Puslapio vaizdai

longer choose his destination, but the government must decide where every man must go? We might multiply illustrations showing that the State controls institutions and social activities without at all interfering with freedom of choice except in cases where society would be injured thereby. Natural freedom, however, is always interfered with by civil laws and institutions. Natural or personal freedom in education, in manufacturing, in travelling, and in many other respects, is restricted for the good of society, but without injustice to any. The same might be true in government control of industry. If in any respect the natural freedom of laborers should be restricted, it would be seen to be for the good of society at large, and hence for the good of laborers themselves, as all would be workers. The need of governmental restraint is a great desideratum in all departments of industry. "Twenty years ago, a man who was out of debt and drawing a salary that supported his family in medium comfort, conceived the idea of building a business block. It cost several times more than his estimate. The builders took advantage of his ignorance of materials and cheated him; and at length he came to a stop, with a heavy debt and the block unfinished. There is still litigation over this structure. Many of the creditors lost money, and the projector of it lost everything he had, chief of which was his peace of mind for twenty years. He could not educate his children, nor give them any personal attention, being always closely pushed to keep his importunate creditors at bay while he reserved enough from his constant labor to live. He borrowed of his personal friends to appease his creditors, and then could not pay these latter debts. The sum of discomfort that this one man, who was perfectly honest, well-meaning, and industrious to a fault, was able to bring upon himself and fifty or sixty others directly, to say nothing of the derangement that he effected in the business community where he launched his venture, is not to be estimated. The commercial highway is strewn with such failures, which are the quite inevitable consequence of a business chaos that allows any one to undertake anything he is disposed to

undertake, without the least preparation or proven qualification. As a physician is educated in the principles and practice of medicine, the business novice ought to pass through a similar apprenticeship in business methods required by the community for self-protection and for his protection." 1

Such is the anarchy of individualism or the capitalistic system. Any remedy that is effectual involves a denial of the fundamental assumptions of this system, and an acceptance of the principles of Socialism.

The objection that Socialism would be destructive to liberty proceeds from the assumption that its government would be despotic, a power outside of and above the people. It thus by skilful rhetorical manoeuvring enlists in its support the popular alarm and antipathy with which tyrannical governments are regarded. It is assumed that even among a free people government is not the State, but some power opposed to the people and sure to tyrannize over them. Although this assumption appears plausible, from the fact that history even of the immediate past deals largely with the tyranny of despotic governments, it has absolutely no foundation in a republic. The people are the State, and the State for present purposes is the government. If the people govern themselves, they are the gov"A government of the people, by the people, and for the people" cannot by any fictio orationis, be different from the people themselves acting in their political capacity. If we could rid ourselves of the notion that a truly republican government is something different from the State, and likely to be opposed to the people, it would be an immense gain, not only to clearness of ideas, but especially to a fair consideration of the claims of Socialism.


We have only to bear in mind that the Socialistic government is the people, all of whom are workers, to see that the charge that the government would destroy the freedom of the workmen is exactly equivalent to the charge that the people would destroy their own freedom. When a government of, by, and for the people chooses the occupa

1 Morrison I. Swift, " Andover Review," December, 1891.

tions of the people, such occupations are chosen by the people themselves; and this none the less if perchance the people appoint commissioners to advise and assist individuals in making a choice.

The sweeping charge of Dr. Woolsey which we noticed at the outset is nowhere sustained; and we submit to the candid reader that it labors under the burden of improbability.

Over-government may easily happen in a monarchy, an oligarchy or aristocracy, but not in a democracy. As a man who controls himself cannot be too much controlled, so a people who govern themselves cannot be too much governed. Only so far as the government is not democratic need there be any fear of centralized power. Democracy stands on two legs, the general dissemination of knowledge and a high standard of morality. Socialism places special emphasis upon the former, and aims to secure the latter by a recognition in the organic law of society of the spirit and letter of the Golden Rule.

[blocks in formation]

"The working class is the only class which is not a class. It is the nation. It represents, so to speak, the body as a whole, of which the other classes only represent special organs. These organs no doubt have great and indispensable functions, but for most purposes of government the State consists of the laboring majority. Its welfare depends on what their lives are like." — FREDERICK HARRISON.

Socialism is objected to on the ground that it aims to place the functions of government exclusively in the hands of working men. The charge is thus formulated by Dr. Behrends: "The Socialistic ideal is the dominance of the laboring classes, a supremacy as really sectional as the monarchical, the aristocratic, the military, and the plutocratic, against each of which, in turn, society has protested and revolted. The divine right of labor to rule is as partisan and despotic a formula as the divine right of kings, of birth, blood, and wealth; in this matter there can be no compromise with the advocates of the new order." 1

1 "Socialism and Christianity," p. 82.

We heartily indorse this sentiment as to class rule. It is a solid shot from a long-ranged and truly American columbiad. It labors, however, under this difficulty: while aimed at Socialism, it hits squarely the bull's-eye of capitalism. Three-fourths of the people are wage-workers; and yet in the halls of Congress, in the several State Legislatures, and even in the city governments, a wage-worker is regarded as a rara avis. Legislation by the moneyed class is the bane of the present system. Against this class rule Socialism is the long, loud, and irrepressible protest. A writer coming to the defence of capitalism as against Socialism on the ground of class rule, protesting in the name of liberty and equality against a system that would substitute the rule of three-fourths of the people for that of the now dominant one-fourth, is a circumstance that will not escape the attention of the candid reader. We have made this concession, however, simply to meet our critic. on his own ground. We now withdraw it. Socialism does not advocate "the dominance of the laboring classes." It recognizes no such distinction as laboring and non-laboring classes. Its fundamental principle is that all citizens are laborers, either manual, mental, or moral, in the Socialistic vineyard. It knows nothing of able-bodied non-workers. In this Socialist writers of all schools are agreed. Laborers would indeed be dominant, but only because all citizens were laborers. In such a régime the idea of class rule by laborers would be an absurdity.

It is the more remarkable that our critic should have advanced this idea because it is repudiated by the authorities cited in the introduction to his work and on which he relies. Among these is Ely's "French and German Socialism," which gives an abstract of the views of Babœuf, Cabet, St. Simon, Fourier, Louis Blanc, Proudhon, Rodbertus, Marx, and Lassalle. These writers represent every phase of Socialism, and not one of them fails to repudiate the vicious principle of class rule by laborers. Neither can it be deduced from the nature of Socialism. Such rule is contrary to its very genius. This is admitted by Laveleye in his "Socialism of To-day," which our critic characterizes

as a "masterly survey," also by Schaeffle and other able writers on whom he claims to rely.

Laveleye says, "Socialism demands that wealth shall no longer be the privilege of idleness, and that he that sows not shall not reap. This is exactly what St. Paul so emphatically says: Qui non laborat nec manducet; 'If any will not work, neither shall he eat.'"1 In other words, Socialism demands that all shall work as they have ability. Schaeffle on almost his opening page declares this to be the fundamental principle of Socialism. All talk therefore about "the dominance of the laboring classes" in such an order involves an absurdity.

This objection can find no support from the exhortations of Socialist orators and manifestoes urging proletarians of all lands to unite, or the fourth estate to assert their right to rule; for such language refers to the injustice of the present system, the methods of agitation, and the means of effecting the social change, but never to the Socialistic state itself, which includes every citizen in its fourth which would then be the first and only estate.

Nothing, however, is more common than to seize upon these watch-words of social reformers, separate them from their connection, pervert their meaning, associate them with whatever is offensive, and then sound them in the popular ear as the teachings of Socialism.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

'Gigantic party political frauds, these are cause and effect. They imperil the peace of the republic. They must do so more and more as our population grows. Ultimately in America there will be either civilservice reform or civil war." -JOSEPH Cook.

It is charged against Socialism that it would open wide the door to political corruption. We have shown in the preceding chapter that Socialism would purify politics. We shall therefore confine ourselves strictly to this charge and to its refutation.

Mr. Joseph Cook says, "The State which places at the 1 "Socialism of To-day," Introduction, p. 39.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »