized that Socialism and religion have no more to do with each other than Socialism and science. Werner Sombart says : "At the present day, fundamentally hostile views about religion are to be heard only in the circles of half-educated Socialists." ^ The late Prof. Antonio Labriola wrote that Socialists had more useful and more serious work to do than to be mixing themselves up with followers of Blanqui and Bakunin, " who decreed the abolition of the Divine and guillotined the Almighty in effigy." ^ The eminent Italian thinker was himself an unbeliever, and argued that the men of the future would abandon all supernatural religion, accepting the ancient formula. Primus in orbe deos fecit timor — It was fear which first made gods in the world. But he did not wish Socialists to embark on an infidel propaganda. The " Los-von-Marx " (away from Marx) movement becomes yearly more apparent in certain circles. We should, however, be making a grave mistake if we imag- ined that the critics of the master are deserters from the cause. Kautsky may have had some justification for his statement that Bernstein's Socialism is only the complete development of Liberalism,^ but the main body of Socialist thinkers desire the ultimate ends towards which Marx pointed, not the less earnestly because they have ceased to repeat his words with superstitious reverence. His errors, they believe, belong to that class of eschatological ' op. cit. p. 1 01. 2 Socialisme ct Philowfhie, p. i8l. ^ Bernstein und das Soaialdemokratische Programing p. 182. 28 THE NEW SOCIALISM miscalculations to which the prophets and apostles of all ages have been liable. The central mass of dogma remains unaffected in their view because " we who are alive and remain " may not hope to enter into the full inheritance. The personality of Marx bulks more largely before the world to-day than when he died in March, 1883. CHAPTER II THE GENERAL PROGRAMME OF SOCIALISM The best starting-point for the student of latter-day Socialism is the year 1898, when the ancient texts were revised with keenest scrutiny after the jubilee of the Com- munist Manifesto. In that year, while English Socialists were reading Bohm-Bawerk's shrewd criticisms of Marxian economics/ while Bernstein was inaugurating the " Los- von-Marx " movement, and Vandervelde was echoing Bernstein, the voice of a distinguished French thinker, Georges Sorel, was heard proclaiming the doctrine of a " return to Marx." In his preface to Merlino's work on The Forms and Essence of Socialism,^ M. Sorel remarked that the acquisition of political power had profoundly modified Socialist thought and action, but that the essential aims had not been altered. " The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life " was at that moment the guiding word of such leaders as Sorel and Merlino. " A return to Marx," wrote M. Sorel, " appears to me to be the watch- word for this moment." ^ In later chapters we shall show that Georges Sorel is ^ Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, an Austrian ex-Minister of Finance, and Professor of Political Economy in the University of Vienna, published in 1896 a small volume entitled Zum Abschlua des Marxschen Systems, a translation of which was brought out in 1898 by Mr. Fisher Unwin, under the title, Karl Marx and the Close of his System. Bohm-Bawerk was, strictly speaking, the predecessor of Bernstein, and his work, within its narrower range, was felt to be conclusive. 2 Formes et Essence du Socialisme, par Saverio Merlino. Paris. 1898. ^ P. xxxix of the Preface to Merlino's book. 29 30 THE NEW SOCIALISM the true philosophic leader of the French and Italian move- ment towards an extreme form of Socialism, which we know by the name of " Revolutionary Syndicalism." Nietzsche's phrase, " A new valuation of all the values," might be the motto of Socialism in 1909. It is increas- ingly understood, for instance, that the moral aspect of Socialism is more important than the material aspect. " Socialism," says a French writer, " may be compared to the Christianity of the first centuries. Like the Christian Church in the age before Constantine, it refuses to accept any of the solutions given by official civilization." The Socialist of to-day does not count too eagerly on events of the near future, for he knows that economic conditions, and even moral ideas, undergo changes with the lapse of time. But he feels, as profoundly as Marx and Engels did, that a catastrophe of some kind threatens our flourish- ing society, though, unlike them, he does not expect a revolution amidst fire and bloodshed.-^ Dr. John Rae goes somewhat too far, in our opinion, when he suggests that with many of the younger leaders the work of social reform is itself regarded as the social revolution they desire. It is true, as Bebel said, that Socialists are a progressive party and have undergone moultings, but through all changes there persists the deter- mination to take property out of the hands of its present owners into the hands of the State, and that change in- volves a gradual revolution. Mr. Keir Hardie's words would be echoed by all his comrades — ^ We must distinguish clearly, with all the recent writers on Socialism, between "violent" revolutions and revolutions brought about by the process of gradual change, and carried through, nominally at least, by legal methods. " It is doubtful if any of the violent revolutions of history might not have been averted," writes Dr. Flint, " by timely and gradual reforms." On this point, Bernstein and Socialists of his school would probably agree with Dr. Flint. THE GENERAL PROGRAMME 31 " In one form or another public must be substituted for private ownership of land and capital. Whether this result is to be attained by State Socialism, or by free voluntary association, like our co-operative movement, or, as seems most likely, by a combina- tion of both, is a point upon which a healthy difference of opinion may exist 5 but the difference concerns the method to be employed, not the end itself, upon which all are agreed, viz. that the useful classes must own the tools wherewith they labour, and be free to enjoy the full produce of their labour." ^ Socialists who have abandoned the catastrophic theory might be willing, we should naturally suppose, to accept gradual changes by way of social reform. The wisest are willing; but even they accept the scanty doles only as an earnest of further gains. Such leaders as Karl Kautsky warn the workers earnestly against the danger of overestimating the value of social reform. Kautsky advises the workin2;-men to look closely at any social reforms which are offered them, for, as he adds, " nine- tenths of the proposals for reform are not only useless, but are directly injurious to the exploited masses." ^ In this sentence we have a summary of the teaching of Socialist leaders at home who wish to dissuade the working- men from voting with the Liberals. Granted, they say, that there is to be no revolution in the ordinary sense of the word, the dawn of revolution does not break through eastern windows only, and the only eyes which will miss it are those that refuse to open. To such minds as ^ From Serfdom to Socialism, pp. 95, 96. ^ £)(?t Erfurter Programm, edition of 1 907, p. 1 07. Though an orthodox Marxian on most points, Kautsky is an evolutionist in his preference for peaceful action. The great change, he says, is in no way necessarily bound up with acts of violence. Dr. Flint's objection to Littr6's definition of Socialism in his dictionary still holds good. Littr6 defined Socialism as "a system which, regarding political reforms as of subordinate importance, offers a plan of social reform." "This is," says Dr. Flint, "to identify Socialism with social reform, than which nothing can be more inaccurate. Socialism generally claims to be social revolution, and not merely social reform." — Socialism, p. 15. 32 THE NEW SOCIALISM Kautsky's, every offer of amelioration is like a narcotic pressed to the lips of waking men. The merchants of the Valley of Diamonds, who picked up a few chance gems from the eagles' nests, saw with amazement the rich booty of Sinbad, who had actually been in the valley. Socialists of Kautsky's school fill their bags half contemptuously with the jewels of Liberal legislation, while their eyes are peering all the while over the cliffs to the inaccessible places where the real treasures are Iving;. As might be expected, thera are endlessly varying opinions in the party with regard to social reform. To some, it is a bait for vote-catching; to others, a trap to ensnare the wealthy, whose opposition is counted on as a means of increasing the hostility between them and the workers. Yet another view was expressed by the Socialist deputies to the Reichstag in their report to the Berlin Congress of 1892 : "What can be got for working-men by Parliamentary action is a mere viaticum to sustain them on the march forward, a mere instalment, which serves to furnish the proletariat with a little more of the means of battle which they require in order to fulfil their historical mission." Between the true Socialists and those whom they con- temptuously call " \es bons soctalistes " there is now, as ever, a deep gulf fixed. Kautsky describes the social re- formers as quacks who pretend that they can cure in a few days, without pain and without expense, the most deeply-seated social maladies.-^ It is not any foolish intransigeance which leads some chieftains of Socialism to view with scornful and suspicious eyes the measures of Liberal Governments. These men 1 Das Erfurter Programm, f. 105. THE GENERAL PROGRAMME 33 believe that our present economic conditions must undergo a radical change before the enslaved millions can be set free. The idea of a modern slavery is profoundly rooted in the ideas of the great Socialist thinkers. The late Dr. Anton Menger, who was, like Antonio Labriola, hostile to the Christian faith, confessed that the first effort to uplift the down-trodden multitudes which won at least an out- ward success was the development of Christianity.-^ He argued, however, that the condition of the Roman Empire was unfavourable to the acceptance of Christian social doctrines. " If we consider that at that time one man held despotic sway over the entire known world, that everywhere throughout the Roman Empire there was a comparatively small number of freemen amidst a vast multitude of slaves, that even the free citizens were divided into classes which included the over- whelmingly rich and the penniless, we can feel no surprise that the primitive Christians lost courage to set themselves against such an ocean of wrong and violence, and to win for the poor their rights even in this vi^orld. For that reason, and because the miraculous return of Christ did not take place, the Kingdom of God, for which they had been striving, was very soon postponed to a life beyond the grave, in which human destinies were to be justly balanced." ^ The thought of the burdens of the people weighs as heavily on modern Socialists as on the ancient prophets of Israel. So-called economic freedom is, in many cases, a mere delusion. The slave and the villein of old days were cherished even for selfish motives by the master, who, if not a madman, would naturally wish to preserve his own goods and chattels. The slave, passing from hand to hand, was sure of his livelihood, because it was in the interest of successive masters to feed, clothe and shelter him. The ^ Neuc Staatskhre, p. 4, '^ Ibid. p. 4. D 34 THE NEW SOCIALISM free labourer, who possesses none of the means of pro- duction, stands helplessly in the market-place. Rodbertus wrote words which modern optimists cannot refute — " The personal freedom of to-day is for most men no more than a continuous dependence on the individual will of others, the individual morality of others — dependence on the will and moral character of the owners of land and capital ; service, subordination." Though it is true that the workers are in the mass acquiring more wealth than they once had, Dr. Menger and other thinkers point out that vast multitudes in the twentieth century are in no way better off — they may be worse off — than the slave or the feudal vassal. Such writers scoff, and with good reason, at the idea that the French Revolution brought any liberation to the pro- letariat. It was essentially an uprising of the middle classes against the aristocracy. The " Haves " gained, the " Have-nots " continued to wear the chains which at the best were newly gilded. ■"■ ^ Thus Dr. Menger says : " Die okonomischen Fesseln, ivelche die besitzlosen Volksklassen driickten, iviirden nur neu bemalt, nicht gehrochen " — The economic fetters which pressed upon the non-propertied classes of the people were only newly painted, not broken. — Neue Staatslehre, p. 5. Mr. Ramsay Macdonald says : "The speeding up of machinery and the increase in the rapidity of work compel the labourer to give more and more of himself in the service for which he receives wages ; the liberties which he theoretically enjoys when he is not in the factory or at the bench, become, in consequence, of diminishing value and reality : the absence of the slave's claim upon his master for shelter becomes a greater and more pressing grievance. His /ife is spent in servitude." — Socialism, p. 15. Jules Guesde is an extremist, but his words in this connection are worth noting : "Ninety-nine hundredths of the human race are reduced to a state of virtual, if not nominal slavery. They exist only for the sake of others, and only so far as it is for the interest of others that they should exist. When I speak of slavery, I keep well within the mark, for the slave of olden times, who represented a monetary value because he had to be bought, had as much right to be supported and maintained by his master as the horses, oxen and other animils, which provided the means of use or enjoyment." — Collccti'visme et Rcuolution. De Quincey's words on the opium-eating of Coleridge might be applied to the servitude of humanity, as Socialists conceive it ; " Still at intervals, through the gloomy THE GENERAL PROGRAMME 35 Mr. Chiozza Money has estimated that the national income of the United Kingdom is divided with startling inequality. The population is roughly estimated at 43,000,000, and the income at ^1,710,000,000, but of this sum ;^5 8 5,000,000 is absorbed by ij millions of the rich, ^245,000,000 by 3f millions of the comfortable, while the remaining ^880,000,000 is divided amongst 38 million people. The terrible facts of unemployment in the United Kingdom, as given by Mr. Chiozza Money, show that the workman is ruthlessly " made to bear the chief burden of bad trade," and that " even in the best years there is always a surplus of unemployed labour." Even in the case of highly-skilled workmen uncertainty eats away the energies. Twenty shillings and sixpence was estimated as the average weekly wages of the manual workers in 1903, and in the workers' wage-earning year from six to ten weeks at least are lost through sickness, bad weather or accident. Socialists can derive little satisfaction from a comparison of the present industrial conditions with those of forty years ago. " We see that the average wage has risen," writes Mr. Chiozza Money, " but also that it now amounts to but ^^45 per annum. We see that prices have fallen, but remember that in 1905 one- third of our population, in spite of lower prices, have not sufficient means to command a proper supply of the common necessaries of existence." " We say," writes Mr. Blatchford, replying to Lord vigih of his prison, you hear muttered growls of impotent mutineering swelling upon the breeze — ' Irasque leonum Vincla recusantum' — recuiantum, it is true, still refusing, yet still accepting, protesting for ever against the fierce, overmastering curb-chain, yet for ever submitting to receive it into the mouth," D 2 36 THE NEW SOCIALISM Balfour of Burleigh, " that there ought not to be any poor, and that there need not be any poor; and that there would not be any poor if our Christians were not infidels and our wealthy classes were not hogs." ^ Socialists are determined not to acquiesce in the deterior- ation of multitudes of the working classes under the pre- sent capitalist system. It may be useful to recall here the points of reform fixed upon by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto as the programme for the most civilized countries. (i) Abolition of property in land, and the application of ground rents to public purposes. (2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (3) Abolition of all rights of inlieritance. (4) Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels. (5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank, with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. (7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing of waste lands into cultivation, and the improvement of the soil generally. (8) The equal obligation upon all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (9) Combination of agriculture with the manufacturing in- dustries, etc. (id) Free education for children in public schools, and the abolition of child-labour in factories, etc. The immediate aim of Socialism to-day is more com- prehensively expressed than in the Communist Manifesto. Its cardinal principle is that the State should take out of private ownership the means of production, distribution and exchange. This single sentence contains the quint- essence of the creed drawn up at Socialist Congresses. The workers, as Socialists believe, can be lifted out of ^ Clarion, February 28, 1908. THE GENERAL PROGRAMME 37 their present misery only by the establishment of a *' demo- cratic Work-State." This policy has its destructive and its constructive side, destructive in its schemes for getting rid of the present capitalist society, constructive in the regulations already foreshadowed for the new order. The first and greatest problem of destructive Socialism is that of dispossessing the present owners of property. CHAPTER III SOCIALISTS AND EXPROPRIATION Eduard Bernstein complains, with good reason, that Socialists of his school are constantly thwarted in argu- ment by critics of the type of Mrs. Wilfer, in Our Mutual Friend} Our readers will remember that Mrs. Wilfer, on hearing of Bella's engagement to John Rokesmith, remarks to cherubic Pa, " Your daughter Bella has bestowed herself upon a Mendicant." After explanations, Mr. Wilfer says — " ' Would you object to my pointing out, my dear, that Mr. Rokesmith is not (so far as I am acquainted with him), strictly speaking, a Mendicant.' " ' Indeed,' returned Mrs. Wilfer, with an awful air of politeness. ' Truly so ? I was not aware that Mr. John Rokesmith was a gentleman of landed property. But I am much relieved to hear it.' " ' I doubt if you have heard it, my dear,' the Cherub submitted with hesitation. " ' Thank you," said Mrs. Wilfer. ' I make false statements, it appears. So be it. If my daughter flies in my face, surely my husband may. The one thing is not more unnatural than the other. There seems a fitness in the arrangement. By all means ! ' — assuming, with a show of resignation, a deadly cheerfulness." 1 The passage is worth giving in the original. " Der grosse englische Humorist Dickens hat in einem seiner Romane diese Art zu disputiren sehr gut charakterisirt. ' Deine Tochter hat einen Bettler geheirathet,' sagt eine, in diirftigen Verhaltnissen lebende, etwas gross-spurige Dame zu ihrem Manne, und als dieser ihr erwidert, der neue Schwiegersohn sei doch nicht gerade ein Bettler, erhalt er die vernichtende sarkastische Antwort : So? Ich wijsste nicht, dass er grosse Liegenschaften besitzt," — Die Vorausset^ungen des Soizialismus, pp. 172, 173. 38 SOCIALISTS AND EXPROPRIATION 39 Impartial students of Socialism know the Mrs. Wilfers, and agree with Bernstein that there is nothing to be done with them. They are the people who, on hearing that Socialists mean to touch property, cry in agonized tones : " Even needles must cease to be private possessions." ^ No man under Socialism could be allowed to possess a spade or a hammer. Every tool must be taken from the communal tool-house. *^' If a man wanted to nail up a picture in his own room — assuming that he was allowed to call any room his own — he would have to make applica- tion at the Town Hall for the temporary use of a hammer and the permanent grant of one brass-headed nail." " There seems a fitness in the arrangement. By all means! " Now it is perfectly true, and the fact cannot be too clearly acknowledged, that Socialism does mean to touch property. Herein lies its chief distinction from the old Radicalism. Mermeix observes very truly that the Roman senators, seated on their curule chairs, were not more scandalized when the comrades of Brennus pulled their beards than were Radicals when voices were raised in criticism of the rights of individual property.^ The true feeling of Socialists as regards the present capitalistic system may be gathered from innumerable pas- sages in their latest writings. Karl Kautsky says : " Continuance in capitalistic civil- ization is impossible; we must either go forward to Social- ism or backward to barbarism." ^ In another passage he remarks : " The even more press- 1 Article by Mr. Harold Cox, M.P., in Daily Mail Tear Book for 1908, p. 68. 2 Le Socialismc. 1907. 4th edition. (Ollendorff) pp. 7, 8. Mermeix takes as the motto of his book the saying of Marx : " Our teaching may be summed up in this proposition — the abolition of private property." He says : " Pour quiconque nc veut pas abolir la propriete privee, il n'y a pas de question sociale." •* Das Erfurter Programm, p. 137. 40 THE NEW SOCIALISM ing necessity of economic development is to replace the private right of property in the means of production by co-operative possession." ^ Mr. Keir Hardie writes — "Socialism says to the worker, It is not the State which holds you in bondage, it is the private monopoly of those means of life without which you cannot live, and until you make these means of life the common property and inheritance of all you can never hope to escape from your bondage. The economic object of Socialism, therefore, is to make land and industrial capital common property, and to cease to produce for the profit of the landlord and the capitalist, and to begin to produce for the use of the community.'"^ Mr. Ramsay Macdonald says — " The nationalization of production is just as necessary to democracy — and just as inevitable, if democracy is to mature into fulness — as the nationalization of the sovereign authority by the suppression of the personal right of kings to rule. We must look upon production as a national function, and not as a task assigned to a class of separate individuals pursuing their own ends." 3 Dr. Menger says — " This transference of the rights of property from the indi- vidual to a narrower or wider community must be regarded as the characteristic point of the social programme. By this Socialism is clearly differentiated from the efforts of the merely reforming parties, who wish only to improve the traditional order of things while maintaining its principles intact." ^ Mr. H. G. Wells says— " Collective ownership is the necessary corollary of collective responsiilbity. There are to be no private landowners, no private ^ Das Erfurter Programm, p. 112. 2 From Serfdom to Socialism, p. 9. George Allen. 1907. ^ Socialism, pp. 83, 84. T. C. and E. C. Jack. 1907. ■* Neue Siaatslehre, p. 24. SOCIALISTS AND EXPROPRIATION 41 bankers and lenders of money, no private insurance adventurers, ro private railway owners nor shipping owners, no private mine owners, oil kings, silver kings, coal and wheat forestallers, or the like. All this realm of property is to be resumed by the State — is to be State owned and State managed." ^ In the view of modern leaders there are two kinds of property — the non-socializable and the socializable. Social- ists do not propose to touch property which is required for necessary personal consumption. The Property that Socialists do not Claim for the State The word Property, it is often said, has been used in nearly as many senses as the word Law. Socialists divide the things in which property rights may exist into means of production and means of consumption. Their practical aim is to secure the ownership of the means of production for the community and of the means of consumption for the individual. This central purpose is so clearly brought out in the recent international Socialist literature that only wilful ignorance, we are tem.pted to think, explains the " spade and needle terrorism " of the Mrs. Wilfer school. Mr. Graham Wallas speaks for the most thoughtful Socialist teachers in all countries when he says : " Men are as yet more fit for association in production with a just distribution of its rewards, than for association in the con- sumiption of the wealth produced." ^ It is Collectivism, not Communism, which the new Socialists desire. The fullest and simplest discussion of the subject is contained in a book recently edited by M. Georges Renard, 1 Neiv Worlds for Old, p. 89. Constable. 1908. 2 Socialism. Edited by G. Bernard Shaw. Essay on " Property under Socialism." 42 THE NEW SOCIALISM L.e Socialisme a VCEwvre -^ [Socialism at Work']. No mod- erate Socialist, as this book shows, desires to apply the principle of etatisation to the objects of personal use. M. Renard and his collaborators write in the same strain as Mr. Wells in a recent volume — "We must not suppose that all possessions can be socialized. There is a very important class of possessions which, by their very nature, are destined to remain always private property. These include, amongst the possessions which satisfy the needs of men, such property as perishes, either at once or in a comparatively short time, even as it does so. To this class belong food, clothing, etc." ^ All this "consumable property" lies, even for the ex- tremer modern thinkers, outside the range of Proudhon's famous saying : " Property is theft." The following passage by Mr. Wells might be echoed from foreign writers — " Every adult now-a-days has private property in his or her own person, in clothes, in such personal implements as hand-tools, as a bicycle, as a cricket-bat or golf-sticks. In quite the same sense would he have it under Socialism, so far as these self-same things go. The sense of property in such things is almost instinctive : my little boys of five and three have the keenest sense of ?nine and (almost, if not quite so vividly) thine in the matter of toys and garments. The disposition of modern Socialism is certainly no more to over-ride these natural tendencies than it is to fly in the face of human nature in regard to the home." ^ M. Renard, who is the most ingenious of Socialist archi- tects, has built a half-way house for the owners of literary and artistic property.* ■' Paris : Comply. 1907. ^ Le Socialisme a PCEwvre, p. 106. ^ New PVorldsfor Old, pp. 142, 143. ■* See the chapter on " La Propri6t6 intellectuelle."— 0/>. cit. p. 109. SOCIALISTS AND EXPROPRIATION 43 II The Property that must he Socialized The property which fills the halls of Socialism with " a clangorous cry of wrath and lamentation " belongs to a different category. It is the type of property which ought never, as Socialists claim, to have belonged to private individuals, the wealth which was destined for the use of all mankind, and which, by a process of exploitation, has fallen into the hands of the few. We find such a leader as the late Dr. Menger quoting even Machiavelli's state- ment that there can be no true life of freedom in any State where there are many citizens who live not by their work, but by the income they enjoy in idleness.^ Jules Guesde startled the French Chamber in the session of 1896 by quoting the words of John Stuart Mill: " Capital is necessary to production, but not the capital- ist." ^ To the great ground-landlords, the wealthy finan- ciers, the kings of commerce, the message of Socialism, now, as in the time of the Communist Manifesto, might be summed up in St. James's warning to the rich : "Ye have laid up your treasure in the last days. ... Ye have nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter." The first person to be expropriated under Socialism would be the ground landlord. All property in land would be resumed by the State, except (a most important excep- tion, to which we shall recur in a later chapter) the little holding of the peasant proprietor, who is the special pet of the newer theorists. The great manufacturers would be forced to surrender their rights in the " means of pro- ^ Neue StaatskAre, p. 243. 2 A full report of this very interesting debate was issued as a pamphlet by Messrs. Comely, Paris. 44 THE NEW SOCIALISM duction," their warehouses and plant. M. Renard sug- gests, however, that the State might choose to leave in- dividual owners or companies in charge of large under- takino;s for at least a time, on the understanding that they did their work as servants of the community, and not for their private profit. He blames Socialists for having given themselves away to the critics who contend that the " democratic work-state " would be a highly centralized bureaucracy. Not necessarily, thinks M. Renard; why should not the State resume the means of production, and then lay on the shoulders of experienced agents the burden of the practical working ? ■■■ Besides the land and the great industries, Socialists pro- pose to take over all means of transport, including, of course, the railways, where these are not already State- owned. On this last point there are signs that a large section even of Conservative opinion goes with them, if only in the hope of securing better dividends to share- holders than some of the railways are paying at this moment. The taking over of mines, banks and insurance companies is discussed at length by many writers, while it need hardly be said that on the question of such public services as the water, gas, electric light, and milk supply, the Socialist agrees with the municipal Progressive. M. Renard, like Mr. Wells, believes that the drink trade ought to be controlled by the public authority. Socialists aim at a better regulation of all businesses on which the health of the public depends. They would abolish private bakeries, slaughter-houses, etc. The tremendous difficulties in the way of even the most modest expropriation are apparent to thoughtful Socialists. As soon as any interest is attacked, an army is mobilized ^ op, cit. pp. 126, 127. SOCIALISTS AND EXPROPRIATION 45 for its defence, and the solidarity of the propertied classes and their dependents becomes apparent. This is why some who still call themselves Socialists have fallen back on a timid and calculating policy. The State, as they prove from history, has a right to take over private property, and on many occasions has exercised the right. ^ But when schemes for expropriation are discussed, we find remark- able divergences of opinion. There are three obvious ways in which socialization might be accomplished : (i) by voluntary surrender; (2) by confiscation; (3) by repurchase or compensation. We have not been able to discover even among the optimists of Socialism any expectation that a new Fourth of August ^ is dawning on the horizon. The " Haves " will not surrender their property " on the altar of the fatherland." If ever Socialists dreamt of a time when " The full-juiced apple, waxing over-mellow, Drops in a silent autumn night," 55 they have learned long ago that property is not like that apple. It holds and is likely to hold, tenaciously to the twig. Kautsky warns his followers that it will not be enough to sit still with open mouths and "wait for the roast pigeons to fly in." Between the other alternatives — con- fiscation or compensation — Socialists will have to choose. 1 See Mr. Bruce Glasier's interesting article in T/ie Labour Leader for February 28, 1908. - On August 4, 1789, French property-owners made a great act of renunciation. CHAPTER IV THE QUESTION OF COMPENSATION Paul Lafargue, a son-in-law of Marx, in the preface to his famous pamphlet on The Right to be Lazy,-^ which makes a stronger appeal ad hominem than almost any other piece of Socialist argument, quotes a remarkable saying of M. Thiers in 1849 before the Commission on Elementary Education. " I wish to make the influence of the clergy all-powerful," said Thiers, " because I depend upon them to spread that good philosophy which teaches man that he is here on earth to suffer, and not that other philosophy, which says, on the contrary, to man. Enjoy." " M. Thiers," wrote Laf argue, " was formulating the moral teaching of the bourgeois class, whose fierce selfish- ness and narrow intellect were incarnated in his per- son. . . . Capitalist morality — a pitiful parody of Chris- tian morality — lays a curse upon the body of the worker; its ideal is to restrict the producer to the lowest possible minimum of needs, to suppress his joys and his passions, and to condemn him to play the part of the machine which turns out its work, without pause and without pity." Sayings like that of M. Thiers, skilfully annotated by Socialist leaders of the type of Lafargue and Guesde, might ^ Le Droit a la Paresse, which M. Paul Leroy-Beaulieu described as "An Ode to Laziness," has been translated into almost every European language, including Russian and Polish. Our quotation is taken from Pamphlets Sodalhtes, par Paul Lafargue. Giard ct Brifere. Paris. 1900. 46 THE QUESTION OF COMPENSATION 47 be trusted to awaken the passion for confiscation in the soberest breasts. Life, according to such teachers, is our one opportunity for enjoyment, and it is a monstrous in- justice that while the few are rich and free, the masses should bend their necks under the yoke of perpetual labour. Jules Guesde says : " The wage-earning system cannot be improved, because it is unimprovable. It must be de- stroyed." ^ In his view the alternative to Socialism is a far more cruel type of capitalism than that of the nine- teenth century— a capitalism " freed from the old restraints of religion, worse than mediaeval serfdom." " Revisionists " of the type of Bernstein and Turati, and even true Marxians of the modern intellectual school, reject, however, the idea of confiscating the property of the rich, and declare their adherence to some form or other of compensation, though many of them regard the com- pensation of property-owners as a regrettable necessity.^ Reluctant Compensators Mr. R. B. Suthers, in a recent article in the Clarion^^ asks the question, Do we propose to pay compensation for land and industries nationalized .'' Immediately he veers away from the point. " The question is not, ' Do we pro- pose to pay compensation.?' The question is, *How long are we going to allow the present confiscation to continue ? ^ Colhcti'visme et Re-volution. ^ Marx himself, as M. Jaurcs reminds us, said that the social revolution would be most cheaply purchased if the present owners of capital could be indemnified. " He meant," adds Jaurcs, "that from the point of view of self-interest it would be well that revolutionary Socialism should avoid exasperating to the uttermost the old society which was expropriated, and the long devastating convulsions of dying wealth." — Etudes Socialistes, p. 8. ' January 24, 1908. 48 THE NEW SOCIALISM How do we propose to reduce the amount of confiscation until it is abolished?'" He proceeds to estimate that our present system has allowed 5,000,000 people to accu- mulate ten hundred millions of the national income, while the rest of the population, 39,000,000, own only six hundred millions. Writers of this school can never mention compensation without a sneer. " We would rather kill a thousand babies," says Mr. Suthers ironically, " than deprive a rich man of the motor-cars he buys with the rents he does not earn." Mr. Blatchford's language on compensation is cautious and grudging. " For the landlord to speak of confisca- tion in the face of the laws of patent and of copyright seems to me the coolest impudence." ^ He is prepared, however, to give reasonable compensa- tion to landowners, and presumably also to industrial capitalists. " We deny," says the wizard in The Sorcery Shop^ " that any man has a moral or legal right to own our country, or any part of it; but we do not propose to take all he possesses without any payment, and leave him to starve." Do we exaggerate in saying that there is a class of Socialist thinkers who are determined to concede as little as possible by way of compensation to property-holders, and whose chief fear is that the Socialist State may be inaugurated by one more huge " act of plunder " — carried out, as of old, they would say, at the expense of the people ^ 1 T/ie Sorcery Shop, p. 1 74. THE QUESTION OF COMPENSATION 49 II More Generous Socialist Views on Compensation It may be fairly claimed, however, that many English and Continental Socialists are willing to make full and liberal terms with the present owners of property. Writ- ing on the land question, Mr. Bernard Shaw says — " The Nationalizers will declare for its annexation by the Municipality without compensation ; but that will be rejected as spoliation, worthy only of revolutionary Socialists. The no- compensation cry is indeed a piece of catastrophic insurrectionism, for whilst compensation would be unnecessary and absurd if every proprietor were expropriated simultaneously, and the proprietary system at once replaced by full-blown Socialism, yet when it is necessary to proceed by degrees, the denial of compensation would have the effect of singling out individual proprietors for expropria- tion whilst the others remained unmolested, and depriving them of their private means long before there was suitable municipal employment ready for them. The land, as it is required, will therefore be honestly purchased ; and the purchase money, or the interest thereon, will be procured, like the capital, by taxing rent." 1 Mr. H. G. Wells is not less broad-minded. "The earlier Socialism," he says, "was fierce and unjust to owners. ' Property is robbery,' said Proudhon, and right down to the nineties Socialism kept too much of the spirit of that proposition. The property-owner was to be promptly and entirely deprived of his goods, and to think himself lucky he was not lynched forthwith as an abominable rascal. The first Basis of the Fabian Society, framed so lately as 1884, seems to repudiate ' Compensation,' even a partial compensation of property-owners, though in its practical proposals the Fabian Society has always admitted compensatory arrangements. . . . We live to-day in a vast tradition of relationships in which the rightfulness of that kind of private property is assumed, and suddenly, instantly, to deny and abolish it would be — I write this as a convinced and ^ Socialism. Fabian Essays. Transition, p. iq^. E 50 THE NEW SOCIALISM thorough Socialist — quite the most dreadful catastrophe human society could experience. . . . There is no reason why a cultivated property-owner should not welcome and hasten [the coming of Socialism]. Modern Socialism is prepared to compensate him, not perhaps ' fully,' but reasonably, for his renunciations." ^ Mr. Sidney Webb writes — " There is, indeed, much to be said in favour of the liberal treatment of the present generation of proprietors, and even of their children. But against the permanent welfare of the com- munity the unborn have no rights ; and not even a living proprietor can possess a vested interest in the present system of taxation. " The democracy may be trusted to find, in dealing with the landlord, that the resources of civilization are not exhausted. An increase in the death duties, the steady rise of local rates, the special taxation of urban ground values, the graduation and differentiation of the income tax, the simple appropriation of the unearned increment, and the gradual acquirement of land and other monopolies by public authorities, will in due course suffice to * collectivize ' the bulk of the tribute of rent and interest in a way which the democracy will regard as sufficiently equitable, even if it does not satisfy the conscience of the proprietary class itself." 2 Eduard Bernstein, as might be expected, has written emphatically in favour of compensation. " Rights of property which are admitted by the common law," he says, " must be inviolable in every community, as long as and in proportion as the common law admits them. To take over legally-held property without com- pensating the owners is confiscation, which can only be justified in a case of extraordinary pressure of circum- stances, such as arises from war or pestilence." ^ Kautsky, also, while remarking with a touch of his master's fatalism, that " the unexpected plays the chief ^ Nev fVorldi for Old, pp. 162, 163. ^ Socialism and Indi'vidualism, -p. 16. "The Fabian Socialist" Series, No. 3, 1908. A. C. Fifield. •* Die Voraussetaungen des Sozialismus, pp. 161, 162. THE QUESTION OF COMPENSATION 51 part in historical development," agrees, on the whole, with Bernstein on this question of compensation. " On no account can we say that the carrying out of the Social Democratic programme demands, under all circumstances, that the property which must be taken away from its present owners, should be confiscated." ■"■ The truth is that the newer Socialists, having accepted, more or less frankly, the principle of compensation, are now engaged in adjusting the tremendous burden to the shoulders of that visionary Atlas, the Socialist Common- wealth. Ill Difficulties of Compensation as Foreseen by Socialists We discover, even in the writings of moderate leaders, echoes of that fierce pamphlet in which Jules Guesde de- clares the impossibility of all schemes for repurchase or indemnity. The principle of com.pensation being admitted, how shall the democratic Work-State find the means of buying out the property-owners ? We have not got the means, says Guesde, and if we had, where is the guarantee that the capitalists would agree to the bargain.? If an indemnity were paid by annuities, interest or otherwise, the same idle classes would flourish at the expense of the community, and socialization would be achieved at too vast a cost. The worker, who was formerly crushed by the wage-system, would now be overwhelmed by taxation. Would the new State consent to go on feeding indefinitely an army of parasites? The ablest discussion of the details of compensation is 1 Das Erfurter Programm, p. 149. E 2 52 THE NEW SOCIALISM that of Kautsky in his pamphlet, The Morrow of Revolu- tion. He assumes that the capitalists and ground landlords will be bought out, and asks what advantage the workers will in that case derive from expropriation ? He foresees the piling up of a gigantic national debt, but expects this to be gradually extinguished by taxation and death duties. The wealthy, who now have many ways of cheating the Treasury, would have no means of escaping the pitiless Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer. The State would have made itsel'f responsible for the value of the property taken from them, but by a course of taxation which might, as Kautsky admits, require several decades for its full working, they would gradually be stripped of everything. Expropriation by attrition is at the basis of Kautsky's plan. At present, says the editor of Die Neue Zeit, excessive taxation might have the effect of driving the rich out of the country. Not so under the Socialist State, for the pensioners would have no liberty of action. The Article of the Communist Manifesto, which ordered the confisca- tion of the property of emigrants and rebels, would be swiftly put in action against them. By quitting the country they would forfeit all claims upon the State, and would lose both interest and title deeds. By this scheme of a national debt and the payment of a heavily-taxed interest to former owners, Kautsky supposes that confiscation will lose its uglier characteristics. " People will grow accustomed to it; it will seem less painful." Some might compare such a policy to that of burglars who, having decided to rob a house, in consideration for the feelings of the inmates, take away one piece of plate at a time. Mermeix, commenting on Kautsky's scheme, re- marks on the intense disturbance which such a process, continued for decades, would produce in the new State, THE QUESTION OF COMPENSATION 53 alike in industrial concerns and in the national budget. " Is it likely," he asks, " that the Workers' State, which would be struggling during the period of transition with tremendous financial embarrassments, would agree to pay for decades the interest on that overwhelming debt? Would it not grow tired of keeping up a parasitic class? . . . This would be expecting a great deal from the patience of working-men who had been taught that all property, all capital comes from the spoliation of the work- ing classes. Is it likely that they would go on fattening those who once robbed them, when the power was theirs to escape such a tribute? " -^ The owners of property, it may be added, need expect very little from Socialist promises of repurchase or large indemnity. No scheme yet proposed, as their own writers admit, will bear the test of close examination. Some of the strongest Socialists, like Rignano, admit the force of M. Paul Leroy-Beaulieu's arguments on the impossibility of the State's buying out the land-owners. The French economist shows that there is not sufficient circulating capital to correspond to the value of the land, and that under a Socialist system of repurchase the expro- priated owners would have to be paid in " titres de rente?'' The mere machinery which would have to be set up for any system of repurchase would, in his view, constitute a heavy burden for the State. Rignano quotes this passage in full and agrees with it. We see, then, (i) that the best minds among the newer Socialists are prepared for compensation on a more or less liberal scale, but that (2) there is no general agreement as to details, no clear understanding as to where the money will come from. A sentence we have quoted above from ^ Le Socialisme, p. 256. 54 THE NEW SOCIALISM Mr. Sidney Webb passes rapidly before our view some of those purses filled with glittering coin into which Socialists hope to dip. There is something better than a purse — a whole mine of treasure — waiting, in their opinion, to be secured by interference with the law of inheritance. CHAPTER V THE QUESTION OF INHERITANCE The new Socialists recognize that it is not possible to dispossess the present owners of property " in a long night- sitting " (to quote a phrase of Victor Adler). They are, therefore, considering the possibilities of expropriation by attrition, and their most daring thinkers have already abol- ished in imagination the existing laws of inheritance. We must note, as a preliminary point, that while these laws, in the intention of Socialists, are to be abrogated, or greatly modified, for the private citizen, the coming State, by a singular paradox, is to draw its vitality from ancient springs. I The Socialist State is Itself to be an Heir The most scholarly French book on property published during: the last six years from the Socialist standpoint is that of Prof. Ernest Tarbouriech.^ While accepting the fullest Socialist teaching, this writer explains that many features of the old capitalist regime will survive under the new order. " Collectivism, no less than capitalism, will recognize some forms of property which have been borrowed from 1 Esiai sur la PropriM. Giard et Bri^re, Paris, 1 904. 55 ^6 THE NEW SOCIALISM earlier economic systems." ^ M. Tarbouriech denies that any sharp line can be drawn between public and private property. " In the gamut of many thousand shades which we admire in the Gobelins tapestries, the only colours lacking are black and white. But each of the primary colours yields to the weaver a manifold variety of shades, which pass by imperceptible transitions from the darkest to the lightest, from the deepest red which serves for black, to the palest pink which can be used as white." 2 The point of the metaphor is that the property which is already most highly socialized yields personal joy to indi- viduals, while the possessions which Socialism would leave in private hands have a certain public value. " No indi- vidual property is without a trace of collectivism. No Communistic order has been wholly free from Individual- ism. ... It is probable that future codes of law will allow to our descendants some forms of property in the sense in which we have understood the word." ^ " It is a great law of history that one social order shall borrow from another. ... It seems to me that social buildings are constructed not so much with materials specially quarried for them, as with stones borrowed from other houses ; recut, indeed, and adapted according to the ever-changing needs. In the social, as in the physical order, nothing is lost, nothing is created afresh, everything is transformed. Legal institutions form a kind of common treasure-store for humanity, from which we continually draw." 4 In one of his most striking chapters, Bernstein shows that it is the laws carried by capitalists under the present system which have given to the working-men the freedom and independence, the far-reaching outlook which have made modern Socialism possible. He instances especially ^ Essai sur la Propriete, p. '280. ^ Ibid. pp. 289, 290. 3 Ibid p. 336. * Ibid. p. 337. THE QUESTION OF INHERITANCE 57 the Parliamentary vote and free education.^ Like M. Tar- bouriech, he recognizes that the temple of Socialism will be built (if it ever is to be built) out of stones hewn from remote quarries and borne down long and difficult streams. The State, then, as Socialists admit, is to benefit by that great law which links the generations each to each. But they fail to recognize that every head of a family must naturally wish that his remoter, as well as his nearer, des- cendants should benefit by the material fruits of his labour. Through them his eff"ort, his self-denial, his self-sacrifice, are treasured up for a life beyond life. He cannot be cer- tain of bequeathing to his posterity anything but his reputation and his material possessions. Great qualities of heart and mind cannot be transmitted at will. " My sword I leave to him that shall succeed me in my pilgrim- age," said Mr. Valiant : " my courage and skill to him that can get it." II Socialist Views on Inheritance Socialists are determined, in the imagined interests of the community, to refuse entirely to the individual the free right to dispose of the goods he leaves behind him at death. ^ It is not some plan for graduated death duties on a hipfher scale than those of Sir William Harcourt which is contemplated, but the complete extinction, within a comparatively short period, of the property which each man hands on. ^ Die Voraussetaungen des Sozialismus, p. 141. 2 M. Jaur^s argues at great length that this right is already taken away by the State, though not, as he acknowledges, in a manner of which Socialists could approve. We have already, he says, not the socialization of property, but the socialization of family duties and affections, since the State takes the father's place, and sees that the children are fairly treated in the division of his wealth. — Etudes Socialistes, p. 217. 58 THE NEW SOCIALISM Almost every recent foreign study of Socialism has a chapter on the right of inheritance. Dr. Menger says — " The right of inheritance in our present social order is almost as important as the right of property, for while the latter decides the constitution of society in the present, the former decides it for the future. The entire wealth of the nation is, under our present organization of property, divided in overwhelming pro- portion among a certain number of individuals. . . . When these mdividuals are gradually removed by death from their circles of property ownership, the nation has an interest (surpassing almost every other question) in seeing that this enormous mass of goods, on which the economic existence of the whole people depends, shall be distributed to the coming generation with the right purpose in view." ^ Dr. Menger argued that under a Socialist regime no- thing should be left by will except " consumable property." " The people's Work-State," he says, " must in any case put upon the right of inheritance a strongly democratic impress." For example, {a) the larger estates should be diminished by heavy death duties; (b) an equal division should be made among the testator's children; (c) only children, parents, and brothers and sisters ought to have any right to inherit. When these have died out, the State will take over the property.^ Dr. Menger adds : " By a far-reaching limitation of the right of inheritance in the democratic Work-State, one of the darkest shadows on our present legal system would unquestionably be removed. For no institution denies so entirely the connection between merit and reward, and none surrenders the course of human destinies so entirely to the chance of birth as this right of inheritance. . . . [Through this] the anomaly becomes possible that the grandson of Goethe should have lived in very humble circumstances, while the descendants of a lucky manufacturer ^ Neite Staatsle/ire, p. 121. 2 Ibid. pp. 122, 123. Dr. Menger no doubt meant to include husbands and wives, though he did not mention them expressly. THE QUESTION OF INHERITANCE 59 of boot-blacking, if they are sensible and economical, may enjoy for centuries a life free from work and care." ^ English Socialist leaders approach the subject of inherit- ance somewhat more cautiously than the Viennese philo- sopher. Mr. Ramsay Macdonald says — " Socialists do not object to property ; they are not opposed to private property. They are not, therefore, opposed to inheritance. The right to acquire and hold involves the right to dispose by will or by gift. We only object to such a use of property as enables classes for generation after generation to live on the pro- ceeds of other people's labour without doing any useful service to society. " Mr. H. G. Wells remarks — " Posthumous property, that is to say, the power to bequeath and the right to inherit things, will persist in a mitigated state under Socialism. There is no reason whatever why it should not do so. There is a strong natural sentiment in favour of the institution of heirlooms, for example : one feels a son might well own — though he should certainly not sell — the intimate things his father desires to leave him, , . . Even, perhaps, a proportion of accumulated money may reasonably go to friend or kin. It is a question of public utility." ^ Georores Renard, one of the most moderate of the French leaders, thinks that the socialization of property ought to begin by a reform of the law of inheritance. Like Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Wells, however, he would not abolish altogether the individual's right to bequeath property.* 1 Neue Staatshhrc, pp. 123, 124. - Socialism, p. 105. 3 Neiv Worlds for Old, pp. 145, 146. ^ he Socialisme a I'CEu-vre, pp. 283, 284._ 6o THE NEW SOCIALISM III Rignano^s Scheme of Inheritance The ablest work which treats of inheritance from the Socialist standpoint is that of Eugenio Rignano.-^ Rignano agrees with one of the principal opponents of Socialism, M. Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, that repurchase, whether by the attempt to raise a gigantic national loan or by the State taking over property as a debt for which interest is to be paid, is a totally impracticable proposal. If the latter method could be adopted the State would gain nothing, for the net revenue from the land would be used up in paying rent to the former owners as indemnity. All schemes for gradual expropriation by taxing are re- jected by Rignano as " illusory reform." " Unless we can touch inheritances," he says in effect, " there is no hope for Socialism save in a revolution by violence." Rignano's general idea is that the nation should take over a certain proportion of each estate as it descends from generation to generation, so that after " a reasonable inter- val " what was once private property should become public property. Suppose, for instance, that a father (A) leaves to his son the sum of ^6,000, the State, by Rignano's project, will at once claim a third of the amount, leaving to the heir ^4,000. The son (B) at his death leaves, let us say, ;^6,ooo, of which ^2,000 has been added by his own ^ Un Socialismo in accordo colla dottr'ma economica liherale. (Turin. 1 90 1.) A French translation was published in 1904 by Messrs. Giard et BriJre. Rignano's scheme has attracted the closest attention among foreign Socialists, and is discussed at length by M. Georges Renard in Le Socialisme a i'CEuvre. Rignano is a fervent and orthodox Socialist. THE QUESTION OF INHERITANCE 6i industry to the inherited money. This fortune is, under the scheme, divided into two portions. Of the amount which B has received from A {i.e. ;^4,ooo) the State takes away two-thirds, but takes only one-third of the amount which B has himself added to the paternal estate. In the third generation, at the death of A's grandson (C), a three- fold division will be made. All that now remains of the original property of A will be taken for the community. All that C has inherited from his father will be subject to a two-thirds death duty, while C's personal acquisitions will be mulcted at the rate of one-third.-^ Objections of many kinds have been raised by critics to Rignano's project, and M. Renard, with his usual ingenuity, invents replies. (i) What is to be done, he asks, in the case of a person who has allowed his patrimony to decline ? Answer : The remnant must obviously at his death suffer the fate of property transmitted for the second time. (2) What shall be the decision in the case of a testator who, after inheriting a fortune, has lost it entirely or parti- ally, and afterwards has regained the same amount, his fall and rise happening possibly two or three times over. Answer : No account need be taken of what has happened between the two transmissions. If a man who has inherited ^6,000 leaves his son ;^8,ooo, it shall be assumed that the ^6,000 originally inherited is included in the ^8,000. 1 Symbols clearly explaining the plan are given by Rignano on pp. 42, 43 of the French edition of his book (pp. 60, 61 of the Italian edition). The testator A leaves a sum represented by x. Of this the State, acting as co-heir, takes i, leaving B, the next heir, §jf. B increases the patrimony ^x by acquisitions of his own, represented by y. At his death the State will take §(§;«r) + y, leaving to C, the heir of B, h{^^) + ^- ^ 3dds to this an amount represented by ». At his death the property undergoes a threefold division. The State takes t(i) {§x) + §(|y) + ^z. Thus in two generations the property of A is wiped out. The scheme is as simple as it is startling. 62 THE NEW SOCIALISM (3) Rignano recognizes that there are grave dangers in- herent in any project for meddling with the individual's free right of disposing of his property, inherited or acquired. Men work, he admits, for their children as much as for themselves. Prevent them from leaving the main part of their fortune to their descendants in the next generation, and they will work a great deal less, or rather they will consume the product of their activity in their own fifetime — a course of action which would lead to terrible economic retrogression. The answer made to such objec- tions by Socialists like Rignano and Renard is that a man's solicitude does not extend to all the o-enerations that shall come after him. " He wishes to secure the well-being of his children, who are flesh of his flesh, and also that of his grandchildren. He wishes to know what will become of the goods he has possessed within the lifetime of those he has seen born " : But how can he take any keen interest, these Socialists ask, in the fate of a posterity which he will never know, and in the uses to which his property will be put at a distant period into which his fancy cannot pene- trate } Supporters of Rignano's scheme argue that under it men would work harder than ever, so as to leave their children in a position equal to their own. Rignano's scheme, it should be noted, applies to small as well as large fortunes. He says : " The progressive principle would be applied to time rather than to space, and according to the age of the patrimonies rather than their amount." ^ " The right of leaving property by will," says Rignano, " is the true and only fundamental hindrance to that socialization of the instruments of production, and of capital in general, which, as we 1 « Alia eta dei patrimoni anzich^ alia loro vastiti." — 0/). cit. p. 63. THE QUESTION OF INHERITANCE 63 have seen, is the one means that remains for putting an end to the economic separation of the worker from his instruments of production." ^ We may take It then as certain that the new Socialists, If they had the power, would abolish or profoundly modify the present system of inheritance. ^ op. cit. p. 21 (Italian edition) ; p. i 8 (French edition). CHAPTER VI SOCIALISTS AND SMALL PROPERTY-OWNERS Apart from the question of inheritance, the new Social- ism is sharply distinguished from the old in its attitude towards that great mass of the population in all countries who have a little to lose. Marx and Engels believed that they must be cruel to the small property-owner in order to be kind. His few acres of land, his small workshop or warehouse, must be swallowed up in the cataclysm, in order that he might become henceforth a free partner in the Socialist State. "The proletariat," said Lassalle, " is the rock on which the Church of the future will be built," and Marxian SociaHsm assumed, consciously or unconsciously, that its work would lie among the fierce, starving multitudes of great cities, " the ragged masses " ^ who hardly knew from day to day from what source they were to derive the means of sub- sistence. The earlier leaders viewed the man with a small balance in the bank with more scorn, if less hatred, than the owner of millions. They wished to draw into their net the little fishes as well as the whales. The peasant was to surrender his ancestral plot of ground, the small tradesman his stock, the master-craftsman his tools. Marx himself drew up the programme for the Congress of Havre in 1880, and demanded that all means of production, without any indulgence or favour, should be restored to a collectivist 1 " Das Lumpenproletariat." 64 SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS 65 system. But even at this early date his chief followers showed a disposition to mutiny. Guesde and Lafargue were among the first " hard-shell " Socialists to recognize that some special consideration must be shown to the four million peasant proprietors of France, if ever the voting streno-th of these millions was to reinforce the Socialist army. They abandoned the Havre programme and courted the peasant vote. " The Socialist party," said they, "will not rob the peasant of his field; on the contrary, it will secure him in its possession." The Congress of Marseilles, held in 1892, voted for an agrarian programme founded on the maintenance of small holdings. The aged Engels was highly displeased with this action. " Small properties," he wrote, " must inevitably be ruined, de- stroyed by the development of capital. Those who wish to preserve small properties for more than a limited period have sacrificed the principle of Socialism and become re- actionaries." Bebel wrote that " if the peasant puts forth the claim to remain a proprietor, he had better join the camp of the anti-Semites." These utterances of twenty- five years ago are echoed in a saying of Mr. Blatchford : " Under Socialism no citizen would be allowed to call a single inch of land his own. All the land would belong to tlie people, and would be used by the people, for the best advantage of the people." ^ Almost the only influential foreign leader who now in part defends this position is Karl Kautsky, and as we see from his well-known work on the agrarian question,^ his ^ The Sorcery Shop, p. 176. English Socialists of to-day oppose the idea of a peasant-ownership of the land, but are willing that small allotments should be held by- individuals under public bodies. 2 Die Agrarfrage. (Stuttgart. 1899.) Two other German books, each taking a different view from Kautsky's, may be recommended to the student. One is Dr. Eduard David's Socialhmui und LandiuirUchaft (Berlin. Verlag der socialistischen Monatshefte. 1903). The other is Friedrich Otto Hertz's y/or^y Die agrariichen Fragen im FerhUltniss aum Socialismiis {Vienna. L. Rossner. 1899). F 66 THE NEW SOCIALISM views have underfjone considerable modification since the Breslau meeting of 1895. Kautsky maintains that small owners, whether peasant proprietors or the heads of little businesses or industries, are in process of being ruined by the large capitalists, and support themselves, as it is, only by excessive toil and severe privation. He notes, also, that many trades which seem to flourish are really parasitic trades, dependent on the caprices of the wealthy, and destined to disappear with the expropriation of capital. He says to the peasant in effect : " Your small holding will ultimately be swallowed up, not because we Socialists mean to rob you of it, but because there is a great law which works towards the concentration of land and industries. When the day of change arrives, we Socialists alone can secure your future." Even Kautsky, as we see, hesitates to terrify the peasant with the red spectre. " If we take his acres into collective possession," he says further, " we shall leave his little home intact." " Modern Socialism," writes Kautsky, " rests on common property in the means of production, not in the means of enjoy- ment. For the latter, private ownership is not excluded. Among the means of enjoying and feeling a cheerful satisfaction in human life, one of the most important, perhaps the most important, is the separate home. Common property in land and soil is in no way incompatible with this.^ . . . The peasant need not be frightened about his home. The Socialist Government will not pass by his door, leaving no trace of its presence, but the hygienic and aesthetic changes it brings will not turn out to be for the disadvantage of the peasant home." ^ Since Kautsky, the most honest of Socialists, dares not promise that the peasant shall retain the independent right ^ Die Agrarfrage, p. 447. ^ m^^ p_ ^^^^ SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS 67 to his holding, he comforts him with the prospect of a time when all household duties shall be performed on a collectivist plan, and when his wife shall no longer be com- pelled to do her own cooking and washing. It is important to notice that even Kautsky feels himself obliged to moder- ate the old Marxian policy as far as possible, when he remembers that Germany has over three million peasant owners. The New Socialists and Feasant Proprietors The peasantry, as Dr. John Rae observes, have always been objects of peculiar interest to Socialists, " because it is a maxim among old revolutionary hands that without the co-operation of the peasantry, no revolution can be successful." Anti-Socialist teachers on the Continent have always threatened the peasant with spoliation if he accepted the doctrines of Marx and his followers. They have told him that he would be driven from his field and his cottage and sent to wander on the high-road with his children like that tragic figure, Jean Louarn, in Rene Bazin's novel, Donatienne. The latest Socialist policy in all Continental countries is to deny any intention to expropriate the peasantry. In proof of this we may quote a few passages. Georges Renard says — " Let us proclaim aloud that we do not wish to take anything from that poor man, who has not his proper rights under the present system ; we will not drive him from his humble home ; he shall keep the soil of his fathers for himself and his sons." ^ M. Jaures, though he has wavered from time to time on ^ Le Socialisme a I'CEwvre, p. 226. F 2 68 THE NEW SOCIALISM this question, would agree in general with the maxim : " Do not frighten the peasants." " Small proprietors," he says, " would not be in the least alarmed by this gradual transformation, which would not threaten them and which would be clothed in legal form. They would soon link themselves by voluntary ties to the great centre of action formed by communal or co-operative property." ^ A few pages further on he remarks — " Socialists have certainly never thought or causing peasant property to be forcibly drawn into the Communist framework." M. Jaures expressed his sincerest thought when he wrote, " Property holds democrats by every fibre," and amonp; democrats he must have included Socialists. In a poetical chapter he pictures the lot of the vine-dressers under collectivist administration — " They will be attached to the great vineyard which their hands cultivate, by a stronger and more vital bond, a fuller and more gladdening consciousness, than the wage-earner is to-day. And yet it is very probable that they would feel it as a loss and a diminution of their life-power if they could no longer, as they watched the grapes ripening on a few stocks which belonged to themselves alone, experience that secret joy in which there is more inner satisfaction than selfishness." ^ Turning to Germany, we find an increasing determina- tion amongr the most thouo^htful Socialists that the men who work their own fields with their own hands must not be despoiled of their possessions. The peasant's horse, cow, and plot of ground are not to be socialized, if only because it is recognized that he would fight as hard for them as the great landlord for his estates. The Congress of Frankfort in 1894 appointed a committee to prepare ^ Etudes Socialistes, p. 9. ^ Ibid. p. 19. SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS 69 an agrarian programme for the party, and this committee decided that while large estates must be nationalized, the peasant should be left in possession of his property. It is true that this proposal, which had the support of Bebel, was rejected at the Breslau Congress in the following year by a vote of three to one, Kautsky led the opposition to Bebel at Breslau, but Kautsky himself repudiates all violent procedure. That famous " scarlet thread " which, as he says, runs through his writings, is the conviction that all small concerns, agricultural and industrial, are given over to destruction by an inevitable process. Dr. Eduard David, at the close of his long and learned work on " Socialism and Agriculture," sums up his argu- ments as follows : *' We do not hesitate to put forward the policy of transforming large agricultural concerns into small peasant-owned properties as a goal well worth aiming at." 1 The protection of the peasant, according to Dr. David, " means the protection and furthering of the more modern and more rational form of industry." He believes that the solution of agrarian difficulties will be found in the formation of co-operative, highly-organized unions of small properties, which will be able to protect the food of the people from the encroachments of capitalistic exploiters and middlemen. Notwithstanding Dr. David's hopeful arguments, it is difficult to see how small proprietorships could continue on the land under Socialism. Who would do the work of the farm.f* How could there be two classes of labourers in the country, one enjoying the benefits of Socialism, the other employed by individual masters ? The rate of wages and the hours of work would be fixed by the State, and by ^ Socialismus und Landzuirtichaft, p. 699. 70 THE NEW SOCIALISM the State alone, at a fixed tariff, could the peasant farmer sell his butter, eggs and fowls. The conditions would become so intolerable that he would surely either revolt or demand the socialization of his land.-*- The question of peasant proprietorship presents itself in our own country under a special aspect. In France and Germany, Socialists are asking with Werner Sombart : " Ought we so to modify the principles of Collectivism as to retain the peasant on the soil which his family may have held for generations?" In England, Socialists of the Fabian school are eagerly joining in plans for getting the peasant back to the land, but as a tenant rather than an owner. In a Fabian essay on " The Revival of Agricul- ture," ^ we find the following passage — " Give him (the labourer) a decent wage, decent food, a decent house, security from the interference of squire, farmer, and parson in his private affairs, and, above all, a real chance of bettering himself, and we shall see a new type of agricultural worker. There is something in the ' magic of property,' above all, of property in oneself." II The Small Shopkeeper and Manufacturer The dread of alienating large masses of voters is per- ceptible in recent Socialist writings which touch on other classes of small property-holders besides the peasant pro- prietor. In an article in the Clarion,^ Mr. R. B. Suthers says — " A Socialist Government would naturally not desire to im- poverish the poor man who happened to be a little capitalist. ^ See on this point Mermeix's argument in Le Socia/isme, pp. 265, 266. ^ Socialism and Agriculture, Fabian Socialist Series, No, 2, (A. C, Fifield, 1908. ^ January 24, 1908. SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS 71 The Duke of Westminster and John Smith might conceivably have, the first, one million, and the second ^{^20 in the same land company. Well, if the land company vv^ere nationalized and the dividends vv^ere reduced to a fixed rate of interest, it might hurt John Smith, while the Duke of Westminster would not feel the reduction. Such a reduction would be provided for. John Smith might have his tobacco and food taxes and his rates reduced, so that he would not lose on the whole. The working; man with j^20 in the bank, or a house of his own, need have no fear." We quote this passage as a proof that English as well as foreign Socialists realize that the greatest danger to their cause comes from the side of the small owner. He must be conciliated, flattered, lured with promises, otherwise he will instinctively take sides with large owners. Socialists are now proclaiming that the real danger to Society comes not from the producers who possess their own means of production, but from non-producers who are exploiting other people's. ■"• Many small businesses, they suggest, will continue, provisionally at least, under Socialism. The doctrinal rigour of the creed gives way before the statistics which prove that property-owners, in France, for instance, are the majority of the population.^ Renard gives some instructive figures on this point. In 1903, he says, there was a total of 753,606 deaths among the population of France, of whom 197,777 were of persons under twenty. Deducting these from the whole, there remain 555,829, and of these persons no fewer than 386,032 left property, though i2i,«;58 of the total left sums not ex- ceeding ;^2o. It may be safely claimed that the owner of £10^ no less than the owner of ^20,000 or ;^2o,ooo,ooo, will stand firm in the defence of his rights against Socialist pleadings. 1 See the chapter entitled " On the policy which Socialism ought to pursue towards small property " in he Socialisme a I'CEu-vre, p. 1 1 8, ^ Ibid. pp. 274, 275. 72 THE NEW SOCIALISM In sparing the small properties, Socialists would sur- render, as Engels saw, a vital principle of their creed. If the peasants are to flourish, singly or in co-operative unions, if the little tradesman and the master m.echanic may carry on their business undisturbed, if the working-man may accumulate his savings, either privately or through his benefit societies, where is the need of a social revolution ? Withdraw the " scarlet thread " from the fabric, and there lies before us only the plain grey stufl^ of social reform, the urgent need for a betterment of the condition of the poorest. CHAPTER VII PRACTICAL WORKING OF THE SOCIALIST STATE After the death of Liebknecht, his executors found amongst his papers an unfinished manuscript, begun eleven years earlier/ in which he attempted to answer the great question which continually occupied his mind : How will Socialism realize itself in practice ? The question for Lieb- knecht and his circle, even in hours of deepest political depression, was not whether , but how ? The German leader used to say that comrades often asked him if he thought they would live to see the triumph of the cause. ^^ Donee optata venial dies,^^ ^ was the guiding thought of all their action. They were " up every morning by break of day, tracing and walking to and fro in the valley "; and at rare moments, like the pilgrims on the Delectable Mountains, they saw through a glass the gate of the Social- ist city, " and also some of the glory of the place." During recent years it has been possible to distinguish several clearly defined schools of constructive Socialist thinkers, and to these we must devote a few paragraphs. I Divergent Views on Constructive Socialism (a) The first are the cautious and hesitating thinkers who resent close questioning. ' Liebknecht died in August 1900. This fragment was published in Vorivarts on the first anniversary of his death. 2 " Till the wished-for day shall come." 73 74 THE NEW SOCIALISM We take two examples of their mode of argument — The great Italian Reformist, Signor Turati, writing in the Critica Sociale^ says — " Let the men of the future think out the plans of the future Social State, which for the most part it is impossible to foresee. We shall be satisfied with having recognized the great guiding line of evolution and the granite foundations of the war of classes." Mr. R. B. Suthers, writing in the Clarion,^ says — " Why is it impossible to produce a cut and dried plan ? Simply because comprehensive prophecy of the future is beyond human power. ... It would be a silly waste of time for any Socialist to spend his life in drawing up cut and dried plans of a distant future." Writers like Mr. Suthers consider themselves as members of an Opposition who may ere long be summoned to form a Cabinet. All that the country can reasonably expect of them, it is argued, is a broad outline of principles. Thinkers of this class, when they compare their own policy with that of the " outs " towards the " ins " in our ordinary party warfare, forget that, as Bernstein says, Socialism " aims at creating entirely new things." (b) The second class are the pure idealists who look at Socialism through the astronomer's glass. One of the most characteristic thinkers of this school is that brilliant Italian, xA.rturo Labriola. In the Revue Socialiste ^ he entered the lists in opposition to Bernstein. "To plant Socialism on the soil of our present society," he wrote, "would be to deprive it of that halo of illusion and mystery which accounts for the marvellous force of passion which it exercises in our day." ^ March 27, 1908. ^ Vol. xxix. p. 679. WORKING OF THE SOCIALIST STATE 75 But he indignantly repudiated, in another article, the idea that Socialists should not be ready, at all times and in all places, to describe the visions which they saw on the far horizon. He protested ''against the dangerous fashion (the result of an extreme in- tellectual indolence), a fashion which is not authorized by the example of any of the great Socialist writers, above all of Marx and Engels, of refusing to give any information as to the positive programme of Socialism." . . . " It is not permissible to get of! under the pretext that the Socialist's business is not that of the prophet. The Socialist party must know what it is aiming at." ^ Another writer who belongs to the idealistic type is Saverio Merlino, and a third is our own Robert Blatchford, as readers of The Sorcery Shop can testify. Merlino argues that the events of history are working on the side of Socialism.^ " If for ten or twenty years not a single Socialist book or news- paper were published ; if governments were to suppress, as they sometimes dream of doing, all manifestations of the Socialist idea — even then Socialism would not be dead. Every quarrel between masters and men, every attempt at co-operation, every conflict of class-interest, every reform of public administration, would recall men's thoughts to that new conception of social relationships which goes by the name of Socialism." After referring to the influence that would be exercised by the question of unemployment, by strikes, by the con- tinual drain of national strength caused by emigration, by sudden outbursts of insurrection, and by money panics, in keeping Socialism alive in the most anti-Socialist State, Merlino adds — ^ Arturo Labriola is now one of the most active leaders of the school of Revolution- ary Syndicalism. The passages we have quoted above were written some years ago. 2 Formes et Essence du Socialisme, Ch. i. 76 THE NEW SOCIALISM " The Socialism of Socialists is only a pale reflection, a mere derivative, of the Socialism of things^ ^ These Italian watchers of the skies imagine that they see much further into the night than their comrades born in mistier lands, but it is difficult to glean from their writings a clear answer to the questions which puzzle the average impartial student. (c) To the third class of constructive Socialists belong the great majority of English and foreign writers of the past decade. They are ready with a clear answer on a thousand practical details, and by comparing their state- ments carefully we can form an idea of the Socialist State as they conceive it. Their telescope is like the familiar instrument on the balcony of Swiss hotels. If new planets do not swim into our ken as we use it, at least we can trace the laborious progress of climbers on a neighbouring peak. II First Principles of Constructive Socialism At the outset these writers postulate two fundamental principles : (i) All must work (and as a corollary, all have a right to work). (2) Class distinctions must be abolished. The Socialist State, in Dr. Menger's constantly reiterated phrase, is to be " a democratic Work-State." Monopolies are to be suppressed, usury is to disappear, there is to be no more exploitation of men by men. From the rule of universal labour certain classes only will be exempted — the physically and mentally infirm, the aged and the chil- dren. A close examination of the international writings of Socialists brings out the fact that St. Paul's maxim is accepted universally amongst them : " We that are strong ' Formes et Essence du Socialisme, p. 4. WORKING OF THE SOCIALIST STATE 77 ought to bear the infirmities of the weak." We have not found a single passage which even hints that Socialists, in the day of triumph, would leave the wounded on the field. The doctrine of the survival of the fittest, of the reign of the physical and intellectual superman, must be sought elsewhere than in Socialist literature. The severest critics of Socialism must admit that it has certain noble aspects, especially (i) in the honour it puts on labour, (2) in the lofty motives it sets before the worker,^ and (3) in the shield it throws over the weak things of the world. Ill General Framework of the Socialist State We proceed next to consider the general framework of the Socialist State. I. The Monarchy. — The question of monarchy versus republic was much discussed by the earlier Socialist thinkers. For the newer writers the subject has somewhat lost interest. A careful discussion is that of Anton Menger. In his view the Latin races, who have a genius for revolution, will ultimately organize themselves as Socialist republics, while the Germanic peoples, who move more cautiously, may effect a compromise with their reign- ing houses, which will leave to the monarch at least a semblance of rule. " In England," writes Menger, " there has been for more than two hundred years no attempt at a coup d'etat. The farthest- reaching popular wishes have been satisfied by legislation. The Continental military and police oppression is there practically unknown. The Briton may claim with justifiable pride that in ^ Signer Chiappelli, in his book, // Socialismo e il pemiero moderno, claims that the motive principle of the new Socialism is the "hunger and thirst for social justice." 78 THE NEW SOCIALISM his country obedience to the law is not only demanded from the lower classes, but is practised by the most powerful ; and that the personal freedom of the masses cannot be disturbed in order to further courtly and aristocratic interests. Hence it is probable that the social question in England will be settled by a slow development, under legal and administrative forms, and that the monarchy will be preserved." ^ In Germany, also, Dr. Menger thinks the working classes will prefer to maintain monarchical government. Georges Renard, on the other hand, discusses in a grudging tone the position of the French President under a possible Socialist constitution. "The most important function of the President of the Republic is that which makes him the nation's representative in dealing with foreign Powers; but if he is only to play an ornamental part, to take the place of the monarch at ceremonies, then the Socialist democracy, which thinks little of ceremonial, will not consider this a sufficient reason for the maintenance of so important a magistracy. If, on the other hand, he is to take a preponderating share in the direction of diplomatic affairs, to arrange and conclude treaties which bind the nation, without consulting or even warning the national representatives, then the Presidency of the Republic is not only useless, but dangerous in the highest degree." ^ International Socialists have come to no unanimous de- cision as to the retention of King or President in their imagined State, but all would agree that if such a Head were tolerated, his power must be reduced to the lowest limits and his functions restricted to necessary ceremonial tasks. All forms of Caesarism are hateful to Socialists. 2. Universal Suffrage. — The new Socialists, like their predecessors, desire that the working classes in all countries shall conquer for themselves supreme political power, therefore they advocate a universal suffrage, from which ^ Neue Staatslehre, pp. 173, 174. ^ Le Socialisme a I'CEwvre, p. 337. WORKING OF THE SOCIALIST STATE 79 none save minors and the mentally incompetent shall be excluded. The question of the suffrage for women is discussed by many Socialist writers, though others signifi- cantly avoid it. The general drift of opinion within the party strongly favours a female franchise. Georges Renard says : " Against the principle of universal suffrage, in- cluding the admission of women to the vote, no serious objection can be raised, and Socialists ought to demand and obtain it.-^ Renard, however, wishes the change to come about gradually, and recommends that women should receive a gradual preparation for the fullest political rights. He dreads the influence of the clergy upon women, especially in Roman Catholic countries, and thinks that the whole force of the female vote might be thrown for a time on the side of reaction. Dr. Menger, on the other hand, insists on the complete and immediate political enfranchisement of women. 3. Parliamentary Rule. — In discussing the Parliament- ary and judicial changes that might be desirable in a democratic Work-State, the best class of Socialists write with extreme caution. A typical passage is the following from Merlino — " Our political, like our economic, organization is the result of a long development, and could not be radically transformed at short notice. ... It would be absurd to deny that the present political system is greatly preferable to the older forms of govern- ment — feudal, monarchical, absolute, theocratic, etc. Not the central government only, but the different branches of State administration are better organized to-day than ever. The legislation of a representative chamber, however bad it may be, is always preferable to the will of a despot." ^ Our judicial system may not be ideally perfect, but who 1 Le Socialisme a FCEwvre, pp. 306, 307. 2 Formes et Essence du Socialisme^ pp. 106, 107. 8o THE NEW SOCIALISM would wish to substitute for it the rule of the Cadi under the palm-tree, or of the elders in the Gate, or any form of mob-law ? Dr. Menger and M. Renard approve of a bi-cameral system. The former thinks that a second chamber would be necessary in order to prevent the over-hasty legislation to which the new democracy would be constantly tempted. " Over-haste," he adds, " would be doubly dangerous in the democratic Work-State, because the legislature would concern itself chiefly with social rather than political tasks. Historical experience proves that the greatest transforma- tions of political power can very easily be reversed, but that social transformations remain almost always irrevoc- able facts." Socialist writers of Georges Renard's school are fully awake to this danger, and feel that some check on popular caprice must remain in the Socialist Constitution. As a counter-check, Renard proposes the regular use of the Referendum^ so that the people may constantly renew their mandate to their representatives in Parliament. 4. The Official Class. — All Socialists desire to lighten the labours of the central governing body by an elaborate system of decentralization. Their sanest thinkers do not deny that the Work-State will have to support an immense army of officials. Dr. Menger thinks that this army will fall into two main bodies, called respectively " the Boards of Public Order " and " the Economic Boards." Mr. Bruce Glasier, writing in the Labour Leader ^ on " The Plague of Officials," estimates that we have at present some two million " officials of industry," and promises that Socialism will reduce their numbers. But would not any reduction in one sphere be more than counterbalanced by ^ December 20, 1907. WORKING OF THE SOCIALIST STATE 8i increase in another ? As we consider the immense variety of functions which the State is to take over by the mere fact of its becoming the universal producer and distributor, we half suspect that under Socialism a considerable pro- portion of the people might live by " taking in each other's washing "—in other words, by looking after each other's welfare in an official capacity. Would all the citizens be eligible for official posts? Would there be freedom in choosinof one's life-work? This is the important question to which we shall next address ourselves. CHAPTER VIII THE COMMANDEERING OF LIVES UNDER SOCIALISM "Socialism," said Ledru-Rollin, in 1848, "means that the State shall take the place of individual freedom and shall become the most frightful of tyrants." If we seek among the utterances of Socialists of the last generation for a statement which would justify such language, we may find it, perhaps, in a famous saying of Karl Pearson : " Socialists have to inculcate that spirit which would give offenders against the State short shrift and the nearest lamp-post. Every citizen must learn to say with Louis XIV, ' UEtat c^est moi.^ " ^ Do the Socialists of to-day accept the teaching of Pear- son.'^ The question can be answered only after a very careful examination of their international literature. Their wisest minds, as the impartial inquirer must admit, are deeply exercised by the problem of the reconciliation of personal freedom with complete State control. I Opposing views of Socialists on this Question I. Some of the ablest Socialist writers recognize the danger of a Socialist tyranny. Karl Kautsky, in his book on the Erfurt programme, ^ Etkk of Free Thought, p. 324. 82 THE COMMANDEERING OF LIVES 83 has a very interesting chapter on " Socialism and Free- dom." -^ He acknowledges that there is a class of Social- ists — the so-called Anarchists — who dread the possible slavery that would be the lot of all men under a Collectivist State. He is answering comrades as well as opponents when he tries to show that the well-fed, well-clothed, com- fortably-housed Socialist citizen would not be a serf at the call of his master, the State. " Our opponents," says Kautsky, " compare the lot of the individual under Socialist rule to that of the caged bird." " The bird in the cage may depend on having a sufficient supply of daily seed ; he is secured from hunger, storm and foes. But he has no freedom, and therefore he is a pitiable creature, who longs to fly out into the world of dangers and necessity, out into the struggle for existence." ^ There is something pathetic in Kautsky's refutation of this argument, because he misses the essential point. " It is true enough," he says, " that Socialistic production is incompatible with full freedom of work ; /. e. with the freedom of the labourer to work where, when, and as he wills. But this freedom of the workman is impossible under any organized asso- ciation of labourers, whether founded on capitalistic or collectivist principles." ^ He argues that under the present system neither hand nor brain workers are free to choose their duties. Doctors, school-masters, railway officials, journalists, must keep their hours, must appear at the allotted place to carry out the allotted task.* He admits that the worker of to-day has a distinct advantage over the citizen of the imagined ^ DasErfurter Programm, pp. 166-176. We need not apologize for referring readers often to the works of Kautsky. He is a Socialist " of the old rock," and at the same time he is fully alive to the changing conditions of the age. There is a frank honesty in all his books which appeals to impartial minds. He is the true intellectual heir of Marx. 2 Ibid. p. 166. a 7/,/^. p, 167, 4 ihjj^ p, ,68. G 2 84 THE NEW SOCIALISM Socialist State in that he can, in most cases, transfer his services from one master to another. Under Socialism we should all be either loyal, unquestioning servants of our sole master, the State, or rebels who deserve starvation, exile, " the nearest lamp-post." Kautsky shows how the growing mass of unemployment makes it difficult for the worker who is thrown out to choose another master. "The number of vacant posts is far smaller than the number of candidates. The man who is out of work must think himself lucky, as a rule, if he can find any position." It is strange that so able a writer should fail to recognize that the real difficulty for the impartial student is how to reconcile individual freedom with the inexorable necessity that the State should provide a sufficient service (but no more) for every calling. Demand and supply, in material things, would be strictly regulated by the Socialist bureau- cracy, and the same rule would inevitably hold good with lives. It is not the middle-aged " out-of-work " who would feel the full pressure of the autocracy, but the young man whose career was chosen for him, as far as possible with deference to his aptitudes and inclinations, but in the last resort with a view to State necessities. Kautsky's message to the working-man may be summed up as follows : (a) You are not a free agent now, and we cannot promise that you will be one under the Socialist State. But you will find many advantages in exchanging the rule of the private capitalist for that of the community. (b) The true goal is not freedom to work, but deliverance from work as far as work means wearing drudgery. Dr. Menger has a serious passage on the risks of Social- ist interference with individual liberty. After opposing the THE COMMANDEERING OF LIVES 85 view of German Conservative statesmen that Socialism would involve a barrack discipline for everybody, with the alternative of the house of correction, he says — " We should be wrong, however, it we rejected entirely the idea which lies at the basis of these objections. While it is certain that for the community as a whole the lessening of economic free- dom is not necessarily bound up with the democratic work-State, the danger does undoubtedly exist that this form of government should misuse its great economic powers for the enslavement or the individual, as the present individualistic power-State misuses its political supremacy." ^ The utmost caution, the strictest self-control, would be necessary, in Dr. Menger's opinion, on the part of a Social- ist Government, in order to avert this danger. Public advantages, he says, must be sacrificed rather that that personal freedom should be infringed. Only in cases of the utmost importance must the State demand enforced ser- vice from its citizens.^ *' Otherwise there is reason to fear that the democratic work-State would quickly comprise the most powerful elements of an individualistic tendency, just as in our own time the encroachments of individualism have become the chief motive force in the development of Socialism." ^ Mr. H. G. Wells says— " Let us be frank ; a form of Socialism might conceivably exist without much freedom, with hardly more freedom than that of a British worker to-day. A State Socialism tyrannized over by officials who might be almost as bad at times as uncontrolled small employers, is so far possible that in Germany it is practically half-existent now. A bureaucratic Socialism might conceivably be a state of affairs scarcely less detestable than our own." ^ ^ Neue Staatslehre, p. 65. ^ Ibid. ' Ibid. * New fTorlds for Old, p. 208. 86 THE NEW SOCIALISM » 2. Other Socialists, while admitting that their ideal State must be an autocracy, declare that the individual has nothing to fear. One of these is Georges Renard. " Socialism grants to the individual an Inviolable domain," says M. Renard, "round which it will raise, rather than overthrow, sacred barriers. . . . Everything that belongs to private life, to opinion, to conscience, must be protected from all attacks, [for these things lie] without and above all reasons of State. In the full liberty of associations, and amongst them of the Churches, in freedom to meet in public, to speak and to write. Socialism sees no annoying derogation of its authoritative principle, but the very raison d'etre and the most desirable result of the authority it wishes to establish." ^ The honeyed words of M. Renard may have sweetened the hard morsel of Socialism for many a French working- man. But he represents, on this question, only the most optimistic section of his party, and, as we shall see, he makes provision, in another book, against the very dangers to the individual which the late Dr. Menger dreaded. 3. There are Socialists among the moderns who would accept the full teaching of Karl Pearson. We may take as an example M. Deslinieres, who, in his book on the Application of the Collectivist System, lays down a series of urgent provisional laws for the Socialist commonwealth. They include the following — {a) The granting of arms to the executive government for the prevention of all disorder from the beginning. This right is to be used with extreme moderation. {h) The suspension of the liberty of the press and of public meeting at the will of the government. {c) The restoration to the government of the right of appointing municipal bodies. [d) All men of full age who have not yet reached the age or retirement are to be required to work in the public service, in return for a fair salary. {e) For those who refuse, the punishment will be confiscation of Le Socialisme a I'CEu-vre, p. 301. THE COMMANDEERING OF LIVES 87 all income above the wage of a journeyman of the third class ; for those with a smaller income, enrolment among the pensionaries of the social poor law. {f) Any one who, without permission from the government, lives more than three months abroad is to lose his national rights and his property.^ II Would Individual Freedom he Possible under a Socialist State? We proceed next to inquire (i) what would be the con- ditions of life under a Socialist State which, in the view of Socialists themselves, might restrict personal freedom, and (2) how Socialists propose to meet the difficulty. Socialism, by its basic principles, guarantees to every citizen equality of opportunity. Its teachers agree that while men can never be intellectually equal, the State can at least provide for each the same chance at the beginning, the same fair start in life. The doctrine of equality of opportunity is one of the root-principles of Liberal as well as Socialist policy, and has been expounded with great ability by Mr. Asquith. But while Liberals believe that the necessary changes must come gradually and by a process of evolution, the Socialist State would from the beginning impose equal obligations upon every citizen. Unless human nature were to under- go that radical and inexplicable change which seems to be a primary condition of any Socialist success, men would want to choose their work according to their own capacities and inclinations, not to be driven to work at whatever occu- pation the State might select for them. " Quite so," reply 1 L' application du Systeme Colhcti-viste, pp. 469-471. Chapter entitled "Lois urgentes provisoires," (Paris. 1899. Librairie de la Revue Socialiste.) 88 THE NEW SOCIALISM the Socialists; "we intend as far as possible to make pro- vision for the fullest and freest use of natural gifts and tastes.^ At our primary schools children will be carefully examined for the purpose of ascertaining how they can best serve the community. The boy with a gift for drawing will have his chance of going into an architect's office, the lad who excels in study will be marked out for one of the learned professions." In this connection it should be noted that Socialists are preparing for a very heavy educational budget, and we can understand how vast an army of officials will be required for this analysis of youthful capacity in the schools. The same freedom for all in theory, but in practice only such freedom as is consistent with the fulfilment of the disagreeable as well as the pleasanter tasks of the world — this would be the utmost that Socialism could give. M. Renard, in his attractive and ingenious book, Le Regime Socialiste, goes into this question of the division of work under the Socialist State, with special reference to the supply of labour for the difficult, dangerous, and unsavoury occupations. Who, for instance, would choose the miner's perilous calling and consent to hazard his life, year in, year out, in the depths of the earth, if he could secure a livelihood in- stead as a small official of the State Mining Board ? Who would be a sewer-man, or a scavenger, if the chance were open to him (with equal opportunities, be it remembered, in early education) of becoming a desk-worker in some Lon- don office.^ Would not officialism generally, and all the easy, sunshiny occupations, attract a horde of applicants, ■* M. Deslini^res, it must in fairness be said, proposed to include among his urgent measures a rule providing that every citizen should labour at his own profession, business, etc., or in some other of a similar character. THE COMMANDEERING OF LIVES 89 while the most arduous and unhealthy trades would be entirely neglected ? M. Renard, after admitting that the opponents of Social- ism have here touched upon a great and real difficulty, seeks to solve it as follows — {a) Men have varying tastes and inclinations. Danger itself is attractive to some dispositions. The severest muscular strain would to some people be more welcome than any mental exertion. Therefore the supposed in- equality might not be so great as some imagine. (h) By the invention of labour-saving machinery, and new contrivances of all sorts, the most perilous employ- ments would in course of time be made comparatively safe and easy. (c) Men who accept unattractive employments should receive higher remuneration than others. M. Renard pro- poses an automatic balance-system, under which, in propor- tion as any trade becomes overcrowded, those employed in it will be made to work shorter hours, and in con- sequence, to receive less payment than the workers in the less desirable occupations. Other Socialists, again, would give equal payment to all, but would allow the scavenger and the sewer-man, the chimney-sweep and the slater, to earn their living by a shorter daily output of labour than is expected from the average worker. For the learned professions the standard of acquirements would be raised in such a way as to keep out all but the best men.-^ Mermeix, in his impartial examination of Socialism,^ quotes with great delight that passage in William Morris's ^ We have summarized these proposals from Le Ri!gime Socialisre, pp. 145-147, Sixth edition, 1907. (Felix Alcan. Paris.) 2 Le Socialisme, p. 270. 90 THE NEW SOCIALISM News from Nowhere, in which the diners in the Guest House see " a splendid figure slowly sauntering over the pavement; a man whose surcoat was embroidered most copiously as well as elegantly, so that the sun flashed back from him as if he had been clad in golden armour." ^ This magnificent figure, the Socialist Mr. Bofifin (his real name is Henry Johnson), is the " Golden Dustman " to his comrades. In work-life he is only " le ramasseur d^ordures, le boueux,^^ but he is called Boffin as a joke, " partly because he is a dustman, and partly because he will dress so showily, and get as much gold on him as a baron of the Middle Ages. As why should he not if he likes.?" This is very pleasing, and the new Socialists revel in the idea of the work-task and the leisure-task for every indi- vidual. Mr. Blatchford, in The Sorcery Shop, introduces us to a company of navvies at their task of cutting.^ These handsome, muscular fellows wear the traditional moleskin trousers and blue or grey shirts, with collars open at the throat. They wash their hands before the midday meal, they discuss a new translation of the Odyssey and a psycho- logical problem. They are presented to us as ideal citizens of the Socialist State. Yet, amidst their apparent happiness and freedom, we feel that the iron fetters bind them at wrists and ankles. The Socialist State, considered as an employer of labour, appears to the impartial student like a mediaeval war-lord, whose full panoply of mail is con- cealed beneath robes of flowing velvet. He desires to reign despotically over a willing and obedient people, but he means to set his iron heel on the neck of every rebel. Statements like those of M. Deslinieres and Karl Pear- ^ Neivsfrom No'where. Tenth edition, 1908. (Longmans.) ^ The Sorcer Shop, pp. 136-146. THE COMMANDEERING OF LIVES 91 son are out of fashion with the majority of Socialists to-day. But if the words are obsolete, the idea survives. M. Des- linieres himself has an eloquent passage on prison reform, in which he maintains that our gaols should be trans- formed into agreeable country residences. The criminal is to be allowed to dress and eat as he chooses, to read the newspapers, to smoke, and receive daily visits from his friends without the presence of a warder.-^ The comforts of the new prison system, there is reason to suppose, would be reserved for offenders against the ordinary code of morals, not for rebels against the State. The Socialist State could not afford to tolerate rebels.^ ^ op. cit. p. 191. 2 It is surprising to find how very few of the newer Socialist writers even touch upon the question of the treatment of rebels against the State. Nearly all assume that under such blissful rule there would be no rebellion. CHAPTER IX THE REWARDS OF LABOUR UNDER SOCIALISM For the student of Socialism there is no more attractive occupation than that of tracing, in the earlier and later international literature, the changing views of the great thinkers on the question of equality under the Socialist State. As Shakespeare endowed some of his favourite characters with an idealism which he was far from sharing, so a large class of Socialist leaders legislate, perhaps un- knowingly, for a perfected human race, freed from all the weaknesses and trammels of mortality. Among the earlier philosophers, it should be noted, the doctrine of an equality of rewards was not universal. The followers of Saint Simon and Fourier were prepared for a hierarchical organ- ization of society. But it has been a theory of many later writers that equal payments to every worker would be the only fair system under a Socialist State. Karl Marx, in Capital, assumed equal wages as a necessary corollary for the " dogma " of human equality. A doctor, for example, is to give his nights and days to the relief of suffering, without material or moral recognition beyond that which the sewer-man receives for his short hours of toil. William Morris, with a want of perspicacity singular enough in such a genius, imagined that the liberty to wear fine clothes would exercise some extraordinarily stimulating influence. There is no Socialist to-day (not even Morris's spiritual son, Robert Blatchford) who would fill space by 92 THE REWARDS OF LABOUR 93 describing men's waist-belts of damascened steel and fili- gree silver-work, as if these pretty trifles could be fetters binding hearts to the new order. Dilettante Socialism is dead everywhere, and the twentieth century teachers are facing real and earnest problems. I Views of English Socialists on the Equality of Rewards I. Opinions in Favour of Equality. — Mr. Blatchford, in The Sorcery Shop, goes into this question carefully. His wizard engages the visitors in a series of Socratic discussions. " You really believe," says the wizard, " that a man possessed of the genius to invent a much-needed machine, or to do a much- needed w^ork, can only be induced to act by the hope of pecuniary reward." "I believe," said Mr. Jorkle, "that a man will try harder for money than for anything else." " But you admit that genius can and does work without hope of gain." " Oh — sometimes." " Sometimes. And you admit that greed can accomplish nothing without genius." "That is not the argument." " That is part of the argument. For it seems to show that genius is stronger than greed, and that genius is not dependent upon greed for its impulse to action." '^ The subject is resumed later on, and the wizard is asked — " But you propose that all men should be on a level. You would pay the doctor no more than the docker. Do you expect that to result in anything but deterioration ?" " I expect it to work, as it does work now, the whole world over, successfully," answers the wizard.^ ^ Tke Sorcery Shop, pp. 109, 1 10. Ibid. p. 116. 94 THE NEW SOCIALISM A few pages further on the wizard says to the General — " You suggest that we should pay the superior person superior wages because he confers extra benefits upon us." "Exactly." " But suppose we feel that by paying a lot of money to one who is a benefactor we convert him into an injury or a menace to the community. Suppose we feel that to give the benefactor riches is to make the boon into a bane." ^ The wizard proceeds to argue that Socialists are at liberty to decline any man's services rather than consent to make the benefactor a rich man. The theory of Socialists of Mr. Blatchford's school is that in the ideal community every man will have all that a man needs, and that it would be most unreasonable for the more highly gifted citizens to sulk and refuse to benefit their fellows because nothing can be given them beyond the essentials of a happy and healthy life, with esteem and love to boot.^ In the Fabian essays on Socialism there is a chapter by Mrs. Annie Besant, in which Mr. Blatchford's line is taken. ^ 2. English Opponents of Equality of Payment. — The passages we have quoted hardly represent the newest thought in the world-wide Socialist army. Mr. Sidney Ball is much more closely in touch with his comrades when he writes — " Modern Socialism . . . does not base industrial organization on ' the right to work ' so much as on the right of the worker, not on ' payment according to needs ' so much as on ' payment according to services ' : it recognizes the remuneration of ability, provided that the ability does not merely represent a monopoly of privileged and non-competitive advantage." * ^ TJie Sorcery Shop, pp. 119, 120. ^ Ibid. p. 123. ^ Fabian Essays: Industry under Socialism, pp. 163, 164. * Socialism and Indi'vidualism. Chapter on "The Moral Aspects of Socialism," by Sidney Ball, M.A. Fabian Socialist Series, No. 3. THE REWARDS OF LABOUR 95 Mr. H. G. Wells, it need hardly be said, does not contemplate any system of equal salaries for all. " Social- ism," he says, " would leave men free to compete for fame, for service, for salaries^ for position and authority, for leisure, for love and honour." ^ He encourages the elementary school-teacher with the prospect of higher pay- ment,^ and he adds — " You will have no anxiety about sickness or old age ; the State, the universal Friendly Society, will hold you secure against that ; but if you like to provide extra luxury and dignity for your declining years . . . the State will be quite ready for you to pay it an insurance premium in order that you may receive in due course an extra annuity to serve the end you contemplate." ^ Mr. Ramsay Macdonald says — " Socialism proposes to establish no state of equality. It only proposes to adapt each organ to its natural function — to give to each man a chance of doing congenial work in the complex social life."^ Mr. F. W. Jowett, M.P., says that in the Socialist city " salaries must be liberal enough to attract the best men to the public service." ^ He proposes larger consultation fees for specialists,^ to be paid jointly by associated corpora- tions, and he wishes doctors to be placed above the reach of personal competition. The truth is that hardly a single practical thinker among English Socialists contemplates equality of payment, except as a "devout imagination"; and when we turn to the newest foreign Socialist writers, we find that they are equally opposed to Mr. Blatchford's views. 1 New JVorlds for Old, p. no. ^ Ibid. p. 311. * Ibid. p. 312. * Socialism, p. 93. ^ The Socialist's City, p. 17. ^ Ibid. p. 19. 96 THE NEW SOCIALISM II Foreign views on Equal Rewards The question of equality of payments came before German Socialists in a practical way in 1892, when the question of Liebknecht's salary as editor of Vorwdrts was raised at the Berlin Congress. This paper, the property of the party, paid Liebknecht the modest salary of ^360 a year. It was pointed out that the com- positors engaged on this profitable journal did not make ^50 a year, although their hours of labour were as long as the editor's. The extremer comrades could not see why a newspaper under their own control should be conducted on capitalistic rather than on Socialistic principles. When the question was brought up, Liebknecht declared that he could not live on a smaller income, and that he could earn three times as much money by selling his writings in a different market.-^ The Congress accepted his plea that in bourgeois society equality was impossible. And the most thoughtful minds in the German party admit that even in a Socialist State there could be no equal rewards for all. I. Influences which would Prevent Equality. — Dr. Menger, in his chapter on " The Idea of Equality," re- marks that complete economic equality would be possible only under an anarchist organization of society. In the Socialist State the following causes would work against it : (a) The distinction between the rulers and the ruled, which in his view will be even sharper under Socialism, because the governing class will extend their power over the whole economic domain;^ (b) the wide differences in culture ' See Dr. John Rae's remarks on this incident in Contemporary Socialism, p. 524. ^ Neue Staatslehre, p. 65. THE REWARDS OF LABOUR 97 and knowledge which would remain between individuals; '• (c) the varying amount and value of the work that would be accomplished by individuals; (d) the preponderating power which the most highly skilled artisans would have in the social revolution. " As the middle-class revolutions ot the eighteenth and nine- teenth century worked chiefly for the advantage of the upper middle classes, the Socialist movement . . . will be peculiarly favourable to the interests of the most influential elements in the w^orking class." 2. Danger to the State from a System of Equal Pay- ments. — Dr. Menger, in common with other Socialist leaders, sees that if the material motive to labour were taken away, men would sink into a kind of Quietism, and the supposed work-State would become a mere organiza- tion for the supply of daily victuals all round. ^ No one has written more forcibly than Dr. Menger on the folly of supposing that human nature will undergo a great change for the better under Socialism, and that self-interest will cease to be a powerful goad to action. Thus he says— " I do not believe that the democratic work-State can take an essentially different attitude towards the play of human passions and efforts from that which is adopted by our present organization of politics. As long as each human being forms within the compass of his body a little world to himself, which feels keenly its own pain and its own pleasure, while it is touched only very indirectly by the joy and suffering of others, self-interest must ever remain the most imposing of all motives of human conduct. The establishment of the people's work-State, will not, as so many ^ On this point Dr. Menger remarks very truly that progress in all departments of science and technical knowledge is becoming more and more a matter for specialists. In view even of the costly and delicate apparatus which is necessary for scientific research, he laughs at the idea of Bebel that individuals will be able to carry on scientific studies as a hobby along with their manual labour, and the suggestion of Proudhon that instruction in science could be combined with a practical training in some mechanical art. P. 66. ^ In his graphic phrase, Ein Mait-und-Futter-Staat, p. 68. H 98 THE NEW SOCIALISM Socialist writers assume, accomplish this miracle, even although by the transformation of the property-system it removes the most powerful motive to self-seeking action." ^ Many Socialist systems, as Dr. Menger goes on, seek to base themselves from the beginning on the love of one's neighbour and on universal brotherhood. " It would be a dangerous error," he replies, "if we were to assume that even the most mighty overthrow of social institutions could essentially change the fundamental impulses of human nature." ^ It is true of this non-Christian philosopher, in contradiction to Rousseau and the more flattering teachers of modern Socialism, that he has " launched point-blank his dart At the head of a lie — taught Original Sin, The Corruption of Man's Heart." We must reckon, he says, with the continuance of evil as well as good passions in the breast of man. There is no moral " new birth " in Socialism.^ He desires that there should be a hierarchy in the Socialist State — not in Saint-Simon's theocratic sense, but for purely secular pur- poses. Whether the very object and meaning of Socialism would not be defeated by the re-establishment of the class- system is a problem which Dr. Menger does not face. The point which concerns us here is that he sees the impossi- bility of any plan of equal rewards for all workers. Menger regards equality of payments as an idle and foolish dream; Kautsky lingers over the idea affectionately, and dismisses it reluctantly.'* He denies that Socialists ever cherished the communistic idea of " sharing out," though he admits that even highly cultured people assumed ^ Neue Staatslehre, pp. 51, 52. ^ Ibid. p. 53. ^ Ibid. p. 54. * See his long chapter on "The Division of Products in the Future State," Dai Er^urter Programm, pp, 153-166. THE REWARDS OF LABOUR 99 until recently in Germany that Socialism meant the divid- ing up amongst the masses of all State property. The most important lesson which Kautsky teaches is that only a fraction of the total products of the nation-'s industry could ever be available for distribution. Taxation would be exceedingly heavy, and in his view the wages of the working classes would not be greatly raised above their present standard unless production could be vastly quickened. The State would have to bear all the burdens which are now borne by capitalists. It would require a large sinking fund, an accumulation of wealth for possible need. It dare not imitate the improvidence of the grasshopper in La Fontaine's fable; for there would be no prudent ants in the shape of rich accumulators to whom an appeal might be made more successfully than in the poem. Mermeix asks the question : " Would social burdens be diminished; would ' Society ' be less expensive than the present State.? " He answers truly enough that all the writers who have discussed the " morrow of revolu- tion " — men like Schaeffle, Kautsky, Renard, and Des- linieres — take a pessimistic view. In his book entitled Le Regime Socialiste^ Georges Renard discusses at considerable length the question of work and its rewards under Socialism. He sees as clearly as Menger that even if, in a moment of lofty enthusiasm, the new State were to declare for equal incomes for all, the equality would very soon disappear, unless the entire social order were to be based on injustice. He thinks that special indulgence must be shown to scholars, artists, and inventors. "As the value of the results of their labour, which is often immense, cannot be measured by the time it has cost, society will always be free to encourage an activity, which from its own point H 2 loo THE NEW SOCIALISM of view is so precious, by granting to them on a generous scale the means of existence and of work, by securing to them ample and happy leisure, as if they were exceptional beings who had deserved well of the nation. Society, by the prizes it will thus offer for really creative work, will decide of itself what progress it wishes to make and what rank it desires to occupy among civilized peoples." ^ For the general mass of workers, M. Renard would allow a scale of rewards sufficient to stimulate energy. " A slight economic inequality may remain among the members of the same society, but this will tend to decrease with the more equal distribution of knowledge and capacity, and in proportion also as the growing sense of justice enables us to reward the effort rather than the result. Meanwhile this inequality will have nothing to do with the things that are indispensable to life. It will always be based on a real inequality of merit, and it will remain small in most cases." ^ Nearly all Socialists, as we have seen, recognize that for one reason or another, inequalities of payment must con- tinue under a Socialist State. They promise, not strict equality, but a secure and comfortable existence to every citizen. ^ Le Regime Socialiste, pp. 179, 1 80. ^ Ibid. p. 41. CHAPTER X SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY We now approach the most difficult and debatable part of our subject, for there is no question on which Socialists are more sensitive than that of their teaching on the family. They constantly accuse critics of misrepresenting their views, and the impartial inquirer must walk warily on this treacherous ground. We may say at once that we have no intention of hunting, either in the earlier or later Socialist literature, for the utterances of extremists; our citations will be fully representative of the opinions of moderate leaders, and we shall choose them, as before, mainly from the writings of the last ten years. We need not linger for more than a sentence or two on the Socialist attitude on the housing question, which fills much space in their magazines and newspapers. All Liberals must earnestly sympathize with Socialists in their efforts to improve the homes of the people. One of the most instructive articles ever written on the housing prob- lem in England was published by Eduard Bernstein in 1900.-^ Bernstein quoted with approval the remark of Mr. Haldane at a meeting of the Christian Social Union, that a Kitchener or a Roberts should be commissioned to sweep away the slums, and, he added, " The entire social question is grouped about the housing question." Half ^ It appeared in the Archi-v fur soziaU Gesetzgebung. lOI I02 THE NEW SOCIALISM the evils which Socialists deplore in the family-life of the poorer classes would vanish with the provision of decent dwellings. " There is not a single statesman of any reputa- tion," wrote Bernstein in 1900, "who does not consider that the present condition as regards housing and the legislation connected with it, ought to be altered." The housing problem in London alone appeared to the German Socialist critic like a many-headed hydra. He added, " It is incredible how much enthusiasm this human wilderness of London destroys." Liberals and Socialists can work as comrades in advancing these material reforms with which the moral welfare of the family is so closely entwined. No point of controversy arises here. We may pass quickly over another favourite topic of constructive Socialists — the question, namely, of whether families under the new State would lead a barrack life or would have separate homes. As. Dr. Menger sensibly remarks, the fact that small houses are already everywhere in existence seems to decide the general mode of living for several generations to come. The real question to which we seek an answer is. Would Socialism destroy the home ? The great majority of the new Socialists answer with an indignant denial. Some Recent Declarations of Socialists on the Family Mr. Ramsay Macdonald says — " The idea that Socialism is opposed to the family organization is absurd. . . . Nowhere and at no time was the abolition or even the weakening of the family incorporated in the Socialist creed. Indeed, much of the Socialist criticism has been directed against the debased form of the family — the loveless marriages, the cash instead of the affectionate bonds, the sale of daughters which is so SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 103 prevalent in capitalist and aristocratic society. Until women are free we cannot know what a real marriage is." ^ Mr. Blatchford, in The Sorcery Shop, expresses himself, through the wizard, to much the same effect. In the Socialist Utopia into which the wizard has introduced the General and Mr. Jorkle, " There are," he says, " no laws. But there are customs. One of these customs is the custom of marriage — the custom of strict monogamy. . . . When a couple do discover that they are ill-sorted they may part ; but generally they make the best of it, for the children's sake. But woman or man divorced has but a poor chance of a second marriage." . . . " Come," said Mr. Jorkle, with a forensic air, " what about free love in this moral State ? " " All love here is free ; that is why the relations of the sexes are so happy and so pure." " But I always understood," the magnate persisted, " that under Socialism free love would ride rough-shod over every moral restraint, and that the family ideal would be destroyed. Do you mean to say it is not so here ? " " Some Socialists may have given cause for such a fear," said the wizard ; " but there are few English Socialists who would endorse such extravagant ideas." ^ Mr. Wells, whose ripened views on the family are given in New Worlds for Old, says — " So far as the family is a name for a private property in a group of related human beings vested in one of them, the Head of the Family, Socialism repudiates it altogether as unjust and uncivilized ; but so far as the family is a grouping of children with their parents, with the support and consent and approval of the whole community. Socialism advocates it, and would make it, for the first time, so far as a very large moiety of our population is concerned, a possible and efficient thing." ^ Mr. Wells says further — "Socialism does not present any theory whatever about the duration of marriage, whether, as among the Roman Catholics, it 1 Socialism, pp. 94, 95. '■^ The Sorcery Shop, pp. 45-48. * l^cw Worlds for Old, p. 131. I04 THE NEW SOCIALISM should be absolutely for life, or, as some hold, for ever ; or, as among the various divorce-permitting Protestant bodies, until this or that eventuality ; or even, as Mr, George Meredith suggested some years ago, for a term of ten years. In these matters Socialism does not decide, and it is quite reasonable to argue that Socialism need not decide." ^ Merlino expresses the opinion that the family will con- tinue under Socialism. " We do not believe there will be a slackening of family bonds, but we believe other bonds will be added to them, and that men will not be any the less good fathers, brothers, husbands, because they will be better citizens." ^ Merlino's treatment of the subject is on a distinctly lower moral level, however, than that of most English Socialists. Some Italian writers are fond of toying with the idea of free love, perhaps because their hatred of the Christian religion is peculiarly strong.^ Kautsky says — " The family of to-day is in no way inconsistent with the nature of co-operative production. Therefore, the carrying into practice of a Socialist order of society does not of itself in any way necessitate the dissolution of the existing family form." * These repudiations in general terms might be multiplied to any extent, but when we have noted the fact that modern Socialists declare themselves broadly as in favour of up- holding the family organization, we are only at the begin- ning of our subject. They are profoundly dissatisfied with ^ Neiv Worlds for Old, pp. 134, 135. 2 Formes et Essence du Socialisme, p. 115. ' Merlino says (p. 115): "La famille abandonnera son enveloppe legale, mais ellc perfectionnera son contenu. Les relations sexuelles seront peut-etre moins exclusives, mais elles seront aussi moins brutales." No one has written more contemptuously of the marriage relationship than Enrico Ferri, one of the foremost of the Italian leaders. Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, in his preface to the English translation of Prof. Ferri's book, Socialism and Positi've Science, carefully separates himself from Ferri on this and other important questions. * Das Erfurter Programm, p. 146. SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 105 many aspects of family life, especially in the homes of the poor, and they desire to introduce drastic changes. When Socialists are asked, " Do you mean to abolish the family? " they frequently answer with mournful emphasis, " No, because it is abolished already. Our plan is rather to reconstruct it." Take, for instance, this passage from Kautsky — " People accuse Social Democracy of seeking to get rid of the family. We are aware, it is true, that every special mode of industrial life has its special form of the household, to which a special family form must correspond. We do not believe that the present form of the family is the final form, and we expect that a new form of society will also develop a new family organization. But such an expectation is a very difiFerent thing from the attempt to dissolve every family bond. It is not the Socialists who are destroying the family — not only wishing to destroy, but actually doing it before our eyes ; it is the capitalists. Many slave-owners in former days tore the husband from the wife, the parents from the children who were of an age to work ; but capitalists go beyond the shameless deeds of slavery ; they snatch the sucking child from its mother, and force her to entrust it to the hands of strangers." ^ II The Darker Side of Family Life as Seen by Socialists What are these glaring evils in the home life of the people against which Socialists utter a passionate protest ? (i) They assert that capitalism has always been the worst enemy of family life. It has forced women and children into mines and factories, and its true spirit was revealed in the cruelties that took place before the factory legisla- tion. It has reduced men's wages to a point at which they had to be supplemented by the earnings of other members of the family. Individualists like M. Yves Guyot, it may be noted, write even now in cautious, grudging strains of ^ Das Erfurter Programm, p. 41. io6 THE NEW SOCIALISM the liberation of young lives from long hours of wage- earning. There is a significant chapter in M. Guyot's volume on Social Tyranny^ in which, while approving on the whole of the laws for the regulation of child labour in France, he says it is important that the law shall not be used in a nagging way, so as to persecute parents and employers. He thinks that young girls and children would be best kept out of mischief by staying on in the workshop or factory while their parents are there. " What will they do outside ? Is it not better for them to be beside their mother or their father ? If the father works twelve hours, he will not leave until two hours after his children, one hour after his wife. Instead of their all going away together, each one will go off in his own direction. Do morality and the family gain anything by that ? . . . Besides, in certain trades the collabora- tion of the child is indispensable. When he is gone the mother and the father may as well depart also. The supporters of the limita- tion of the hours of work glory in having obtained these results ; but they have provoked crises, strikes, difficulties, and they have not added to the well-being of the home or to the prosperity of industry." ^ If an able and enlightened publicist like M. Guyot is prepared to keep a child twelve hours a day in the factory, and fails even to understand why the wife should be re- leased an hour earlier than her husband, if only that she may prepare his supper, can we wonder that Socialists believe that the seeds of slavery for the more helpless members of the family are still fermenting under the soil of our beneficent factory legislation ? They point to the thousands of lads and girls in our great cities whose forma- tive years are occupied with casual labour, who never have a chance to learn a trade, and they say, " Under Socialism we should chano^e all that." o 1 La Tyrannie Sacialhte, p. 1 20. SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 107 " The industrial labour of women," says Kautsky, " means under capitalistic society the complete destruction of the workers' family life without its being replaced by a higher family form. The capitalistic method of production does not, in most cases, abolish the separate household of the worker, but it robs the home of all its brighter aspects, and allows only its darker features to continue ; above all, the waste of strength and the exclusion of the woman from a wider life. Industrial labour by women to-day does not involve their release from housework, but the addition of a new burden to those they were bearing already. But we cannot serve two masters. The working-man's housekeeping goes to ruin if his wife is obliged to take her share in earning." ^ (2) Socialists declare that under the present economic system it is impossible that the members of our working- class families should ever know security or lasting happi- ness. The head of the household is haunted continually by the spectre of unemployment, and the age-limit in many trades is forty or forty-five. Mr. Keir Ilardie says — " As old age approaches — for the workman this may mean anything over forty — a cold, grey terror begins to take possession of his heart. Fight against it as he may, he cannot get away from the fact that within the circle of his acquaintance there are men just turned forty, as good workmen as himself, for whom the ordinary labour market no longer has any use. He knows his turn will also come some day. A slackness of trade, some petty offence which in a younger man would pass unnoticed, and out he goes, to return no more." ^ Then the growing boys and girls have to set themselves along with the mother, to supply the wage which has been lost. East London workers in the poorest districts tell us that in many homes there is the wretched spectacle of a father permanently out of employment, though in the prime of life, while the children, striving by casual labour to supply immediate necessities, are losing their own chance of learninor some skilled trade. o ' Das Erfurter Programm, p. 40. ^ From Serfdom to Socialism, pp. 54, 55. io8 THE NEW SOCIALISM (3) Socialists deny that virtue can flourish in poor homes under present conditions. They point, not only to the frightful results of overcrowding, but to the terrible social evil, as a direct result of capitalism. Under their imaginary commonwealth, it is claimed, that inky blot would dis- apppear, but they give no convincing reasons for such an assurance. Kautsky says — " The defencelessness of women, who have hitherto been shut up in their homes and who have only dim ideas of public life and the power of organization, is so great that the capitalist employer dares to pay them regularly wages which do not suffice for their maintenance, and to throw them back on prostitution for the additional amount required. The increase of women's industrial labour shows everywhere a tendency to draw after it an increase of prostitution. In God-fearing and moral States there are ' flourishing ' branches of industry whose workwomen are so badly paid that they would starve if they did not eke out their earnings by the wages of immorality. And the heads of these businesses say that it is only through the low scale of wages that they are able to meet the competition and to keep their concerns in a flourishing state. A higher scale of wages would ruin them."i Kautsky uses these remarkable words in the same chapter : " Under the capitalistic system of production prostitution becomes one of the pillars of society." The worst evil, he adds, which Socialists are accused of seeking to introduce into the State — the abolition of the sanctity of marriage — exists under capitalistic society, and can only be destroyed when the masses have gained economic freedom and independence. Mr. H. G. Wells has discussed this painful subject temperately in ISJew Worlds for Old, but many Continental Socialists use it as their strongest weapon against the propertied classes, whom they blame for the existence of moral evils in all civilized countries. " If the greedy rich ^ Das Erfurter Programm, p. 42. SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 109 could be deprived of their wealth," say some Socialists, " the honour of the wives and daughters of the people would be safe." It is assumed, in such arguments, that the wickedness of human nature is concentrated in the hearts of the wealthy, that " the proletariat " has no vices^ and that the only dangers to innocence and virtue come to the children of the poor from those who are far above them in the social scale. Do the common facts of experience bear out these assumptions.? Ill Changes which Socialists Seek to Introduce into Family Life The ablest of recent constructive Socialists, Dr. Anton Menger, prefaced his chapters on family life under the new State with a careful examination of Socialist teaching on free love. Fully recognizing that some of the earlier philosophers, notably those of the Saint-Simonian school, had done infinite mischief by the sensuality of their doc- trines, Menger did not imitate the violence of Kautsky's tone towards those " moral monsters " the capitalists; but asked, calmly. What is the attitude of the new Socialists towards the theory of free love which has been propounded by some of their most trusted leaders, among whom he named especially Bebel and William Morris. -"^ The passage in William Morris's writings to which Dr. Menger refers is fairly typical of the views of the anarchical section of Socialists. " Many violent acts," wrote Morris,^ "came from the artificial ^ In a note he says : " Godwin and Owen, though they wished to maintain the institution of marriage, still approached very closely to free love, because they approved of a great loosening of the marriage bond." — Neue StaatsleAre, p. 126. 2 Morris. News from Noiv/iere, pp. 89, 90. loth Edition. 1908. no THE NEW SOCIALISM perversion of the sexual passions, which caused overweening jealousies and the like miseries. Now^, when you look carefully into these you will find that what lay at the bottom of them was mostly the idea (a law-made idea) of the woman being the property of the man, whether he were husband, father, brother, or what not. That idea has, of course, vanished with private property, as well as certain follies about the ' ruin ' of women for following their natural desires in an illegal way, which, of course, was a convention caused by the laws of private property. Another cognate cause of crimes of violence was the family tyranny, which was the subject of so many novels and stories of the past, and which once more was the result of private property. Of course that is all ended, since families are held together by no bond of coercion, legal or social, but by mutual liking and affection, and everybody is free to come and go as he or she pleases." Socialists like those of Oneida and Wallingford in America accepted what they called a " complex marriage system." Both these forms of family relationship natur- ally assume that the care and education of the children will fall upon the community. Yet a third class of Social- ists have been attracted by Plato's idea of a State-marriage, which applied, it may be noted, only to the aristocratic and ruling classes in the State, and had as its object the rearing of a select type of richly endowed beings, who should combine the physical and mental excellencies of the most beautiful and gifted parents. The ideas of Enfantin, the chief follower and interpreter of Saint-Simon, lay somewhere between the notion of a " complex marriage " and a State union. His teaching was steeped in sensuality, and his immediate followers revolted against his proposal that a licence to immorality should be granted to the priest and priestess of his strange sect, and that they should regulate the love aiFairs of their flock. The mere formulating of such theories proved sufficient to produce an irreparable breach in the hitherto flourishing school of Saint-Simon and Enfantin. SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY in Fourier, in his Theorie des ^uatre Mowvements^^ pro- posed that free love should be legally permissible to all girls over eighteen, while at the same time he desired to uphold marriage, at least during his " sixth transitional period," for persons of riper years. In the seventh period, when, according to Fourier, a higher stage of development would have been reached, each woman was to be allowed a husband and an indefinite number of lovers. In every attempt to realize in practice the social ideas of Fourier, his monstrous notions on the family were set aside, and he himself, in later writings, relegated them to a distant future. The new Socialists, with rare exceptions, repudiate alto- gether the ideas of such leaders as Morris, Bebel, and in earlier times Enfantin and Fourier, on the building up of the home. The most contemptuous writing on marriage is to be found, as we have said, in the works of Italian Socialists, and particularly of Professor Ferri. We may note also this passage from Dr. Menger — *' Could free love or complex marriage be put in place of our present system of marriage ? We are certainly wrong in rejecting this reform, as is so often done, from the standpoint of morality. A condition like free love or complex marriage, through which most peoples have passed in the course of their development, cannot possibly be regarded as immoral. If the social movement were to lead men back towards these arrangements, and if they were gradually to win the support of the majority of the people, the fanatical upholders of the actual would regard them as the only moral organization of sexual life." ^ Dr. Menger, however, proceeds at once to say that the immense task which lies before Socialists would be made infinitely more complicated and burdensome if they 1 Theory of the Four Movements. 1 808. This was Fourier's carlieit important work. 2 Neue Staatilehre, p. 131. 112 THE NEW SOCIALISM attempted to " reform " the marriage laws, and he sums up his views in the following noteworthy passage, which would be subscribed by the most respectable class of Social- ists in every country in Europe — " But even if the general conditions for such a reform existed, the nations would certainly reject free love or complex unions, and firmly maintain the present form of marriage, which, however, must not be indissoluble, as with the Roman Catholics, but terminable, as in the Protestant marriage law, on important grounds. . . . There are so many defects associated with free love that the masses of the people would themselves refuse to permit it, even if in the course of events all those political and ecclesiastical forces which buttress the present monogamic system had been condemned to silence." ^ The Rev. Stewart D. Headlam writes — " What is known as ' Free Love,' which is probably neither ' free ' nor ' love,' may be right or may be wrong ; but whether right or wrong, it has nothing whatever to do with Socialism, which simply aims at the tremendous revolution of getting the great means of production out of the hands of the monopolists into the hands of the people." ^ Socialists who never mention save with abhorrence the teaching of earlier leaders on " free love," desire, however, to introduce two far-reaching changes into the life of woman. They desire [a) to secure her complete economic independence, and (b) to facilitate divorce in cases of unsatisfactory marriage. Economic Freedom of Women There is hardly a Socialist book in any language which does not insist on the necessity of freeing married women ^ Neue Staatdehre, p. 132. ^ The Socialist's Church, pp. 50, 51. Mr. Headlam, it may be noted, entirely dis- approves of the theory of the "endowment of motherhood " which is advocated by Mr. Wells. "The theory," he says, "finds favour with those bureaucrats who are hardly worthy of the name of Socialists," — P. 51. SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 113 from dependence for support on their husbands. Mr. Ramsay Macdonald says, for instance — " The economic independence of women would go far to secure their proper treatment after marriage ; a substantial increase in the price of their labour would enable women to retain self-respect, and release the mother from the weary double toil of factory and home ; an appreciation, such as the Socialist has, of the import- ance of the function of motherhood would place the married woman in a position of proud independence, and would not doom her, as she is now doomed, to a slavish dependence." ^ It must be clearly understood that by " the economic independence of women " Socialists mean that all women, like all men, shall be under the obligation to work as wage- earners in one capacity or another. Wives who were engaged in rearing young families would be held to have discharged their full duty to the State, and would be sup- ported, either by the husband's labour, as Dr. Menger suggests,^ or, since this would involve dependence on the husband, by the right to draw a maintenance from a common fund. It need hardly be said that an extreme vagueness characterizes all references to this " mothers' bank," and we have found no practical suggestion as to the method of raising the money. Probably the funds required would be provided by direct taxation. In the case of childless couples, the question would arise as to whether the duties of the home would provide suffi- cient occupation for the wife. Socialists say that as by labour-saving machinery or a collectivist plan of living the duties of the household, in their State, will become almost nominal, the wife will be expected, where there are no children, to enrol herself, like her husband, among the workers of the land, and to earn her full week's waofe. o ' Socialism, p. 97. ^ Neue Staatslehre, p. 134. I 114 THE NEW SOCIALISM " The wife," says Mr. Wells, " will probably have an occupa- tion, and be a teacher, a medical practitioner, a government clerk or official, an artist, a milliner, and earn her own living. In which case they (the husband and wife) will share apartments, perhaps, and dine in a club, and go about together very much as a childless couple of journalists or artists or theatrical people do in London to-day. But, of course, if either of them chooses to idle more or less, and live on the earnings of the other, that will be a matter quite between themselves. No one will ask who pays their rent and their bills ; that will be for their own private arrano-ement." ^ ■&"■ Socialists of the type of Mr. Belfort Bax, it may be remarked, would not agree with Mr. Wells on the per- missible idleness of women whose husbands or other male relatives are willing to work for them. Mr. Bax argues that women are far too indulgently treated under our modern society, and he would expect them to take their full share in the labours of the Socialist State. Mr. Blatchford, we see from The Sorcery Shop, has no idea of encouraging an industrially parasitic class of women, though he argues as if the Socialist State would be organized like a picnic party or summer camp. In actual experience the obligation to work outside the home would fall very heavily upon women, and especially, as Dr. Menger remarks, on those who had been accustomed to a life of ease and comfort. In his famous Letter to Women, Georges Renard says : " Never allow yourselves to forget that your ideal is not an imaginary equality with man, but a legitimate equivalence with him. That means that in the family, as in society, you will have a place which is as high and as wide as his : though a different place." ^ 1 Neiv Worlds for Old, pp. 314, 315. 2 The Lettre aux Femmes appeared originally in the Re'vue Socialiste, and is published as a pamphlet by Messrs. Giard et Briere. It was translated into English tor the Clarion, and into German for Die Fraucnbeivegung. SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 115 But Dr. Menger sets the " ideal " in the cold light of reality when he says: "That equal position, like every important victory, must be purchased for women by their accepting the sacrifice involved in the universal obligation to work." In his chapter on punishments, he shows that in his work-State heavy penalties will fall upon the lazy. Dr. Menger had looked more deeply into the nature of the Socialist State than Mr. Wells, and he was not the dupe of those perfectionist notions which still flit through the brains of some builders of castles of indolence. There would be no boudoirs in the Socialist castle. Stern neces- sity would force the executive to demand from every able- bodied citizen the maximum of production. Idle and pampered women would be so loathed that their existence would become intolerable. The Question of Easy Divorce It is assumed by most Socialist writers who uphold the institution of marriafi-e that facilities for divorce would be increased under their imaginary State. The matter is put with great clearness by M» Renard — " Socialism desires, in the first place, that the union of man and woman should become more and more a free marriage between two persons who respect and love each other, a voluntary associa- tion of two spouses who, without requiring the consent of any outsider, set up house together by a private contract. Society has only to register this contract in the simplest form, but it cannot dispense with it, because of the difficulties which might arise on questions connected either with their children or with their common property. It is certainly desirable, for the good of individuals as well as of society, that this contract should last as long as possible ; but this is no reason why we should declare it eternal. It may therefore be broken by the wish of both parties, or even of one of them, provided that this wish be clearly and (if I 2 ii6 THE NEW SOCIALISM this be thought desirable) repeatedly expressed ; and after legal delays, which will serve as precautions against too hasty action. The attempt to maintain the union, when one of the partners has definitely decided to break it, leads to the worst quarrels or the worst hypocrisies. In the name of liberty, as of good order, we must allow two beings who do not wish to live together any longer to go their own way after a peaceable separation. Divorce is in such cases the only right and honourable solution ; and society, when certain reservations have been made, has merely the task of registering the dissolution of the conjugal bond, as it registered its formation." ^ The reservations which M. Renard has in mind need not be set out in full. He is aware that easy divorce might bear very heavily upon the weaker partner, who might find herself deserted at the time when she was least able to pro- vide for her maintenance. But he reminds us that under Socialism all measures for facilitating divorce would be bound up with those for the economic independence of women. The law, that is, must see to it, according to his argu- ment, that the mother of children, who finds herself deserted by her husband after a legal divorce, shall not be thrown aside without means of subsistence, or expected to do the full economic task of a woman who had not already ren- dered the highest service to the State. The children of divorced persons are to be maintained by contributions from the parents, proportioned according to their means. A distinct tendency towards the loosening of the mar- riage bond characterizes modern Socialist literature. The Lot of the Child under Socialism The new Socialists, it may be added, have no idea of taking little children from their parents and bringing them ■* Le Socialisme a I'CEwvre, p. 4.22. SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY iiy up on a Spartan barrack system. It is admitted that the State must watch much more closely over the welfare of each young life than is possible under our present regula- tions; and ultimately, as we have seen, the life-task must be apportioned according to the needs of the community. A very happy life for children is foreshadowed in the writings of Socialists. The father, they say, will no longer be absolute monarch in the household, for the mother will possess equal authority and enjoy equal honour. No longer will there be any homes in which children remain all day neglected, because both parents are out at work. The State will take over the charge of children whose parents, whether through their fault or their misfortune, are unable to provide them with proper tendance. Otherwise we find little trace in the newer Socialist literature of any disposi- tion to disturb the present relations between parents and children. We do not propose to linger on the subject of child- training, for the views of Socialists are closely akin to those of Liberals. The question of population, on which writers like Dr. Menger have uttered earnest warnings, also lies beyond our limits. The chief fear of some thinkers is that under the Ideal conditions to which human life, as they believe, would attain under Socialism, " too many guests might be summoned to the banquet of life," ^ and that over-population might bring back the hungry years. ' Le Socialisme a VCEwvre, p. 42 5-3 CHAPTER XI SOCIALISM AND RELIGION At the beginning of our inquiry we quoted the remark of Werner Sombart, that violent attacks upon religion are now to be heard only in half-educated circles. The de- cision of the Erfurt Congress, that religion was a private concern of the individual, with which Socialism in its corporate capacity had nothing to do, is confirmed and upheld to this day at party meetings. The new Socialists, especially in England, would repudiate with disgust such attacks on religion as those of Paul Lafargue and Belfort Bax. Infinite harm, as they feel, has been done to their cause by the comrade who has flaunted his infidelity in the face of the world, thus arousing a needless opposition. With the Prince of Arragon, one of Portia's suitors, they seek a safer leadership than that of the teacher who, "like the mardet Builds in the weather on the outward wall, Even in the force and road of casualty." The new Socialists, however, cannot let religion alone, for the subject possesses an irresistible fascination for their ablest writers, and this branch of their literature forms a study in itself. The best recent examination of their position is that of the Belgian leader, Emile Vandervelde, in his Socialist Essays} M. Vandervelde is well known 1 Essais Socialhtes, pp. 103-183. (Felix Alcan. 1906.) 118 SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 119 in England, and belongs, like Bernstein, to the moderate section of the party. His humanitarianism has lately been revealed in his untiring efforts on behalf of the oppressed subjects of King Leopold in the Congo Free State. We shall take him as our guide in a few preliminary remarks. In his essay on " Socialism and Religion," M. Vander- velde quotes with approval the complaint of Robert Michels of " the international incoherences of contempor- ary Socialism," and points out that these incoherences have been conspicuous in the attitude of Parliamentary Socialists towards religious questions. "At the very time when the Social Democrats of Germany were voting for the recall of the Jesuits, the French Socialists, in league with the Radicals, were driving out the congregations, and in the Italian Chamber, on February 2g, 1904, it was a Socialist deputy, Annibale Vigna, who found fault with the Home Minister for having appointed the Jesuit Father Ehrle to the national library of Turin, and who demanded the inflexible application of the law of August 25, 1848, which expelled the Jesuits from Italian territory." ^ Amidst the " shocking; contradictions " of Socialist Par- liamentary tactics, M. Vandervelde discovers one or two principles which govern the thought and action of Socialist parties in all lands with regard to religious questions — (a) In the first place, there is to be no interference with personal beliefs.^ " In every country Social Democracy numbers thousands of adherents who continue to practise one or other form of worship, whether from obedience to custom or from genuine conviction." 1 Essais Socia/istfs, p. 104. (Felix Alcan. 1906.) 2 As the solitary exception to this rule which he has been able to find, M. Vander- velde quotes the resolution of the Parfi ou-vrier socialiste re'volutionnaire of France on August 22, 1 901, which pledged its members to perform no act of religious worship. — = Ibid. p. 106, This exception, as he says, only serves to prove the rule, I20 THE NEW SOCIALISM [b) " On the other hand," M. Vandervelde continues, " there can be no question that the immense majority of the leaders of the Socialist parties are absolute strangers to all positive religion. Even those who consider that anti-Clericalism is only a matter of secondary importance, and who preach the strictest neutrality as regards religion, are often themselves entirely emancipated from all religious belief." {c) M. Vandervelde's third point is that in all countries, even in those where Socialism claims to have no concern with religious disputes, the Catholic Church and (with no less bitterness sometimes) the non-Catholic State Churches, denounce it as "a deadly plague." " The orthodox Churches are everywhere the strongest sup- porters of capitalism in its efforts to dominate the masses. It is not surprising that the proletariat, finding that the Churches bar their way and recognizing the 'alliance between the safe and the altar,' should be almost irresistibly led to take the offensive and to fight, not only against capitalism, but against its allies." He goes on — " Whether the fact pleases or distresses us, it is certain that notwithstanding all the Socialist declarations as to the privacy of religious beliefs, the great mass, and above all the directing nucleus of the workers' parties, is composed almost exclusively of Free- thinkers, and that on the other hand the heads of the Catholic Church, and of all Churches which resemble it, inculcate upon their members a horror of 'atheistic, materialist, anti-religious Socialism.' " I The Attitude of the 'Newer Socialists towards Religion [a) Views of English Socialists. — Many English Social- ists would condemn the statements we have quoted from SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 121 M. Vandervelde as too extreme. They are anxious for the goodwill of the Churches, and labour to bring the doctrines of Socialism into harmony with New Testament teaching. Mr. Keir Hardie says — " It cannot be too emphatically stated that Socialism takes no more cognizance of the religious opinions of its adherents than does either Liberalism or Conservatism. It would, however, be an easy task to show that Communism, the final goal of Socialism, is a form of social economy very closely akin to the principles set forth in the Sermon on the Mount." ^ Mr. Hardie hopes that Socialism " will be, if not a religion in itself, at least a handmaiden to religion, and as such entitled to the support of all who pray for the coming of Christ's kingdom upon earth." ^ Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, while admitting the " occa- sional association of Socialist and anti-Christian propa- ganda," denies that Socialism and Secularism are one and the same. " Socialism," he says, " has no more to do with a man's religion than it has with the colour of his hair. Socialism deals with secular things, not with ultimate beliefs. . . . Nonconformity has trained our speakers in its pulpits, and has fashioned our devoted workers in its Sunday-schools. The Church has shed not a little of the light of its countenance upon us. . . . Christianity at its best has always appeared in the world with Communism at its right hand. In short, there is nothing in the Socialist theory, nothing in the Socialist method, antagonistic to religion." ^ A wide gulf separates English Socialists of the class to whom many Free Church pulpits are gladly thrown open from avowed opponents of Christianity like Mr. Blatch- ford and Mr. Quelch. ^ From Serfdom to Socialism, p. ;?6. 2 [^jj^ p_ ^^_ ^ Socialism, pp. 101-103. 122 THE NEW SOCIALISM Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, in another book, expresses the belief that " within the scope of the communal organiza- tion of industry there will be a need for smaller groups, such as trade-unions, churches, families." He approves of a Church which will attend " with enthusiastic care to the life, and not merely to the dogma, of Christianity."^ Mr. H. G. Wells says— " Socialism will touch nothing living or religion, and if you are a religious minister, you will be very much as you are at the present time, but with lightened parochial duties. If you are an earnest woman and want to nurse the sick and comfort the afflicted, you will need only, in addition to your religious profes- sion, to qualify as a nurse or medical practitioner. There will still be ample need of you. Socialism will not make an end of human trouble, either of the body or of the soul, albeit it will put these things into such comfort and safety as it may." ^ (b) Views of French Socialists. — Although French Socialism in the twentieth century appears to be indis- solubly bound up, not only with anti-Clericalism, but with hostility to the Christian faith, we may note in passing that during the first half of the nineteenth century many French Socialists proclaimed themselves disciples of Christ. M. Vandervelde describes one of their banquets, held in April 1848, at which "toasts" were drunk "To Christ, the Father of Socialism," " To the coming of God on earth," and " To the living Christ." ^ Socialists in 1848 regarded themselves as called not to destroy, but to fulfil the Gospel. In the matter of religion, they did not view the rich as their natural enemies, or share the opinion of Joseph de Maistre, that " every patrician is a lay-priest." Much of ^ Socialism and Society, p. 185. 2 Ne