Puslapio vaizdai

sight of, but he has a frivolous heart and a shallow head who regards them as supreme and final.

2. Industrial justice is not impracticable.

Socialists would be satisfied with the establishment of industrial justice. Constructive Socialism is state control of industries so far as is necessary to secure industrial justice. Socialists would be abundantly satisfied with this measure of state control. If exclusive State control of all industries is advocated, it is only because it is supposed that the desired end could be reached by a change no less complete. It is, however, certain that whenever, in the progress of the movement, such end would be reached, Socialists would oppose any further interference by the State.

Let us examine some of the forms in which this charge of impracticability is made.

3. Socialism is not a Utopia.

Dr. Woolsey asks, "Is Socialism a mere Utopia, or can it be realized in the world?" 1 He answers that it is a Utopia, and assigns the five following reasons:

First. If the new faith is a law of nature, as Socialists claim, its progress must be measured not by years but by centuries; and in the mean time the evils of capitalism can be remedied by legislation. The answer is obvious. Remedy by legislation is Socialism. Dr. Woolsey thus erects the very Utopia charged against Socialism. The progress of this law of nature has already been measured by three centuries. The only question is, Has the fulness of time yet come?

Second. Socialists cannot persuade men that the present system plunders operatives, or that they would fare better at the hands of the State than they now do under private employers. It is sufficient to reply that men are already persuaded of this plundering, and this is the sole immediate cause of the social question.

Third. Socialism makes no provision for satisfying the demand for specific articles, nor for the mobility of labor, nor could it accommodate itself to the changing fashions and 1 "Communism and Socialism," p. 276.

wants. As to furnishing specific articles, we reply that it will be time enough to furnish them when needed. Would any one oppose the founding of a college because as yet it had made no provision for teaching some particular branch of knowledge? As to the mobility of labor, it seems to be entirely overlooked that under Socialism the necessity for such mobility would disappear.

The curse inseparable from the present system is that it keeps laborers on the move; but it is assumed that, however it may be with a rolling stone, the only way for laborers to gather moss is to keep rolling. Socialism would not be able to accommodate itself to the "changing fashions of society." That, we reply, would be a consummation most devoutly to be wished. If Socialism would check the vanity, the waste, extravagance, and consequent demoralization of changing fashions, the State might well issue a thanksgiving proclamation closing with the patriotic and pious invocation, God save the Co-operative Commonwealth!

Fourth. Socialism will affect unfavorably the individual, the family, the government, morals, religion, and all spiritual and moral forces.

A mere assertion so inclusive and sweeping carries little weight. We have already treated at length its different elements. We do not believe that such would be the result of Socialism. If it was, would Socialism on that account be "impracticable"? Because under individualism these institutions suffer injuries, is individualism thereby rendered impracticable? Socialism might properly be opposed on this account, but not on the ground of impracticability. Fifth. This change in society can be effected only by violence, in which case the advantage would be in favor of the existing order.

Dr. Woolsey failed to discover the temper of modern Socialism. It is not violent, but peaceful: it finds that "the pen is mightier than the sword." Socialism is being evolved and daily approved even by those who but yesterday opposed it. It is true that the existing order always has an advantage; but we have read history to little purpose if such advantage can be relied upon to prevent the

most radical social revolutions, whether peaceful or violent. That Socialism could only be brought about by violence is an assumption shown to be unfounded by the rapid and peaceful advance Socialism is every where making.

This charge of impracticability by Dr. Woolsey is one of the most formal and specific that we have ever seen. We submit to the candid reader that it is not sustained by either or all of the reasons assigned.

4. History furnishes no evidence that Socialism is impracticable.

The popular manner in which this objection is made is well illustrated by the hasty statements of an influential newspaper: "Every race, tribe, and nation has tried the nationalist business in some form, at some time. The first pressure broke its fastenings in every instance.” 1

If this were true it might with equal propriety be said of past republics. It was the argument confidently relied upon by the Tories to show the futility of the attempt to establish the American Republic. But it is not true. The nationalism now advocated is by a people free, intelligent, and moral; a people who have attained a high degree of industrial development; in a word, a people highly civilized and prepared for an advanced social régime. Would the writer quoted pretend that state Socialism under such conditions was ever before attempted? If not, what weight should attach to his statement? Success in any experiment waits upon conditions. The historical precedents to which he refers were either mere communistic societies within the State, of which we have had no less than seventytwo in our own country, or the joint interests of wandering tribes of savages, or the feudalistic régime of ancient Sparta, or the communes of primitive and semi-civilized peoples.

Dr. Woolsey, who, as we have seen, opposes Socialism by arguments drawn from all plausible sources, is careful to say, "History has no voice to utter concerning communistic states." 2

5. Social progress tends to solidarity and hence to a practical Socialism.

1 "Kansas City Times" as quoted in "Public Opinion," January, 1890. 24 Communism and Socialism," p. 22.

History and especially psychology show that as men advance they develop the same desires and faculties. Notwithstanding this law the article before referred to asks, "Do you say that the nation's present unfitness for the system is no bar to an expectation that it may be [fit] before long? the fatal objection to that view is that the more men develop the more they differentiate. Desires, faculties, and points of view, become more and more varied, complicated, and inexplicable." Then, in Heaven's name let us stop this differentiation before we all have each other by the ears. It is not true, however, that as men develop they "differentiate" so as to be less able to live together in peace. Exactly the opposite is the fact. The present differentiation is due to the fact that some have not developed, have had no chance to develop, while others have been more fortunate. The idea that men are to grow unlike by development antagonizes all history. There is a unity, a oneness, to be attained not only in the kingdom of heaven, but in the kingdom of earth, which all good men hope and pray for. Human solidarity in religion demands a solidarity in economic and social relations. In such union there is perfect freedom in the exercise of all proper personal tastes, desires, and faculties. The reason, says Professor Francis A. Walker, why the skulls of civilized men "contain more than thirty ounces of brain matter, and their foreheads slope backwards at an angle of more than forty-five degrees, ," is not because under equal conditions "the more men develop the more they differentiate," but because the one class has had the benefit of the principle of competition, while the other class, from the absence of proper conditions, has developed scarcely at all. What shall be said when the opponents of Socialism differ so essentially among themselves? One says, "Historical precedents settle this. Utopian scheme." Dr. Woolsey replies, "History has no voice to utter concerning communistic states." One says, "Men differentiate as they develop." Professor Walker claims that the difference is because one class has and the other has not developed. Dr. Washington Gladden says, 1 "The Atlantic Monthly," February, 1890.

[ocr errors]

Competition means war,' "It is God's maxim." 2

" while Professor Walker says, When the opponents of Socialism flounder around in this fashion, it shows that the supply of valid arguments falls far short of the demand.

6. Selfishness is not the only practicable principle.

[ocr errors]

In a single sentence the article to which we have called attention pays homage to the principle which is essential to the integrity of capitalism. That principle is selfishness. It says, "Selfishness has scarcely been diminished by the thousands of years during which what we label civilization has been staggering forward and slipping backward." All prosperity, it seems, is due to selfishness. "Selfishness has produced our laws, our railroads, our poems, and our public schools," and would he not add our religion? We had supposed that at least public schools, along with our liberty and religion, had been produced in spite of selfishness. We admire the candor, but deplore the cussedness, of this admission. We are perfectly willing to have the issue joined on this question: Shall selfishness be made the basal principle of all economic activity?

7. The impracticability of Communism should not be attributed to Socialism.

It is necessary to guard against the sophistry of critics. in confounding Socialism with Communism. They have many features in common, just as men and brutes have all the senses in common, but they differ as much as men differ from brutes. The immortal soul of Socialism is justice, the breath of life of Communism is equality. The first move that the capitalistic player on the social chessboard makes, is to confound Socialism with Communism, or if he makes a distinction he immediately proceeds to disregard it. Every conclusion against Communism is naïvely applied to Socialism. Against this well-known fallacy ignoratio elenchi, answering to the wrong point, we protest. Communism demands equality at the expense of justice; Socialism demands justice with that degree of equality

[blocks in formation]
« AnkstesnisTęsti »