THE HANDBOOK SERIES 
 
 Socialism 
 
DEBATERS' 
 HANDBOOK SERIES 
 
 Debaters' Manual 
 
 Capital Punishment (2d ed. rev.) 
 
 Commission Plan of Municipal Govern- 
 ment (3d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Central Bank of the United States 
 
 Child Labor (2d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Compulsory Arbitration of Industrial Dis- 
 putes (2d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Compulsory Insurance 
 
 Conservation of Natural Resources 
 
 Direct Primaries (3d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Election of United States Senators (2d ed. 
 rev.) 
 
 Employment of Women 
 
 Federal Control of Interstate Corporations 
 (2d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Free Trade vs. Protection 
 
 Government Ownership of Railroads (2d 
 cd. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Government Ownership of Telegraph and 
 Telephone 
 
 Immigration 
 
 Income Tax (2d ed. rev. and enl. ) 
 
 Initiative and Referendum (3d ed. rev. 
 and enl.^ 
 
 Monroe Doctrine 
 
 Mothers' Pensions 
 
 Municipal Ownership (2d ed. rev. and 
 enl.) 
 
 National Defense 
 
 Open versus Closed Shop (2d ed.) 
 
 Parcels Post (2d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Recall (2d ed. rev. and enl.) 
 
 Reciprocity 
 
 Single Tax 
 
 Trade Unions 
 
 Woman Suffrage (2d ed. rev.) 
 
 World Peace 
 
 HANDBOOK SERIES 
 
 Agricultural Credit 
 European War 
 Short Ballot 
 Socialism 
 
 Other titles in preparation 
 
 Each volume, one dollar net 
 
THE HANDBOOK SERIES 
 
 Socialism 
 
 Compiled by 
 
 E. C. ROBBINS 
 
 THE H. W. WILSON COMPANY 
 WHITE PLAINS, N. Y., AND NEW YORK CITY 
 
 1915 
 
Published October, 1915 
 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
 
 The purpose of this book is to give the reader a general 
 knowledge of Socialism. Discussions bearing on technical phases 
 of the question, that form a large part of the Socialistic writings 
 of the day, have been purposely omitted. The volume is one 
 that the busy reader can pick up at odd moments without having 
 to hold in mind from day to day a laborious chain of reasoning. 
 The discussions are popular rather than technical and, in so far 
 as possible, are non-partisan. 
 
 To facilitate an easy reading, the leading schools of Socialism 
 are treated separately. Thus the Utopians and the Christians, 
 although having some common beliefs, are each given a section. 
 The followers of Karl Marx, the acknowledged orthodox Social- 
 ists, and the disciples of Edward Bernstein, the avowed 
 revisionists, are treated separately. 
 
 One feature of the book which will commend itself to the 
 general reader is the extensive bibliography. Nearly two hun- 
 dred references to some of the best Socialistic writings, both 
 affirmative and negative, have been gathered together, and, in 
 order that the reader will lose no time when using these refer- 
 ences, they have been divided into five groups corresponding to 
 the five general divisions into which the book itself is separated. 
 In a word the whole arrangement of the book is admirably suited 
 to the reader who wishes to gain a general knowledge of 
 Socialism, while the extensive reference lists permit the person 
 with time and inclination to carry on extended researches. 
 
 E. C. R. 
 
 September I, 1915. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Books and Pamphlets ix 
 
 Magazines 
 
 Utopian Socialism x 
 
 Christian Socialism xi 
 
 Marxian Socialism xii 
 
 Progressive Socialism xiii 
 
 Socialism versus other Forms of Radicalism . xv 
 
 Definitions of Contemporary Socialism xvii 
 
 ROBBINS, E. C. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT I 
 
 UTOPIAN SOCIALISM 
 
 Merriam, Alexander R. Some Literary Utopias 
 
 Hartford Seminary Record 5 
 
 "Simple Life" in the South Seas Outlook 27 
 
 Remarks on Mr. Owen's Plan Blackwood's Magazine 
 
 CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM 
 
 Ludlow, J. M. Christian Socialist Movement of the Middle 
 of the Century Atlantic Monthly 37 
 
 Abbott, Lyman. Christianity versus Socialism 
 
 North American Review S 1 ^^ 
 
 Spahr, C. B. New Socialism Nation 57 
 
 MARXIAN SOCIALISM 
 
 Marx, Karl, and Engels, Frederick. Communist Manifesto 63 **^ 
 
 Spargo, John. Influence of Karl Marx on Contemporary 
 
 Socialism American Journal of .Sociology 80 */ 
 
 Scott, Temple. Savior of the Working-Man Forum 97 i/ N 
 
 Socialism and Labor Nation 102 ^ \ 
 
 PROGRESSIVE SOCIALISM 
 
 Kleene, G. A. Bernstein Versus "Old-School" Marxism 
 Annals of the American Academy 107 
 
viii CONTENTS 
 
 Whitaker, Herman. Natural Selection, Competition, and 
 
 Socialism Arena 129 
 
 ^ Value of Brains in the Socialist State. . .Review of Reviews 143 
 
 -^Miller, Charles R. Why Socialism Is Impracticable 
 
 Century 145 
 
 Socialist Rule of Milwaukee Independent 155 
 
 Berger, Victor L. What Is the Matter with Milwaukee? 
 
 - Independent 157 
 
 Debs, E. V. Social Democratic Party Independent 162 
 
 SOCIALISM VERSUS OTHER FORMS OF RADICALISM 
 
 Levine, Louis. Syndicalism North American Review 169 
 
 Owen, William C. Anarchy versus Socialism 180 
 
 Spargo, John. Private Property and Personal Liberty in the 
 Socialist State North American Review 202 
 
 DEFINITIONS OF CONTEMPORARY SOCIALISM 
 
 Martin, John. Attempt to Define Socialism 
 
 American Economic Association Bulletin 215 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 An asterisk (*) preceding a reference indicates that the entire article 
 or a part of it has been reprinted in this volume. Many of the magazine 
 articles listed here, as well as similar material that may be published after 
 this volume is issued, may be secured at reasonable rates from the Wilson 
 Package Library operated by the H. W. Wilson Company. 
 
 BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS 
 
 Addams, Jane. Democracy and Social Ethics. Macmillan. 1902. 
 Boyle, James. Minimum Wage and Syndicalism. Stewart & 
 
 Kidd Co. Cincinnati. 1913. 
 Brooks, John Graham. American Syndicalism the I. W. W. 
 
 Macmillan. 1913. 
 Brooks, John Graham. Social Unrest; Studies in Labor and 
 
 Socialist Movements. Macmillan. 1903. 
 Campbell, Reginald John. Christianity and the Social Order. 
 
 Macmillan. 1907. 
 
 Fillebrown, C. B. A B C of Taxation. Doubleday, Page. 1909. 
 Hillquit, Morris. Socialism Summed Up. H. K. Fly Co. New 
 
 York. 1913. 
 Hillquit, Morris, and Ryan, John Augustine. Socialism : Promise 
 
 or Menace. Macmillan. 1914. 
 Kirkup, Thomas History of Socialism, rev. ed. A. & C. Black. 
 
 London. 1900. 
 Kropotkin, Peter Aleksieevich. Anarchism and Anarchists. 
 
 Houghton, Mifflin. 1879. 
 
 MacDonald, J. Ramsay. Syndicalism. The Open Court Pub- 
 lishing Co. Chicago. 1913. 
 Marx, Karl. Capital; a Critique of Political Economy. 3 Vol. 
 
 Kerr. Chicago. 1906-09. 
 
 *Marx, Karl, and Engels, Frederick. Manifesto of the Commun- 
 ist Party. Authorized English tr. ; ed. and annot. by 
 
 F: Engels. Kerr. Chicago. 1911. 
 *Owen, W. C. Anarchy versus Socialism. pa. Mother Earth 
 
 Publishing Co. New York. 
 Pouget, Emile. Sabotage. Translated from the French by 
 
 Arturo M. Giovannitti. Kerr. Chicago. 1913. 
 Simkhovitch, Vladimir G. Marxism versus Socialism. Henry 
 
 Holt & Co. 1914. 
 
x BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Skelton, O. D. Socialism, a Critical Analysis. Houghton, Mif- 
 
 flin. 1911. 
 Spargo, John. Karl Marx; His Life and Works. B. W. 
 
 Huebsch. New York. 1910. 
 Spargo, John. Syndicalism, Industrial Unionism and Socialism. 
 
 B. W. Huebsch. New York. 1913. 
 Tridon, Andre. New Unionism. B. W. Huebsch. New York. 
 
 Walling, William English. Progressivism and After. Mac- 
 millan. 1914. 
 
 MAGAZINES 
 Utopian Socialism 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 101 : 566-8. Ap. '08. Religion in an Ideal Com- 
 
 monwealth. G : H. Gilbert. 
 Arena. 28:511-6. N. '02. Dream of the 2ist Century. W. H. 
 
 Cooley. 
 
 Arena. 29:31-47. Ja. '03. Divine Quest. B: O. Flower. 
 Arena. 39: 586-9. My. '08. New Worlds for Old, by H. G: Wells. 
 
 (Review.) 
 Biblical World. 41:365-73. Je. '13. Ezekiel's Holy State and 
 
 Plato's Republic. C. Baldwin. 
 
 *Blackwood's. 13 : 338-42. Mr. 23. Remarks on Mr. Owen's Plan. 
 Chautauquan 44 : 90-7. S. '06. Land of Nowhere. G : E. Vincent. 
 Chautauquan. 31 : 151-61. My. 'oo. Seeking Utopia in America. 
 
 E. E. Sparks, il. 
 Contemporary Review. 57:1-19. Ja. '90. Two New Utopias. 
 
 E. de Laveleye. 
 Contemporary Review. 57 : 301-24. Mr. '90. Communism. E. de 
 
 Laveleye. 
 Contemporary Review. 89:487-97. Ap. '06. New Aristocracy of 
 
 Mr. Wells. J : A. Hobson. 
 Contemporary Review. 94: 161-81. Ag. '08. My Socialism. H. G: 
 
 Wells. 
 Edinburgh Review. 202:56-78. Jl. '05. A Modern Utopia, by 
 
 H. G: Wells. (Review.) 
 Edinburgh Review. 219:91-106. Ja. '14. Utopian Toleration. 
 
 R. H: Murray. 
 English Review. 16:186-210, 321-41, 468-94; 17-30-57, 179-209. 
 
 Ja-My. '14. World Set Free. H. G: Wells. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY xi 
 
 Forum. 47:211-21. F. '12. United States of the World; a 
 
 Chinese Philosopher's Plan for Universal Happiness. 
 
 G: Soulie. 
 Fortnightly Review. 84:417-26. S. '05. Wells as a Sociologist. 
 
 J: B. Crozier. 
 Fortnightly Review. 97 : 427-36. Mr. '12. Great State and the 
 
 Countryside. F. E. Warwick. 
 *Hartf ordT Seminary Record. 8 : 203-26. My. '98. Some Literary 
 
 Utopias. A. R. Merriam. 
 
 Hibbert Journal. 13 : 124-37. O. '14. Modern Utopians in Con- 
 flict. J. W. Marriott. 
 Nation. 95 : 330-1. O. 10, '12. Coleridge and the Susquehanna. 
 
 G: M. Harper. 
 Nation. 95 : 382. O. 24, '12. Pantisocrats on the Susquehanna. 
 
 S. P. Sherman. 
 *Outlook. 84 : 952-4. D. 22, '06. The "Simple Life" in the South 
 
 Seas. 
 Popular Science Monthly. 80: 606-15. Jl. '12. Program of Radical 
 
 Democracy. J. M. Cattell. 
 Quarterly Journal of Economics. 24:428-33. F. '10. American 
 
 Utopia. F. T. Carlton. 
 
 Review of Reviews. 39 : 609-10. My. '09. Utopian Socialists. 
 Westminster Review. 165 : 172-90. F. '06. Burden of Troisilia. 
 
 Christian Socialism 
 
 Arena. 34 : 39-44. Jl. '05. Identity of Socialism and Christianity. 
 
 J. T. Van Rensselaer. 
 Arena. 36:613-7. D. '06. William Morris and Esthetic Socialism. 
 
 T: Dickinson. 
 Arena. 37 : 520-4. My. '07. Why the Catholic Church Opposes 
 
 Socialism. 
 Arena. 37 : 600-4. Je. '07. Why I Am a Christian Socialist, j. O. 
 
 Bentall. 
 
 Arena. 38:640-1. Jl. '07. Church and Socialism. 
 Arena. 39:374-80. Mr. '08. Christianity and the Social Order. 
 
 by R. J. Campbell. (Review.) 
 Arena. 40 : 243-4. S. '08. Church and Socialism. 
 Arena. 41 : 47-52. Ja. '09. Christian Socialist Fellowship. Work 
 
 of the Organization. E. White. 
 * Atlantic Monthly. 77:109-18. Ja. '96. The Christian Socialist 
 
 Movement of the Middle of the Century. J. M. Ludlow. 
 
xii BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Catholic World. 82:450-74. Ja. '06. Evolution of a Socialist. 
 M. F. Quinlan. 
 
 Contemporary Review. 56 : 734-52. N. '89. Socialism and Chris- 
 tianity. F. H. Plumptre. 
 
 Current Literature. 43 : 537-9- N. '07. Church's Growing Sym- 
 pathy with Socialism. 
 
 Forum. 14:686-93. Ja. '93. Jay Gould and Christian Socialism. 
 A. T. Hadley. 
 
 Forum. 15 : 332-42. My. '93. Menacing Socialism in the Western 
 States. F. B. Tracy. 
 
 Forum. 21 : 193-200. Ap. '96. The Present Outlook of Christian 
 Socialism in England. W. Morris. 
 
 Independent. 55:2097-106. S. 3, '03. Christian Socialist. C: M. 
 Sheldon. 
 
 Independent. 64: 1360-1. Je. u, '08. Socialism and Religion. 
 
 Independent. 66 : 1304-6. Je. 10, '09. Constructive Socialism. 
 
 *Nation. 48 : 478. Jl. 13, '89. The New Socialism. C. B. Spahr. 
 
 Nation. 56 : 102. F. 9, '93. Christian Socialism in Practice. J. G. 
 Brooks. 
 
 New England Magazine. 38 : 748-65. N. '79. "Orthodox Socialism 
 in Germany. M. Laveleye. 
 
 *North American Review. 148 : 447-53. Ap. '89. Christianity 
 versus Socialism. L. Abbott. 
 
 North American Review. 161 : 493-504. O. '95. Is Socialism Ad- 
 vancing in England? W. G. Blaikie. 
 
 Outlook. 89 : 319. Je. 13, '08. National Conference of the Chris- 
 tian Socialist Fellowship. New York. 
 
 Outlook. 94 : 682-9. Mr. 26, '10. Conquering a Nation with Bread. 
 F: C. Howe. 
 
 Putnam's. 3 : 92-100. O. '07. Christian Socialism, What it Is. 
 W: H. Mallock. 
 
 Review of Reviews. 29 : 349-50. Mr. '04. Primitive Christianity 
 and ^Modern Socialism. 
 
 Westminster Review. 143 : 597-602. Je. '95. Collapse of Christian 
 Socialism. W. Lloyd. 
 
 Westminster Review. 179:242-9, 404-11. Mr.-Ap. '13. Catholic 
 Church and Socialism. P. Dougan. 
 
 Marxian Socialism 
 
 American Economic Association. 3 : 89-140. My '88. Capital and 
 Its Earnings. J. B. Clark. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY xiii 
 
 * American Journal of Sociology. 16:21-40. Jl. '10. Influence of 
 
 Karl Marx on Contemporary Socialism. J : Spargo. 
 American Journal of Sociology. 17:804-19. My. '12. Socialism in 
 
 the Light of Social Science. W. Small. 
 Annals of the American Academy. 44: sup. 13-25. N. '12. Origin 
 
 of Socialism, Economic Marx. S. N. Patten. 
 Arena. 38:458-61. O. '07. Writings of Karl Marx. E. Unter- 
 
 mann. 
 Contemporary Review. 40:585-607. O. '81. Socialism of Karl 
 
 Marx and the Young Hegelians. J. Rae. 
 Current Literature. 49:180-4. Ag. '10. Karl Marx: His Life 
 
 and Work, by J: Spargo. (Review.) 
 *Forum. 44 : 90-4. Jl. '10. The Savior of the Working-man. 
 
 T. Scott. 
 
 *Nation. 97 : 357-9. O. 16, '13. Socialism and Labor. 
 Nineteenth Century. 65:435-52, 838-54; 66:331-48, 716-32. Mr., 
 
 My., Ag., O. '09. Missing Essentials in Economic Science. 
 
 W : H. Mallock. 
 North American Review. 199 : 145-50. Ja. '14. Marxism versus 
 
 Socialism, by V. G. Simkhovitch. (Review.) 
 Quarterly Journal of Economics. 10 : 1-33. O. '95. The Conclud- 
 ing Volume of Marx's Capital. W. Lexis. 
 Quarterly Journal of Economics. 20 : 575-95 ; 21 : 299-322. Ag. '06. 
 
 F. '07. Socialist Economics of Karl Marx and His Followers. 
 
 T. B. Veblen. 
 Political Science Quarterly. 23:193-219, 652-89; 24:236-68, 641- 
 
 66; 27:73-91, 605-30. Je., D. '08, Je., D. '09, Mr., D. '12. 
 
 Marxism versus Socialism. V. G. Simkhovitch. 
 Review of Reviews. 38 : IO&-IQ. Jl. '08. Karl Marx as a World 
 
 Force. 
 Review of Reviews. 43:375. Mr. 'n. Is the Death of Marxism 
 
 at Hand? 
 Westminster Review. 166 : 569-79. Mr. '06. Capital and Industry. 
 
 H. L. Cinders. 
 
 Progressive Socialism 
 
 * Annals of the American Academy. 18:391-419. N. '01. Bernstein 
 
 versus Old-School Marxism. G. A. Kleene. 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 44 : sup.76-82. N. '12. Avoid- 
 ance of State Socialism. S. N. Patten. 
 
 *Arena. 24 : 129-44. Ag. 'oo. Natural Selection, Competition, 
 and Socialism. H. Whitaker. 
 
xiv BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Arena. 37 : 302-4. Mr. '07. Socialism and the Home. 
 
 Arena. 37 : 579-96. Je. '08. Democracy and Socialism. J. Mac- 
 Kaye. Reply. Arena. 38 : 295-300. S. '07. G : F. Williams and 
 T : E. Will. 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 102:433-41. O. 'o8i. Education and the Social- 
 istic Movement. J. B. Clark. 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 107:580-91. My. 'u. Socialism and National 
 Efficiency. J. O. Fagan. 
 
 Catholic World. 85:323-34. Je. '07. Economic Motive of Social- 
 ism. W. J. Kerby. 
 
 Catholic World. 94 : 497-504. J'a. '12. Private Ownership and 
 Socialism. J : A. Ryan. 
 
 Century. 71 : 856-9. Ap. '06. Individualism vs. Socialism. W. J. 
 Bryan. Reply. Arena. 36 : 359-63. O. '06. T : E. Will. 
 
 *Century. 79:903-8. Ap. '10. Why Socialism Is Impracticable. 
 , , C : R. Miller. 
 * (Contemporary Review. 46:507-31. O. '84. Socialism as Gov- 
 x / eminent. H. A. Taine. 
 
 ** Contemporary Review. 50:620-31. N. '86. Economic Socialism. 
 H. Sidgwick. 
 
 Contemporary Review. 101 : 519-28. Ap. '12. Individualism and 
 Socialism. Havelock Ellis. 
 
 Dial. 53 : 434. D. '13. Culture and Socialism. B. R. Wilton. 
 
 independent. 52 : 2018-21. Ag. 23, 'oo. Social Democratic Party. 
 
 E. V. Debs. 
 
 Independent. 61 : 989-94. O. 25, '06. Socialism. The Relation of 
 the Middle Class to the Socialist Movement. H. G : Wells. 
 
 *Independent. 68: 840-3. Ap. 21, '10. What Is the Matter with 
 Milwaukee? V. L. Berger. 
 
 *Independent. 69: 1481-9. Jl. 21, '10. Socialist Rule of Milwaukee. 
 
 Independent. 69:353-8. Ag. 18, '10. Message of Socialism to 
 Collegians. U. Sinclair. 
 
 Independent. 79:282-3. Ag. 24, '14. Socialism Promise or 
 Menace: Review of the Hillquit-Ryan Debate. W. J. Ghent 
 and T. N. Carver 
 
 Journal of Political Economy. 3 : 247-52. Mr. '95. Flint's Chris- 
 tian Socialism. Review. T. B. Veblen. 
 
 Literary Digest. 47:634-5. O. n, '13. Socialism's Religious 
 Faith. 
 
 Nation. 43 : 409-10. N. 18, '86. English Socialism and Politics. 
 
 F. H. Hill. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY xv 
 
 New England Magazine. 38:565-81. Jl. '79. Nature and Prog- 
 ress of True Socialism. J. B. Clark. 
 
 Nineteenth Century. 74:384-401. Ag. '13. Prospects of Religion 
 Under Socialism. H. W. Clark. 
 
 North American Review. 197:1-7, 181-8, 405-11, 556-65, 853-5. 
 Ja.-Ap., Je. '13. What Is Socialism. A. M. Low. 
 
 North American Review. 199: 54-64. Ja. '14. Disappearing Right 
 of Private Property. Daniel F. Kellogg. 
 
 Popular Science Monthly. 53 : 701-4. S. '98. Competition and 
 Socialism. D. J. Lewis. 
 
 Political Science Quarterly. 4:563-91. D. '89. Economic Basis 
 of Socialism. G. Gunton. 
 
 *Review of Reviews. 22 : 353-4. S. 'oo. Value of Brains in a 
 Socialist State. 
 
 Review of Reviews. 42 : 445-55. O. '10. Milwaukee's Socialist 
 Government. G: A. England, il. map. 
 
 Review of Reviews. 43:725-6. Je. 'u. Socialism and National 
 Inefficiency. 
 
 Survey. 31 : 175. N. 15, '13. Trial of Socialism in Schenectady. 
 
 Westminster Review. 125 : 1-31. Ja. '86. Socialism and Legisla- 
 tion. 
 
 Westminster Review. 141 : 258-64. Mr. '94. Republicanism ver- 
 sus Socialism. W. Lloyd. 
 
 Westminster Review. 178: 144-51. Ag. '12. Individualism and 
 Socialism, and Liberty. R. G. Davis. 
 
 Westminster Review. 180:117-23. Ag. '13. Fallacies of Social- 
 ism. F. W. O. Ward. 
 
 Socialism Versus other Forms of Radicalism 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 58:222-7. Mr. '15. Single 
 Tax. W. S. O'Ren. 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 59:148-56. My. '15. Taxa- 
 tion of Land as a Remedy for Unemployment. B. Hall. 
 
 Arena. 26:292-7. S. } oi. Single Tax as a Happy Medium. 
 W. A. Hawley. 
 
 Arena. 35 : 366-72. Ap. '06. Arguments for Single Tax. J. Z. 
 White. 
 
 Arena. 34:500. N. '05. Why I Favor the Single Tax. H. H. 
 Harding. 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 112:737-46. D. '13. Case for the Single Tax. 
 F. W. Garrison. 
 
xvi BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 113:27-37. Ja. '14. Case Against the Single 
 
 Tax. A. S. Johnson. 
 Atlantic Monthly. 113:545-8. Ap. '14. Third View of the 
 
 Single Tax. E. Woollen. 
 Catholic World. 99: 173-80'. My. '14. Successors to Socialism. 
 
 H. Somerville. 
 
 Chautauquan. 70:256-7. My. '13. Socialists and Syndicalism. 
 Collier's. 51:26. S. 13, '13. Is an Increment Tax Feasible? 
 
 F. L. Olmstead. 
 
 Contemporary Review. 103:53-61. Ja. '13. Labour Ideals the 
 Better Way. W. R. Bousfield. 
 
 Contemporary Review. 105 : 47-56. Ja. '14. Syndicalism and the 
 Labour Movement. J. H. Harley. (Same. Living Age. 
 280: 589-97. Mr. 7, '14.) 
 
 Current Literature. 44:461-8. My. '08. Anarchist Bombs and 
 Socialist Theories and the Union Square Demonstration. 
 
 Engineering Magazine. 44:833-41. Mr. '13. Syndicalism or Co- 
 operation? J. Douglas. 
 
 Engineering Magazine. 44:929-31. Mr. '13. Syndicalism a Pol- 
 icy of Ruin. 
 
 Fortnightly Review. 74 : 544-58. O. 'oo. Socialism and Anarch- 
 ism. G. Langtoft. 
 
 Forum. 52:165-76. Ag. '14. Abolition of Poverty. A. B. 
 Mason. 
 
 Harper's Weekly. 57 : 13-4. Ja. '13. Syndicalism and Its Phil- 
 osophy. E. Dirnnet. 
 
 Harper's Weekly. 58:10. Ja. 24, '14. Single Tax in Western 
 Canada. J. T. McRoy. 
 
 Independent. 64:538. Mr. 5, '08; 760-1. Ap. 2, '08. Anarchists. 
 
 Independent. 74:79-83. J'a. 9, '13. Worker's Only Hope: Direct 
 Action. A. Tridon. 
 
 Independent. 76:209-11. O. 30, '13. Syndicalism the Creed of 
 Force. A. M. Giovannitti. 
 
 Literary Digest. 48:478. Mr. 7, '14. Single-Tax Talk in New 
 York. 
 
 Living Age. 278 : 739-46. S. 20, '13. Anarchy. H. H. Colville. 
 
 Living Age. 281 : 207-16. Ap. 25, '14. Real Syndicalism. H. W. 
 Allen. 
 
 Nation. 82 : 463-4. Je. 7, '06. Control of Anarchists. 
 
 Nation. 99 : 350. S. 17, '14. Philosophy of Syndicalism. 
 
 Nation. 100:333-4. Mr. 25. '15. Reflections on Violence, by 
 
 G. Sorel. (Review.) 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY xvii 
 
 *North American Review. 189 : 844-56. Je. '09. Private Property 
 and Personal Liberty in the Socialist State. John Spargo. 
 
 *North American Review. 196:9-19. Jl. '12. Syndicalism. L. Le- 
 vine. 
 
 Outlook. 105 : 771-5. Ap. 5, '13. Taxing Enterprise. R. Spillane. 
 
 Outlook. 105:115-7. S. 20, '13. Progress of the Single Tax. 
 
 Outlook. 107 : 629. Jl. 18, '14. Anarchy and Dynamite. 
 
 Political Science Quarterly. 27 : 586-97. D. '12. Recent Tax Re- 
 forms Abroad. E. R. A. Seligman. 
 
 Political Science Quarterly. 28:451-79. S. '13. Development of 
 Syndicalism in America. L. Levine. 
 
 Westminster Review. 170:492-506. N. '08. Alternative to So- 
 cialism. A. H. Weller. 
 
 World's Work. 113:406-16. Ag. '06. Red Flag and the Torch. 
 
 DEFINITIONS OF CONTEMPORARY SOCIALISM 
 
 American Economic Association Bulletin. 4th Ser. 1 : 347-54. Ap. 
 'n. Attempts to Define Socialism. J. Martin. 
 
SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 SOCIALISM 
 
 INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 
 
 Prof. William Howard Taft has said that one of the most 
 important questions of the day is a consideration of the theories 
 which underlie the present organization of industrial society. 
 Prof. Jacob Hollander, in a recent book, suggested the possibility 
 of eliminating human poverty through a reorganization of our 
 economic institutions. Prof. Richard T. Ely, in another volume, 
 traces the movement away from what has been considered by 
 many to be the "established order," and Prof. F. W. Taussig 
 thinks that private property is on trial for its life. 
 
 These and many similar statements that could be quoted from 
 men equally prominent in politics and economics, reflect clearly 
 that American thinkers are aware of the great social unrest of 
 the times. They illustrate more than that. They show that in 
 the minds of a not inconsiderable part of the people, the institu- 
 tion of private property must justify its existence. The day has 
 passed when those who advocate radical changes in the form 
 of industrial organization are looked upon as merely the impo- 
 tent and indolent a class which, unwilling to earn its own 
 living, tries to devise schemes for usurping the wealth of others. 
 During the last fifty years, especially, great numbers of men and 
 women of unquestioned integrity and ability have thrown them- 
 selves into the ranks of those who believe in profoundly altering 
 present conditions. Various groups have been formed, all 
 working for social betterment, but each with its own particular 
 program. Among these the Socialists, because of their numbers 
 and enthusiasm, easily hold first place. 
 
 Few people agree exactly as to what is meant by the term 
 Socialism. It has stood for many different things at different 
 time and places ; it has even meant different things at the same 
 
2< t | : , : SELECTED ARTICLES ON , 
 
 time and place. To some, Socialism is a vague, indefinite move- 
 ment. Indeed, it is often defined simply as a protest against 
 the existing order anything new or different from that to which 
 men are accustomed. To others, Socialism is a specific for a 
 given social ill. The western coal miner, for example, thinks 
 of it as a transfer from private to public ownership of coal 
 mines. By such a change he thinks he sees himself emancipated 
 from his present thralldom. The government, as his task- 
 master, will be lenient. His hours of labor will be shortened, his 
 pay increased, and his working conditions immensely improved. 
 In fact, much of the misunderstanding and back-biting so notice- 
 able in socialistic writings, pro and con, are due to the fact that 
 different writers are talking of different things under the general 
 name of Socialism. In the present volume no attempt is made 
 to have the word mean the same thing at all times. The very 
 diversity of interpretations given to the term is one of the things 
 which is intended to be emphasized. 
 
 Although Socialism is difficult to define, and may mean any- 
 thing from regulating the health of an over-worked glass-blower 
 to placing all the instruments of production and distribution in 
 the hands of a central government, yet to make no attempt to 
 group the writings on the subject would be as disastrous as 
 to organize them too minutely. The classification used in this 
 volume is not original. Types of Socialism that have been 
 almost universally recognized are given under the following 
 headings: Utopian, Christian, Marxian, and Progressive. This 
 classification, it should be repeated, is not inclusive, and if any 
 reader is disappointed because his particular kind of Socialism 
 is omitted, the compiler pleads lack of space. 
 
 The readings selected are "popular" rather than technical. 
 For instance, the Marxian theory of value is stated, but no 
 attempt is made to include writings to prove or disprove the 
 correctness of the theory, except in so far as the situation is 
 debated among the Socialists themselves. Discussions of that 
 kind must necessarily be left to more exhaustive works. If the 
 reader, however, is interested in pursuing in detail any given 
 topic, he will find numerous additional references in the bibli- 
 ography. 
 
 As far as possible, the readings have been made expository 
 rather than argumentative. This purpose has not been entirely 
 accomplished, for the simple reason that by far the largest num- 
 

 SOCIALISM 3 
 
 her of writings, especially those giving desired information, are 
 argumentative in nature. Such articles have been used only 
 to bring out particular points. In short, the aim of the volume 
 is to present a general, popular view of the socialistic move- 
 ment. Shorn entirely of its partisanship, Socialism might still 
 be interesting, but it would not be Socialism. 
 
 In order to facilitate the ready understanding of the divisions 
 used in the book, the following summary is added : 
 
 The term Utopian is used to refer to those people, who at 
 various times, have conceived of creating an idealistic form of 
 government here on earth. For the most part these earthly 
 millenniums have been the idealized expression of some existing 
 type of organization. Thus Plato, in his "Republic," idealized 
 the Greek city-state of his day. Sir Thomas More, in his 
 "Utopia," worked out with faultless precision a government 
 based upon a form already in existence. Bellamy, in his 
 "Looking Backwards," attempted the same thing for the present 
 age. In general the Utopians can be divided into two classes: 
 Those who have been content to set forth their ideals in great 
 literary masterpieces, such as More's "Utopia," Plato's "Re- 
 public," and Campanella's "City of the Sun"; and those who 
 have tried by actual experiment to establish an ideal system of 
 government, such as the colonies organized by Robert Owen, 
 William Morris, and many others. 
 
 Christian Socialism, as the name implies, is founded upon the 
 teachings of Christ. It is an attempt to apply Christianity to 
 social and economic problems. While the Christian Socialists 
 have never been large numerically yet they have had enrolled in 
 their ranks persons of international repute. 
 
 Probably the majority of people, who have read about Social- 
 ism, instinctively associate it with Karl Marx. This is not 
 unnatural, for he stamped his name indelibly upon the move- 
 ment. Both during his life and since his death his followers, 
 some of whom seem almost more enthusiastic over his doctrines 
 than he himself, have carried his ideas to greater length than 
 warranted by facts. This attempt to apply Marx's theories to 
 times and conditions for which they are manifestly unfitted, 
 and for which Marx probably never intended them, has brought 
 the movement into severe criticism in recent years; but even at 
 their worst, the principles enunciated by Marx, such as economic 
 interpretation of history, class struggle, revolutionary evolution, 
 
4 SOCIALISM 
 
 and labor theory of value, are still the mainspring of the 
 socialistic propaganda. 
 
 Viewed in the light of progress, however, the theories formu- 
 lated by Marx have been attacked, even by those who believe 
 in the socialistic movement as a whole. For example, many 
 Socialists today prefer to substitute the doctrine of peaceful 
 evolution for the revolutionary theory advanced by Marx. To 
 meet the claims of these newer advocates, a section on Socialism 
 in relation to progress and evolution has been added. In it are 
 found the views of some of the most modern Socialists. 
 
 Also, because there is much confusion in the popular mind 
 between Socialism and other radical movements, articles have 
 been added to show wherein the former fundamentally differ- 
 ent from such doctrines as anarchism, syndicalism, single 
 tax, etc. Lastly, after all explanations and comparisons have 
 been made, a series of definitions on contemporary Socialism is 
 presented. The reader is at liberty to choose his own, but in so 
 doing it is well to bear in mind that there will probably be no 
 uniformity among people as a whole regarding any given 
 definition. 
 
 E. C. ROBBINS. 
 
 September I, 1915. 
 
UTOPIAN SOCIALISM 
 
 Hartford Seminary Record. 8:203-26. May, 1898 
 
 Some Literary Utopias. Alexander R. Merriam 
 
 The field of our study in this paper has been comparatively 
 neglected in the recent emphasis of social problems. Yet it 
 suggests one of the oldest and most persistent themes in litera- 
 ture. Our discussion deals chiefly in the strictly literary and 
 romantic books in this category but it cannot be confined 
 entirely to them; for there are books which have no fictional 
 form which yet are, after all, politico-social speculations rather 
 than treatises, ideals governmental and social, which had no 
 actual embodiment in the author's day. 
 
 It requires only a casual glance at history or among ourselves 
 today to recognize the idealizing 1 social tendency, "in the past 
 a golden age, in the future a golden dawn" ; "in some other 
 place" : Utopia, New Atlantis, City of the Sun ; "at some other 
 time": year 2000; "if this were so," "if that were not." Here, 
 in this form of government, in that political economy, is the 
 panacea for ill ; there, in that one social wrong, or in one human 
 vice, is the block to all progress ; if removed then Utopia. 
 
 Now this is a tendency of mind which is capable of ranging 
 all the way from the grand ideals of the loftiest minds, like 
 Plato, to the shallow utterances of some political charlatan; or 
 from the most inspired hope to the most pessimistic grumble. 
 It is a human tendency which often lies at the very springs of 
 slow progress and reform; and yet many a political revolution 
 in blood has sprung from Utopian philosophical ideals, very much 
 in the same way as many triumphs of modern mechanics have 
 been made possible from long 1 and seemingly profitless studies in 
 abstract mathematics, or as some of the most concrete results 
 in science are the consequents of hypothesis and experiment. 
 The father of modern biology was the poet Goethe. Now, this 
 large fact must be recognized in all fairness, and though applic- 
 able in only a partial sense to some of the particular books we 
 shall consider, it yet furnishes a serious background for some 
 
6 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 of these lighter touches of the literary utopist. In a sense, all 
 the larger ideals of men have been Utopian when regarded from 
 any one point of time, or one range of experience. The Hebrew 
 theocracy in all its large ideals, and in all smaller details, spirit- 
 ual and economic, was never fully and satisfactorily actualized ; 
 and it still floated like a banner over the minds of our own 
 Puritan ancestors. The Messianic ideal of the prophets in large 
 outline and in specific detail has divided for thousands of years 
 Jew and Christian as to its fulfilment in Christ. We have no 
 faintest conception of how large an ideal was wrapped up for 
 the Roman and Christian world both, in the word "Roman 
 Empire" and later "Holy Roman Empire," until we consider 
 how persistently that thought of world dominion ruled secular 
 and 'religious ideals, government and ecclesia, until its last 
 political trace is seen in our own century. No one can read 
 Augustine's "City of God," or Dante's "De Monarchia," without 
 realizing that church and state, ethics and politics, government 
 and social fabric, of which we keep hearing today, are all inex- 
 tricably blended in the minds of men, Utopian as the particular 
 phases of the idea seem to us, and that far above the actuali- 
 ties of then and now, men keep building better than they know. 
 And so again our growing vision of the kingdom of God, which 
 is beginning to sway men's minds, is apt to seem a new discov- 
 ery of our day, and already is it concreting itself in the many 
 beatific or vagarious dreams of men, based on partial exegesis 
 and yet if we look for its literary source it has its roots away 
 back in the O. T. theocracy, is older than the Holy Roman 
 Empire, which yet kept the idea alive through the centuries, and 
 still what Sir Thomas More said 500 years ago is yet measur- 
 ably true today, that "the greatest parts of Christ's precepts 
 are more opposite to the lives of men of this age than any part 
 of my discourse has been." 
 
 And so we must keep in mind these larger ideals of men, 
 which do represent the highest actual past legislation of Moses 
 and Christ, and the loftiest speculations in philosophy about 
 right and justice from Plato down through the ages; we must 
 remember the reality and value of these things in order to 
 distinguish the large general truths and the small parodies of 
 them ; the essential and permanent ideals of men and the imagi- 
 nary travesties of them, so as to be just to some of the great 
 and permanent truths proleptically seized by visionaries. The 
 
SOCIALISM 7 
 
 difference between an ideal and a Utopia is largely the difference 
 which all history is teaching in God's withheld completion of 
 man's restless programs. A Utopia is a program for an ideal, 
 with other than the dramatis personae of the great author of 
 history. The fault and peril of Utopias is oftener with their 
 programs than with their ideals. 
 
 Let us now briefly indicate some of these political and social 
 strains, and then take up somewhat more fully the principal 
 ones which have assumed the more distinctly literary form. The 
 earliest Utopian conceptions look backward as seen, e.g. in the 
 Brahminic conception of the earliest age, as the best, full of 
 purity, plenty, philanthropy, and praise. Hesiod, 900 B.C., de- 
 scribes in "Work and Days" the reign of Saturn as an age of 
 gold in the past, and Ovid, about the Christian era, takes up the 
 same strain in the "Metamorphoses." Traces of this backward 
 Utopian look as an impulse are found even as late as Rousseau's 
 idealizing of primitive conditions in his philosophy of society. 
 Even Plato, after he has constructed his ideal "Republic," with 
 no conception of a backward look, shows in the "Timaeus" how 
 when Socrates expressed the wish to see how such a republic 
 would work, Critias undertakes to tell him by tradition through 
 his ninety-years-old grandfather, whose father was a friend of 
 Solon, who in turn had it from the priests of Neith at Sais: 
 how 9,000 years even before Solon such a state of ideal citizens 
 withstood for a time the attack of Atlantis. But now gone is 
 that vast continent in the deep, and gone the ideal citizens who 
 withstood the shock of such empire. 
 
 But the great body of Utopian literature has had less to do 
 with time than with place. The fiction of place otherwhere has 
 been a more dominant note than time otherwhen, either as the 
 vehicle for satire and parody on present society, or as an idealiz- 
 ing of society in another place. Aristotle, the critic of such 
 fancies and the critical annotator of Plato himself, mentions 
 several such fictions. 
 
 This literary method is the one generally followed, as we 
 shall see, in the later Utopias: Campanula's "City of the Sun," 
 presumably in Ceylon; Bacon's "New Atlantis," possibly corre- 
 sponding to Australia; "Utopia," under the tropics in South 
 America; Fenelon's "Republique de Salente"; Cabet's "Icaria"; 
 Howell's "Altruria" ; not to mention others. Harrington's Brit- 
 ish "Oceana," Bellamy's "Looking Backward" to Boston, Morris's 
 
8 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 "News from Nowhere," whose scene is in London, are the few 
 which dare to set up their Utopias in their native land. 
 
 But there may be another classification of Utopian literature 
 which we shall follow: one according to which the imaginative 
 element is engaged preeminently, either in the political or the 
 social realm. That is, the Utopia takes the color either of a 
 political discussion, aiming to set up an ideal government, or its 
 main color comes from depicting the social condition consequent 
 upon some changes, especially in the economic or family life. 
 The element of fiction proper is confined chiefly to the second 
 class. The former class approaches more nearly to the confines 
 of what we may call the publicist function, but differs in having 
 more or less the romantic element, especially the dramatic 
 setting of the literary symposium. 
 
 I. In this philosophical or political category we should rightly 
 classify Plato's "Republic," though it has elements of the social 
 Utopia, which are the least prominent, and yet the ones by 
 which it is best known and judged. Leaving it, therefore, for 
 later discussion, next after Plato comes Cicero's "De Republica," 
 usually called "The Commonwealth." It is based on Plato, and 
 yet possesses greater political wisdom, as befitting a Roman. He 
 sets up a state, not in philosophical theory only, as Plato did, 
 but by a severe historical study of Roman institutions. His 
 speculation is a search, in his own language, for a "just distri- 
 bution'" (this is the note of the world's Utopian cry), and a 
 "subordination" (not so frequent a demand) of rights, offices 
 and prerogatives, so as to give "sufficient domination to the 
 chiefs, sufficient authority to the senate, and sufficient liberty to 
 the people." It has been pointed out that in this blending of 
 the royal, aristocratic, and popular elements Cicero has almost 
 outlined in prophecy the essential features of the British con- 
 stitution of our day. 
 
 We come out of the publicist realm of Cicero's speculations 
 when we take up Augustine's "De Civitate Dei," which is often 
 spoken of as a philosophical and religious Utopia, why, we 
 cannot see, except for its name; and yet it is interesting as the 
 first great work which dared to break that ideal or idol of the 
 Roman Empire, by placing alongside of it the great Christian 
 ideal of a heavenly city. The decay and fall of Rome before 
 Alaric had shaken the world as we can hardly imagine, and all 
 the fabric of society seemed disintegrated. Even Christians 
 
SOCIALISM 9 
 
 thought that the destruction of Rome meant the prelude to the 
 end of the world. A widspread attempt was made to attribute 
 this calamity to the Christian religion. Augustine's great book 
 is in part a maintenance of the thesis that the destruction of 
 the Roman Empire is due not to the rise of Christianity, but to 
 the corruption of paganism. The old social system is passing, 
 but in its place he seems to see a new order arising, as over the 
 ruins hovers the splendid vision of the City of God, coming 
 down out of Heaven. And yet his eyes are set, not so much 
 forward in a politico-social speculation (he has no vision as yet 
 of even the Holy Roman Empire) as backward over history as 
 he traces from the first a city of God, a community of God's 
 people, living alongside the kingdoms of this world, and their 
 glory, and as he traces their antagonism from the fall of the 
 angels to the last judgment. The distinctive place of Augustine 
 in social literature is his conception of the spiritual realm, and 
 the slow-moving but triumphant providence of God as developing 
 in, with, alongside of, and despite the great visible world king- 
 doms of men; a conception quite in accord with sanest Christian 
 ideals of men today, and with the historic method of interpre- 
 tation. 
 
 But it is very interesting (going on to the fourteenth cen- 
 tury) to take up a fascinating book which Dean Church has 
 recently translated, Dante's "De Monarchia." It is strictly in 
 its form a governmental treatise, but it has for its theme an idea 
 which, as intimated before, was for centuries the world's Utopian 
 dream, and which history has proved to be Utopian, the concep- 
 tion of a holy world-wide Roman empire, which should bring 
 universal peace and prosperity. The conflict of Christian cen- 
 turies, between church and state, emperor and pope, was largely 
 a discussion as between two holies as to relative place. In the 
 awful chaos of his time, political and social, Dante, devout 
 Catholic as he was, dreams again of a revived Roman empire, 
 subordinating the temporal power of the Pope, a universal mon- 
 archy with a single authority, unselfish, inflexible, which could 
 make all smaller tyrannies to cease, and enable every man to 
 live in peace and liberty so long as he lived in justice. Such a 
 power was Rome, and such a power shall become Christendom, 
 longs Dante, under a revived Roman empire, despite the dis- 
 couraging experiences by which he was surrounded. Believing 
 that imperial Roman power divine and eternal, he idealizes a 
 
io SELECTED ARTICLES ON, 
 
 state which he dreams will yet set up peace and justice in the 
 earth. He elaborately argues the divinity of the old Roman 
 state as religiously as he would that of the Old Testament 
 theocracy. He finds divine potents and miracles and sanctions in 
 secular Roman history, and proves to his own satisfaction that 
 its rehabilitation is necessary to the redemption of the world. 
 The "De Monarchia" of Dante shows how passionately he reverts 
 to an idea which Augustine had done so much to overthrow 
 centuries before. It is interesting not only for itself, and crys- 
 talizes better than anything we can read the visions which for 
 ages ruled man's imaginations ; but it also explains the passion- 
 ate political strains which form so deep an undertone in his 
 "Commedia," and which have led many commentators of Dante 
 to consider it a Ghibelline poem, insinuating what it was dan- 
 gerous to announce, and breathing into our own times patriotic 
 impulses to Pope-ridden Italy. 
 
 Still considering the political Utopias, we come down to select 
 one more: the "Oceana" of Harrington, written and published 
 in the troublous times of Charles and Cromwell. James Har- 
 rington, of noble family, wide learning, extensive travel, and a 
 courtier of Charles I., after the king's death, without actively 
 espousing the cause of Cromwell, was yet inclined to the idea 
 of a commonwealth. He wrote his book, which was an earnest 
 effort to induce Cromwell to introduce certain radical reforms. 
 The book was seized by Cromwell, but subsequently restored, 
 and dedicated to the lord protector. On the restoration, Har- 
 rington was imprisoned and was released only after he had 
 become shattered in mind and body. The "Oceana" belongs in 
 the class with Hobbe's "Leviathan" and the writings of Filmer 
 and Locke, but it is distinguished by its literary form and its 
 fiction of an actual program to set up his Utopia. "Oceana" is 
 England, "Marpesia," Scotland, and "Panopaea," Ireland. He 
 has fictitious names for London, St. James, and the kings of 
 England. Cromwell is the Lord Archon, and is named "Ol- 
 phaeus Megaletor." A great council under the Archon's 
 auspices is called, committees are appointed to consider every 
 government from Israel to Venice, and orations and public 
 disputations issue out of this wide survey, in a reconstruction of 
 England's commonwealth. His great idea is that the troubles of 
 his time and all time are due to change in the balance of 
 property. "Empire follows the balance of property" is a phrase 
 
SOCIALISM ii 
 
 of his which has become somewhat notable. He shows his 
 commonwealth in action with the most elaborate safeguards and 
 calculations of property adjustment, to prevent shiftings of that 
 balance. This he does by agrarian laws, by limiting the power 
 of accumulation to a certain income, and by regulating inherit- 
 ances. He sets up in imagination a popular government in which 
 offices are filled by men chosen by ballot, to hold office for a 
 limited period. The idea of a ballot for popular municipal and 
 parliamentary elections does not seem Utopian to us, though it 
 is only within fifty years that the written or printed ballot has 
 been used in English parliamentary elections a custom old as 
 Rome in limited usage, and often adopted in modern times for 
 other purposes. 
 
 It would be going beyond the limited range of our subject 
 to enter into the French and German speculative social litera- 
 ture. The political elements in them, Utopian in their democracy 
 then, have now been quite fully established. Economically, they 
 are socialistic in varied ranges from communism to anarchy, 
 from philansteries to cooperative commonwealths. The imagi- 
 native literary element, however, does not generally prevail, 
 except in some of Rousseau's writings, in Mably's poem, "The 
 Basiliade," and in Cabet's "Icaria." Fourier's politico-social 
 ideas, though not taking a distinctively literary form, yet sug- 
 gested in his philansteries a concrete program of social organi- 
 zation which did much to stimulate communistic societies in 
 Europe and America. The famous Brook Farm experiment, 
 though originally from an indigenous impulse, was dominated 
 in its later development by the teaching of Fourier. 
 
 II. Let us pass on to the second class of Utopias, those 
 which deal more closely with social programs, and have the more 
 distinctly literary form. By far the largest class of Utopian 
 literature has taken the form of imaginary social common- 
 wealths with some fiction of actual adventure to give them cur- 
 rency. The reasons for this method may be either its stimulus 
 to the imagination in the absence of scientific and historic data 
 which are now available, or it was resorted to for the sake of 
 protection to the writers in putting forth critical views upon 
 existing society. The most famous books of this class are 
 Plato's "Republic," 300 B.C.; More's "Utopia," 1517; Campa- 
 nella's "City of the Sun," and Bacon's "New Atlantis," early in 
 the seventeenth century. Besides we may mention "L'Evangel 
 
12 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 Eternal," by Abbe Joachim, early in the thirteenth century a 
 Utopian dream about the reign of the Holy Ghost. Fenelon 
 wrote two Utopias : "Betigue" an Arcadian dream of a pastoral 
 people without vices and "Republique de Salente," a picture of 
 a people with no industry but agriculture, attaining a high degree 
 of perfection and happiness. In it war is depicted as the source 
 of all misery a bold position in the age of Louis XIV. There 
 is a political romance by John Barclay (early in the seventeenth 
 century), entitled "Argenis," very famous in its day, and greatly 
 admired among others by Disraeli and Coleridge, and widely 
 translated. Then there is in more modern times the story of the 
 poet Morris, "News from Nowhere," Howell's "Altruria," and 
 Bellamy's "Looking Backward" and "Equality," not to mention 
 others. Most of them deal positively in the construction of an 
 ideal social state, with implications everywhere of criticism on 
 existing institutions. 
 
 We might also include in this list imaginative works which 
 use the opposite and offensive method of elongating the vices 
 and foibles of present society in an unideal world : such method 
 of parody as Swift uses in "Gulliver's Travels." Another book 
 of the same order, but little known, is Joseph Hall's (1607) 
 "Mundus Alter et Idem," a pseudo-ideal world discovered by a 
 traveler, and divided into regions answering to man's chief 
 weaknesses and vices. He gives a map of Crapulia, Latronia, 
 Moronia, etc. and with an irony which seems a very critique 
 of Utopias, he outlines on the edge of his map a terra sancta 
 ignota adhuc. There is also a class of writings like Montes- 
 quieu's "Lettres Persannes," in which, in gentle irony, it is 
 shown how a stranger from Persia or India would regard man- 
 ners and morals in England or France. This is Howell's method 
 in his "Traveller from Altruria." 
 
 The notes in this literary method in the past seem little 
 varied and tame oftentimes to the fiction-surfeited mind of our 
 day. The most frequent literary form is that of the symposium, 
 strictly speaking, as in Plato's "Republic," Cicero's "Common- 
 wealth," Harrington's "Oceana." In garden or grove or house, 
 or on the tribune, friends meet and declaim or talk. The liter- 
 ary quality to be maintained in these symposia is simply the 
 consistency in type of the talkers. The central figure, Plato's 
 Socrates, Cicero's Scipio, Harrington's Lord Archon, furnish 
 the main arguments, and the others are his foils. The strength 
 
SOCIALISM 13 
 
 of such a book depends upon the fairness and force of the 
 arguments the author puts into the mouth of his objectors. 
 Plato and More dare to have their critics say something strong; 
 Julian West, in the latest product of Mr. Bellamy, gapes and 
 swallows as Gospel everything Dr. Leete says. Even when 
 this symposium method does not occupy the whole literary 
 field, it is still retained in part as the setting of the dream or 
 experience. Look at the literary setting of some of the Utopias. 
 Sir Thomas More, writing in 1515, soon after Columbus and 
 Vespucci, so that men's minds were stirred by discovery and 
 adventure, tells us how he was on ambassadorial business for 
 Henry VIII in Flanders, when he met one day a certain Peter 
 Giles, an honorable man of learning. As they were returning 
 from church, on a time, he saw his friend talking with a 
 stranger, who proved to be one Raphael Hythloday, a Portuguese 
 scholar and adventurer, who was so anxious to see the world 
 that he had divided his estate among his brothers, and had 
 gone on three voyages with Vespucci. On the last voyage he 
 begged to be left behind, and setting out with five Castellians 
 inland he saw some wonderful states and peoples especially one 
 Utopia. Struck by his knowledge and acuteness, More and Giles 
 expressed astonishment that he did not enter, after such valu- 
 able experiences, upon the service of some European state. This 
 opened the way for a discussion of the poverty and crime, the 
 wasteful wars and social condition generally of Europe and the 
 consequent story of Utopia was told by way of contrast. 
 
 The same literary method is used by Campanella about a 
 century later. Campanella was a Dominican monk born in Cala- 
 bria, who suffered for his ardor in the cause of science. He 
 was a contemporary of Lord Bacon and shared his philosophy 
 and method. His scientific and philosophical publications were 
 coincident with an Italian conspiracy in Calabria to throw off 
 the Spanish yoke. He was seized and sent to Naples as a 
 political suspect. He was imprisoned twenty-seven years, during 
 which time he wrote his "City of the Sun." It is a dialogue 
 between a grandmaster of the Hospital Knights and a Genoese 
 sea captain, who had seen and describes the city he had discov- 
 ered. This book is interesting and curious. It is a vast scheme 
 idealizing a state built on a hierarchy of learning. Metaphysic 
 ("Hof") is its personified prince, and Power ("Pon"), Wisdom 
 ("Sin"), and Love ("Mor") are a triumvirate of counselors. 
 
14 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 These coincide with his ideas of the Trinity. Power, Wisdom, 
 and Love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He describes a city 
 whose seven concentric walls are pictured with object lessons 
 in learning. Its pantheistic cultus is a dream which might pre- 
 figure Comte's "Religion of Humanity." The worth of the book 
 does not warrant a detailed discussion. Campanella tries to 
 combine some of Plato's philosophy and social ideas with the 
 scientific elements more fully developed in Bacon's "New 
 Atlantis," to which we now turn. 
 
 Lord Bacon's "New Atlantis" is a simple narrative of a 
 ship's company which sailed from Peru for China. Encounter- 
 ing storms, provisions exhausted, at last they discovered an 
 island or continent in the then unknown Southern Sea. They 
 entered a harbor and beheld a fair city. They were met by 
 officials gorgeously apparelled, who bade them depart, by a 
 proclamation written in Greek and Hebrew and Latin and 
 Spanish. The document was sealed with a cross. Discovering 
 by this sign that the sailors were Christians too, they were 
 allowed to land. They were taken to the Strangers' House, 
 so-called, and superbly entertained. Soon the governor called, 
 offered further hospitalities, and answered their questions about 
 the state. It seems that about twenty years after the death of 
 Christ a wonderful light was seen at sea, a pillar of fire sur- 
 mounted by a resplendent cross. Upon approaching the wonder, 
 it exploded with a great coruscation, and nothing was left but a 
 small ark, which opened of itself, and disclosed the Old and 
 New Testaments, with a letter from St. Bartholomew saying 
 that he had been instructed by an angel to cast this ark into 
 the sea for the salvation of some unknown realm. The narra- 
 tive goes on, in conversations and in walks about the city, to 
 disclose its history and wonders in government and science. 
 Commerce is forbidden to the people with any state not under 
 their own crown but through the fiction of a sacred order 
 called "Solomon's House," and under its auspices, every twelve 
 years two ships with three Solomonian brethren in each are 
 sent out to different realms to gather knowledge of affairs, 
 especially of science, arts, manufactures, and inventions. These 
 he beautifully calls "Merchants of Light." The results of these 
 discoveries are seen in the wonderful museums and laboratories 
 he describes, and in the social effects upon this land of Barsa- 
 lem, of this scientific learning. The book, in other words, is a 
 
SOCIALISM 15 
 
 scientific speculation by the great author of the "Novum Or- 
 ganon" a sort of bold anticipation of the wonders of modern 
 science, which Bellamy finds so helpful in his Utopia full of 
 quaint conceits, and letting the imagination revel in the possi- 
 bilities of his inductive method. He can have towers three 
 miles high, and caverns three miles deep. He has artificial 
 wells and water of Paradise. He has a wonderful biological 
 laboratory for experiments on plants and animals. He can 
 raise plants by mixture of earth without seeds ; can continue life, 
 even if some vital parts are gone. He can magnify and dimin- 
 ish bodies. He has furnaces which can imitate not only the 
 sun's heat, but that of the stars. He can make artificial rain- 
 bows, and says "we have some perpetual motions." In fact, the 
 book is a veritable Baron Munchausen of science. And yet in 
 it all he has prognostications of many things which modern 
 biology and chemistry and mechanics have actually achieved. 
 He anticipates the discovery of meat extracts. He prefigures 
 the microscope. A crude compound microscope was invented in 
 Holland a few years before. He may have known of it, but 
 we have no data to verify the supposition. He suggests some- 
 thing like the audophone and telephone, submarine boats are 
 faintly in his imagination, and "some degrees of flying in the 
 air," as he modestly puts it ; and there is something like a 
 weather bureau in full blast. It is interesting to note that the 
 scientific "New Atlantis" is one of the most ostensibly religious 
 books in Utopian literature. 
 
 Leaving the literary setting of these books, Jet us now go 
 back to consider and condense as far as possible the more 
 notable political and social positions of the two most famous 
 Utopias, those of Plato and More. 
 
 Plato may be regarded as the pioneer in this class of writing 
 influencing more or less directly nearly every subsequent 
 utopist. His search in the "Republic" is for ideal justice, 
 outlined by the words of Socrates in the symposium, but con- 
 fronted by the conservatism of the aged Cephalus, by Thrasy- 
 machus, a type of the sophist, by Polemarchus, the practical 
 man of social traditions, by Glaucon, the impetuous youth and 
 man of pleasure, and by Adeimantus, the representative of com- 
 mon sense. Through the labyrinth of the Socratic method in 
 such a dialogue it is hard to get at his meaning. It seems to 
 have been based upon the Greek idea of individual insubordina- 
 
16 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 tion to the state, and yet equally pronounced is the more modern 
 idea that you must have an ideal man to make an ideal state. 
 All that he says about the state is commingled with a discussion 
 of similar qualities and regulations in the commonwealth of a 
 man's own soul. He looks upon reason, courage, and temper- 
 ance as the chief desiderata in a man, corresponding to his 
 mind, his feelings, and his will. Their balance make the ideal 
 man. The state should, therefore, have three classes corre- 
 sponding: the rulers or guardians (the reason), the soldiers 
 with preponderance of courage, the workingmen artificers and 
 farmers, whose virtue is temperance, though he does not de- 
 velop this idea. It seems hard to discover in his argument, 
 which he makes the starting point or norm for the other: the 
 state or the individual but this is clear, that the subordination 
 of all to the public good is vital and yet that each acquires 
 justice for himself, and contributes it to the state by each 
 doing his own business well, and submitting to what the general 
 good requires. This certainly is not very Utopian, and is quite 
 modern, and as far as I have read is not much dwelt upon by 
 commentators of Plato. But the theme which is most elaborately 
 discussed in the "Republic" is this: that it is not so much the 
 happiness of the citizens as the well-being of the state that is 
 to be sought quite in contrast with modern materialistic 
 Utopias in which individual happiness and comfort is the chief 
 ingredient. 
 
 Then Plato goes on to discuss the education best fitted to 
 make these classes do best their own business. It is a curious 
 thing to modern ideas that he leaves out entirely, in his discus- 
 sion, the third great class, the people, with whom modern 
 Utopias are chiefly concerned, and confines all he says to the 
 education of the guardians and soldiers ; and it is not at all 
 clear whether what he says is even meant for both, but only 
 for one of these upper classes. Nothing gives a clearer idea 
 than this neglect of the common people in his Utopia of the 
 difference between a Greek and a modern democracy. His 
 educational scheme includes, first for all, up to the age of 
 twenty, music (in which he apparently includes religion and 
 literature), and gymnastics. It is interesting that it is the 
 intellectual and moral regimen of gymnastics that he has chiefly 
 in mind. After the age of twenty begins a more serious educa- 
 tion of the soul, designed chiefly for the more promising youth, 
 
SOCIALISM 17 
 
 including a more comprehensive study of the arts and sciences. 
 At thirty, still further selected spirits are chosen from them, 
 who go out into practical life to command armies, and gain 
 experience of affairs. At fifty they can return to a further life 
 of philosophy, or take their places among the rulers and trainers 
 of others. A third step of training is hinted at in Plato's 
 famous argument for immortality in the eternal development 
 of the soul as suggested by the vision of Er, near the close of 
 the "Republic." This argument is made in connection with a 
 remark that indicates his view that his scheme was almost 
 impracticable on earth, and needed the longer period of eternity 
 to develop it. It is curious to note that the education he pre- 
 scribes for his selected guardians is primarily geometry also 
 astronomy and dialectics as subsidiary to a search for the good. 
 Plato does not propose for his future legislators any study of 
 finance or law or military tactics. Nothing appears more incon- 
 gruous to our modern notions; and yet as a counterpoise to the 
 extreme view of "practical politics," and the habitual sneer at 
 the "literary fellows," Plato's ideal has had its uses, and is 
 beginning to be recognized in its appropriate balance in our day. 
 This idea of a large, comprehensive public education for citizen 
 careers is one that runs through the other Utopias ; Campa- 
 nella and Bacon, for example, but with a more democratic 
 inclusiveness. 
 
 It is other elements, however, in the training of these guardi- 
 ans which have become most famous. First, there is absolute 
 equality of the sexes, identical education and identical careers. 
 No idea could possibly be more un-Greek than this. He antici- 
 pates and goes far beyond the most ultra-modern notions: for 
 the women are to bear with men the burdens of war and state. 
 His argument is that the sex difference is not a difference of 
 natures, and that there is more difference between different men 
 and women than between man and woman. Hence natures being 
 the same, education should be the same, and therefore occupa- 
 tions should be the same. He never flinches in this third 
 conclusion, even as to war. 
 
 This he can do in his scheme without detriment to the 
 home, for he has no home in his ideal state, for the guardians. 
 A regulated promiscuity and a system of public nursing and 
 education for children which rigorously obliterates identification 
 of children in parentage is part of his scheme. I say regulated 
 
i8 SELECTED ARTICLES ON t 
 
 promiscuity for curiously, from our point of view, Plato sets 
 up his scheme partly to prevent certain abuses of freedom, as he 
 thinks. To avoid this, holy marriage festivals are instituted, 
 and he adds, "their holiness will be in proportion to their use- 
 fulness." To this end the guardians see to it that only the 
 good and strong of either sex marry with corresponding quali- 
 ties, as often as possible, and the bad with the bad less fre- 
 quently ; the children of the good being saved, the other offspring 
 killed. To prevent popular irritation over the differentiation, 
 the brides and grooms at the festival are ostensibly assigned by 
 lot, but really by design a politic lie which Plato enjoys to 
 consider. The man must be twenty-five to fifty years of age; 
 the woman from twenty to forty. Any one above or below 
 these ages who takes part in the hymeneal festival is guilty of 
 impiety also any one who forms a marriage relation at other 
 times. After fifty and forty, he allows promiscuity of relation- 
 ship. His idea in mating his couples is based upon the care we 
 show in breeding cattle : shall we do less for the safety of 
 society, in heredity? he argues. This is his paramount con- 
 sideration, and every sentiment of love and home goes down 
 before it. Of this scheme Plato says he has no doubt of its 
 expediency, but he has of its possibility. This feature of Plato 
 is to us the most abhorrent of all his ideas; but one thing must 
 be borne in mind, that contrary to the general idea about it, 
 Plato thinks he is aiming not at unbridled lust, but at an almost 
 impossible strictness, and at mechanical regulation though in 
 face of the suppression of the deepest sentiments. 
 
 This is Plato's solvent of the social evil and the bane of 
 heredity; utterly alien in method from Christian love, humanity, 
 and hope. And yet this phase of evil and the taint of depraved 
 heritage, and the overpopulation of the lower orders, are still 
 with us, the Gordian knot of social reform. 
 
 It is interesting to see that Mr. Bellamy has accepted essen- 
 tially Plato's idea of identity of sexes in nature and occupation; 
 and he is going to meet the whole Malthusian argument by 
 woman's increasing physical power through gymnastics to resist 
 male approach, and by her economic independence in public 
 careers. 
 
 Another element in the ideal republic much dwelt upon, 
 but yet very slightly emphasized by Plato, is community of 
 goods and absence of money. "The diviner metal is within 
 
SOCIALISM 19 
 
 them, and they have therefore no need of that earthly dross," 
 he says. When you come to look for this provision in the end 
 of the third book of the "Republic," you find about a page only 
 given to it ; and the communism of property, of which so much 
 has been said, is little more than an abundant but simple com- 
 mon provision for the rulers and soldiery a sort of wage 
 given by the citizens in general, so that the rulers could perform 
 governmental functions without distraction of fear or favor. 
 
 This economic communism, in some form, and the bane of 
 money and individual property, is the one persistent idea in 
 nearly all Utopias Sir Thomas More is the great exponent of 
 it and it is the note of all modern nationalism and collectiv- 
 ism ; but the ground for it utterly shifted since Plato's day. 
 Now it is advanced entirely in the supposed interest of the 
 poor; it is presented as an economic factor of social justice. 
 But with Plato it was an entirely different matter; it was in 
 the interest, as he supposed, of disinterested patriotism and 
 undisturbed devotion to the state on the part of his upper classes 
 very much the argument for the monastic life of the clergy 
 later on. This idea of sharing of possessions, for the justice 
 of it, to the poor is not in Plato's mind at all, nor is this the 
 great reason with Sir Thomas More; but it is the good of the 
 state. And Plato's argument for community of goods as well as 
 of wives (within certain limits) for the guardian classes, and 
 only for them, is simply this, that without care for personal 
 property, and for one's own children, they might escape thereby 
 the distractions of avarice or of family caste, and the sweet 
 family affections which would otherwise share their interest in 
 civic justice, courage, and impartiality: an utter mistake, we 
 may say; yet socially there is some ground for it. Plato's 
 communism is nothing like modern socialism. 
 
 It remains only to say that Plato does not say how or 
 when he is going to set up his state, except in two passages. 
 First, he says in answer to when : "Not until kings are philoso- 
 phers or philosophers kings." And again when asked how, if 
 his guardians have set up their scheme, they would go to work 
 on existing institutions, he says he would begin by sending out 
 of the city into the country all over ten years of age, and 
 begin his education on those that were left. I should like to 
 see the twinkle in Plato's eye if he could read some modern 
 literature on this point. 
 
20 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 Despite these Utopian elements and no one knew that they 
 were so, better than Plato himself, as could be abundantly 
 shown despite some ideas and ideals utterly revolting to Chris- 
 tian principles, Plato ideally has held up to the world some 
 views which are modern, and more than modern, if I may so 
 speak. His ideal of a lifelong education, extended to both sexes, 
 based on their equality, his blending of philosophy and ethics 
 with politics, his insistence on a right individual to make a 
 right state, his search for the good, or, as we should call it, 
 religion, as a basis of political justice, his finding of wealth 
 in weal, a note now often heard since Ruskin all these and 
 more are the abiding elements in a Utopia, many of whose 
 paradoxes are still ours, and many of whose problems we are 
 yet facing. 
 
 The "Utopia" of Sir Thomas More is next in interest and 
 importance to that of Plato's "Republic." It is by far the 
 most charming of all the Utopias from a literary point of view, 
 and, despite some of its suggestions, has permanent social value. 
 It has great modern interest moreover, for it was called out by 
 an economic condition somewhat resembling our own. The 
 breaking up of the feudal system detached men from the soil, 
 and from a dependence of serfdom, which yet gave measurably 
 the necessities of life. Moreover, the change of land tenures, 
 the increase of individual over feudal proprietorships, the in- 
 closing of commons, and the growing preponderance of manu- 
 facture over agriculture resulted in widespread change of em- 
 ployment, turning much tilled land into pasturage, and so 
 dispensing with many laborers. These facts, in that period, 
 resulted in a social upheaval and displacement quite resembling 
 the industrial revolution in our day, coming from machinery 
 and from modern competitive capitalism. Like the later move- 
 ment, it was doubtless a step in progress, but resulted incident- 
 ally in great hardship for individuals, threw hosts of men into 
 the field, and resulted in a great era of crime. The state was 
 not ready then, with modern charities and reformatory methods 
 to meet it; the English poor laws were not yet in force, and 
 the day of repression by capital punishment for nearly all 
 offenses was in full vigor. 
 
 The "Utopia" was written primarily to show the enormity of 
 the English criminal law, and its inexpediency, and to disclose 
 in parable the economic injustice and folly of punishing ruth- 
 
SOCIALISM 21 
 
 lessly enforced idleness and crime by death, when economic 
 conditions and policy fostered both. On the side of the gov- 
 ernments, Sir Thomas More saw the economic burdens of war 
 and the corruptions of courts, and on the side of social life he 
 saw the greed of wealth, the diplay of luxury, and the shallow 
 standard of happiness. His solvent for these things was : 
 abolish private property and banish money from its social 
 function. Inequality of condition, and personal greed and lux- 
 ury, which are traceable to the search for individual wealth : 
 this is at the bottom of social wrongs and the impediment to 
 social happiness. So he teaches, and we hear this sentiment 
 re-echoed again and again today. In other words, he saw 500 
 years ago much that we see today ; but what is equally important, 
 he saw many abuses which we do not see today so mightily has 
 God's providence wrought changes. Modern penology and juris- 
 prudence have done just what he clamored for. Modern phil- 
 anthropy and charity methods have met much of his economic 
 arraignment of society, and yet for him then, with such clear 
 vision of wrong, there was but one way of expressing himself: 
 by an opposite picture of a different communistic state, con- 
 fessedly Utopian for it can be abundantly shown from the 
 book that he was no visionary and crank, demanding immediate 
 realization. That ideal state was meant to be partly parody, 
 partly satire, but partly longing hope for a better world. The 
 play of half-belief, half-doubt which runs through the book is 
 its chief literary charm, and while this detracts from the pole- 
 mic value of the "Utopia" as a serious book, it increased its 
 efficacy as a safe social example for popular effect. Now, 
 what I wish especially to note is that the fundamental economic 
 positions and solvents that Sir Thomas More put forth so long 
 ago are essentially the arraignments and solvents of modern 
 socialism today ; and yet that most of the actual economic 
 wrongs of his day, as he saw them, have been practically met 
 by history since, in prosaic fact, in non-utopian forms. Many of 
 Sir Thomas More's charges against society are still the charges 
 made today by many modern writers, and the economic evils of 
 them are made to reappear now under changed conditions. Much 
 of the first part of the "Utopia," in which More discusses the 
 social economics of Henry VIIFs day, reads like some magazine 
 article of yesterday. Though history in the slow but sure 
 process of time has met most of Sir Thomas More's concrete 
 
22 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 demands, without his Utopia, still today the demand of some 
 men is for something as revolutionary as that scheme of his. 
 Either the reading of his book, in connection with present dis- 
 cussions, confirms us in our high estimate of the value of social 
 agitation and ideals, while yet we hold on to the patience of 
 God's providence, or it emphasizes anew the perennial demand 
 by some in nearly every generation from Plato down for some 
 sort of communistic reconstruction of society. 
 
 What, now, is Sir Thomas More's scheme? 
 
 He imagines a land about two hundred miles square, with 
 fifty-four cities about twenty-five miles apart, Amaurot the 
 capital. "He who knows one of these towns knows them all," 
 he tells us. That is a motto which might be written over every 
 Utopia a dreary monotony is their own arraignment. "Their 
 buildings are good and are so uniform that a whole side of a 
 street looks like one house," he says a description very much 
 like Campanula's. Extensive gardens lie back of all the houses. 
 There being no property among them, every man may freely 
 enter into any house whatsoever. Every ten years they shift 
 their houses by lot. The families are made up of those nearly 
 related to each other. He has no platonic disregard of the 
 home. The sons, married and unmarried, with children and 
 grandchildren, live in the same home or group of homes a 
 trace of early family communities. They live in a sort of 
 patriarchal obedience to their common family chief, reminding 
 us of the type of home described in Crawford's Italian novels. 
 
 Lest any city should become either too great or by accident 
 be dispeopled, provision is made that none of their cities may 
 contain above 6,000 families, besides the country homes con- 
 tiguous. Here is modern congestion of cities solved on paper! 
 Provision is made for transplanting families from city to city, if 
 the prescribed number is exceeded, and for colonizing into other 
 lands if population is excessive, gaining land peaceably if pos- 
 sible ; if not, by war ; for one of More's principles is that 
 "every man has by the law of nature a right to such waste 
 portion of the earth as is necessary for sustenance." 
 
 No family may have less than ten, nor more than sixteen 
 persons in it but as there can be no determined number of 
 children under age, he says, the rule is still observed by trans- 
 planting the surplus from one home to another. Here, indeed,' 
 
SOCIALISM 23 
 
 is your Murray Hill and Cherry Street problem, and the Mal- 
 thusian peril easily solved in Utopia ! 
 
 Their social structure is built on the family. Thirty families 
 choose a magistrate who is called a syphogrant, and over every 
 ten syphogrants is another magistrate called a tranibor. All 
 the two hundred syphogrants of a city choose a prince out of a 
 list of four named by the people of the four wards into which 
 every city is divided. The election is by secret ballot (Aus- 
 tralian method?), and "if any one," says he, "aspires to any 
 office he is sure not to compass it." Oh! what a Utopia in- 
 deed! The prince is for life, unless removed for cause. The 
 tranibors meet every three days with the prince for deliberation, 
 but there are always two syphogrants of the people present, 
 and these are changed every time. No star-chamber in Utopia ! 
 He tells us that it is a fundamental rule of their government 
 that "no conclusion can be made in anything that relates to the 
 public, until it has first been debated three days ; and another 
 rule observed is never to debate a thing on the same day in 
 which it is first proposed." No hasty legislation in Utopia ! 
 Another thing : there are no lawyers in Utopia, says the greatest 
 lawyer of his day. Surely that is Utopian modesty! Upon 
 certain very important matters legislation is referred directly 
 back to the council of the nation. Here is the idea 500 hundred 
 years ago of the referendum, as yet in the air. 
 
 All over the country are built farmhouses capable of enter- 
 taining forty men and women and two slaves. Every year 
 twenty of this family come back to town and others take their 
 places so that the experience of city and country both must be 
 known by all with ultimate permission to permanent residence 
 in the country if so desired. Among the chief industries of 
 the farmers is chicken-raising and by incubators, too ! Oh ! 
 modern scientific farmers ! Besides agriculture, every man and 
 woman learns some trade. All wear the same clothing excepting 
 some distinction as to sex and the fashion never changes! 
 This is, perhaps, the ne plus ultra of Utopia; yet Mr. Bellamy, 
 too, is quite sure on this point by the year 2000 A.D. The 
 chief and almost the only business of the syphogrants, he tells 
 us, is to take care that no men may live idle: very important, 
 we should say, that they have all possible leisure for so big a 
 task though the author confidently informs us that there are 
 
24 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 not 500 in this land who will not work. Let us go to Utopia 
 with our tramp problem! But in Utopia men do not wear 
 themselves out with perpetual toil, for they give six hours only 
 out of the twenty-four to work. Sir Thomas More goes two 
 hours better than our eight-hour movement. At eight o'clock 
 they all go to bed, and sleep eight hours, and when they waken 
 there are public lectures before daybreak for all who wish. 
 Very many of More's arguments and some of his methods of 
 betterment are found in current discussions today, and Mr. 
 Bellamy has borrowed specifically from his ideas and program. 
 Very much as in Boston in the coming century, according to 
 Mr. Bellamy, More tells us that there is a public market-place 
 in the four wards of Amaurot. Thither are brought all pro- 
 ducts of earth and factory and put into common stock, and 
 from thence every head of the house gets anything he wants, 
 without pay and without exchange. There is no danger, he 
 assures us, of a man's asking for more than he needs, because 
 there is no inducement, since they are sure of being always 
 supplied. Pride is also eliminated, as well as want in his 
 economics, by the public esteem in which gold and jewels are 
 held; for in Utopia the commonest kitchen and chamber utensils 
 are all of gold and silver, as also the chains for the slaves, 
 and jewels are only used as the playthings of children. They 
 always have public provisions in their magazines for two years 
 ahead. "There are no taverns, no alehouses nor stews among 
 them," he assures us. They travel without money and work at 
 their trade as they go. They keep up the home life, and may 
 eat at home, but generally prefer to take common meals in a 
 hall, each thirty families or syphograntry dining together, en- 
 tertained by reading and music as they eat, the menial work 
 done by slaves and the tables served by the children. 
 
 Sir Thomas More has some curious suggestions as to war 
 what he says is fine irony on his age. Utopians, he tells us, 
 think nothing so inglorious as the glory gained by war. But 
 as war there must be, men and women alike are trained for it. 
 The only use they have for golden money, which they accumu- 
 late for the purpose, is to hire soldiers from other countries to 
 do their fighting for them. Their principle is that as they seek 
 out the best sort of men for their use at home, so they make 
 use of the worst sort of men for the consumption of war, and 
 so they hire mercenary tribes to fight, under Utopian generals, 
 
SOCIALISM 25 
 
 however. To settle a war speedily they use enormous bribes 
 to purchase assassination of the hostile prince, so as quickly to 
 kill the most guilty, and save the carnage of the common sol- 
 diery. This is the chief, and only, and, according to them, 
 appropriate use of gold. 
 
 The most notable thing in the Utopia, for the age in which 
 the book was written, and in view of Sir Thomas More's 
 staunch Catholicity, is his provision for universal religious tol- 
 eration of all faiths, and his story of how Christianity in open 
 field made its own way. One of Utopia's oldest laws is that no 
 man ought to be punished for his religion. He also has a 
 wonderful scheme of religious unity, through worship, in a 
 cultus in which all worship together God, and yet each may be 
 worshiping at the same time his own God. His priests are few 
 in number, for few, he says, are highly enough gifted for that 
 office. Ministers are chosen by the people a bold thing for a 
 man to say before the Reformation. The confessional, says 
 this devoted Roman Catholic, is in the family, to the father of 
 the family, and among themselves. 
 
 We thus hear in More's "Utopia" some notes as old as 
 Plato, and many as new as Bellamy. His scheme has many 
 provisions not at all Utopian to our democratic ideas, and some 
 ideals which are yet our. purest longings in political and social 
 life. His methods are based, however, on the sophistries of 
 communism ; and yet, despite these vagaries, his scheme has not 
 the philosophical vagueness of Plato, does not share his views 
 as to the family, and he is not so concretely and confidently 
 sure of his position as Bellamy. 
 
 A few suggestions occur from our study. 
 
 Utopists as all these writers are, I think we are struck first 
 by the fact that, with the exception of Campanella, Harrington, 
 Bellamy, and a few others, they are nearly all men of eminence 
 in the world's thought. So that amidst fiction and vagary there 
 is doubtless some substantial truth. We have marked in passing 
 some anticipations of subsequent actualities. They seldom have 
 the earnestness and conviction of cranks. Plato and More never 
 give you the impression that they endorse all they make fictional. 
 More's life and public career are opposed to some things he 
 says. The object of his method, like all drama and fiction, is 
 to give latitude, and to escape the consistency of a publicist 
 pamphlet. The great difference between the older and newer 
 
26 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 Utopias is just this: neither author nor earlier generation took 
 them seriously, because they were utterly out of line with 
 existing institutions. It is remarkable that, with the exception 
 of Harrington, no utopist suffered, even in eras of persecution, 
 for his social revolutionary views. Campanella wrote his "City 
 of the Sun" while he was in prison, for another offense. Har- 
 rington's views were the most seriously his own, and his 
 "Oceana" was England then and there. He suffered for it. 
 But the note of modern socialistic utopianism is its earnestness 
 and its immediateness. The French revolution, we know, was 
 partly the work of French philosophers just before, and Cabet's 
 "Icaria" and Fourier's "Philanstery" and other schemes besides 
 set men at once to founding communities. Mr. Bellamy's book 
 means business now. His Utopia is all set up by 2000 A.D., 
 all over the world; and his "Equality" tells just how the 
 change was wrought in all details, and how in the very decade 
 in which we live the revolution has already begun. His Utopia 
 is, to his mind, logically an imminent fact of history. Bellamy's 
 book is from this very fact different from any ever written, and 
 its peril is its boldness and immediateness. He seems to really 
 think, and he wishes to lead others to believe, that here and 
 now we are on the eve of setting up his imaginary common- 
 wealth. The Utopians of the past should be judged, therefore, 
 not in all respects as the programs of "their authors, nor should 
 they be judged by some very crude and absurd features of 
 them, but by the general principles which they have tentatively 
 in mind, and which have been partially realized or utterly 
 rejected in the slow movement of history. 
 
 Another thing to remember is that nearly all the past Utopias 
 were originally written not in the vernacular, but for select 
 readers. Moreover, few of them took up distinctively the 
 argument from the standpoint of the people in general, or as a 
 class polemic. This is the entirely different tone we find in 
 French Socialism and in Bellamy's nationalism. It is a social- 
 istic type of democracy which is the keynote of modern utopists. 
 Again, with hardly an exception, every Utopia contains some 
 readjustment of property, or some type of communism. This 
 is as true of Plato and Fenelon as of More and Bellamy. This 
 is the universal language of dreamers; it is a world's dream. 
 However mistaken or impracticable the programs, the testimony 
 of the ages is a longing for a juster economic redistribution. 
 
SOCIALISM 27 
 
 Again, a very common note, but by no means universal, is some 
 change in the family as it now exists. 
 
 Another impression from all the Utopias is the monotony 
 and dreariness we feel as we consider the schemes of utopists. 
 They seem little to conceive how much of the real joy and 
 incentive of life and its deepest motives to character they 
 uproot in gaining some questionable economic and social benefits. 
 
 Once more, nearly all of them, while speaking in the name 
 of a republican ideal, unconsciously depict a strong yet hier- 
 archical state, a virtual despotism in practice which looks so 
 paternal on paper. 
 
 Another thing impresses us : the growing emphasis upon 
 environment as compared with character. Plato's state was 
 built upon ideal citizens ; Bellamy's (with every variation of 
 these notes between) upon ideal environments. There may be 
 truth in both extremes but Plato's note, in this regard, is 
 higher than the dominant note of our own day. 
 
 Another thought is the common ignoring of sin as a social 
 factor. "It was not so in Utopia," says More, say all, and by 
 that easy formula they leap the greatest chasm in all our social 
 problems. This is the root objection to every Utopian program 
 ever invented, and the great practical peril of indulging dreams. 
 
 But the converse of this is also true: that all Utopias, how- 
 ever vague and foolish, however they ignore facts of personal 
 sin and evils of corporate guilt, do yet contribute something, 
 however small, to the world's optimism, and do show an 
 unquenchable hope in a possible humanity. 
 
 Outlook. 84:953-4. December 22, 1906 
 
 The "Simple Life" in the South Seas 
 
 A practical experiment in the "simple life" has just come 
 to grief in the South Seas. In 1903 Herr Lutzow, a musical 
 director of one of the Berlin theaters, Herr Engelhardt, a 
 vegetarian and physician of Munich, and Herr Bettman, a 
 philosopher, together with a number of other kindred souls, 
 chiefly authors, musicians, poets, and men of advanced or 
 socialistic ideas, wearied of clothes, houses, three meals per 
 day, and the routine of ordinary life, and determined to leave 
 behind them the effete civilization of Europe and seek in a 
 
28 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 remote isle of the southern seas a dwelling-place where the 
 "simple life" is still possible and where they could attend 
 chiefly to the things of the mind and spirit with a minimum 
 amount of trouble and care for the body. They organized a 
 colony of Sun Brothers and set sail for their new Utopia, the 
 place selected being Kobakon, an island situated in German 
 New Guinea in the New Laurenburg group of the Bismarck 
 archipelago, between New Pommern and New Mecklenburg. 
 The island, only 165 acres in extent, seemed to them a new 
 Eden. Cocoanut and mango trees offered choice fruit merely 
 for the picking. The fiber of the cocoanut served them for 
 clothes, the sun supplied heat and the sea coolness, and no bills 
 were ever presented. They could sit in the sun when they 
 wished to be warm, bathe in the sea when they wished to be 
 cool. They could give practically all their time to reading, 
 amusement, and high thought, and live the simple life in per- 
 fection. To such an idyllic dream of existence it is sad to have 
 to append a few hard facts. Herr Lutzow and Herr Engelhardt 
 died, probably from lack of proper nourishment or from a too 
 sudden change in the manner of their living; Herr Bettman, 
 the philosopher, was killed by the natives, and the Sun Brothers 
 as a colony have broken up. The survivors are glad to escape 
 from their Eden and return to civilization sadder and wiser men 
 and with greater respect for the institutions which a few years 
 ago they gladly deserted; and Kobakon, the happy isle of the 
 South Seas, is now merely another name for a social experiment 
 that failed. The story is an instructive one, but its lesson, like 
 that of the Brook Farm and similar experiments, will probably 
 go unheeded. The dreamers will still dream, whether in Ger- 
 many, New York, or New Jersey. And, on the whole, it is 
 well for progress that they should. There is a divine as well 
 as a vulgar discontent, and from the former society as a whole 
 receives its inspiration to progress, even though as respects the 
 dreamers themselves they may at last be compelled to write as 
 an epitaph of their schemes, Vanitas vanitatum. 
 
SOCIALISM 29 
 
 Blackwood's Magazine. 13:338-42. March, 1823 
 Remarks on Mr. Owen's Plan 
 
 It is a common and well-founded complaint against Mr. 
 Owen and his friends, that it is exceedingly difficult to discover 
 any process of reasoning, by which they can have arrived at 
 their most magnificent conclusions. They seem simply to have 
 imbibed certain first principles, which are either common and 
 unimportant, or new and absurd; but which, at all events, do not 
 appear to the generality of mankind to lead to the establish- 
 ment of any new system of human nature. But, by contemplat- 
 ing these principles with minds dazzled by the splendor of their 
 own fanciful prospects, they have brought themselves to believe, 
 that, admitting them, the truth of all their doctrines becomes 
 self-evident. They therefore think it quite superfluous to reason 
 in support of these doctrines, mistaking, as they are accustomed 
 to do, a ray of enthusiasm for the light of a self-evident truth. 
 Hence it happens, that, to the astonishment of those with whom 
 they converse, or who read their books or pamphlets, they 
 continue repeating, in every variety of form, the same familiar 
 assertions, without ever dreaming that it is also necessary to 
 establish, by tangible arguments, the conclusions which they 
 draw from them. 
 
 We speak not now of the practical or economical part of 
 Mr. Owen's plan, but of his speculative opinions alone. In prac- 
 tice, his own good sense is often found to correct the errors of 
 his system. And we wish it to be here understood, that although 
 we should succeed in proving that he contemplates impossibil- 
 ities, and does not rightly comprehend humanjnature in theory, 
 we do not imagine that we would therefore be justified in con- 
 cluding that none of his projects, when regarded by itself, and 
 apart from the man and his opinions, is deserving of the atten- 
 tion or support of those who, free from prejudice of any kind, 
 desire only the happiness of their fellow-creatures. For the 
 present, however, directing our chief attention to his theoretical 
 views, we shall endeavor to state one or two of those plain 
 reasons which seem to forbid any sensible person from at all 
 entering into them, and the influence of which, in old society, 
 it seems absolutely necessary for Mr. Owen to do away, before 
 he can expect the general diffusion of that new light which 
 shines upon his own understanding. 
 
30 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 Man, according to Mr. Owen, is entirely the creature of 
 circumstances ; and he is a good and a happy being, or a wicked 
 and a miserable, according as those combinations of circum- 
 stances, by which he has been surrounded during the formation 
 of his character, have been combinations favorable or unfavor- 
 able to its proper and natural development. Hence he deduces 
 the importance of what he calls the science of circumstances; 
 which is the science that is to teach us so to combine and 
 control circumstances, as to elevate and improve human nature, 
 in a manner quite inconceivable by those who have been accus- 
 tomed to contemplate it, solely as it has been debased by the 
 selfish vices of old society. This inestimable science he pro- 
 fesses to teach us, and has reduced to a system of rules which 
 he promises speedily to put in practice ; so that, ere long, without 
 any great revulsion of nature, but by a gradual return to an 
 order of things which she has at first established, but from 
 which men have in their ignorance and folly departed, all 
 selfishness, vice, and misery, shall be completely banished from 
 the world. 
 
 Now, in the first place, we may boldly question Mr. Owen's 
 power, or the united power of all mankind, so to control cir- 
 cumstances as to prevent the inroads of vice, misery, and self- 
 ishness. To talk of controlling, agreeably to the will of any 
 individual, or set of men, the operation of all those unseen 
 causes which influence the formation of human character, is 
 truly impious. Can Mr. Owen reverse the decrees of fate, and 
 so regulate the accidents to which human beings are liable, as 
 to remove from them all temptation to sin, and exempt them 
 from all chance of misery? The circumstances of which he is 
 constantly speaking, are, rightly considered, the destiny of man. 
 
 "But who can turn the stream of destinee, 
 Or break the chain of strong necessitee?" 
 
 If it is the will of Heaven that a frail mortal shall yield 
 to temptation, and suffer the penalties of guilt, is there any 
 power on earth that will prevent him? But we would simply 
 question Mr. Owen's power to do so, on the ground of moral 
 impossibility. Can he, then, weigh the exact force of unruly 
 nature, so as to be able to apportion, with an unerring hand, 
 the weight of motive which is necessary, in order to determine 
 each individual to a course of conduct uniformly virtuous? Is 
 it not part of his own system, that the conduct of no individual 
 
SOCIALISM 31 
 
 is under his own immediate control for a moment? Can he 
 expect, then, that the conduct of all the members of a community 
 will ever be completely under the control of another, acting, 
 not immediately, but merely through a set of regulations? 
 
 Moralists have ever been in the habit of deploring the 
 frequent ruin of a whole fabric of virtuous principles, through 
 the slow and secret influence of combinations of circumstances, 
 which neither the individual himself, nor those who best knew 
 his character, could have regarded as in the least degree danger- 
 ous. How the Saint of Motherwell is to be secured against the 
 operation of causes which it seems impossible to remove with- 
 out changing earth into heaven at once, Mr. Owen has yet to 
 explain. The glance of a woman's eye is sufficient to make any 
 mere earthly saint overstep that limit, beyond which every 
 farther step leads to utter destruction. It will be strange, indeed, 
 if the influence of unruly passions, which have often subdued 
 the strongest resolutions of men whose fame, honor, and fortune 
 depended upon the characters they had to support in society, 
 and who also believed that their happiness throughout all 
 eternity depended upon their conduct in this life, shall be 
 set at utter defiance by a set of manufacturing agriculturists, 
 educated in the dangerous persuasion, that for no action which 
 they can perform, are they subject either to censure or 
 punishment. 1 
 
 But, secondly, we maintain that it is necessary to take into 
 account something else than the mere circumstances in which a 
 man has been placed from infancy, before we can securely 
 predicate the specific effect which they will have in forming his 
 character. For, although it may be true that the character of 
 each particular individual is formed by circumstances it is not 
 true that the characters of all men are formed by them alike. 
 Mr. Owen is not, it will be observed, so unreasonable as to 
 deny the existence of original diversities among the minds, as 
 well as the bodies of individuals. But yet we perceive, that, in 
 speculating upon the effects of his new system of training, 
 founded upon the principles of "the science of circumstances," 
 
 1 We are told that the parish records of Lanark abundantly attest the 
 frailty of many of the imperfectly regenerated daughters of New Society. 
 At present, however, we are bound to presume, that at Motherwell, the 
 female breast is to be guarded by an armor of virtue which shall be proof 
 against all the assaults of all the young men of Hamilton and the adjacent 
 villages. It is somewhat amusing to think of the astonishment which the 
 more presumptuous among these young men will experience at the un- 
 precedented failure of all their attempts. C. N. 
 
32 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 he keeps these original diversities entirely out of view, and 
 forgets to ascribe to them any portion of their known and 
 acknowledged efficacy in modifying the influence of circum- 
 stances. His doctrine simply is, that, by educating all men alike 
 well, we shall soon make them all alike good and happy. But 
 then it will be observed, that the system of training which he 
 has in view is one adapted, not to an infinite variety of real 
 subjects, but to one single imaginary subject, which he calls 
 mankind, human nature, etc. Every parish school-master knows, 
 and we can assure Mr. Owen that the teachers at New Lanark 
 have found by experience, that the same kind and gentle usage, 
 which calls forth the gratitude and stimulates the exertions of a 
 boy of mild disposition, will encourage rebellion in another of 
 a turbulent and unruly temper. The best systems of education, 
 therefore, are undoubtedly those which afford the most perfect 
 provision for those natural diversities which subsist among the 
 minds of children ; or at least no good system can entirely want 
 such a provision. The passions of shame, hope, and fear, must 
 be alternately addressed, and are alternately addressed, in old 
 society, but each with different results in different cases. How 
 Mr. Owen's proposed system of education can be carried on 
 entirely by kindness, and without addressing these passions in 
 some mode or other, we cannot well guess. We are afraid, 
 then, that he must just be contented to retain all the more 
 essential principles of the old system; and if so, let him prove 
 to us, if he can, that he is entirely to change human nature by 
 means of those apparently unimportant alterations which he 
 means to adopt in the mode of reducing these principles into 
 practice. 
 
 Mr. Owen, instead of following the Baconian process of 
 induction, and carefully observing whether or not his affirmations 
 are separately true of every single individual, seems simply to 
 have satisfied himself that they accord generally with his abstract 
 idea of the species of man; an idea into which the peculiarities 
 of John, James, and William do not at all enter. Thus, he 
 thinks he has discovered, that, in order to be happy, men have 
 only to be good, and kind, and benevolent. But because he 
 himself, and other excellent moralists, are satisfied of the justice 
 of this principle, he at once concludes, not merely that all man- 
 kind must soon be convinced of it too, but that each single and 
 separate individual scoundrel must, of necessity, adopt it as a 
 
SOCIALISM 33 
 
 principle of action, sufficiently strong to repress every selfish 
 and turbulent appetite, which now rules supreme in his breast. 
 Following up this notable conclusion, he tells the children of 
 his establishments to be good, and kind to each other, and avoid 
 selfishness; but parents, ministers of religion and teachers of 
 youth, do the same in old society. Now, what peculiar charm 
 are these good advices to acquire by issuing out of his mouth, 
 and the mouths of those who are to carry his system into effect? 
 Are not those who believe in the Christian religion convinced 
 that they must obey the commands of God in order to be happy, 
 not only in this life, but throughout all eternity? But who 
 among them has not to reproach himself every day on account 
 of his disobedience? And yet Mr. Owen flatters himself that 
 he can ensure an universal obedience to his precepts, merely 
 because he himself is convinced, and so hopes to convince all 
 mankind, that they must act conformably to them, and in oppo- 
 sition to the strongest principles of their nature, in order to be 
 comfortable and happy in the present world ! Is it possible for 
 vain man to entertain a hope so foolish? 
 
 Punishments and rewards have, in all ages, constituted the 
 chief instruments which men have employed in forming the 
 characters, and regulating the conduct, of their fellow-creatures. 
 But these are to form no part of the "circumstances" of new 
 society, as controlled by Mr. Owen and his friends. 
 
 According to them, all punishments and all rewards are alike 
 unreasonable in principle, and injurious in their consequences to 
 society. The character of every man, say they, is just such as 
 nature gave him, and circumstances have modified ; and therefore 
 his conduct, whatever it may be, ought neither to entitle him to 
 praise or reward, nor to subject him to blame or punishment. 
 In order to prove the fallacy of this reasoning, it is by no means 
 necessary, as some appear to have supposed, to establish the 
 doctrine of moral liberty. We leave Mr. Owen to settle with 
 his own conscience the matter of his accountableness in the next 
 world. But we tell him, that whether his character has been 
 formed for him or by him, he, in common with all mankind, 
 may be a fit subject both for punishment and reward, in this. 
 
 And, in the first place, we may remark, that an act which 
 may appear, to a person viewing it in one light only, to be unjust 
 towards an individual, may, nevertheless, when viewed in all its 
 bearings, prove to be not only an act of justice to society but 
 
34 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 to be even necessary to its very subsistence. But what is pun- 
 ishment, rightly administered, according to the more correct 
 notions entertained of it in old society; or in what light can it 
 be viewed as unjust? Mr. Owen's mistake seems to consist in 
 supposing it to be an infliction of evil, for the mere purpose 
 of giving pain to an individual ; for, on no other supposition 
 can he be justified in condemning it. It is, however, an infliction 
 of evil, intended to conduce to the general good, and sanctioned 
 by this broad principle of all law, that the rights of individuals 
 must yield to the higher rights of the communities to which 
 they belong. Therefore, until Mr. Owen shows us the inex- 
 pediency of punishment, and proves to us that society can subsist 
 without it, he must admit that the principle upon which it, in 
 common with reward, is founded, is quite correct. He asserts, 
 it is true, that the time is fast approaching when, through the 
 blessed influence of his system, the reign of folly and of crime 
 shall cease, and when Christopher North and the administrators 
 of the law shall be alike useless to mankind. We leave him and 
 his disciples in full and undisturbed possession of this most 
 pleasant dream ; and we sincerely wish that we could participate 
 with them in the enjoyment of it. 
 
 But, secondly, we would ask, are the punishments which God 
 and Nature inflict the punishments of conscience unjust? 
 Surely, if it were true that the consideration of our characters 
 being formed for us, and not by us, necessarily does away all 
 guilt, it should necessarily do away all remorse also; and there- 
 fore, according to Mr. Owen's system, the man who has com- 
 mitted the most horrid crimes, who has murdered his father or 
 his child, should regard his own conduct with the same self- 
 complacency with him who has performed the most virtuous 
 or heroic actions. But since we find that, in fact, the criminal 
 has it not in his power to still the clamorings of conscience, it 
 necessarily follows, by a reductio ad absurdum, either that God, 
 in constituting our minds, has erred and done injustice, or else 
 that Mr. Owen, in reprobating all punishment, is, in some way 
 or other, mistaken. 
 
 Thirdly, Mr. Owen will observe, that a single word inad- 
 vertently spoken, even an involuntary look, may frequently 
 constitute punishment severer than stripes. How, then, are man- 
 kind able, even though they were willing, to cease altogether 
 
SOCIALISM 35 
 
 from inflicting punishment? Surely Mr. Owen does not wish 
 that the whole world should be perfectly indifferent with respect 
 to his own character. But if any one feels for him the highest 
 esteem, is not this of itself reward? If any one regards him 
 with utter detestation, may not this of itself be punishment? 
 
 And lastly, a community where no individual possesses any 
 kind of ambition, either honorable or dishonorable, is an anomaly 
 which cannot well be conceived. We would like to know what 
 stimuli Mr. Owen thinks he can substitute for those implanted 
 by nature in the human mind, which will be of sufficient strength 
 to prevent such a community from sinking speedily into wretch- 
 edness and barbarism. For what a useless being were man, 
 destitute of the hope of reward ! Everything great and noble in 
 his nature would be repressed ; since those motives which alone 
 are capable of inciting him to great and noble actions, would 
 have lost all their efficacy. Mr. Owen expressly condemns every 
 kind of emulation, as leading to conduct decidedly selfish. He 
 tells us, that, in new society, men will be convinced of the folly 
 of striving for preeminence over their fellows ; or, in other 
 words, that they will seek for no kind of honorable distinction. 
 Is this consummation desirable? or, if desirable, can it be 
 attained ? 
 
 We admit that much ignorance has often prevailed in the 
 world with respect to the nature of punishment, and the proper 
 mode of administering it. With the desire of benefiting its 
 unfortunate objects, the love of revenge is too often improperly 
 blended. But which of our lawful desires is always found pure, 
 and uncontaminated by others that are unlawful? It is not the 
 less necessary for school-masters to use the rod, because they 
 sometimes gratify their own selfish feelings by doing so, at the 
 same time that they benefit their pupils. 
 
 Let Mr. Owen, however, make what improvements he pleases, 
 upon the system of rewards and punishments at present estab- 
 lished in old society, provided he does not attempt to do them 
 away altogether. In the education of children, for example, let 
 him make use of no other motives than those addressed directly 
 to the moral feelings, if he finds that, in practice, corporal 
 inflictions may be advantageously dispensed with. In short, let 
 him elevate and improve our nature as much as he can, by 
 taking it as he finds it, and working upon its original elements. 
 
36 SOCIALISM 
 
 But let him not rashly and presumptuously attempt to give it 
 a new birth, by changing its essential properties, and altering the 
 laws of its inherent constitution. 
 
 Perhaps we have now said enough concerning the abstract 
 principles upon which Mr. Owen's system is built. Hitherto 
 our task has been rather an unpleasant one, occupied as we have 
 been solely in reviewing what we believe to be the errors of a 
 person whom we esteem for the purity of his motives, and 
 whom every one must acknowledge to have done much real 
 good, in educating the poor in studying their personal com- 
 fort, and in abridging their hours of labor. Perhaps, however, 
 when we may hereafter find time to resume the subject of the 
 present article, and come to treat of his economical arrange- 
 ments, as suited to the condition of the working classes, we shall 
 find that these arrangements, modified and controlled, as they 
 doubtless will be, by the good sense of the country gentlemen 
 who have already sanctioned their adoption, may have something 
 in them to meet our approbation. 
 
CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM 
 
 Atlantic Monthly. 77:109-18. January, 1896 
 
 The Christian Socialist Movement of the Middle of the Century. 
 
 J. M. Ludlow 
 
 What was first called "Christian Socialism" in England, a 
 very different thing, I need hardly say, from that which now 
 calls itself so in Germany or Austria, although the name was 
 not adopted till 1850, dates in fact, as a self-conscious effort, 
 from what Mr. Maurice once called "that awful year 1848," 
 which he said he should "always look upon as one of the great 
 epochs in history." Socialism we should always take care not to 
 narrow that word to the creed of this or that group of the day, 
 which may arrogate to itself a special right to it then burst out 
 of obscurity as a power capable of upsetting thrones. The idea 
 of working together instead of working against one another, of 
 possessing together instead of possessing exclusively for one's 
 self, had taken hold of the workers themselves more or less in 
 all the capitals and great towns of Europe, but more especially 
 in that capital which then, much more than now, led the popular 
 thought of the continent, Paris. Be it observed that the Social- 
 ism of those days was not the atheistic Socialism of the later 
 German schools. All the Socialist leaders of the continent were 
 French, and, however far they might be from Christianity, not 
 one of them professed or inculcated atheism. The earliest 
 among them, a child of the first French revolution, Fourier, 
 inveighed against atheism and materialism ; and if, with the 
 strangest irreverence, he ranked God as one of three first prin- 
 ciples with nature and mathematics, he recognized Him as 
 Creator, as the source of unity and distributive justice, as the 
 universal Providence, and held that our social evils acted as a 
 limit on his justice and goodness. St. Simon's last work was 
 entitled "A Treatise on the New Christianity," and professed 
 to show the means of carrying out the law of God. Proudhon 
 began his eccentric career by a prize essay on the Celebration of 
 Sunday." Cabet, a pure Communist, of very inferior intellectual 
 caliber to the men I have mentioned, called the work in which 
 he set forth his social views, "True Christianity." Louis Blanc 
 6 
 
38 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 urged men to have "a brave enough trust in God's justice to 
 struggle against the permanence of evil and its lying immortal- 
 ity." In one of his most remarkable works, that on "Christianity 
 and Its Democratic Origin," Pierre Leroux wrote that "if Chris- 
 tianity be wholly a gross error of the human mind, the best 
 thing to do is to doubt everything, and declare forever the 
 human spirit incapable of establishing any moral truth on a 
 solid basis." The most practical of all the French Socialist 
 leaders, Buchez, was at once an ardent democrat and a con- 
 vinced Roman Catholic. Even in England, if Robert Owen, in 
 his celebrated address at the London Tavern, August 21, 1817, 
 declared that "in all the religions which have been hitherto 
 forced on the minds of men, deep, dangerous, and lamentable 
 principles of disunion, division, and separation" had been "fast 
 entwined with all their fundamental dogmas," yet so far was 
 he from opposing Christianity as such that a few minutes before 
 he had declared that "individualized man and all that is truly 
 valuable in Christianity are so separated as to be utterly incap- 
 able of union through all eternity. Let those," he said, "who 
 are interested for the universal adoption of Christianity endeavor 
 to understand this." Working altogether in the shade, the 
 mystic Greaves, the "Sacred Socialist," taught that "all human 
 laws not in accordance with divine laws are founded on error." 
 When I put all these utterances of mid-century Socialism 
 together, I feel, far more deeply even than I did in 1848 that, 
 with whatever false and even immoral teaching they were mixed, 
 they represented a passionate cry for a uniting Christ. To that 
 cry the churches, without one single exception, were deaf. In- 
 stead of seeking to understand the movement, to distinguish in it 
 between what was genuine, living, hopeful, and what was false, 
 excessive, dangerous, they looked on bewildered, or joined with 
 its opponents to hoot and crush the whole thing down. Only 
 here and there a minister of religion heard that cry. On the 
 continent, I can really recall but one name at the time I speak 
 of, that of Philippe Boucher, a minister of the French Calvinist 
 church, but he had no helpers. The first clergyman to hear the 
 cry in England was Frederick Denison Maurice, then professor 
 of English literature and modern history and of theology at 
 King's College, and chaplain of Lincoln's Inn. One of the most 
 valuable amongst his published volumes, that on "The Lord's 
 Prayer," contained sermons preached between February 13 and 
 
SOCIALISM 39 
 
 April 9, 1848, and consequently covers the outbreak of the 
 French revolution of February in that year. In the sermon of 
 March 5, on the words "Thy will be done, as in heaven so in 
 earth," the following passages may be noted: "How can one 
 ever make it a charge against any people that they hope for a 
 brotherhood upon earth ? . . . Every hope points upwards ; if 
 it cannot find an object, it is in search of one; you cannot crush 
 it without robbing your fellow-creatures of a witness for God 
 and an instrument of purification. . . . Christianity as a 
 mere system of doctrines or practices will never make men 
 brothers. By Christianity we must understand the reconciliation 
 of mankind to God in Christ, we must understand the power and 
 privilege of saying 'Our Father Thy will be done in earth as it 
 is in heaven/ . . . This prayer . . . does not treat the 
 projects of men for universal societies, unbounded pantisoc- 
 racies, as too large. It overreaches them all with these words, 
 'as in heaven.' " The whole spirit of Christian Socialism is in 
 such passages, though the term was not used, as I have said, 
 till two years later. 
 
 It would be affectation for me to seek to conceal the share 
 which I may have had in leading Mr. Maurice to the expression 
 of such views. Seven years later, in dedicating to me his vol- 
 ume on "Learning and Working," he spoke of a letter which 
 he had received from me early in the year 1848, when I had 
 seen Paris immediately after the expulsion of the Orleans fam- 
 ily, as having "had a very powerful effect" upon his thoughts at 
 the time, and having "given a direction to them ever since." I 
 had dear ones in Paris when the revolution took place; I had 
 reached the city by the first train that entered it on the railway 
 that I had chosen; I had spent much of my stay in the streets, 
 which offered the most marvelous spectacle I have ever wit- 
 nessed. The gagging of public opinion by the Louis Philippist 
 regime having suddenly ceased, the whole city seemed bubbling 
 out into speech. A man brought a stool or a chair, got up on 
 it, and began to speak on any conceivable subject. If two men 
 spoke a little loudly together in the street, a group formed round 
 them in two minutes. Well-nigh all Paris was from morning 
 till night one Athenian agora; or, say, what the northeast corner 
 of Hyde Park is today in London of a Sunday afternoon, 
 except that what is now the routine of open-air speaking was 
 then an eagerly sought novelty. And the keynote of all was that 
 
40 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 this was not a political but a social revolution, and the largest 
 groups always indicated a speaker on some social subject. 
 There was no hostility to religion and none to its outward mani- 
 festations, as there had been at the revolution of 1830, when I 
 had been living in Paris : priests, instead of putting on civil 
 dresses, passed in their clerical costumes unmolested through 
 the streets; Sisters of Charity met with nothing but affectionate 
 sympathy. I never saw a priest or a minister of any denomi- 
 nation address the crowd. The conviction was forced upon me 
 that Socialism must be Christianized, but that only a truly social 
 Christianity could do the work. Such was the purport of the 
 letter in question. 
 
 The state of things in England was different. The popular 
 movement here was still mainly political, not social. Chartism 
 was the chief disturbing force. And although there had latterly 
 been a disposition among the Chartists to take up social ques- 
 tions, it must never be forgotten that the "six points" of the 
 "People's Charter" universal suffrage, annual parliaments, vote 
 by ballot, equal electoral districts, payment of members, and no 
 property qualification dealt with no single subject which would 
 now be called a social one. Still, the abortive Chartist meeting 
 of April 10, 1848, was unquestionably the direct result of the 
 French social revolution of February. 
 
 I have told elsewhere (Economic Review for October, 1893) 
 and the story is also told more or less in the "Life of 
 Maurice" and that of Kingsley (not quite correctly in the lat- 
 ter) how the accident of my not having cared to claim a special 
 constable's truncheon brought me into contact and friendship 
 with Charles Kingsley; how a placard by the latter addressed 
 to the "Workmen of England" was posted all over London ; 
 how the issue was decided on of a weekly periodical, Politics 
 for the People, of which Mr. Maurice and I were joint editors. 
 Properly speaking, that journal represents the beginning of the 
 Christian Socialist movement in its application to political sub- 
 jects; but we took the word "politics" in its broadest sense, 
 since we claimed that not only "the rights of a man in the eyes 
 of the law, and his functions, if any, in the business of govern- 
 ment," but "the rate of his wages, and the interest he gets for 
 his money, and the state of his dwelling, and the cut of his 
 coat, and the print he stops to look at, and the tune he hums, 
 and the books he reads, and the talk he has with his neighbors, 
 and the love he bears to his wife and children and friends, and 
 
SOCIALISM 41 
 
 the blessing he asks of his God, ay, and still more, the love 
 which he does not bear to others, and the blessing he does not 
 ask of his God, are all political matters." The paper lasted three 
 months only. But its results were not unimportant. Round a 
 nucleus, at the center of which was Mr. Maurice, consisting at 
 first of Kingsley, his friend Charles Mansfield, and myself, it 
 brought a band of young or middle-aged men from the educated 
 classes, anxious to help their fellows, who began soon to meet 
 one evening a week at Mr. Maurice's house. The extinction of 
 Politics for the People only led to another kind of work, the 
 setting-up of a free evening school, at first only for men, but 
 into which boys, too, soon forced their way, in a yard of Great 
 Ormond Street (nearly opposite what is now the Working Men's 
 College), with a very rough population, which (in conjunction 
 with a girls' school under a mistress paid by us) it ended by 
 civilizing. A few months later, a series of weekly meetings 
 commenced for reading the Bible under Mr. Maurice's guidance, 
 a deeply interesting account of which, by one of the most valua- 
 ble members of our little group, Charles Mansfield, will be found 
 in Mr. Maurice's life. These were continued for several years, 
 and I shall always say were the very heart of the movement 
 while they lasted. Many of us, I may observe, were in the habit 
 of attending the Sunday afternoon services at Lincoln's Inn 
 Chapel, when the chaplain preached. 
 
 Moreover, in the very month of July, 1848, which was the 
 last of Politics for the People's brief life, there had appeared 
 in Eraser's Magazine the first part of "Yeast"; and though the 
 ill health of its author brought the work to an untimely con- 
 clusion in December of that year, it had given unmistakable 
 proof that we had in our little band a novelist of real genius, 
 one who looked straight at the evils of the day and could speak 
 plainly upon them. And we had another amongst us who, 
 although none of us guessed it, was destined before many years 
 were over to write a work of wide-spreading influence, under 
 the guise of a mere novel for boys, the future author of "Tom 
 Brown's School Days," who had joined us just when we were 
 planning our free school in Little Ormond Yard. For a time, 
 and indeed for years afterwards, we knew in "Tom Hughes" 
 as his honor, Judge Hughes, Q.C., is still for all his old friends 
 only the most active of fellow-workers, the most genial of 
 companions. 
 
 But we were still only feeling our way. To say nothing of 
 
42 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 our clerical fellow-workers, two or three of us laymen had 
 taken part in parochial work, and had come into contact with 
 working men. But not a single one of us knew any working 
 man to whom he could go as a friend. Yet meanwhile, uncon- 
 sciously to ourselves, we had opened up a way to what was 
 needed. Politics for the People had had a few a very few 
 working men readers, and two or three working men corre- 
 spondents. They were attracted by the tone of the paper, and 
 yet distrusted it. When it failed, they recognized that it had 
 been a genuine attempt to reach their class. One of these men 
 was a tailor in Fetter Lane, a Scotchman, brought up in the 
 narrowest Calvinism, but from whom all faith had dropped 
 away, and who had become a lecturer upon Strauss, then the 
 leading infidel teacher. A dear friend of mine, a Scripture 
 reader with whom I had become connected in parochial work, 
 directed my attention to this man, and, he having prepared the 
 way, I called upon him. It was Walter Cooper, who for some 
 years did excellent work with us, but, alas, eventually went to 
 the bad altogether. Whilst perfectly courteous, he was very 
 outspoken. Yet he admitted himself to have been struck by a 
 new tone in Politics for the People, and was anxious to know 
 more about the men connected with it. I persuaded him to go 
 to hear Mr. Maurice. He went, and was at first perfectly be- 
 wildered, but went again and again, till he understood, and 
 then became a regular attendant. I introduced him to Mr. 
 Maurice, and to several other of our friends. He brought one 
 or two of his own to Lincoln's Inn Chapel. He suggested that 
 Mr. Maurice should meet the working men. This led to a series 
 of conferences beginning in April, 1849, which brought Mr. 
 Maurice and his friends into direct contact with all that was 
 most thoughtful and most earnest in the London working class, 
 together with a good deal that was merely frothy and unreal. 
 It was clear after a few months that the questions which lay 
 nearest to the hearts of these London working men were no 
 longer political, but social ones. And a powerful stimulus in 
 this direction was being afforded by the publication in the 
 Morning Chronicle of three series of letters on labor and the 
 poor, by its own commissioners, which commenced while the 
 conferences were going on, and were soon found to contain the 
 most awful revelations as to the condition of the working class, 
 both in London and in the provinces. 
 
SOCIALISM 43 
 
 That autumn I went over to Paris. It was the golden time 
 of the associations ouvrieres, societies for productive coopera- 
 tion. I say "golden time" in a moral sense, for if they were no 
 longer persecuted by the government, as they had been after the 
 insurrection of June, 1848 (although I was assured that, with 
 scarcely any exceptions, the men of not one of the associations 
 had descended into the streets), still they were viewed with dis- 
 favor by the ruling bourgeoisie. But never before or since have 
 I seen anything to equal the zeal, the self-devotion, the truly 
 brotherly spirit which pervaded these cooperative work-shops. 
 It seemed to me that they offered the best material solution for 
 the immediate difficulties of the labor question in England as 
 well as in France. I told what I had seen to my friends, and 
 they were all of opinion that funds should, if possible, be raised 
 for setting up an association of working men in London on a 
 basis similar to that adopted in Paris. The tailoring trade, 
 Walter Cooper assured us, was ripe for the experiment. It was 
 agreed to begin with this, he to be manager of the association. 
 At the same time, Mr. Maurice took up again an idea which he 
 had already entertained when Politics for the People was 
 started, that of a series of tracts, which came out as "Tracts on 
 Christian Socialism." And if Little Ormond Yard school had 
 given us T. Hughes for a fellow-workers, the setting up of a 
 cooperative association brought us in time another most valuable 
 recruit, Edward Vansittart Neale. 
 
 I have dwelt on these early days of the movement in order, 
 if possible, to bring out its spirit. One often hears it said that 
 the old Christian Socialism aimed only at setting up little asso- 
 ciations of working men who should carry on trade on their 
 own account and share the profits. Nothing of the kind. From 
 its earliest years the movement was political ; it was educational ; 
 it was religious ; I might add, it was sanitarian, for (not to 
 speak of some excellent sanitary articles in Politics for the 
 People, for example, on the baking trade, by Dr. Guy, who, 
 however, did not follow us later on) in the autumn of 1849 we 
 carried on a little sanitarian crusade against a particular plague 
 spot in Bermondsey, and projected a Health League with shilling 
 subscriptions, but of this plan Mr. Maurice would not hear. At 
 the very time when we were setting up our first little association, 
 the volume of Fraser's Magazine for 1850 opened with an article 
 (by myself) based upon the Morning Chronicle letters on labor 
 
44 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 and the poor, and under that title (reprinted in 1852 in a series 
 of tracts by Christian Socialists). In this will be found a 
 good deal that many people think to be novelties of the present 
 day. I have heard the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes speak at a 
 meeting in the Jerusalem Chamber of the demand for a "living 
 wage" as a new thing. I can only say that it was the claim of 
 the working class before 1850, and that the article in question 
 put forth the demand granted within the last few years to a cer- 
 tain extent that government contracts should be given only 
 to "some fair-dealing man who shall pay his work people living 
 wages" (the singular "wage" was not then an accepted term). 
 If the article recommended (though in other language) coopera- 
 tion both in production and in consumption, it warned its read- 
 ers against putting their trust in any single panacea; recom- 
 mended within certain limits emigration, the revision of the 
 customs tariff, the finding of new employments for women, re- 
 forms in the prison and workhouse systems ; suggested (what has 
 since been carried out) government clothing workshops; above 
 all, urged the church to "put forth, all her strength to grapple 
 with the hundred-headed evil"; declared that "the care of the 
 sick, the reformation of the prisoner, the government of the 
 adult pauper, the training of the pauper child . . . required 
 both a special and religious vocation in the individual, and the 
 support and comfort of an organized fellowship," so that "we 
 must have orders of nurses, orders of prison attendants, orders 
 of workhouse masters, workhouse matrons, workhouse teachers, 
 perhaps parish surgeons." But the article also proclaimed that 
 the remedy for social evils lay, not "in any system or theory, 
 not in any party cry or economical machinery, but in a thorough 
 change of spirit. 'Make me a clean heart, O God, and renew 
 a right spirit within me,' must be the cry of this whole nation. 
 We must feel that we are members of one society, having com- 
 mon profit and common loss; members of one church, many 
 members under one Head ; members to use that most wonderful 
 saying of the Apostle, members one of another." I do not mean 
 to say that all the views thus expressed were shared by all my 
 fellow-workers ; some of them I may hold now only in a modified 
 form. But they fairly show what subjects were being discussed 
 amongst us, and prove, I think, that we were not mere men of a 
 hobby, and had not any the slightest notion that cooperative 
 productive associations were to be a cure for all social evils. 
 
SOCIALISM 45 
 
 But we did think them, and I do think them now, the best 
 remedy however difficult of application as yet devised against 
 the evils of the competitive system in trade, the anti-Chris- 
 tian system of "every man for himself, and devil take the 
 hindmost." 
 
 Against that system a ringing blow was struck by Kingsley's 
 "Cheap Clothes and Nasty," which was founded mainly, like 
 the article in Fraser, on the revelations of the Morning Chron- 
 icle. This came out almost simultaneously with the opening of 
 the Working Tailors' Association, selling largely from the first. 
 It was not one of the actual tracts on Christian Socialism, but 
 was afterwards reprinted as the second of the tracts by Chris- 
 tian Socialists. And already since early in 1849 (February) 
 Kingsley had been at work on another novel, at first called 
 "The Autobiography of a Cockney Poet," but eventually pub- 
 lished in August, 1850, as "Alton Locke," and the success of 
 which gave the publishers of Fraser's Magazine courage, in the 
 following year, to reissue "Yeast" as a volume. 
 
 To the "Tracts on Christian Socialism" the title was given 
 by Mr. Maurice himself, as being, he wrote, "the only title which 
 will define our object, and will commit us at once to the conflict 
 we must engage in sooner or later with the un- Social Christians 
 and the un-Christian Socialists." The first of these tracts, by 
 himself, the "Dialogue Between Somebody (a person of respect- 
 ability) and Nobody (the writer)," contains that broad expo- 
 sition of Socialism which can never be too often quoted against 
 any who would force that great word into the narrow limits of 
 their own creed or their own hate : "The watchword of the 
 Socialist is cooperation; the watchword of the anti- Socialist is 
 competition. Any one who recognizes the principle of coopera- 
 tion as a stronger and truer principle than that of competition 
 has a right to the honor or the disgrace of being called a 
 Socialist." How little we thought of confining our Socialism to 
 profit-sharing associations is shown by the fact that, out of the 
 eight tracts on Christian Socialism, one (the third) is entitled 
 "What Christian Socialism Has to Do With the Question which 
 Is now Agitating the Church" (referring to a late privy council 
 decision on the subject of baptism) ; another is a "Dialogue be- 
 tween A and B, Two Clergymen, on the Doctrine of Circum- 
 stances as It Affects Priests and People" ; and a third is a 
 "Clergyman's Answer to the Question 'On What Grounds can 
 
46 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 You Associate With Men Generally ?' " whilst the subsequent 
 series of "Tracts by Christian Socialists" began with one on 
 English history (all four being by Mr. Maurice). 
 
 Early in 1850, the starting of the first association of working 
 tailors, with funds advanced by ourselves, having brought in 
 applications from workmen in various other trades, the Society 
 for Promoting Working Men's Associations (a name afterwards 
 changed, owing to legislation which I shall presently advert to, 
 into that of Association for Promoting Industrial and Provi- 
 dent Societies) was established. It was divided into two 
 branches: the promoters, represented by a council, the second 
 of whose functions was "to diffuse the principles of cooperation, 
 as the practical application of Christianity to the purposes of 
 trade and industry"; and the associates, that is the members of 
 the associations connected with the society, represented by a 
 central board. In November, 1850, the Christian Socialist, a 
 weekly paper, was started, and carried on till the end of 1851, 
 to be succeeded for six months by the Journal of Association. 
 
 Into the story of the early associations I need not enter. 
 They all failed. The first established one, that of the tailors, 
 lasted longest, about nine years, and was then broken up 
 through the dishonesty of the manager, that same Walter 
 Cooper whom I have mentioned as our first working man ally,^- 
 a failure all the more painful as he had become somewhat 
 prominently connected with the church, and vicar's churchwarden 
 of All Saints, Margaret Street. Looking back, I am not in the 
 least surprised at such failures. We had tried (and were, I 
 still consider, right in trying) cooperation on its more difficult 
 side, that of production (not that cooperation in consumption 
 and distribution was entirely neglected, for two or three co- 
 operative stores were established, and Vansittart Neale set up a 
 central agency, which lasted many years, and prefigured the 
 splendid cooperative wholesale societies of our day). We tried 
 the experiment with men utterly new to the thing, and for the 
 most part what the French would call the dedasses of the labor 
 world, men of small or no resources and generally little skill. 
 The trade-unions themselves having no legal recognition 
 looked for the most part askance on cooperation. Moreover, 
 when we started work, it was virtually impossible to obtain a 
 legal constitution for our associations, unless under the then 
 
SOCIALISM 47 
 
 ruinous form of a company, and that only with unlimited lia- 
 bility. Hence much of our effort had to be devoted to the obtain- 
 ing such a change of the law as would render cooperation 
 legally practicable. We were able, fortunately, to lay the case of 
 the working men fully before a House of Commons committee 
 on the savings and investments of the middle and working 
 classes, to interest several M. P.'s in the matter, and eventually to 
 obtain the passing of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 
 1852, drawn by us, the first of a sequence which still continues. 
 That act, however, still withheld limited liability from coopera- 
 tive societies ; nor was this granted till 1862, seven years after 
 it has been given to companies. And without a limitation of 
 liability, English working men will not associate together in any 
 number. 
 
 Again, the Christian Socialist movement brought its pro- 
 moters into connection with trade-unions, of all forms of as- 
 sociation the one still dearest to the bulk of the skilled workers 
 of the United Kingdom. For, if the greater number of trade- 
 unions, especially the smaller and less educated ones, looked 
 askance upon cooperation, as I have said, we were sought after 
 by that one which contains the very elite of the working class, 
 the Amalgamated Society of Engineers; and to nothing in my 
 life do I look back with more satisfaction than to the endeavors 
 I made in conjunction with Vansittart Neale, T. Hughes, the 
 present Marquis of Ripon, and other friends towards obtaining 
 a fair hearing for them during the great lockout of engineers 
 in 1852. From the friendly relations then formed between mem- 
 bers of the educated classes and the pick of the working class 
 relations which were extended and confirmed through the estab- 
 lishment of the Working Men's College may be traced, I 
 believe, by direct filiation, one of the latest and most promising 
 social experiments of our day, the Industrial Union of Employ- 
 ers and Employed, established in June last ; and one of the two 
 chairmen of sections of this union was the secretary of the 
 very society (the Amalgamated Society of Engineers) which 
 it was the object of the lockout of 1852 to crush out of existence. 
 
 But even in reference to cooperation itself Christian Social- 
 ism did not die out. Before ceasing to direct the movement, 
 our association provided for itself a substitute, calling together, 
 in July, 1852, a cooperative conference, of delegates from co- 
 
48 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 operative bodies throughout the country, by which an executive 
 committee was appointed, and similar conferences were called 
 from year to year. To this body our association, in November, 
 1854, virtually resigned the direction of the movement. Those 
 conferences, confined latterly to the societies of Lancashire and 
 Yorkshire, were, I believe, continued without break till 1860, 
 when the first cooperative congress was called in London, parent 
 of an unbroken annual series which still continues. On the list 
 of its convening committee, in 1860, appear the names of Charles 
 Kingsley, T. Hughes, E. Vansittart Neale, my own, and those 
 of three other members of our old body, besides those of various 
 working men with whom we had been brought into contact; 
 T. Hughes presided on the opening day. Later on, in 1879, it 
 was two old Christian Socialists, T. Hughes and Vansittart 
 Neale, who were charged by the Cooperative Union, the outcome 
 of these congresses, with the drawing up of a manual for co- 
 operators. Scholarships at Orient College have been founded by 
 the cooperative body in their two names, and for many years 
 Vansittart Neale held office with unwearied zeal and patience 
 as the secretary of the Cooperative Union. Finally, at the hold- 
 ing, in August last, of an international cooperative congress, one 
 of the old Christian Socialists remained to be asked to take the 
 chair on one of the days of meeting, and another to hold it in 
 his place. The breath of the older Christian Socialism is on 
 English cooperation to this day. 
 
 Moreover, when our association abdicated, so far as coopera- 
 tion was concerned, in favor of the committee appointed by the 
 cooperative conference, it did not go out of existence ; its 
 energies were simply transferred in the main, with help from 
 outside, to another field, which it had already opened up. For 
 a twelvemonth we had held classes in various subjects in our 
 Hall of Association, chiefly, but not exclusively, for working 
 associates and their families, and Mr. Maurice's Bible class had 
 been transferred to the hall, and was held on Sunday evenings 
 instead of Saturdays. These classes were now expanded into 
 the Working Men's College, of which Mr. Maurice became the 
 principal. This still subsists and flourished after forty-one years 
 of existence, and is looked upon with singular affection by its 
 students. From it, again, have grown other institutions, the 
 most interesting of which is the South London Art Gallery and 
 
SOCIALISM 49 
 
 Library, established by a most remarkable man, the first student 
 fellow of the Working Men's College, W. Rossiter. The college, 
 moreover, brought to us as teachers men who, without sharing 
 our views in religious matters, it may be, were in turn brought 
 thereby into contact with the working class, and learned to 
 understand it and sympathize with it; several of them have 
 shown themselves its true friends. I speak of such men as 
 Frederic Harrison and Sir Godfrey Lushington. Certainly, to 
 the minority report of the late Lord Lichfield, F. Harrison, and 
 T. Hughes, as members of the trade-union commission ap- 
 pointed in 1867, is mainly due the trade-union act of 1871 and 
 all subsequent legislation on the subject. 
 
 I may seem to have been dwelling too much on what I may 
 call external results; but the Christian Socialist movement was, 
 above all things, a leaven, leavening the whole of English 
 society. It is impossible to measure the effects of Kingsley's 
 novels and poetry on the generation which grew up under their 
 influence; and by their side came to place themselves Hughes's 
 two novels, "Tom Brown" (first published in 1857) and "Tom 
 Brown at Oxford," the teaching of which, I believe, has gone 
 deeper still. I can only say that, nowadays, I find boys fresh 
 from school, girls from the governess's room, with minds at 
 once better instructed and more open on social subjects than 
 were those of their fathers and mothers thirty or forty years 
 ago. 
 
 The name of our master, Maurice, may seem, in these recol- 
 lections, to have dropped out of sight. A man whose sensitive- 
 ness was all but morbid, for many years he kept out of any 
 active connection with the various movements directly springing 
 from the Christian Socialist one ; not from want of sympathy, 
 which never failed on his part, but from fear of compromising 
 them by his name and aid. But never in his teaching did he 
 depart by one hair's breadth from the principles which he had 
 sought to lay down. I find the whole spirit of Christian Social- 
 ism in the last pages of his last work, the "Lectures on Social 
 Morality" : "We want for the establishment and rectification of 
 our social morality not to dream ourselves into some imaginary 
 past or some imaginary future, but to use that which we have, 
 to believe our own professions, to live as if all we utter when 
 we seem to be most in earnest were not a lie. Then we may 
 
50 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 find that the principle and habit of self-sacrifice which is ex- 
 pressed in the most comprehensive human worship supplies the 
 underground for national equity, freedom, courage, for the 
 courtesies of common intercourse, the homely virtues and graces 
 which can be brought under no rules, but which constitute the 
 chief charm of life, and tend most to abate its miseries. Then 
 every tremendous struggle with ourselves, whether we shall 
 degrade our fellow-creatures, men or women, or live to raise 
 them, struggles to which God is not indifferent, if we are, 
 may issue in a real belief that we are members one of another, 
 and that every injury to one is an injury to the whole body. 
 Then it will be found that refinement and grace are the property 
 of no class, that they may be the inheritance of those who are 
 as poor as Christ and his apostles were, because they are human. 
 So will there be discovered beneath all the polities of the earth, 
 sustaining the order of each country, upholding the charity of 
 each household, a city which has foundations, whose builder and 
 maker is God. It must be for all kindreds and races ; therefore, 
 with the sectarianism which rends humanity asunder, with the 
 imperialism which would substitute for universal fellowship a 
 universal death, must it wage implacable war. Against these we 
 pray as often as we ask that God's will may be done on earth as 
 it is in Heaven." 
 
 In concluding, I may observe that I have not dwelt on those 
 attacks that in the early years of which I have spoken, met us 
 from all sides, and in the case of Mr. Maurice rose to bitter 
 persecution. All parties in church and state treated us alike as 
 dangerous madmen. For some years, at least, I do not think 
 there was any one of us who did not suffer more or less in 
 his profession or prospects for having dared to call himself a 
 Christian Socialist ; and a few there were who, having put their 
 hand to the plow, looked back. For myself, whilst thanking God 
 for having granted me to take part in the Christian Socialist 
 efforts of the mid-century, I can only feel ashamed that I did 
 not do more and do better. 
 
SOCIALISM 51 
 
 North American Review. 148:447-53. April, 1889 
 Christianity versus Socialism. Rev. Lyman Abbott, D.D. 
 
 "Socialism means, or wishes to mean, cooperation and com- 
 munity of interests, sympathy, the giving to the hands not so 
 large a share as to the brains, but a larger share than hitherto in 
 the wealth they must combine to produce, means, in short, the 
 secret of an orderly and benign reconstruction." So says James 
 Russell Lowell, in his essay on "Democracy" (page 40). This is 
 what Christianity also means, or wishes to mean. How, then, 
 do they differ from each other? This is the question to which I 
 propose in this paper to give a partial answer. My aim is not 
 to compare the Socialism of the reds, with all its crude theories 
 and sometimes revolutionary and even riotous spirit, with the 
 Christianity of ecclesiasticism, with all its ceremonialism and 
 scholastic tendencies. The one is as foreign to the intelligent 
 Socialism of modern thinkers as the other to the simplicity of 
 the method and spirit of Jesus Christ. My aim is to take what is 
 best and purest in Socialism with what is best and purest in 
 Christianity, and compare them. And, in doing this, I make no 
 secret of my aim, which is to justify, after a well-considered 
 comparison of the two, the methods of the Christian church 
 and the Christian ministry, and their refusal to abandon their 
 methods for the philosophy and the methods of modern Christless 
 Socialism. 
 
 Let me frankly concede, at the outset, that the contrast here 
 suggested is, perhaps, unduly heightened by the antithesis. 
 Christianity and Socialism shade off into each other; and if, on 
 the one hand, modern Socialism is largely pervaded by Chris- 
 tianity, it is also true that modern Christianity is, in its practical 
 workings, rightly adapted to and modified by the socialistic 
 needs and movements of the age. Leaving this general statement 
 to qualify what follows, I endeavor, without repeating this 
 qualification in each paragraph, to put the methods of a Christ- 
 less and of a Christian Socialism or, in more popular phrase, 
 the methods of Christianity and Socialism in contrast, for the 
 purpose of at once interpreting, and defending from attack and 
 unintelligent criticism, the methods of Christianity in dealing 
 with socialistic problems. 
 
 I. In the first place, then, all varied forms of social phil- 
 anthropy proceed on the assumption that the thing essential to 
 
52 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 be done is to modify the social organism. They proceed on the 
 assumption that, if the social organism can be made right, the 
 condition of mankind will be made right. There are as many 
 different sects in what we call socialistic philanthropy as there 
 are in the Christian church, or, if not as many, they are, at least, 
 as antagonistic. One social reformer tells us that we must 
 abolish the tariff, and then prices will be lowered and wealth will 
 be distributed ; another tells us that we must raise the tariff, and 
 then wages will be raised and wealth will be distributed. One 
 social reformer tells us we must levy all taxes on the land and 
 take them off everything else ; another tells us we must take 
 them off the land and levy them on incomes. One social re- 
 former tells us we must increase the power and extend the 
 functions of government ; another, that government is a failure, 
 or, at best, a necessary evil, and that we must reduce its 
 powers or abolish it altogether. But the high-tariff man and the 
 free-trader, the land-tax and the income-tax advocate, the state 
 socialist and the anarchist, widely as they differ, all agree in 
 this one fundamental doctrine that if we can only make the 
 social organism right, humanity will be well taken care of. 
 
 They strike at the vice in the organism; demand reform in 
 the organism; seek changes that can be wrought by legislation 
 in the organism. Jesus Christ proceeded on a directly opposite 
 assumption. He made almost no attempt to change social order 
 or the social organism. The system of taxation that prevailed 
 in the Roman Empire was abominably unjust. Christ said never 
 a word about taxation. Labor was not only underpaid and ill- 
 paid, but, for the most part, worked with its hands in manacles ; 
 but Christ said never a word about slavery. If drinking and 
 drunkenness were not as bad in their forms then as they are 
 now, by reason of the modern use of distilled liquors, then 
 comparatively unknown, drinking habits and animalism, in all its 
 forms, were worse in Greece than they have ever been in Amer- 
 ica; but Christ never levelled his shafts against the man that 
 sold liquor, or against the liquor trade, or against the making 
 of wine. Phariseeism was a phase of a great hierarchial system. 
 Christ did not strike at the hiararchy and the system ; he struck 
 at the pharisee, not at the ism. He struck at the injustice, not 
 at the form which the injustice took on at a particular era, in a 
 particular country, under particular circumstances. JHe^sowgkt^o 
 _cbange. not methods, ^"* "iffli He struck, not at the outward 
 
SOCIALISM 53 
 
 clothing of the wrong, but at the wrong itself. ArrnrHinp-ly, TIP^ 
 said almost nothing about social pylH anr1 
 
 dividual sin^ In strictness of speech, a nation does not sin. 
 The individuals that make up the nation are the sinners. Sins 
 are individual, and Christ proceeded on the assumption that, if 
 we can get rid of sin in the individual, we shall get rid of 
 evil in the state ; but if we leave the sin in the individual, all 
 social reform will result only in a change in the form of social 
 evil. 
 
 Christ indicated in this respect the method which the Chris- 
 tian church has, with more or less deviation, followed ever since. 
 The Christian Church is not, and does not undertake to be, a 
 social-reform organization; nor is the Christian minister a social 
 reformer. Father McGlynn leaves the Roman Catholic church, 
 and Hugh O.- Pentecost leaves the Congregational church, and 
 they go out into the halls and say, Follow us. But we do not, 
 and do not intend to, follow them. We decline to turn aside 
 from our work to debate the question whether -the land tax or 
 income tax, free trade or revenue reform, State Socialism or 
 laissez-faire, are right or wrong, beneficent or maleficent. Our 
 business is different. Our business is to make men, and trust 
 that out of right manhood will grow right systems. 
 
 This radical difference is best seen in a glance at the pro- 
 posals of the radical Socialist. He believes in manufacture, not 
 in growth, of men. He woulH mb off fm I* 1 " sM nil .lh 
 experience of past history; then take the slate and write a new 
 .scheme for the industry of the future. A man who cannot 
 organize his own household, who cannot live in peace with his 
 own wife, who cannot manage his own children, who cannot 
 earn money enough to keep his toes from peeping through his 
 shoes or his elbows through his coat-sleeves, is ready to tell us 
 how we are to organize the industry of the world. But it is 
 our Christian belief that social organisms are not to be manu- 
 factured. One cannot take a bit of timber here and a bit of 
 iron there and make a new shelter for humanity. Social organ- 
 ism is a growth; and the fundamental condition of growth is 
 personal manhood, out of which growth may come. If is not 
 possible to make a solid ship out of rotten timber. It is the 
 business of the forest, not to make masts and keels and knees 
 and ships, but to make trees ; when the trees are made, then men 
 will take them and make of them masts and keels and knees and 
 
54 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 ships. It is not the work of the mountain to turn the busy 
 machinery. It is the work of the mountain to furnish the 
 springs and streams that gather together into a river which will 
 drive the machinery. It is the work of the Christian Church 
 to make the trees out of which the social ship shall be con- 
 structed, to keep full in men's hearts the spiritual and moral life 
 which shall drive aright all industries, all political and social 
 organisms of the world's industry. The work of the Christian 
 Church is, the work of Christ was, primarily individual ; only 
 secondarily social and organic. Christ's method was based on 
 the assumption that, if individuals were made right, society 
 ^would "rectify itj^TT ; anH tW jg flip mpthr>H which he has 
 bequeathed to the Christian Church and the Christian ministry. 
 It is not for the Church to tell what justice demands in taxation, 
 but to develop such a spirit of justice in the hearts of men that 
 they will work out that which is just in government. It is not 
 the vocation of the minister to tell the capitalist what he must do 
 in the organization of his labor, nor to tell the laborer what he 
 must do in his treatment of the capitalist. It is the business of 
 the Christian Church and the Christian ministry to inspire such 
 sentiments of humanity and good-will in the hearts of the chil- 
 dren of men, such faith in the Golden Rule and the brotherhood 
 of humanity, that the capitalist and the laborer will find it easy 
 to shake hands with each other and go on their way rejoicing. 
 
 This is not because Christ was indifferent to social evils; not 
 because the Church is indifferent to social evils, or a defender of 
 the social order. From the days of Paul down to the present 
 time, the true apostles and followers of Christ have been men 
 that were turning the world upside down; and they will go 
 on turning the world upside down until it gets right side up. 
 But the process of revolution is one that must be wrought 
 in the hearts of individual men. There is no short cut to the 
 millennium by a manufactured social order. 
 
 II. In the second place, modern social philanthropy proceeds, 
 primarily, in its work of reform by endeavoring to rectify man's 
 environment. It does not work primarily upon the individual, 
 but upon society; nor upon his character, but upon his circum- 
 stances. It acts upon the philosophy that man is made by his 
 environment; that his surroundings are the creator, and he is 
 the creature. Accordingly, it demands clean streets, better food, 
 good sewerage, improved lighting, improved tenements, and so 
 on to the end of the chapter. 
 
SOCIALISM 55 
 
 Now, this was not Christ's method. Christ dealt with men, 
 not with circumstances. Pauperism was far more common in the 
 first century than it is today; but Christ said nothing about 
 pauperism. He did not even suggest its abolition. There was 
 immeasurably less regard paid to sanitary conditions in the first 
 century than there is today. Christ did not attempt to teach men 
 sanitary and hygienic reforms. This was not wholly because 
 sanitary science was unknown; for he had less to say about it 
 than had Moses, fourteen centuries before. Modern serial phij- 
 jmthropv ^proceeds on the assumption that, if you can make the 
 environment right, the ^environment will make the men. Christ __ 
 proceeded on the assumption that, if YOU can make men right, 
 jlif> tr^n n11 ^^e. the environment:^ Social reformers wish us to 
 abandon our spiritual work, in churches, Sabbath-schools, and 
 missions ; they propose to us to lay aside the Bible, substitute a 
 primer on hygiene, stop preaching, and go out and clean the 
 streets; stop talking about morals and religion, and give men 
 decent homes and good sewerage ; get rid of sewage-gas first 
 and sin afterwards. 
 
 That, certainly, has not been the way of the Christian Church 
 in the past, and will not be its way in the future. We do not 
 disesteem sanitary reform, but our way to sanitary reform is, 
 primarily and chiefly, by the reform of character. Circumstances 
 do not make men; men make circumstances. Even the oyster 
 makes his own shell. Changing one's circumstances does not 
 change his character. The lie of the lady in silk or the gentle- 
 man in broadcloth, spoken with a smile, while standing on the 
 Wilton carpet, is as base a lie as the lie of the man in rags, with 
 a grin on his face, while standing on the sanded floor. The 
 indulgence which eats with a golden spoon is no whit better than 
 the indulgence which eats with a wooden spoon. The pig is a pig 
 still, whether it roots in the garden or wallows in the sty. It is 
 not environment that makes men : men make environment. The 
 same ocean washes Ireland and England ; the same sun smiles 
 on them both; the same beneficent fogs and rains fall on their 
 greenswards; and the same kind of green grass springs up for 
 them, making verdure in the one island as in the other. Why 
 is Ireland Ireland, and England England? Because one is inhab- 
 ited by the Celt, and the other by the Anglo-Saxon ; and, I may 
 add, because one lives under the stimulating power of a Protes- 
 tant faith, and the other under the dwarfing and deadening power 
 of a Roman Catholic ritualism. It is not the business of min- 
 
56 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 isters and churches to make clean streets or improved tenements. 
 It is their business, if they speak to landlords, to speak such senti- 
 ments of justice and truth that no man that rents a house shall 
 leave the miserable tenement without air, without water, without 
 sunlight. It is their business, if they preach to the poor, to 
 preach such a gospel of cleanliness and order and decency that 
 no man in his poverty will consent to live without these three 
 things fresh air, fresh water, God's sunlight. 
 
 III. In the third place, modern social philanthropy proceeds 
 on the assumption that, in social reform, we are to begin with 
 the lowest factor in man and work up to the higher. First, it 
 says, deal with the body, then with the intellect, then with the 
 ethical nature, and finally, if there is time and force left, with 
 the spiritual condition of things. Give good food, good clothing, 
 good external conditions. Build not a church, but a Palace of 
 Delight. Following after these, give education, give schools and 
 languages ; let the intellect be developed. Then organize societies 
 for ethical culture. Teach the second table of the law: Thou 
 shalt not steal ; thou shalt not kill ; thou shalt not commit adul- 
 tery. As for God and immortality and Christ and theology, we 
 will talk about that when we get to it. 
 
 Now, that was not Christ's method. He did not begin with 
 the bottom of man and work up to the top. He began at the top 
 of man and worked down towards the bottom. He did not 
 attempt to lift men up by a leverage applied from below: he 
 attempted to lift men up by a hand reached down from above. 
 Did he not feed five thousand in the wilderness? Yes! after he 
 had preached all day; but he preached first and fed afterwards. 
 These four things are, in Socialism, placed in this order: First, 
 what makes for the welfare of man's body; second, of his intel- 
 lect; third, of his ethical nature; lastly, of his spiritual nature. 
 But in Christ's order, spirit comes first, morality second, the 
 intellect third, body last of all. Christ assumed, Christianity 
 assumes, that in every man, behind the shell, it may be, of rags 
 and filthiness, behind the more impenetrable shell of luxurious 
 and selfish wealth, in every ^ta", c ^^whfr A , t^ is * =+;.. 
 ment of reverence, nf IDVP, nf Hivinp manhood: and it is the 
 work of the Christian Church and of the Christian ministry, as 
 throughout all ages it is the work of God himself, to brood the 
 soul until he has kindled into life this spiritual nature. When 
 that spiritual nature has been kindled into life, it will develop 
 
SOCIALISM 57 
 
 an ethical life, it will demand an intellectual education, it will 
 build up for itself the conditions of physical well-being. 
 
 To sum up in a sentence, then, this antithesis between the 
 method of Socialism and the method of Christianity: the church 
 has often, like the priest and Levite in the parable, passed by on 
 the other side, and left wounded humanity to the care of the 
 heretic, while it hurried on to the temple service at Jerusalem. 
 For that disregard of humanity in a pretended consecration to 
 God, I have no words but of indignation and contempt. But in 
 our care of humanity we adhere, not blindly or superstitiously, 
 but deliberately and with due consideration, to the principles and 
 methods of Jesus Christ. We rejoice in legal, social, sanitary 
 reform, and give Godspeed to all such reformers; but, in our 
 work as churches and ministers, we propose to work for the 
 rebuilding of men rather than for the reforming of social organ- 
 izations ; for the change of character rather than of environ- 
 ment; and by appeals to men in the order of moral supremacy, 
 appealing first to the dominant sentiments of reverence, hope, 
 faith, and love; second, to the intellectual and social considera- 
 tions of prudence and present well-being; last of all, to the mere 
 physical and animal nature and its needs. 
 
 Nation. 48:478. June 13, 1889 
 The New Socialism. C. B. Spahr. 
 
 Within the past month two journals have been started in 
 Boston, advocating step-by-step national Socialism. The first of 
 these, the Nationalist, numbers among its contributors men of all 
 creeds and no creed including Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 
 Rabbi Solomon Schindler, and the Rev. Edward Everett Hale. 
 The other, the Dawn, is avowedly Christian in faith, and is 
 indeed a new religious journal, having for its one doctrine the 
 essential identity of Christianity and Socialism. Its contributors 
 are mainly ministers members of a society of "Christian Social- 
 ists." The best known of those writing for the first issue is, 
 perhaps, the Rev. James O. S. Huntington, who for years has 
 been at work among the poor of this city as a salaried clergyman, 
 and now enters the ranks of manual labor in order completely to 
 identify himself with the class for whom he is working. In the 
 Dawn the doctrine of the brotherhood of man is made the correl- 
 
58 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 ative of the Fatherhood of God. In the Nationalist there is, of 
 course, no such theological formulation, but the religious spirit is 
 quite as intense. Here it is "the religion of humanity" that is 
 preached, and the "better future" which inspires hope and effort 
 is that which awaits "the heirs of time" when the social revolu- 
 tion is accomplished. 
 
 The elevation of thought and sentiment which characterizes 
 these two journals forbids their dismissal with a mere word as 
 to the weakness of their political program. Almost without 
 exception, the writers are Americans, with the best of Puritan 
 blood. Quite without exception, they belong to what they them- 
 selves would call "the privileged classes." Theodore Parker once 
 said that the democracy that was wanted was not that which 
 said, "I am as good as you are," but that which said, "You are 
 as good as I am." In this movement we have a Socialism which 
 is of the latter type. Instead of an appeal to the poor that "there 
 is no reason why we who do the hardest and most repulsive work 
 should receive the lowest pay," we find the appeal to the rich 
 that "there is no reason why we who do the lightest and most 
 attractive work should receive the highest pay." The duty of the 
 rich to grant takes the place of the right of the poor to seize. 
 But the fact that it is granting and not grasping which is urged 
 does not signify that it is merely the Socialism of a charity 
 sermon that is preached. On the contrary, it is German socialism 
 of the most radical type. Not content with making absolute al- 
 truism the religion of the individual, it is made the religion of the 
 State a religion which the State shall impose upon every citizen. 
 
 This identification of Christianity with State Socialism is, of 
 course, nothing new. A number of years ago, when Prince Bis- 
 marck first broached his policy of diverting the German masses 
 by the rattle of Socialistic playthings, he replied to the objection, 
 "This is Socialism," by asserting, "It is Christianity." Conscien- 
 tious, no doubt, was the assertion; yet the workings of the prin- 
 ciple have not been such as to make any one really in sympathy 
 with the masses unlearn the old lesson, taught by Adam Smith, 
 that when the national government interferes in industrial affairs, 
 it always takes as its counsellors the representatives of the richest 
 and most powerful interests. Compulsory insurance of the work- 
 ingmen has been introduced. One-third of the amount to be paid 
 them in insurance is deducted directly from their wages ; another 
 third is nominally paid by their employers, but in the long run 
 
SOCIALISM 59 
 
 indirectly deducted, with the additional evil of increasing their 
 dependence upon their present masters by practically involving a 
 deferred payment of wages. The remaining third is paid by the 
 government the amount being raised by a protective tax on 
 breadstuffs, which also is paid by the working classes, and yields 
 five dollars to the landlords where it yields one to the government. 
 
 The workings of State Socialism in our own country, when- 
 ever administered by the national government, are similar in 
 character. Subsidies have been granted to railroads because of 
 the indirect benefits they conferred upon the farmers, while none 
 have ever been proposed for the farmers because of the indirect 
 benefits they conferred upon the railroads. The taxing of the 
 poorer classes in order to pay the labor-bill of the richer is the 
 guiding principle of our tariff, but no one ever thought of taxing 
 the richer in order to pay the rent-bill of the poorer. These 
 facts have sufficiently demonstrated that the common good as 
 understood by the national government is the good of those who 
 are rich and powerful enough to make their influence felt at 
 Washington. 
 
 Yet it is national Socialism which the Nationalists and the 
 "Christian Socialists" wish to promote in America. It is, per- 
 haps, somewhat to the credit of their judgment, if not of their 
 logic, that they do not at once attempt to make their reform 
 "planetary." Nevertheless, in advocating a national organization 
 for their cooperative commonwealth they ignore the fact that the 
 cooperative principle has rarely been successfully applied, except 
 by the smallest organizations, political or industrial, and there 
 only when the business management has been easily understood 
 and closely watched by the whole body of the cooperators. In 
 such cases we have nothing to urge against the value of the 
 principle. It is already successfully applied in most departments 
 of public works and in the support of our school system. It is 
 being applied to the suppression of trades which injure the com- 
 munity instead of serving it. It will doubtless be applied more 
 and more rigorously to the prevention of extortion on the part 
 of combinations and natural monopolies. Yet this principle of 
 combined resistance to anti-social forces is very different from 
 that which lies at the basis of German Socialism. The American 
 movement against monopolies, natural and unnatural, is merely 
 to enforce the principle that the capital invested therein shall 
 exact as nearly as possible the rates of interest which the presence 
 
60 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 of free competition would establish. It is "dead rent," and the 
 dividends upon certificates representing merely the capitalization 
 of proposed extortion, which cause the entire outcry against 
 Trusts an outcry which comes mainly from those who would 
 be the last to maintain that there is any industry in which the 
 capital actually employed in production is not entitled to the 
 competitive rate of interest. This principle of competitive rates 
 as the measure of just payment is the one thing in "bourgeois 
 economy" which the Socialists repudiate with the greatest vio- 
 lence. Capital, they say, is entitled to no compensation whatever 
 for its services, and the services rendered by labor are to be 
 compensated according to the needs of the laborers. 
 
 The socialistic objection to the democratic doctrine of individ- 
 ual rights is its selfishness. To this it is not enough to reply that 
 the selfishness of seeking one's own good consistently with that 
 of his neighbors is in bright contrast with the reckless egoism 
 which characterizes protectionist Socialism. The democratic doc- 
 trine of individual rights is selfish, but it is only half of the 
 democratic program. Democracy quite as much as Absolutism 
 or Socialism recognizes the promotion of the public good as the 
 basis of individual rights and the measure of individual duties. In 
 democracies, as nowhere else, is the spirit of devotion to the pub- 
 lic good present, and in democracies as nowhere else are the 
 contributions which the individual owes to the public measured 
 by the principle of equality of sacrifice. It is true that there is at 
 present no democracy where the principle is consistently carried 
 out. In our own the necessities of the poor are taxed in order 
 to increase the superfluities of the rich. But this is not demo- 
 cratic principle. Wherever democracy is strongest and Socialism 
 weakest, as in the local governments of America and Switzerland, 
 the duties of the individual to the public are sought to be pro- 
 portioned to his means. The extent of the contribution of the 
 individual to the public is measured by the need of the public 
 just as exactly as in Socialism the extent of the contribution of 
 the public to the individual is measured by the needs of the 
 individual. 
 
 Democracy, when logical, recognizes the principle of brother- 
 hood quite as much as Socialism, and with much greater accuracy 
 of analogy. It strives to establish equality of opportunities, not 
 equality of recompense. Napoleon once said that the French 
 Revolution meant "la carriere ouverte aux talents" a clear path- 
 
SOCIALISM 61 
 
 way for talent. This is the meaning of democracy, and also the 
 meaning of brotherhood. It strives continually to make the high- 
 est mental and moral training more accessible to all in order that 
 each may find his capacity, and then win a place according to his 
 efforts in the services of the public. This is also the meaning of 
 Christianity. Wherever the church is thoroughly democratized, 
 there its spiritual and intellectual ministrations are made free. 
 In all this there is no departure from the principle of individual 
 responsibility. The true charity is that which develops the higher 
 needs of the recipient, not that which satisfies his lower needs. 
 It elevates the manhood of the younger brother, instead of 
 degrading him into a perpetual pensioner. Our democracy does 
 have need to be more large-hearted. It must be moral or 
 Christian enough to keep trying to lessen the contrast between the 
 degrading want of those who have neither the training nor the 
 character for self-support, and the enervating waste of those 
 who, at the other end of society, are equally helpless and useless. 
 Such publications as the Nationalist and the Dawn give evidence 
 that such will be its spirit. But they do not signify that there 
 will be any abandonment of the lines of development in the past 
 in order to embrace the Socialistic system, which would annihilate 
 individual responsibility and manhood by centering all rights and 
 duties in the State. Democracy will accept the religion of altru- 
 ism, but it will not enforce it as a State religion. 
 
MARXIAN SOCIALISM 
 
 Communist Manifesto. Excerpts 
 Karl Mark and Frederick Engels 
 
 Preface 
 
 The Manifesto was published as the platform of the Com- 
 munist League, a workingmen's association, first exclusively 
 German, later an international, and under the political condi- 
 tions of the continent before 1848, unavoidably a secret society. 
 At a congress of the league, held in London in November, 1847, 
 Marx and Engels were commissioned to prepare for publication 
 a complete theoretical and practical party-program. Drawn up 
 in German, in January, 1848, the manuscript was sent to the 
 printer in London a few weeks before the French revolution 
 of February 24. A French translation was brought out in Paris, 
 shortly before the insurrection of June, 1848. The first English 
 translation, by Miss Helen Macfarlane, appeared in George 
 Julian Harney's Red Republican, London, 1850. A Danish and 
 a Polish edition had also been published. 
 
 The defeat of the Parisian insurrection of June, 1848 the 
 first great battle between proletariat and bourgeoisie drove 
 again into the background, for a time, the social and political 
 aspirations of the European working class. Thenceforth, the 
 struggle for supremacy was again, as it had been before the 
 revolution of February, solely between different sections of the 
 propertied class; the working class was reduced to a fight for 
 political elbow-room, and to the position of extreme wing of 
 the middle-class Radicals. Wherever independent proletarian 
 movements continued to show signs of life, they were ruthlessly 
 hunted down. Thus the Prussian police hunted out the Central 
 Board of the Communist League, then located in Cologne. The 
 members were arrested, and, after eighteen months' imprison- 
 ment, they were tried in October, 1852. This celebrated 
 Cologne Communist trial lasted from October 4 till November 
 12; seven of the prisoners were sentenced to terms of imprison- 
 ment in a fortress, varying from three to six" 'years. Immediately 
 
64 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 after the sentence the league was formally dissolved by the 
 remaining members. As to the Manifesto, it seemed thence- 
 forth to be doomed to oblivion. 
 
 When the European working class had recovered sufficient 
 strength for another attack on the ruling classes, the Interna- 
 tional Working Men's Association sprang up. But this associ- 
 ation, formed with the express aim of welding into one body 
 the whole militant proletariat of Europe and America, could 
 not at once proclaim the principles laid down in the Manifesto. 
 The international was bound to have a program broad enough 
 to be acceptable to the English trades' unions, to the followers 
 of Proudhon in France, Belgium, Italy and Spain, and to the 
 Lassalleans 1 in Germany. Marx, who drew up this program 
 to the satisfaction of all parties, entirely trusted to the intel- 
 lectual development of the working class, which was sure to 
 result from combined action and mutual discussion. The very 
 events and vicissitudes of the struggle against capital, the 
 defeats even more than the victories, could not help bringing 
 home to men's minds the insufficiency of their various favorite 
 nostrums, and preparing the way for a more complete insight 
 into the true conditions of working-class emancipation. And 
 Marx was right. The International, on its breaking up in 1874, 
 left the workers quite different men from what it had found 
 them in 1864. Proudhonism in France, Lasalleanism in Germany 
 were dying out, and even the conservative English trades' unions, 
 though most of them had long since severed their connection 
 with the International, were gradually advancing towards that 
 point at which, last year at Swansea, their president could say 
 in their name, "Continental Socialism has lost its terrors for us." 
 In fact, the principles of the "Manifesto" had made considerable 
 headway among the working men of all countries. 
 
 The Manifesto itself thus came to the front again. The 
 German text had been, since 1850, reprinted several times in 
 Switzerland, England and America. In 1872, it was translated 
 into English in New York, where the translation was published 
 in Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly. From this English version, 
 a French one was made in Le Socialiste of New York. Since 
 then at least two more English translations, more or less muti- 
 
 1 Lassalle personally, to us, always acknowledged himself to be a disciple 
 of Marx, and, as such, stood on the ground of the Manifesto. But in 
 his public agitation, 1860-64, he did not go beyond demanding cooperative 
 workshops supported by state credit. 
 
SOCIALISM 65 
 
 lated, have been brought out in America, and one of them has 
 been reprinted in England. The first Russian translation, made 
 by Bakounine, was published at Herzen's Kolokol office in 
 Geneva, about 1863 ; a second one, by the heroic Vera Zasulitch, 
 also in Geneva, 1882. A new Danish edition is to be found in 
 "Socialdenmokratisk Bibliothek," Copenhagen, 1885 ; a fresh 
 French translation in Le Socialiste, Paris, 1886. From this 
 latter a Spanish version was prepared and published in Madrid, 
 1886. The German reprints are not to be counted, there have 
 been twelve altogether at the least. An Armenian translation, 
 which was to be published in Constantinople some months ago, 
 did not see the light, I am told, because the publisher was afraid 
 of bringing out a book with the name of Marx on it, while the 
 translator declined to call it his own production. Of further 
 translations into other languages I have heard, but have not seen 
 them. Thus the history of the Manifesto reflects, to a great 
 extent, the history of the modern working-class movement; at 
 present it is undoubtedly the most widespread, the most inter- 
 national production of all Socialist literature, the common plat- 
 form acknowledged by millions of working men from Siberia to 
 California. 
 
 Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a 
 Socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, 
 on the one hand, the adherents of the various Utopian systems : 
 Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already 
 reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; 
 on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks, who, 
 by all manners of tinkering, professed to redress, without any 
 danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in 
 both cases men outside the working class movement, and looking 
 rather to the "educated" classes for support. Whatever portion 
 of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency 
 of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity 
 of a total social change, that portion, then, called itself Com- 
 munist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of 
 Communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was power- 
 ful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian 
 Communism, in France, of Cabet, and in Germany of Weitling. 
 Thus Socialism was, in 1847, a middle-class movement, Com- 
 munism a working class movement Socialism was, on the con- 
 tinent at least, "respectable" ; Communism was the very opposite. 
 
66 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the 
 emancipation of the working class must be the act of the 
 working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of 
 the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, 
 been far from repudiating it. 
 
 The Manifesto being our joint production, I consider myself 
 bound to state that the fundamental proposition which forms 
 its nucleus, belongs to Marx. That proposition is: that in 
 every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic pro- 
 duction and exchange, and the social organization necessarily 
 following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and 
 from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual 
 history of that epoch ; that consequently the whole history of 
 mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, hold- 
 ing land in common ownership) has been a history of class 
 struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and 
 oppressed classes ; that the history of these class struggles forms 
 a series of evolutions in which, nowadays, a stage has been 
 reached where the exploited and oppressed class the proletariat 
 cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting 
 and ruling class the bourgeoisie without, at the same time, 
 and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all 
 exploitation, oppression, class-distinctions and class struggles. 
 
 This proposition which, in my opinion, is destined to do for 
 history what Darwin's theory has done for biology, we, both 
 of us, had been gradually approaching for some years before 
 1845. How far I had independently progressed towards it, is 
 best shown by my "Condition of the Working Class in Eng- 
 land." 1 But when I again met Marx at Brussels, in spring, 
 1845, he had it ready worked out, and put it before me, in terms 
 almost as clear as those in which I have stated it here. 
 
 From our joint preface to the German edition of 1872, I 
 quote the following: 
 
 "However much the state of things may have altered during 
 the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in 
 this Manifesto, are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. 
 Here and there some detail might be improved. The practical 
 application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself 
 states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions 
 
 1 "The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844." By Fred- 
 erick Engels. Translated by Florence K. Wischnewetzky. London, Swan, 
 Sonnenschein & Co. 
 
SOCIALISM 67 
 
 for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special 
 stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the 
 end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be 
 very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides 
 of modern industry since 1848, and of the accompanying im- 
 proved and extended organization of the working-class, in view 
 of the practical experience gained, first in the February revolu- 
 tion, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the 
 proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole 
 months, this program has in some details become antiquated. 
 One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that 
 'the working-class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made 
 State machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.' (See The 
 Civil War in France; Address of the General Council of the 
 International Working-men's Association,' Chicago, Charles H. 
 Kerr & Co., where this point is further developed). Further, 
 it is self-evident, that the criticism of Socialist literature is 
 deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down 
 only to 1847; also, that the remarks on the relation of the 
 Communists to the various opposition-parties (Section IV), 
 although in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, 
 because the political situation has been entirely changed, and 
 the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater 
 portion of the political parties there enumerated. 
 
 "But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document 
 which we have no longer any right to alter." 
 
 FREDERICK ENGELS. 
 
 London, January 30, 1888. 
 
 Manifesto 
 
 A spectre is haunting Europe the spectre of Communism. 
 All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance 
 to exorcise this spectre ; Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, 
 French Radicals and German police-spies. 
 
 Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried 
 as communistic by its opponents in power? Where the Oppo- 
 sition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of 
 Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as 
 well as against its reactionary adversaries? 
 
 Two things result from this fact. 
 
68 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European 
 Powers to be itself a Power. 
 
 II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the 
 face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their 
 tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of 
 Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself. 
 
 To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assem- 
 bled in London, and sketched the following manifesto, to be 
 published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and 
 Danish languages. 
 
 I. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS 1 
 
 The history of all hitherto existing society 2 is the history 
 of class struggles. 
 
 Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, 
 guild-master 3 and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and 
 oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried 
 on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that 
 each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of 
 society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. 
 
 In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere 
 a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a 
 manifold graduation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have 
 patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the middle ages, feudal 
 lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; 
 in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations. 
 
 The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the 
 ruins of feudal society, has not done away with class antagon- 
 
 1 By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the 
 means of social production and employers of wage-labor. By proletariat, 
 the class of modern wage-laborers who, having no means of production of 
 their own, are reduced to selling their labor-power in order to live. 
 
 2 That is, all written history. In 1847, the pre-history of society, the 
 social organization existing previous to recorded history, was all but 
 unknown. Since then, Haxthausen discovered common ownership of land 
 in Russia, Maurer proved it to be the social foundation from which all 
 Teutonic races started in history, and by and by village communities were 
 found to be, or to have been, the primitive form of society everywhere from 
 India to Ireland. The inner organization of this primitive Communistic 
 society was laid bare, in its typical form, by Morgan's crowning discovery 
 of the true nature of the gens and its relation to the tribe. With the disso- 
 lution of these primeval communities society begins to be differentiated into 
 separate and finally antagonistic classes. I have attempted to retrace this 
 process of dissolution in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and 
 the State." (Chicago, Charles H. Kerr & Co.) 
 
 3 Guild-master, that is a full member of a guild, a master within, not 
 a head of, a guild. 
 
SOCIALISM 69 
 
 isms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of 
 oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. 
 
 Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, 
 this distinctive feature ; it has simplified the class antagonisms. 
 Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great 
 hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: 
 Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. 
 
 From the serfs of the middle ages sprang the chartered 
 burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first 
 elements of the bourgeoisie were developed. 
 
 The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened 
 up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian 
 and Chinese markets, the colonization of America, trade with the 
 colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in com- 
 modities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, 
 an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary 
 element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development. 
 
 The feudal system of industry, under which industrial produc- 
 tion was monopolized by close guilds, now no longer sufficed for 
 the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing 
 system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one 
 side by the manufacturing middle-class; division of labor 
 between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of 
 division of labor in each single workshop. 
 
 Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand, ever 
 rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam 
 and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place 
 of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the 
 place of the industrial middle-class, by industrial millionaires, 
 the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois. 
 
 Modern industry has established the world-market, for which 
 the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given 
 an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to com- 
 munication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted 
 on the extension of industry ; and in proportion as industry, 
 commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion 
 the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into 
 the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages. 
 
 We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the 
 product of a long course of development, of a series of revolu- 
 tions in the modes of production and of exchange. 
 
70 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accom- 
 panied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An 
 oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed 
 and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune, 1 here 
 independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there 
 taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France), after- 
 wards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the 
 semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against 
 the nobility, and, in fact, corner stone of the great monarchies 
 in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of 
 Modern Industry and of the world-market, conquered for itself, 
 in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The 
 executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing 
 the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. 
 
 The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary 
 part. 
 
 The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has 
 put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has 
 pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to 
 his "natural superiors," and has left remaining no other nexus 
 between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 
 "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies 
 of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine senti- 
 mentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has 
 resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of 
 the numberless indefeasable chartered freedoms, has set up that 
 single, unconscionable freedom Free Trade. In one word, for 
 exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has 
 substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. 
 
 The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation 
 hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has 
 converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man 
 of science, into its paid wage-laborers. 
 
 The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental 
 veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money 
 relation. 
 
 The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the 
 
 1 "Commune" was the name taken, in France, by the nascent towns 
 even before they had conquered from their feudal lords and masters, 
 local self-government and political rights as "the Third Estate." Gen- 
 erally speaking, for the economical development of the bourgeoisie, England 
 is here taken as the typical country, for its political development, France. 
 
SOCIALISM 71 
 
 brutal display of vigor in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists 
 so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most sloth- 
 ful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity 
 can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing 
 Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it 
 has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former 
 Exoduses of nations and crusades. 
 
 The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolu- 
 tionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the rela- 
 tions of production, and with them the whole relations of 
 society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unal- 
 tered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence 
 for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of 
 production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, 
 everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois 
 epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, 
 with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, 
 are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before 
 they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is 
 holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober 
 senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind. 
 
 The need of a constantly expanding market for its products 
 chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It 
 must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections 
 everywhere. 
 
 The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world- 
 market given a cosmopolitan character to production and con- 
 sumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reaction- 
 ists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national 
 ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries 
 have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are 
 dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life 
 and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that 
 no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material 
 drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are 
 consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. 
 In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the 
 country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the 
 products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local 
 and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse 
 in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And 
 
72 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual 
 creations of individual nations become common property. Na- 
 tional one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and 
 more impossible, and from the numerous national and local 
 literatures there arises a world-literature. 
 
 The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments 
 of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communi- 
 cation, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civiliza- 
 tion. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery 
 with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces 
 the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capi- 
 tulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt 
 the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce 
 what it calls civilization into their midst, i. e., to become bour- 
 geois themselves. In a word, it creates a world after its own 
 image. 
 
 The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the 
 towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the 
 urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus 
 rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy 
 of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on 
 the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian coun- 
 tries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on 
 nations of bourgeois, the East on the West. 
 
 The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the 
 scattered state of the population, of the means of production, 
 and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized 
 means of production, and has concentrated property in a few 
 hands. The necessary consequence of this was political cen- 
 tralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, 
 with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of 
 taxation, became lumped together in one nation, with one 
 government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one 
 frontier and one customs-tariff. 
 
 The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, 
 has created more massive and more colossal productive forces 
 than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of 
 Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to 
 industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric 
 telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canali- 
 zation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground 
 
SOCIALISM 73 
 
 what earlier century had even a presentiment that such pro- 
 ductive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor? 
 
 We see then: the means of production and of exchange on 
 whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated 
 in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these 
 means of production and of exchange, the conditions under 
 which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organi- 
 zation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, 
 the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible 
 with the already developed productive forces ; they became so 
 many fetters. They had to burst asunder; they were burst 
 asunder. 
 
 Into their places stepped free competition, accompanied by a 
 social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the 
 economical and political sway of the bourgeois class. 
 
 A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Mod- 
 ern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of ex- 
 change and of property, a society that has conjured up such 
 gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the 
 sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the 
 nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a 
 decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the 
 history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern 
 conditions of production, against the property relations that are 
 the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its 
 rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by 
 their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threaten- 
 ingly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these 
 crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of 
 the previously created productive forces, are periodically de- 
 stroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in 
 all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity the epidemic 
 of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into 
 a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a 
 universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every 
 means of subsistence ; industry and commerce seem to be 
 destroyed; and why. Because there is too much civilization, too 
 much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much com- 
 merce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no 
 longer tend to further the development of the conditions of 
 bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too 
 
74 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and 
 so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into 
 the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bour- 
 geois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too 
 narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does 
 the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by 
 enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the 
 other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough 
 exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way 
 for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by dimin- 
 ishing the means whereby crises are prevented. 
 
 The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism 
 to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. 
 
 But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that 
 bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men 
 who are to wield those weapons the modern working-class 
 the proletarians. 
 
 In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i. e. capital, is developed, 
 in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working- 
 class, developed, a class of laborers, who live only so long as 
 they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor 
 increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves 
 piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, 
 and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of compe- 
 tition, to all the fluctuations of the market. 
 
 Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division 
 of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual 
 character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He 
 becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most 
 simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack that 
 is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a work- 
 man is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence 
 that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation 
 of his race. But the price of a commodity, and also of labor, 
 is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as 
 the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. 
 Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division 
 of labor increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also 
 increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by 
 increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by increased 
 speed of the machinery, etc. 
 
 Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the 
 
SOCIALISM 75 
 
 patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial 
 capitalist. Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are 
 organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they 
 are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers 
 and sergeants. Not only are they the slaves of the bourgeois 
 class, and of the bourgeois State, they are daily and hourly 
 enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by 
 the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly 
 this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more 
 petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is. 
 
 The less the skill and exertion or strength implied in manual 
 labor, in other words, the more modern industry becomes 
 developed, the more is the labor of men superseded by that of 
 women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any dis- 
 tinctive social validity for the working class. All are instru- 
 ments of labor, more or less expensive to use, according to their 
 age and sex. 
 
 No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manu- 
 facturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, 
 than he is set upon by the other -portions of the bourgeoisie, 
 the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc. 
 
 The lower strata of the middle class the small tradespeople, 
 shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicrafts- 
 men and peasants all these sink gradually into the proletariat, 
 partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the 
 scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped 
 in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their 
 specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of pro- 
 duction. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of 
 the population. 
 
 The proletariat goes through various stages of development. 
 With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first 
 the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the 
 workpeople of a factory, then by the operatives of one trade, in 
 one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly 
 exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bour- 
 geois conditions of production, but against the instruments of 
 production themselves; they destroy imported wares that com- 
 pete with their labor, they smash to pieces machinery, they set 
 factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished 
 status of the workman of the middle ages. 
 
 At this stage the laborers still form an incoherent mass 
 
76 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual 
 competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact 
 bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, 
 but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to 
 attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole 
 proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do 
 so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their 
 enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of 
 absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, 
 the petty bourgeoisie. Thus the whole historical movement is 
 concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so 
 obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie. 
 
 But with the development of industry the proletariat not only 
 increases in number, it becomes concentrated in greater masses, 
 its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various 
 interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the prole- 
 tariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery 
 obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly everywhere 
 reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition 
 among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make 
 the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceasing 
 improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes 
 their livelihood more and more precarious ; the collisions between 
 individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and 
 more the character of collisions between two classes. There- 
 upon the workers begin to form combinations (Trades' Unions) 
 against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up 
 the rate of wages ; they found permanent associations in order 
 to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. 
 Here and there the contest breaks out into riots. 
 
 Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a 
 time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate 
 result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This 
 union is helped on by the improved means of communication 
 that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers 
 of different localities in contact with one another. It was just 
 this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local 
 struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle 
 between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. 
 And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle 
 Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, 
 
: SOCIALISM 77 
 
 the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few 
 years. 
 
 This organization of the proletarians into a class, and con- 
 sequently into a political party, is continually being upset again 
 by the competition between the workers themselves. But it 
 ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels 
 legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, 
 by taking advantage of the division among the bourgeoisie 
 itself. Thus the ten-hour bill in England was carried. 
 
 Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society 
 further, in many ways, the course of development of the prole- 
 tariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. 
 At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of 
 the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic 
 to the progress of industry ; at all times, with the bourgeoisie 
 of foreign countries. In all these battles it sees itself compelled 
 to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for its help, and thus, to 
 drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, there- 
 fore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political 
 and general education, in other words, it furnishes the prole- 
 tariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie. 
 
 Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the 
 ruling classes are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into 
 the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of 
 existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements 
 of enlightenment and progress. 
 
 Finally, in times when the class-struggle nears the decisive 
 hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling 
 class, in fact, within the whole range of old society, assumes 
 such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the 
 ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, 
 the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, 
 at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the 
 bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to 
 the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois 
 ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of compre- 
 hending theoretically the historical movements as a whole. 
 
 Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie 
 today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The 
 other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of modern 
 industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. 
 
78 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 The lower middle-class, the small manufacturer, the shop- 
 keeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bour- 
 geoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of 
 the middle class. They are, therefore, not revolutionary, but 
 conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to 
 roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolu- 
 tionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer 
 into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their 
 future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place 
 themselves at that of the proletariat. 
 
 The "dangerous class," the social scum, that passively rotting 
 mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here 
 and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolu- 
 tion ; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for 
 the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue. 
 
 In the conditions of the proletariat, those of old society 
 at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is 
 without property; his relation to his wife and children has no 
 longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations ; 
 modern industrial labor, modern subjection to capital, the same 
 in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped 
 him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, 
 are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in 
 ambush just as many bourgeois interests. 
 
 All the preceding classes that got the upper hand, sought to 
 fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at 
 large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians 
 cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, 
 except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, 
 and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. 
 They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their 
 mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances 
 of, individual property. 
 
 All previous historical movements were movements of 
 minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian 
 movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the 
 immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The 
 proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot 
 stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent 
 strata of official society being sprung into the air. 
 
 Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the 
 
SOCIALISM 79 
 
 proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. 
 The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all 
 settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. 
 
 In depicting the most general phases of the development of 
 the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging 
 within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks 
 out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of 
 the bourgeoisie, lays the foundation for the sway of the prole- 
 tariat. 
 
 Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have 
 already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed 
 classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must 
 be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish 
 existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself 
 to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, 
 under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a 
 bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of 
 rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper 
 below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes 
 a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population 
 and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie 
 is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose 
 its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. 
 It is unfit to rule, because it is incompetent to assure an existence 
 to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him 
 sink into such a state that it has to feed him, instead of being 
 fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, 
 in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society. 
 
 The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of 
 the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital ; 
 the condition for capital is wage-labor. Wage-labor rests exclu- 
 sively on competition between the laborers. The advance of 
 industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces 
 the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by their invol- 
 untary combination, due to association. The development of 
 Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very 
 foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates 
 products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, 
 are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the 
 proletariat are equally inevitable. 
 
8o SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 American Journal of Sociology. 16:21-40. July, 1910 
 
 Influence of Karl Marx on Contemporary Socialism. John Spargo 
 
 For many years the words "Socialism" and "Marxism" have 
 been practically synonyms. There could be no ampler proof 
 of the greatness of Karl Marx than this simple fact. Over a 
 large part of the old world today Socialism is the dominant 
 political issue, and in the parliamentary bodies of several nations 
 its leaders are conspicuous for their ability no less than for their 
 earnestness, devotion, and courage. Throughout the world the 
 movement has a voting strength of nearly ten millions, repre- 
 senting, probably, at least five times as many human beings. 
 
 It would be idle to deny that great and important differences 
 exist among those who call themselves .Socialists. However 
 much they may have in common, it is obvious that M. Jaures, the 
 eloquent and scholarly French Socialist, and Mr. Hyndman, the 
 equally eloquent and scholarly English Socialist, hold very differ- 
 ent views concerning the program essential to the attainment of 
 the Socialist goal, if not as to the goal itself. 
 
 Both these men are pure "intellectuals." Although they are 
 great leaders in a proletarian movement, neither of them has had 
 to experience the proletarian struggle. But if we take Socialists 
 who are equally typical proletarians we shall find exactly the 
 same divergence of thought and method. Keir Hardie, the Brit- 
 ish Socialist, and Eugene V. Debs, the American Socialist, both 
 belong to this class. Each came to the Socialist movement 
 through his trade-union experience. Yet, despite the apparent 
 similarity of their evolution as socialists, the two leaders repre- 
 sent opposing poles of socialist policy and thought. 
 
 Such obvious facts as these have caused many critics, sym- 
 pathetic and otherwise, to attempt a classification of Socialists. 
 Even within the movement itself, crude efforts are made in this 
 direction. The Socialist press teems with references to arbi- 
 trarily arranged groupings, indicated by such terms as "impos- 
 sibilists," "opportunists," "intellectuals," "proletarians," and so 
 on. Such groupings have some value in that they describe, how- 
 ever vaguely, some characteristics which roughly differentiate 
 various phases of contemporary Socialism. Their arbitrary char- 
 acter should not be forgotten, however, for a single moment. He 
 who trusts them too completely will be utterly misled. The 
 "opportunist" of today may tomorrow be found taking a position 
 
SOCIALISM 81 
 
 that places him among the "impossibilists," and the most vocifer- 
 ous attack upon the "intellectuals" is likely to come from an 
 intellectual, much to the amusement of the proletarians in the 
 movement. 
 
 It is quite remarkable that practically all Socialists, whether 
 they be opportunists or impossibilists, proletarians or intellec- 
 tuals, or even anti-intellectuals, claim to be "Marxists." The 
 English Socialist who works with the trade unionist, through the 
 Labor party, claims to be a pure Marxist. The same claim is 
 made by the impatient "syndicalist" of the Latin countries, with 
 his faith in the mass strike and his ill-concealed disdain for 
 parliamentary action. In practically all Socialist factional dis- 
 cussions Marx is the prophet of all the factions. 
 
 This identity of Marxism and Socialism has long been recog- 
 nized as one of the most striking facts in the whole range of 
 Socialist phenomena. Recently, however, there has been much 
 talk of the waning influence of Marx upon contemporary Social- 
 ist thought and action. We have been assured, both from within 
 and without the Socialist ranks, that the teachings of Marx are 
 going out of fashion, being rapidly and more or less openly 
 abandoned. One lady has, indeed, written a book about "The 
 New Socialism," assuring us that "Marx called up a swathed and 
 terrifying figure, in which the world sees the dread specter of 
 revolution," whereas the "new" Socialists are devoting themselves 
 to the task of stripping away the disguise, and unveiling "the 
 kindly features of a radical and comprehensive social reform." 
 
 The New York chapter of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society 
 has announced as one of its study topics the question, "Are the 
 teachings of Karl Marx being abandoned by present-day Social- 
 ists?" and it is to that question I desire to address myself here. 
 
 As a biographer of Marx, it has been my special task, during 
 more than a dozen years, to try to understand the man. It has 
 become my habit to view the developments of the Socialist move- 
 ment throughout the world from what I believe to be his point 
 of view ; to interpret his writing by what I know of his life ; 
 to bring all that I know of his life and his intimate conversation 
 and correspondence with friends to my aid in studying his 
 formally stated theories as they appear on the printed page. 
 Whatever disadvantages such methods may have are more than 
 outweighed, in my judgment, by the numerous and obvious 
 advantages. 
 
82 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 As to the question itself, I feel strongly that neither an unqual- 
 ified negative nor an unqualified affirmative reply is possible. 
 My belief is that the Socialist movement of the present day is 
 both breaking away from and drawing closer to the teachings of 
 the great German revolutionist. Recent criticism has compelled 
 all thoughtful and sincere Socialists to admit some defects in the 
 Marxian theory, and to recognize the necessity of a readjustment 
 of their theoretical position, and of their policies so far as they 
 have rested upon the mistaken theoretical premises. But, for all 
 that, the unmistakable tendency of present-day Socialism is 
 toward a closer adherence to the essential and fundamental 
 teachings of Marx, not away from them. Paradoxical as this 
 statement may seem, a careful and candid study of the life of 
 Marx in connection with recent developments in the international 
 Socialist movement will reveal its truth. 
 
 "As for me, I am no 'Marxist,' I am glad to say," was a say- 
 ing frequent upon the lips of Marx. With the words went that 
 half-sneering expression with which his best portraits have made 
 us familiar. If we can fathom the meaning of the cryptic and 
 paradoxical utterance, it may assist us very materially in our 
 attempt to find a satisfactory answer to our question. Who, 
 then, were the "Marxists" thus scornfully repudiated by Marx, 
 and what were the reasons for the repudiation ? 
 
 During his lifetime, as now, there were many disciples of 
 Marx who regarded his theoretical work as being his greatest 
 achievement, and his most important contribution to the cause of 
 the proletariat. He was to them primarily a political economist. 
 They spoke of his great work, "Das Kapital," as the "Bible of 
 the proletariat," and as a Bible they regarded it. With a passion 
 which can only be adequately described as religious, tens of 
 thousands of working-men laboriously read and studied that 
 difficult work. It was to them an "impregnable rock of Holy 
 Scripture." Those who could not comprehend the work as a 
 whole satisfied themselves with a few memorized passages. 
 Like all Bibles, it became a book of texts, much quoted but 
 little read. 
 
 Naturally, those who regarded the book as a Bible made it 
 the basis of a creed. Naturally, also, their creed became the basis 
 of a sect. Doctrinal tests decided the fitness or unfitness of men 
 and women to enter the Socialist fellowship and to be reckoned 
 with the elect. Just as religious sectarianism based upon creedal 
 and doctrinal tests has barred many a rare and beautiful religious 
 
SOCIALISM 83 
 
 spirit from the church, while it placed the word "orthodox" as 
 a stamp of approval upon many an unworthy and irreligious 
 spirit, so this sectarian "Marxism" imposed its stamp of "ortho- 
 dox" and "unorthodox" to determine the fitness or unfitness of 
 men and women to be called Socialists. Many who believed in 
 the whole program of Socialism, who saw the necessity of a 
 working-class political party to bring about the realization of 
 that program, and were willing to work with and through such a 
 party for the immediate interests of the working class, and, ulti- 
 mately, the collective ownership of the social productive forces, 
 were denied the right to call themselves Socialists, and a place in 
 the Socialist ranks, simply because they could not subscribe to all 
 the economic and philosophical teachings of Marx. 
 
 In every country Socialism has had to outgrow this dog- 
 matism and sectarianism before attaining political importance. 
 In almost every country the movement had its inception in a 
 theoretical propaganda. A few earnest souls devoted themselves 
 to the task of studying the works of a Fourier or a Marx and 
 getting others to study them. To fully understand the master's 
 teachings naturally became the chief ambition of such disciples. 
 To the average person, the zeal and devotion of such men and 
 women is incomprehensible. I have known a working man, of 
 scant education, to walk a distance of ten miles every Sunday 
 morning for years, no matter what the weather, to study with a 
 fellow Socialist the first volume of "Das Kapital." After seven 
 or eight hours of labored study, the patient student would under- 
 take the homeward journey of ten miles supremely happy if he 
 had mastered a single new passage. 
 
 Of course, his joy was due to something other than mere 
 intellectual satisfaction and triumph. It rested upon a much 
 nobler passion than that. Mastery of the difficult and abstract 
 text was not an end in itself, but a means to an end of great 
 grandeur. Only through a knowledge of Marx could the prole- 
 tariat ever be saved. The psychology of this attitude is not 
 difficult to understand. It is precisely that of theological sec- 
 tarianism : Marx is the only true prophet, his book the one and 
 only true gospel, and every question is to be decided by an 
 appeal to its text. 
 
 It is almost unnecessary to say that Karl Marx was too great 
 and wise a man not to recognize the folly of the attitude here 
 indicated, and the positive perils to the movement which it 
 involved. He certainly did not deny the importance of correct 
 
84 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 thinking, or underrate it. On the contrary, he was apt to expect 
 and demand too much in the way of theoretical knowledge from 
 those engaged in the social movement. But he knew that the 
 great mass of the workers could never be expected to fully 
 understand such philosophical doctrines as the materialistic con- 
 ception of history, or theories of political economy such as 
 surplus value. He was not foolish enough to believe that a 
 great movement could be founded upon a correct understanding 
 of such subtle and difficult theories. At most he believed that 
 the movement could be guided by such knowledge. In other 
 words, while he expected and desired that the leaders of the 
 movement should possess a thorough theoretical training, he did 
 not expect anything of the kind from the rank and file. 
 
 When his overzealous and impatient disciples sought to push 
 the importance of theoretical training beyond this limit, and to 
 insist upon making the acceptance and understanding of his 
 theories a test of membership, Marx was impatient. It was in 
 such moods that he expressed his gratitude that he was not a 
 "Marxist." 
 
 There was another reason for the cryptic and paradoxical 
 epigram. Like all great thinkers upon whose work a definite 
 school of thought has been founded, Marx has suffered greatly 
 at the hands of his own followers, through their wild exaggera- 
 tion of his theories. The prayer of his heart might well have 
 been : "Save me from my friends I can take care of my enemies 
 myself !" 
 
 The case of Ricardo, the great English economist, may be 
 pertinently cited as a well known example of the discredit which 
 intellectual leaders incur as a result of the unwise zeal of their 
 followers. Ricardo took for his theme the law of wages and 
 concluded that wages, as a rule, tended to approximate the cost 
 of maintaining a given standard of living at a given time and 
 place. Ricardo surrounded this statement with numerous quali- 
 fications, setting forth a generalization of great importance. But 
 Ricardo's followers, more "Ricardian" than Ricardo himself, 
 ignored all the qualifications and stated the theory in a gro- 
 tesquely exaggerated manner, which found its complete expres- 
 sion in Lassalle's inflexible "iron law of wages." A great and 
 profoundly true generalization of the master became, in ' the 
 hands of his disciples, a grotesque and dangerous error. 
 
 In like manner, Marx suffered from his more Marxian than 
 
SOCIALISM 85 
 
 Marx followers. For example : in one of the earliest of his 
 Socialist writings, the "Communist Manifesto," he developed 
 his famous class-struggle theory and emphasized the historic 
 role of the proletariat. If the workers are ever to be emanci- 
 pated, he declared, it must be through' their own efforts. Here 
 was a great generalization of tremendous importance, the basis 
 for a working-class movement. But some of his followers, 
 disregarding his abundant warnings, made this generalization the 
 basis of another, which, if generally accepted, would have robbed 
 the working-class movement of the service of many of the 
 finest intellects and devoted consciences ever enlisted in its 
 support, including that of Marx himself. Their reasoning was 
 very simple and naive : Because the emancipation of the prole- 
 tariat must be the work of the proletariat itself, it follows that 
 no one who is not actually a proletarian can loyally desire to 
 serve the movement for proletarian emancipation. Determined 
 efforts were made by some "Marxists" to exclude Marx himself 
 from the movement upon these grounds ! 
 
 One other example of the exaggeration of his theories of 
 which Marx was the victim must suffice, though the number of 
 such illustrations might be indefinitely extended. The material- 
 istic conception of history, a doctrine of the highest philosophical 
 and sociological importance, is perhaps the greatest of the intel- 
 lectual achievements of Marx. The gist of this theory is that 
 the principal factor in social evolution is the economic one, the 
 method of producing and distributing wealth. This has become 
 nowadays a commonplace, but it was a revolutionary idea when 
 Marx first proclaimed it. 
 
 Now, Marx never dreamed of asserting that the economic 
 force acts as the sole determinant of social evolution. In order 
 to focus the attention of the thinkers of his time upon his theory, 
 and in meeting the attacks of opponents, he, quite naturally, at 
 times overemphasized this one factor. Yet he did not fail to 
 warn his disciples against falling into the error of regarding 
 the economic factor as the only active influence in social evo- 
 lution. His followers, many of them, disregarded these warnings 
 and carried the tendency to exaggerate which Marx himself 
 manifested to the most absurd length. In their hands the theory 
 became one of simple economic fatalism and predestination. 
 According to their caricature of the theory, no other factors 
 have influenced the rate or direction of the evolution of society; 
 
86 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 race, religion, patriotism, ideals of all kinds have been 
 meaningless. 
 
 This economic fatalism has been carried to the most absurd 
 lengths, especially in America. In the name of Marx the pre- 
 posterous claim has been set up that, because men in general 
 are prone to act, consciously or unconsciously, in accordance 
 with their material interests, there must be an ascertainable 
 economic motive for every act of an individual; that if one 
 whose material interests are such as to identify him with the 
 capitalist class, the exploiters, enters the movement of the 
 working-class, the exploited, the sincerity of his action must be 
 denied, and a secret, hidden, ulterior motive suspected ! In 
 actual experience this grotesquely stupid conception of Marx's 
 great generalization has wrought great mischief in the Socialist 
 movement. 
 
 These two sets of his disciples those who regarded him as 
 a pope, at least, and sought to make an orthodox creed of his 
 theories, and those whose crude and wild statements of the most 
 profound truths transformed them into nightmares of error 
 were the "Marxists" against whom Marx so often directed his 
 withering satire. Marx chafed and groaned in spirit when such 
 followers as those comprised in the two groups we have con- 
 sidered reduced his important philosophical and economic prin- 
 ciples to a jumble of meaningless absurdity. And, with that 
 fine loyalty which marked his whole life, Friedrich Engels 
 carried on the warfare against such "Marxists" long after the 
 death of his friend and associate. 
 
 Fortunately, the last ten years have been marked by an ever- 
 increasing reaction against both types of "Marxism." It is 
 notably rare nowadays for the stupid anti-intellectualist cry to 
 receive serious attention. The movement itself, in practically 
 every country in the world, is becoming more liberal and toler- 
 ant. It refuses to heed the stupid demagogic suspicion of those 
 who do not actually come from the proletarian class, which was 
 at one time so potent a source of factionalism; it no longer 
 indulges in heresy-trials, but permits the fullest possible freedom 
 of opinion. A Bernstein who rejects some of the most impor- 
 tant of Marx's generalizations is suffered to remain in the Social 
 Democratic Party of Germany, and his right to disagree with 
 Marx is upheld. 
 
 By many very thoughtful observers this liberalizing tendency 
 
SOCIALISM 87 
 
 has been hailed as a sure and certain sign of the waning influ- 
 ence of Marx. It has been interpreted as showing that the 
 theories of Marx are being abandoned by those who call them- 
 selves Marxian Socialists. But in point of fact so far as the 
 liberalizing tendency amounts to the abandonment of crudely 
 exaggerated forms of Marxian theories, and of all attempts to 
 create a sect or cult, with an orthodox philosophical and eco- 
 nomic creed it must be otherwise interpreted. It is not a 
 reaction against Marx, but against that "Marxism" which Marx 
 himself so despised, and which consisted of a perverse and cruel 
 misrepresentation of his theories. In revolting against this 
 "Marxism" the Socialist movement is in fact following the 
 leadership of Marx himself, and the tendency represents a whole- 
 some return to the teachings of Marx. 
 
 It is quite true that the Socialist movement has, in most 
 countries, ceased to concern itself mainly with the propagation 
 of theories; that all the Socialist parties of the world pay an 
 increasing amount of attention to practical work in the direction 
 of social and political reform. There has been a rather striking 
 development of opportunism, not alone in Germany, but in every 
 land where Socialism has attained political importance. When 
 that splendid Socialist leader, Wilhelm Liebknecht, was first 
 elected to the German Reichstag he was strongly anti-parlia- 
 mentarian. He feared that the revolutionary spirit of Socialism 
 would be engulfed in parliamentary issues. His avowed policy 
 then was to enter the Reichstag, make a speech denouncing the 
 capitalist system, and then march out, quite like the hero of the 
 nursery rhyme ! That was the naive idea of revolutionary 
 progress which prevailed at that time, even among astute leaders 
 of the revolutionary party. 
 
 It is a far cry from that opera bouffe attitude of Liebknecht's 
 to that which characterized the last years of his life, and which 
 characterizes the German social democracy today. I hardly 
 need say here that the Social Democratic Party of Germany is 
 devoted to a broad comprehensive policy of social and industrial 
 reform; that it does not send its representatives to the imperial 
 parliament merely to make denunciatory speeches and then walk 
 out, refusing to participate in the work of legislation. On the 
 contrary, it is by the zeal and ability with which the represen- 
 tatives of the party work for social reform that the confidence 
 of such a vast number of voters has been won. Singer, Bebel, 
 
88 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 and the other leaders of the party know very well that this is 
 the case : that only a very small minority of their supporters 
 understand or care for Socialist theories. 
 
 It must be freely admitted that the temper and policy of 
 the Socialist movement have undergone a great change. This 
 change has been both a cause and a result of growth. Where 
 the Socialist movement is numerically weak, it is invariably 
 characterized by fanatical bitterness and sectarian intolerance 
 and dogmatism. Its first political victories, often almost insig- 
 nificant in themselves, are won in spite of these characteristics, 
 most often, perhaps, through peculiarly favorable circumstances 
 leading to the election of the Socialist candidate in spite of, 
 rather than because of, his Socialism. 
 
 It has been the universal experience that, as soon as the 
 Socialists of any country succeed in electing a single represen- 
 tative to an important legislative office, a change begins to 
 manifest itself. The propaganda becomes less sectarian and 
 theoretical, and more practical. The temper of the party loses 
 much of its arrogant intolerance. Its representatives abandon 
 wild, irresponsible talk of a sudden revolution, and cheap sneers 
 at social reforms, and devote themselves with energy to the task 
 of securing legislation for the immediate betterment of the lot of 
 their class. 
 
 The reason for this change is apparent. Brought face to face 
 with great opportunities to better the lot of the toiling masses, 
 they dare not neglect them. No matter how small the specific 
 reform may be, considered by and of itself, the instinctive class 
 consciousness of the Socialists prevents them from opposing or 
 ignoring it and contenting themselves with denunciations of 
 capitalism or prophecies of a cooperative commonwealth to come. 
 It is easy enough for the propagandist, free from responsibility, 
 to arraign the capitalist system, demonstrate the need of replac- 
 ing it by a saner and juster system, and show the relatively 
 insignificant importance of some minor reforms, such as the 
 enactment of an employer's liability law, for example. ^ 
 
 In office, confronted by the responsibility of the immediate 
 challenge, the Socialist dares not treat such questions lightly. 
 Always an evolutionist in theory, as a mere propagandist, en- 
 gaged in arousing his apathetic fellow-citizens, he not infre- 
 quently forgot his evolutionary theory and talked as if a sudden 
 revolution, changing the whole social organism, were possible. 
 
SOCIALISM 89 
 
 Election to office brings immediate recognition of the fact that 
 no such change is possible ; that the theory of evolution is made 
 up of vital facts. He comes to a realization of the meaning 
 Marx intended to convey by a favorite phrase of his, "revolu- 
 tionary evolution." 
 
 Thus, in the crucible of actual experience, the rivalry, hatred, 
 and contempt of the Socialist for the social reformer, and of 
 the social reformer for the Socialist, are melted. The earnest 
 social reformer soon finds that when he wants child-labor 
 legislation, factory laws, tenement-house reforms, industrial 
 insurance, and other such reforms, the fundamental and instinc- 
 tive class consciousness of the Socialist can always be relied 
 upon. In this way, the Socialist party in almost every European 
 country has become the party of social reform. 
 
 This, then, is the basis for the prevailing opinion that the 
 modern Socialist movement has lost its revolutionary character 
 and become a simple reformatory movement. The validity of 
 that judgment depends altogether upon a certain narrow inter- 
 pretation of the word "revolution." There can be no serious 
 difference of opinion upon the point once that definition of the 
 word "revolution" is accepted. 
 
 To Marx, more than to any other man, belongs the credit 
 of associating the Socialist movement with the concept of a 
 social "revolution." The phrase looms large in the celebrated 
 "Communist Manifesto," and in all the subsequent literature of 
 Marxian Socialism. But Marx used the term "social revolution," 
 as he used so many other commonplace terms, in a very different 
 sense from that which common usage had imparted to it. To 
 understand the significance of the term in the literature of 
 Marxian Socialism, therefore, it is necessary to get at the 
 meaning which Marx ascribed to it, and which his most 
 representative and authentic exponents have accepted. 
 
 Whereas, to most persons, the term "social revolution" means 
 a method, to Marx it meant simply a result, quite regardless of 
 the method by which the result was attained. To most persons 
 revolution suggests street riotings, barricades, insurrections, in- 
 trigues, conspiracies, and coups d'etat. It means the sudden 
 overturning of things, ousting governments and dynasties. In 
 this narrow sense the French people have been called the most 
 revolutionary people in Europe. Before Marx, the crude Social- 
 ist thought of the time regarded such "revolutionary" methods 
 
90 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 as the natural way to attain the realization of its goal. Against 
 that sort of "revolutionary" effort Marx directed his splendid 
 genius for political leadership. 
 
 To Marx that sort of revolutionary activity was purely 
 Utopian and altogether unscientific. He lost no opportunity to 
 assail it and make it the butt of his superb satire. He pointed 
 out that such "revolutions" are not at all social revolutions. 
 After a successful coup de force, resulting in the overturning 
 of a dynasty or the changing of the form of government, people 
 continue to maintain the chief fundamental social relations of the 
 old regime. The class struggle persists, and the wage-earner is 
 still exploited by the capitalist as before. What he means by 
 social revolution is a thorough transformation of these social 
 relations, the abolition of class divisions which rest upon the 
 exploitation of the proletariat. This result is the revolution. 
 The transformation of the social forces of production to social 
 property, however accomplished, is the revolution. It is not 
 more or less revolutionary whether attained by peaceful political 
 action or by torch and sword at the barricades, whether the 
 process of its accomplishment takes fifty years or is the result 
 of a sudden, cyclonic movement. 
 
 It will be seen, therefore, that, assuming this to be a fair 
 interpretation of Marx's concept of the social revolution, the 
 change which has come over the Socialist movement is not of 
 necessity a departure from the revolutionary path as Marx 
 understood the term, though it is a very, great departure from 
 the older revolutionary concept which he assailed, and which still 
 clings to the term in our common usage. It must also be 
 admitted that the followers of Marx did not always conform 
 their speech and their policy to the philosophical distinction he 
 imposed upon the term; that all too often they lapsed back into 
 what their teacher derided as a purely Utopian concept of revolu- 
 tion. It may also be admitted with perfect candor that Marx 
 himself occasionally lapsed into that utopianism against which 
 his life and thought were, as a whole, so finely devoted. 
 
 So much is granted. It will not avail, therefore, to quote 
 isolated utterances or actions to prove that the thought of a 
 sudden, decisive revolution sometimes possessed the mind of 
 Marx. Against these lapses from the scientific, evolutionary 
 attitude must be set the overwhelming testimony of his thought 
 as a whole, and, more important even than that, of his practice. 
 
SOCIALISM 91 
 
 Nothing could be more fallacious than the attempt to interpret 
 the opportunistic development of contemporary Socialism as a 
 progressive abandonment of the teachings of Marx. The assump- 
 tion upon which it rests, that opportunism and Marxism are 
 antithetical concepts, is entirely false. Marx was nothing if 
 not an opportunist, using that term in its best, and strictest, 
 sense. He was so far removed from those intransigents of the 
 Socialist movement, who scorn the idea that the Socialists should 
 participate in the movement for social reform through legis- 
 lative channels, as the imagination can conceive. He had the 
 profoundest contempt for all who sought to bind the movement 
 to that abortive attitude. I make the claim that the tendency of 
 contemporary Socialism to concern itself with a program of 
 immediate social reforms, palliative measures for the ameliora- 
 tion of the victims of the social struggle, within the existing 
 order, represents a return to the most important teachings of 
 Marx, not a departure from them. 
 
 In the "Communist Manifesto," that work which may be 
 said to be the corner-stone of modern scientific Socialism, we 
 find him laying emphasis upon the fact that the transformation 
 which he calls the social revolution is not to be a sudden act. 
 He speaks of the "first step in the revolution" being the struggle 
 for political democracy, the attainment of the franchise by the 
 proletariat. That accomplished, the proletariat is to wrest, "by 
 degrees," the control of the social productive forces from the 
 hated bourgeoisie. His insistence upon the necessity of a "first 
 step," and of a conquest of the economic resources "by degrees," 
 shows very clearly that, from the first, Marx repudiated the old 
 notion of sudden, catastrophic revolution. His ideal was one 
 of the "revolutionary evolution." 
 
 In the same profound and epoch-making pamphlet Marx 
 lays stress upon the fact that the Socialists, because they accept 
 the class struggle as their fundamental and guiding philosophy, 
 must not confine themselves to working for the attainment of 
 the ultimate interest of the proletariat, the abolition of wage- 
 labor and its inevitable exploitation and oppression, but must 
 participate in the "immediate struggle"; that they must make 
 their own the "momentary interests" of the workers as well 
 as their ultimate aim. In pursuance of that thought he outlined 
 a program of social reform upon which Socialists and progressive 
 social reformers are making common cause today in every 
 
92 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 country where the Socialist parties are represented in the 
 legislatures. 
 
 Four years after the "Communist Manifesto" was published, 
 in the aftermath of the revolutionary struggle of 1848, some of 
 the most romantic of his corevolutionists were urging the 
 workers to insurrection. They were obsessed by the notion that 
 the workers could at once seize the reins of power and establish 
 Socialist republics in the most advanced countries of Europe. 
 Marx assailed these romanticists with merciless satire and invec- 
 tive. He denounced them because they would "substitute revo- 
 lutionary phrase for revolutionary evolution," and while the 
 impatient romanticists assured their followers that they could 
 win immediately, Marx told them that it would take perhaps 
 fifty years, not to accomplish the social revolution indeed, but 
 to make themselves "worthy of political power"! 
 
 When Ferdinand Lassalle attempted, in 1862, to enlist the 
 support of Marx for an insurrection in Germany, urging him 
 to assist in raising funds for the purchase of muskets and ammu- 
 nition, Marx indignantly refused, and the incident led to the 
 termination of the friendship of the two men when they met in 
 London a few months later. Marx understood as Lassalle could 
 never do the great fact of social evolution. 
 
 How much of an opportunist Marx was is best shown by 
 the history of the International Working-Men's Association. 
 Of far greater importance than his contributions to political 
 economy, and inferior only to his sociological discoveries, the 
 practical work of Marx in the development of that great inter- 
 national organization of the proletariat has not yet received 
 just recognition. It is impossible to read the history of the Inter- 
 national and avoid the conviction that Marx was endowed with 
 great political sagacity, amounting almost to genius. 
 
 The importance of the International to us in the present dis- 
 cussion, lies in the light its history sheds upon the mind and 
 temper of its great leader. Marx initiated the movement, wrote 
 its address, or platform, formulated its rules, and dictated its 
 policies. He wrote every one of its official pronunciamentos. 
 Never was there a political "boss" who so completely ruled his 
 organization. For the opportunism which characterized the 
 International Marx must therefore be held directly responsible. 
 
 It was Marx who arranged that the trades unions of Great 
 Britain should cooperate with such bitter enemies of ordinary 
 
SOCIALISM 93 
 
 trades-union policies as Bright and Cobden in rousing the public 
 opinion of Great Britain to the support of President Lincoln and 
 the Union cause, and to vigorous opposition to the sympathy of 
 the government and the ruling class in general for the Southern 
 Confederacy, which the government at one time practically 
 decided to recognize as an independent power. It was Marx, 
 too, who, in the same way, brought about the cooperation of all 
 the radical forces in the struggle for franchise reform a few 
 years later. 
 
 Here, then, was opportunism with a vengeance ! Mark was 
 not unaware that there were elements in the International to 
 whom such a policy was repellent in the extreme. There were 
 many followers of Proudhon, the French anarchist leader, who 
 were very bitter in their opposition to Marx on account of his 
 opportunism. Of these critics Marx wrote, in a letter to his 
 friend Kugelmann : 'They brag about science and know nothing. 
 They look with contempt, as revolutionists, on any concerted 
 action of the working-classes, and they treat with contempt any 
 idea of making use of the legislature for anything, as, e. g., for 
 shortening the hours of labor." 
 
 In the masterly inaugural address of the International, which 
 Marx wrote, the Ten Hours' Act was hailed as being "not 
 merely a great practical result," but as "the victory of a prin- 
 ciple." Even the cooperative societies at which Marx had been 
 disposed to sneer in 1848, were praised and heralded as a sign 
 that wage-labor was a transitory economic form, destined to be 
 replaced by associated free labor. And the first congress of the 
 International, at Geneva, adopted resolutions, most of them writ- 
 ten by Marx, in favor of such reforms as the abolition of child 
 labor ; regulation of women's labor by the state ; limitation of 
 the hours of labor for adults to ten per day; direct taxation; 
 and so on. 
 
 It is clear, then, that, altogether irrespective of the merits of 
 the controversy which divides the opportunists of the Socialist 
 movement from their intransigent comrades, it cannot be said 
 that the movement becomes less Marxian by becoming more 
 opportunistic. Marx was himself an opportunist of a very 
 pronounced type. In his mind, the actual union of the workers 
 was the supremely important thing. He wanted movement above 
 all else. He revealed the principle by which his whole life was 
 guided in the letter he wrote to the German Socialists in 1875, 
 
94 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 when the union of the Lassallian and Marxian forces was being 
 negotiated : "Every step of real movement is worth a dozen 
 programs." 
 
 Without expressing here any opinion upon the wisdom or 
 otherwise of the Socialists entering into such compacts as the 
 one upon which the British labor party is based, it is impossible 
 for me to resist the conclusion that Mr. Hardie with his belief 
 in and alliance with the labor party is much more in accord with 
 the teaching and example of .Marx than are his intransigent 
 critics, even though the latter so loudly invoke the name and 
 authority of Marx. 
 
 It would be disingenuous to deny that some of Marx's theories 
 have been openly abandoned by not a few Socialists, and that 
 they have been greatly modified by others in response to the 
 searching criticism to which they have been subjected. Marx 
 himself regarded monopoly-price as something exceptional, an 
 abrogation of the law of value. Since he wrote "Das Kapital," 
 the exceptions to his law of value have become more numerous, 
 as a result of the development of great monopolies and near 
 monopolies. The value of a great many commodities is deter- 
 mined by their marginal utility, quite irrespective of the social 
 labor actually embodied in them or necessary to their reproduc- 
 tion. 
 
 Then, too, some of the sweeping generalizations which Marx 
 made, and which his followers long believed to be absolutely true, 
 have not stood well the test of history and close analysis. The 
 recognition of this fact has quite profoundly influenced Socialist 
 policy. It is worthy of note, however, that the result has been 
 to develop the movement quite in harmony with that broad 
 spirit of opportunism which Marx himself so well and so bravely 
 exemplified. 
 
 Take, for example, his theory of agricultural concentration. 
 Marx firmly believed and confidently predicted that, within a 
 comparatively short time, the small farm would cease to exist 
 He saw the small farms, and the farms of moderate size, dis- 
 appear, swallowed up by the bigger ones, and the whole industry 
 of agriculture dominated by immense capital. His followers 
 excelled their master's confidence in the truth of his forecast. 
 
 It is now recognized by all thoughtful Socialists that this 
 forecast has been completely belied by the actual facts of agri- 
 cultural evolution. The small farm has more than held its own, 
 
SOCIALISM 95 
 
 the expected concentration of the industry has not taken place; 
 there has in fact been a well-marked tendency in the opposite 
 direction of decentralization. Irrigation, "dry farming," and 
 the mass of improved methods resulting from the application of 
 science to agriculture have revolutionized the industry, but in 
 quite another way than Marx predicted. 
 
 Of course, so long as the farming-class was looked upon as 
 a rapidly disappearing one, a class whose immediate interests 
 must of necessity, and in an increasing degree, be opposed to the 
 interests of the proletariat, the Socialist propaganda made small 
 headway in agricultural communities. So long as that mistaken 
 generalization obsessed the minds of the followers of Marx they 
 were little disposed to appeal to the farmers, or to concede that 
 the status of the farmer and a belief in Socialism were quite 
 compatible. To treat the farmer as a negligible quantity, as a 
 survival member of a rapidly disappearing class, of no account 
 politically, was the natural outcome of that generalization. 
 
 When astute political leaders of the Socialist movement like 
 Dr. Adler, of. Austria, and acute theoreticians like Herr Bern- 
 stein, of Germany, demonstrated the delusive character of Marx's 
 forecast, and proved that the Socialists in those countries must 
 either recast their agrarian policy, so as to make a successful 
 appeal to the farming class or abandon all hopes of attaining 
 political success, modern Socialism entered upon a new phase. 
 Of course, there was some strife, a bitter conflict between the 
 old orthodoxy and the new truth, and the complete breaking-up 
 of the international Socialist movement was confidently pre- 
 dicted by many of its enemies. But nothing of the sort hap- 
 pened. The leaders of the movement set themselves to the task 
 of studying the whole problem of their position toward the 
 farmer. 
 
 They found that the economic interest of the small farmer 
 was not so antagonistic to the interest of the industrial prole- 
 tariat as they had long believed; they found that the farmer 
 needed Socialism almost, if not quite, as badly as the factory 
 worker. So successful has the Socialist propaganda among 
 farmers been, without compromising its revolutionary spirit, that 
 many of the greatest strongholds of the movement, both in 
 Europe and America, are in agricultural districts. The kingdom 
 of Saxony is mainly dependent upon agriculture, but it is known 
 as "Red Saxony" on account of the strength of the Socialist 
 
96 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 movement there. In the United States we find Oklahoma an 
 agrarian state, taking a leading place in the socialist propaganda. 
 
 In like manner, the persistence of the petty retail stores, and 
 of petty industries, contrary to another of the sweeping gen- 
 eralizations of Marx, has profoundly influenced the policy of the 
 Socialist movement. While its main appeal is and must of 
 necessity be to the actual proletariat, the Socialist propaganda 
 does not neglect the small shopkeeper or the professional man. 
 In most countries, but especially in the United States, the 
 actual wage-workers constitute a minority of the population. 
 The Socialists recognize this fact. So there has developed a new 
 and broader concept of the movement. Only a very tiny and 
 insignificant minority now ever thinks of demanding that the 
 Socialist movement shall be limited to the wage-earning class. 
 
 That greatest of Socialist political leaders, Liebknecht, in his 
 later years insisted that when the socialists used the term "work- 
 ing-class" they included in its meaning "all who live exclusively 
 or principally by means of their own labor, and who do not grow 
 rich through the work of others." Thus, he would include the 
 small farmers and small shopkeepers, as well as a majority of 
 the professional classes. He declared that the German social 
 democracy was the party of all the people with the exception of 
 about two hundred thousand. "If it is limited to the wage- 
 earners," he said, " Socialism cannot conquer. If it includes all 
 the workers and the moral and intellectual elite of the nation, 
 its victory is certain." 
 
 To sum up : There may be said to be two kinds of Marxism, 
 the one consisting of a body of theoretical and philosophical 
 generalizations, the other of certain principles of working-class 
 action, precepts, and examples of tactics for the movement. This 
 "practical Marxism" has been for a long time obscured by the 
 Marxism of theory, and neglected in consequence. Now that 
 critical examination has forced the abandonment of some of his 
 theories, and the modification of some others, Marx the leader, 
 the tactician, the statesman, is taking the place of Marx the 
 theorist to some extent. 
 
 Hence the paradox that the influence of Marx upon the 
 Socialist movement of today is increasing just as rapidly and as 
 surely as it is breaking away from dogmatic Marxism. 
 
SOCIALISM 97 
 
 Forum. 44:90-4. July, 1910 
 
 The Savior of the Working-man. Temple Scott 
 
 A citizen of Europe visiting the United States in the second 
 half of the last quarter of the eighteenth century, would have 
 witnessed a new nation's homage to its most distinguished and 
 most successful worker in the cause of republican principles 
 Benjamin Franklin. 
 
 A citizen of the United States visiting Europe, a hundred 
 years later, might have happened to find himself in the Kensal 
 Green Cemetery, in London, in time to witness a few devoted 
 men and women paying their last reverent farewell to their 
 leader, as they placed in its grave the dead body of Karl Marx, 
 the Socialist. 
 
 These two men Benjamin Franklin and Karl Marx are 
 typical of their principles. The one, a respectable tradesman, 
 gifted with a shrewd common-sense that instinctively tacked 
 with every contrary wind to a safe harbor, was a servant in 
 heart as well as in deed. The other, a scholar of an antique suc- 
 cession, with a magnificent and even royal indifference to his own 
 welfare, and with a spirit chivalrous and self -centered as any 
 knight of old, was an aristocrat and master in every fiber of his 
 being. The one was of a smug, smiling, complacent nature, a 
 man who had learned from adversity the lessons of economy, 
 prudence and discretion. The other was of an open, fearless, 
 loving nature, a man whose enthusiasm for humanity sent him 
 adventuring, reckless of personal consequences. The intellect of 
 the one could rise in delight to the portentous platitutes of "Poor 
 Richard's Almanack" mediocrity's vade-mecum. The genius of 
 the other elaborated, after almost a lifetime of devoted thought, 
 the book "Das Kapital," the most searching analysis ever accom- 
 plished of the basic principles which govern social evolution. 
 And yet, today, hundreds of thousands of men, women and chil- 
 dren to whom the name of Benjamin Franklin is a househord 
 word, have never even heard of Karl Marx. 
 
 It would seem as if this were one of the ironies of fate; but 
 it is not. On the contrary, it is of the nature of things. Imme- 
 diate success catches the superficial, who gladly accept a present 
 achievement as an excuse for inaction and indolent content. The 
 respectable and reputable mediocrity of a Benjamin Franklin is 
 
98 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 the mediocrity of the average man to whom respectability is a 
 badge of honor. He understands it. Teach him how to use it 
 by means of a genuflexing discretion, and you have the typical 
 republican citizen. What matters if this conduct of life brings 
 in its wake the diseases of hypocrisy, bribery, graft and social 
 treachery? These evils are provided against by law; and if 
 people will be foolish and will be indiscreet, the law must punish 
 them. Whatever you do, be careful not to be found out that 
 is the golden rule of service which a century's experience of 
 government by democracy has precipitated. It is the Golden Rule 
 of Slavery. 
 
 But the adventuring, thought-arousing enthusiasm of a Karl 
 Marx is, to say the least of it, uncomfortable and disquieting. It 
 does not leave you alone; it compels you to be up and doing 
 up and doing not for yourself only, but for yourself and every- 
 body else ; for yourself because for everybody else. It demands 
 devotion to an ideal, and that is not easy for people who worship 
 Mammon for one hundred and sixty-six and Jesus Christ for 
 two out of the hundred and sixty-eight hours of each week. 
 Of course, it is a proper thing to have an ideal, as it is a proper 
 thing to have a silk hat it is necessary for certain occasions. 
 It is necessary when we desire to convert a false value into a 
 seeming real value. Oh, yes, we believe in an ideal; but our 
 democracy cunningly manages to prostitute it as it does every 
 aspiration of the soul to sell it in the market-place, having first 
 made of it a Golden Calf. That is why we find Benjamin Frank- 
 lin's "Autobiography" in every home; and that is why Marx's 
 "Das Kapital" is buried in the dust of public libraries. 
 
 Some day a brilliant genius will re-melt the gold of Marx's 
 book and use it to decorate a new institution that must arise in 
 the course of events. Then, it may be, even children will lisp 
 reverently the name of the Savior of the Working-man. For 
 Marx's book and Marx's life are the struggles of a Titan with 
 the ignorance of classes and masses. 
 
 Those of us who are nobly touched by the spirit of unrest 
 and discontent, and who find inspiration in seeing a great man 
 fight his fight, will be grateful to Mr. John Spargo for a thir- 
 teen years' devotion to his hero's life-story. This book of his 
 "Karl Marx: His Life and Work" (New York: B. W. Huebsch) 
 is a notable achievement. It reveals, and most sympathetically 
 and convincingly reveals, a personality and a character so splen- 
 
SOCIALISM 99 
 
 did and so appealing in its human qualities, that it is impossible 
 for any reader to lay down the book without a profound rever- 
 ence for the man who devoted himself to the work of redeeming 
 his fellow working-men. It will surely serve to keep green the 
 memory of Karl Marx's noble spirit until such certain time to 
 come when that spirit shall have made itself manifest by the 
 power of its embodied thought. I am more than grateful to 
 Mr. Spargo. His biography compels me to a confession of hav- 
 ing misunderstood Karl Marx. I am hoping that his book will 
 be read by many who, like myself, have hitherto known of Karl 
 Marx only through the pictures presented of him by professorial 
 expositors and academic critics. If they do, they will meet a 
 splendid fellow, a man who, in spite of a wayward temper, a . 
 satirical tongue, and a domineering spirit, was a delightful lover 
 and father, an abiding friend, and possessed of a heart ever ten- 
 der to suffering and sorrow. They will also meet a born leader 
 of men a practical politician and stateman of rare insight. 
 
 These two sides of Karl Marx's character the thinker and 
 the worker have rarely been exemplified in one personality with 
 his distinguished excellence, and with such extraordinary power. 
 In the midst of a period of general upheaval, such as the year 
 1848 saw, when Marx's association with socialistic societies 
 reached almost every capital of Europe, he found time not only 
 to keep in touch with their movements, but he, at the same time, 
 elaborated and placed on record the famous Communist Mani- 
 festo that resounding bugle-blast of modern Socialism. In 1864 
 he organized the International Working-Men's Association and 
 for twelve years was its guiding head. In spite of the enormous 
 labor this position entailed he was all the time writing his great 
 work on political economy. In the many years of his life in 
 London, when he was struggling against poverty and even want, 
 he yet found time to write the Socialist propaganda addresses 
 and dispatch written opinions and advice to the various organiza- 
 tions scattered throughout Europe. 
 
 He could join hands with Heinrich Heine, Friedrich Engels 
 and Ferdinand Lassalle and labor with them for the cause to 
 which he had devoted himself. But he could also take up arms 
 against Michael Bakunin, the aggressive revolutionary, who lived 
 to ruin Marx's labor of years. And such was the quality of his 
 genius that friend and enemy alike confessed to its supreme 
 power. 
 
ioo SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 For we must never forget, in measuring this man's worth, 
 that the times in which he lived were fraught with mighty poten- 
 tialities for the future ; that he not only realized those potentiali- 
 ties, but placed himself on their side, openly and fearlessly. He 
 had thought out the process of historical evolution in social life 
 and had outlined its line of direction through the struggle of 
 class against class. He denied a moral purpose to this struggle, 
 even though that moral purpose was the battle-cry of the enthu- 
 siasts. He knew better, and he proved it. It was not a propa- 
 ganda for virtue as against vice that he carried on; it was a 
 propaganda for the education of the masses so that they might 
 realize their own power and use it in opposition to a society 
 that was subjugating them and their labor by appropriating the 
 products of their labor. "Communism" he said, and by that 
 word he meant Socialism, "deprives no man of the power to 
 appropriate the products of Society; all that it does is to deprive 
 him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of 
 such appropriation." 
 
 It may sound like the language of paradox to speak of Karl 
 Marx, the Socialist, as an aristocrat. If it does, it is but the 
 paradox in which all truth appears. Only a noble soul can act 
 and live nobly; and to act and live nobly is to spend one's self 
 in largesses and to do this in no spirit of condescension, but 
 rather in humility and gladness that we have to give what is 
 worthy of being received. Surely such a giver is of the elect! 
 If I view Karl Marx in this light I am but stating what his life 
 abundantly reveals. It is your democrat, your republican, your 
 radical, who is forever gathering, keeping and hoarding. When 
 he does spend he spends meanly and grudgingly, as one who has 
 not been accustomed to open the flood-gates of his nature. Of 
 he spends with a vainglorious eye to the good things that are to 
 come back to him. And he rarely spends himself he has no 
 soul to give. 
 
 The Socialism of Karl Marx has no place for such publicans 
 and panderers. Be they capitalists or wage-earners, they are 
 slave-drivers and slaves ; and where these exist there can be no 
 nobility. All are alike ignoble. 
 
 In saying this I may be looking through Socialism to some 
 thing that is beyond; but I am saying no more than I find in 
 Karl Marx's life and teaching. I can draw no other conclusion 
 from his doctrine of surplus value, a doctrine that posits the 
 
SOCIALISM ioi 
 
 raison d'etre of the capitalist society in which we live, to be the 
 constant effort to obtain surplus-value. This constant 1 effort, it 
 further states, is at the bottom of all our social and political 
 struggles. If this be so, then following Marx's reasoning, the 
 time must come when the laboring-class, in order to save itself 
 from complete servitude, must expropriate the capitalist class. 
 When that time comes production will no longer be carried on for 
 the surplus-value it yields, but its place will be taken by co- 
 operative endeavor without thought of class-exploitation. This 
 does not mean that all men will be equal, nor even that all men 
 will equally enjoy life; for a doctrine cannot alter the constitu- 
 tion of human nature. But it does mean that the ignoble distinc- 
 tions between master and servant, between classes and masses, 
 will cease to exist. All men will be masters masters of their 
 craft. All men will be servants servants of the social 
 community. 
 
 It is ridiculous to speak of the dignity of labor under a sys- 
 tem which produces the sweat-shop and the poisoned factory; 
 which sets working-men uniting to deprive other working-men 
 of the opportunity to earn their livelihoods; which looks upon 
 the product of labor not as something that is good, and desirable, 
 and beautiful, but as something that is cheap, and saleable, and 
 ugly. This is the very graveyard of ambition a bleak Aceldama 
 of Sorrow, in which Art and Beauty are pale wandering ghosts, 
 haunting the ruined cloisters and cathedrals whose altars have 
 been defiled by the worshippers of Dagon and Ashtaroth. 
 
 This also I have found in the life of Karl Marx that a brave 
 spirit will live bravely and think bravely despite affliction, perse- 
 cution, and misunderstanding. Karl Marx was not only an 
 extraordinary thinker; he was also an extraordinary man. His 
 thought will live after him. That is his legacy, his magnificent 
 legacy to the humanity he loved. 
 
K>2 SELFCtED- ARTICLES ON 
 
 Nation. 97:357-9. October 16, 1913 
 
 Socialism and Labor. Reviews of "Marxism Versus Socialism," 
 by Vladimir G. Simkhovitch, and "The Larger Aspects of 
 Socialism," by William English Walling 
 
 Professor Simkhovitch has no difficulty in establishing his 
 thesis of the bankruptcy of Marx's theory of "scientific" Social- 
 ism. Those who have kept in touch with the Socialistic litera- 
 ture of the past ten or fifteen years are familiar with the extent 
 of the destruction wrought in the Marxian structure by the 
 irresistible logic of hostile facts, and in "Marxism versus 
 Socialism" these facts are marshalled in clear compact array so 
 that he who runs may read. It is not in any spirit of belittle- 
 ment of Professor Simkhovitch's services that the reviewer 
 suggests that his book almost gives one the impression of slaying 
 the dead ; fairer, perhaps, would it be to say that it, decently and 
 in order, inters the corpse. The work, in any case, has been well 
 done, and in a way was worth the doing, for while Marxian 
 Socialism may be dead as a scientific theory, a great many 
 worthy people are still unaware of that fact including, pos- 
 sibly, a large proportion of the "Intercollegiate" Socialist mem- 
 bership, to whom "Marxism versus Socialism" may be 
 recommended. 
 
 "Every tendency," says Professor Simkhovitch (and he hand- 
 ily proves what he says), "that Marx and Engels confided in 
 has been checked, retarded, deflected, or reversed. Industry has 
 not concentrated to any such extent as the fathers of scientific 
 Socialism expected. Agriculture shows tendencies towards de- 
 centralization. The concentration of wealth and proletarization 
 of the middle class has proved a fable: the moderate incomes 
 are steadily increasing in number. The idea of the growing 
 misery of the proletariat is abandoned in view of facts that 
 prove the opposite; the class struggle, instead of increasing, is 
 as a whole diminishing. Commercial crises that were to increase 
 till they destroyed, like an earthquake, our whole industrial 
 organization, are admittedly abating their fury." 
 
 Of course, this does not mean that Socialism or the coopera- 
 tive commonwealth is impossible. But it does mean that 
 Socialism is just as "utopian" today as it was before Marx 
 wrote and rescued it from that estate which seemed so low in 
 his eyes and in the eyes of the generation which followed him. 
 
SOCIALISM 103 
 
 And, as Professor Simkhovitch says in his introduction, "Today 
 the social movement throughout the world is in one sense but 
 a quest for a new possible meaning of the word Socialism." 
 
 Pat to the reviewer's hand comes a shining proof of the truth 
 of that statement in the shape of a new book by William English 
 Walling "The Larger Aspects of Socialism." The author has 
 earned the right to a front-rank place among the American 
 Socialist "intellectuals" and his "Socialism as It Is" of two years 
 ago was an interesting objective study of the Socialist move- 
 ment the world over. A clear-sighted observer, and a reporter 
 honest with himself and the public, he there furnished abundant 
 evidence of the great recent change in character of the Socialist 
 movement from that which marked it in the days of Marx. 
 Within its covers was contained most of the evidence that one 
 could desire to prove the death of the Marxian hypothesis as 
 indeed the reviewer then pointed out. Now he comes to exhibit 
 to us the soul of the new Socialism, which he calls "a new 
 civilization that is gradually being embodied in a new social 
 movement." In the "Larger Aspects of Socialism," which is, 
 as he himself says, complementary to "Socialism as It Is," he 
 presents to us the soul, and he finds it not in any materialistic 
 Hegelianism, not in any mechanistic system of evolution, but in 
 what he calls the "philosophy of modern science," and this proves 
 to be pragmatism! 
 
 Mr. Walling's definitions of Socialism as he now under- 
 stands the word are more eloquent than pages of explanation, 
 and we must let him state his own case in his own way: 
 
 It is customary for Socialist writers, in spite of these admitted facts, 
 to define the Socialist movement as being mainly a class-struggle of 
 working people against capitalists, and then proceed to qualify this defini- 
 tion. This procedure is not in accord with the present methods of science 
 which demand instead of a rigid definition with an unlimited number of 
 qualifications a definition broad enough and loose enough so that it does 
 not need to be qualified. From this standpoint perhaps the nearest we 
 can come to a definition is to say that Socialism is a movement of the 
 non-privileged to overthrow the privileged in industry and government. 
 . . . In other words, Socialism is a struggle of those who have less 
 against those who have more than equal opportunity would afford (p. u). 
 
 The conflict of Socialism with present society is not in reality a class 
 struggle. It is not a struggle between two social classes or even two 
 groups of social classes. It is a class struggle only on one side. The 
 ruling class or ruling classes are more or less unified; Socialism represents 
 the opposition of all the rest of the population but not of a class . . . 
 There is only one class, the class that rules humanity and must be 
 
104 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 conquered by humanity. . . . Both the phrases "class-struggle" and 
 "class-consciousness" may legitimately be used to mean exactly the oppo- 
 site of what the majority of Socialists intend them to mean (p. 13). 
 
 All that remains wholly unobjectionable of the older social- 
 istic formulations is the "economic interpretation," and that, too, 
 must be construed in a new way. Because latter-day pragmatism 
 and particularly the system of Professor Dewey gives it a 
 new meaning, Mr. Walling adopts this philosophic system as 
 being virtually Socialism itself. "Social truth is born in social 
 struggles. . . . This truth and this alone is the essence of 
 all Socialism, from Marx to modern pragmatism." Consequently, 
 in place of the absolutely inevitable process of inexorable law 
 which issues in the cooperative commonwealth as its necessary 
 culmination the "scientific" Marxian view Mr. Walling adopts 
 the principle enunciated by John H. Hobson, that "so far as 
 the selection, valuation, and utilization of realities go man is 
 the maker of the universe." This he regards as "the principle 
 which underlies both modern science and philosophy and the 
 modern social movement, that is, Socialism." And Socialism 
 "armed with the new philosophy will revolutionize all civilization 
 and culture as soon, that is, as economic and social conditions 
 permit the masses to realize and to utilize the new science and 
 the new philosophy." 
 
 Doubtless, Mr. Walling would vigorously deny the charge 
 that he was no better than a "utopian" Socialist; and, on the 
 ground that there is in his philosophy no fixed principle of 
 justice or of anything else beyond the fixed principle that phil- 
 osophy itself evolves and in his ethics no "ought," he might 
 possibly obtain a technical acquittal. But when he says that 
 Socialism "is evolving in the fullest sense of the word ; that is, 
 like every living thing it is taking on characters that could not 
 have been predicted even by omniscience (sic}, to say nothing 
 of the merely human powers of foresight of its early formula- 
 tors," he clearly pitches his tent very far away from the old 
 Socialist encampment, and it is only by straining the word 
 "science" that he cannot connect it with his position. 
 
 It is as an example of the tendency noted by Professor Simk- 
 hovitch that Mr. Walling' s latest book is mainly important. His 
 naive discovery of pragmatism ("a new name for old ways of 
 thinking," as James called it!), and his enthusiastic acclamation 
 of the "new science" and the "new philosophy," are accomplished 
 
SOCIALISM 105 
 
 with a gloriously dogmatic repudiation of all dogma, whether of 
 science, art, or religion, and an authoritative rejection of all 
 authority, which give his work a pleasant flavor of youth and 
 freshness. One may, however, wonder whether in his identifica- 
 tion of pragmatism with Socialism Mr. Walling represents a real 
 advance guard of socialistic thought, or merely a small band of 
 foragers poking around in the brush. To our thinking it is as a 
 clear sighted observer and honest chronicler of what he has 
 seen rather than as a philosopher that Mr. Walling best serves 
 the community, and one 'Socialism as It Is' is worth a dozen of 
 its immediate successor. 
 
PROGRESSIVE SOCIALISM 
 
 Annals of the American Academy. 18:391-419. 
 November, 1901 
 
 Bernstein Versus "Old- School" Marxism. G. A. Kleene 
 
 In the year 1862, the energy and ambition of Ferdinand 
 Lassalle sought an outlet in an agitation in behalf of the laboring 
 class. In 1863 this wonderful man created the Universal Ger- 
 man Laborers' Union (Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeit erverein), 
 the first organization of German social democracy. Killed in a 
 duel in 1864, he left a small, and not altogether harmonious, 
 group of followers. In the same decade, Liebknecht and his 
 young disciple, Bebel, began to preach to the German laborer 
 the ideas of Karl Marx, ideas differing in important respects 
 from those of Lassalle. The latter's aims were idealistic, national 
 and state socialistic; the Socialism of Karl Marx was based on 
 materialism, was international or cosmopolitan, and hostile to 
 the existing state and to state Socialism. In the seventies fol- 
 lowers of Marx and Lassalle united to form the Sosialistische 
 Arbeiterpartei, as the German Social Democratic Party was then 
 called, and the first platform of the party, the Gotha program, 
 contains indications of a compromise between the two groups. 
 As time passed, the doctrine of Marx became predominant. 
 Marx, not Lassalle, is today the recognized master of German 
 Socialists. Within the past few years, however, Marxism, as a 
 theory and a political method, has entered upon a crisis that per- 
 haps indicates its dissolution, while in the movement represented 
 by Bernstein, the editor and biographer of Lassalle, but long 
 known as a Marxist, there has come to the front a Socialism 
 that bears closer resemblance to that of Lassalle than to that of 
 Marx. Lassalle is not invoked as its leader ; the cry "Back to 
 Lassalle" has not been raised, but there is, nevertheless, a 
 turning from Marxian materialism to idealism, from Marxian 
 dislike of patriotism and the national spirit to an acknowledg- 
 ment of the importance of national interests, from Marxian 
 hatred of the present state to a recognition of what govern- 
 ments, as organized today, have done and can do for the 
 laboring class. 
 
io8 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 The authoritative statement of the faith of the German 
 Social Democratic Party is given in the Erfurt program, adopted 
 in 1891. Some of its most significant utterances may be here 
 quoted : 
 
 The economic development of industrial society tends inevitably (mit 
 Naturnotwendigkeit~) to the ruin of small industries, which are based on 
 the workman's private ownership of the means of production. It separates 
 him from the means of production and converts him into a destitute mem- 
 ber of the proletariat, whilst a comparatively small number of capitalists 
 and great landowners obtain a monopoly of the means of production. 
 
 Hand in hand with this growing monopoly goes ... a gigantic 
 increase in the productiveness of human labor. But all the advantages of 
 this revolution are monopolized by the capitalists and great landowners. 
 To the proletariat and to the rapidly sinking middle classes, the small 
 tradesmen of the towns and the peasant proprietors, it brings an increasing 
 misery, oppression, servitude, degradation and exploitation. 
 
 Ever greater grows the mass of the proletariat, ever vaster the army 
 of the unemployed, ever sharper the contrast between oppressors and 
 oppressed, ever fiercer that war of classes between bourgeoisie and pro- 
 letariat which divides modern society into two hostile camps. 
 
 Nothing but the conversion of capitalist private ownership of the means 
 of production . . . into social ownership can effect such a revolution 
 that instead of large industries and the steadily growing capacities of com- 
 mon production being, as hitherto, a source of misery and oppression to 
 the classes whom they have developed, they may become a source of the 
 highest well being. . . . 
 
 This social revolution involves the emancipation, not merely of the 
 proletariat but of the whole human race. . . . But this emancipation 
 can be achieved by the working class alone. . . . 
 
 It must be the aim of social democracy to give conscious unanimity 
 to this struggle of the working class and to indicate its inevitable goal 
 (naturnotwendiges Ziel). 
 
 The view presented in the program of present industrial 
 society tending inevitably toward So6ialism is connected with 
 Marx's "materialistic conception of history," a theory of social 
 development which leaders of the Social Democratic Party ap- 
 parently consider a necessary article of faith. The most com- 
 plete and authoritative statement of this theory from the pen of 
 Marx is that in the preface of his "Kritik der Politischen Oeko- 
 nomie," published in 1859. It is obscure and involved in 
 expression and a rather free translation must be given : 
 
 As producers, the members of industrial society enter into certain 
 necessary relations to one another, relations independent of the human will 
 and, in their totality, making up the economic structure of society. This 
 economic structure corresponds to the stage of development reached by the 
 
SOCIALISM 109 
 
 productive force (Produktivkr'dfte), and forms the basis for a legal and 
 political superstructure. Corresponding to it is the mental life of society. 
 The manner of production for man's material life determines (bedingt) 
 the social, political and mental life. It is not the mind of man that 
 determines his life in society, but this life that determines mind. At a 
 certain stage in their development the productive forces of society get 
 into conflict with the existing economic structure, or, in other words, with 
 the social organization based on property (the legal aspect of economic 
 structure). Ceasing to be the channels within which the productive forces 
 move freely, the economic structure and law of property become hindrances. 
 Then ensues a period of social revolution. Corresponding to the revolu- 
 tion in the economic basis of society, there is a more or less rapid change 
 of the entire superstructure. In the study of such revolutions we must 
 always distinguish between the changes in the material conditions of pro- 
 duction, which are the subject of scientific observation, and the legal, 
 political, religious, aesthetic and philosophical activities the mental life 
 in which man becomes conscious of, and takes part in, this conflict. We 
 do not in judging a man accept his opinion of himself. No more in 
 the study of a social revolution ought our judgment to be based on 
 men's opinions of it, but rather ought we to seek the explanation of the 
 thoughts and feelings of those living in such a period in the contradictions 
 of their material life, in the conflict between production and organization. 
 A society never dies until all the productive forces which can find scope 
 within it have reached their full development, and a new and higher form 
 of social life cannot take its place until the material conditions of existence 
 of the new society have been given birth by the old. ... In broad 
 outlines, we can trace the following periods of economic and social develop- 
 ment: the oriental, the ancient, the feudal, the bourgeois. The bourgeois 
 organization is the last antagonistic form of the productive process, antag- 
 onistic ... in the sense of an antagonism growing out of the social 
 and economic conditions of individuals. The productive forces growing up 
 within the bourgeois society, however, are creating the material conditions 
 for the solution of this antagonism. 
 
 We find in this passage, stated explicity, a theory of social 
 development basing all social life on economic factors. We 
 find implied a theory of knowledge which regards man's 
 mental activity as a reflection of physical conditions, and a 
 monistic philosophy which denies freedom of will and looks 
 upon human life, individual and social, as a part of nature 
 and in a process of evolution. In the use of such terms as 
 contradiction and antagonism, in the announcement of an an- 
 tagonism created by forces within a given society and its solution 
 by forces arising within the same society, there is an echo of 
 Hegelian dialectic. Hegel, as usually interpreted, regarded the 
 world as an evolution of mind, in which thought in its develop- 
 ment creates a contradiction within itself, but develops also a 
 solution of the contradiction, a reconciliation of opposites in a 
 
i io SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 higher unity a process of logical evolution marked by the 
 phases thesis anti-thesis synthesis. Marx saw only a material 
 development, but this he was disposed to view as a dialectic 
 process, a constant development of contradictions to be solved 
 by some synthesis. This leaning to the methods of the Hegelian 
 dialectic distinguished his theory from the modern idea of evo- 
 lution. Applied to an interpretation of the present industrial 
 system, it attains its greatest interest. It beholds the development 
 of a contradiction in this system that will lead, with inevitable 
 logic, to its own solution, to a "synthesis" in Socialism. 
 
 Socialism is not advocated on moral grounds by Marxists. 
 Why apply efhics to the course of nature? Socialism is as in- 
 different ethically and yet as certain as the rising and setting of 
 the sun. Unable to meet the objections that may be urged 
 against any conceivable collectivist regime, the Marxist might 
 say, with a shrug of his shoulder: "It is coming, whether we 
 like it or no. It is fate." He might choose not to exert him- 
 self for its realization, because it will come of itself. Such 
 consistent inaction, however, is repugnant to the normal man, 
 and gives no scope to political ambition. To the proletariat 
 there would be at least an intellectual satisfaction, if not also a 
 tactical advantage, in the consciousness of the inevitable part 
 it is to play in the great historical drama. There is, to the joy 
 of the Marxist, a class conflict. The contradictions within a 
 society that compel its overthrow manifest themselves in a strug- 
 gle between economic classes, and every great revolution in his- 
 tory appears as the work of some one class. The issue of the 
 present struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat will be the 
 triumph of the latter, the "dictatorship" (Diktatur} of the 
 proletariat. It is not, however, until the contradictions of the 
 present system have fully developed, not until capitalism has 
 run its course, that the new order can take the place of the old. 
 Hence the need of patience, and all the greater need because 
 there is no ground of hope for any great improvement of the 
 laborer's condition under the present system. In fact it is a 
 question whether, from the Marxian point of view, all attempts 
 to improve the laborer's condition under the existing system 
 ought not to meet the sternest opposition. Such partial reforms, 
 it might be argued, weaken that antagonism within the present 
 order that drives us on to Socialism, and, in attempting to make 
 conditions more tolerable, only prolong the agony and postpone 
 
SOCIALISM in 
 
 the coming of the better order of society. This, apparently, not 
 illogical conclusion has been drawn by some followers of Marx, 
 but, to the leaders of a political party, such consistency is out of 
 question. The laborers' vote is not won by opposing measures 
 giving him some immediate relief, and the social democracy, a 
 laboring man's party, has therefore given a prominent place to 
 reforms in taxation and to factory legislation. 
 
 To the materialistic conception, sketched above, must be joined 
 the theory of value and distribution developed in "Das Kapital" 
 to obtain the complete Marxian creed. This creed is at the basis 
 of the Erfurt program, and may be regarded as more funda- 
 mental and authoritative for the Social Democratic Party than 
 the program itself. To the student of the history of thought it 
 appears scarcely credible that a system so comprehensive as that 
 of Karl Marx could maintain itself for a single generation 
 except as an object of blind devotion. More than half a century, 
 however, has passed since, in a time of political excitement and 
 intensest mental activity, there came to the mind of Marx, in 
 outline the characteristic features of his system. For about 
 forty years he and Friedrich Engels labored to extend and 
 complete it. After the death of Marx in 1883, Engels continued 
 alone the work until death, in 1895, removed him also from his 
 still unfinished task. Whatever Marxism may have been in the 
 minds of these cooperating thinkers, their followers certainly 
 fell into confusion. The chief elements in the thought of Marx 
 can be easily stated; it is the connection between them that 
 presents difficulties. It may be doubted whether Marx himself 
 ever completely unified his thought. His followers certainly have 
 proved unequal to the strain of holding together, in bonds of 
 logic, the scattered ideas found in his works. Marxism as an 
 historical phenomenon, as a general movement of thought and 
 not as the opinions of an individual thinker, has been a group of 
 loosely connected ideas of which first one and then another 
 has been emphasized according to the exigencies of political 
 controversy. 
 
 Increasing the confusion due to the difficulty of interpretation, 
 is the insufficiency of the Marxian system in the face of new 
 knowledge and changed conditions. Material that is now anti- 
 quated was built into it at the beginning. The intellectual atmos- 
 phere has undergone a change. Ricardo and Adam Smith, in 
 the forties and fifties, still exercised such authority that the 
 
ii2 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 labor theory of value could be taken, almost without question, 
 as one of the premises of economic reasoning. Hegelianism 
 had not yet spent its force. Though largely rejected or given 
 a materialistic turn, as by Feuerbach and Marx, it had yet 
 entered so deeply into German thought as to be used uncon- 
 sciously. To the German of the latter years of the nineteenth 
 century it has become unintelligible. Among the younger Marx- 
 ists the dialectic process, with its automatic movement, has 
 been given up in favor of a theory of social evolution based on 
 a conscious class struggle. The Hegelian lingo of Marx and 
 Engels is still piously repeated, but it is little understood. 
 Furthermore, the political atmosphere has changed. Marx's early 
 manhood was spent in the midst of the agitation for constitu- 
 tional reform of the forties, of the revolutionary excitement of 
 1848, and of the gloom that set in with the reaction of the years 
 following '48. There settled into his thought a revolutionary 
 spirit, a hatred of governments that does not appeal to the gen- 
 eration grown up since general manhood suffrage brought gov- 
 ernment under the power of popular opinion. Industrial 
 conditions also have changed, and that sufficiently to suggest a 
 correction of several socialistic tenets. 
 
 Slowly, almost imperceptibly, the faith of the Social Demo- 
 cratic Party has been moving away from the earlier formula- 
 tions. Orthodoxy is breaking down. Of this the declarations 
 made by Eduard Bernstein and his sympathizers give the clearest 
 evidence. There is not much that is altogether new in Bern- 
 stein's writings. Indeed the bitterness of the controversy his 
 views have given rise to within the party is not easily explained. 
 In part the intense interest may be due to the general recog- 
 nition of Bernstein's ability and importance. He has been 
 ranked with Kautsky and Conrad Schmidt among the ablest 
 living leaders of German Socialism, has enjoyed the friendship 
 of Friedrich Engels, has contributed extensively to the Social 
 Democratic press and edited the works of Lassalle, has written 
 scholarly articles on the English labor movement, and has been 
 identified with Marxism for twenty years or more. For a long 
 period he was banished from Germany. These years of exile 
 were spent in London, and probably broadened his views and 
 saved him from a crabbed Marxist orthodoxy. Very recently 
 he has received permission to return to Germany. In the years 
 1896 to 1898 he published in the Neue Zeit, under the title 
 
SOCIALISM 113 
 
 "Probleme des Socialismus," a series of articles criticising cur- 
 rent interpretations of Marxian Socialism. A lively discussion 
 followed in socialistic circles. From what may be called the 
 "Old School Marxists" his views met with sweeping disapproval. 
 One writer, "Parvus," went so far as to remark in the Sachsische 
 Arbeiterzeitung, that these views, if true, would mean the end of 
 Socialism. To bring matters to a head, it appears, Bernstein sent 
 an address to the annual convention of the party held in Stutt- 
 gart, October, 1898. Further controversy followed, leading to 
 the publication of Bernstein's "Voraussetzungen des Socialis- 
 mus," in the spring of 1899. Articles for and against his views 
 then appeared in rapid succession in the Neue Zeit and in the 
 Socialistische Monatshefte. Most conspicuous among the de- 
 fenders of old school Marxism is Karl Kautsky, whose little 
 book, "Bernstein u. das Sozial Demokratische Programm," 1899, 
 was published with the avowed hope of disposing of the annoy- 
 ing subject of Bernsteinism, and may be regarded as the ablest 
 recent exposition and defense of the views attacked by Bern- 
 stein. In a collection entitled "Zur Geschichte u. Theorie des 
 Socialismus," Bernstein has republished some articles in reply to 
 attacks on his "Voraussetzungen." The latter work with some of 
 the controversial papers in "Zur Geschichte u. Theorie des 
 Socialismus," may be taken as the ripest expression of his 
 thought, and will be made the basis of the summary of his views 
 to be given below. 
 
 The question, Is Bernstein a Marxist? will puzzle the reader 
 of his works. In his departure from current interpretations of 
 the faith he often appears anxious to lean on the authority of 
 Marx and Engels. On other occasions he flatly contradicts 
 Marx himself. He distinguishes between pure and applied 
 theory. The former, consisting of propositions of general valid- 
 ity, constitutes the relatively permanent portions of a science. 
 The latter, made up of applications of the general theory of a 
 practical and detailed nature, is more subject to change. The 
 pure theory of Marxism includes the materialistic philosophy of 
 history (and implied in this the doctrine of class conflict), 
 the theory of surplus value and of the tendencies of present 
 industrial society. This careful distinction between pure and 
 applied, permanent and variable, lead to the expectation that 
 Bernstein, the old Marxist, would direct destructive criticism 
 against the applied theory only. The pure theory of Marxism, 
 
ii4 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 however, receives corrections that amount to an abandonment of 
 some of its fundamental propositions. 
 
 It will be convenient to begin the summary of Bernstein's 
 views with the more theoretical portions of Marxism, taking up 
 first the theory of value and surplus value. His discussion ot 
 this subject constitutes one of the least important and least satis- 
 factory chapters in the "Voraussetzungen." It shows keen 
 thought, but reaches no very definite conclusions. In the third 
 volume of "Das Kapital," published in 1894, Marx declared mar- 
 ket value equal to cost of production, the average rate of profit 
 being one of the elements of cost. He appeared thus to have sur- 
 rendered the labor theory of value upon which the reasoning of 
 the first two volumes was based, and which had become an article 
 of faith to his followers. The third volume brought confusion 
 into the Marxist camp as regards the theory of value, and Bern- 
 stein's skeptical attitude toward the Marxian treatment of this 
 problem is not, therefore, especially significant. If commodities 
 exchange in proportion to the cost of production what becomes 
 of the view that the exchange takes place in proportion to the 
 average, socially necessary labor time devoted to their production? 
 Is the old labor theory of value to be regarded as a description of 
 conditions existing prior to, or at the beginning of, the modern 
 capitalistic period and projecting their influence into the period? 
 This view, suggested in the third volume of "Das Kapital," and 
 later amplified and defended by Engels in an article in the Neue 
 Zeit, Bernstein rejects. Or is the labor theory to be taken as a 
 mere device of thought, a means of analysis and illustration 
 employed to show the operation of exploitation and the rise of 
 surplus value? The labor time used in the production of the 
 total of commodities gives according to Marx's third volume, 
 their social value? The excess of the total product over total 
 wages gives us total social surplus. Marx, in assuming that a given 
 commodity sells in proportion to its labor value, uses the given 
 single instance to picture what takes place in production as a 
 whole and viewed collectively. So Bernstein interprets Marx, 
 but admits that this surreptitious introduction of the concept of 
 collective social production into the discussion of the existing 
 system is rather arbitrary. The theory of labor value, he further 
 states, is misleading in that it tempts us to take labor value as a 
 measure of the exploitation of the laborer by the capitalist. It 
 does not give a correct measure, even if we take society as a 
 
SOCIALISM 115 
 
 whole and place over against total wages the total of the other 
 forms of income. The theory also gives no measure of the jus- 
 tice or injustice of distribution. In taking justice into considera- 
 tion Bernstein departs widely from the Marxian point of view. 
 Marx held that the laborer does not receive the entire product 
 of his labor, that he is being robbed. His Socialism, however, 
 was not a demand, made in the name of justice, but a forecast 
 of the course of evolution. 
 
 In this chapter on the theory of value, it appears that Bern- 
 stein has knowledge of the Austrian theory of value and finds 
 some truth in it. His attitude towards it aroused the ire of Karl 
 Kautsky and perhaps not without reason. If the Austrian theory, 
 through the attention called to it by Bernstein, gains adherents 
 among Socialists, it may go hard with the Marxian views of 
 value and distribution. Bernstein, it may be remarked in this 
 connection, unlike most Socialists, is not unwilling to learn from 
 the "bourgeois" economists and shows acquaintance with their 
 works. 
 
 Before the appearance of the third volume of "Das Kapital," 
 a large part of economic literature conveyed the impression that 
 the theory of surplus value was the essential element of Marx- 
 ism. Since its appearance, and the confusion it has wrought in 
 the views of German Socialists on value, discussion is turning 
 more about the materialistic conception of history, and this is 
 regarded as par excellence Marx's contribution to Socialistic 
 thought. None will deny, says Bernstein, that the most funda- 
 mental part of Marxism is its theory of history. With it the 
 whole system stands or falls. To the extent that it is subjected 
 to limitations all remaining portions are affected. Now the 
 question as to the truth of the materialistic conception of history, 
 he continues, is the question of the degree of historical necessity. 
 According to materialism everything is the result of necessary 
 movements of matter, everything is determined and a link in the 
 chain of causation. The materialist is a Calvinist without God. 
 Applied to history, materialism means the affirmation of the 
 necessity of all history. The only question the materialist need 
 consider is through what channels necessity takes its course, 
 what part must be assigned to nature, what to economic factors, 
 to legal institutions, or to man's ideas. Marx considers the 
 productive forces and organization {die materiellen Produktiv- 
 kr'dfte u. Produktionsverhaltnisse} the determining factor. 
 
ii6 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 Engels, however, states that productive forces are only the final 
 cause. The mental life also is a cause. "The political, legal, 
 philosophic, religious, literary and artistic lines of develop- 
 ment rest on the economic. But they all react on one 
 another and on the economic" (Letter of Engels in Sozial- 
 istischer Akademiker, October, 1895). The question at issue 
 is to what extent non-economic factors control history. 
 The economic are on the whole predominant, in Bernstein's 
 opinion, but mental forces are controlling life to an increasing 
 extent. As their power increases a change takes place in the 
 sway of so-called historic necessity. On the one hand we have 
 an increasing insight into the laws of development, and especially 
 of economic development, and on the other, a resulting growth 
 of ability to direct and control this development. Society has 
 greater freedom theoretically with reference to economic factors 
 than at any time before, and it is only a conflict of interests that 
 prevents the practical realization of this theoretic freedom. How- 
 ever, the common, as opposed to private, interests, are gaining 
 ground and, to that extent, economic forces cease to be elemental 
 powers. Their development is anticipated and, therefore, takes 
 place more readily and rapidly. Individuals and nations are 
 thus withdrawing an ever greater proportion of their life from 
 the influence of a necessity acting without or against their voli- 
 tion. Necessity is less absolute. This view of history, which he 
 regards as the developed form of Marx's thought, Bernstein 
 names economic conception, in preference to materialistic con- 
 ception. The Marxian theory of history, unlike philosophical 
 materialism, he claims, does not involve determinism. It does 
 not attribute to economic factors absolute power. 
 
 This view of Bernstein seems to rest on a misconception of 
 the Marxian system of thought. Marx certainly was a deter- 
 minist and Engels, while admitting that the economic factor is 
 only final cause, did not intend to represent it as one of 
 several coordinate causes, nor to deny necessity in the action of 
 forces other than the economic. Bernstein in his "Vorausset- 
 zungen" looks at the immediate causes of historical phenomena 
 only. These may indeed be predominantly mental or ideal 
 rather than economic. Behind these, however, according to 
 consistent Marxism, lie others, reaching back to the fundamental 
 cause, the economic factor, the productive process. By lengthen- 
 ing the process of causation, by inserting mental forces in the 
 
SOCIALISM 117 
 
 chain that extends from the economic condition up to given 
 historical phenomena, we do not diminish the "degree of neces- 
 sity." The inserted mental forces themselves are determined. 
 They are a part, not an interruption, of the chain of causation. 
 It may be questioned, too, whether it is possible to conceive of 
 degrees of necessity. In philosophy, Bernstein is clearly not a 
 disciple of Marx. It may be stated, however, that he evades or 
 overlooks the philosophic question, the problem of the ultimate 
 principle. He is, in fact, not preeminently a philosopher. The 
 fundamental issue between mental and economic forces, in the 
 Marxian view of history, is not their relative weight as imme- 
 diate causes of historical events, but the question of priority in 
 the evolution of life. From the beginning of human life they 
 have acted and developed side by side. The question, therefore, 
 is one of the origin and nature of mind. This problem of origin, 
 however, is not one that Marxists have generally recognized as 
 the fundamental one. Marx did not complete his system, and 
 Engels only partially worked out a philosophic theory. Woltmann 
 appears to be the only recent Social Democratic writer who gives 
 evidence of philosophical training and has attacked the funda- 
 mental problem. Claiming that Marx, the philosopher, is as 
 great if not greater than Marx the economist, he aims to show 
 what is necessary to the completion of his system. 
 
 In the confusion prevailing among the professed followers of 
 Marx and in the mind of Bernstein, it is difficult to state pre- 
 cisely how widely the latter has diverged from the true Marxists 
 in the field of philosophy. It is noteworthy, however, that he 
 assigns greater .importance to ethical ideals as forces in the 
 Socialistic movement than has been customary among German 
 Socialists. He appeals to justice. He urges the need of a moral 
 elevation of the proletariat. His teachings, if they prevailed, 
 would give a tone to Social Democratic agitation very different 
 from that which it has received from Marx's almost contemp- 
 tuous attitude towards ethical considerations. Bernstein's ethical 
 idealism may rest on feeling rather than on a well-reasoned 
 philosophy, or he may have found his way unconsciously into 
 the current of a new philosophic movement. To place the bases 
 of Marxism in the crucible of criticism, or to evolve new sys- 
 tems of thought will be the task of others who are better fitted, 
 but whatever faith one may have in the mission of the philoso- 
 pher and in the compelling power of logic, a man like Bernstein 
 
 10 
 
ii8 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 is certain to exert a more immediate and obvious influence on a 
 political movement than a more profound and less popular 
 thinker. Bernstein's idealistic tendencies, therefore, may yet 
 prove to be of the greatest significance. 
 
 Passing now to problems of the less general and theoretic 
 nature, the Marxian diagnosis of modern industrial tendencies 
 with its affirmation of an irresistible movement toward Socialism 
 may be taken up first. According to Marx, Engels and the 
 Erfurt program, capitalism is doomed because capital, the means 
 of appropriating the product of society, is falling into the hands 
 of an ever smaller number of great capitalists, while the con- 
 centration of industry is effecting the organization of the 
 constantly growing proportion of rebellious humanity that con- 
 stitutes the proletariat. This Bernstein designates the theory o'f 
 collapse, die Zusammenbruchstheorie. It implies that the middle 
 classes are disappearing, the rich diminishing, and the poor 
 growing in number. Closely related to it is the so-called Vere- 
 lendungstheorie, the pauperization theory, which holds that the 
 masses are sinking into ever deeper poverty. Bernstein's argu- 
 ment controverting the Zusammenbruchstheorie has proved 
 especially unpalatable to the "old school." He argues first that 
 capital is not falling into the hands of a diminishing number of 
 capitalists. The corporate organization of production makes 
 possible a wide diffusion of capital in the shape of stock and 
 bonds. Immense wealth in the ownership of a few capitalists is 
 not necessary for the construction of large business units. Capi- 
 tal can be concentrated by bringing together the holdings of a 
 large number of small stockholders. Control over, not owner- 
 ship of, large capital is necessary to the captains of industry. 
 Statistical data are incomplete, but show that the securities of 
 the great "trusts" of today are scattered among a very consider- 
 able number of holders. More complete evidence that the prop- 
 ertied classes are not diminishing in number can be obtained 
 from income tax statistics. Not only are the propertied classes 
 not diminishing, Bernstein concludes, but they are increasing 
 both absolutely and relatively. 
 
 The same conclusion can be reached deductively. Modern 
 methods of production have brought about an immense increase 
 in the per capita product. It is not possible for a few capitalists 
 and their families to consume all of this increase. Its con- 
 sumption can be accounted for only on the assumption that it 
 
SOCIALISM 119 
 
 goes either to the proletariat or to the middle classes. It is the 
 latter that in Bernstein's opinion are receiving a larger share of 
 the social dividend. If the proletariat, beguiled by Marxian 
 predictions, expect to wait until the great capitalists have ruined 
 the lesser ones before it expropriates the entire capitalist class, 
 it must content itself to wait an indefinitely long time. But, 
 says Bernstein, it is time to abandon the superstition that the 
 realization of Socialism depends on the concentration of capital 
 in the ownership of a few. Whether the social surplus is appro- 
 priated by ten thousand monopolists, or is distributed in vari- 
 ous amounts among half a million, is a matter of indifference 
 to the great majority, the nine or ten million families who lose 
 by the transaction. 
 
 The attack on the theory of collapse is continued by statistical 
 evidence to show that industry is not becoming consolidated in 
 large concerns at a very rapid rate. Although in an increasing 
 number of industries production on a large scale is displacing 
 the small producer, there is a considerable number of industries 
 in which production on a small or medium scale is holding its 
 own. Not all industries develop in the same manner, not all 
 are destined soon to become centralized in a few immense 
 organizations. Manufactures and commerce show a less rapid 
 centralization than socialistic theorists have assumed. In agri- 
 culture in Europe, and in part in America, there is a movement 
 directly counter to socialistic predictions. Large farms are de- 
 creasing in number, small and middle sized farms are increas- 
 ing. It is not true, therefore, that a rapid centralization of 
 production is gathering together as a wretched proletariat the 
 great mass of humanity, organizing men as producers in large 
 workshops and on large farms and making the expropriation of 
 a small group of capitalists antl the collective management of 
 the highly centralized economic system an easy and inevitable 
 matter. 
 
 Somewhat vague expectations of a collapse of capitalism are, 
 in the minds of German Socialists, associated with industrial 
 crises. These hasten the ruin of the small capitalist and the 
 disappearance of the middle class. They are regarded as 
 ominous indications of the impossibility of capitalism, of its 
 inability to control its own productive forces. "The contradic- 
 tion inherent in the movements of capitalist society," wrote 
 Marx in 1873, "impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois 
 
120 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle through 
 which modern industry runs and whose crowning point is the 
 universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although 
 it is but yet in its preliminary stage." The extension of the 
 world's market, Socialists are disposed to hold, merely increases 
 the scope and intensity of the contradictions of capitalism. 
 Engels states in one place that improved methods of transpor- 
 tation and the extension of the field open to investment of the 
 excess of European capital have weakened the tendencies toward 
 a crisis, but later remarks that all factors striving to prevent a 
 repetition of former experiences are merely preparatory to a 
 greater crash. The time between crises has lengthened, but the 
 delay of the next crisis indicates the coming of a universal crash 
 of unparalleled violence. Another possibility, however, admitted 
 by Engels, is that the periodic appearance of acute distress will 
 give way to a more chronic trouble, short periods of slight 
 improvement in business being followed by long, indecisive 
 periods of depression. In the years that have elapsed since 
 Engels wrote, his expectations have not been fulfilled. There 
 are no indications, remarks Bernstein, of a great catastrophe, 
 nor can business prosperity be characterized as especially short- 
 lived. There is a third possibility. The extension of the market, 
 the increasing facility of transportation and communication, may 
 equalize or diffuse disturbances, while the increased wealth of 
 industrial countries, the greater elasticity of credit, and the action 
 of trusts may diminish the action of local and special disturb- 
 ances on the general course of industry. General crises in that 
 case need not be expected for years to come. Reckless specu- 
 lation is less certain to make trouble now than in the past. 
 Speculation is determined by the proportion of knowable to 
 unknowable factors. It is most dangerously active when l.he 
 unknown plays a large part, as at the beginning of the capital- 
 istic era, in new countries, and in new industries. The older 
 the use of modern methods in any industry the weaker is the 
 speculative element. The movements of the market are better 
 known, its changes more accurately estimated. Of course, com- 
 petition and the possible appearance of inventions preclude an 
 absolute control of the market, and, in some degree, overpro- 
 duction is inevitable. Overproduction in a few industries is, 
 however, not synonymous with general crisis. To lead to a 
 general crisis the industries immediately affected must be such 
 
SOCIALISM 121 
 
 large consumers of the products of other industries that their 
 suspension causes a widespread stoppage, or the effect on the 
 money market must be such as to result in a general paralysis 
 of business. It stands to reason, however, that the greater the 
 wealth of a country and the stronger its organization of credit, 
 the less is the likelihood of disturbances in a few industries 
 bringing about a general crisis. Bernstein concludes in regard to 
 the possibility of avoiding crises that the problem cannot be 
 solved at present. We can only point to what forces tend toward 
 a breakdown, and what forces tend to prevent it. What the 
 resultant will be we do not know. Local and partial depressions 
 are inevitable. Unforeseen external factors, such as wars or an 
 unusually widespread failure of crops, may cause a universal 
 industrial crisis, but, aside from such possibilities, there is no 
 conclusive reason for expecting a general stoppage of the world's 
 industry. Socialists need base no hopes upon a universal crash. 
 A condition precedent to the accomplishment of Socialism, 
 according to German Socialists, is the crushing out of the small 
 manufacturer and farmer and the centralization of industry. 
 This is to be the mission of capitalism. Capitalists, in short, are 
 to organize production and then to be turned out by the prole- 
 tariat. The latter is to gain control of the government while 
 the work of the capitalistic consolidation is still proceeding. As, 
 however, the centralization of production is taking place rather 
 slowly, Bernstein argues, it will be a long time ere the govern- 
 ment can undertake the management of all industry. It could 
 not deal with the enormous number of small and middle-sized 
 producing concerns. The proletarian state would, therefore, be 
 obliged to leave their management in the hands of their present 
 capitalist owners, or, if it insisted on turning these out, to 
 entrust all productive concerns to cooperative organizations of 
 laborers. It is mainly through the gradual extension of co- 
 operations, not through the assumption of direct control of all 
 production by a central political power, that Bernstein expects 
 to see the Socialist's ideal fulfilled. In this he departs widely 
 from Marx and the old-school Social Democrats. If Socialism 
 is to be the work of the cooperative movement it will be long 
 in coming. Productive cooperation, Bernstein points out in an 
 especially interesting chapter, has made but slow progress. Dis- 
 tributive cooperation has been successful. Socialists have not 
 generally been very eager advocates of such organizations of 
 
122 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 buyers. Bernstein, however, holds that their work is well worth 
 doing. They serve to retain in the hands of the laboring class a 
 considerable portion of the social dividend that otherwise would 
 be diverted to the middleman's profit and would thus strengthen 
 the position of the propertied classes. The large profits gained 
 by such organizations in England show that the Socialistic doc- 
 trine that the laborer is exploited as producer rather than as 
 consumer must suffer considerable limitation. Productive co- 
 operation has achieved less. The larger concerns that tried it 
 usually failed to secure able leadership and discipline among the 
 workers. Democracy in the workshop is a failure when the 
 scale of operation is large. The idea that the modern factory 
 trains the laborer for cooperative work is erroneous. The most 
 successful cooperative producing concerns are those that are 
 financed by some trades union or some organization of consum- 
 ers and thus are producing, not primarily for the profit of their 
 own employees, but for some larger body, of which their em- 
 ployees are, or may become, members. It is by such combination, 
 with distributive cooperation, that productive cooperation may 
 yet prove its feasibility. It has a future, but necessarily its 
 development will be slow. In agriculture the problem of making 
 the laborers capitalists and of organizing them as a democracy 
 of cooperating producers is especially difficult, and yet it is a 
 problem the Social Democratic Party cannot afford to neglect. 
 
 The first condition upon which, in the Marxian program, the 
 realization of collectivism depends is the centralization of indus- 
 try. A second condition is the seizure of the supreme political 
 power by the proletariat. This step may be taken by legal means 
 or by violence. Marx and Engels, until late in life, were disposed 
 to think that some violent measures would be necessary. There 
 are Socialists who are still of this opinion. Violence is, at least, 
 often declared to do quicker work. The thought that the labor- 
 ing class is numerically the strongest easily suggests that it can 
 force itself into power and at once effect a radical change. 
 Those who derive no income from property or privilege con- 
 stitute indeed the majority in all advanced countries, but this 
 "proletariat," Bernstein points out, consists of very diverse ele- 
 ments. They may, under the existing system, have common or 
 similar interests, but, if the present propertied and ruling classes 
 were once deposed, differences in interests would soon appear. 
 The modern wage-earners are not the homogeneous mass sug- 
 
SOCIALISM 123 
 
 gested by Marxian phraseology. In the most advanced industrial 
 centers especially there exists the greatest differentiation. Diver- 
 sity of occupation and income result in diversity of character. 
 Even if the industrial workers were not thus broken up into 
 groups of differing interests, there are other dissimilar classes, 
 such as public officials, commercial employees and agricultural 
 laborers. The employees of factories and house industries con- 
 stitute in Germany less than half of those engaged in earning 
 a livelihood. The remaining classes include the greatest social 
 contrasts. In the rural districts there is no evidence of a class 
 consciousness or of a class struggle such as that waged by the 
 organized factory laborer with his capitalist employer. To the 
 majority of agricultural laborers socialization of production can 
 be little more than an unmeaning phrase. Their cherished hope 
 is to become landowners. Even among factory workers the 
 desire for collectivism is not universal. There has been a steady 
 increase of votes cast for the Social Democratic party, but not 
 all of these voters are Socialists. In Germany, the country in 
 which the party has made its greatest advance, Social Democratic 
 voters number somewhat less than half of the industrial workers. 
 Over one-half, therefore, of this class are indifferent or hostile 
 to Socialism. It is still a far cry to the day predicted by Marx 
 and Engels when a united proletariat, conscious of its mission, 
 deposes the few capitalists still remaining, and inaugurates an 
 era in which there shall be no classes and no class wars. 
 
 To exercise the hoped for "dictatorship," the proletariat, 
 Bernstein holds, is not yet sufficiently matured. Unless work- 
 ingmen themselves have developed strong economic organiza- 
 tions, and through training in self-governing bodies have attained 
 a high degree of self-reliance, the rule of the proletariat would 
 be the rule of petty orators and litterateurs. There is a cant in 
 regard to the virtues and possibilities of the laborer against 
 which Bernstein earnestly protests. Socialistic hackwriters and 
 demagogues have given a thoroughly false picture of the class. 
 The working-man is neither the pauperized wretch some Social- 
 istic phrases depict, nor, on the other hand, is he completely free 
 from prejudices and foibles. He has the virtues and vices inci- 
 dent to his economic and social position. These cannot change 
 in a day. The most sweeping evolution can raise the general 
 level of a nation only a little. Economic conditions enter into 
 consideration. Engels confesses that not until what would 
 
124 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 today be considered a very high development of productive 
 capacity has been reached, can the total product be so large that 
 the abolition of classes would not result disastrously. Mean- 
 while, Bernstein urges, the proletarian needs to cherish the 
 homely virtues of thrift and industry. The cheap contempt for 
 what they style "the bourgeois virtues" affected by Socialist lit- 
 terateurs is fortunately not entertained by the leaders of the 
 trades union and cooperative movement. For these organizations 
 the shiftless, homeless proletarian is poor material. It is not 
 surprising that in England so many labor leaders, whether Social- 
 ists or not, favor the temperance movement. Everything tend- 
 ing to confuse the moral sense of the worker is an injury to the 
 cause of labor. It is deplorable, therefore, that part of the labor 
 press affects the tone of the literary decadents. A class that is 
 striving to rise needs a vigorous morality, not cynicism. The 
 proletariat needs an ideal. The view that material factors are 
 omnipotent, that they alone can lead to a better social order, is 
 false. 
 
 Democracy is both means and end of the Socialistic move- 
 ment industrial democracy in the trades union and cooperative 
 movement, and political democracy, through legislation, aiming 
 to realize the same ideals. Democracy, Bernstein states, implies 
 the absence of class oppression. It is not the tyranny of the 
 proletariat mob over other classes. The fears of its revolu- 
 tionary tendencies felt by conservatives prove to be groundless 
 as democracy develops. It is only at the beginning of democratic 
 movements that conservatives are chilled and radicals cheered by 
 visions of blood and flame. The majority will not oppress the 
 minority, because the majority of today may be the minority of 
 tomorrow. Nor can democracy perform miracles of rapid 
 reform. Kings and ministers of state have often moved faster 
 than the governments of the most democratic countries. The 
 latter have the advantage of not being subject to reaction. They 
 go steadily, though often very slowly, forward in the direction of 
 the ideal. Much already has been accomplished. The material 
 condition of the laboring class has been improved. Exploita- 
 tion on the part of the capitalist is being checked. Class privi- 
 leges are being abolished. The proletarian is made a citizen and 
 gradually raised to the level of the bourgeois. There is a great 
 movement that is reconstructing society and realizing Socialistic 
 ideals as they become practicable. This movement, in Bernstein's 
 
SOCIALISM 125 
 
 mind, ought to be the chief care of the Socialist. The collec- 
 tivist goal is in comparison a matter of indifference. 
 
 The Social Democratic party ought not needlessly to antag- 
 onize classes other than the proletariat. The opposition of these 
 classes would delay the achievement of that political democracy 
 that must precede the realization of social democracy. Germany 
 is not yet democratic in the political sense. Some Socialists 
 would object that German institutions cannot be reformed except 
 through violence, inasmuch as the German bourgeoisie is grow- 
 ing more reactionary. For the time being this may be the case, 
 although there are many facts pointing to the contrary view. It 
 cannot long continue to be true. What is called the bourgeoisie 
 is of a composite character. Its diverse elements can be fused 
 into a reactionary mass only through their fear of social democ- 
 racy as their common enemy. Some bourgeois behold in the 
 Socialistic party a menace to their material welfare, others an 
 enemy to religion, other still oppose it on patriotic grounds as 
 the party of revolution. Such fears ought not to exist. The 
 leaders of the Social Democracy ought to make it plain that it 
 does not menace all and that it has no fondness for violent 
 measures. Many of the bourgeoisie feel an economic pressure 
 that might lead them to make common cause with the .working 
 class, but they are repelled by violent utterances. 
 
 Let the Social Democratic Party, Bernstein urges, appear in 
 its true colors as a party of socialistic reform. Let it discard 
 its revolutionary phraseology. Let it be consistent. Its efforts 
 for immediate and partial reforms are not consistent with the 
 expectation of a great smashing of the present industrial order. 
 Socialism will not come all in a moment amidst scenes of horror. 
 There will be no sudden rising of enslaved masses against a 
 handful of capitalist tyrants. If such were in truth to be the 
 coming of Socialism, it would be folly for the party not to 
 promote in every way the accumulation of capital and power in 
 the hands of the few instead of proposing the exact reverse, as 
 it does, for example, in its policy regarding taxation. Socialism, 
 however, will be attained gradually; its blessings will not be 
 withheld from mankind until the great day of wrath of the 
 proletariat. Whatever its cant may indicate, the party is today 
 a party of reform, not of revolution. Recent occurrences prove 
 this. Bebel, one of the old school, with reference to recent 
 anarchistic plots, protested earnestly against the idea that the 
 
126 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 party approved of violence. All the party papers quoted approv- 
 ingly. Not one dissented. Kautsky^ also of the old school, 
 makes suggestions, in his work on the agrarian question, that 
 are entirely in the direction of democratic reforms. The muni- 
 cipal program adopted by Social Democrats at Brandenburg is 
 one of democratic reform. The representatives of the party in 
 the Reichstag have expressed themselves in favor of boards of 
 arbitration as a means of securing industrial peace. In Stutt- 
 gart Social Democrats joined with a bourgeois democratic group 
 to form a fusion ticket. In other towns in Wiirttemberg their 
 example has been followed. Socialistic trades unions are advo- 
 cating the establishment of municipal employment bureaus repre- 
 senting employer and employee. In several cities, Hamburg and 
 Elberfeld for instance, Socialists and trades unionists have 
 formed societies for cooperative distribution. Everywhere it is a 
 movement for reform, for democracy, for social progress. 
 
 Bernstein is opposed to the anti-national attitude of his party. 
 The oft-quoted statement of the "Communistic Manifesto" that 
 the proletarian has no fatherland he declares to be false. It 
 may have been true of the proletarian of the forties who was 
 without political rights, it is not true of the working man of 
 today. There are national interests, the importance of which, in 
 his enthusiasm for a cosmopolitan labor movement, the Socialist 
 should not disregard. If the Social Democratic Party gets into 
 power it will need a foreign policy. The party rightly objects 
 to the irresponsibility of the executive in foreign affairs. It is 
 in favor of international arbitration ; but it ought not to sacrifice 
 national interests. Germany, for instance, has interests in China 
 and should be in a position to defend them. In an article in 
 the Sozialistische Montashefte, it may be added, Bernstein gives 
 a qualified approval to a policy of expansion, even conceding 
 under certain circumstances a right of conquest. 
 
 From the above summary of Bernstein's views it appears 
 that he is not an orthodox Marxist. He is still a Socialist and, 
 in a sense, a believer in the class conflict, although hoping that 
 in the future this conflict will be waged with less bitterness and 
 always by legal means. He cannot be called the originator of 
 an entirely new movement within the Social Democratic Party. 
 In rejecting the materialism he was preceded by Konrad Schmidt 
 (in Sozialistischer Akademiker, 1896), the first apparently 
 among German Marxists to urge a return to a Kantian stand- 
 
SOCIALISM 127 
 
 point in philosophy, a movement that now has a respectable 
 following among German Socialists. The pauperization theory 
 received severe criticism from Bruno Schonlank a few years 
 ago, and seems at best to have had only a weak hold on the 
 better informed members of the party. In his protests against 
 violence Bernstein has many predecessors, among them Engels 
 and, in a degree, Marx himself. That agriculture was not fully 
 bearing out Marxian predictions in regard to centralization of 
 production, and that special tactics were necessary in agitating 
 for Socialism in the rural districts, had not altogether escaped 
 the notice of the party leaders. In urging a conciliatory policy 
 towards classes other than the proletariat and towards other 
 political parties, Bernstein had the example of Georg von Voll- 
 mar, leader of the Bavarian Socialists. In fact, the "compro- 
 mise" or "opportunist" policy, the policy of temporary coalitions 
 with other parties, has of late been seriously agitated in the 
 leading countries of the continent. It is of course bitterly op- 
 posed by the grim, old agitators of the class conflict. In Bel- 
 gium, however, Socialists have combined with Liberals against 
 Clericals ; in France the Socialist Millerand is a member of the 
 cabinet under a "bourgeois" government ; in Austria Social Dem- 
 ocrats and Liberals have together been trying to hold back 
 Christian Social Conservatives, and in Bavaria Social Democrats 
 have combined with the Catholic party against so-called Liberals. 
 A change is taking place in the attitude of European Socialists. 
 Socialistic parties are no longer so exclusively the champions 
 of the proletariat, nor the irreconcilable enemies of other classes 
 and parties. Meanwhile misgivings in regard to doctrinal mat- 
 ters are appearing even among the Marx-ridden Socialists of 
 Germany, and almost every tenet of the Social Democratic faith 
 has suffered some limitation. 
 
 Why then did Bernstein's calm and scholarly articles call 
 forth such bitter attacks? His only important addition to the 
 heresies troubling the "old" school was the demonstration of the 
 persistence of the middle class. In this there was nothing new, 
 of course, to the bourgeois economists. To Marxists it was 
 perhaps a disagreeable novelty. The bitterness of the contro- 
 versy arouses the suspicion that personal rivalries among leaders 
 and would-be leaders have envenomed the discussion. Much 
 also may be due to the fact that Marxism is to many a religion, 
 an object of faith, in whose defense they will fight. Bernstein 
 
128 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 representing the scientific, critical spirit, naturally arouses their 
 anger. The controversy grows out of differences of tempera- 
 ment. The two schools, the old and the new, the grim, old 
 irreconcilables, Kautsky, Liebknecht, Bebel, on the one hand, and 
 the more modern and practical Bernstein, Vollmer, David, Heine, 
 Auer, and Schippel on the other, are affected differently by 
 current political and industrial events. The Kaiser's speeches 
 and the blunders of the government are enough to keep an 
 irascible nature like Kautsky's stirred to constant fury against 
 government and bourgeoisie. At the time the controversy arose 
 the government's ill-advised attempts to secure Draconian legis- 
 lation against criticism of religion, monarchy, the family and 
 private property, was still being discussed. Kautsky sees in such 
 attempts proof of the incurably reactionary character of the 
 present government and ruling classes. Bernstein regards them 
 as merely a passing phase, a bubble floating on the great current 
 setting towards democracy. Kautsky cannot reconcile himself 
 to the admission into the Social Democratic Party of elements 
 other than the proletarian. Writing in the Neue Zeit, just 
 before the party convention of 1899, he pointed to two tendencies 
 within the party, the proletarian and the democratic. The ap- 
 proaching convention, he maintained, would have to choose be- 
 tween them. If the democratic tendency for which Bernstein 
 stood prevailed, the proletariat, although still occupying the 
 leading position, would not be carrying out an independent class 
 policy, and a split would soon appear in the party. At about 
 the same time, an article by Bernstein appeared in the Vorwarts, 
 in which he proposed to change the clause in the Erfurt pro- 
 program stating that Socialism can be brought about only by the 
 proletariat (kann nur das Werk der Arbeiterklasse sein) to 
 must be mainly the task of the proletariat (muss in erster Lime, 
 etc.). 
 
 The question to which Kautsky expected a definite answer 
 at the convention received but an ambiguous reply. Resolutions 
 brought in by Bebel, adopted by the convention, and subscribed 
 by Bernstein and his followers, permit coalitions with other 
 political parties on special occasions. They also declare that the 
 party maintains a neutral attitude towards the cooperative move- 
 ment, but attributes no great importance to it. These are con- 
 cessions to the Bernstein wing. This group desired more, no 
 doubt, but, in any case, the resolutions are as far removed from 
 
SOCIALISM 129 
 
 Marxism as from Bernsteinism. Bebel declared himself pleased 
 that by subscribing to the resolutions the erring Bernstein had 
 returned to the fold. That the old fears of the party, however, 
 had yielded somewhat to the new movement is revealed by the 
 action of a few extreme Marxists who refused their assent to 
 the resolutions. 
 
 Recent events and present tendencies give some ground for 
 the expectation that Social Democracy on the continent will 
 become a democratic rather than a purely proletarian movement. 
 If such proves to be the case, if the party no longer represents 
 one class, it must become moderate and lay less stress on class 
 war. Then, perhaps, as some have suggested, the most bitter 
 outbreaks of class conflict will take place, not in the political 
 arena, but in the struggle between trades union and employer. 
 With strong social reform parties representing the common 
 people in local and national politics, and with vigorous trades 
 unions and cooperative societies, the social movement on the 
 continent may come to resemble more closely than before that 
 of the great English-speaking democracies. In any case, the 
 practical tone of English Socialists, of the French possibilists, 
 and the Bernstein wing of the German Social Democracy, indi- 
 cates that the best talent in the service of the Socialistic cause 
 today is opposed to violence and to class hatred, and is 
 comparatively moderate in its expectations and methods. 
 
 Arena. 24: 129-144. August, 1900 
 
 Natural Selection, Competition, and Socialism. 
 
 Herman Whitaker 
 
 Of late years a decided change has taken place in the nature 
 of the criticisms directed against the Socialist philosophy. The 
 objections now being brought forward are mainly biological. 
 The change is partly due to the prowess displayed by the Social- 
 ist economists in defense of their theories, and partly to their 
 unanswerable criticisms of the existing social order. Their 
 antagonists have been compelled to adopt a new line of attack. 
 The battle has been shifted from the field of economics to that 
 of biology. The brief for the defense has been handed over to 
 the biologist. 
 
I 3 o SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 Whatever judgment current opinion may pass upon the 
 Socialist philosophy as a whole, it must certainly be admitted 
 that in the field of pure economics the Socialists have more than 
 held their own. And this might have been expected. Political 
 economy is the science of human affairs ; it treats of the pro- 
 duction and distribution of wealth, states the economic laws that 
 govern the production and exchange of commodities, and tries 
 to reduce the business of society to an orderly basis. Just as the 
 careful housewife adjusts her expenditures to her income, so the 
 economist endeavors to influence legislation to like ends. The 
 orthodox political economist is, therefore, essaying the impossible. 
 He is trying to build up an orderly synthesis from a disorderly 
 aggregation of objects; and, as a correct line of reasoning de- 
 pends upon the establishment of an exact correspondence be- 
 tween thought and things, his efforts must necessarily prove 
 futile. The systems of production and distribution must first be 
 brought into harmonious arrangement before a true science of 
 political economy can obtain. 
 
 The Socialist economists, on the other hand, have made a 
 complete analysis of the present system. In their investigations 
 of the nature of value they laid hold of the only property pos- 
 sessed by a commodity that could, under a reasonable system, 
 serve as a measure of value. .Starting with the fundamental 
 proposition that labor creates all exchange value, they have 
 elaborated a logical science of political economy. It is therefore 
 not at all surprising to see the orthodox economists retiring from 
 a contest in which they must necessarily be worsted. 
 
 Perhaps, in the present state of our knowledge, a complete 
 answer to the biological objections to Socialism cannot be given. 
 Experiment alone is capable of furnishing the final answer. 
 There is, however, a provisional answer which can cover all but 
 the theoretical objection. The argument of the biological critics, 
 briefly stated, is as follows : The Socialist philosophy though 
 apparently logical and consistent when judged from an eco- 
 nomic standpoint, is in contradiction to the laws of life. Its 
 exponents are fruitlessly contending against a law of nature; 
 they are founding their social structures on beds of sand. Man 
 reached his preeminent position in the animal kingdom, the 
 biologist argues, by reason of his cunning, his ferocity, and_his 
 imitativeness. In the struggle for the existence, these qualities 
 which he shares in common with the tiger and the ape have 
 
SOCIALISM 131 
 
 served him well; they have made him the superb animal he is. 
 His prehensile thumb, his curiosity, the ferocity with which he 
 resents injury, his sociability, and his wonderful capacity for 
 seizing anything that will help him in the struggle for existence 
 have secured his primacy and made him the lord of creation. 
 
 The physical and mental characteristics that distinguish man 
 from all other animals are the accumulated results of a process 
 of natural selection continued through long periods of time. 
 Originally, they were simply favorable variations, brought into 
 existence by a happy combination of the sexual characters of 
 parents the results of a process of sexual selection. The indi- 
 viduals in which these favorable variations were developed to 
 the highest degree would be most favored in the struggle for 
 existence, and accordingly would survive and reproduce their 
 kind. Of their offspring, those in which the favorable variations 
 were again the most prominent would survive ; and so, by adding 
 the variations together, generation after generation, natural 
 selection would eventually produce them fully developed as 
 exhibited in man. Therefore, says the biologist, since the qual- 
 ities that secured for man his primacy among animals are the 
 accumulated results of a selective process that preserved the 
 individual possessing them in the highest degree, he will retain 
 that primacy just so long as the selective principle continues to 
 operate; but any lessening of the rigid selection will be instantly 
 followed by degeneration, and ultimately by extinction. 
 
 In the course of social evolution, continues the biologist, the 
 old form of natural selection which simply secured the survival 
 of the physically fit took on a new form. It changed to indus- 
 trial competition, which secures the survival of the kind of man 
 best suited for the building up of a civilized society. Brute 
 force gives way to intellect, and ferocity to cunning ; but the old 
 struggle for existence caused by the fecundity of Nature still 
 goes on. Socialism, therefore, says the critic, is suicidal. It 
 proposes to~abolfsrT Industrial competition, which is at the same\ 
 time the form of the struggle for existence that created the \ 
 organization of the social structure upon which Socialism 
 depends for its existence, and the incentive that moves to action J 
 the units of society. 
 
 Here, then, is the point at issue : is industrial competition the 
 selective principle that created our society? The Socialist says 
 no. Such a theory cannot be reconciled with the fact that in all 
 
132 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 countries man progressed from a low to a high type before the 
 advent of industrial competition, or that in some countries a high 
 degree of civilization has been reached without its aid. In his 
 opinion, industrial competition is an injurious product of modern 
 times. He asserts, moreover, that its tendency is to lower, the 
 mental, moral, and physical standards of the race, to cripple the 
 consuming power of the community, and to lower the scale of 
 living; and that eventually it will, if allowed to pursue an unre- 
 stricted course, involve both capitalist and laborer in a common 
 ruin. 
 
 The critics of Socialism, in answering this indictment, 
 acknowledge the cruelty of competition regarded from an indi- 
 vidual standpoint but nevertheless maintain that it is necessary 
 and inevitable, and that the ultimate good derived from its oper- 
 ation far outweighs the present evil. The form of the struggle 
 for existence that obtained in medieval times might, in their 
 opinion, have been continued forever without the production of 
 the kind of man required for the building up of a highly-organ- 
 ized society; that if continued forever it could only have pro- 
 duced a more gigantic knight an exaggerated Coeur de Leon. 
 They do not believe that any analogy exists between civilized 
 societies of today and the mushroom civilizations of the past. 
 These latter, they assert, were simply the last stages of a patri- 
 archal system in which a small class, after subjugating the 
 remaining members of their society, had taken to themselves all 
 the knowledge and culture of their times. These civilizations 
 were based on chattel slavery; as President Jordan of Stanford 
 very aptly puts it, "the physical perfection and culture of each 
 Greek were made possible by the labor of ten slaves." 
 
 A comparison will show that no analogy exists, says the 
 biologist. The old civilizations were founded on slavery; ours 
 is based on freedom of contract; in ancient societies rigid caste 
 lines separated the classes : in ours men pass constantly from 
 one to the other the sons of laborers of one generation becom- 
 ing the lawgivers of the next; the civilizations of old were 
 simple extensions of the patriarchal system: ours is the result 
 of industrial evolution. In olden times all the knowledge and 
 culture of the day were reserved for a select few. The indus- 
 trial evolution of modern society, with the introduction of 
 machinery into all the branches of industry with its steam 
 power, its cheap newspapers, its cheap books, its cheap maga- 
 zines, its free libraries, and its free schools has made possible 
 
SOCIALISM 133 
 
 to all the pursuit of knowledge. "He who runs may read." The 
 toiler of today enjoys privileges beyond the reach of a king of 
 former times. There could be no advance on these earlier 
 civilizations without a change in the form of the struggle for 
 existence, says the critic; and, as a result of economic causes, 
 it changed to industrial competition. 
 
 Now, though the line of reasoning thus put forward against 
 Socialism seems both logical and convincing, it contains several 
 erroneous conclusions. The statement that industrial competition 
 is responsible for the organization of society is certainly untrue. 
 This organization dates back to the time when, following the 
 line of least resistance, men found they could produce more, 
 working at special occupations and exchanging their commo- 
 dities, than when each worked for himself at a variety of occu- 
 pations. The organization of society must be attributed to the 
 specialization of industry, with its accompanying system of 
 exchange. First the simplest division of labor, the learning of 
 handicrafts ; then the gathering of the artisans into guilds, the 
 associations of the guild masters and the rise of the trades 
 unions, the inception of the factory system and its gradual 
 development, the gathering of large groups of working men 
 into factories and the integration of masters into corporations 
 and trusts : these are the steps by which the organization of 
 society was effected from first to last due to the specialization 
 of industry. Consequently, the objection that the abolition of 
 competition means the disorganization of society falls to the 
 ground. 
 
 The arguments of the biological critics of Socialism might be 
 strictly true were their application restricted to cabbages and 
 potatoes ; but applied to man they are worthless. Man is not a 
 vegetable, passively subject to the action of natural forces and 
 reacting automatically upon them, but possesses a power of 
 consciously reacting upon environment and partially molding it 
 to his will. By virtue of this power he becomes, as it were, 
 the architect of his own fortunes the builder of his own phys- 
 ical, mental, and moral structures. It is therefore necessary that 
 he have an ethical standard that the conscious molding of 
 environment may have for its ultimate aim the production of 
 the highest type of man. The biological criticisms of Socialism 
 are therefore lacking, insomuch that they have not taken this 
 power into consideration. 
 
 Looking at the question from another point of view, an 
 11 
 
134 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 examination of existing society will show that the unconscious, 
 unregulated action of social environment has actually resulted in 
 the setting aside of natural selection. This has been replaced by 
 a perverse social selection, which divides society into at least 
 four distinct classes. It preserves first the man of wealth 
 gained perhaps by no exertion of his own who may or may not 
 be possessed of the physical and mental attributes that would 
 insure his survival under other conditions. As he is able to 
 buy better brains than his own to manage his possessions, he is 
 secure in the survival of his family; while the practise of tying 
 up large estates in trust for the benefit of improvident heirs still 
 further sets aside the operation of natural selection. The efforts 
 of the "fool killer" are rendered abortive. In the middle class, 
 the keenest and generally the most unscrupulous trader survives. 
 In the working .class, the man with the strongest body and the 
 most slavish disposition is the one favored in the struggle for 
 existence. And in the slums, normal persons, dragged down by 
 hard conditions, are slowly exterminated, leaving the beggar and 
 the thief to propagate their kind. It cannot be said that natural 
 selection is responsible for the existence of any of these, or that 
 they approach the type we should choose for our standard. 
 
 Looking at the question from still another point of view, if 
 we allow, for the sake of argument, that industrial competition 
 is synonymous with the struggle for existence, we shall find our- 
 selves placed in a very peculiar position. We shall be obliged 
 to assert that 95 per cent of the business men of all countries 
 are "unfit." Statistics compiled by the best authorities 
 show that 95 per cent of all business enterprises become bank- 
 rupt. This enormous percentage of failures must then prove one 
 of two things : either that 95 per cent of all merchants engaged 
 in business are unfit, or that an injurious selective principle, 
 which does not discriminate between the fit and the unfit, has 
 arisen during the evolution of society. The latter hypothesis is 
 probably the true one. The fact that many men, after failing in 
 business once or twice, eventually succeed can be explained in no 
 other manner. What confidence can be placed in an automatic 
 selective process that changes its judgment so readily? How can 
 a man who has been twice pronounced unfit by industrial com- 
 petition suddenly become fit? The only answer that can be given 
 to such a query is, the man was always fit. Conditions, favor- 
 able or unfavorable, decided the question of his success or 
 
SOCIALISM 135 
 
 failure. Much evidence may be adduced in support of such a 
 theory. 
 
 A hundred years ago the business of society was carried on 
 by a multitude of small manufacturers, small storekeepers, me- 
 chanics, and farmers. Business failures were few and far 
 between, and the commercial crisis would not for some time to 
 come startle the world by its repeated visits. Now, judged by 
 the standard of the biologist, the majority of the business men 
 of civilized countries were at that time fit. Judged by the stand- 
 ard of the economist, free competition, in a community of small 
 producers possessing a world's market, could not produce the 
 evil results ascribed to it today. Competition between two small 
 merchants with a world to exploit is a very different thing from 
 competition between a small merchant and a gigantic trust, 
 between a blacksmith and an implement factory, between a 
 laborer and a steam shovel. Judged by the standard of the 
 biologist, 95 per cent of modern men of business are unfit. 
 Judged by the standard of the economist, the centralization of 
 capital, the concentration of industry, and the social effect of 
 machinery have simply made it impossible for them to remain 
 in business. They cannot compete. 
 
 The great selective principle of the biologist industrial com- 
 petition is apparently in danger of abolition long before the 
 Socialist gets his innings. The gradual transformation of the 
 methods of production and distribution must eventually end in 
 the death of competition. The copartnership of two individuals 
 in a commercial enterprise is the entering wedge; competition 
 is destroyed between them. The amalgamation of such firms 
 into corporations is a further step in the process that finds its 
 logical end in the trust. A national and international agreement 
 between the trusts is the last step in the process that wipes 
 competition out of existence, and with it the selective principle 
 of the biologist and his objection to Socialism. If, though not 
 at all likely, the commercial system could be developed to such 
 an extreme, society would then become an industrial oligarchy 
 ruled by trusts. 
 
 A legitimate objection to the line of reasoning thus put 
 forward must now receive consideration. While it is certainly 
 true that competition is gradually being killed by the business 
 of society passing into the hands of trusts, it is equally true that 
 competition among their employees still remains. It therefore 
 
I 3 6 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 must be shown that under Socialism some incentive to exertion 
 would take the place of this form of competition. The complete 
 domination of society by the trusts, with the destruction of in- 
 dustrial competition between them, does not necessarily involve 
 the disintegration of society. So long as competition developed 
 commercial and mechanical ability among the employees of the 
 trusts the business of society might be carried on for an indefi- 
 nite period provided no other disturbing factors entered into 
 the calculation. Kings by divine right and their descendants 
 ruled the world for many generations without any essential 
 alteration of their characters. And, in like manner, industrial 
 oligarchs might rule the world for long periods, provided the 
 selective principle that formed the units of their society contin- 
 ued to operate. It is then absolutely necessary that in a collec- 
 tivist society some incentive should move to action the masses of 
 the people that great majority who live always in the present, 
 invariably preferring a small amount of proximate happiness to 
 a large amount of ultimate happiness. 
 
 The exponents of Socialism are addressing themselves to 
 this task; they are trying to bring their economic theories into 
 harmony with the laws of life. The old-time revolutionary 
 beliefs have given way to an evolutionary synthesis. The 
 modern Socialist recognizes the fact that great social changes 
 are worked out with much travail through long periods. Con- 
 fident of the ultimate realization of his hopes, he is content for 
 the present to demand such political and economic changes as 
 will better the immediate condition of his fellowmen. Along 
 with this he asks for the perfection of the machinery of gov- 
 ernment and the state ownership of those industries which have 
 attained national importance. These necessary steps taken, he 
 leaves to the future to decide what next shall be done. 
 
 The answer to the final question what under Socialism will 
 be the incentive to exertion? takes on a threefold aspect. It 
 may be stated as follows: (i) The problem to be solved is 
 not a question of biology, but one of economics that, whether 
 or not opposed to the laws of life, the evolution of society is 
 driving us to collectivism. It may be that, even as all other 
 civilizations have contained within themselves the seeds of their 
 own dissolution, so this apparent antagonism between the con- 
 stitution of our society and the laws of life may likewise end in 
 its disintegration. But, be this as it may, to collectivism we 
 
SOCIALISM 137 
 
 must go. (2) The examination of many industries conducted 
 by the governments of different countries proves conclusively 
 that the quality of work turned out by them is fully equal, if 
 not superior, to the same class of work turned out by private 
 firms. (3) The fear of dismissal and the hope of reward are 
 the incentives that move to action the lower classes under 
 existing society. The same incentives spur to industry those in 
 government employ, and there is no reason to suppose the same 
 incentives would not obtain under Socialism. 
 
 The proper treatment of the first division of the threefold 
 answer would require a critical exposition of the evolutionary 
 forces that are causing the centralization of capital and industry. 
 It would be necessary to inquire into the social effect of 
 machinery to find out the limits beyond which the expansion 
 of industry cannot go, and to speculate on the disastrous effects 
 that are likely to follow the development of the Orient. To 
 do this properly would require the writing of a voluminous 
 work. We shall therefore have to be content with a general 
 statement of the probabilities of the future. 
 
 The constantly increasing productivity of our national indus- 
 tries requires an ever-increasing foreign market, and each year 
 adds to the enormous bulk of our exports to other countries. 
 The consuming power of the home market is determined by 
 the decreasing wage of the industrial classes, and by the lessen- 
 ing purchasing power of the American farmer. There is thus 
 a steady increase in the surplus commodities available for ex- 
 port. This being the case, we are justified in asking the ques- 
 tion, What shall we do when our merchants and mechanics 
 have to compete in the markets of the world with the cheap 
 labor of China and Japan? Large amounts of capital are 
 seeking investment abroad, the nature of the capitalistic system 
 of production and distribution its one aim and object being 
 the production of surplus value. The constant lowering of the 
 rate of interest in civilized countries forces the surplus capital 
 to seek investment elsewhere. The spectacle of the scramble for 
 the shares of the Lipton Tea Company, which were subscribed 
 for three times over, and other like cases, show conclusively 
 that capitalists are everywhere struggling for profitable invest- 
 ments. China with its vast resources, its variety of climate, 
 its splendid system of navigable rivers, and its hordes of cheap 
 laborers is standing on the threshold of a new era. There 
 
138 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 the unused millions of Europe and America will find ready 
 investment. The great commercial nations are already taking 
 the first steps to let loose an industrial scourge upon the earth. 
 
 And what is to become of the American farmer when the 
 introduction of the automobile completes the work of the trolley 
 car and destroys the market for horses? What will become of 
 the commercial traveler and the superfluous mechanic when the 
 centralization of industry in the hands of the trusts does away 
 with all unnecessary labor? There is but one answer: These 
 economic conditions will compel society eventually to under- 
 take the orderly arrangement of its business to balance its 
 production and distribution. It will be forced into Socialism, 
 biological objections to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 The second and third divisions of the answer may well be 
 treated together. An appeal to known facts will certainly be 
 conceded the best answer that can be given to any question. 
 Let us see, therefore, what light experiments in collectivism will 
 throw upon the problem. The English navy is certainly the 
 finest in the world; yet almost all its vessels have been entirely 
 constructed in the government yards. Each ship, from keelson 
 to royal truck, has been built by men in the service of the 
 government. Each gun, from the no-tonner at Chatham to 
 the small arm carried by the marines, is manufactured in the 
 great arsenal at Woolwich or in the government factory at 
 Enfield. The clothing of both soldiers and sailors is made in 
 the government shops at Pimlico, and the bread they eat is 
 baked in government ovens. Here, then, is an experiment in 
 collectivism conducted upon a very large scale. What light 
 does it throw on the question at issue? An inspection of the 
 dockyards, foundries, factories, stores, and bakeries, owned and 
 operated by the British government, reveals an army of artisans 
 and laborers at work, successfully conducting the many opera- 
 tions necessary to the outfitting and maintenance of hundreds of 
 thousands of men. The skill and efficiency they display and the 
 quality of the work they turn out are fully equal, if not superior, 
 to that produced in the yards of Armstrong at Keswick, or 
 Carnegie at Homestead. The ammunition boots, for instance, 
 supplied to Thomas Atkins at $2.50 a pair cannot be duplicated 
 in private life for twice the money; and the clothes served to 
 him by a paternal government at $4.75 a suit are as strong and 
 serviceable as they are cheap. Indeed, a habit of selling his 
 
SOCIALISM 139 
 
 necessaries to envious civilians occasionally gets Mr. Atkins 
 into trouble with the authorities, and at the same time pays a 
 high tribute to the quality of his belongings. 
 
 Many illustrations of like kind can be accumulated from all 
 civilized nations. The German telephone system gives the best 
 and cheapest service in the world. The postal systems of all 
 countries may be cited as proofs of the practicability of col- 
 lectivism. Great Britain owns her telegraph and express sys- 
 tems, and almost all countries operate their police and fire 
 departments. The function of education has passed from the 
 hands of the private teacher; and, if any further proof were 
 needed, surely the successful application of the principle of the 
 municipal ownership of public utilities would satisfy the most 
 inveterate doubter. 
 
 Here, then, in different countries are some millions of per- 
 sons in the service of their respective governments. They are or- 
 dinary, common people, subject to the same passions, virtues, and 
 vices as the remaining members of society. They have also the 
 habit of choosing lesser proximate happiness to greater future 
 happiness, which distinguishes the large majority of their fellow- 
 creatures. What, then, is the "incentive to exertion" that keeps 
 them at work? What is it that makes Tommy Atkins accom- 
 plish forced marches in the heat of the Soudan, and causes his 
 American brother to chase the elusive Filipino through fever 
 swamps? Whence comes the rapid stride of the postman? Why 
 does the fireman plunge into the flame and smoke of the 
 burning building, and the policeman risk his life in the protec- 
 tion of the lives and property of others? Wherefore flies the 
 pen of the government clerk over his paper? And why do the 
 "builders of the ship" the sawyers and the carpenters, the 
 riveters and the boiler-makers, the machinist and the foundry- 
 men and the blacksmiths one and all, from the highest to the 
 lowest, ply their vocations with such industry? Why? Because 
 all are animated by the same incentives the hope of reward, 
 the desire of promotion, the fear of dismissal. It is, as John 
 Stuart Mill remarked, "very much a question of education; a 
 man may be taught to dig and weave for his country even as 
 he has been taught to fight for it." And there is absolutely no 
 reason why these incentives, which now move to exertion the 
 people. engaged in private and public enterprises, should not con- 
 tinue to do so in a collectivist society. Given a strong central 
 
i 4 o SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 authority, willing and able to enforce the laws, an authority 
 that would have behind it all the force of public opinion, it 
 seems reasonable to suppose that idle persons could be more 
 effectively dealt with than under existing conditions. They 
 might choose between work and starvation; there could be no 
 other alternative. 
 
 There remains but one other point to be touched upon. If 
 it be granted that, with a strong central authority established, 
 the usual incentives that move to action coarser natures will 
 obtain, have we any surety that higher forms of human en- 
 deavor will continue? Will the ripe fruits of intellect still 
 adorn the gardens of an esthetic civilization? What incentive 
 will cause a man to undertake, for instance, the immense labors 
 necessary to achieve literary perfection? Is it probable that a 
 man that could satisfy his immediate wants by a little bodily 
 labor would be likely to undertake such arduous toil? 
 
 An analysis of the ambition that causes men to undertake 
 such tasks will disclose the fact that it is a complex feeling, 
 made up of many components. Probably the chief of these is 
 the love of approbation the desire to stand well in the eyes of 
 one's fellows. Again, deep down in the heart of man is to be 
 found the desire to leave some little mark upon the sands of 
 time. The thought of annihilation, without even a fleeting 
 remembrance remaining of his life and labors, is utterly repul- 
 sive. Wherefore it is that we find him undertaking all kinds of 
 laborious tasks to perpetuate his memory. The pyramids ot 
 Egypt, built in the dawn of history to hand down forever the 
 fame of some now forgotten monarch, are striking evidences of 
 the strength of this feeling. The shepherd who burnt the temple 
 of Diana chose infamy before oblivion, and throughout the ages 
 are scattered countless evidences of the desire of man to leave 
 his mark ; yea, in our own time, mediocrity strives to perpetuate 
 its memory by the erection of million-dollar tombs. 
 
 The love of power is yet another component of ambition. 
 The centurion in the Scriptures said: "Lord, thou knowest I am 
 a man in authority. I say unto this man, go, and he goeth ; unto 
 that man, come, and he cometh." And as it was with the cen- 
 turion, so is it with all men they love to sit in the high places. 
 The desire for knowledge must also be added to the other feel- 
 ings. Men have suffered torture, imprisonment, and even death 
 at the stake in defense of the knowledge they thought right. 
 
SOCIALISM 141 
 
 The figure of Bruno stands forth from the black night of ignor- 
 ance that settled down over medieval Europe, a striking instance 
 of the power of knowledge to move men to noble action. Haled 
 before the Inquisition, he is informed that he has been guilty of 
 heresy and is asked to recant. There are no witnesses, no 
 accusers none but the familiars of the Holy Office moving 
 stealthily about him. The tormentors are in the vaults below. 
 With none to sustain him, he cannot and will not deny that 
 which he knows to be true. He is handed over to the civil 
 authorities and burned at the stake. Galileo, imprisoned, and 
 for the last ten years of his life treated with remorseless sever- 
 ity, for persisting in saying that which even his accusers knew 
 to be true, and Milton, the blind poet, receiving in exchange for 
 "Paradise Lost" the miserable pittance of five pounds, are also 
 instances of the strength of this feeling. All the varied feelings 
 here enumerated go to make up that complex emotion called ambi- 
 tion the love of approbation, the desire to be remembered, the 
 love of power, and the thirst for knowledge. It would be a bold 
 man indeed who dared to assert that such an emotion was 
 brought into existence by industrial competition. 
 
 On the other hand, history records many instances of useful 
 lives and great talents crushed out or crippled by too harsh a 
 competition. The brilliant Chatterton was compelled by ill cir- 
 cumstances to harness his genius and waste his splendid powers 
 on the copying of deeds. Finally, after three days' starvation 
 too proud to accept alms he died by his own hand in a lonely 
 garret. Johnson and Goldsmith existed in penury. Shakespeare, 
 the intellectual giant of the ages, lived harassed by debt and 
 died a comparative nobody a play-actor, a "fellow of the baser 
 sort." To this list might be added the names of most of the 
 literary celebrities of the past. With few exceptions they lived 
 in misery, pandering to the humors of some patron, and died in 
 poverty. Now, there is no reason to doubt that easy circum- 
 stances would have aided rather than hindered the development 
 of their genius. No deterioration is visible in the later writings 
 of those who, suffering in early life, at length reached affluence. 
 The scornful name, "pot-boilers," applied by artists to the forced 
 work turned out to keep the wolf from the door, and the appel- 
 lation, "pen-trotter," applied to him who writes for the same 
 purpose, signify the opinion of those best fitted to judge. The 
 best work in literature and art is produced when a strong mind 
 
142 . SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 the correlative of a well-fed body has ample room to unfold its 
 pleasant fancies. We need not in time to come fear a dearth of 
 authors. Of the making of books there is no end, saith Solomon, 
 and much wisdom is a weariness of the flesh. 
 
 In the Museum of Alexandria, before the birth of Christ, a 
 bright constellation of geometers, astronomers, and physicists, 
 made discoveries and invented appliances that equal those of 
 modern times. Two thousand years before the advent of indus- 
 trial competition, Ptolemy produced his great work, "Syntaxis," 
 which maintained its ground until displaced by Newton's "Prin- 
 cipia"; Euclid prepared his great work; Archimedes, for two 
 thousand years the greatest mathematician, discussed the equi- 
 librium of floating bodies, discovered the true theory of the 
 lever, and invented the screw that still bears his name ; Hip- 
 parchus and Apolonius, the astronomers, Ctesibius, the inventor 
 of the fire-engine and the water-clock, and Hero, the maker of 
 the first steam-engine, were all members of that illustrious circle. 
 Yet they were all in the service of and supported by the govern- 
 ments of their day. 
 
 To this evidence in favor of the Socialist contention may be 
 added that furnished by the high schools and state universities 
 of our own land. The scientists and teachers who direct the 
 operations of those institutions display as much efficiency and 
 zeal as those engaged in private enterprises of like kind. They 
 would resent with heat the imputation that employment under 
 the government necessitated inefficient effort on their part ; nor 
 could any facts be adduced to support such an assertion. 
 
 Society does not pursue the even tenor of its way from low 
 to high, from the simple to the complex in one straight, un- 
 broken line, but obedient to the law of rhythm, swings forward 
 and back, or rather follows the curve of an upward . spiral. 
 Society, like the units of which it is composed, learns only by 
 experience. It tries first this thing, and then that, encounters 
 unforeseen obstacles and retires, learns by bitter experience what 
 is best, and so advances. As it has done in the past it will do 
 in the future. The development of the commercial system will 
 force experiments in collectivism upon it. That which is proved 
 good will be retained, and that which is bad rejected. And so 
 with much travail will man work out his destiny. 
 
SOCIALISM 143 
 
 Review of Reviews. 22 : 353-4. September, 1900 
 The Value of Brains in the Socialist State 
 
 M. Fouillee, in a paper in the Revue des Deux Mondes on 
 "Mental Labor and Collectivism," deals with that familiar 
 objection to the various collectivist systems, that they do not 
 take into account sufficiently the value of mental and moral 
 work ; in other words, collectivism as a serious system of eco- 
 nomics is based too much upon manual labor and the interests 
 of the working classes. The liberal professions are frequently 
 classified as unproductive, and the calling of literature itself is 
 regarded as parasitical. 
 
 The nature and value of mental labor have always been a 
 great difficulty with the collectivist. Marx attempted to reduce 
 intellectual labor to a condensed form of manual labor; but 
 this is rather like arguing that diamonds and coal are equally 
 valuable because they are both made of carbon. The effort 
 necessary to lift a hundredweight of goods affords no key to the 
 brain labor of a Darwin, a Socrates, or a Descartes. The truth 
 is, says, M. Fouillee, that brain-work cannot be measured by 
 material standards. 
 
 M. Fouillee goes on to lay down certain laws in the develop- 
 ment of work. The first is the progressive predominance of 
 mental labor; this is exhibited in the movement of science and 
 scientific industries which is characteristic of modern times. Side 
 by side we have the progress of invention and of imitation; the 
 first of which is manifestly by far the most intellectual, for the 
 second is really only mechanical reproduction. According to 
 M. Tarde, capital which must not be confused with wealth 
 represents the inventions, while labor represents the imita- 
 tions. There is yet a third kind of work which Marx has 
 ignored : that moral energy perhaps even more elusive than 
 intellectual work which consists in the sustained attention, per- 
 severance, patience, and courage, without which not only the 
 industrial world, but also the intellectual, would collapse. 
 
 M. Fouillee's second law is the progressive liberty of mental 
 work, and indeed of all work. It is obviously a necessary r.ondj- 
 tion of the greatest inteH^tnal w^ r ^ ** be frpp from ml^ _The 
 _myentor must have his individual initiative uncontrolled the 
 increase of civilization makes for the increase of this liberty. 
 
144 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 The savage who does little or no work is hardly to be distin- 
 guished from his brother savage ; while the civilized citizens of 
 any country present notable differences one from another. Thus, 
 work itself tends to emphasize the individual element, and pro- 
 gresses more and more toward the personal form. Side by side, 
 however, with this individualizing tendency is an opposite and 
 socializing tendency, in the sense that every age inherits the great 
 results of the work of previous ages. This, however, does not 
 minimize the importance of the inspiration of the individual. 
 Scientific and industrial progress are in no sense the work of the 
 crowd, which, indeed, has as a rule been bitterly hostile to every 
 great labor-saving invention. How will the proposed collectivist 
 society organize the workers who work with their brains? How 
 can the eight-hour day be imposed uoon a Virtnr Hng^, a"d h?w 
 can the value of his work be estitn^t^? Newton's law of gravi- 
 tation could not be described as an immediate addition to the 
 economic resources of mankind; Newton, therefore, in thp pm* 
 npmic state, must be ranked below the rriTin who dnrnvfrfi a new 
 materiaj for ran dips. Again, time is often required. The con- 
 Jemporaries of Galileo could not foresee that his discovery of 
 the satellites of Jupiter would have the effect of saving many 
 ships with valuable IJVPS ^"^ rarg O from bping wrecked. 
 
 We come to the next law namely, that material labor is 
 transformed gradually into mental labor. The age of machinery 
 has obliged manufacturers of all kinds to become more intellec- 
 tual, and the management of the machines themselves has had 
 the same effect on the workers. Broadly speaking, it is the 
 machine that undertakes the manual labor, and enables the 
 worker to employ his brains far more than if the machine had 
 never been invented. In France at this moment steam does as 
 much work as would require the muscles of 105,000,000 men; 
 and as there are only about 10,000,000 of adult workers, it fol- 
 lows that every French working man has, on the average, under 
 his control the equivalent of ten workers, whose labor he is able 
 to direct. 
 
 This brings us to another law the progressive amelioration, 
 by means of mental labor, of the social condition of the manual 
 laborers. M. Fouillee comes to the conclusion that, though there 
 are some important elements of truth in Socialism, considered 
 as a method of social progress by the means of society itself 
 and of social laws, yet there are in collectivism, and above all, 
 
SOCIALISM 145 
 
 in communism, vast hypotheses chiefly based upon a negative 
 criticism of what exists. Human progress is menaced by a sys- 
 tem which apparently leaves no room for intellectual and moral 
 effort, or for the inspiration of genius. The Chinese mandarin 
 who allows his nails to grow in long and beautiful spirals, in 
 order to show that he" has never done any mnrmnl -ur^rVj ic nnt 
 reallv mnrp riHirn1r>ii<t than 
 
 idle fellow the man who only uses his hand to hold a pen, and 
 only works with his brain. 
 
 Century. 79:903-8. April, 1910 
 Why Socialism Is Impracticable. Charles R. Miller 
 
 The enduring charm of the literature of Socialism lies in 
 its complete emancipation from the thraldom of reality and 
 experience. No cringing deference to the teachings of human 
 history chills the ardor or cramps the inventive fancy of a 
 Socialist when he sits down to draw up a program for the 
 reconstruction of society. He sets his foot upon the neck of 
 authority, and blithely repudiates established truths worked out 
 through centuries of toil and strife in the organization of insti- 
 tutions. / The immense and enviable advantage of this free 
 position is self-evident. It exempts socialistic theory and utter- 
 ance from conformity with a host of tiresome axioms ; it 
 dispenses with research, it shuts_jout the confusing past, and 
 enables the Socialist to soar with light heart and unhindered 
 wing toward his ideal. This sense of freedom and detachment 
 colors all socialistic writing, and must, I imagine, bring to the 
 expounder of that faith a joyful sense of the perfection of his 
 work rarely vouchsafed to toilers in other fields of authorship 
 and exposition. 
 
 I am not sure that the Socialists ever attempt. t 
 
 forth, even ior themsm_esT'theIaci3ial conditions under_sadikh 
 the socialistic state would take up and ^arry / it? v rr> rV I 
 have nowhere found such a projection of the program of the 
 socialization of industry and production. A balance-sheet of 
 Socialism, a Socialist budget, is a thing unknown. No Socialist 
 writer has told us how much his ideal government would cost, 
 or has disclosed to us the sources of its revenue. I shall try 
 to put before the readers of The Century some of these missing 
 
i 4 6 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 elements of the problem. For a thorough test of Socialism it 
 would be necessary to construct a sort of working plan of a 
 complete Socialist government, and put it in operation. No 
 Socialist will do that; nobody else will have the hardihood to 
 attempt it. I shall merely set forth some of the conditions that 
 would confront a Socialist administration in the United States, 
 in the hope that the showing may bring into view certain matters 
 of which Socialism has taken small account. 
 
 There are no canonical books of the socialistic faith and 
 practice, no body of doctrine anywhere proclaimed that is in all 
 its parts everywhere accepted by Socialists as orthodox. Of cur- 
 rent writers no two are in such agreement that it is possible to 
 quote one as an authority on the "faith and morals" of Social- 
 ism, save at the risk of being reproached for misrepresentation 
 by most of the others. 
 
 There is, however, a collective pronouncement of Socialism 
 in this country which we may accept as authoritative, and which 
 may safely be consulted by those who wish to know what 
 Socialism is and what the Socialists really propose to do. 
 Everybody should know that Socialism aims at the overthrow 
 of the existing social and industrial system, the abolition of 
 capitalism and the competitive wage-system. Jaures says that 
 the proletariat, the wage-earners, and the salaried classes, have 
 now an ideal: "They desire not merely to cure the worst 
 defects of society as it exists; they want to establish a social 
 order founded on another principle. For individual and capital- 
 istic property, which assures the domination of a part of man- 
 kind over the rest of mankind, they would substitute commun- 
 ism of production, a system of universal social cooperation 
 which would make every man a partner by right." 
 
 This embodies in general terms the ideal of European and 
 American Socialists. We find these principles concisely set 
 forth in the platform of the national convention of the Socialist 
 party, adopted at Chicago, May 17, 1908, the platform upon 
 which Eugene V. Debs made his campaign for the presidency. 
 Two hundred and nineteen delegates, representing nearly all the 
 states in the Union, had seats in that convention. The conflict 
 of so many minds and four days of debate ought to have 
 prepared the platform to resist triumphantly the impact of the 
 exegesis of the faithful and the criticism of unbelievers. From 
 
SOCIALISM 147 
 
 this seasoned exposition of the principles of American Socialism 
 I quote the general demands to which the convention and the 
 candidates were pledged : 
 
 GENERAL DEMANDS 
 
 1. The immediate government relief for the unemployed workers by 
 building schools, by reforesting of cut-over and waste lands, by reclama- 
 tion of arid tracts, and the building of canals, and by extending all other 
 useful public works. All persons employed on such works shall be 
 employed directly by the government under an eight-hour workday and 
 at the prevailing union wages. The government shall also loan money to 
 states and to municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying 
 on public works. It shall contribute to the funds of labor organizations 
 for the purpose of assisting their unemployed members, and shall take 
 such other measures within its power as will lessen the wide-spread misery 
 of the workers caused by the misrule of the capitalist class. 
 
 2. The collective ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, 
 steamship lines, and all other means of social transportation and com- 
 munication, and all land. 
 
 3. The collective ownership of all industries which are organized on 
 a national scale and in which competition has virtually ceased to exist. 
 
 4. The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil- 
 wells, forests, and water-power. 
 
 5. The scientific reforestation of timber lands, and the reclamation of 
 swamp lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to be permanently 
 retained as a part of the public domain. 
 
 6. The absolute freedom of press, speech, and assemblage. 
 
 In this new world where everybody is to have everything, it 
 seems to me that, to many weary souls, the most pleasing 
 prospect must be that of rest rest from the endless arguing 
 and contention that have plagued our statesmen and our politi- 
 cians for a generation. Are not all these problems solved in 
 the twinkling of an eye by this inspired program of social 
 reorganization ? 
 
 The regulation of interstate commerce would be consigned 
 to the limbo where the Wilmot proviso and the alien and 
 sedition acts have been forgotten. It is inconceivable that col- 
 lective ownership would wink at unholy rebates, or in any other 
 way stoop to the chicane of favoring one shipper over another. 
 There would be no watered stock nor any other. Monopolies 
 in restraint of trade would be made forever impossible an 
 amazing paradox by combining all the "combinations" under 
 one ownership. Complete desuetude would be the fate of the 
 anti-trust act. All the land being collectively owned, no re- 
 
i 4 8 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 former could fasten upon his neighbor the guilt of the unearned 
 increment. Although banks and banking are not mentioned 
 in these "demands," the control of the instruments of exchange 
 has always been insisted on by Socialists. That would inevit- 
 ably come, and early. The monetary commission could rest 
 from its labors, and turn over to the Socialist secretary of the 
 treasury its accumulation of texts and documents; for which, 
 we may be quite sure, that functionary would have no use. The 
 Socialist fiscal and currency system would be simple beyond 
 belief. 
 
 There might still remain subjects for discussion by states- 
 men, by legislators, by orators, and by the press, but they would 
 be new subjects. The matters we now take with such entire 
 seriousness would interest only antiquarians. 
 
 These "general demands" call for the acquisition by the 
 government of a great deal of property now in private hands, 
 owned by individuals and by corporations. About the terms of 
 the bargain, the price to be paid to present owners, the platform 
 is as silent as the grave. The texfwriters differ on that point ; 
 some say that private property is to be paid for, not con- 
 fiscated. The Fabians, the so-called "intellectual" Socialists of 
 England, have proposed that the British railways shall be 
 purchased at a price reached by capitalizing their earnings on a 
 4 per cent basis; that is, the purchase price would be twenty- 
 five times the average dividends for three years. Let us assume 
 that the Socialists of the United States intend to make payment 
 for the property conveyed from private to collective ownership. 
 
 We are now in a position to apply the first test, to picture 
 forth the effects of Socialism upon the commonwealth, and to 
 bring clearly into view the conditions under which the Socialist 
 government would take up its important work. All lands, all the 
 instruments of communication and transportation, all except the 
 minor industries, all the mines and the forests, all the water- 
 power and oil-wells, are to be acquired by the government. 
 Banks, as I have said, are not included in the list, but Mr. John 
 Spargo, who was chairman of the committee on resolutions, says 
 in his book, "Socialism," that "a monopoly of the monetary and 
 credit functions, including coinage, banking, mortgaging, and the 
 extension of credit to private enterprises," belongs to the irre- 
 ducible minimum of Socialism's demands. Now let us count 
 
SOCIALISM 149 
 
 the cost, so far as the elements of computation are written within 
 our reach, of achieving collective ownership and of setting the 
 new government upon its feet. 
 
 According to the last report of the Interstate Commerce Com- 
 mission, the entire outstanding capital of all the railroads in the 
 country stock, $7,373,212,323, bonds, $9,294,332,504 amounted on 
 June 30, 1908, to $16,667,544,827. The securities, bonds and 
 stocks representing the capital of the Western Union Telegraph 
 Company amount to $138,462,100. Of the Mackay companies, 
 which control the Postal Telegraph and Commercial Cable com- 
 panies, and many others, the outstanding capital is $91,380,400, 
 and the Cable Company has outstanding bonds to the amount of 
 $20,000,000. The American Telephone and Telegraph Company 
 has, of bonds and stock, $369,587,300. The telegraph and tele- 
 phone lines, therefore, foot up $619,429,800 of capital. 
 
 The resources of all the banks, state, national, and private, 
 and of the trust companies in the United States, amounted on 
 April 28, 1909, to $21,095,054,420. If Socialism assumed the lia- 
 bilities, it would feel at liberty to take the assets, I suppose, upon 
 payment to the owners of the par value of their shares, and of 
 the distributive value of the surplus and undivided profits. That 
 item would be $3,637,972,240. In banks having a large volume of 
 deposits other elements of value belonging to capital might very 
 properly be included. But bankers must not expect too much 
 from Socialism. 
 
 The value of the farm-lands of the country, with the improve- 
 ments, was determined by the census of 1900 to be $16,614,647,491. 
 The value of the buildings and improvements cannot be sepa- 
 rately stated, but it would be only a small part of this sum, and 
 the deduction on that score would be much more than made up 
 by the increment in farm values in the last decade. The real 
 property in the twenty-eight principal cities of the United States 
 was assessed for taxation in 1909 at $12,838,300,024. Assessed 
 valuation ranges from 50 per cent, or less, to 100 per cent 
 of actual market-value. The unvalued and unassessed mar- 
 gin, together with the billions of land-values in the smaller 
 municipalities, would easily swell this total to twenty billions, 
 even after the deduction of the value of buildings and improve- 
 ments. The Statistical Abstract, using the figures of the cen- 
 sus of 1905, puts the capital employed in manufactures in the 
 
 12 
 
150 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 country, not including hand trades and minor concerns, at 
 $12,686,265,673. 
 
 No trustworthy estimate of the property value of the steam- 
 ships, oil-wells, mines, and water-power privileges in the United 
 States is accessible. The merchant marine, including sailing 
 vessels, reached the total of 7,365,445 gross tons in 1908. The 
 energy yielded by the streams of the country, turning 52,877 
 wheels, is estimated at 5,356,680 horse-power. The oil-wells 
 produced in 1908 crude petroleum to the value of $136,347,831. 
 The Standard Oil Company, with a capital of $98,338,300, does 
 not own the wells the crude petroleum of which it refines. In 
 1008, other mineral products reached a total of $1,469,982,914. 
 These properties are worth many billions of dollars. They sus- 
 tain their fortunate owners, some in comfort and others in 
 luxury. But there is no basis for an estimate of their worth, 
 and we need spend no time in vain regret over this blank in the 
 statement of accounts. We have assembled so many more 
 imposing masses of capital that these items may properly be 
 omitted on the principle of de minimis. In this account, as I 
 shall show, a matter of a few billions more or less is quite 
 negligible. 
 
 We may now state the account in tabular form, and give 
 ourselves up to the pleasure of contemplating the total initial 
 liabilities of the Socialist government: 
 
 Railways $16,667,544,827 
 
 Farm lands 16,614,647,491 
 
 City lands 20,000,000,000 
 
 Manufacturing capital 12,686,265,673 
 
 Bank capital and surplus 3,637,972,240 
 
 Telegraphs and telephones 619,429,800 
 
 Total $70,225,860,03 1 
 
 How would the Socialist government settle for these prop- 
 erties, bought at such colossal cost? Only by issuing its obliga- 
 tions. There would be no other possible way. Thus we should 
 come to the unchallenged primacy among debtor nations, with 
 a debt of seventy billions. The present public debt of all the 
 nations of the world is only thirty-seven billions. The largest 
 debt of all is that of France, amounting to $5,600,000,000; the 
 United Kingdom owes $3,880,000,000. The annual interest 
 
SOCIALISM 151 
 
 charge on all the public debts of the world is $1,550,433,038. At 
 3 per cent, the interest charge on the Socialist government's 
 debt would be over two billions, or more than twice our entire 
 national debt, and more than three times our total annual treas- 
 ury revenue. Much more than half the wealth of the nation 
 would, by the Socialist program, be transferred from private to 
 "collective" ownership. We may grant that Socialism would cut 
 down "capital's" account. It would make large deductions for 
 inflation in stock and bond issues. But, even on the basis of a 
 fair "physical valuation," the total would not be materially 
 diminished. 
 
 The reader who is in any degree familiar with fiscal theory 
 and practice will already have reached the conclusion that, to the 
 present owners of the property to be acquired, it would not make 
 the slightest difference whether the Socialist government pro- 
 ceeded by purchase or by confiscation. No government on earth 
 could give value to bonds representing a seventy-billion debt, 
 nor could it keep up the interest payment, meet other public 
 expenditures, and maintain its credit. But Socialists point to 
 the revenue features of their program, "extension of inheritance 
 taxes, graduated in proportion to the amount of the bequest 
 and nearness of kin," and "a graduated income tax." It ought 
 to be unnecessary to point out that, after the government had 
 taken over all the land and the instruments of production, trans- 
 portation, and exchange, a great deal more than half the whole 
 wealth of the country, the people would find it hard enough to 
 make a bare living on the remainder in their hands. There 
 would be no incomes for the levy of the. tax-gatherer, no 
 estates to be bequeathed. There remains the possibility of profit 
 in the operation of railroads, factories, telephones, and telegraphs 
 by the government. Experience in municipal trading here and 
 in England shows that to be a delusive hope. The highest skill 
 and trained capacity of private railroad management secured in 
 this country in 1907-08 a net return of 3.9 per cent on railroad 
 capital, and in England, in the period from 1901 to 1905, the net 
 return to capital was 3.38 per cent. There is no source from 
 which the Socialist government could get revenue enough to pay 
 its bills. Its bonds would be worthless, and holders of them 
 could never hope to receive any part of either principal or 
 interest. 
 
152 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 It would be just as well. What use could they make of their 
 money? No field of possible investment would be open to them. 
 There would be no shares to buy, no corporations to organize, 
 no city-lots to be bought, no farm-lands, not an acre anywhere 
 left to which they could acquire title. Only the smaller trades 
 and occupations, and those mostly cooperative, would remain for 
 the employment of private capital. To abolish capitalism is the 
 fundamental intent of the Socialists. On that all else depends. 
 To achieve that, their "demands" are made. Mr. Spargo says 
 that when these enumerated activities are undertaken by the 
 state, "private enterprise would by no means be eliminated, but 
 limited to an extent making the exploitation of public interests 
 and needs for private gain impossible." Again: "It may be 
 freely admitted, however, that the ideal to be aimed at, ulti- 
 mately, must be approximate equality of income, otherwise a 
 class formation must take place, and the old problems incident 
 to commercial inequality reappear." To check this deplorable 
 tendency, Mr. Spargo would provide that the inheritance of 
 acquired wealth should be denied, "society being the only pos- 
 sible inheritor of property." 
 
 Here reappears the bland, engaging aloofness from uncon- 
 querable fact and conclusion. Socialists plant themselves firmly 
 on the postulate that present economic conditions, the unequal 
 distribution of wealth, are responsible for the differing con- 
 ditions of men. The redistribution of wealth would make all 
 men equal, all men happy and contented. The Socialists over- 
 throw, by paying no attention to it, the belief somewhat widely 
 held that it is the inequality in the capacities and in the am- 
 bitions, temperaments, and dispositions of men that have made 
 economic conditions unequal, that have brought the reward of 
 accumulations to the industrious and the thrifty, and have 
 visited the penalty of narrow circumstances upon the improvi- 
 dent and the prodigal. 
 
 Plainly, the Socialist ideal is a social dead-level, an organi- 
 zation of society in which no man would have either the 
 incentive or the law's permission to surpass his neighbor in 
 effort or in the fruits thereof. That dream of a state of social 
 perfection can be attained by an act of their congress. The 
 bees appear to be Socialists. They are industrious, they seem to 
 be happy and contented. But they long ago enacted that the 
 honey-cell should be constructed in a certain way, and that, it 
 
SOCIALISM 153 
 
 happens, is the perfect way in the mechanical as well as in the 
 economic sense. Since then, very naturally and sensibly, the 
 bees have given up the idea of progress. Somehow, since 
 
 Man never is, but always to be blest, 
 
 he cannot rid himself of the idea of progress. It is an ineradic- 
 able propensity, and he clings to that idea and yields to that 
 propensity in proportion to his ambition fmd t^ his ahili^y. 
 Some men are happy in the static condition; others find content 
 only in change, and change always with the idea of advance- 
 ment. 
 
 The chief of all the many unconquerable conditions which 
 the_ Socialists ignore is the nature of man. But they cannot 
 change it, for it is about the most unchanging and unchangeable 
 thing within our knowledge. Death alone the death of all men, 
 and the arrest of all organic forces can bring about the ideal 
 dead-level of Socialism. Mr. Herbert Spencer assures us that 
 one of the lav/s of the vital universe is "the instability of the 
 homogeneous," which may be transmuted into the homelier 
 phrase, "the cream will rise upon the milk." Organic matter is 
 never inert, and human society is only an organism. Socialism 
 cannot annul the laws of its existence, paralyze its energies, 
 or blast with sterility every atom and cell of its being, by 
 decreeing that the government shall own the railroads, the 
 farms, and the factories. Brains, industry, capacity, foresight, 
 would assert themselves in an Socialist state as in any other, 
 and laziness and improvidence would bring want and depend- 
 ence, as they now bring and always have brought them. JThe 
 Snrialist fit atp , pvpn '^ fr wprp pnggiMe to establish it T would 
 "Tear itself asnr)Hpr_ Living men would dissociate themselves 
 from the body of death. 
 
 Yet the doctrines of Socialism are taught to adults and to 
 children in many schools established and maintained by Social- 
 ists in New York City, and in many other cities and states. 
 Picture primers, reading-books, songs, little plays, serve to instil 
 the abhorrence of capitalism and the present social order into 
 infant minds, and into older ones as well. The doctrines are 
 preached from pulpits and from the chairs of professors. In no 
 Socialist writing that has ever come under my observation 
 has any attempt been made to count the cost of collective 
 ownership, or to show how the bill would be paid. Any candid 
 inquiry into the problem leads to but one conclusion that the 
 
154 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 bill would not and could not be paid at all. 
 confiscation must""hecessarilv precede collecttveownershin. 
 
 We may therefore ask by what means the owners of half 
 the national wealth are to be made to. part with it for the 
 common behoof. Evidently not by persuasion. Nothing in 
 human experience, nothing in history, supports the theory of 
 voluntary surrender. The Socialists say that the change is to 
 come with the ballot. Socialist lawmakers, executives, and 
 judges will accomplish the desired expropriation, paying no 
 heed, of course, to the outcries of the despoiled. Armed revo- 
 lution is no longer very much preached save by a fiery agitator 
 here and there, and by those passionate declaimers, newly come 
 to our shores, who bring with them the ardor of continental 
 Socialism. And they, it seems to me, are the only consistent 
 Socialists, the only ones who really know what they want. 
 
 Socialists who have thought much about the adaptation of 
 means to ends long ago came to understand that revolution by 
 force was out of the question, because, as Karl Kautsky puts it, 
 "of the colossal superiority of the weapons of the present 
 standing armies, as compared with the weapons in the posses- 
 sion of civilians, and which makes any resistance of the latter 
 patently doomed to failure from the beginning." Is it not 
 natural, therefore, that Kautsky should insist that "the abolition 
 of the standing army and disarmament is indispensable, if the 
 state is to carry out any important reforms?" Far above the 
 great volume of Socialist utterance, that remark shines by the 
 quality of consistency. 
 
 There is no antidote to Socialism. It was born in man 
 when he first fought over the spoils of the chase and raged 
 against his sturdier cavemate who seized the larger share. But 
 there are checks and palliatives. A clear understanding of what 
 Socialism means and what it seeks to do will tend to arrest 
 the spread of its doctrines, now furtively making their way to 
 a broader acceptance among dreamers and visionaries and chil- 
 dren, and, above all, among those who are altogether unin- 
 formed as to what Socialism is. It is well, therefore, that 
 there should be a clear understanding that the Socialist gov- 
 ernment would begin, must begin, by wholesale confiscation of 
 property. 
 
 The palliatives are being administered all the time in every 
 civilized land, by the action of public opinion upon the makers 
 
SOCIALISM 155 
 
 of the laws. A study of the legislation of the last century in 
 this country and in England for bettering the hard conditions 
 of toil, for the prevention of "man's inhumanity to man," for 
 establishing the rights of wage-earners, and setting up safe- 
 guards for them against oppression, extortion, injustice and dis- 
 ease, for better housing, for schooling, for the relief of the 
 needy, and importing heart and human feeling and conscience into 
 a relation that, a hundred years ago, was based upon the relent- 
 less law of supply and demand which regulates the commodities 
 market, would put into the heads of the theologians, the pro- 
 fessors, the charity-workers, and the fashionable ladies who 
 are dabbling in Socialism, a fund of knowledge which they now 
 lack. They would learn that, under the existing social order, 
 under our institutions as now established, through the working 
 of public opinion, and by the orderly process of law, the evils 
 
 of which .SorhiHm jn*iy r 1 " 11 1 1 ' L 
 
 cured. 
 
 Independent. 69: 148-9. July 21, 1910 
 
 The Socialist Rule of Milwaukee 
 
 There is one phase of the Socialist Democratic victory in 
 Milwaukee that is most significant and encouraging. Mayor 
 Seidel publicly announced, prior to taking his seat, that before 
 any attempt was made to put the Socialist pledges into operation 
 the best judgment of the best experts would be obtained. "I 
 may say that ours will be a government by experts," were the 
 words he used to express his views. 
 
 We are a'dvised by those in close touch with the situation 
 that Mayor Seidel and his advisers are ascertaining where they 
 can secure the best and most efficient men to fill the important 
 places in the municipal government of Milwaukee, and that they 
 are not confining their inquiries to Milwaukee, but are seeking 
 help and suggestions from all parts of the country. A Milwau- 
 kee correspondent advises us that he is confirmed in the belief 
 which the first public announcements after the victory aroused, 
 that the Socialists intend to give the city the best administration 
 they can ; to be conservative, cautious and intelligent to the 
 extent of their ability in administering the affairs of the city. 
 
 There is another significant feature of the situation. No 
 
156 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 pressure for spoils of office is being made upon the new officials 
 from their own ranks, and they are not likely to recognize any 
 of these demands from the ranks of the other parties. It is 
 reported that they are altogether likely to appoint a law depart- 
 ment that will be composed of lawyers from outside their own 
 party, which is short of men of that profession. The Public 
 Works Department is, of course, the most important thing the 
 mayor will have to deal with. This for years has been the 
 weakest part of Milwaukee's government. At present it is com- 
 posed of three commissioners and the city engineer, with equal 
 authority and no concentration of responsibility anywhere. A 
 bill originating in the Council was passed by the Legislature in 
 1907 authorizing the reorganization of this department under a 
 single head, but was made subject to a Council referendum 
 requiring a majority vote to adopt. The same Council which 
 ordered the bill draw r n rejected the law by a tie vote, but the new 
 Social Democratic Council will adopt the law and reorganize the 
 Department of Public Works. Mayor Seidel wants a strong, 
 capable man like Colonel Waring. 
 
 In a recent personal letter concerning the real inner signifi- 
 cance of the Socialist victory, a well-known, public-spirited citi- 
 zen of Milwaukee, who did not vote the ticket, said : 
 
 You have no doubt seen it expressed in the exchanges and with abso- 
 lute accuracy that the victory was a protest or a repudiation of twelve 
 years of misrule and broken promises and high-handed disregard of public 
 rights under the administration of Mayor Rose, and also the two years of 
 Republican administration under the "boy mayor." This is really all there 
 is to it. The citizens refused to take any more chances and the Repub- 
 lican ticket, which was a good ticket, was deserted by its friends, who felt 
 that it did not hold out sufficient security of election. I have heard no 
 dissatisfaction yet expressed anywhere as to the result. The city is on the 
 tiptoe of expectation, and very hopeful expectation at that, as to how the 
 Social Democrats will conduct themselves, and predictions are very freely 
 made that we may expect a very satisfactory administration. 
 
 Should the Socialists of Milwaukee establish a firm and 
 sound precedent for the administration of municipal affairs by 
 experts, they will have opened a new and highly important chap- 
 ter in the story of American municipal development. 
 
SOCIALISM 157 
 
 Independent. 68:840-3. April 21, 1910 
 What Is the Matter with Milwaukee? Victor L. Berger 
 
 For the first time in the history of this country the Socialists 
 have carried a large city. They have carried Milwaukee, a city 
 of nearly 400,000. This was done after many years of struggling 
 and gradual but substantial growth. For 1898 we polled only 
 2,414 votes; in 1900 we polled 2,473 votes; in 1902, 8,453 votes; 
 1904, 15,056 votes; 1906, 16,837 votes; 1908, 20,887 votes; and 
 1910, 27,622. 
 
 The Socialists of Milwaukee feel proud of this. And they 
 have the more reason, when they look back upon the kind of 
 campaign that was made against them. 
 
 The Socialist ticket was elected after a campaign of abuse 
 and vilification such as has never been equaled in Milwaukee. 
 
 The Socialists were accused of preaching "bullets, not bal- 
 lots" ; accused of favoring a bloody revolution and of intending 
 to plant the "red flag of bloodlust" upon the city hall. The 
 voters were warned that the "many headed reptile of Socialism 
 threatened the home, the religious beliefs of our people and 
 their liberty before God and man." 
 
 These accusations were repeated day after day and night 
 after night from the platform. They were printed day after day 
 in bold, black type in advertisements in the daily papers. They 
 were made the text of many editorials, in all kinds of periodicals. 
 
 Besides, almost the entire daily press six English, two Ger- 
 man and two Polish papers seemed to agree that the election 
 of the Socialist ticket would destroy the "credit" of the city and 
 paralyze its further growth. 
 
 However, we have the satisfaction that the chief shrieker, the 
 Republican candidate, had only 11,262 votes. The Democratic 
 nominee polled 20,513 votes. But the Socialist, Emil Seidel, 
 received 27,622. 
 
 We also elected all the seven candidates for aldermen-at- 
 large, and fourteen ward-aldermen out of twenty-three. 
 
 Among them was the rock-ribbed Fourteenth Ward, on which 
 the Democratic party was supposed to have a perpetual mort- 
 gage, because the inhabitants are all Poles and Roman Catholics. 
 
 However, altho the priests had, as usual, their political say 
 on the Sunday before the election, in some way or another a cog 
 
158 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 slipped and the majority of the ballots in the Fourteenth Ward 
 were "red," not "black." 
 
 The Democratic forces in all probability would have been 
 beaten quite as badly as the Republicans, if many "good" Repub- 
 licans had not voted for Mayor Rose's Crown Prince, Schoen- 
 ecker, because they feared the success of the Socialists. 
 
 As for the nationality of our voters, they are overwhelmingly 
 American. As a rule the Socialists cannot get either the German 
 or the Pole of the first generation to say nothing of the other 
 immigrants. We have to wait for the second, the American born 
 generation, educated in the public schools, or, at least, in a 
 parochial school. 
 
 Our entire method of propaganda is and has been in the 
 past, the use of literature. We distributed about 750,000 pieces 
 in this campaign. 
 
 Now the very next question before us is the problem of 
 applying the international Socialist philosophy to present condi- 
 tions and to Milwaukee. 
 
 We must now show the people of Milwaukee and of the 
 United States that the philosophy of international Socialism can 
 be applied and will be applied to a local situation, and that it 
 can be applied with advantage to any American city of the pres- 
 ent day. 
 
 As to the fears about the Socialist party, they are ridiculous. 
 
 Since election day is over nobody in Milwaukee is afraid of 
 the Socialist party. 
 
 The workingmen surely are not afraid. In fact, working- 
 men, organized and unorganized, constitute the overwhelming 
 bulk more than 95 per cent of the Socialist party. 
 
 The workingmen see in Socialism their only hope and guid- 
 ing star for the future. They see in Socialism their deliverance 
 from the present system, which keeps them in ignorance, misery 
 and degradation and exploits them both by low wages and 
 high prices. 
 
 The workingmen know that only as Socialism is introduced 
 and instilled into our public life and public institutions, will 
 trust rule, starvation and degradation vanish. 
 
 So more and more every year the workingmen form the 
 solid phalanx of the movement. In Milwaukee they are almost 
 a unit for the Socialist party. 
 
 So much for the workingman. 
 
SOCIALISM 159 
 
 Now, are the small business men afraid? They are not. 
 
 The small business men see that they are economically 
 doomed by the ruthless competition and the overwhelming power 
 of the trusts. 
 
 And they know that, after all, the great mass of the working 
 people stands nearer to them in methods of thought, mode of 
 life, and common sufferance than the capitalists. 
 
 The small business men are sure that their fate is tied to 
 the fate of the proletariat. They are sure of the sympathy of 
 the working class. And the working class to no small degree is 
 sure of their sympathies. 
 
 Some people said, however, that in case of a Socialist victory, 
 Socialism would be tried in Milwaukee, law and order would be 
 abolished, and trades unionism, strikes and boycotts would run 
 amuck. 
 
 It is true that certain of our big business men were badly 
 frightened. 
 
 Yet it ought to be clear to every thinking man that we can- 
 not abolish capitalism in Milwaukee alone or in Wisconsin alone. 
 
 Moreover, every thinking Socialist knows that capitalism 
 cannot and will not be abolished in one day. We all know that 
 it can only be abolished gradually. 
 
 We all understand that, even after its downfall, remnants 
 of it will remain for a long time to come. Remnants of feudal- 
 ism even now are still strong in England, France and Germany, 
 altho feudalism broke down a long, long time ago. The capital- 
 ism has taken its place. 
 
 And as to law and order: While the Socialists have not 
 made the laws and are not responsible for the present order 
 or disorder, even our opponents must concede that we obey 
 and carry out the laws, and make our opponents obey them as 
 far as we can. 
 
 Socialists all over the globe have always complied with the 
 laws of their respective countries. 
 
 At the same time, we admit that we will not give the laws 
 that hateful and oppressive construction and interpretation 
 toward the working class which they usually receive under 
 capitalistic administrations. 
 
 We also declare that we will change and abolish * all the 
 oppressive laws at the first opportunity we get. 
 
 And it is, moreover, clear to every observer that the Social- 
 
i<5o SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 1st party is a great organizer. And organization always means 
 order. Socialism in itself never creates disorder it stands for 
 a new order and a higher order. 
 
 Why, then, should any sane man be afraid of the Socialist 
 party ? 
 
 The effect of Socialism upon the laboring class can be best 
 studied in the trades unions of Milwaukee. 
 
 We have had hardly any strikes in Milwaukee during the 
 last six or seven years. In fact, we had many less strikes than 
 any other city of half its size or one-fourth its industrial 
 importance. 
 
 The main reason for the rare occurrence of strikes in 
 Milwaukee is very simple. 
 
 The Socialist has made the present industrial system a study. 
 
 He knows very well that the individual employer is about as 
 much the product of the present system as the individual 
 workingman. He knows that the capitalist is as much bound by 
 it as the proletarian. The Socialist knows what the so-called 
 employer can do and what he cannot do. 
 
 The Socialist knows what the wage-worker may ask and 
 what he may not ask under the present system. 
 
 The Socialist loves his home, his wife and children. He 
 wants to get as much as possible for them. But at the same 
 time, knowing the capitalist system, he knows that he cannot go 
 too far without destroying his own home. 
 
 And moreover, the Socialist has the social conscience. He 
 looks at everything from the standpoint of the working class; 
 from the standpoint of the community ; from the standpoint of 
 the craft to which he belongs. 
 
 I can say from actual experience that at times the Socialists 
 of Milwaukee have opposed some strikes that have been declared 
 in this city. 
 
 True, after a strike has once been declared by the majority, 
 the Socialists have been the most active and ardent supporters 
 of it and the last to give up when the strike was lost. But 
 they rarely start a strike. 
 
 Then why should anybody be afraid of many strikes and 
 boycotts in Milwaukee in case of a Socialist victory? 
 
 The Milwaukee trades unions have proven to be a factor for 
 order, not for disorder. 
 
SOCIALISM 161 
 
 Trades unions are absolutely necessary for the protection 
 of the workingmen, organized and unorganized. 
 
 Even our adversaries and opponents, if they are honest, 
 admit that the influence of the Socialists has been for good; 
 that it has been wholesome; that the very presence of our men 
 has acted as a sort of public conscience, represented in the 
 meetings of the common council and the county board. 
 
 We did not get any votes from the capitalist class as such, 
 or from the hypocrites who decry sin in the open and practice 
 it secretly. 
 
 We told them plainly that we scorned the votes of men who 
 prefer hold-up men in control of the city government to honest 
 workingmen. 
 
 And we want it understood that we did not ask anybody to 
 vote for our candidates only because they are honest. 
 
 Socialists aim at higher things than simply not to steal when 
 they are in office and not to be bribed when a franchise is 
 to be given out. 
 
 Honesty, that is, the capacity not to steal and not to be 
 bribed, when there is the temptation, may be the highest ideal 
 that any capitalist party has set up, but has not reached. 
 
 With us this kind of honesty is the first and smallest 
 requirement. 
 
 But we want to expose the false pretense that the Socialists 
 and trades unions will create constant disorder because of the 
 victory of our party in Milwaukee. 
 
 We want it understood that we shall have better order in 
 every respect under a Socialist administration than we now 
 have in any city in the country. 
 
 The realization of our limitations in administering the affairs 
 of Milwauke should not, however, warrant the assumption that 
 the complete emancipation of labor from capitalism is any less 
 our aim and object. Therefore this is our answer to the 
 question : 
 
 What is the matter with Milwaukee? 
 
 The working class here is gradually awakening to the possi- 
 bilities of modern achievements in production. And that their 
 proper administration will give to all the race security, peace 
 and the necessities and comforts of life. 
 
162 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 Independent. 52:2018-21. August 23, 1900 
 The Social Democratic Party. E. V. Debs 
 
 In the Presidential election of 1892 the Socialist candidate 
 received 21,512 votes; in the election of 1896 the vote was 
 increased to 36,275 votes. The following two years witnessed 
 an unprecedented spread of Socialist sentiment and in the con- 
 gressional and state elections of 1898 the Socialist candidates 
 received 91,749 votes, an increase of almost 200 per cent, in 
 two years. But it must not be assumed that this vote repre- 
 sented the entire political strength of Socialists in the United 
 States. In a number of states the election laws were such that 
 the Socialist ticket could not be placed upon the official ballot, 
 while in many districts the number of Socialists was so small 
 and they were so widely scattered that no nominations were 
 made and the Socialist vote was not polled. 
 
 The figures given are sufficient to indicate that in the United 
 States, as in other countries, International Socialism is making 
 tremendous strides and that its 7,000,000 supporters, spread over 
 all the belts and zones of the globe, and the most active propa- 
 gandists ever known, will in the next few years be multiplied 
 into controlling majorities in all lands which have modern 
 industry as the basis of their civilization, Socialism being wholly 
 a question of economic development. This will mean the end 
 of the present capitalist competitive system and the introduction 
 of its economic successor, the cooperative commonwealth. 
 
 The movement is international because it is born of and 
 follows the development of the capitalist system, which, in its 
 operation, is confined to no country, but by the stimulus of 
 modern agencies of production, exchange, communication and 
 transportation, has overleaped all boundary lines and made the 
 world the theater of its activities. By this process all the 
 nations of the earth must finally be drawn into relations of 
 industrial and commercial cooperation, as the economic basis of 
 human brotherhood. 
 
 This is the goal of modern Socialism and it is this that 
 inspires its disciples with the zeal and ardor of crusaders. 
 
 So much has been said and written of Socialism by persons 
 who have no proper conception of its origin, its philosophy and 
 its mission, or who, for reasons of their own, have resorted' to 
 wilful misrepresentation, that it is not strange that a great 
 
SOCIALISM 163 
 
 many people instinctively shrink from the merest mention of it, 
 and look upon those who advocate this perfectly sane and 
 scientific doctrine as the enemies of society, maliciously plotting 
 to overthrow its cherished institutions. 
 
 What is Socialism? To answer in a single sentence, it means 
 the collective ownership by all the people of all the means of 
 wealth production and distribution. It is purely an economic 
 question; the evolution of industry has developed Socialism. 
 Man can only work, produce wealth, with tools. The mere 
 hand tools of former times have become ponderous and very 
 costly machines. These machines, Socialists contend, represent 
 progressive social conceptions. These and the factories, mills, 
 and shops in which they are housed, as well as the lands and 
 mines from which the raw materials are drawn, are used in 
 common by the workers, and in their very nature are marked 
 for common ownership and control. Socialism does not propose 
 the collective ownership of property, but of capital; this is to 
 say, the instruments of wealth production, which, in the form 
 of private property, enable a few capitalists to exploit vast 
 numbers of workers, thus creating millionaires and mendicants 
 and inaugurating class rule and all its odious and undemocratic 
 distinctions. 
 
 At this point I deem it proper to introduce the platform of 
 the Social Democratic party, adopted at its recent national 
 convention, held at Indianapolis: 
 
 The Social Democratic Party of America declares that life, liberty and 
 happiness depend upon equal political and economic rights. 
 
 In our economic development an industrial revolution has taken place, 
 the individual tool of former years having become the social tool of the 
 present. The individual tool was owned by the worker who employed 
 himself and was master of his product. The social tool, the machine, is 
 owned by the capitalist and the worker is dependent upon him for employ- 
 ment. The capitalist thus becomes the master of the worker and is able 
 to appropriate to himself a large share of the product of his labor. 
 
 Capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production, is respon- 
 sible for the insecurity of subsistence, the poverty, misery and degradation 
 of the ever-growing majority of our people but the same economic forces 
 which have produced and now intensify the capitalist system will necessitate 
 the adoption of Socialism, the collective ownership of the means of produc- 
 tion for the common good and welfare. 
 
 The present system of social production and private ownership is 
 rapidly converting society into two antagonistic classes i. e. the capitalist 
 class and propertyless class. The middle class, once the most powerful 
 of this great nation, is disappearing in the mill of competition. The issue 
 
164 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 is now between the two classes first named. Our political liberty is now 
 of little value to the masses unless used to acquire economic liberty. 
 
 Independent political action and the trade union movement are the 
 chief emancipating factors of the working class, the one representing its 
 political, the other its economic wing, and both must cooperate to abolish 
 the capitalist system. 
 
 Therefore the Social Democratic Party of America declares its object 
 to be: 
 
 i* The organization of the working class into a political party to 
 conquer the public powers now controlled by capitalists. 
 
 2. The abolition of wage-slavery by the establishment of a national 
 system of cooperative industry, based upon the social or common ownership 
 of the means of production and distribution, to be administered by society 
 in the common interest of all its members, and the complete emancipation 
 of the socially useful classes from the domination of capitalism. 
 
 The working class and all those in sympathy with their historic mission 
 to realize a higher civilization should sever connection with all capitalist 
 and reform parties and unite with the Social Democratic Party of America. 
 
 The control of political power by the Social Democratic Party will be 
 tantamount to the abolition of all class rule. 
 
 The solidarity of labor connection the millions of class-conscious 
 fellow-workers throughout the civilized world will lead to international 
 Socialism, the brotherhood of man. 
 
 As steps in that direction, we make the following demands: 
 
 1. Revision of our Federal Cpnstitution in order to remove the ob- 
 stacles to complete control of government by the people irrespective of 
 sex. 
 
 2. The public ownership of all industries controlled by monopolies, 
 trusts and combines. 
 
 3. The public ownership of all railroads, telegraphs and telephones; 
 all means of transportation, and communication; all water-works; gas and 
 electric plants, and other public utilities. 
 
 4. The public ownership of all gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, coal, 
 and other mines, and all oil and gas wells. 
 
 5. The reduction of the hours of labor in proportion to the increasing 
 facilities of production. 
 
 6. The inauguration of a system of public works and improvements 
 for the employment of the unemployed, the public credit to be utilized 
 for that purpose. 
 
 7. Useful inventions to be free, the inventor to be remunerated by 
 the public. 
 
 8. Labor legislation to be national, instead of local, and international 
 when possible. 
 
 9. National insurance of working people against accidents, lack of 
 employment and want in old age. 
 
 10. Equal civil and political rights for men and women, and the 
 abolition of all laws discriminating against women. 
 
 11. The adoption of the initiative and referendum, proportional rep- 
 resentation, and the right of recall of representatives by the voters. 
 
 12. Abolition of war and the introduction of international arbitration. 
 
SOCIALISM 165 
 
 It will be observed that the Social Democratic party is 
 pledged to equal rights for all without reference to sex, color 
 or other conditions. Equality of rights and opportunities for 
 all human beings is the vital fundamental principle of Socialism. 
 It aims to establish economic equality by making all equal pro- 
 prietors of the means upon which all depend for employment, 
 and without which there can be no "life, liberty and pursuit of 
 happiness." This insures economic freedom for every human 
 being. As no one would have private property in that upon 
 which another depended for employment, industrial mastery and 
 slavery would disappear together and competition for profit 
 would give way to cooperation for use. 
 
 The rapidly changing economic conditions are paving the 
 way for the transition from competitive capitalism to coopera- 
 tive Socialism. Socialists are simply indicating the trend of 
 the evolution, and seeking to prepare the way for its orderly 
 reception. The coming of Socialism is with them not a 
 debatable question. That is not a matter of doubt or conjecture, 
 but of scientific calculation. 
 
 The evolution of the social organism is a fact in nature. 
 In the ceaseless process one state of society follows another 
 in the sequence of succession. Capitalism, the present system, 
 was warmed into life in the womb of feudalism and sprang 
 from that medieval system. Within the span of two centuries 
 this system has practically reached the climax of its develop- 
 ment, and the marvelous material progress of that period 
 exceeds the achievements of all the centuries since the slaves 
 of Pharaoh built the pyramids. 
 
 The rapid centralization of capital and the extensive co- 
 operation of labor mark the high state of our economic develop- 
 ment. Individual initiative and competitive effort are becoming 
 less and less possible. The day of small production has passed 
 never to return. Notwithstanding the outcry, trusts and depart- 
 ment stores, these great modern agencies, increase in number 
 and power. They are the inevitable outgrowth of the com- 
 petitive system. The efforts of small capitalists to destroy trusts 
 will prove as fruitless as the efforts of workingmen to destroy 
 labor saving machines when first introduced in the last century. 
 
 Socialists take the ground that the trust in itself is not an 
 evil, that the evil lies wholly in the private ownership, and its 
 
 13 
 
166 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 operation for private profit. The remedy is collective owner- 
 ship and they propose to transfer all such agencies from private 
 hands to the collectivity, to be managed and operated for the 
 good of all. 
 
 Ignoring all such alleged issues as "expansion," "imperial- 
 ism," "free silver," "gold standard," "protection," "free trade," 
 etc., the Social Democratic party declares that economic freedom 
 is the supreme question that confronts the people. A century 
 and a quarter ago the revolution settled the question of political 
 equality in the United States. But since then an industrial revo- 
 lution has taken place and political equality exists in name 
 only, while the great mass struggle in economic servitude. The 
 working class are dependent upon the capitalist class, who own 
 the machines and other means of production; and the latter 
 class, by virtue of their economic mastery, are the ruling class 
 of the nation, and it is idle under such conditions to claim 
 that men are equal and that all are sovereign citizens. No man 
 is free in any just sense who has to rely upon the arbitrary will 
 of another for the opportunity to work. Such a man works, 
 and therefore lives, by permission, and this is the economic 
 relation of the working class to the capitalist class in the 
 present system. 
 
 In the last century millions of workers were exploited of the 
 fruit of their labor under the institution of chattel slavery. 
 Work being done by hand, ownership of the slave was a 
 condition necessary to his exploitation. But chattel slavery 
 disappeared before the march of industrial evolution, and today 
 would be an economic impossibility. It is no longer necessary 
 to own the body of the workingman in order to appropriate 
 the fruit of his labor ; it is only necessary to own the tool with 
 which he works, and without which he is helpless. This tool 
 in its modern form is a vast machine which the worker cannot 
 afford to buy, and against which he cannot compete with his 
 bare hands, and in the very nature of the situation he is at the 
 mercy of the owner of the machine, his employment is precarious 
 and his very life is suspended by a slender thread. 
 
 Then, again, the factory and mine are operated for profit 
 only and the owner can, and often does, close it down at will, 
 throwing hundreds, perhaps thousands, out of employment who, 
 with their families, are as helpless as if in the desert wastes of 
 Sahara. The recent shutdown of the American Wire and Steel 
 
SOCIALISM 167 
 
 Trust in the interest of stock jobbery presented a startling object 
 lesson of economic dependence of the working class. 
 
 The few who own the machines do not use them. The 
 many who use them do not own them. The few who own 
 them are enabled to exploit the many who use them; hence a 
 few millionaires and many mendicants, extreme opulence and 
 abject poverty, princely palaces and hideous huts, riotous ex- 
 travagance and haggard want, constituting social scenes sick-, 
 ening to contemplate, and in the presence of which the master 
 hand of Hugo or Dickens is palsied and has no mission. 
 
 The Social Democratic party is organizing in every village 
 and hamlet, every town and city of every state and territory 
 in the Union. It has held its national convention, its candidates 
 are in the field, and it is appealing to the American people. It 
 will neither fuse nor compromise. It proposes to press forward, 
 step by step, until it conquers the political power and secures 
 control of government. 
 
 This will mark the end of the capitalist system. The fac- 
 tories and mills and mines, the railroads and telegraph and 
 telephone, and all other means of production and distribution 
 will be transferred to the people in their collective capacity, 
 industry will be operated cooperatively, and every human being 
 will have the "inalienable right" to work and to enjoy the fruit 
 of his labor. The hours of labor will be reduced according to 
 the progress of invention. Rent, interest and profit will be no 
 more. The sordid spirit of commercial conquest will be dead. 
 War and its ravages will pass into history. Economic equality 
 will have triumphed, labor will stand forth emancipated, and 
 the sons and daughters of men will glorify the triumphs of 
 Social Democracy. 
 
SOCIALISM VERSUS OTHER FORMS OF 
 RADICALISM 
 
 North American Review. 196:9-19. July, 1912 
 
 Syndicalism. Louis Levine 
 
 The world has been startled of late by the appearance of a 
 new actor in the drama of social life. Coming at a juncture 
 when he was least expected, the new dramatis persona at once 
 upset the situation which he found and began accelerating the 
 movement of events and passions. He came but yesterday, but 
 his determined planning and intense action have already made it 
 clear that he has a momentous part to play and that the devel- 
 opment of the social drama will in no small measure depend 
 upon what he wills and does. 
 
 This new dramatic persona is the Syndicalist. But a short 
 while ago he may have been considered a peculiar product of 
 that peculiar country, France, which has furnished the world for 
 nearly a century with "freakish" social ideas and "fantastic" 
 social schemes. But now no one can any longer hold that view. 
 The Syndicalist has invaded "common-sense" England and has 
 raised his voice in the "land of the free." He has become an 
 international figure, and his ideas are of significance to the 
 entire world. 
 
 Taken by surprise, however, the world has not had an oppor- 
 tunity as yet properly to measure the new-comer, to find out 
 what he wants. In fact, the task is not so easy. It would seem 
 that the Syndicalist really had nothing to wish that had not 
 already been supplied. It would seem that in a world where 
 Trade-Unionist, Social Reformer, Socialist, and Anarchist vied 
 with one another in curing all the social evils of the times, no 
 new brand of "ism" was possible and no room left for an "ist" 
 of a new kind. The fact, however, cannot be argued away: the 
 new "ist" is here and proclaims he has a new message for the 
 world. There must be, then, something in Syndicalism which 
 differentiates it from any other known "ism," and the question 
 naturally arises, What is it? 
 
i;o SEIECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 In a general way the answer may be given at the very outset. 
 Syndicalism is an attempt to combine Socialism and Trade- 
 Unionism in a higher synthesis in which the labor unions should 
 become the basis of Socialism, and Socialism the ideal expres- 
 sion of the unions. Such a synthesis necessarily presupposes 
 certain modifications in the structure and ideas of both .Socialism 
 and Trade-Unionism, and, like every other synthesis, contains 
 something that was not present in its constituent elements. 
 
 The Syndicalist synthesis cannot be regarded as an entirely 
 sudden phenomenon in the world of social thought and practice. 
 On the contrary, it can be traced back to the "International 
 Association of Workingmen" founded in 1864, and even further 
 back to the first half of the nineteenth century when both Social- 
 ism and Trade-Unionism were making their first awkward steps. 
 It is not at all strange that this should be so. Syndicalism is the 
 child of peculiar conditions and of a peculiar psychology closely 
 bound up with Socialism and Trade-Unionism. It is but natural, 
 therefore, that it should be found in some rudimentary form in 
 the early stages of the social movement of the nineteenth cen- 
 tury and that the Syndicalism of today should be the mature 
 fruit of seed sown long ago. 
 
 It will be easier to understand the nature of the fruit by first 
 analyzing the seed and by examining the environment in which 
 it struck root and grew. The seed was the idea of Socialism. 
 Ever since the problem of labor in its modern phase arose, in 
 the early part of the nineteenth century, one solution offered was 
 to solve the labor problem by dissolving the wages-system. As 
 a rule, this solution came from the so-called better, and certainly 
 better educated, classes of society who were deeply moved by 
 the sufferings of the working-class. Accustomed to abstract and 
 general reasoning, these representatives of the middle classes 
 and of the aristocracy sought for the general causes of the social 
 evils and found them in the institution of private property and 
 in competition. They therefore called upon society to do away 
 with private property and to reorganize industry on the basis of 
 collective solidarity and collective responsibility. As a recom- 
 pense for following their advice, they held out to the world the 
 promise of a new social era in which Equality, Liberty, and 
 Fraternity would truly reign supreme. 
 
 Born amidst the upper classes, the idea of Socialism soon 
 swept a portion of the working-class. A number of intelligent, 
 
SOCIALISM 171 
 
 active, and ambitious working-men were charmed and fascinated 
 by the grand visions of Socialism and became ardently devoted 
 to the cause of emancipating their fellow working-men from the 
 "thraldom" of the wages-system. The ideal of industrial free- 
 dom, social equality, and intellectual opportunities thrilled their 
 souls with the deepest enthusiasm, and they felt themselves to 
 be the inspired leaders in a great historic movement which, in 
 their opinion, was to liberate their class and to rejuvenate the 
 world. 
 
 The militant Socialist working-man soon found out, however, 
 that his task was not easy and that his situation was full of 
 inner contradictions. In the Socialist organizations of all types 
 secret, revolutionary, educational, and so forth which he fre- 
 quented he was at all times thrown together with more or less 
 numerous descendants of the middle class who were attracted to 
 Socialism for various reasons and who claimed the part of 
 intellectual leaders in the Socialist movement. These "intellec- 
 tuals," as they were dubbed by the working-men, surely possessed 
 superior lights and were better fitted by training and experience 
 for the role of leaders. The Socialist working-man was loath, 
 however, to acknowledge this. Awakened to a sense of the his- 
 torical importance of his class, enthused by the idea of social 
 equality, thrilled by the sentiment of his own intellectual growth, 
 he resented any, suggestion of inequality within the Socialist 
 ranks themselves, and watched with suspicion and ill feeling 
 the tendency of the "intellectuals" toward leadership and pre- 
 dominance. He could not at all times effectively counteract it. 
 But he was always ready to turn upon the middle-class "intel- 
 lectuals" to whose intuition and reasoning he owed the idea of 
 Socialism, and to start a movement in which his own predom- 
 inance would not be threatened. This tendency, on the part of 
 the militant Socialist working-man, runs like a thread through 
 the whole history of modern Socialism. 
 
 On the other hand, turning to his own class, the militant 
 Socialist working-man soon convinced himself that he could not 
 get at once the response he so hopefully expected. The large 
 mass of the working-class was actuated by simpler and more 
 elementary motives. It wanted some improvement right now and 
 here, it cared more for things than for principles, it had a keener 
 feeling for the pangs of the stomach than for the pains of 
 the heart or brain. The Socialist working-man regretted and 
 
172 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 deplored this state of affairs, but he could not ignore it. After 
 all, he was a working-man himself, who knew by bitter experi- 
 ence what it meant to be in want. He had to adapt himself, 
 therefore, to the conditions and psychology of his class and 
 to take an interest in their immediate demands if he wanted 
 them to take an interest in his far-away ideal. As a rule, 
 the mass of the workers hit independently upon the means of 
 improving their immediate conditions means which hinged upon 
 the idea of combination and organization, and which resulted in 
 the rise and development of Trade-Unionism. The militant 
 Socialist working-man was thus driven to do his share in the 
 work of the Trade-Unions, for there was no hope for him out- 
 side the ranks of his own class. 
 
 But entering the Trade-Union, the Socialist working-man 
 never lost sight of his ideal. Nor did he lose his impatience 
 with existing conditions or his feverish hope to bring about his 
 ideal as soon as possible. He was a social Faust within whose 
 breast two souls resided one clinging to the sufferings and 
 demands of his class in the present, the other sweeping "the 
 dust of the present above into the high spaces" of Socialism in 
 the future. But, like Faust, he was not content to have his 
 breast rent in twain. On the contrary, he was intent upon real- 
 izing, as soon as possible, a harmonious union of the conflicting 
 feelings, ideas, and aspirations which his peculiar economic, 
 political, and intellectual existence called into being. 
 
 The history of the Socialist movement reveals the gropings 
 of the militant Socialist working-man for the unity just spoken 
 of, and this is why rudimentary Syndicalist ideas may be found 
 all along in the social movement of the nineteenth century. But 
 before Syndicalism could assume its present developed form, it 
 was necessary that the conditions described above should become 
 more pronounced and accentuated. This was brought about in 
 the latter part of the past century by a complicated chain of 
 economic, political, and other causes. 
 
 In the nineties of the past century the Socialists had their 
 first big electoral successes in France, Germany, and other coun- 
 tries. They not only polled a large number of votes, but 
 succeeded in electing many of their members to national and 
 municipal legislative bodies. The result was a change in the 
 composition and character of the Socialist parties. The latter 
 were everywhere invaded by large and new sections of the 
 
SOCIALISM 173 
 
 middle class, particularly by representatives of the liberal pro- 
 fessions such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, and so forth, who 
 swamped the Socialist working-men in all positions of authority 
 and responsibility in the Socialist party, Socialist press, and 
 Socialist parliamentary groups. The invading "intellectuals" 
 carried with them their group feelings, their habits of mind, and 
 their methods of procedure. They introduced into the Socialist 
 movement the ideas of slow evolutionary changes, of a gradual 
 "growing-in" into Socialism, of peaceful and diplomatic negotia- 
 tions with "capitalist" political parties. They extolled the import- 
 ance and influence of legislative bodies in which they could 
 display their general knowledge, oratorical powers, and resplen- 
 dent qualities. In a word, they imparted to Socialism that 
 exclusively political and legislative character smooth and mod- 
 .erate which has in recent years both surprised and soothed 
 the world. 
 
 At the same time the political Socialists were not slow to 
 show their intention of subordinating the economic organizations 
 of the working-class to the political party. To the political 
 Socialist the Trade-Union could not but appear as a secondary 
 organization which wrangles with employers over minor matters 
 and which is insignificant in comparison with the great political 
 organization. The political Socialist could value the Trade- 
 Union mainly as a field for recruiting new Socialist converts and 
 could expect nothing more from an organization which, in his 
 opinion, was to disappear after the triumph of Socialism and 
 which could play but a subordinate part in the movement toward 
 a Socialist victory to be brought about by capturing the political 
 machinery of the State. 
 
 The change in the character of Socialism its marked evolu- 
 tion in the direction of an exclusively political, peaceful, and 
 legal movement blazed into fire the embers of discontent which 
 had slumbered in the breast of the militant Socialist working- 
 man. The latter was alarmed by the success of political Social- 
 ism, which, in his opinion, was dangerous to the real success of 
 the Social Revolution. The militant working-man suspected the 
 environment of Parliament, its methods and political trickery, 
 and felt in his heart a growing antagonism to a form of action 
 which led the Socialists into the stifling embrace of "capitalist" 
 parliamentary institutions. The militant Socialist working-man 
 therefore began to look about for another form of social move- 
 
174 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 ment which would embody his revolutionary spirit, preserve his 
 hope of a speedy emancipation, and secure for him equality 
 within the organization. He had groped for such a movement 
 for years and years. He had organized secret revolutionary 
 societies, he had tried Socialist cooperatives, he had attempted 
 open revolt. But his previous attempts had been unsuccessful, 
 and, furthermore, former methods were no longer applicable 
 under the new conditions of the latter part of the nineteenth 
 century. The militant working-man saw that the development 
 of democracy and the expansion of industry had made necessary 
 a form of organization which would be broad enough to include 
 large masses and flexible enough to be capable of both political 
 and economic action. Examining more closely the nature of 
 the Trade-Union in which he had always played some part, the 
 militant Socialist working-man was struck by the idea that it 
 offered the form of organization he was so eagerly looking for 
 and that it was capable of carrying on the social movement in 
 which he placed his hopes. He therefore now changed his for- 
 mer attitude to the Trade-Union; instead of merely suffering it, 
 he now began actively to support it and to shape it in accordance 
 with his views and aspirations. 
 
 By a process of careful reasoning and under the influence 
 of experience the militant Socialist workingman gradually de- 
 veloped the whole theory of syndicalism in which the syndicat 
 or labor union is the basis, end, and means. The syndicat 
 according to this theory is the organization which first brings 
 the workingmen together, binds them by ties of common inter- 
 est, develops in them the sentiment of solidarity, and consoli- 
 dates them into a coherent self-conscious class. Organized in 
 the syndicats, the workingmen are in a position to enter into a 
 direct struggle with employers and the State for better conditions 
 of life and work. Direct action which the syndicalists so much 
 insist upon consists in exerting energetic pressure and coercion 
 on the employers and the State in such a manner as to rally 
 all the workers around one banner in direct opposition to exist- 
 ing institutions. Nation wide strikes, vehement agitation, public 
 demonstrations, and like procedures, which arouse passions and 
 shake up the mass of the workingmen, are in the view of the 
 syndicalists the only method which can make the workingmen 
 clearly perceive the evils and contradictions of present-day 
 society and which lead to material successes. Such methods 
 
SOCIALISM 175 
 
 alone drive home to the workingmen the truth that the emanci- 
 pation of the workers must and can be the work of the workers 
 themselves, and free the latter from the illusion that anybody 
 else even their representatives in Parliament can do the job 
 for them. By constantly bringing workingmen into open and 
 sharp conflict with employers, direct action, in all its mani- 
 festations, necessarily undermines the foundations of existing 
 society and fortifies the position of the working class. Every 
 successful strike, every victory of labor when gained by ener- 
 getic pressure and direct action is regarded by the syndicalists 
 as a blow directed against capitalism and as a strategic point 
 occupied by the workers on their way toward final emancipation. 
 Reforms, therefore, gained and upheld by direct action do 
 not strengthen existing society, but, on the contrary, dilapi- 
 date it and pave the way for a complete and violent social 
 transformation. 
 
 The latter, in the opinion of the syndicalists, is inevitable. 
 The direct struggle of the syndicats argue they increasing in 
 scope and importance, must finally lead to a decisive collision 
 in which the two antagonistic classes the working class and the 
 employers will be brought face to face. How that decisive 
 struggle will be begun cannot be foretold. But it most probably 
 will have its origin in a strike which, spreading from industry 
 to industry and from locality to locality, will involve the whole 
 country and affect the entire nation. This will be the general 
 strike, in which the issue will not be an increase of wages or 
 any other minor matter, but the paramount social issue: who 
 shall henceforth control industry and direct the economic 
 activities of the nation? 
 
 The syndicalists will not wait for Parliament to decide that 
 question, but will take matters into their own hands. When the 
 "final hour of emancipation" strikes, the militant workingmen 
 organized in the syndicats will step in and assume control of 
 all means of production, transportation, and exchange. They 
 will proclaim the common ownership of all means of production, 
 and will start production under the direction of the syndicats. 
 Every syndicat will have the use of the means of production 
 necessary for carrying on its work. All syndicats of a locality 
 will be organized in local federations which will have charge 
 of all local industrial matters. These local federations of labor 
 will collect all statistics pertaining to local production and con- 
 
i;6 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 sumption, will provide the raw material, and will act as inter- 
 mediaries between a locality and the rest of the country. All 
 syndicats of the country in any one industry will be organized 
 in a national industrial federation having charge of the special 
 interests of the industry, while local federations and industrial 
 federations will be organized in one great national federation 
 of labor which will take care of matters national in scope and 
 importance. 
 
 This ideal, according to the syndicalists, is not a scheme or 
 a Utopia whose realization depends upon the good-will or 
 wisdom of any individual or individuals. It is a social system 
 gradually evolved by the synicalist movement and gradually pre- 
 pared by the social struggles of today. The framework of the 
 ideal society is being built every day by the growth of organi- 
 zations among the workingmen, by the ever-spreading network 
 of syndicats, local, industrial, and national federations. And 
 the intellectual and moral qualities necessary for controlling 
 society are gradually acquired by the workingmen in their 
 organizations, in their struggle, and in their everyday experiences. 
 
 Here, in this theory, the militant workingman finally achieved 
 the synthesis he was groping for. The Syndicat or labor 
 union kept out the middle class "intellectual," barred the 
 politician, and made compromise impossible. On the other hand, 
 it secured the leadership of the revolutionary workingman, 
 brought him into a direct struggle with employers and the state, 
 and offered him the image of his future ideal society. It promi- 
 nently held before him the fact that his salvation lay in his own 
 hands, in the weapons forged by himself, in direct action and 
 the general strike. The syndicalist workingman could, there- 
 fore, now counteract the "pernicious" influence of the political 
 Socialist and work for the social revolution in his own way and 
 through his own organizations. The cause of the workingmen 
 was now in safe hands, and his profound yearning for a speedy 
 social emancipation was gratified. 
 
 There are several reasons why syndicalism first developed 
 in France and why it achieved there its most notable success. 
 France, before other countries, witnessed those changes in the 
 character of Socialism which were described above. France 
 was the first country to have a Socialist minister, M. Millerand, 
 and to reveal the "demoralizing" effects of Parliament on the 
 
SOCIALISM 177 
 
 Socialists. France, besides, is rich in revolutionary traditions 
 which at all times fed the revolutionary feelings of the militant 
 workingfnen. Thirdly, the French syndicats began to develop 
 only at the time when Socialism was becoming insufficient for 
 the militant workingmen, and the latter had therefore little 
 difficulty in capturing the syndicats. When the General Con- 
 federation of Labor (La Confederation General du Travail) 
 was formed in 1895, it was soon brought under the combined 
 influence of Socialist and Anarchist workingmen, who steered 
 the organization in the direction of revolutionary methods and 
 syndicalist ideas. The success of the General Confederation was 
 due to their energetic action and devotion, and the influence 
 of their ideas grew in consequence. The General Confedera- 
 tion has grown steadily since 1902, and has now about 500,000 
 members. It consists of local and industrial federations which 
 in their turn are composed of single syndicats, and presents, 
 from the syndicalists' point of view, the embryo of the future 
 society. 
 
 In England the situation is somewhat different. Syndicalists' 
 ideas had their exponents among English workingmen before, 
 and a syndicalist paper, the- Voice of Labor, was published in 
 1907. But syndicalism did not make headway in England until 
 Tom Mann, an experienced labor leader, was converted to the 
 new ideas. Tom Mann had spent some years in the labor move- 
 ment of Australia, and was disappointed by the slowness, un- 
 certainty, and trickery of the political game which the Aus- 
 tralian workingmen played in the hope of achieving their ends. 
 He then went to France and underwent there the influence of 
 the syndicalists. Since then Tom Mann has been actively 
 propagating syndicalist ideas in England. He started a monthly, 
 the Industrial Syndicalist, in 1910, and under his influence a 
 syndicalist organization the Industrial Syndicalist Education 
 League, was formed in Manchester toward the end of 1910. 
 The Syndicalist Education League is now publishing the Syndi- 
 calist a monthly devoted to the propaganda of syndicalism in 
 England. The new ideas have found numerous adherents, par- 
 ticularly among the workingmen of the building trades, the 
 transport workers, and the miners. In November, 1910, the 
 English syndicalists held their first conference in Manchester, 
 at which 60,000 workers were represented. Since then their 
 
i;8 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 numbers have undoubtedly increased and new industrial groups 
 have been gained. The recent strikes in England show that at 
 least syndicalist forms of organization and methods are forced 
 upon the workingmen by the powerful combinations of employ- 
 ers and by the rather ambiguous policy of the government. The 
 further development of syndicalism in England will depend on 
 the success with which the convinced syndicalists will be able 
 to "bore from within" and to steer the trade unions in the 
 direction of the new doctrine, while the success of their efforts 
 will depend on economic and political conditions. 
 
 In America the specter of syndicalism first appeared in the 
 Lawrence strike. The American syndicalists, the Industrial 
 Workers of the World, who directed the strike in Lawrence, 
 have been attracting more and more attention since and have 
 been trying to make syndicalism a factor in American life. 
 American syndicalism should not be regarded as an importation 
 from France. Of course, American syndicalists have been more 
 or less in contact with French syndicalists, but the movement 
 has grown up on American soil and can be traced back to the 
 Knights of Labor. The latter had already formed a vague idea 
 of industrial organization which is so actively propagated by 
 the Industrial Workers of the World. Craft unionism, how- 
 ever, carried the day in America after 1886, and achieved 
 marked success in the development of the American Federation 
 of Labor. The idea of industrial unionism, nevertheless, never 
 died out, and in recent years has been gaming ground under the 
 influence of favorable economic conditions. Finding support 
 among Socialist workingmen, the idea of industrial unionism 
 was combined with the Socialist conception, and a theory re- 
 sembling French syndicalism in the most essential points was 
 the result. This theory was made the basis of the program 
 adopted by the I. W. W. in 1905. 
 
 The Industrial Workers of the World differ, however, from 
 the French syndicalists in their attitude toward the general 
 strike. The former conceive the social revolution not as a 
 stoppage from work, but as a "staying at work." According 
 to this idea the workingmen will one day declare the means 
 of production common property, but, instead of leaving the fac- 
 tories, will stay there to continue production on a Socialist basis. 
 The difference, however, is rather verbal, for any act having for 
 
SOCIALISM 179 
 
 its purpose such a tremendous change will lead to the inter- 
 ruption of industrial activities at least for some time. The 
 I. W. W. are, besides, more in favor of passive resistance and 
 of other forms of struggle which, though less demonstrative 
 and noisy than the methods of the French syndicalists, are 
 believed to give the workers a strategic advantage over 
 employers. 
 
 Syndicalism is primarily a working class movement having 
 for its end the solution of the labor problem. But its plans 
 are so far-reaching and involve such profound social changes 
 that society as a whole is necessarily affected. What has, then, 
 syndicalism to offer to those classes of society which are not 
 occupied in manual labor? 
 
 The syndicalists have recently given some attention to this 
 problem. They have solved it by extending the meaning of 
 labor so as to include all productive work. Teachers, doctors, 
 artists, clerks, and the like have been organized into syndicats 
 and have joined the army of organized workers. The syndical- 
 ists propose to organize in the same way all those who do some 
 useful work for society, or, as they express it, to "syndicalize" 
 society. Their idea is to transform society into a federation of 
 self-governing productive groups working together for the 
 benefit of all with instruments belonging to society as a whole 
 and under the supreme control of the community. 
 
 From the political point of view, therefore, syndicalism must 
 be regarded as an attempt to transform the existing political 
 state into an industrial federation. Syndicalism hopes thereby 
 to do away with the arbitrary and coercive aspects of the 
 modern state and to inaugurate an era of expert public service 
 when every man will do his share of the work of society in 
 that field alone in which his knowledge and skill are greatest. 
 
 Syndicalism is ready to fight any organization opposed to 
 it and ambitious to absorb all that are friendly to it. It must, 
 therefore, necessarily arouse the hostility not only of the con- 
 servative elements of society, but even of reformers and political 
 Socialists. 
 
i8o SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 Anarchy versus Socialism. William C. Owen 
 
 The object of this pamphlet is to set out in the very simplest 
 language at our command, and with the most absolute fidelity to 
 truth, the fundamental bases of Anarchy and Socialism. We 
 believe that those who feel impelled to take an interest in the 
 great social questions that are growling for solution wish to act 
 intelligently and understand the direction in which they are 
 heading. 
 
 All movements are inspired either with the spirit of Anarchy, 
 urging the claims of the individual, or with that of Socialism, 
 urging those of the collectivity; and it is impossible to have a 
 clear or broad conception of the social movement of today, or 
 of any single branch of it, without having first acquired a clear 
 conception of what Anarchy and Socialism, respectively, have to 
 say for themselves. 
 
 Anarchy is treated at the greatest length in this pamphlet for 
 two reasons : First, because it is by far the less understood of 
 the two philosophies ; and secondly, because a full analysis of 
 the Anarchist position will be found to have cleared the way 
 for a consideration of the claims of Socialism. 
 
 When a man says he is an Anarchist he puts on himself the 
 most definite of labels. He announces that he is a "no rule" 
 man. "Anarchy" compounded of the Greek words "ana," with- 
 out, and "arche," rule gives in a nutshell the whole of his 
 philosophy. His own conviction is that men must be free; that 
 they must own themselves, and be at full liberty to conduct their 
 lives, free from the orders of alleged superiors. 
 
 Your life belongs to you and to you alone; no invader has 
 the right to trespass on it. Similarly you have no right, because 
 you fancy yourself a wiser, better, or specially privileged person, 
 to trespass on the free development of another's life. Over that 
 he, or she, is sovereign. 
 
 Anarchists do not propose to invade the individual rights of 
 others, but they propose to resist, and do resist, to the best of 
 their ability, all invasion by others. To order your own life, 
 as a responsible individual, without invading the lives of others, 
 is freedom ; to invade the attempt to rule the lives of others is 
 to constitute yourself an enslaver; to submit to invasion and 
 rule imposed on you against your own will and judgment is to 
 write yourself down a slave. 
 
SOCIALISM 181 
 
 Essentially, therefore, Anarchism stands for the free, unre- 
 stricted development of each individual; for the giving to each 
 equal opportunity of controlling and developing his own particu- 
 lar life. It insists on equal opportunity of development for all, 
 regardless of color, race, or class ; on equal rights to whatever 
 shall be found necessary to the proper maintenance and develop- 
 ment of individual life; or a "square deal" for every human 
 being, in the most literal sense of the term. 
 
 Let us assure you that there is not an Anarchist in the world 
 who will not agree with the above simple statement. On the 
 necessity of Anarchy a life free from external rule as the 
 fundamental proposition, all Anarchists are absolutely one. 
 
 Moreover, it matters not to the Anarchist whether the rule 
 imposed on him is benevolent or malicious. In either case it is 
 an equal trespass on his right to govern his own life. In either 
 case the imposed rule tends to weaken him,' and he recognizes 
 that to.be weak is to court oppression. 
 
 Every Anarchist holds it as fundamental that he can decide 
 for himself better than the wisest can decide for him; for no one 
 knows his abilities and needs as he himself knows them. 
 
 Anarchism, therefore, is the most clear-cut of words and, 
 consequently, the most powerful. Men and movements are power- 
 ful just in proportion as they see distinctly wrjat they want, and 
 it is precisely because we Anarchists see so distinctly that all the 
 exercisers, and the would-be exercisers, of power the world over 
 are making common cause against us. Naturally, for our triumph 
 means death to their rule. 
 
 It was inevitable that all exercisers, or would-be exercisers, 
 of power should condemn in the most unqualified terms a phil- 
 osophy so fatal to their pretensions. As they consider that they 
 themselves keep the entire social machinery in motion, it was 
 entirely natural that they should think and say : "Why ! 'No rule' 
 will produce general disorder" and that they should at once 
 twist the meaning of this most exact work, giving it the sense 
 of universal chaos. The masses are governed far more by 
 ingenious misrepresentation than by club or bullet. 
 
 Anarchism used to be called Individualism, and under that 
 title it. was considered more than respectable, being, in fact, 
 regarded as the special creed of culture. But the term was 
 weak, because it did not define. People called themselves Indi- 
 vidualists just as they called themselves Liberals, without under- 
 
 14 
 
182 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 standing what "individualism" really implied, or the freedom 
 inherent in the word "liberalism." So, from the exact Greek 
 language the precise and unmistakable word "Anarchy" was 
 coined, as expressing beyond question the basic conviction that 
 all rule of man by man is slavery. 
 
 The pages of the world's foremost teachers its scientists, its 
 philosophers, its poets, and dramatists swarm with passages 
 emphasizing the vital importance of liberty; the necessity of 
 providing a favorable environment for each and every individ- 
 ual; the imperative demand for equality of opportunity for indi- 
 vidual development ; but in too many cases these writers fail to 
 sum up the case and apply their principles to present conditions 
 as we Anarchists sum them up and apply them. 
 
 The entire Anarchist movement is based on an unshakable 
 conviction that the time has come for men not merely in the 
 mass, but individually to assert themselves and insist on the 
 right to manage their own affairs without external interference; 
 to insist on the most literal "square deal," unhampered and 
 unhandicapped by the intervention of self-asserted superiors." 
 
 "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sab- 
 bath." We propose henceforth to make our own institutions and 
 to be their masters. We have come to manhood. As our brains 
 now command nature, it is high time that we should command 
 ourselves. Naturally man is incomparably the most powerful of 
 animals, able to bring into existence for himself all that is needed 
 for a rich and ample life. But under the artificial conditions im- 
 posed on them by rulers, who portion out among themselves the 
 means of life, millions of the powerful species known as "Man" 
 are reduced to the conditions of abject helplessness of which a 
 starving timber-wolf would be ashamed. It is unspeakably dis- 
 gusting to us, this helplessness of countless millions of our fel- 
 low creatures; we trace it directly to stupid, unnatural laws, by 
 which the few plunder and rule over the many, and we propose 
 to do our part in restoring to the race its natural strength, by 
 abolishing the conditions that render it at present so pitiably weak. 
 
 Every Anarchist is convinced that the death-knell of slavery 
 .of government of man by man is ringing; that the chrysalis of 
 slavish dependence is breaking, and from it there is about to 
 emerge the gorgeous butterfly of a free existence, in which each 
 individual shall truly possess his, or her, own life, with all the 
 infinite possibilities that life contains. 
 
SOCIALISM 183 
 
 Every Anarchist holds that mankind has run, at last, the 
 whole gamut of experience in government; tried it in every con- 
 ceivable form, and found it invariably wanting. 
 
 For centuries we permitted the rule of the priest, and we 
 were choked with ignorance. For centuries we tried the rule 
 of the king, and we waded in our own blood. For the last 
 century, or more, we have been experimenting with the rule of 
 democracy the bludgeoning by those unspeakable governors 
 whom majorities, drunk with power, impose on vanquished 
 minorities. This last is probably the worst of all, for we stand 
 today steeped to the lips in a universal corruption that is rotting 
 every nation to the core. 
 
 Is it not a fact that, whether it be a French deputy or an 
 English member of Parliament ; a Republican, a Democrat, or a 
 Socialist candidate for office, each and every one of them sings 
 exactly the same siren song : "Clothe me with power, and I will 
 use it for your good"? 
 
 Why should you part with power, making yourselves impotent 
 that a favored few may be omnipotent? By so doing you destroy 
 the splendid equality of nature, which sends us all into the world 
 equally naked ; equipped with what would be, under natural 
 conditions, practically equal possibilities of self-development? 
 It is you yourselves, governed by the misrepresentations of super- 
 stition, and not daring to lift your heads and look life in the 
 face, who substitute for that magnificent justice the hideously 
 unjust inequalities with which society is sick well-nigh to death. 
 Does not the experience of your daily life teach you that when, 
 in any community, any one man is loaded with power it is always 
 at the expense of many others, who are thereby rendered help- 
 less? Do you not know, that to be helpless means to be fleeced 
 and flayed without mercy; to be hunted from land to land; to- 
 scour the farthermost corners of the earth in a heart-breaking 
 search for the opportunity to make a living? We describe in a 
 few words the life of the proletariat, the workingman of today 
 that enormous class that has given away its natural powers and 
 is paying such an awful penalty for this, the sin of sins, that 
 nature punishes most unmercifully. 
 
 We have no other conception than that, so long as men 
 remain powerless, they will be robbed remorselessly, and that no 
 pity will be shown; for the simple reason that the robber, the 
 strong man, in his heart of hearts despises his victim for his 
 
184 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 weakness. We recognize that the sole remedy is for the weak 
 to win back their natural position of power, abolishing the con- 
 ditions of helplessness to which they have been reduced by arti- 
 ficial laws and unjust privileges. 
 
 The helplessness of the masses is not a subject for pity or 
 milk-and-water charity, but for the strongest indignation that 
 men should be so false to their destiny and such unspeakable 
 traitors to their great Mother Nature, who, with infinite pains 
 and through the evolution of countless ages, has raised them to 
 a height at which they have infinite possibilities at command, 
 which, in their cowardice, they spurn. 
 
 Do not natter yourselves that you can shirk this imperative 
 call to self-assertion by appointing deputies to perform the task 
 that falls to you and to you alone. Already it is clear to all who 
 have the courage to look facts in the face that the entire repre- 
 sentative system, to which the workers so fatuously looked for 
 deliverance, has resulted in a concentration of political power 
 such as is almost without parallel in history. 
 
 Our entire representative system is the quintessence of farce. 
 We take a number of men who have been making their living 
 by some one pursuit in most cases that of the law and who 
 know nothing outside that pursuit, and we require them to legis- 
 late on the ten thousand and one problems to which a highly 
 diversified and intricate industrial development has given rise. 
 The net result is work for lawyers and places for office-holders, 
 together with special privileges for shrewd financiers who know 
 well how to get little jokers inserted in measures that seem 
 innocence itself and are always fatal to the people's rights. 
 
 The political Socialists are never weary of telling the public 
 that the present economic system has broken down, and in this 
 they are profoundly correct; for when a system has reached a 
 point at which it can no longer supply the most elementary needs 
 of large masses of men, it is bankrupt. But it seems pathetically 
 strange to us that these same Socialists cannot see that their 
 criticism of the economic system applies with still greater force 
 to the entire political, representative system, which, whether 
 regarded from the standpoint of honesty or of efficiency, has 
 become a stench in the nostrils of all intelligent and fair-minded 
 persons. 
 
 In economic matters the Socialists see clearly enough that a 
 complete change a true revolution is needed, but they still 
 
SOCIALISM 185 
 
 believe that things can be remedied by the election of a better set 
 of deputies, although we have been laboring at that very thing 
 for the last hundred years, and the situation has been growing 
 steadily worse. Their great German leader, August Bebel, has 
 told them in his celebrated book that "failure is ever the fate of 
 the half and half." Indeed we think so. 
 
 Anarchy concentrates its attention on the individual, consider- 
 ing that only when absolute justice is done to him or her will it 
 be possible to have a healthy and happy society. For society is 
 merely the ordinary citizen multiplied indefinitely, and as long as 
 the individuals of which it is composed are treated unjustly, it is 
 impossible for the body at large to be healthy and happy. 
 Anarchy, therefore, cannot tolerate the sacrifice of the individual 
 to the supposed interests of the majority, or to any of those 
 highsounding catchwords (patriotism, the public welfare, and so 
 forth) for the sake of which the individual and always the 
 weakest individual, the poor, helpless workingman and woman 
 is murdered and mutilated today, as he has been for untold ages 
 past. 
 
 Anarchy demands imperatively that full and complete justice 
 shall be done to each and every individual; that there shall be 
 accorded to all full and equal opportunities for the develop- 
 ment, conduct, and enjoyment of their lives; and it declares, as 
 an incontestable truth, that the first step toward this inevitable 
 goal is the absolute overthrow of all those artificial and life- 
 destroying privileges by which a favored few are today per- 
 mitted to gather into their hands unbounded wealth and power 
 at the price of the impoverishment and slaughter of the 
 masses. 
 
 Let no one delude you with the fable that we Anarchists are 
 opposed to cooperation; that we wish to reduce mankind to 
 conditions of primitive isolation. On the contrary, we see with 
 perfect clearness that the favored few, who have at their com- 
 mand the means of so doing, cooperate constantly on a larger 
 and larger scale, as the improved methods of communication 
 enable them more and more to make the world the scene of 
 their operations. We understand thoroughly that it is only 
 necessary to shake off the shackles of poverty and helplessness 
 in order to enable mankind, as a whole, to rise to a vast, true, 
 voluntary cooperation, in which the entire earth and its fruits 
 will be used in the fullest, widest, and most economical way for 
 
186 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 the satisfaction of the wants of the men, women, and children 
 born into it. 
 
 We are of the firmest opinion that the only goal worthy of 
 consideration by clear-sighted and earnest men and, women is 
 the winning of such individual freedom as will render possible 
 such a cooperation as we have just described. 
 
 We hold that the bold, straight, and direct way will be found 
 infinitely the shortest, easiest, and most successful. We are 
 convinced that if any other course is pursued, and it is sought 
 by a series of makeshift compromises to pave the way for 
 changes to be wrought out in a vague and distant future, it 
 will be discovered finally that the time so spent has been worse 
 than wasted. Only by a direct attack on monopoly and special 
 privilege; only by a courageous and unswerving insistence on 
 the rights of the individual, whoever he may be; on his indi- 
 vidual right to equality of opportunity; to an absolutely square 
 deal; to a full and equal seat at the table of life, can this great 
 social problem, with which the whole world now groans in 
 agony, be solved. 
 
 In a word, the freedom of the individual, won by the abo- 
 lition of special privileges and the securing to all of equal 
 opportunities, is the gateway through which we must pass to 
 the higher civilization that is already calling loudly to us. 
 
 It is urged that we Anarchists have no plans ; that we do not 
 set out in detail how the society of the future is to be run. 
 This is perfectly true. We are not in the least inclined to 
 waste our breath in guesses about things we cannot possibly 
 know. We are not in the business of putting humanity in irons. 
 We are trying to get humanity to shake off its irons. We 
 have no cooperative commonwealth, cut and dried, to impose 
 on the generations yet unborn. We are living men and women, 
 concerned with the living present, and we recognize that the 
 future will be as the men and women of the future make it, 
 which will depend on themselves and the conditions in which 
 they find themselves. If we bequeath to them freedom they 
 will be able to conduct their lives freely, as the changed and 
 improved conditions, brought about by the growth of human 
 intelligence and the added mastery of nature that will spring 
 from such intelligence, may dictate. 
 
 It is not for us to say that they shall live in such and such 
 a form of cooperation or communism. It is only for us to open 
 
SOCIALISM 187 
 
 to them the opportunities for leading the life that may satisfy 
 them best. Our business is exclusively with the slavery that 
 exists here and now, and it is a self-evident proposition that 
 its roots lie in the rule of man over man; in the monopoly of 
 opportunities ; in the denial of equal rights ; in the ignoring 
 of the claims of the individual life. 
 
 But it is entirely possible for us, dealing as we do exclusively 
 with the present, to analyze, accurately and fearlessly, the pres- 
 ent; to point out the steps that must be taken; all of which 
 mean the destruction of existing privileges. 
 
 Land monopoly must go. It must be recognized that every 
 child of man is a full and equal partner in the resources that, 
 by the very constitution of this universe, are necessary for the 
 maintenance of human life; that without land we cannot exist, 
 and that, to enable us to live a life free from tribute, we must 
 have free access to land. This is absolutely fundamental. Until 
 this is secured it is mockery to talk of the freedom of labor, 
 for without being masters of the land we cannot possibly be 
 free producers. 
 
 This is a truth so obvious that it is admitted by thousands 
 of the followers of different reform schools, who otherwise 
 have at present little in common; but how the end agreed on 
 is to be reached, is^^question. We can at least present what 
 appear to us to befl^E of the methods by which the problem 
 is likely to be sof^^r First, and before any results can be 
 looked for, there must be brought into existence a far more 
 general and burning conviction than there is at present that 
 this question of the land is absolutely fundamental. When, by 
 persistent and intelligent propaganda, this truth has been driven 
 home to the more receptive minds, it is inevitable that it will 
 crystallize into action, and probably along some such lines as 
 these: Individuals and groups will squat on unoccupied land, 
 held by speculators, and will refuse to vacate. The poor will 
 resist eviction more and more. Dwellers in the slums of such 
 cities as New York, whose lives are one continual struggle to 
 keep body and soul together, will decline to give up a large 
 portion of their had-earned wages to satisfy the demands of 
 absentee idlers. From the conflict between the authorities 
 endeavoring to enforce the law and those who take their stand 
 on human rights further agitation of this gigantic crime against 
 the race will result, and the necessity of acception and carrying 
 
i88 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 into practice the doctrine that the earth is for the use of those 
 who, for the time being, find themselves living upon it, will be 
 driven still deeper into the public conscience. 
 
 We think it waste of time to discuss at present the measures 
 by which the individual will be ultimately secured of this 
 paramount right, since it is obvious that the first step is the 
 awakening of the public conscience and intellect. The move- 
 ment must for a long time to come work itself out as it may, 
 receiving constant impetus from such direct action as we have 
 just described. 
 
 All honest, intelligent, and courageous action along one line 
 of the great struggle for human rights helps thought and action 
 along other lines, and the contest that is certain to come over 
 the land question cannot but clear the field in other directions. 
 It will be seen, for example, that freedom of production will 
 not suffice without freedom of distribution, which is only the 
 final process of production, and the road will be made plain 
 for a consideration of the money and other monopolies that 
 reign supreme in that great department of human activity, 
 thanks to the special privileges that government confers upon 
 them. 
 
 It will be seen also that it is ridiculous for us to talk about 
 free and equal citizens when one child i^^^rmitted to be born 
 into the world heir to millions, entitlec^B BUY to levy tribute 
 for the rest of his life on thousands ^^^will never have a 
 chance of rising from poverty. It is evident, therefore, that 
 the unnatural law of inheritance whereby the dead bind the 
 living must wither before the light of criticism, and this even 
 our president sees. 
 
 With the growing sense of the dignity of human life and 
 the claims of the individual must necessarily come an ever 
 louder demand for the abolition of existing methods of pun- 
 ishment, founded, as they are, not on the principle of reforming 
 the alleged criminal, but on that of revenge. They are a burn- 
 ing disgrace to humanity; are rapidly dragging us back to 
 conditions of savagery, and cannot stand a moment's inspection. 
 
 With the increasing appreciation of the value of the indi- 
 vidual life will come an increasingly drastic criticism of all 
 those schools of thought that bid the oppressed be contented 
 with their lot, and that are summed up in the spectacle afforded 
 by those truly bloodless fanatics who can find it in their hearts 
 
SOCIALISM 189 
 
 to visit the workers of the slums, and the prisoners in the 
 modern hells we call "penitentiaries," and exhort them to thank 
 God for his mercies. The religion of submission will receive 
 its death-blow. It is a craven, skulking thing, utterly incom- 
 patible with the dignity of man or with the energy and courage 
 which nature demands of those who desire to rise. 
 
 There will come also a drastic criticism of that vast army 
 of lawyers and chronic office-holders who, by their unfortunate 
 training and the necessities of their profession, can see only 
 what the legal code demands, and are insuperably blind to the 
 higher code of life. 
 
 What, then, is our actual position? We stand for the reali- 
 ties of life, as opposed to fine phrases on which the people 
 starve ; for the omnipotent laws of life, as opposed to the dis- 
 torted and perverted views we have inherited from a barbaric 
 past, dominated by the fantastic theories of priests and kings, 
 under which the few have reigned supreme and the masses have 
 been mud, trampled remorselessly under foot. From those dark, 
 ages we are only just beginning to emerge, but we are emerging. 
 
 The task is gigantic, but it is inevitable. If mankind is ever 
 to be master of itself, scientific thought, which deals with reali- 
 ties and bases its conclusions on ascertained facts,-nmist take 
 the place of guess ^dfcmperstition. To bring the t^pduct of 
 human life into accH Hi) the ascertained facts of life is, at 
 bottom, the great strim^hat is going on in society, and in this 
 great struggle we Anarchists we say it confidently stand in the 
 very front rank. 
 
 We are not engaged in any such petty, trivial business as that 
 of building up a political party, that would have its little hour of 
 popularity and obnoxious power, and then stand, an irritating 
 stumbling block, needing removal. 
 
 Our work is solely and exclusively to drive home to the 
 intellects and consciences of the people at large, regardless of 
 classes, the conception of a nobler, richer, and infinitely happier 
 life, possible under conditions of freedom, economic and political, 
 and possible under them alone. What we are doing is to point 
 out the gateway through which the people must first pass, before 
 they can hope, by any possibility, to attain a life that is worth 
 having and establish that absolutely free, voluntary cooperation, 
 in which each stands on his own feet, the equal partner of all 
 with whom he, or she, desires to enter partnership. Liberty, and 
 
 
igo SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 liberty alone, can beget the true order and harmony of true 
 cooperation. 
 
 It is absolutely self-apparent to us that when men find them- 
 selves relieved of their present burden of artificial, unnatural, 
 anti-social, and intrinsically barbarous laws, they will then, and 
 for the first time, have within their grasp the potentiality of 
 building a true civilization along the lines sketched out in the 
 Declaration of Independence, wherein each human being will 
 have full and equal opportunities for the enjoyment of life, 
 liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
 
 Our movement is a genuine "Abolitionist" movement. It 
 stands for the abolition of barbaric institutions and laws that 
 come between man and the realization of a full and joyous life. 
 It is the legitimate child of that Abolition movement which 
 resulted in the overthrow of chattel slavery, and we have great 
 confidence that the time is near at hand when this country will 
 comprehend that fact and prove true to her past history. 
 , It is only the most thoughtless who can fail to see that as 
 intelligence grows there also grows, at a geometrical ratio, the 
 longing for a life in which the individual shall have the oppor- 
 tunity of guiding his life by the light of his own reason, in 
 which he is acquiring more and more confidence. And every 
 step wh^P he takes in this direction^aJrich is surely that of 
 advance and progress is carrying hinfl vd Anarchy for, as 
 has been shown already, the basis of il^Pmiarchist's philosophy 
 is the belief that reason and not compulsion should be the motive 
 power. It is inevitable that there should be this tendency, and 
 an examination of the world around us shows that the tendency 
 exists and is growing at a prodigious rate. 
 
 Everywhere men and women are becoming more and more 
 restless under control. They reject authority; they demand the 
 right to think for themselves; they dislike more and more to 
 be told what they must and what they must not do. They rebel 
 more and more against the attempt to put their lives into a 
 strait-jacket, whether it be the strait-jacket of the workshop or 
 creed ; the restriction of a law imposed on them without their 
 consent, or a marriage tie that is irksome to them. And it is 
 particularly noticeable that this rebellion against authority is 
 most marked among women, who have not had the suffrage, 
 showing, as it does, that the spirit of revolt has risen as some- 
 thing entirely apart from legislative activities. There is abso- 
 
SOCIALISM 191 
 
 lutely no comparison between the free-thinking, free-acting 
 woman of today and the patient, long-suffering housewife of 
 only a generation or two ago. 
 
 In short, although it may appear, at first sight, that this is 
 the day of great collectivist movements, it will be found on 
 examination that these movements are all participated in by 
 individuals who hope that by means of them they, as individuals, 
 will secure personal, individual advantages along the line of 
 greater individual liberty and happiness ; and that whenever they 
 discover that these advantages cannot be so obtained, they drop 
 such movements. The mainspring of all the agitation that is 
 rocking the world today is the hunger for individual freedom 
 and prosperity, and it is this on which our movement relies on 
 individual wants, individual aspirations, individual action the 
 irrepressible individual, from and through whom all chance must 
 come. 
 
 We pass to a consideration of Socialism. 
 
 Attention has been called already to the precise and clear-cut 
 character of the word "Anarchy"; that it means "without rule," 
 and that it cannot be construed to mean anything else. Most 
 unfortunately the word "Socialism" has not this clear-cut char- 
 acter. Socialism merely means association, and a Socialist is 
 one who believes in associated life and effort. Immediately a 
 thousand questions o"?' the greatest difficulty arise. Obviously 
 there are different WfcpSMn which people can associate; some of 
 them delightful, and some quite the reverse. It is delightful to 
 associate yourself, freely and voluntarily, with those to whom 
 you feel attracted by similarity of tastes and pursuits. It is 
 torture to be herded compulsorily among those with whom you 
 have nothing in common. Association with free and equal 
 partners, working for a common end in which all are alike inter- 
 ested, is among the things that make life worth living. But the 
 association of men who are compelled by the whip of authority 
 to live together in an army, sharing the same table, the same 
 room, and forced to be in each other's company day after day, 
 even when their personal relations are bitterly hostile, is about 
 as near hell as it is possible to get. 
 
 To be associated in governmentally conducted industries, 
 whether it be as soldier or sailor, as railroad, telegraph, or postal 
 employee, is to become a mere cog in a vast political machine, 
 and this seems to us as undesirable an ideal as any party ever 
 
192 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 laid before the public in its struggle to catch votes. Under such 
 conditions there would be less freedom than there is even now, 
 under the regime of private monopoly; the workers would abdi- 
 cate all control of their own lives and become a flock of party 
 sheep, rounded up at the will of their political bosses, taking 
 what those bosses chose to give them, and, in the end, being 
 thankful to be allowed to hold a job on any terms, however 
 humiliating. A more undesirable ideal we cannot imagine, and 
 we say confidently that the more closely it is examined the more 
 undesirable it will appear. 
 
 Let none delude himself with the fallacy that governmental 
 institutions under Socialist administration would be shorn of 
 their present objectionable features. They would be precisely 
 what they are today. If the workers were to come into posses- 
 sion of the means of production tomorrow, their administration 
 under the most perfect form of universal suffrage which we 
 attained in this country years ago and have been vainly trying to 
 doctor into decent shape for generations past would simply 
 result in the creation of a special class of political managers, 
 professing to act for the welfare of the majority. Were they 
 as honest as the day which it is folly to expect they could 
 only carry out the dictates of the majority, and those who did 
 not agree slavishly with those dictates would find themselves 
 outcasts. In reality we should have put a special class of men 
 in absolute control of the most powerful official machine that 
 the world has ever seen, and should have installed a new form 
 of wage slavery, with the State as master. And the working- 
 man who found himself ill-used by the State would find it a 
 master a thousand times more difficult to overthrow than the 
 most powerful of private employers. The plain, bottom truth is 
 that all these schemes and high-sounding platforms amount to 
 nothing; they are merely the molasses with which the flies are 
 caught by those who have become inoculated with the poison 
 of political ambition; with the desire to shine as orators, writers, 
 or administrators. The institutions, economical and political, of 
 any set of people do not depend on written documents witness 
 the purely Anarchistic Declaration of Independence of these 
 United States, which is the deadest of all dead letters but upon 
 the individual characters of the individuals who compose that 
 set of people. 
 
 If the people are infused with the genuine revolutionary 
 
SOCIALISM 193 
 
 spirit, they will win freedom and so mold and simplify their 
 institutions that tyranny will be impossible. Contrariwise, so 
 long as they think they can shirk the question and enjoy all the 
 inestimable blessings of freedom while remaining timid sheep, 
 avoiding all personal danger and trusting to a few politicians 
 to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them, they will be 
 doomed to perpetual disappointment. No truer words were ever 
 uttered than those of Shakespeare when he says: "Alas, poor 
 Caesar ! Caesar would not be a wolf if Romans were not 
 sheep." Always and everywhere it is the sheep who beget the 
 wolves that prey on them. 
 
 Our quarrel with the Socialists, therefore, is not a matter of 
 platforms, pronunciamentos, or doctrinaire tweedledums and 
 tweedledees, all of which amount to nothing, but on the truly 
 vital question of the spirit of the whole movement for emancipa- 
 tion from conditions which are universally admitted to be intol- 
 erable. The Socialists declare loudly that the entire capitalistic 
 system is slavery of the most unendurable type, and that land- 
 owning, production, and distribution for private profit must be 
 abolished. They preach a class war as the only method by 
 which this can be accomplished, and they proclaim, as fervently 
 as ever did a Mohammendan calling for a holy crusade against 
 the accursed infidel, that he who is not with them is against 
 them. For this truly gigantic undertaking they have adopted 
 a philosophy and pursue means that seem to us childishly 
 inadequate. 
 
 To us it is inconceivable that institutions so deeply rooted 
 into the savagery and superstition of the past can be overthrown 
 except by a people that have become saturated to the very mar- 
 row of their bones with loathing for such superstition and such 
 savagery. To us the very first and absolutely indispensable step 
 is the creation of profoundly rebellious spirits, powerful individ- 
 ualities who will make no truce, no compromise. We recognize 
 quite clearly that it is worse than useless to waste our breath 
 on effects ; that the causes are what we must go for, and that 
 every form of monopoly, every phase of slavery and oppression, 
 has its root in the ambition of the few to rule and fleece, and 
 the sheepish willingness of the many to be ruled and fleeced. 
 
 It is self-evident to us that the real fight is against this 
 double tendency, and that all authoritarianism hangs together 
 and is of the same piece of cloth, however different may appear 
 
194 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 the fantastic figures into which it is cut. The superstition dili- 
 gently taught by the priest Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, 
 Protestant, or what not is the lie that upholds the divine right 
 of the king and the privilege of the politician. The patience, 
 humility, and submission to injustice taught from the pulpit are 
 the sheet-anchor of the monopolist who corners the necessities 
 of life while thousands starve, and justifies the bayonet of the 
 soldier and the club of the policeman. 
 
 By the very constitution of our being thought must always 
 precede action ; the hand can only execute what the brain has 
 previously dictated. So long as the Russian peasant really 
 believes that the Tsar is his Little Father, the earthly represen- 
 tative of his God in heaven, Russian autocracy is safe. So long 
 as the American believes that it is right that a Weyerhauser, a 
 Rockefeller, or a Morgan shall gather the four corners of the 
 land into his grasp, and that laws that justify processes so 
 deadly to the life of the masses are sacred and must be upheld 
 and obeyed, so long is the present regime absolutely safe. And 
 if the proletariat does not know this, its masters do. For how 
 comes it that whenever you find a monopolist or a politician 
 greedy for power, there also you will find a pillar of the church, 
 a loud-mouthed applauder of the gentlemen in uniform, and a 
 champion at any cost of what is called, with unspeakable irony, 
 "law and order"? 
 
 Now, what is the course that the Socialists are pursuing in 
 the political campaigns to which their entire movement has 
 dwindled? In private they will tell you that they are rebels 
 against the existing unnatural disorder as truly as are we An- 
 archists, but in the actual conduct of their movement they are 
 autocratic kaisers, bent on the suppression of all individuality, 
 whipping, drilling, and disciplining their recruits into absolute 
 conformity with the iron-clad requirements of the party. In 
 private they will tell you that they hold precisely the views 
 that we have just expressed respecting the support that the 
 superstition taught from the pulpit gives to the present system, 
 but in public 'they are compromising with the church at every 
 turn, and one of the most marked features of their movement 
 today is the number of ministers who are to be found in its 
 ranks. In other words, to the political Socialist the gaining 
 of a church vote is of infinitely greater importance than the 
 exposure and overthrow of superstition, and this view we 
 pronounce absolutely fatal. 
 
SOCIALISM 195 
 
 The same line of thought applies to the tolerance shown 
 toward our monstrous legal system, without which it would 
 have been impossible for them to have won to their party the 
 host of lawyers who now play such a prominent and pernicious 
 part in its councils. 
 
 They declare themselves occupied with a campaign of educa- 
 tion. They are not. In such a contest as this, wherein the lines 
 are drawn so sharply; where on the one side are ranged the 
 natural laws of life, and on the other an insanely artificial 
 system that ignores all the fundamental laws of life, there can 
 be no such things as compromise; and he who for the sake of 
 getting votes attempts to make black appear white, is not an 
 educator but a confidence man. We are aware that there are 
 many confidence men who grow into the belief that theirs is a 
 highly honorable profession, but they are confidence men all 
 the same. 
 
 Of course, the truth is that the Socialists have become the 
 helpless victim of their own political tactics. We speak cor- 
 rectly of political "campaigns," for politics is a warfare con- 
 ducted, by the necessity of the case, in strict accordance with 
 the rules of military science. Its object is to get power by 
 gathering to its side the majority, and then to overwhelm the 
 weaker minority and reduce it to absolute submission. The 
 majority in power then passes the laws that suit its interests, 
 and to these the conquered have to bend the knee, in the name 
 of "law and order." 
 
 In politics, as in every other branch of war, the entire armory 
 of spies, treachery, stratagem, and deceit of every kind is utilized 
 to gain the one-important end victory in the fight. And it is 
 precisely because our modern democracy is engaged, year in 
 and year out, in this most unscrupulous warfare that the basis 
 and all-essential virtues of truth, honesty, and the spirit of fair 
 play have almost disappeared. 
 
 The Socialists the self-styled "Scientific Socialists," if you 
 please think they have done a wonderfully clever thing in 
 plunging into this most demoralizing strife. We Anarchists, on 
 the other hand, are well satisfied to maintain a position in 
 which we can investigate freely and tell the people with abso- 
 lute fidelity the truth of our investigations; in which we are 
 not forced to lie that we may curry favor ; in which we have 
 no party to bolster up by all and every means, and no frenzied 
 dreams of power to distract us from realities. 
 
io6 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 While we know, for the reasons given above, that the late 
 Senator Ingalls spoke an incontestable truth when he said that 
 "the purification of politics is an iridescent dream," we realize 
 further that if politics could, by any miracle, be purified, it 
 would mean, if possible, a still more detestable consummation, 
 for there would not remain a single individual right that was not 
 helplessly at the mercy of the triumphant majority. It is impera- 
 tive, and especially for the weaker those who are now poor and 
 uneducated that the "inalienable" rights of man be recognized; 
 and that, just as he is now "supposed" to be guaranteed abso- 
 lute right of free speech and assemblage, and the right to think 
 on religious matters as he pleases, so in the future he shall be 
 guaranteed the fullest opportunities of supporting and develop- 
 ing his life a right that cannot be taken away from him by a 
 dominant party that may have chanced to secure, for the time 
 being, the majority of votes. 
 
 This is the rock on which Socialism everlastingly goes to 
 pieces. It mocks at what are to us the basic laws of life. It 
 denies, both openly and tacitly, that there are such things as 
 individual rights, and, while it asserts that assuredly, as civilized 
 beings, the majorities of the future will grant the minority far 
 greater freedom and opportunity than it has at present, it has 
 to admit that all this will be a "grant," a "concession" from 
 those in power. There probably never has been a despot that 
 waded through slaughter to a throne who has not made similar 
 promises. 
 
 We are well aware that there are many Socialists who, while 
 members of the existing political party, think lightly of it, and 
 pin their faith to the triumph of organized labor that shall seize 
 control of the industries in which it is engaged and administer 
 them on a truly democratic basis. But, granting, for the sake 
 of argument, that such a program should ever be realized, it is 
 open to all the objections just urged, if the Socialist philosophy 
 that denies the sanctity of individual rights should prevail. In 
 each trade we then should have the majority machine in power, 
 and the individuals who were so unfortunate as to belong to 
 the minority in a position where they would be merely 
 "conceded" the right to live. 
 
 Always and everywhere, no matter what the economic sys- 
 tem or institution may be, the way in which a man looks at a 
 subject will determine his treatment of it. If he thinks, with 
 
SOCIALISM 197 
 
 the Socialists, that the collectivity is everything and the indi- 
 vidual an insignificant cipher, he will fall in willingly with all 
 those movements that profess to be working for the good of 
 the majority, and sacrifice the individual remorselessly for this 
 supposed good. For example: Although he may admit, in 
 theory, as the Socialists generally do, that men should be per- 
 mitted to govern their own lives, his belief in legislating for the 
 majority, and the scant value that he puts on the individual 
 life, will lead him to support such movements as that of 
 prohibition, which, in the name of the good of the majority, 
 takes away from the individual, absolutely and in a most impor- 
 tant matter, as in the question of what he shall and shall not 
 drink, the command of his own life. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the ranks of the Socialist party in this 
 country are today full of prohibitionists, men and women who, 
 while declaring that they are working for the emancipation of 
 the human race, see nothing inconsistent in proposing to take 
 away from it all self-government in this one particular. It is 
 on record that a resolution committing the party to prohibition 
 as nearly as possible slipped through at its recent national 
 convention in Chicago. 
 
 There is nothing to be surprised at in this. It is the direct 
 and logical result of the one-sided view that the ordinary 
 Socialist takes of the social question. He sees only the collec- 
 tivity. In his thought it is on the action of the collec- 
 tivity that the entire solution of the social question depends. 
 The society of the future is to him one in which everything 
 will be done by the collectivity, acting as a social unit, and in 
 his mental horizon the individual and his rights are thrown into 
 absolute eclipse. 
 
 Platform and declarations of principles count for nothing. 
 A man may belong to a party that prints "emancipation" in the 
 biggest of letters as being its aim; he may have emancipation 
 perpetually on his lips, but, if he approaches the consideration 
 of social questions seeing only the collectivity and thinking 
 slightly, or not at all, of the sanctity of the individual, he will 
 step down, and down, and down on what is really the road of 
 tyranny. The same line of thought that makes him willing that 
 the individual should be put into the strait- j acket of prohibition 
 for the alleged good of the majority (a majority that, under 
 such circumstances, would be a worthless rabble of masters and 
 
 15 
 
198 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 slaves) will bring him to ready acquiescence in all that mon- 
 strous legislation that makes our modern civilization a hell on 
 earth for the poor, who are ordered here and restricted there, 
 and denied all access to the natural opportunities of life, in the 
 name of the public good. 
 
 Such a man will readily be brought to think, by the argu- 
 ments of those who are seeking their own advantage, that for 
 the good of the majority it is necessary that all should be 
 taxed to support a large standing army and navy, which will 
 defend the fatherland; and it will not be difficult to take him a 
 step further and convert him into a warm advocate of military 
 conscription. He will be easily persuaded that our barbaric 
 treatment of criminals is necessary and highly desirable, by 
 reason of the deterrent influence it exercises, for the protection 
 and welfare of the majority. He will persuade himself that 
 religion is a necessity, for the good of the masses, and should 
 be accorded all the special privileges it now enjoys. Shortly 
 you will find him with the crowd that clamors for the closing 
 of all places of amusements on Sunday for the good of the 
 community. 
 
 In economic matters you will find him, for example, indors- 
 ing such a monstrosity as our protective tariff, which, in the 
 name of the good of the majority, takes from the individual 
 his natural right of spending his earnings where he can do the 
 best with them; taxes the great masses for the enrichment of 
 the privileged few, and necessarily has resulted in the accumu- 
 lation of those gigantic fortunes against which the whole world 
 is today in revolt. 
 
 In a word, the man may shout emancipation until he is black 
 in the face, and may be a prominent member of a party that 
 does so, but, in reality, he and his party are both reactionaries 
 of the most pronounced type ; indorsing today, or ripe to indorse 
 tomorrow, every piece of vicious class legislation that recom- 
 mends itself for the moment as affording a promise of relief. 
 At such a mere shadow of a bone in the water dogs of this 
 breed invariably will grasp. 
 
 Apparently Socialists cannot conceive of a society run on 
 other than the most strictly centralized principles. This seems 
 to us a profound error. 
 
 The most important and powerful factor in production and 
 every form of activity is the human factor. This factor, longing 
 
SOCIALISM 199 
 
 more and more for the opportunity of individual expression, is 
 in constant rebellion against all efforts to reduce it to the level 
 of a mere cog in a machine, economical or political. Being by 
 far the strongest element it inevitably will win its way, sooner 
 or later, no matter how adverse the conditions for the moment 
 may seem to be. 
 
 It may have appeared within recent times as if the tide were 
 setting in permanently toward centralization; but, in reality, the 
 forces of decentralization, that make the man becoming as he 
 should be the master instead of the slave of the machine, are 
 sweeping irresistibly forward. The excessive and unnatural 
 centralization, due entirely to the artificial laws of special privi- 
 lege, which has resulted, for example, in the steel trust, has had 
 the effect of releasing a vast army of skilled and highly 
 ingenious mechanics, whose wits have been industriously at work 
 devising simpler and simpler machinery which it will be possible 
 for the individual to own and operate. For instance, all the 
 splendid equipment of the Steel Trust cannot manufacture today 
 such an article as a screw as cheaply as can a single individual, 
 operating single-handed a machine that he can run in one 
 small room. - 
 
 We are not in the business of prophesying, but the notorious 
 fact that the Steel Trust has been steadily unloading its stock 
 on employees and the outside public is itself significant as 
 indicating that the men at the head of these monstrous consoli- 
 dations are well aware that they are destined to break down of 
 their own weight. 
 
 Locomotion is the industry of all others that seemed, by its 
 very nature, doomed to centralization; yet even in this depart- 
 ment the tide of decentralization has set in with extraordinary 
 rapidity. With the advent of the bicycle came the first break, 
 the individual machine becoming at once a formidable com- 
 petitor of the street car companies. The tendency received a 
 further and enormous impetus with the introduction of the 
 automobile, which throws every highway open to the individual 
 owner of the machine, and does away with the immense 
 advantage previously enjoyed by those who had acquired the 
 monopoly of the comparatively few routes along which it is 
 possible to lay down rails and operate trains. It is obvious 
 that the automobile, both as a passenger and freight carrier, is 
 as yet only in its infancy, and it is equally certain that if the 
 
200 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 flying machine shall become an accomplished fact, as now seems 
 highly probable, the individualism of locomotion will be com- 
 plete. Have you any idea of the enormous changes that this 
 will involve in industrial and social life? 
 
 In short, the philosophy that bases its conclusions on the 
 conditions that happen to prevail at any given moment in the 
 machine industry is necessarily building on the most shifting 
 of quicksands, since the machine itself is the most fluctuating of 
 all things, and is undergoing a veritable revolution along the 
 individualistic lines we have indicated. 
 
 But this delusion respecting machinery has led the Socialists 
 into the most ridiculous assumptions on the subject of cen- 
 tralization in general, committing them for a couple of genera- 
 tions past to the wild pipe dream that under the regime of 
 capitalism the middle class is doomed, by the natural develop- 
 ment of the economic system, to speedy extinction. The fallacy 
 of this position has been shown over and over again by irrefut- 
 able statistics, taken from governmental income tax and similar 
 returns, but it is unnecessary even to quote figures in this 
 matter. Any one who will take the trouble to put on his obser- 
 vation cap can see clearly for himself that in such countries 
 as Mexico and Russia, where what is known as the capitalistic 
 system is at present in its infancy, the middle class is small in 
 numbers and insignificant in power. On the other hand, 
 precisely in proportion as the capitalistic system develops, the 
 numbers and influence of the middle class increase, until here 
 in America the country in which capitalism has attained its 
 greatest growth it is this very middle class that is well nigh 
 omnipotent. To what frightful mistakes in tactics is a party 
 doomed that bases itself on so gross and palpable an error! 
 
 The same tendency the rebellion of the individual human 
 factor against the centralizing influences that seek to convert 
 him into a mere cog in a machine is equally apparent in the 
 political field. Necessarily, as education progresses, the indi- 
 vidual voter becomes more and more desirous of relying on his 
 own judgment he is less willing to vote the Republican and 
 Democratic ticket for the old reason that his father and his 
 grandfather before him did so; he takes other papers ami 
 attends other meetings than those in which only the one creed 
 is preached; he becomes more independent. 
 
SOCIALISM 201 
 
 The growing importance of the independent vote, that is 
 emancipating itself from machine dominance and has to be more 
 and more studied and placated by the party managers, is one of 
 the recognized features of modern life, and in this matter the 
 political Socialists have set their faces directly against the 
 tide of progress, for their ideal is unquestionably the creation 
 of a party that shall be thoroughly disciplined and entirely 
 under the domination of the centralized machine. Hence the 
 continual expulsion of all the more independent spirits that 
 have the courage to think for themselves and voice, however, 
 timidly, views unwelcome to the truly papal infallibility that it 
 is the aim of the managers to establish. More damnable treason 
 to the cause of progress, of free thought and emancipation we 
 are incapable of imagining; and this is in itself entirely sufficient 
 to condemn once and for all, in the eyes of all true lovers of 
 human liberty, the pretensions of the Socialist party. 
 
 On a still larger scale the same tendency for individual 
 expression is manifest in the affairs of nations, the frantic 
 struggles of the weaker nationalities to break away from the 
 crushing, intolerable centralized domination of great and des- 
 potic empires being one of the most pronounced developments 
 of modern times. With all these efforts we Anarchists sym- 
 pathize profoundly, and to them we lend all the aid in our 
 power, recognizing the claims of individual life that is struggling 
 desperately for expression. But, whatever they may say here 
 and there and from' time to time, for the purpose of catching 
 votes and strengthening their political power, the Socialists do 
 not truly and whole-heartedly sympathize with such efforts, and 
 they cannot, because they are wedded to the doctrine of cen- 
 tralization of power and the suppression of the individual for 
 the supposed good of the larger collective body. 
 
 Such a pamphlet as this is no place for scholastic dis- 
 quisitions, but those who have studied the works of such pro- 
 found writers as Herbert Spencer, Buckle, Sir Henry Maine, 
 and others too numerous to mention, are well aware that the 
 history taught the Socialists through Marx and Engels is parti- 
 san history, and that the real movement of humanity has been to 
 get away from the military regime of authority to the domain 
 of individual freedom. It is this movement with which we 
 have allied ourselves, convinced that there is nothing too fine 
 
202 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 for man, and that it is only under conditions of freedom that 
 man has the opportunity of being fine. The tendency must be 
 toward a finer, which means a freer, more self-governing life. 
 
 It is for you, the individual reader of this treatise, to decide 
 with which of these two conflicting forces you will align your- 
 self, for between freedom of thought, speech, and action 
 and authority there can be no compromise. The battle is to the 
 finish and is today on as never before in the world's history. 
 
 North American Review. 189:844-56. June, 1909 
 
 Private Property and Personal Liberty in the Socialist State. 
 John Spargo 
 
 The most persistent and widespread antagonism toward 
 Socialism springs from a belief that, under a Socialist regime, 
 private property in all its forms would be destroyed and personal 
 liberty made impossible by the rule of an immense bureaucratic 
 government. All other objections, it may be said without deny- 
 ing their force, are subordinate to these two. 
 
 The modern Socialist, whether dogmatic Marxist or neo- 
 Marxist, indignantly denies both charges contained in this crit- 
 icism. The greater its persistence, the greater his vehemence. 
 Not unreasonably, he claims the right to define the Socialist ideal 
 in which he believes and to interpret it in his own way: he 
 refuses to accept the dicta of the enemies of .Socialism as to its 
 meaning. But, in spite of indignant denials, the criticism 
 prevails. 
 
 For the almost universal prevalence of this criticism there 
 must be some other reason than malice on the part of the critics. 
 Underlying the seeming malevolence there is always a very real 
 belief in the disaster to the institutions of private property and 
 personal liberty which must attend the triumph of Socialism. 
 Instead of hatred creating the belief that a Socialist regime is 
 incompatible with personal freedom and with private property, 
 the belief, deep-seated and sincere, however mistaken it may 
 prove to be, creates the hatred. It must be remembered, also, that 
 the belief is not confined to the malevolent opponents of Social- 
 ism and Socialist aims. Many who are very sympathetic toward 
 the movement and the ideal, a great army of the "almost per- 
 
SOCIALISM 203 
 
 suaded," are held back from giving their adherence to the move- 
 ment through fear that the criticism is well founded. 
 
 The existence of such a widely prevalent belief must be the 
 result of causes inherent either in the principles of Socialism or 
 in tbe history of the movements based upon those principles. 
 It is, therefore, only just that the Socialist, when he makes his 
 sweeping denial that Socialism involves the suppression of 
 private property and personal liberty, should be asked to explain 
 the persistence of the fear he declares to be groundless and this 
 only as a prelude to an equally just demand for a reasoned 
 statement of his own faith, so different to the unfaith of the 
 world. 
 
 The frank and sincere Socialist will be slow to attribute the 
 criticism to malice. He will, on the contrary, be disposed to 
 admit that it is a perfectly natural result of certain phases of 
 the evolution of Socialism and the development of its propa- 
 ganda. He will admit, with entire good faith, that Socialists 
 have given their opponents ample warrant for believing that with 
 the coming of Socialism private property and personal liberty 
 must cease. No small part of the work of the Socialists of today 
 consists in undoing the work of an older generation of Socialists. 
 
 Proudhon's famous dictum, "Property is robbery," and its 
 counterpart, "Property-holders are thieves," have been so many 
 times reiterated by Socialists, and so often inscribed upon their 
 banners, that no sort of blame attaches to those persons who, 
 taking the words at their face-value in the currency of human 
 speech, have concluded that Socialism must abolish all kinds of 
 private property. Phrases like "the socialization of property" 
 abound in the literature of Socialism, and in more than a few 
 Socialist programs, issued in this country and elsewhere, Social- 
 ism is objectively denned as "the social ownership and control 
 of all the means of production, distribution and exchange." The 
 definition certainly justifies the belief that the existence of a 
 Socialist state depends upon the abolition of private property. 
 
 Taking the definition literally, it is evident that under Social- 
 ism nothing which could be used as a means of producing or 
 distributing wealth could be privately owned. No man could 
 own a spade, a hammer or even a jack-knife, for these are all 
 instruments of production. No woman could own a sewing- 
 machine, or even a needle, for these are tools, means of produc- 
 tion. No man could own a wheelbarrow, no woman could own 
 
204 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 a market-basket, these being "means of distribution." The dif- 
 ferences between a spade and a steam-plough, between a market- 
 basket and a delivery van, are differences in the degree of their 
 efficiency merely. 
 
 Now, it is quite evident that, if we are to accept this definition 
 literally and to regard "the social ownership and control of all 
 the means of production, distribution and exchange" as a sine 
 qua non of Socialism, we must accept the verdict that it would 
 destroy the institutions of personal property and liberty. The 
 amount of property which would not come within the scope of 
 the classification, "all means of production, distribution and 
 exchange," is almost a negligible quantity, and it is certain that 
 such a vast bureaucratic system of government would be needed 
 as would practically extinguish personal liberty. It requires little 
 imagination to see how intolerable the despotism would be if 
 needles, spades, sewing-machines and market-baskets were to be 
 under the control of governmental bureaus. 
 
 But, when challenged upon this important matter, the modern 
 Socialist denies that the social ownership and control of all the 
 agencies of production and distribution is a sine qua non of 
 Socialism. He denies that his aim is anything of the kind. 
 Socalism, he says, implies the social ownership and control only 
 of certain kinds of property, certain very definite categories of 
 productive and distributive agencies. Under Socialism, as he 
 conceives it, private property would coexist with social property. 
 Indeed, his claim is that Socialism, in very important respects, 
 would extend both private property and personal liberty. 
 
 Therefore, the question arises : What things, under Socialism, 
 will it be necessary to socialize and what to leave in the hands 
 of private owners? 
 
 The reply to this question may take either of two forms : 
 either we may attempt to catalog the things which would have 
 to be socialized in order to realize Socialism a stupendous task 
 or we may attempt to state the principle of differentiation in a 
 manner permitting its ready application to any form of property, 
 at any time, and in any place. This latter is, indeed, the only 
 practical method of dealing with the question. Not only is the 
 former method a cumbersome one, involving the gigantic task 
 of making an inventory of all kinds of property, but endless 
 revision of the list would be necessary to make it conform to 
 changing conditions and to the needs of particular localities. 
 
SOCIALISM 205 
 
 Preliminary to the attempt to state the principles of differen- 
 tiation, however, a brief discussion of the nature of property 
 seems to be necessary. If we ask ourselves, What is Property? 
 and, instead of repeating Proudhon's classic epigrammatic reply, 
 attempt to answer the question with the seriousness it demands, 
 we shall soon discover that much of what we have regarded as 
 a concrete entity is, in fact, a mere abstraction : that property is 
 not a tangible thing, in a vast number of instances, but an 
 assumed relation. We shall discover, too, that there are no 
 absolute property rights anywhere. 
 
 While it is true that the recognition of private property marks 
 the emergence of mankind from savagery, and that civilization 
 is commonly said to rest upon that recognition, the paradox is 
 nevertheless true that civilization and private property, in an 
 absolute sense, are incompatible. The jurisprudence of all civil- 
 ized countries rests upon the repudiation of absolute property 
 rights of any kind whatever. Taxation is, of course, a familiar 
 example of the collective disregard of private property rights. 
 All kinds of property have been subjected to taxation, the col- 
 lective authority exercising the right to take any part of any 
 man's property, or even the whole of it. Henry George's pro- 
 posal to impose a tax upon land values equal to the sum total of 
 such values is a perfectly logical extension of the principle of 
 taxation. A few years ago, the city council of Copenhagen, 
 Denmark, applied the method to the street railways of that city 
 with entire success so that the owning companies were glad to 
 surrender the lines. 
 
 The powers of domain and ultimate ownership which underlie 
 the jurisprudence of every civilized nation prove conclusively 
 that there is no allodial property in land, nor any form of abso- 
 lute private property. A state or municipality desires land which 
 is the "property" of one of its citizens for some public purpose, 
 such as building a hospital or a bridge, making a park or a 
 roadway. The "owner" of the land does not agree to sell it, 
 whereupon the state or the municipality takes the land from him 
 often at its own valuation ! Even when the land is needed by 
 a quasi-private corporation, such as a railway company, the col- 
 lective power is used to take away the ownership of the land 
 from one citizen and transfer it to others. 
 
 It is very commonly assumed that this power of ultimate 
 ownership resting in society, through its government, applies only 
 
206 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 to land; but, in fact, no form of property is exempt from it. Not 
 only may all forms of property be taxed, but likewise all forms 
 of property may be sequestrated. The power exercised in times 
 of martial law, of seizing food and other supplies, is an example 
 of this. Under the police powers of all civilized communities, in 
 case of serious accident or disaster, the home of any person, and 
 anything it contains, may be lawfully seized and used. Suppose 
 that, during the San Francisco earthquake and fire, the "owner" 
 of a supply of food or drugs, or any other vital necessity, should 
 have clung to them, asserting his "ownership," does any sane 
 person believe that he would have been permitted to enforce his 
 sacred "rights" against the need of the community? Nothing, 
 not even one's pocket handkerchief, can be said to be exempt 
 from this ultimate power of society. If, therefore, one's hand- 
 kerchief is not taken away from him, it is simply because the 
 community does not desire to take it. In the last analysis, 
 private property is an abstraction. It consists of nothing more 
 than a relation between the community and the citizen, and rests 
 upon nothing more tangible than community good-will. 
 
 Furthermore, in the development of capitalist society the 
 substance of private property tends to disappear, quite irrespec- 
 tive of the enforcement of the ultimate powers of ownership by 
 society. Prior to the formation of joint-stock companies, in the 
 era of individual capitals, the investor who invested his money 
 in a ship or a factory could say that the ship or the factory 
 belonged to him. But with the coming of the joint stock com- 
 pany and the development of the great industrial corporations, 
 that could not be said. Suppose X to be a shareholder in a 
 corporation which owns a cotton-mill. There are a thousand 
 shareholders owning between them the ten thousand shares of 
 stock of the corporation. X owns ten shares. But he does not 
 own a one-thousandth part of the physical properties of the 
 cotton-mill in any real sense. He could not, for instance, go into 
 the mill and say: "Here are a thousand looms: one belongs to 
 me. I will take it away." 
 
 What X really owns is a one-thousandth part of every brick 
 in the building, not a single whole brick ; a one-thousandth part 
 of each cog in every machine, but not a single whole wheel ; a 
 one-thousandth part of every yard of cotton, but not a single 
 yard of actual cotton. X could not realize his own property, 
 separate it from that of the other nine-hundred and ninety-nine 
 
SOCIALISM 207 
 
 shareholders and do as he pleased with it, To get at his one- 
 thousandth part of a brick, he must destroy the whole brick. 
 To actually realize his own property as a physical entity, he must 
 destroy it and the property of his fellows. And then, paradox- 
 ically (for the whole capitalist system is a paradox), he does 
 not realize it at all. When he has destroyed the brick and 
 extracted his one-thousandth part of it, he does not own a one- 
 thousandth part of a brick, but only some fragments of burned 
 clay. 
 
 However we look at it, private property under our present 
 social system is an abstraction. The property of the citizen in 
 the immense assets of the state of New York, or of the United 
 States is just as real as the property of the shareholder in the 
 United States Steel Corporation. But there is this important dif- 
 ference, that the citizen's share is not negotiable it may not be 
 transferred. It cannot be gambled with in the market, whereas 
 that of the shareholder in the corporation may be and commonly 
 is. 
 
 Collective ownership is not the ultimate, fundamental condi- 
 tion of Socialism. It is proposed only as a means to an end, not 
 as an end in itself. And that end, to the attainment of which 
 collective ownership is a means, is the fundamental condition of 
 Socialism. The central idea of modern Socialism, its spirit, is 
 the doctrine of the division of society into antagonistic classes. 
 The producers of wealth are exploited by a class of capitalists 
 draining from them a "surplus value," and, instinctively, they 
 struggle against the exploitation, to reduce the amount of the 
 surplus value taken by the capitalists to a minimum ultimately 
 to zero. To do away with that exploitation, to destroy the power 
 of one class to live upon the labors of another class, is the 
 Socialist's aim. Social ownership and control are only proposed 
 as means to the attainment of that end. If other means toward 
 that end, quicker, more efficient or more certain means, can be 
 found, there is nothing in Socialism to prevent their adoption. 
 
 It follows, therefore, that to make collective property of 
 things not used to exploit labor does not, necessarily, form a 
 part of the Socialist program. It is easy to see that, according 
 to this principle of differentiation, it would be necessary to 
 socialize the railroads, but not at all necessary to socialize a 
 wheelbarrow. It is not difficult to see that a woman might 
 support herself through the possession of a sewing-machine who 
 
208 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 would otherwise be obliged to submit to exploitation as a factory 
 worker. To secure her the ownership of the machine would, 
 therefore, be no departure from Socialist principles. On the 
 contrary, in her individual case, the aims of the Socialist would 
 be realized in that she would be placed beyond the power of 
 the exploiter of labor. Similarly, in the case of the farmer 
 with a small farm, and of the craftsman with his own tools, or 
 of groups of workers working cooperatively, there is no exploi- 
 tation; no surplus value is extracted from their labor by any 
 outside parties. Consequently, being neither exploited nor 
 exploiters, their independent self-employment is quite consistent 
 with Socialism. 
 
 As the Socialist movement has outgrown the influence of the 
 early Utopians, which touched even Marx and Engels, it has 
 given up the old notions of a regimentation of labor under the 
 direction of the state. It is increasingly evident that the Social- 
 ists of today have abandoned the habit of speculating upon the 
 practical application of their principles in future society. They 
 are insisting more and more that Socialism be regarded as a 
 principle namely, the conscious elimination of the power of an 
 idle class in society to exploit the wealth-producers. Whatever 
 tends toward that end of eliminating the exploiter from society 
 contributes to the fulfilment of the Socialist ideal. 
 
 Instead of the old contention that, in order to have Socialism, 
 every petty industry must be destroyed by the power of great 
 industrial corporations, and every small farm swallowed up by 
 great bonanza farms of vast acreage, it is now recognized by 
 most of the leading exponents of Socialism in this country and 
 Europe that the small workshop and the small farm may enter 
 very largely into the economic structure of the Socialist state. 
 The small farm has thus far proved capable of more economical 
 cultivation than farms of immense acreage; and it may be, as 
 some authorities contend, that small workshops will prove quite 
 as economical as, or even more economical than, great indus- 
 tries when the thousand hampering restrictions and discrimina- 
 tions and privileges which favor their greater rivals are 
 removed. 
 
 Should this prove to be the case, there would be nothing to 
 prevent a process of decentralization of industry taking place 
 under Socialism, a process of decentralization so far-reaching 
 that private ownership and individual production would be much 
 
SOCIALISM 209 
 
 more diffused than now. The participation of the state in 
 industry would be confined to the operation of railroads, mines 
 and other great natural monopolies, and to the carrying on of 
 the great fundamental public services which rest upon natural 
 monopolies, leaving to individual enterprise and voluntary co- 
 operation vastly more scope than these enjoy today in produc- 
 tion and distribution. Needless to say, this is not a prophecy, 
 but simply a statement of possibilities. 
 
 The important point to be remembered is that there is no 
 principle of scientific Socialism which is opposed to the con- 
 tinuance of private property or private industrial enterprise, so 
 that it involves no exploitation of the laborer by the non- 
 laborer. It needs but the statement of this principle to demon- 
 strate its truth. B is a farmer, working upon his own small 
 farm. He exploits no man's labor, but manages to maintain 
 himself and family in comfort. C is a shoemaker, owning his 
 own little shop and his own tools. He, also, exploits no man's 
 labor, but manages to support himself and his family comfort- 
 ably. What reason could the state have for forbidding these 
 men to employ themselves, denying them the right to exchange 
 their products, shoes, for farm produce, and compelling them 
 to enter industrial or agricultural regiments as employees of 
 the state? 
 
 Socialism, it cannot be too strongly emphasized, is not the 
 fulfilment of a great plan of social organization, the principal 
 feature of which is that the state owns and controls everything 
 and aims to administer things with approximate equality of 
 benefits and duties. It is an ideal, objectively considered, of a 
 society in which there is no parasitic class preying upon the 
 wealth-producers. Subjectively considered, it is a struggle on 
 the part of the producers to throw off the exploiters, the 
 parasites, in order that the ideal may be attained. 
 
 Of course, under Socialism, as in every civilized society, 
 private property of all kinds would be subject to the ultimate 
 rule of society. The interests of society as a whole, that is to 
 say, would be regarded as superior to those of the individual. 
 Subject to this superior social right, there is no reason why 
 private property should not be far more widespread under 
 Socialism than today. Take, for example, the matter of homes. 
 The great mass of the people do not own their own homes, 
 though there can hardly be any question that the great mass 
 
2io SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 of the people desire to own homes of their own. It is con- 
 ceivable that in a Socialist state of society every person who 
 desired it could own a home for himself and family. On the 
 other hand, it is not conceivable that the state would have 
 any interest whatsoever in forbidding the ownership of homes. 
 Since all families must have homes in which to live, whether 
 provided by the state or otherwise, there could be no reason 
 for the state's insisting upon being the universal landlord. 
 Government ownership of dwellings in preference to the owner- 
 ship of the dwellings of the many by a few extortioners, cer- 
 tainly: but there is no more reason, so far as the central 
 principle of Socialism is concerned, for denying the right of a 
 man to own his home than there is to deny him the right to own 
 his hat. 
 
 From the foregoing it will be seen that not only does 
 Socialism not involve the abolition of all private property, but 
 that, on the contrary, a wide extension of private property is 
 quite compatible with Socialism as taught by Marx and his 
 followers. It is not an insignificant thing that the Socialist 
 party of the United States, in its national platform of 1904, 
 charged that "capitalism is the enemy and destroyer of essential 
 private property." The Socialist protest against capitalism is 
 that it destroys the economic independence of the producers. 
 The restoration of that independence is the grand aim of all 
 Socialist endeavor. 
 
 Failure to recognize with clearness the principle set forth in 
 the foregoing pages produces inability to distinguish between 
 government ownership and Socialism. Many persons marvel 
 that the Socialists do not hail with gladness, and join forces 
 with, the various movements aiming at public ownership as they 
 arise, and thus achieve Socialism piecemeal. Every proposal to 
 extend the area of government ownership and management is 
 at once hailed as a "step toward Socialism." For example, a 
 strong movement arises for the government ownership of inter- 
 state railroads, or of the telegraph system, and people wonder 
 that the Socialists preserve their equanimity, stand aloof, appar- 
 ently unconcerned, and decline to join the movement. Such 
 persons confound as many Socialists do the external forms of 
 the Socialist program, its non-essentials, with its fundamental, 
 essential principle. They do not see that the form of ownership 
 is relatively unimportant according to the Socialist philosophy. 
 
SOCIALISM 211 
 
 It is quite as possible for a government to exploit the work- 
 ers in the interests of a privileged class as it is for private 
 individuals, or quasi-private corporations, to do so. Germany 
 with her state-owned railroads, or Austria-Hungary and Russia 
 with their great government monopolies, are not more socialistic, 
 but less so, than the United States where these things are 
 owned by individuals or corporations. The United States is 
 nearer Socialism for the reason that its political institutions have 
 developed farther toward pure democracy than those of the other 
 countries named. True, in Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia 
 and other countries of the old world, there is a good deal of 
 government ownership, but the governments are class govern- 
 ments and the workers are exploited for the benefit of the 
 ruling classes. Obviously, the workers are no better off as a 
 result of changing the channel of exploitation merely, while the 
 amount of exploitation is left unchanged. The real motif of 
 Socialism is not merely to change the form of industrial 
 organization and ownership, but to eliminate exploitation. 
 
 To sum up : the whole matter may be very briefly expressed 
 in the form of a declaration of the principles, as follows: 
 Socialism is not hostile to private property, except where such 
 property is used to exploit the labor of others than its owners. 
 The socialization of property in the Socialist state would be 
 confined to (i) such things as in their nature could not be 
 held by private owners without subjecting the community to 
 exploitation or humiliation; (2) such things as the citizens 
 might agree to own in common to attain superior efficiency in 
 their management. 
 
 Granted the foregoing conclusions, it is evident that the 
 fear of a huge bureaucratic government as an inevitable con- 
 dition of Socialism loses its force. Such a bureaucracy might 
 be created, it is true, but it would not result inevitably from 
 the amount of administrative work involved in the management 
 of all property and "all the means of production, distribution 
 and exchange." In fact, there is no good reason for disbelieving 
 the claim made by modern Socialists that the amount of gov- 
 ernment control over the individual would be far less than we 
 are now accustomed to. 
 
 In this connection it must be remembered that the regulation 
 of capitalistic property in modern society, especially in the 
 great social services such as the railroads, lighting companies 
 
212 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 and the like involves an enormous amount of government 
 which, under such a condition as that suggested as belonging to 
 Socialism, would be wholly superfluous. When one thinks of 
 the tremendous amount of legislative and administrative effort 
 which experience, not theorizing, has shown to be requisite for 
 the restraint of capitalist enterprise, the mind is staggered by 
 the stupendous total. No one knows, for it has never been 
 computed, how much it has cost the United States during the 
 last ten years to "regulate" the railroads in their relations to 
 the public. This much we do know that it has been found 
 necessary to enact an immense body of legislation for the 
 regulation of capitalistic enterprise. To enact this legislation 
 has cost an enormous sum of money : to enforce it has cost a 
 great deal more in the way of maintaining an army of 
 inspectors, judges and officials of one sort and another. 
 
 It has been said in criticism of the methods of conducting 
 our public services that the amount actually spent in doing the 
 work is in many cases only a fraction of the total cost. To 
 illustrate: the actual operation of a street railway, including 
 the men who make the cars and lay the tracks, the men in the 
 powerhouse, motormen and conductors, is said to represent 
 less labor than what may be called the bookkeeping of the 
 railway the army of "spotters," inspectors, collectors, cashiers, 
 clerks, bookkeepers, accountants and the like. Most of these 
 workers are in reality parasites; their labor is only rendered 
 necessary by the preying of private interests upon the body 
 social. 
 
 Similarly, it may be said that much of our government is 
 in a like manner parasitic, rendered necessary only by the prey- 
 ing of private interests upon the body social. The socialization 
 of all the natural monopolies and the restoration of economic 
 independence to the great mass of the people would render 
 obsolete an astonishingly large body of laws, many of them 
 irritating and humiliating to a degree that is oppressive, and 
 would turn a large army of workers from parasitic to genuinely 
 useful occupations. 
 
 Every abuse of capitalism calls forth a fresh instalment of 
 legislation restrictive of personal liberty, with an army of pry- 
 ing officials. Legislators keep busy making laws, judges keep 
 busy interpreting and enforcing them, and a swarm of petty 
 officials are kept busy attending to this intricate machine of 
 
SOCIALISM 213 
 
 popular government. In sober truth, it must be said that 
 capitalism has created and could not exist without the very 
 bureaucracy it charges Socialism with attempting to foist upon 
 the nation. 
 
 There is, then, nothing in Socialism itself to warrant the 
 assumption that it would enthrall the individual to the yoke of 
 a bureaucratic government. There is no reason for regarding 
 as impossible and absurd the assumption that, under a Socialist 
 regime, the bounds of personal liberty would be greatly extended 
 and the scope of government greatly narrowed. Whatever views 
 one may entertain concerning Socialism, either as an ideal or as 
 a movement, it is necessary and just to weigh seriously the 
 claim, made in the national platform of the Socialist party for 
 the year 1904, that it is "the only political movement standing 
 for the program and principles by which the liberty of the 
 individual may become a fact." And, further, that "it comes to 
 rescue the people from the fast-increasing and successful assault 
 of capitalism upon the liberty of the individual." That claim 
 cannot be waved aside by mere rhetoric, nor silenced by abuse. 
 The fact remains that Socialism menaces neither private prop- 
 erty nor personal liberty. There is nothing inconsistent with 
 Socialism in the idea that government interference with the 
 individual should be as little as possible. 
 
 It will be said, doubtless, that the principles and the program 
 here sketched are those of individualism rather than of Social- 
 ism as commonly understood. Granted that they satisfy the 
 man who calls himself an individualist, they are not therefore 
 anti- Socialist. Socialism is not the antithesis of individualism 
 except individualism of the "devil-take-the-hindmost," laissez 
 faire school. To that crude form of individualism, so-called, 
 which accepts the doctrine that "might is right," under which 
 the assertion of one man's might destroys the individual liberty 
 of others, Socialists are opposed, just as the enlightened indi- 
 vidualist must be opposed. To the individualism that is based 
 upon equality of opportunity, the absence of privilege and the 
 destruction of all artificial inequalities, so that nature's in- 
 equalities alone manifest themselves, Socialism is not opposed. 
 Indeed, Socialism comes as the fulfilment of that ideal. 
 
 . Ninety-nine out of every hundred persons discussing this 
 subject not only regard Socialism as the antithesis of individ- 
 ualism, without any qualification whatsoever, but they make the 
 
 16 
 
214 SOCIALISM 
 
 far more serious blunder of regarding the present social system 
 if, inded, one may use the word "system" to connote our 
 industrial anarchy! as a system of individualism. Nothing 
 could be more fallacious than this. The individualism of the 
 fathers of the republic, particularly of Jefferson and Samuel 
 Adams, bears no relation to our present system with its rami- 
 fications of privilege. Free competition between man and man 
 belongs to the concept of individualism, but not so the com- 
 petition, so-called, which takes place between the corporation 
 and the individual. To make an artificial person, for legal 
 purposes, of a great corporation such as the Standard Oil 
 Company, and then to regard a struggle between it and an 
 individual refiner or dealer as "free competition," is to do 
 violence to language and reason. 
 
 Illustrative of the confusion of thought upon this subject 
 which pervades all ranks of society, we have the declaration of 
 the Ohio Republican convention, in asserting the claims of Mr. 
 Taft to be the successor of President Roosevelt, that the issue 
 in American politics in the year 1908 is "individualism against 
 Socialism" the Republican party and Mr. Taft representing 
 individualism ! Could anything be more grotesque than the 
 application of the word individualism to the Rooseveltian poli- 
 cies? Could the word be more abused than by its application 
 to the Republican party program? If Socialism represents one 
 side of the issue fought out in our national politics last year, 
 the other side is not individualism, but capitalism with its privi- 
 leges, its invasions of personal liberty, its artificial inequalities 
 and its economic servitude of class to class. 
 
 The Socialist ideal may be vain and chimerical, but no think- 
 ing person can deny that the influence of the ideal upon masses 
 of our citizens is a wholesome one. The political Socialist 
 movement may spend itself blazing trails for others to follow, 
 opening a way to a promised land it may not enter; but the 
 world will be the better for its existence. Fanaticism, in the 
 name of Socialism, and under its banners, may seek to do away 
 with private property and personal liberty; but that will be a 
 caricature of the Socialism for which so many millions of 
 earnest men and women in all lands are living lives of 
 consecrated sacrifice. 
 
DEFINITIONS OF CONTEMPORARY 
 SOCIALISM 
 
 American Economic Association Bulletin. 4th Series. 
 i:347-54. April, 191 1 
 
 An Attempt to Define Socialism. John Martin 
 
 Definitions of Socialism are almost as numerous as the com- 
 batants for and against Socialism. Unbelievers claim the same 
 right as believers to define the term, as Mark Twain said people 
 should spell according to the dictates of their own conscience. 
 The results are confusion and misunderstanding, muddy think- 
 ing and a woeful working at cross purposes in matters of 
 national importance. So bewildering is the babel of voices that 
 some people deny that Socialism can be defined at all. 
 
 Preparatory to this symposium I inquired the opinion of some 
 leading economists and publicists upon the meaning of the term 
 and among the replies are the following: 
 
 Professor John H. Gray says : "You seem to have tackled a 
 phantom, a will-o'-the-wisp. The term has no fixed or well- 
 defined meaning. In the eyes of the interests Socialism means 
 any proposition to take away any power, legal or illegal, good 
 or bad, that the interests now suppose themselves to possess." 
 
 Professor Davis R. Dewey writes : "It has never seemed to 
 me possible to define the word so as to make it serviceable for 
 general discussion. Socialism represents a movement. I do not 
 see that it admits of sharper definition than Christianity, or bar- 
 barism, or culture. . . . The discussion has gone too far and 
 the term is too widespread to bring down to any definition." 
 
 Professor Simon Patten declares, "I cannot define Socialism. 
 It seems to me to be a composite of several thought movements, 
 each of which has separate causes." 
 
 However, I am glad to report that this despair and bafflement 
 are not universal not even characteristic. The great majority 
 of those I have asked, all of them qualified to speak with author- 
 ity, not only give a definition, but their definitions come remark- 
 
216 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 ably close together. They show little of those wide variations 
 as to the meaning of the term which distinguish the speeches of 
 politicians on the stump and propagandists on the rampage. 
 
 The briefest is by Professor T. N. Carver, to whom "Social- 
 ism is the public ownership and operation of all the means of 
 production." This is closely allied with the definition given by 
 Mr. William Jennings Bryan in an essay of which his secretary 
 kindly sends me a copy as answer to my inquiry. "Socialism," 
 writes Mr. Bryan, "is the collective ownership, through the State, 
 of all the means of production and distribution." If Mr. Bryan's 
 ownership be taken to include management, as other sentences 
 in his essays indicate it does, and if Professor Carver considers 
 that distribution is, as an economic process, only a stage of 
 production, then Harvard and Nebraska are practically in 
 agreement. 
 
 Professor Henry R. Seager elaborates this a little. "Social- 
 ism," he says, "is a proposed reorganization of industrial society 
 which would substitute for the private ownership of land and 
 the instruments of production public ownership, and for the 
 private direction and management of industry, direction and 
 management through public officials." 
 
 Notice that this definition does not specify that all the means 
 of production be owned by the public. Similarly, Professor Carl 
 E. Perry stipulates, "the common ownership and operation of 
 substantially all productive instruments." The same point is 
 made by a thoughtful advocate of Socialism, Mr. W. J. Ghent, 
 whose definition runs as follows : "Socialism is the collective 
 ownership and democratic management of the social means of 
 production for the common good." "Not all the means," he 
 continues, "for it is entirely probable that many of the smaller 
 industries may justly, and with due regard for social efficiency, 
 be left in private hands." 
 
 Professor Richard T. Ely, in a definition originally given in 
 his work "Socialism and Social Reform" a definition which he 
 tells me he would not change today adds another idea. "Social- 
 ism," he says, "is that contemplated system of society which 
 proposes the abolition of private property in the great material 
 instruments of production, and the substitution therefor of 
 collective property; and advocates the collective management of 
 production, together with the distribution of social income by 
 society, and private property in the larger proportion of this 
 social income." 
 
SOCIALISM 217 
 
 Probably the definitions before quoted may be taken to imply 
 the idea fully expressed in the last clause of Mr. Ely's definition, 
 that Socialism contemplates private property in the larger pro- 
 portion of social income. Others reach the same goal by con- 
 sidering the proposals of Socialism with regard to the institution 
 of property as fundamental. Professor David Kinley considers 
 that Socialism "in essence calls for a new law of property, to 
 the extent of taking from individuals and giving to society as a 
 group all property rights in land and the instruments of pro- 
 duction" and Professor J. W. Crook writes that "the term 
 Socialism might wisely be confined to that plan of social or 
 economic reform which would eliminate profits and interest by 
 doing away with the institution of private property in productive 
 wealth and substituting therefor public ownership of the means 
 of production." 
 
 These definitions are more exact than an analagous definition 
 enunciated by President Taft in a speech delivered at the Ohio 
 Northern University, an extract from which his secretary kindly 
 sent me as authoritative. "Speaking generally," said the Presi- 
 dent, "of the issues which are likely to be presented to you 
 students in the future, I think the issue of most importance will 
 be the question of the preservation of our institution of private 
 property, or its destruction, and the substitution of a certain 
 kind of cooperative enjoyment of everything, which is the ideal 
 of Socialism." 
 
 You will notice that the President does not confine the pro- 
 posed joint enjoyment to the means of production. He appears 
 to hold that Socialism would preclude the private ownership of 
 any part of that Social income which Professor Ely expressly 
 stipulates will "in the larger proportion be held as private 
 property." 
 
 It would be too tedious to quote other definitions to similar 
 effect. 
 
 From all the definitions submitted there are significant omis- 
 sions. Not a single person even mentions free love or the 
 disruption of the family as having any relation to socialism. 
 I may say, however, in this connection, that Colonel Roosevelt 
 did not reply to my inquiry. 
 
 Further, no mention is made of the doctrine of the class war, 
 nor of the materialistic conception of history, except that Pro- 
 fessor Wenley refers to the latter as the basis of the desire "to 
 vest all sources of wealth in the central government." 
 
2i8 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 To sum up, the great majority of my correspondents agree 
 that the definition of Socialism must include the following 
 points : 
 
 1. Public ownership of nearly all the means of production. 
 
 2. Operation of these means of production by public officials. 
 
 3. Distribution of the income according to rules determined 
 by the community. 
 
 4. Private ownership of the income so distributed. 
 
 It is noteworthy that these points are included in the defini- 
 tion officially adopted by the National Executive Committee of 
 the Socialist party of America, which runs : "Socialism is the 
 modern movement of the working class to abolish the private 
 ownership in the social means of production and distribution, 
 and to substitute for it a system of industry, collectively owned 
 and democratically managed for the benefit of the whole people." 
 
 Notice that the Socialist party adds, however, an idea which 
 is not mentioned by any economist I have consulted. The party 
 executive says that Socialism is the modern movement of the 
 working class to secure what I have just defined as Socialism. 
 To them the movement and its working-class character are 
 essential. A party formed to advance any cause is, perhaps, of 
 necessity, as much concerned about tactics, strategy, discipline, 
 and pass-words as about the soundness of its philosophy or the 
 practicality of its aim. The Socialist party of America, the 
 lineage of which is more clearly German than English, attaches 
 importance to the materialistic interpretation of history and to 
 the doctrine of the class war as, jointly, both indicating and 
 justifying the only method by which, they say, Socialism can be 
 installed, namely, by the organization of those persons who do 
 not possess property into a political party which, acting inde- 
 pendently of all other parties, will have as its sole aim the estab- 
 lishment of Socialism. Their belief is that persons possessing 
 property will inevitably, with exceptions so few as to be neglig- 
 ible, by their material interests be led to oppose Socialism ; while 
 the non-possessors, also with only few and negligible exceptions, 
 must ultimately, when they understand the case, become class- 
 conscious and approve Socialism. This is not the time to discuss 
 the validity of those beliefs, nor the correctness of that simple 
 division of society into two classes. 
 
 I must point out, however, that this major doctrine of the 
 Socialist political party in America a doctrine to which appli- 
 
SOCIALISM 219 
 
 cants for party membership are usually asked to subscribe has 
 no place in any of the definitions of Socialism which I have 
 received. If we accept the definition which I have previously 
 analyzed, a person might legitimately be classed as a Socialist 
 and yet not be a member of the Socialist party, exactly as a 
 person may be a Christian without joining a church, or a Demo- 
 crat or a Republican without enrolling as a member of the 
 Democratic or Republican party. 
 
 Though the labels Democratic and Republican have been 
 appropriated by political parties, yet democracy and republican- 
 ism remain independent of party platforms, contortions, or 
 evasions, and debatable as methods of political or social organi- 
 zation irrespective of the ballot cast by the disputants at elec- 
 tions. A student contrasting American with English or German 
 government might proclaim himself a Republican though he 
 voted for Mr. Bryan; and, speaking of Russian society, he 
 might proudly assert he was a Democrat, though he voted for 
 Mr. Taft. In neither case would it occur to his party to object. 
 Similarly, it is quite conceivable that "Socialist," as a party 
 badge, may come to have little or no relation to Socialism as a 
 form of social and industrial organization the strength and 
 weakness, the drawbacks and advantages, of which may be 
 discussed without any reference to the way a man votes. 
 
 Theoretically that divorce between party label and abstract 
 doctrine is already clear; but, practically, while a party is young 
 and struggling for power, and while it is filled with a fervor 
 almost religious, it finds it impossible to display that broad 
 toleration which would permit profane lips to employ its sacred 
 phrases, or unsanctified persons to preach its pure doctrine. 
 Socialism possesses a literature, a tradition, a status abroad, and 
 the dignity of being a world movement, the glory of which it is 
 easy to understand that those who bleed and suffer and sacrifice 
 in its name are not willing to forego. 
 
 At the end of the eighteenth century the party of Thomas 
 Jefferson called themselves Republicans, because they had been 
 charged by their opponents with desiring to run to the extremes 
 of the democratic or mob rule which had been exemplified in 
 Paris. They therefore rejected the name of Democrats for 
 which the father of their party had ever shown a fondness, 
 and not till about 1805 did they begin to adopt it and to turn 
 an epithet into a badge of honor. 
 
220 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 But, nowadays, the Democratic and Republican parties, find- 
 ing no considerable section of citizens denouncing or deriding 
 abstract democracy or republicanism, and being daily fed with 
 the solid sustenance of office and power, feel no pain in differ- 
 entiating between themselves and the broad doctrines which 
 carry their label. But the Socialist party is in a less halcyon 
 state. Struggle, defeat, and famine are its accustomed portion; 
 and, therefore, it is comprehensible that it should highly value 
 the intangible glories of tradition and orthodoxy. Therefore, 
 probably for several decades, the political party will claim the 
 right to decree what persons and measures possess the true 
 hall-mark; and calm discussion of Socialism, in whatever way 
 we here agree to define it, will continue to be hampered by 
 its association, in the public mind, with a particular political 
 party. 
 
 It remains for us to explore the boundary line between 
 Socialism and its counterpart, individualism, where we may find 
 some unexpected terra incognita. 
 
 Prof. T. N. Carver, in presenting his definition, says that 
 "The ideal of Socialism is not at all different from the ideal 
 of individualism. Both are aiming at approximating nearer 
 and nearer to equality. Socialists think this can be achieved 
 better through public ownership and operation of the means of 
 production. Individualists think it can be achieved better 
 through the preservation of the institution of private property 
 and private ownership of the means of production, though not 
 to the entire exclusion of public ownership in some things. 
 One is not a Socialist by virtue of his belief in the public 
 ownership of some things. ... If one believes there are 
 some means of production that are well adapted to public 
 ownership and others that are better Adapted to private 
 ownership, he is not a Socialist but an individualist." 
 
 More precisely, Mr. William Jennings Bryan says, "Individ- 
 ualism is the private ownership of the means of production and 
 distribution where competition is impossible." 
 
 Prof. Frank A. Fetter holds that "the name individualist is 
 to be applied to the person who, at any given stage of social 
 advance doubts the efficacy of relying on the associative motives 
 and emphasizes the importance of giving play to the emulative 
 and competitive motives as a means of securing the activity and 
 energy required for progress in social organization. The name 
 
SOCIALISM 221 
 
 Socialist is to be applied to the person who, at a given moment, 
 minimizes the importance of individualistic motives, emphasizes 
 the need of limiting and controlling the competitive activities in 
 society, and believes not only in the need, but in the practicabil- 
 ity of gaining social progress by developing at that time more 
 associative and altruistic action." 
 
 Unless our definition specifies the character of the means of 
 production which individualism would give over to public 
 ownership, the distinction between individualism and Socialism 
 is so blurred as to be hardly distinguishable. If we simply 
 affirm that individualism sanctions public ownership of some 
 means of production and Socialism the private ownership of 
 some means of production, or that the difference between 
 Socialism and individualism is only a matter of emphasis, then 
 the classification of a particular proposal to transfer an industry 
 from private to public ownership is impossible. It may be an 
 instalment of Socialism or a retention of individualism. 
 
 For instance, the existing federal ownership and operation 
 of vast irrigation works, involving the expenditure of millions 
 of dollars, the employment of thousands of men and the creation 
 of hundreds of farms is that Socialism or individualism? Can 
 a measure be a piece both of individualism and Socialism? Is 
 there a wide margin between the two, belonging to neither 
 exclusively, a sort of hinterland over which both may freely 
 wander, neither challenging the other as trespasser? 
 
 If individualism permits the public ownership, as Mr. Bryan 
 asserts, only of those means of production in which competition 
 is practically impossible, the classification of measures or pro- 
 posals is more easy, though Socialism is then stripped of a 
 large territory over which it had flown its flag. Municipal 
 ownership and operation of water, lighting, and transportation 
 plants, and state ownership of railways, telegraphs, and tele- 
 phones then become embodiments of individualism though, I 
 imagine, Herbert Spencer and the Manchester school of econo- 
 mists will turn over in their graves at the news. 
 
 But, in any case, is a statesman consistent who denounces 
 Socialism over night and recommends Congress next day to 
 establish a line of merchant vessels to be owned by the nation 
 and operated by public officials between the Panama isthmus and 
 San Francisco? Is such a statesman consistent even in con- 
 demning Socialism per se, while, as secretary of war, he is 
 
222 SELECTED ARTICLES ON 
 
 administering a fleet of steamers, owned and operated^ by the 
 nation and running between New York and Panama? Clearly, 
 competition is not practicably impossible between steamship 
 lines. If we allow that such a sample of government enterprise 
 is not tainted with Socialist principle, where shall the boundary 
 between Socialism and individualism be staked? 
 
 Does individualism consent to the government ownership and 
 cultivation of wide-stretching forests, with nurseries, planters, 
 rangers, and fire wardens, with the leasing of grazing privileges, 
 the sale and removal of ripe timber, and all the other acces- 
 sories of a great business, conducted all by public officials 
 for profit? Has individualism no more objection than Socialism 
 to the continued government ownership of deposits of oil, gas, 
 phosphate rock, and of coal beds of incalculable value, all to be 
 held in trust for the people and worked under leases that control 
 the methods of exploitation, the conditions of the workmen, the 
 royalties to be paid into the public treasury, and, perhaps, the 
 prices to be charged the consumer? Is the whole policy of the 
 conservation of natural resources as presented by its authors an 
 incarnation of individualism, or is it a member of the great 
 Socialist family, simply washed and dressed and adopted into a 
 respectable household? 
 
 We have nothing to do here with the political consequences 
 of the correct labeling of political measures. Even if we agree 
 as economists upon definitions which will help to clear our own 
 thought and will aid college students to be intellectually honest, 
 we cannot enact, and we would not if we could, any pure poli- 
 tics law which would compel the correct and honest labeling 
 of party proposals and protect the public from misbranded 
 goods. 
 
 Perhaps, as Prof. Henry W. Farnam suggested in his ad- 
 dress to the Association for Labor Legislation at the Atlantic 
 City meeting, some new term is needed to designate the policy 
 which is neither individualistic nor Socialistic, the new type 
 which has already developed between the two old well marked 
 species, a hybrid with characteristics derived from both parents, 
 each of which claims it for its own, to both of which it is a 
 beautiful child, and neither of which is willing to forego the 
 claims of parenthood. 
 
 If a new term be adopted, New Nationalism, as suggested by 
 Mr. Croly in "The Promise of American Life," Meliorism, In- 
 
SOCIALISM 223 
 
 surgency, or what not, economists will be justified in asking for 
 an exact definition of its content. If political philosophies and 
 economic doctrines merge into each other like the colors of the 
 rainbow, passing from revolutionary red right through to royal 
 violet without perceptible break, then straight thinking and 
 intellectually honest politics are hardly attainable. 
 
 Pending the presentation of such a term, acceptably defined, 
 I see no more hopeful prospect than to disinfect the term So- 
 cialism of the virulent germs with which unauthorized persons 
 have impregnated it; and then to give Socialism the same im- 
 partial, impersonal investigation to which chemists subject a 
 new food, or a fresh carbon compound which promises an easier 
 life for mankind. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 5O CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 COT 19 \^ 
 
 
 
 
 CCT 20 01$ 
 
 
 
 
 APR 19 194 
 
 6 
 
 YUr23'^CP 
 
 
 r 3Qlan'56K> 
 
 
 
 
 : \SJLJ - - > 
 
 
 AD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LD 21-100m-7,'39(402s) 
 
597 
 
 'RV 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY