Puslapio vaizdai



I. The Socialistic State rests on First Principles, hence Details are not Essential.

"In June, 1639, the leading men of New Haven held a convention in a barn, and formally adopted the Bible as the Constitution of the State." RIDPATH'S U. S.

We have seen that the Socialistic state is simply an extension of the democratic principles to industry. It is the political and social realization of Christian ethics, the governmental recognition and application of the original, fundamental, and universal principles of civil liberty, fraternal equality, and social justice. Can we safely trust these principles to work out the happiness of men and nations, or shall we hesitate to adopt them without first being able to point out all the details of their application? That man who, clearly perceiving the truth, hesitates to acknowledge it, is either a knave or a coward.

Socialists are not logically bound to furnish details under the régime of Socialism. There is indeed a presumption in favor of existing institutions, but this presumption in favor of capitalism is overcome. The preceding pages leave no doubt as to this; the onus probandi is therefore shifted. It has been conclusively shown that the hull of the present industrial ship is rotten and utterly unsea. worthy; her keel of private capital, her vaulted ribs of freedom of contract, and her prow of free competition, all fused together and festering with the vicious principle of self-interest, have come to be, in the progressive evolution of society, economically indefensible and socially destructive assumptions.

Such is the leaky condition of the worn-out craft of in

dividualism, endangering the lives alike of its capitalistic cabin passengers and its laboring steerage passengers, when the Socialistic Ship of State comes alongside and invites the imperilled passengers and crew to get on board. We examine the principles on which the new ship is constructed, and, finding them to be civil liberty, fraternal equality, and social justice, we are logically bound to accept them without regard to the particular manner in which the ship may be rigged. In other words, Socialists may logically insist on the adoption of these principles, leaving their application to future contingencies. The eternal, political, and moral verities on which our republic is founded were rightly regarded by our fathers as sufficient ground for the Revolution and guarantee for democracy. Questions of administration, the relations and reciprocal duties of citizens, States, and nation, the numerous details of the constitution, the particulars of legislation, repeals, amendments, and experiments in short, the entire modus operandi involved and required in the successful working of a republican form of government were outlined but dimly, if at all, when the logic, none the less sound and conclusive, of Concord, Lexington, and Bunker Hill was applied in the name of Justice, Liberty, and Equality.

Those who would discuss details, or the working of a proposed theory in order to determine the principle of action, assume that the principle is one solely of expediency. A moral question admits of no such determination. Socialism is essentially a moral question, and herein lies the secret of its strength, the hope of its friends, and the terror of its enemies.

It cannot be proved inductively that the Socialistic state would increase the general happiness and contentment, for example and experience are wanting; but it can be proved, nay, it needs no proof, that the ethical principles on which Socialism builds are recognized as valid semper, ubique, et ab omnibus. Distrust of these principles is pessimism. Their judicious application depends upon the exigencies of time and circumstances, and affords abundant room for the theories of philosophers, philanthropists, and statesmen.

He who insists upon any arbitrary or invariable application of them, whether a Socialist or individualist, is a fanatic or a crank.

The details of the Socialistic state, as outlined by certain Socialists, are not essential to its existence and successful working. On the contrary, they are wholly gratuitous. When, therefore, they are refuted by an opponent, let him not imagine that Socialism is thereby overthrown. Other details or application of the principles of Socialism are not only possible but extremely probable.

Notwithstanding all this, both Socialists and their opponents have laid such stress on certain assumed phases and factors of the new social order, and the popular mind is so prone to judge of Socialism according as it judges of these non-essential questions, we shall, in another chapter, consider certain practical features of the Socialistic state.

II. The Nature of the State critically examined.

[ocr errors]

"The State is the politically organized national person of a definite country." BLUNTSCHLI.

[ocr errors]

"Let the State be considered as subordinate to the people; but let everything else be subordinate to the State." MR. JUSTICE WILSON.

We have reached a point in the discussion of the social question where the thoughtful reader will be led to ask, What is the State? What is its object, and what are its proper functions? Much of the confusion constantly met with in the discussion of sociological questions arises from the ambiguity of the word "state." Ordinarily the connection sufficiently determines its meaning, but when a writer comes to define it, or treat of its various functions, consistency is well-nigh impossible. At one time the State is the government; at another, all the people; again, it is society. It is regarded by some as an organ, and hence dependent; by others, as an organism and independent. With reference to its object the word is equally indefinite. With many it is to secure individual right; with others, to secure social justice. Again the primary object of the State is said

to be liberty, and the "confusion is worse confounded," since scarcely any two writers agree as to what individual rights, social justice, and liberty are. By one the State, in the exercise of authority, is regarded as an evil, a necessary evil; by another, as the highest good. Self-contradiction, opposite conclusions, and endless discussion result from this ambiguity.

The State has been defined as "the sovereign body having supreme power." The ancestor of this definition is tyranny. In this heredity, blood tells, for the definition is a chip of the old block. In a republic the "sovereign body" is the people; and the people also constitute the "supreme power." The definition, when applied to a republic, would therefore read the people having the people. We admit the great elasticity of the definition in question; this is why we object to it. A definition that holds everything must be ranked with the nostrum that cures all dis


Clearness demands that a writer should define his terms and invariably adhere to his definitions. By the State we mean all the people united under one constitution and over one government. Government is related to the State as agent to principal. The State is in no sense under the government. Of course we have in mind only a democracy. The largest society politically organized is the State. The State is therefore a politico-social organism, a whole as distinguished from an organ which is a part.

The several States in the United States are called such by way of accommodation only. Important corollaries follow this definition of State.

The State is the highest power on earth. Individuals are its constituent parts, its organs, and are related to the State as the different members of the body are related to the man. This relation is one of dependency and subordination. Although a body of men may determine the characteristics of a particular State, yet States are natural rather than artificial organisms; that is, they spring out of the social disposition and constitution of human nature. Government is "the acceptance of conditions which came into existence by

the sociability inherent in man, and were developed by man's spontaneous search after convenience.1

The State is, however, more than a mere aggregation of dependent organs. It is a mighty personality; it possesses matter and mind, body and soul; it is not only a political being, but also an economical, intellectual, moral, and material being. So far from being a mere impersonal, political machine, it is a living, organized, and sentient personality. "Whilst history explains the organic nature of the State, we learn from it at the same time that the State does not stand on the same grade with the lower organisms of plants and animals, but is of a higher kind. We learn that it is a moral and spiritual organism, a great body which is capable of taking up into itself the feelings and thoughts of the nation, of uttering them in laws, and realizing them in acts. We are informed of moral qualities and of the character of each State.

"History ascribes to the State a personality which, having spirit and body, possesses and manifests a will of its

[blocks in formation]

The State is a co-operation which is everywhere regarded as endowed with all personal powers and capacities necessary to the accomplishing of its object.

What is this object? The answers given to this question are numerous and divergent. The immediate object of our fathers in establishing the republic, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, was to secure liberty; that is, freedom from British tyranny, or political liberty. On the other hand, it is asserted that the object of the State is to secure individual liberty. Another says it is to guarantee rights. Mill declared that its object was coextensive with the general good. Others declare that its object is to establish justice.

In the popular mind there is a sort of equivalence in these phrases, yet a little scrutiny will disclose two diametrically opposite conceptions of the proper functions of the State. The one conception makes the object of the State to 1 "The State" (Wilson).

2 Bluntschli's" The Theory of the State," p. 21.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »