Socialism. As opinion is still so much divided regarding the significance and tendency of socialism, it would not be advisable to attempt a preliminary definition of the word. According to Mr Holyoake (in his History of Co-operation), the word originated in 1835 in connection with the Association of all Classes of all Nations, founded in that year by the socialist Robert Owen. The name laid special emphasis on the necessity for social reconstruction and renovation, as contrasted with the political reforms which were then so much agitated, and was therefore soon adopted as suitable and distinctive. It was borrowed by Reybaud, an eminent French writer, in his Reformateurs Modernes (1839), and gained a wide currency on the European continent; and it is now the recognised name for a movement which has affected almost every country of the civilised world.
In this article our chief aim obviously is to expound socialism as a historical phenomenon or set of phenomena. But even in this sphere the task is not without its difficulties, as there is little agreement even with regard to the historical application of the word. The application of words is determined by use and wont, and it cannot be said that we yet have anything like a settled use and wont to guide us in this matter. And the difficulty is greatly aggravated by the fact that socialism is a historical movement which is not complete. Indeed, it is probably only in its earliest stage, and what now strikes many observers as its most important features may prove to be merely passing phases of a great world-historic development.
The first difficulty that meets us lies in the question whether socialism is an ancient or purely modern phenomenon. If socialism be essentially a form of communism, as is sometimes maintained both by friends and opponents of the movement, then it is simply a revival of one of the oldest phenomena in history, the only novelties in it being the modern facts by which it is alleged to be justified or to which revolutionists seek to adapt it. If so, the problem would be greatly simplified, for the arguments against the practicability of communism, grounded in human nature and repeatedly brought out in history, are so strong that the identification of the socialistic movement with it would be sufficient almost to remove it from the region of serious discussion. Again, if we regard socialism as a social and economic system by which the individual is unduly subordinated to society, we must still pronounce it to be an old phenomenon, because in many primitive societies and in many ancient states, both of Greece and Italy, the subordination of the individual to the community in which he lived was excessive. Or again, if we define socialism as a systematic discontent and revolt against prevailing economic conditions, the wide range of the phenomenon at the present day may give it a unique place in history; but it cannot reasonably be considered a new thing, as social discontent was often strong even in old societies, and in a more or less conscious form may be said to have existed in every community from the beginning. The great historic instances of such discontent are found at the declining period of the Greek and Roman republics and during the economic changes which attended the fall of feudalism and of the Catholic Church in so many countries of Europe. The same periods were marked by far-reaching schemes of reform, and by books like the Republic of Plato and the Utopia of Sir Thomas More, which embodied the ideals of eminent thinkers. Thus we see that dissatisfaction with the present state of things and the longing for the ideal are very old phenomena in the history of the world. The same features are observable in the Hebrew prophets who wrote during the declining period of Jewish history. Lastly, should we grant that socialism is simply a modern phase of the revolutionary spirit, we should still require to know the grounds and motives of it, as a revolution is only the form assumed by the activity of a new force which is powerful enough so to express itself. The violent change called a revolution is one of the oldest things in history; and it really throws little light on a movement when we describe it as revolutionary.
The claim of socialism to be distinctly a new movement may be regarded as resting on two great facts—the industrial revolution and the development of the modern democracy. As England led the way in the industrial revolution, the course of it can be best followed by reference to the history of that country. On the downfall of feudalism towards the close of the 15th century the retainers of the barons were dispersed. Whereas it had been the interest of the feudal noble to support the largest possible number of fighting men, the prestige of the new court aristocracy depended mainly on the rents they could raise. Thus the commercial spirit became a prominent feature of landowning; the small holdings were transformed into large sheep-runs, because the latter paid better; and the old tenants were forced from the land, either to sink into hopeless vagrancy or to drift into the towns. All those tendencies were greatly aggravated through the confiscation of the church-lands on the downfall of the Roman Church and the suppression of monasteries. In this way began the divorce of the worker from the land, which is at once the material of labour and the source of subsistence and of culture. At the same time great changes of enormous magnitude were proceeding abroad. The discovery of America and of the sea-route to India opened up vast countries to European enterprise and colonisation, resulting in the establishment of a world-market, which again gave fresh impetus to the economic change at home. The demand for goods created by the world-market particularly stimulated invention, till during the course of the 18th century a series of new mechanical appliances brought the industrial revolution into full activity. This revolution is still going forward. It is spreading over all countries of the world; and the new motive-power electricity is already beginning to supersede steam. The results of the industrial revolution in so far as they have a bearing on the present subject may be thus summed up. Production is no longer carried on by individual or family labour for local or family use. The labourer has no control of the instruments of labour. Instead of working on his own account with his own small capital, he toils in large factories and other undertakings under employers who own and control the capital embarked in them. Industry is carried on by the united efforts of thousands of men, and is therefore no longer an individual function, but a social and collective one. On these grounds socialists maintain that the energetic individualism which originated and established the industrial revolution has been superseded by the results of that revolution. Individual industry is no longer the normal or prevalent form of industry.
It has been shown (see DEMOCRACY) that the modern democracy is the solid, enduring, and inevitable result of far-reaching causes. The most famous historic expression of it was the French Revolution; and though the ideals of that revolution, liberty, equality, and fraternity, were sadly discredited by the extravagant and sanguinary proceedings in France, it will generally be admitted that a great moral and political gain to the world has been achieved through the growth of democracy. At least no one will deny that its influence has been vast, and as yet is far from exhausted. One of the first effects of the democratic movement was to bring the middle-class into prominence. More recently the working-class has received the chief share of attention. While the middle-class in most civilised countries do more than any other in controlling industry and politics, the working-class is everywhere struggling into action.
The general result of the industrial revolution, therefore, has been the growing concentration of industry and of the capital with which it is carried on; and the development of democracy has tended to inspire working-men with a desire for a larger share of political power and for a fairer distribution of the means of culture and happiness. The rise of socialism as a modern phenomenon was conditioned by the two revolutions. It was the industrial revolution, which had made the working people the victims of machinery and the factory, that Robert Owen had chiefly in view; the great aim of his socialism was to render mechanical invention subservient to human well-being. Saint-Simon (q.v.) was a Frenchman who had lived through the troubles and excesses of the Revolution; and his theories were moulded by that great event. After the destructive liberalism of the Revolution he believed that the time had come for a positive reconstruction of society. His views were more thoroughly elaborated by his disciples. In history they recognised two kinds of epochs, the negative or destructive, and the organic or constructive. The former was marked by the spirit of criticism, anarchy, and war; during the latter religion, love, and the spirit of association were dominant. But the spirit of association will more and more prevail till it embrace the entire world. The keynote of the history of the world during the past has been the exploitation of man by man in its three stages, slavery, serfdom, and wage-labour. The keynote of the future will be the 'exploitation of the globe by man associated to man.' But according to the Saint-Simon school a better society is possible only through the abolition of the hereditary principle, by which ruling classes are from generation to generation secured in the possession of the good things of the world, while the other classes are handed over to perpetual misery. There is only one way to break the fatal chain of continuity, and that is to vest the instruments of production in the state, which will administer them for the benefit of all its members. The state would delegate to associations the practical industrial work, and each man would be rewarded according to his services. Saint-Simon and his school would therefore answer the problems raised at the Revolution not by the restoration of the old feudal and priestly régime, not by following out the negations of liberalism, but by a new positive order, in which the spiritual direction would be given to the men of science and the practical control of production to chiefs of industry. His system was not reactionary; nor was it democratic or revolutionary.
The system of Fourier (q.v.) is in several respects an entire contrast to that of Saint-Simon. Whereas Saint-Simon insisted on the principle of authority, Fourier carried to its extreme development that liberty which had been the chief watchword of the French Revolution. While the school of Saint-Simon gave the state the ownership and control of the instruments of production, Fourier left the capital in private possession, thus securing a fresh guarantee for freedom, but providing against the abuses of private capital by placing it under social control. And Fourier devised another guarantee for freedom by making the commune, or local association, which he called the phalanse, the cardinal and decisive factor in social reconstruction. In the Saint-Simon school the state is the point of departure and the controlling power, to which the associated bodies are subordinate. With Fourier the commune is substantive, self-sufficient, and independent. The federal organisation into which his communes may enter is entirely voluntary. In short, Saint-Simon's is a centralised socialism, Fourier's is a communal socialism. In this respect Owen agrees with Fourier.
The three systems of Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Robert Owen had been produced during the reaction which set in after Waterloo. Though they had been elaborated in full consciousness of the great events which had marked the closing period of the 18th century, they were intended rather as a corrective of the democratic movement than as a continuation of it. They had little faith in the ordinary democratic ideals. In one important respect, however, they fully participated in the illusions of the early period of the French Revolution. They shared in the comfortable and confident optimism which believed it to be a simple thing to reconstruct society. They thought that they had found a short and easy way to regenerate society. They knew little or nothing of the principles which determine social development, and this perhaps more than anything else lends an air of utopianism and unreality to all their speculations. Their theories never really took root in the practical life of the time.
The French socialism of 1848 had a solid basis in the real life of the time, inasmuch as it entirely and enthusiastically accepted the democratic principles. The first condition of the socialistic proposals of Louis Blanc (q.v.) was the thoroughly democratic organisation of the state; the first duty of such a state was to place its resources at the service of the poor. The state, he maintained, was the banker of the poor. In the social workshops, which he advocated, membership was to be voluntary, and they were to be self-governing, as became the institutions of a democratic state. It has now been fully proved that Louis Blanc's schemes never had a fair trial under the republican governments of 1848. The national workshops were only a travesty of his social workshops, expressly intended to discredit them. Louis Blanc had not robustness of character or enduring political influence enough to enforce attention to his plans.
While Louis Blanc may thus be regarded as the first historic advocate of the social-democracy, another man who was prominent during the troubles of 1848 must be considered as the founder of a form of socialism still more revolutionary. Proudhon (q.v.) first associated socialism with anarchism, which holds that the goal of society is freedom without government. Proudhon was one of the storm-birds of the revolutionary period of 1848; but, with all the violence and extravagance of his utterances in the press and in the chambers, he was too shrewd and kindly a man to have any concern in the rising of June of that year. That was an outbreak of the proletariat, for which the socialist leaders were not responsible.
After the revolution of 1848 France ceased to be the pioneer in socialistic speculation and agitation. Germany and Russia have since produced the foremost men in both departments of activity. The German thinkers, Rodbertus, Lassalle, and Karl Marx, undoubtedly take the first place in the history of socialism as the scientific exponents of the subject, and controversy still thickens chiefly around these three names. To them, and above all to Karl Marx, we are indebted for the prevailing forms of contemporary socialism. While the French socialism that preceded them may be regarded for the most part as ingenious speculation very inadequately grounded in facts, Rodbertus, Lassalle, and Marx seek to justify their theories by a vast and elaborate learning, especially historical learning. They were men of philosophic training, and had a knowledge of economic literature and of the historic economic forces which has seldom been equalled.
The earliest writings both of Rodbertus and Marx were prior to 1848. The manifesto of the Communist party, perhaps the most violent revolutionary document of the 19th century, was drawn up by Marx and Fr. Engels in 1847-48. But their work did not really become historic till a later period. Lassalle, the youngest of the three, was the first to run a very remarkable career as the founder of the social-democracy of Germany. His proposals for the founding of productive associations were substantially the same as those of Louis Blanc, and were even to some degree enforced by the same arguments. The two agitators also resembled each other in the fiery and persuasive eloquence with which they captivated the workingmen of their respective countries. But Lassalle as far surpassed Louis Blanc in philosophic and historical erudition as he was inferior to him in simple integrity and straightforwardness.
While Lassalle therefore was greatly indebted to Louis Blanc for his practical schemes, he derived his theoretical principles to a large degree from Rodbertus and Karl Marx. It would be unjust, however, to regard him as an ordinary borrower. All his activity both as thinker and agitator bore the stamp of his own temperament, which was one of remarkable originality; and indeed the main burden of his teaching is not traceable to any theorist, but had already become the common possession of all socialists who were tolerably well versed in the literature of their subject. The same remark applies to the controversy, whether to Rodbertus or Marx belongs the priority of having established what are considered the fundamental principles of scientific socialism. These principles have already been briefly sketched in the articles LASSALLE and MARX, and need not be repeated here; but we may point out that, while Lassalle dwells chiefly on the small share of the result of production which goes to the labourer as a subsistence wage, Marx finds the keynote of the evolution of capitalism in the large share which falls to the capitalist under the name of surplus value. Both start from the open contradiction in the Ricardian economics, according to which labour is the source of value, but of this value the labourer only gets enough for subsistence according to the usual standard of living, surrendering the remainder to the possessors of land and capital. These deductions from Ricardo formed also the basis of the system of Rodbertus. In other respects, however, he differed greatly from Lassalle, and particularly from Marx. Rodbertus was a Prussian lawyer and landholder, and from temperament and social standing was entirely opposed to agitation and revolution. His general position was social, monarchical, and national. He accepted the monarchical institution in his own country and hoped that the German emperor might undertake the rôle of a social emperor. The socialism which he advocated was a thoroughgoing national socialism, but he did not expect its full realisation, except as the goal of five centuries of moral and political effort. He proposed that the two classes of landholders and capitalists should continue to enjoy their present share of the national income, but that the results of an increasing production should go entirely to the workers. The state would establish a normal working day, a normal day's work, and a normal wage, which would be periodically revised, and increased according to the increase of production. In this way the practicability and superiority of a national socialism would be shown, the characteristic note of which would be that all income should be dependent on service, as contrasted with the ancient income derived from property in slaves, and the incomes of the existing era, drawn from private property in land and capital.
The International was the outcome chiefly of the activity of Karl Marx. The social-democratic movement in Germany originated with Lassalle. At his death in 1864 his union counted only 4610 members, and its history was for some time chequered by petty jealousies and mean intrigues. It succeeded better under the leadership of Schweitzer (1867-71). In the meantime, Bebel, a Saxon workman, and Liebknecht, a disciple of Marx, who naturally were opposed to the Prussian national socialism favoured for purposes of propaganda by Lassalle, had led a strong combination of workmen's societies over to the International. The two parties quarrelled violently for some years, till in 1875 their common interests, and especially the severe treatment of both by the Prussian police, drew them into a union, which was settled at Gotha (1875). They called themselves the Socialist Working-men's Party of Germany, and drew up a programme, which is still the creed of the German social-democrats. The progress of German social-democracy both before and since the union at Gotha has been marvellous. Five members were elected to the North German Reichstag of 1867. At the elections to the first German Reichstag in 1871 they only polled 120,000 votes; but the number had increased to 339,000 in 1874, and to nearly half a million in 1877. The rapid growth of the party, and the excitement occasioned by two attempts on the emperor's life, led to the passing of exceptional laws against socialists in 1878; but in spite of such legislation their voting strength continued to increase, till in 1887 they counted 763,000 votes, and in 1890 1,427,000, or about 20 per cent. of the total poll. It was also a notable feature of the election of 1890 that, whereas in rural and Catholic districts the socialistic propaganda had hitherto shown little or no symptoms of success, it had at that date made very material progress. The discontinuance of the severe anti-socialist laws, and the more sympathetic attitude of the young emperor on social questions, have also made an important change in the tactics of the party. While their methods and their language, in the press and on the platform, had previously been bitter, violent, and aggressive, there is now a marked tendency to moderation among their leaders. They see the hopelessness of overt opposition to the government, and they are content to await the development of the economic forces, which, following their teacher Marx, they believe will inevitably establish socialism in the fullness of time. But this change of tactics has not received the unanimous approval of German socialists, and a small party has already seceded from the main body.
Next to the Marx socialism the most prominent form of socialism is anarchism. As we have seen, the originator of anarchism was Proudhon; and its most notable expounder was the Russian Bakunin (q.v.). The characteristic feature of anarchism is really a political theory, the denial of government, and may be held with or without the economic principles which constitute the essence of socialism. The anarchic socialism of Bakunin was atheistic, materialistic, and revolutionary. He condemned all forms of government, whether based on the will of a single ruler or on universal suffrage, as necessarily leading to tyranny. The one great aim of every reasonable creature is scientifically to know the laws of nature and to put himself in harmony with them. Thus the goal of social progress is an enlightened freedom, in which external control is superfluous and despotic, and every man is a law to himself. For attaining this end Bakunin advocated a policy of unsparing destruction of the existing society. The future organisation would proceed from the free initiative of the people, who will group themselves in associations, all the arrangements of which, including the institution of marriage, will depend on the free consent of the members. And these free associations will group themselves into a federation, formed and maintained on the same principle of freedom. In economics the school of Bakunin advocate a collectivism which is essentially the same as that of Marx. The International (q.v.), however, was broken up through the differences between the Marx party and that of Bakunin. The theories of anarchism have had a very considerable influence in France, Spain, Italy, and Russia. The risings in southern Spain in 1873 were stimulated by anarchist teaching. In 1883 the great trial of anarchists at Lyons made an interesting revelation of the theories and methods recognised by that school of socialists. It is not clear how far the revolutionary party in Russia has been affected by anarchist doctrines. Kropotkine, the eminent Russian exile, and the distinguished French geographer Reclus may be regarded as the chief living exponents of anarchism. The Russian revolutionary party has no doubt been greatly influenced by men like Bakunin and Kropotkine, but it has also owed much to Lassalle, Marx, J. S. Mill, Herbert Spencer, and other thinkers who have no sympathy with anarchism as a special form of political and economic thought.
During the last generation socialism has undoubtedly made great progress throughout the civilised world. Yet, except in Germany, and perhaps Denmark, the number of the avowed and active adherents of the movement is still comparatively small. The growth of the socialist voting power in Germany has been already noted. In Denmark the numbers of the socialist party are numerous enough to organise great demonstrations and to support a daily newspaper with a large circulation. French socialism is influential only in Paris and the industrial centres, and has returned a few representatives to the Chambers. In Italy and Spain there is a considerable socialist feeling, but it is mostly latent, and therefore cannot easily be measured. The movement is spreading in Austria and Belgium; whilst as regards Holland, Sweden, and Norway we can only say that the party, though increasing, fills as yet but a small portion of the national life. The revolutionary party in Russia has been exceptionally active, but its numbers have been small. In England, after having died out almost for a generation, the movement took a fresh start about 1883. For some years after that date it attracted great attention, and gained a number of able and active adherents; but it has again entered upon a quiescent stage. Socialism has also spread to America and the Australian colonies; yet, while the labour movement has most powerfully affected both continents, it cannot be said that organised and avowed socialism has made very marked progress.
The general result is that outside of Germany and Denmark the number of avowed and active socialists is comparatively small. On the other hand, few will doubt that the direct and indirect influence of socialism on social economic and political thought has been very great.
Looking to the main drift of speculation on this subject both in the past and present, we may briefly define the fundamental principles of socialism as follows. Socialism holds that the present system of industry, which is carried on by private competing capitalists, served by competitive wage-labour, must be superseded by a system of free associated workers utilising a collective capital with a view to an equitable system of distribution. On this theory private capital will be abolished, and rent and interest will cease. The method of distributing the fruits of labour advocated by many socialists cannot be distinguished from communism. But this is not an implicate of the historic socialism. Several methods of remuneration professing to be equitable have been put forward, and each member of an association of workers would be free to use his special income as he pleased. In fact, all such moderate wealth as would be devoted, not to production, but to consumption, might be regarded as at the free disposition of the owner. And a method of distribution which fixed the remuneration of each in proportion to his services might admit of a very considerable variety in the amount of incomes. But the individual ownership of capital and the free disposal of it and the individual appropriation and possession of the advantages derivable from private capital in the form of rent and interest would terminate. A conspicuous exception to such an arrangement is found in Fourier, who made the continuance of private capital a substantial feature of his system. It remains, however, that the historic socialism in general as well as the active and organised contemporary forms of socialism demand the absorption of private in an absolutely collective capital. In the definition above given socialists of the Marx and of the anarchist schools would agree.
Probability is the guide of life, and it is extremely improbable that any system of industry involving the abolition of private capital should ever become prevalent. And if it were practicable it would greatly limit the legitimate and reasonable interests of human freedom. The materialism of the Marx and anarchist schools is also a grave objection to their theories as historically presented to us. Both schools too have laid most excessive stress on the virtues and possibilities of the revolutionary method of action. The evils of the existing society are not due merely to bad social-economic and political mechanism; they are rooted in human nature itself. No revolution can produce a magical change in human nature. A revolution can indeed remove abuses; but they always return in a modified form, or the old abuses are replaced by new ones. Human society and human nature can be radically improved only by a long and gradual organic change, economic, political, and ethical. It is particularly utopian of the Marx school to believe that the struggle of classes can be terminated by a great revolutionary act. In short, the socialism of Marx is altogether too absolute, abstract, and remote from the facts of history and existing human nature. His theory of surplus value is the most striking example of this abstractness; instead of being the key to the development of capitalism, it is really the vitiating element in a great and elaborate historical production.
Must we then regard socialism as a passing and errant phase in human development, which, after exciting wide-spread attention, like the forms of communism that have emerged at certain periods, is, like them, doomed to disappear? The answer to this question can really be given only in the history of the future. For socialism is not an abstract and completed system identifiable with the theories of Marx or Bakunin; it is a thing in movement and subject to incessant change. But so far as the movement has proceeded we may justly say that it has had the following permanent results: (1) It has greatly helped to give prevalence to the historical conception of political economy. The idea of change has been natural to socialists; their subject has led them to study the rise, growth, decline, and fall of economic institutions. The great principle of evolution, as taught by Hegel and Darwin (see below), has been a commonplace in socialistic speculation. (2) Socialism has greatly deepened and widened the ethical conception of political economy. It has in season and out of season taught that the entire technical and economic mechanism should be made subordinate to human well-being, and that moral interests should be supreme over the whole field of industrial and commercial activity. The charge sometimes brought against socialism that it appeals only to the lower instincts of man is very wide of the mark. It would be a juster criticism to say that it inculcates an altruism unattainable by any probable development of human nature. (3) Socialism has brought the cause of the poor most powerfully before the civilised world. As the cause of the poor represents the social and economic side of the vast and inevitable movement of modern democracy, it is not likely again to pass out of the attention of the world, but will be the burning question in every civilised country for a long time to come. (4) Socialism has given an exhaustive criticism of the existing society and of the prevalent economic theories. In many things the criticism has been exaggerated, but it has been also in many things most valuable. Almost every economic treatise now appearing bears the marks of socialistic criticism of the present society.
Under all the above heads socialism has made a deep and abiding impression on the thought and activity of the world. Here, again, Germany leads the way in the recognition of the influence of socialistic theories, and this is particularly observable in the Socialism of the Chair and in the State Socialism which have played so great a rôle in recent German discussion and legislation. The socialists of the chair are an influential group of professional and other economists, whose position may be best described as illustrating the influence of the socialist movement in the above directions. They recognise the historical and ethical character of economics; labour in all its aspects—in other words, the cause of the poor—is the subject of the most serious and exhaustive investigation; and all of them make important concessions to the socialistic criticism of the existing society. Bismarck was the redoubtable antagonist of the social democracy, regarding it as subversive of church and monarchy and fatherland; but he had considerable respect for socialistic principles, and he was prepared to hold the state as so far responsible for its suffering members. The state socialism of Bismarck was an outcome of this sense of responsibility, and the same feeling has been emphatically expressed by the Emperor William II.
The above considerations point to large and important changes in the existing society; yet they are perfectly consistent with the continuance of the present system of industry, the characteristic feature of which is, as we have seen, that it is carried on by private capitalists served by wage-labour. In spite of all such changes the worker would remain divorced from land and capital; he would have no control of the sources of subsistence and culture; and he might still have to be content with little better than a subsistence wage. Socialism, however, desires not a modification, but a renovation of the existing industry, and through it of the existing society. While, therefore, we may admit that it has exercised a very considerable influence on social-economic thought and practice, the probability is that it will fail in making the revolution in society which it proposes to accomplish.
But it may also be maintained that, though the historic and contemporary socialism has been so much disguised by extravagance, and has taken too little account of the fundamental principles of human nature, the main aim of the movement may be perfectly sound. The extravagances of socialism are obvious and confute themselves. Like other systems making great claims on mankind, it must be tried by its fundamental principles, which should be distinguished from the accidentals that have been associated with it in history. It may be said that we have only to liberate the historic socialism from its too abstract, absolute, and ultra-revolutionary forms and we have a new type of industrial organisation which has a reasonable claim to supremacy in the future. We can conceive industry as under the entire and efficient control of associated workers, making an equitable distribution of the produce, while private capital could be maintained in so far as it is necessary to freedom and individual development. In like manner the hereditary principle with all the implicates so important to society would be preserved, and by social control protected from existing abuses. As the co-operative workers would have effective control of the instruments of labour, that divorce of the labourer from the means of subsistence and culture which was one of the most lamentable results of the industrial revolution would terminate. The present differences between capital and labour would cease, inasmuch as labour would be united with capital under one and the same social management. The hours of labour and the remuneration of labour would be mainly and normally regulated not by competition, but by reference to reasonable human needs. For the realisation of such a condition of things much would depend on the growth of habits of free self-government and self-control. It could be brought about, not by a political catastrophe, but by a long and gradual process of organic change, especially in the minds and morals of the masses of the industrial population.
In short, socialism is the extension to industry and economics of the free self-governing principle recognised in democracy. It is industry of the people, by the people, for the people. When we remember that this type of organisation has from the time of Simon de Montfort taken more than six centuries to attain to imperfect realisation in the English parliament, it will be clear that it cannot succeed in the industrial sphere in a day. It may be maintained, however, that we can see the substantial beginnings of such an economic change in the extension of social control through (1) the state and (2) the municipality or commune, and (3) in the growth of the co-operative system. The company is at present the growing power in industry; but even as regards the great companies (4) the control of the state and of social opinion is continually extending. In the application of the profit-sharing principle we may discern a possible change towards a system in which the workers may have an interest in and control of the large industry. And in the continual development and concentration of business of all kinds in these great industries we may see the mechanism by which they might be brought under social management. The great companies are no longer conducted by the owners of the capital as such, but by a paid staff of officials under a manager; and the whole organisation could without shock be transferred to the direct service of the community.
It will be clear that socialism is a question for the future. Only the future can disclose how far and how soon any system of free associated workers can supersede the prevalent system of competitive industry served by wage-labour. And, as we indicated at the outset, the drift of opinion about socialism will largely depend simply on the meaning which prevalent use and wont give to the word.
Relation of Socialism to Darwinism.—Many students of socialism find a difficulty in understanding its relation to the Darwinian theory, according to which development depends on the struggle for existence, resulting in the survival of the fittest. Reasonable socialists must admit that such a struggle is a prime fact in the history of human society, and that it is a cardinal principle of human progress that the competitive system is only a modern form of the struggle for existence, and is therefore a necessary stage in the progress of mankind. On the other hand, it is enough to point out that the struggle for existence is only one side of human evolution. Another side not less important is seen in the development of the principle of association or community, in the continual effort to moralise the struggle, to place it under the regulation of rational, ethical, and artistic ends and ideals. In short, the moral and social progress of the world has largely consisted in mitigating, limiting, and regulating the struggle for existence. The struggle for existence, however, is not thereby abolished. It is only carried forward to a higher plane. The development of the social principle or principle of association is itself a potent element in the struggle; for the struggle is not one between individuals merely; it is waged also between communities, which on the whole are continually progressing, and an improvement in social organisation may be decisive of the result. In the great struggle for existence which is always proceeding between the nations of Europe a large advance, for example, in the education and social condition of the people of one nation may more than any other factor turn the scales in its favour. The family virtues—good faith, justice, and humanity—have always been powerful elements in the development of society. They are all phases of the moral and social progress of the world. Socialism claims to have brought forward a type of industrial organisation which can best continue and promote the ethical and social progress of mankind. The competitive system is the latest form of the struggle for existence, and socialism is the latest theory for its regulation.
See the articles COMMUNISM, CO-OPERATION, EVOLUTION, FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, GEORGE (HENRY), INTERNATIONAL, KNIGHTS OF LABOUR, LASSALLE, MARX, NIHILISM, PEASANT PROPRIETORSHIP, PROFIT-SHARING, TRADE-UNIONS, &c. Marx, Kapital, of which two vols. have appeared (the first in an Eng. trans.), remains the classic work on socialism; see also Eugen Dühring's Umwälzung der Wissenschaft, by Marx's friend Fr. Engels; A. Schäffle, Quintessenz des Sozialismus, Bau und Leben des sozialen Körpers (vol. iii.), and The Impossibility of Social Democracy (Eng. trans. 1892); Franz Mehring, Die Deutsche Sozialdemokratie; Rudolf Meyer, Der Emancipationskampf des vierten Standes; Laveye, Le Socialisme Contemporain (Eng. trans.); Les Procés Anarchistes (Lyons, 1883); John Rae, Contemporary Socialism (new ed. 1891); Fabian Essays in Socialism; Hyndman, Historical Basis of Socialism in England; Ed. Bellamy, Looking Backward; W. Morris, News from Nowhere; Graham, Socialism New and Old (2d ed. 1892); An Inquiry into Socialism (1887), and A History of Socialism (1892) by the present writer; books by Gilman (1892), W. Morris and Belfort Bax (1893), Ely (1894), Flint (1895); Göhre, Six Months in a Workshop (trans. 1895); Nitti, Catholic Socialism (trans. 1895); Stamhammer's Bibliographie des Sozialismus und Communismus (1893); and the relevant chapters in the economic works of Roscher, Wagner, Mill, and Sidgwick.