French and German Socialism in Modern Times

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: French and German Socialism in Modern Times
Author: Ely, Richard T.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "French and German Socialism in Modern Times" ***

FRENCH AND GERMAN
SOCIALISM IN MODERN TIMES

BY
RICHARD T. ELY, PH.D., LL.D.

PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY AND DIRECTOR OF THE SCHOOL
OF ECONOMICS, POLITICAL SCIENCE, AND HISTORY
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

NEW YORK AND LONDON
HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS
1900

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1883, by
HARPER & BROTHERS,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

_All rights reserved._

PREFATORY NOTE.

The publication of this volume is due to the friendly counsel of the Hon.
Andrew D. White, president of Cornell University; a gentleman tireless
in his efforts to encourage young men, and alive to every opportunity to
speak fitting words of hope and cheer. Like many of the younger scholars
of our country, I am indebted to him more than I can say.

The present work is based on lectures delivered in Baltimore before
the students of the Johns Hopkins University, and in Ithaca before
the students of Cornell University. Although these lectures have been
thoroughly revised and, in fact, rewritten, traces of this origin will
be found in a certain freedom of style and matter, which will, I trust,
render the book neither less interesting nor less instructive.

My aim is to give a perfectly fair, impartial presentation of modern
communism and socialism in their two strongholds, France and Germany. I
believe that, in so doing, I am rendering a service to the friends of law
and order.

RICHARD T. ELY.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, BALTIMORE, _August 3, 1883_.

CONTENTS.

Chapter Page

I. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND THE LABORING CLASSES 1

II. BABŒUF 29

III. CABET 39

IV. SAINT-SIMON 53

V. FOURIER 81

VI. LOUIS BLANC 108

VII. PROUDHON 124

VIII. SOCIALISM IN FRANCE SINCE PROUDHON 143

IX. RODBERTUS 156

X. KARL MARX 170

XI. THE INTERNATIONAL WORKINGMEN’S ASSOCIATION 183

XII. FERDINAND LASSALLE 189

XIII. THE IDEAL OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY 204

XIV. SOCIAL DEMOCRACY SINCE THE DEATH OF LASSALLE 211

XV. SOCIALISM OF THE CHAIR 235

XVI. CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM 245

INDEX 263

FRENCH AND GERMAN SOCIALISM IN MODERN TIMES.

CHAPTER I.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND THE LABORING CLASSES.

Communism and Socialism represent different and yet allied movements of
theory and practice. They aim to improve the common lot of humanity,
in particular that of the lower classes, in a radical manner and by
the application of thoroughgoing measures. Now, when we utter the
word improvement we indicate a desire to change, and consequently
dissatisfaction with the state which is to be changed. This brings us at
once to the common standing-ground of politico-economic reformers. They
are one and all dissatisfied with the present condition of society. We
have, therefore, in the first place, to examine the accusations which are
brought against the social _régime_ of our time.

Complaints against the methods of producing and distributing wealth are
not new; complaints of such a character as we hear at present, however,
have originated since the middle of the eighteenth century. Before the
French Revolution, dissatisfaction with the then existing order of things
had been expressed often enough, and had even led to rebellion; but the
economic life of Christendom was then different from what it is now, and
consequently the discontent and the proposed measures of reform were not
of the same nature. While the study of the condition of the laboring
classes in ancient times and the Middle Ages is highly profitable, it is
not necessary to go farther back than the latter part of the eighteenth
century to obtain a tolerably accurate notion of existing socialism and
communism.

A brief examination of the peculiarities of modern socialistic schemes
will make this plain. One of these is to be found in the developed
self-consciousness and awakened desires of the poor, taking their origin
in democratic institutions and increased enlightenment. Another is the
greater prominence given to capital in the present system of production.
Disputes concerning capital-profit and wages now lead to communistic and
socialistic schemes. “Such war-cries,” to use the words of Schäffle’s
“Socialism as Presented by Kaufmann,” “as we find Lassalle raising
against capital, would not have been even understood among the ancients
and the oppressed classes of the Middle Ages. The promises held out by
agitators to the masses now are: equal rights for all, no monopolies,
liberty and equality for the people. Liberalism itself has paved the
way to communism. The right of coalition among laborers for their own
interests, liberty of the press, the extension of the suffrage, together
with the facility of rapid and cheap inter-communication by post and
telegraph, afford laborers the means for united action where their
interests are at stake. The working-man of our day has a consciousness of
his own power quite unparalleled by any of his compeers in former ages.”

A third peculiarity of modern forms of communism and socialism is their
cosmopolitan and practical character. All the plans of reformers,
described in this work, were meant to be executed and to inaugurate a
new era in the development of humanity. Attempts have been made, or are
being made, to realize every one of them. Older socialistic schemes are
of two kinds. Those of the first class were applied only to sects or
small associations. Such were the communities of Buddhist and Christian
monks and the villages of the Essenes in Judea. Those of the second class
were dreamy and speculative. No attempt was made by their authors or any
group of immediate disciples to regenerate the world by substituting
them for existing social and economic organizations. Of this character
were the “Republic” of Plato and the “Utopia” of Sir Thomas More. Even
the speculations of French writers immediately preceding the Revolution,
like Mably, Morelly, Brissot de Warville, and Jean Jacques Rousseau,
were of this kind. Jean Brissot, for example, tickled the palates of
those craving literary and philosophical sensation by declaring private
property theft, and then defended private property in the National
Convention of 1792;[1] while Rousseau, only a few months after lamenting
that the first man who laid claim to property had not been instantly
denounced as the arch foe of the human race, speaks respectfully
in his “Political Economy” of property as the basis of the social
compact, whose first condition was that every one should be protected
in its enjoyment.[2] Morley says of him that he “never thought of the
subversion of society or its reorganization on a communistic basis,” and
that would hold generally of French socialistic thinkers before 1789.
Modern socialists and communists, on the other hand, not only think of
a reorganization of society, but work with might and main to accomplish
it. This at once draws a broad line between them. This difference finds
expression in new designations. A man without property is no longer
what he was previous to the French Revolution—viz., a poor man; he
is a proletarian, while the class to which he belongs are not called
collectively the poor, but the proletariat.

Previous to the French Revolution an attempt had been made to embrace all
the inhabitants of a state in some shape in a fixed and definite social
organism. There were the ruling classes, consisting of the nobility and
the clergy, and the commons. The latter were, to be sure, hewers of wood
and carriers of water for the two higher estates, but they were bound
to them in a certain manner. The feudal lord usually felt some sort of
concern for the welfare of his vassals, looked after their interests,
when these interests were attacked by others, and in a general way
afforded them protection to be found only in his wealth and power. The
greatest of the feudal lords, the sovereign, was the mighty father of
all, and his government was often a shield to the weak and helpless.
The third estate, the _bourgeoisie_—those who pursued trades and
commerce—were connected together, and with the rest of society, by guilds
and corporations. The arrangements of these institutions brought into
close personal contact master and laborers. Manufactures were conducted
in small shops, where the employer worked side by side with two or three
journeymen and apprentices, the latter living in the master’s house.
According to the rules of the guilds the apprentice became a journeyman
in a few years, and the journeyman rose in time to the rank of master.
Thus there were common experiences and common feelings to unite employers
and employed. They were not distinct and separate classes, with interests
sharply antagonistic to one another.

It is so unusual to hear one speak a good word for the institutions of
the Middle Ages, that I fear the reader will be tempted to exclaim, “Can
any good thing come out of Nazareth?” But that it may not be necessary
to take my _ipse dixit_ for believing that there was a favorable side
to feudalism, I will quote the testimony of Thorold Rogers, Professor
of Political Economy in the University of Oxford, and one of the most
distinguished economists of our time. “It is in vain to rejoice over the
aggregate of our prosperity,” says Professor Rogers, in his “History
of Agriculture and Prices,”[3] “and to forget that great part of the
nation has no share in its benefits. It may be that the wisdom of our
forefathers was accidental; it is certain that society was divided by
less sharp lines, and was held together by common ties in a far closer
manner, in the times which it has been my fortune to study [the Middle
Ages], than it is now. The feudal system of the Middle Ages was one of
mutual interests; its theory of property involved far more exacting
duties than modern rights ever acknowledge, or remember, or perhaps know.”

The war of La Vendée, in the French Revolution, gives striking
corroboration of this view of feudalism. In the western part of France,
particularly in Anjou, feudal institutions still retained their better
characteristics, while in other provinces large landed proprietors
intrusted their estates to agents, that they might lead idle and
dissipated lives in Paris. The landlords of La Vendée and the surrounding
country lived on their manors, and took a paternal interest in the
well-being of their peasants and dependents. The relations of Church
and people were those of protection and affection. The result was the
obstinate adherence of this part of France to the old order of things,
and the stubborn resistance of the peasants of Anjou and Poitou to the
revolution.[4]

Yes, it is true; much more can be said in favor of the social
organization of the Middle Ages than is commonly supposed. Nor were those
times so backward as many think. Cities like Nuremberg, in Germany, show
remains of the civilization of the Middle Ages which convince one that
a considerable grandeur had then been attained, and that the people of
those times were by no means in every respect inferior to us. But the
framework of this past civilization, not admitting of expansion, broke to
pieces. It was not large enough for the modern growth of population and
wealth. Its institutions were abused by those in power, and in a time of
general corruption and oppression they fell with a terrible crash. The
French Revolution swept them away forever. While this revolution formed
one of the grandest epochs in history, it left society in a singularly
disorganized state. No one appeared to be connected with his fellow-man.
Each one stood alone by himself. The individualistic and atomistic
condition of modern society had begun. In the reaction which followed
upon restraint this was thought to be an unmixed good. Each one was left
free to pursue his own interests in his own way. Commerce and industries
took a wonderful start, and by the aid of inventions and discoveries
expanded in such a rapid and all-embracing manner as to astound the
world. It is probable that as we, after more than two thousand years,
look back upon the time of Pericles with wonder and astonishment as an
epoch great in art and literature, posterity two thousand years hence
will regard our era as forming an admirable and unparalleled epoch in
the history of industrial invention. During this time of growth and
increasing wealth it was at first generally thought that everything was
moving along finely. The third estate had been emancipated. Its members
had no longer to bear alone the burdens of government. It betook itself
to trade and manufactures, grew wealthy, and became the _bourgeoisie_ of
modern political economy. But speedily a fourth estate was discovered,
whose members consisted of dependents—workers for daily wages. What had
been done for them? They had also nominal freedom, but did they enjoy
actual freedom? They were in possession of political equality, but had
they advanced one single step in the direction of social and economic
equality? There were not wanting those who went even further than to
answer both of these questions in the negative. They pointed to the fact
that the weak and needy had, as never before, lost all connection with
the strong and powerful. Hundreds of laborers crowded in a single shop
lost all personal feeling with their one employer. Formerly the distance
between journeyman and master was slight, and the passage from the one
condition to the other could invariably be effected by diligence and
ability. This change of condition now became absolutely impossible for
the greater number. The majority of those engaged in manufactures must,
in the nature of things, remain common laborers. A few, unusually gifted
or favored, might hope to rise, but even for them it became ever more
difficult to ascend the social ladder. On the one hand, the division of
labor was carried so far that the labor performed by each was exceedingly
simple. Instead of taxing the ingenuity, and thereby conducing to mental
development, the endless repetition and sameness of the labor tended to
make one stupid. On the other hand, inventions rendered it necessary not
only to employ an ever-increasing number of machines, but to make use of
those which were constantly becoming more expensive.[5] The gulf between
employer and employed widened unceasingly. The employer, losing personal
feeling with his laborers, too often forgot that they were men with
natures like his own. Frequently, it must be acknowledged, he looked upon
them as mere beasts of burden, and regarded their labor in the same light
as any other commodity which was sold in the market-place. They were
hired for the cheapest price, worked to the utmost limit of endurance,
and, when used-up, thrown aside like any other old and worthless machine.
The capitalist grew richer, and among the higher classes of society
luxury and extravagance increased. The laborer, noticing all this, asked
himself if his lot had in any respect improved. He was inclined to deny
that it had. His daily bread was not earned with less toil, nor was he
surer of an opportunity to work. His existence was as uncertain and as
full of anxiety as ever. Being brought together in large shops with those
in like condition, he talked over his wrongs and sufferings with them. A
class-feeling was developed. The heartlessness and assumed superiority
of those who had become suddenly, and often by mere chance, wealthy were
looked upon with frowns and gloomy countenances foreboding no good. The
harsh separation in material goods between these parvenus and the lower
classes was accompanied by no mitigating circumstances. In the case of
the old and wealthy families of a more ancient era the superiority in
wealth appeared more just, on account of lapse of time and a certain
superiority in intellect and manners. They were, to a considerable
extent, superior beings in other respects than mere externals. The new
rich looked down upon and despised the orders from which they had so
recently escaped, and were, in turn, hated by those beneath them. A
division of society into caste-like classes was taking place. The rich
were becoming richer; it was thought the poor were becoming poorer.
Free competition imposed no restraints upon the powerful. They were at
liberty to exploit the poor to their heart’s content. The strength on
the one side was so great, and the capability of resistance on the other
so insignificant, that there could exist no real freedom of contract.
As Sismondi said, the rich man labored to increase his capital, the
poor man to satisfy the cravings of his stomach. The one can wait,
the demands of the other are imperative. To the laborers their state
appeared like “a hell without escape and without end” (Mehring). They
were prepared to listen to those who should preach them a gospel of hope,
even if it involved violent change. Revolution _might_ help them; it
could not render their lot more hopeless. They were ready to examine more
critically the evils of society, when bidden to do so by their leaders.
Verily, they did not need to search long to discover many sore spots on
the social body. The luxurious immorality of the parvenus in European
capitals made no attempt to conceal itself. When the laborers were told
that their wives and daughters were considered rightful booty by the
wealthy, they remembered women of their class who had fallen a prey to
the fascination of wealth and the elegance of the higher classes, and
were angry. The peace of many of them had been ruthlessly destroyed by
some rich voluptuary. Perhaps a poor father, thinking of a fair daughter,
whose employer in shop or factory had taken advantage of his position and
her need to seduce her, gnashed his teeth in rage, and was ready to swear
eternal vengeance against the _bourgeoisie_.[6]

But these things were noticed by the more thoughtful among the higher
classes. They were bitterly disappointed. The doctrines of political and
economic liberalism had been expected to usher in the millennium, and
instead of that they beheld the same wretched, unhappy, sinful world,
which they thought they had left. If there had been progress in the
general condition of humanity, it was so slight that it was a matter of
dispute. Many, finding things in such a sad condition, one so different
from what they had expected, affirmed boldly that we had been going from
bad to worse.

In speaking of Lamennais, the distinguished French Christian socialist,
the Rev. Mr. Kaufmann, an English clergyman, describes the grief that
eminent man experienced, as he observed the economic development of
society after the great French Revolution:[7] “It was Lamennais’ fate
to see three revolutionary waves pass over his country, and to watch
with sorrow and bitterness of heart the disappointments to which they
gave rise. He had seen the sore distress of the people whose condition
the political changes of the first revolution left to all intents
and purposes unimproved. It had, in fact, given rise to new social
grievances. In destroying patriarchal relationships and feudal bonds of
social union, it had handed over the masses to the tender mercies of free
contract and competition. The introduction of machinery, with the rise
of modern industry, had a pauperizing effect, and intensified popular
discontent. Hence the various socialistic and communistic schemes for the
liberation of the working-classes from the ‘tyranny of capital,’ and the
attempts to promote the free association of labor by means of voluntary
co-operation following in the wake of revolution.

“Every section of society was represented in this revolt against the
excessive individualism of the _laissez-faire_ system as the result of
the new social contract. Among the saviours of society who rose rapidly
one after another—Saint-Simon, on the part of aristocratic _crétins_
impoverished by the revolution; Fourier, as the spokesman of the
aggrieved lower middle-class, in danger of being crushed by the superior
force of the plutocracy; Babœuf, representing the communistic materialism
of the ‘common people’—each in their own way had their theories of social
reconstruction; ... whilst a small band of generously minded churchmen,
with Lamennais at their head, made it their object to save society by
means of spiritual regeneration.”

A reaction against liberalism set in. This was of two kinds. A romantic
party, represented by Adam Müller, and a conservative party, represented
by the _Kreuzzeitung_, advocated a return to the social organization
of the Middle Ages. They dreamed of a golden age in the past, in which
humble simplicity and trustful dependence on the part of the laborer
were met by generous benevolence and protecting care on the part of the
master. They thought it possible to restore a time in which the Shepherd
of Salisbury Plain, happy and contented because a kind Providence had
granted him salt for his potatoes, filled an ideal position.

The communistic and socialistic parties, on the other hand, urged the
necessity of an advance to a totally new form of society. Very unlike in
many respects, in others these parties resemble and sympathize with each
other. The accusations which they bring against our present condition
of society are so similar that one often does not know whether one is
reading the production of a social democrat or of an ultra-conservative.

I will quote the indictment of the great socialist, Karl Marx, against
liberalism, which, it will be seen, might just as well have been written
by a conservative. In fact, if I had been shown the passage and told that
it appeared in the _Kreuzzeitung_, I should not have been in the least
surprised. “Although the liberals,” says Marx, “have not carried out
their principles in any land as yet completely, still, the attempts which
have been made are sufficient to prove the uselessness of their efforts.
They endeavored to free labor, but only succeeded in subjecting it more
completely under the yoke of capitalism; they aimed at setting at liberty
all labor powers, and only riveted the chains of misery which held them
bound; they wanted to release the bondman from the clod, and deprived
him of the soil on which he stood by buying up the land; they yearned
for a happy condition of society, and only created superfluity on one
hand and dire want on the other; they desired to secure for merit its own
honorable reward, and only made it the slave of wealth; they wanted to
abolish all monopolies, and placed in their stead the monster monopoly,
capital; they wanted to do away with all wars between nation and nation,
and kindled the flames of civil war; they wanted to get rid of the state,
and yet have multiplied its burdens; they wanted to make education the
common property of all, and made it the privilege of the rich; they
aimed at the greatest moral improvement of society, and only left it
in a state of rotten immorality; they wanted, to say all in a word,
unbounded liberty, and have produced the meanest servitude; they wanted
the reverse of all that which they actually obtained, and have thus given
a proof that liberalism in all its ramifications is nothing but a perfect
Utopia.”[8]

Before considering separately the different varieties of communism and
socialism it is necessary to say a few words about the proper method of
treating the subject. The movements indicated by the words communism and
socialism are designed to aid especially the lower classes. If mankind
generally were as happily situated as are what we call the middle and
higher classes, these systems would never have been heard of. The
members of the upper classes have nothing to hope from communism or
socialism, but have much which they might possibly lose—I say possibly,
because I wish to express it in the most favorable manner. If wealthy
and well-to-do writers and politicians oppose social reform they are
consequently often suspected of advocating their own selfish interests
exclusively. They are not likely, therefore, to have much success in
converting socialists and communists, unless they manifest in word and
deed their sincere concern for the welfare of their poorer brethren. I
think, therefore, that we ought to strive first of all to understand
thoroughly the various systems of social reformers, and then to describe
them in such manner that their supporters themselves could not find
fault with our representation. A kindly, well-disposed criticism might
follow, with hope of doing some good. To understand people, however, we
must have some sort of sympathy (σύν-παθος—_Mitleiden_) with them. We
shall not be likely to comprehend a social system, if we approach it
with coldness or, still worse, with hatred. The severe Protestant is
not likely to appreciate a Madonna of Raphael, unless he is able for
a time to forget his Protestantism and enter into the feelings of the
devout Roman Catholic. As Carlyle so finely says, “the heart lying dead,
the eye cannot see.” So, to obtain an adequate idea of socialism and of
the justice of its claims, we must imagine ourselves for the time being
laborers, with all their trials and sufferings. We must endeavor to think
ourselves into (_hineindenken_) their condition. Nor let us suppose that
there is anything to be feared from a disclosure of the full truth. It
is only from the opposite course that danger is to be apprehended. As
a distinguished American political economist has well said: “The time
has passed for dealing with the masses as children who are to be treated
to truth in quantities and on occasions suited to their welfare or the
interests of society. The political economist only abandons his ground of
vantage and forfeits the confidence of the community when he accepts any
responsibility for the use that may be made of the truth he discovers and
discloses.”[9]

Bearing this thought in mind, even a hasty examination of the vast
majority of books written on socialism and communism shows how utterly
worthless they are. Their authors start out with such intense hatred
of all socialistic systems, that it is simply impossible for them to
understand these systems. But the worst of it is, that they couple their
misunderstanding with such hard words and severe epithets as to excite
bad blood and drive the various classes of society farther apart than
ever. The wealthier classes lose their ardor for reform, and the poorer
people become enraged. As I write, I take up the first book on Communism
which lies at my hand, and, opening it, find communists spoken of as “a
hideous fraternity of conspirators.” I turn over a few pages and read
this: “To-day there is not in our language, nor in any language, a more
hateful word than communism.” Of a sentence uttered by a socialist, this
writer says “more pestilent words were never spoken.” On the next page
communism is spoken of as “infecting” the Russian universities. “Now,”
continues our author, “it poisons the blood and maddens the brains of
artisans and peasants.” Such words do more than excite the anger of
socialists. They arouse the indignation of every lover of fair play, and
convince no one. I take up another work and find that a very different
effect is produced on me as I read it. A kindly tone pervades it, which,
if it does not convince error, tends at least to obtain the good-will
of those whom it combats. This latter work to which I refer consists of
“Lectures on Social Questions,” and was written by the Rev. Dr. J. H.
Rylance, of St. Mark’s Church, New York, a large-hearted, fair-minded man.

Once for all, we must rid ourselves of the notion that we can persuade
people by misrepresenting them and calling them hard names. Such
conduct only reacts against ourselves. The folly of such a course has
been demonstrated often enough by the history of socialism. A striking
instance is given by Mehring in his “History of Social Democracy in
Germany” (pp. 96-98).[10] It appears that a large number of working-men’s
unions had formed an alliance (_Verband deutscher Arbeitervereine_),
of which the Party of Progress (_Fortschrittspartei_) had assumed the
leadership. This is a political party which was violently opposed to
Lassalle, and had considerable sympathy with the doctrines of the
Manchester school. When Lassalle began his agitation, the leaders of this
party misrepresented his doctrines in shameful manner. It hardly seems
as if their misrepresentation could have been otherwise than wilful.
They appeared to believe that the end justified the means in fighting so
odious an opponent, and that they were not required to treat him fairly
and honestly. Well, their programme worked brilliantly for a time. At
the meetings of these working-men’s unions members of the Party of
Progress used to explain the doctrines of Lassalle in such manner as
to place them in a false light, and then let the laborers reject his
plans by unanimous votes. Union after union voted against him, and in
the summer of 1863 these unions, at their annual meeting, professed the
principles of the Progressists, and selected a newspaper edited by a
member of that party as their organ. In 1864, at the general meeting of
the unions, some followers of Lassalle contradicted the misstatements of
the teachings of their master. This produced an effect, and Friedrich
A. Lange, who had been elected a member of one of the committees of
the alliance of the unions, warned the Progressists against the course
they were pursuing, and advocated the fairer, more honorable, and more
manly method of warfare. He told them that a reaction would surely set
in against themselves, when the laborers heard an adequate statement of
Lassalle’s plans, especially if they were presented in his own fiery,
eloquent words. But Lange’s earnest warnings were unheeded. The laborers
learned how to reply to a fictitious, non-existent Lassalle, but not to
the real, living one. Every annual meeting of the working-men’s unions
witnessed, accordingly, an approach to social democracy until 1869,
when it was accepted without reserve, and the alliance of working-men’s
unions was merged into the Social Democratic Working-men’s Party
(_Social-demokratische Arbeiterpartei_). As Mehring forcibly observes:
“It is, indeed, a singular misfortune, and manifests a rare lack of
tact, to lead to the enemy as welcome auxiliaries not merely single
recruits, but entire army corps” (p. 98). Thousands of laborers might
have been saved from social democracy if its opponents, in fighting it,
had adhered to the maxim, “Honesty is the best policy.” In fact, Mehring
attributes the success and popularity of Lassalle more to his enemies
than to his own brilliant talents. Falsehoods respecting his teachings
were uttered by his opponents without compunction of conscience, and
these, when exposed, only gave the laborers new confidence in Lasalle,
and less faith than ever in his enemies. Newspapers abused him personally
in such manner as to assist him in playing the _rôle_ of a martyr and
hero. They spoke of his unripe spirit and of his mental dependence upon a
tailor by the name of Weitling, at a time when the most renowned scholars
of Germany could not find words with which to express their almost
unbounded admiration for his learning and talent.

As I wish to represent communism and socialism fairly, I will at once
correct a few popular errors in regard to them.

First, then, it is supposed that advocates of these systems are poor,
worthless fellows, who adopt the arts of a demagogue for the promotion in
some way of their own interests, perhaps in order to gain a livelihood
by agitating laborers and preying upon them. It is thought that they
are moved by envy of the wealthier classes, and, themselves unwilling
to work, long for the products of diligence and ability. This view is
represented by the following well-known lines:

“What is a communist? One who hath yearnings
For equal division of unequal earnings;
Idler or bungler, or both, he is willing
To fork out his penny and pocket your shilling.”

This is certainly a false and unjust view. The leading communists and
socialists from the time of Plato up to the present have been, for the
most part, men of character, wealth, talent, and high social standing.
Of Plato it is unnecessary to speak, since people are not in the habit
of calling him a shallow demagogue. Sir Thomas More, the author of the
communistic romance “Utopia,” was lovable, learned, and socially honored.
Robert Owen, the English communist, was a wealthy manufacturer and a
distinguished philanthropist. Of Rodbertus, Marx, and Lassalle I shall
speak presently. If we examine the history of even those who are less
known among the German social democrats of to-day, we shall discover
that a great number have made sacrifices for their faith. Hunted about
and persecuted as they are, it is assuredly no light matter to proclaim
one’s self a social democrat. While, of course, among communists and
socialists, selfishness, meanness, and enough that is contemptible may be
found, I do not believe any movement of modern society is able to exhibit
a greater amount of unselfish devotion than that they represent.

A second charge against the communists consists in making them
responsible for the doings of the Parisian mob in 1871. The error of
this has been explained often enough. It is due largely to an accidental
resemblance between the words commune and communism. Many who use
the word commune glibly have a very imperfect understanding of its
significance, and little imagine that it is as harmless and innocent a
word as township, and means pretty much the same thing. The commune,
with an emphasis on the article, means simply Paris, or, in a secondary
sense, the administrative officers collectively governing Paris. France
is divided into departments and communes, the same as our states are
divided into counties and townships, and Paris by itself forms one of
these communes. The insurrection in Paris, of March 18, 1871, was one in
favor of extreme local self-government. The idea was to make each commune
at least as independent as one of the states of the United States, and to
unite all the communes into a confederation with limited powers.[11] The
movement in favor of the autonomy of Paris is an old one, and has been
supported by many able and respectable Frenchmen. One in favor of the
movement is, however, properly called a communalist, and not a communist,
and the movement itself is communalism—not communism. A careful study of
the decrees of the commune, of the reports and of the various histories
which have described its rebellion in 1871, shows that the movement was
political, primarily, and only to a very limited extent economic. Even
the economic decrees, like the stay-laws, postponing the time for payment
of debts due, might be regarded as war measures. However, out of the
seventy and more members of the communal government nine or ten were
social democrats and members of the International, and it is probable
that concessions may have been made to win them and their adherents.
They were effectual in this, since the Internationalists were disposed
to favor the movement from the start, and that for two reasons. First,
believing that their ends can be attained only by revolution, they are
inclined to look favorably upon any revolution whatever, as tending to
cultivate a revolutionary spirit in the people. Second, they favor the
autonomy of large cities, holding that the masses in the cities might
more readily be induced to adopt communistic and socialistic reforms, if
not held in check by the more conservative rural population.[12]

But let us ask ourselves this question: If all the members of the
communal government had been communists in the ordinary sense of the
word, would communism have been necessarily condemned? I think that
another question will help us to answer this. All the members of
that government were republicans: was republicanism then necessarily
condemned? No one but a rabid tory would think of giving an affirmative
answer to this second question. It is at once seen that the republican
form of government is not responsible for the conduct of every scoundrel
who professes republican principles.

It is urged further that communism and socialism would destroy religion
and the family institution. The reason of this complaint is evident
enough. A number of social reformers have been at the same time atheists
and advocates of free love. The questions of atheism and free love
are, however, totally different from that of even communism, the most
radical of all the reforms proposed. There is no necessary connection
whatever between them. If it could once be shown that communism were
practicable, it would be easy to give many reasons for supposing that in
such a society the love between man and wife and parents and children
would be freer from selfish and sordid motives than at present.[13]
The clergy are partly to blame for the irreligious attitude of many
modern socialists. They have too often made themselves the advocates
of conservatism simply as conservatism, regardless of all abuses which
it embraced. In countries where Church and State are connected, the
clergy have been too often a sort of police, assisting the government to
maintain existing institutions, and to oppose change, good or bad. They
have favored the higher classes, upon whom their support has depended,
and neglected the interests of the poor and down-trodden. I do not write
this as an enemy of the Church, but as her friend. Nor do I express
myself differently from the best of our clergymen at present. Rev. Dr.
Rylance, indeed, has, in his “Lectures on Social Questions,” clothed
this same thought in stronger language. In one place he says, “The proper
relations of Christianity to the legitimate efforts of socialism to
improve the condition of the suffering classes will never be understood,
or the minds of those now alienated from the religion of Christ will
never be disabused of their antipathy, till the essential claims of that
religion be set in fairer and fuller light; all the perversions it has
suffered being frankly acknowledged, and the wrongs done in its name,
as far as possible, atoned for. Your Church histories are full of such
perversions, while your most expert apologists cannot disguise the wrongs
... Ecclesiasticism[14] has often been a fraud and a tyranny in history.
As the Church grew in power and wealth, it allied itself to power and
wealth in the hands of civil rulers and their creatures, and the fruits
of the alliance have often been wicked and infamous.”

Dr. Rylance also declares that Christianity is a sort of socialism,
and quotes in proof these texts of Scripture, among others: “As every
man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another.”
“If ye fulfil the royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,
ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin.” “This
commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God, love his brother
also.”[15]

“One way of aspersing the doctrines of communism,” says another
writer,[16] “is to call them anti-Christian. It is forgotten that the
Christian idea of equality underlies all the reasonings of communism, and
communism has succeeded only in so far as it was Christian in principle,
having for its fundamental maxim brotherly love. In this, communism
is much more Christian than the hankering after privileges of the old
aristocracy, or the unbounded avarice of the plutocracy.”

There are other false accusations brought against communism and
socialism, which it is not necessary to examine now. A well-disposed
person will scarcely experience difficulty in separating them from
scientific argument.

It behooves us to disabuse our minds of all prejudice and ill-will. It is
_only_ thus that we shall be able to meet and overcome the social dangers
which threaten even our own country in a not very distant future. We
have never had a _permanent_ laboring class, but with the increase of
population one is rapidly developing. If it is _now_ becoming extremely
difficult for the laborer to rise, what will the condition of things
be when we number two hundred millions? And that time is not so far
off. At our present rate of increase, it will come when some of us are
still living. It is a laboring class without hope of improvement for
themselves or their children which will first test our institutions.
But he must be singularly blind or unacquainted with the views of the
various social classes who is unable to detect even now, in certain
quarters, the formation of habits and modes of thought characteristic of
the poorer classes in Europe. The fact of this growth was twice brought
home to me forcibly two winters ago. As I was walking by the Union
League Club-house, in New York city, at the time of its house-warming,
while the people were driving up in their fine carriages, one poor
fellow stood on the opposite side of the street watching the ladies
enter in their luxurious and extravagant toilets. He was a good-looking,
intelligent-appearing man, but wore no overcoat. It was a cold evening,
and he seemed to me to be shivering. He was evidently thinking of the
difference between his lot and that of the fashionable people he was
observing; and I heard him mutter bitterly to himself, “A revolution will
yet come and level that fine building to the ground.” A friend of mine,
about the same time, passed a couple of laborers as he was walking by
Mr. Vanderbilt’s new houses on Fifth Avenue. Some kind of bronze work, I
believe, was being carried in, and he heard one of them remark, savagely,
“The time will come when that will be melted by fire.”

More significant and more ominous still is the reception accorded in
this country to a man like John Most, who has been expelled from the
social-democratic party in Germany on account of his extreme views,
particularly respecting assassination as a means of progress. He has
been travelling about the United States, has been warmly received, and
listened to with favor by large bodies of workmen while uttering counsels
of war and bloodshed. On the 11th of February, 1883, he lectured in
Baltimore. It was a cold, rainy, cheerless day, and the sidewalks were
so covered with melting snow as to make it extremely unpleasant to
venture out of doors. But Most had a full hall of eager listeners. He
told the laborers that he had little hope of their overthrowing their
oppressors by the use of the ballot. He believed their emancipation
would be brought about by violence, as all great reforms in the past had
been. He consequently advised them to buy muskets. He said a musket was
a good thing to have. If it was not needed now, it could be placed in
the corner, and it occupied but little space. The presiding officer, in
closing the meeting, emphasized this part of Most’s address particularly.
He told the laborers that a piece of paper would never make them free,
that a musket was worth a hundred votes, and closed with the lines—

“Nur Pulver und Blei,
Die machen uns frei”—

“lead and powder alone can make us free.” There can be no doubt that a
considerable portion of his hearers sympathized with his views. They
listened approvingly, and applauded his fiercest remarks most loudly.

Nor is it without significance that in New York alone at least three
social democratic newspapers are published. Two of the three use the
German language; one of these is a weekly only; the other appears in a
daily, a weekly, and a special Sunday edition. The third paper is an
English weekly, but it announces the appearance of a daily edition in
the near future. The motto of one of these papers—Most’s _Freiheit_—is
“_Gegen die Tyrannen sind alle Mittel gesetzlich_”—“All measures
are legal against tyrants”—_i.e._, against our employers, against
capitalists, against all classes superior to the laboring class.

It is not, however, necessary to take a pessimistic view of our
prospects, for it rests with us to shape the future. If we, as a
people, become divided into two great hostile camps—those who possess
economic goods and those who do not—the one class devoted to luxury and
self-indulgence, the other given up to envy and bitterness—then, indeed,
dire evils are in store for us; but we have reason to hope better things.
The attitude of clergymen like Dr. Howard Crosby[17] and Dr. Rylance,
the generosity of our philanthropists, unparalleled in past history, and
the noble efforts of noble women to relieve every kind of suffering and
distress, lead us to trust that, as new evils arise, strength and wisdom
will be vouchsafed us to conquer them, and that among us the idea of the
brotherhood of man will ever become more and more a living reality.

CHAPTER II.

BABŒUF.

Socialism, strictly speaking, denotes simply the social system. It
is the opposite of individualism. A socialist[18] is one who looks
to society organized in the state for aid in bringing about a more
perfect distribution of economic goods and an elevation of humanity.
The individualist regards each man not as his brother’s keeper but as
his own, and desires every man to work out his own salvation, material
and spiritual. His advice to government is expressed in the well-known
formula, _laissez-faire, laissez-passer_, that is, let things take care
of themselves, do not interfere in the business affairs of the citizens.
While the socialist ascribes to the state numerous functions, the
individualist admonishes government to do as little as possible. To the
one the state is a necessary good; to the other, a necessary evil.

But socialism is also used in a popular sense which renders it nearly
equivalent to communism, although the two ought to be distinguished.
The central idea of communism is economic equality. It is desired by
communists that all ranks and differences in society should disappear,
and one man be as good as another, to use the popular phrase. The
distinctive idea of socialism is distributive justice. It goes back of
the processes of modern life to the fact that he who does not work,
lives on the labor of others. It aims to distribute economic goods
according to the services rendered by the recipients. We see thus that
the word socialist is most inclusive. Every communist is a socialist,
and something more. Not every socialist is a communist. We might call a
communist an extreme socialist, and thus include under socialists both
socialists and communists, though it is in general best to make the
distinction. We could not include socialists under communists.

The socialistic and communistic schemes of modern times may be classified
as follows:

A. Communism.

1. French and English Communism.
2. Social Democracy.
3. International Communism.

B. Socialism.

1. Pure Socialism.
2. State and Professorial Socialism.
3. Christian Socialism.
4. French Collectivism.
5. French Anarchists and Blanquists.
6. Social Democracy.
7. International Socialism.

The most general division is that into communism and socialism. As
subdivisions, social democracy and the International figure under both
of the leading divisions, as these parties include socialists and
communists. Under French communism are included adherents of the French
Collectivists, Anarchists, and Blanquists.

Babœuf and Cabet are perhaps the two leading French representatives of
pure communism, Babœuf representing that of the French Revolution.[19]

François Noël Babœuf was born in St. Quentin, in the Department of Aisne,
in 1764.[20] He appears to have come of a good family, for his father was
a major in the Austrian army. The elder Babœuf devoted much attention to
his son’s education, and, in particular, took especial pains to give him
a good mathematical training; but he died when the young man was only
sixteen years of age, and this obliged Babœuf to leave his studies and
seek employment. After having filled various subordinate positions, he
became a land-surveyor, and was finally elected an administrator of the
Department of the Somme; but did not enjoy this post long, for he was
soon arrested on a charge of forgery, condemned, and sentenced to twenty
years’ imprisonment. He escaped to Paris and joined the revolutionary
movement. Like Mably and numerous speculative thinkers at that time,
he was filled with admiration for the socialistic institutions of the
Greeks and Romans. He even called himself Gracchus Babœuf, after the
Roman tribune, and founded a paper which he named _Tribune of the
People_, and which was the first socialistic newspaper ever published.
He signed his articles Caius Gracchus, and in them he attacked the
institutions of civilized society and the party which accomplished the
Revolution of Thermidor, executed Robespierre and St. Just, and finally
terminated the Reign of Terror. His violent abuse of those in authority
and his revolutionary projects led to his imprisonment for a few months
in 1795. He improved the opportunity to establish a connection with
Darthé, Buonarroti and other Jacobins and Terrorists, of whom there were
nearly two thousand in the same prison. Upon their release, they formed
a conspiracy, called, after its leader, “the conspiracy of Babœuf.” Its
object was to overthrow the Directory and introduce the communistic
millennium, which they had begun to evolve in the prison. The members
of the band called themselves the Equals. They formed a complex and
skilfully contrived organization, whose centre was the secret committee
of insurrection. This consisted of the following seven members; Babœuf,
Buonarroti, Sylvain Maréchal, Felix Lepelletier, Antonelle, Darthé,
and Debon. Most of them were journalists. Maréchal was author of a
Dictionary of Atheists (“Dictionnaire des Athées”). Paris was divided
into districts, in each of which workers and reporters were engaged in
propaganda. They did not, however, even know the names of the seven
chiefs of the committee of insurrection, a general agent, Didier, acting
as intermediary between the committee and other agents.

The activity of the leaders was remarkable, and met with a considerable
success in winning adherents. In April, 1796, seventeen thousand men were
prepared to join them in an insurrection against the Directory and for
the establishment of a communistic republic. A Manifesto of the Equals,
prepared by Maréchal, was published and scattered broadcast among the
people. It contained a development of their programme, and an invitation
to join in the proposed movement. Tracts were distributed in large
numbers, and incendiary broadsides were from time to time affixed to the
walls. One of the leaders, however, proved false, turned informer, and
procured the arrest of the chief conspirators on the 10th of May, 1796.
After a considerable delay and a long trial, two of them, Babœuf and
Darthé, were condemned to death in the following year, while Buonarroti
and six others were sentenced to deportation. Sixty-five were tried, but
fifty-six were discharged on account of lack of evidence. Babœuf and
Darthé were guillotined on the 24th of May, 1797, Babœuf’s last words
being, “I wrap myself into a virtuous slumber.”[21]

Buonarroti did not suffer deportation, but was instead confined in prison
for some time and then allowed to escape to Switzerland, whence he was
obliged to flee to Belgium after the Congress of Vienna, because Geneva
was unable to tolerate him during the reactionary period which followed.
He supported himself by teaching music and other branches of learning,
and wrote a remarkable account of the conspiracy in which he had been
engaged. It was published in Brussels in 1828, and after the Revolution
of July it became a power in France. It revived the memory of Babœuf
and his schemes, and rallied a number of followers about the old flag.
Babouvism, as Babœuf’s system was called, was thus enabled to play a
_rôle_ in French history from 1830 to 1839, when a premature rising of
the laborers was easily suppressed.[22] Even to-day, Buonarroti’s work
has not ceased to influence the thought of French laborers.

Babœuf’s theoretical development of communism, based largely on Morelly’s
“Code de la Nature,” is comparatively simple. Its leading idea is
expressed in these words: “The aim of society is the happiness of all,
and happiness consists in equality.” The fact is emphasized again and
again that this equality must be perfect and absolute. It is officially
proclaimed that the harmony of the system would be broken if there was
one single man in the world richer or more powerful than his fellows.
The adherents of this doctrine were ready to sacrifice everything to
their desire for equality. “We are prepared,” cried they, “to consent
to everything for it, we are prepared even to make _tabula rasa_ to
obtain it. Let all the arts perish if need be, provided we retain real
equality.”[23] The first article of the official declaration of rights,
as established by the secret committee of insurrection, reads: “Nature
has given to every man an equal right to the enjoyment of all goods.”
In the “proofs” following, it is maintained that all public and private
wrongs, as oppressions, tyrannies, wars, and crimes, take their origin
in disobedience to this natural law. At least six of the eleven articles
of this “Charter of Equality” do little more than repeat in varying form
the idea contained in article 1. Article 7, _e.g._, reads: “In a true
society there ought to be neither poor nor rich.” Article 10, “The end of
the revolution is to destroy inequality and to re-establish the common
happiness.”

How was equality to be attained? Perhaps it is best to correct at the
start a popular error by stating how they did not expect to obtain
equality. They were not foolish enough to propose to divide the wealth
of society among the various citizens and then allow the production
and distribution of economic goods to go on as at present. It is a
matter of course that under such circumstances inequalities would again
arise within twenty-four hours. This is so perfectly obvious that no
communist of note has ever proposed anything so childish and absurd.
Yet it is a widely prevalent notion that this is what the communists
have desired. One of the Rothschilds of Frankfort-on-the-Main once
hearing a poor man complain of his lot, and express a desire for the
equality of communism, is said immediately to have put his hand in his
pocket, drawn out two or three shillings, and offered them to the poor
man as his share of the wealth of a Rothschild, were it equally divided
among all the inhabitants of Germany. This is often told as a business
man’s concise and practical refutation of communism. It has, however,
no significance at all either for or against that economic system. All
communists without exception propose that the people as a whole, or some
particular division of the people, as a village or commune, should own
all the means of production—land, houses, factories, railroads, canals,
etc.; that production should be carried on in common; and that officers,
selected in one way or another, should distribute among the inhabitants
the fruits of their labor. Under such circumstances inequalities could
have no opportunity to spring up; nor do we find communistic experiments
failing because it is impossible to maintain equality. Where it is really
desired, it is not difficult to secure it. As a matter of fact, however,
it is not desired by the great masses of any land of Christendom, nor
would they for a moment consent to endure it.

But to return from this digression. Babœuf proposed to attain equality
by degrees. He desired that a large national and common property should
be at once formed out of the property of corporations and public
institutions. The property of individuals was to be added to this upon
their death, as inheritance was to be abolished. All property would thus
become nationalized in the course of fifty years. Production was to be
carried on in common under officers chosen by popular vote. These same
officers, according to the scheme, decide upon the needs and requirements
of the different individuals of the society, and divide the products of
their common industry. The earth must belong to all, and its fruits must
be common property. Officers receive no more than those under them, and a
rapid rotation in office prevents the acquirements of habits and thoughts
consequent on superior position. No one becomes accustomed to command; no
one becomes accustomed to obey.

The country is divided into “regions,” and the “regions” into
“departments.” There is a central and superior administration for the
entire country, an intermediate one for each “region,” and a subordinate
one for each “department.” Each administration has its own duties—the
lowest coming into contact with individuals, the higher supervising the
subordinate boards. Government is absolute, notwithstanding the adoption
of the watchword “Liberté.” On its orders citizens are sent from commune
to commune, as their services may be required; and the “superfluous”
products of one region are transferred to another less fortunate one.
The supreme administration must store up the surplus of years of plenty
as provision for unfruitful years. It also conducts trade with foreign
nations, for which purpose great magazines or store-houses are erected
on the frontiers and the borders of the sea. No private individual is
allowed to trade with foreign countries, and all merchandise used in such
trade is confiscated for the benefit of the community. All intercourse
with outside countries is carefully watched to prevent the importation of
erroneous ideas and disastrous customs. Even within the country only such
publications are allowed as teach the unqualified blessings of equality.

Article 3 of the “Organization of the Government of the Community”
enumerates the kinds of labor which the law considers useful, and which
alone entitle an individual to exercise any political right whatever.
They are the following: agriculture, which is especially favored, as
being most natural to man; the pastoral life; fishing; navigation;
mechanic and manual arts; retail trade; transportation; war; teaching;
and the sciences. However, teaching is only then considered useful when
it is undertaken by one who has declared his adherence to the principles
of the community, and bears a certificate of “civisme.” Literature and
the fine arts are not included, being regarded with little favor.

The whole scheme is dreary and monotonous. All differences save those
relating to age and sex being abolished, equality is even interpreted
to mean uniformity. All must be dressed alike, save that distinctions
are made for sex and age; all must eat the same quantity of the same
kind of food, and all must be educated alike.[24] As the higher goods of
life are lightly esteemed, education is restricted to the acquirement of
elementary branches of knowledge, and of those practical in a material
sense. Comfortable mediocrity in everything is the openly expressed ideal.

Children are removed from the family at an early age, and brought up
together, to train them in principles of communism, and to prevent the
growth of differences and inequalities.

All things are contrived to level down and not to level up; to bring
the highest down to the plane of stupid, self-satisfied mediocrity, and
not to elevate the less fortunate to higher thoughts, feelings, and
enjoyments.

This most cheerless of all communistic schemes fitly took its origin
among those sunk in the most degraded materialism of the French
Revolution.

CHAPTER III.

CABET.

It is a relief to turn one’s attention to the plans of Étienne Cabet.
They, at least, have the merit of not robbing life of all poetry,
sentiment, and trust in something higher and better than food and drink.
One might find life tolerable in one of Cabet’s communes; but every noble
soul will acknowledge that if life’s ends and aims are all to centre in a
full stomach and a warm cloak, then, indeed, life is not worth the living.

Cabet, son of a cooper, was born in 1788 in Dijon. He received a good
education, became a lawyer, and practised first in his native city,
then in Paris. He was appointed attorney-general of Corsica in 1830,
but lost his place in the following year on account of his opposition
to government. He was elected member of the Chamber of Deputies shortly
after, and returned to Paris. He devoted the remainder of his life to
literature, politics, and communism. One of his principal works was a
“Popular History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1830.”[25] In a
journal which he published at that time, _Le Populaire_, he advocated
moderate communistic principles, or Icarian principles, as they were
afterwards called. He was condemned to two years’ imprisonment for an
article in this paper, in which he attacked the king personally, but
he was fortunate enough to escape imprisonment by flight to London. It
was here he became acquainted with Sir Thomas More’s “Utopia,” from
which he drew a large part of his inspiration. He returned to France in
1839, and published his “Voyage to Icaria,”[26] which he himself called
a philosophical and social romance—_Roman philosophique et social_.
The title indicates his dreamy character. He describes in this work a
previously unknown country, not quite so large as France or England,
but as populous and a thousand times more blessed. Peace, wisdom,
joy, pleasures, and happiness reign there. Crimes are unknown. It is
Icaria; “a second Promised Land, an Eden, an Elysium, a new terrestrial
Paradise.”[27]

The writer of the “Voyage to Icaria” represents that he met in London
Lord William Carisdall, who found in Icaria the one truly happy people
he had discovered in his travels. Lord William kept a journal, in which
he described this wonder-land, and this, we are told, has been edited
and revised for the public with his consent. The object is to show that
communism is practicable and is the solution of all social problems. It
contains an account of an ideal society, but one which Cabet thought he
was able to establish. He made the attempt, choosing Texas as a place in
which his ideals were to be realized. He secured the grant of a large
tract of land on the Red River, and sent out several advance-guards of
Icarians in 1848, who were, however, attacked by the yellow fever,
and had disbanded before he arrived in New Orleans with a later
detachment. He learned on his arrival that the Mormons had abandoned
their settlement in Nauvoo, Ill., and set out for that place with his
followers. While the Icarians were in Nauvoo they numbered, all told,
at one time fifteen hundred. As Nordhoff, in his “Communistic Societies
in the United States,” justly remarks, Cabet might have done something
with such a large band, if he had had anything of a business head. But
he lacked firmness and perseverance. They met with some success in
cultivating their land, established shops, pursued trades, and set up a
printing-office; but instead of rejoicing in his prosperity, and laboring
to increase it, Cabet was dreaming what he might do if he had half a
million, as is evinced by a publication which appeared about that time,
entitled “Wenn ich $500,000 hätte”—“If I only had $500,000.” He described
the theatre and the fine houses he would build, the gas-works he would
found, the parks he would lay out, and showed, among other things, how he
could then introduce hot and cold water in the houses.

To his description of this _brochure_ Nordhoff adds: “Alas for the dreams
of a dreamer! I turned over the leaves of his pamphlet while wandering
through the present Icaria, on one chilly Sunday in March, with a keen
sense of pain at the contrast between the comfort and elegance he so
glowingly described and the dreary poverty of the life which a few
determined men and women have there chosen to follow, for the sake of
principles which they hold both true and valuable.”[28]

It is said that Cabet developed a dictatorial spirit in Nauvoo. This
may be doubted. It is possible he only attempted to enforce measures
without which he believed the commune must prove a failure. At any
rate, a division took place among the Icarians. The colony at Nauvoo
was broken up, and the members scattered, save fifty or sixty, who
emigrated to Iowa. Cabet and his followers went to St. Louis, where he
died in 1856. The emigrants to Iowa founded a settlement near Corning,
on the Burlington and Missouri Railroad, which they called Icaria. They
began with four thousand acres of land and a debt of $20,000. At first
they had a hard struggle, being obliged to content themselves even with
log-houses. When Mr. Nordhoff wrote his book, in 1874, the debt was
paid, they lived in frame houses, and enjoyed a considerable degree
of comfort. The community consisted of eleven families and sixty-five
members, comprising twenty children and twenty-three voters. They had a
good saw-mill and a grist-mill, and owned one thousand nine hundred and
thirty-six acres of land, of which three hundred and fifty were under
cultivation. They had one hundred and twenty cattle and five hundred
sheep.

A friend[29] has lately spent a week in Icaria, and has kindly written me
the following account of the present condition of the community, which
has experienced noteworthy changes since Mr. Nordhoff paid it a brief
visit a few years ago:

“GRINELL, IA., _May 7, 1883_.

“——. First, let me say that I think no one has yet done
adequate justice to Icarian history.... I was fortunate in
being received into the community in the most friendly manner,
and spent many hours in talking with the members. Especially,
I was fortunate in making the acquaintance of two old
men—original members—one of them the leader in the quarrel with
Cabet at Nauvoo, and the successor of Cabet as president.... I
have never enjoyed a visit more than this, for the Icarians,
though poor and necessarily very hampered, are highly courteous
and intelligent. To begin with their dissensions.” [For the
present purpose it is sufficient to state that the members
of the community, not being able to live together peaceably,
agreed to separate; the “Young Party” retained the old village,
and is now officially known as the “Icarian Community,” and the
“Old Party” established a new commune in the vicinity.]

“The reorganization into two groups happened just four years
ago.... The court declared the articles of incorporation
forfeited, on the technical ground that a commune incorporated
as an agricultural society was exceeding its charter in running
a grist-mill and manufacturing flour! The arbitrators divided
the property on an equitable basis. They ascertained the amount
of property each had brought into the society, the number of
years each had labored for the society, and on these principles
they declared each individual entitled to a certain proportion
of the property. The ‘Young Party’ associated themselves and
obtained new articles of incorporation.... They assumed the
original name. They were the minority in voting numbers, but,
counting children, they were more numerous than the ‘Old
Folks’ Party.’ The ‘Old Folks’ did not take out articles of
incorporation. Instead, they formed themselves into a general
partnership based on recorded articles of agreement, which I
send you (_Contrat de la Nouvelle Com. Icar._). The other party
having got possession of the name, the ‘Old Folks’ called their
society ‘The New Icarian Community.’

“At the time of the dissolution, the Icarians owned over two
thousand acres of land. The ‘Old Party’ were found entitled
to somewhat more than half the property. Both parties have
at different times made small purchases and sales of land.
At the time of the dissolution it was expected that the ‘Old
Party’ would remain in the original village, and that the
‘Young Party’ would go to the east side of the estate and build
themselves new houses; but finally the ‘Old Folks’ chose to be
the emigrants, and they have a new village nearly a mile east
of the original village (which is now occupied by the ‘Icarian
Community’).

“At present the ‘New Icarian Community’ (_i.e._, the ‘Old
Folks’) have about one thousand and eighty-five acres. About
two hundred acres is in timber (which, however, is not valuable
except for firewood, posts, etc. There are few trees left which
are valuable for lumber. Iowa timber in general is of little
value.) About three hundred acres are being cultivated this
year. They were planting corn while I was with them, and will
put in two hundred acres. One hundred acres will be in wheat,
potatoes, etc. They have eighteen horses, and about one hundred
cattle—milk about thirty cows. In summer they sell cream to the
Creamery in Corning. They will sell this year a dozen or so
beef steers. They have about two hundred hogs, and will sell
eighty this year. Last year they sold $300 worth of potatoes.
They cut from two to three hundred tons of hay annually. They
have the old mill, built in 1853 or 1854, but are not doing a
great deal with it. They make some flour, and the mill nets
them a clear profit of not more than $200 or $300 per year.

“The official inventory of the ‘New Icarian Society,’ made on
Jan. 1, 1883, gives the

Total assets $28,009.35
Total debts 5,646.50
----------
Net $22,362.85

In the above estimate the land was valued rather too low,
and a part of the indebtedness has already been paid. The
way is now pretty clear out of all financial difficulties.
They pay about $225 annual taxes. They number at the present
time thirty-four people. Their village consists of a central
two-story frame building (worth about $1500), twenty-two feet
by forty feet, perfectly plain; the first story is a common
dining-hall and kitchen, and the second story has rooms for
a family and several old men. They have also eight frame
houses, ‘story-and-a-half,’ about fourteen by twenty-two, built
uniformly, and arranged symmetrically about the dining-hall.
Each is occupied by a family. The arrangement is as follows:

[Illustration: Trees and Park.

Hall.]

Each house has a small plot for flowers, etc. The interiors are
excessively plain. The living in the common hall is frugal but
abundant. Of the thirty-four people twelve are men, of whom six
are over sixty; ten are women, of whom two are over sixty, and
two are young and unmarried; and twelve are children, ranging
in age from three weeks to twelve years. Seven children are
in school; the other five are too young. Of course everything
looks new and rather bleak about this new village, but the site
is admirably chosen. The prospect, as one looks out from the
windows of the dining-room, is beautiful, and a dozen years
hence, if fortune favors, the New Icaria will be a charming
place. In spite of bitter adversities, these New Icarians are
a bright, agreeable, vivacious people. They could talk English
well enough for my benefit, but their home-talk is entirely
French. The children are _very_ pretty and attractive, and all
are polite and superior-mannered. They have a promising young
vineyard and apple-orchard, and a good large garden for kitchen
vegetables. The people are all French except one Spaniard,
who came from Cuba many years ago. Their president, A. A.
Marchand, was one of the original sixty-nine vanguard who went
to Texas in 1848, and he has always been a prominent man. He
is a gentleman worthy of the highest regard. Another member,
Sauva, who was president the year Hinds’s book (‘American
Communities,’ 1878) was written, and whom you find mentioned in
Hinds’s account, is still with this society. He was formerly a
member of the Cheltenham branch;[30] returned to Europe, took
active part in the International and the Paris Commune, and
joined the Iowa Icarians two or three years after. He is a man
of high intelligence. A number of these members are men of good
literary ability. They have a small press, and print a monthly
paper, the _Revue Icarienne_. They have a shoemaker’s shop, but
scarcely anything in the industrial line besides their mill.
They have a fair supply of good agricultural implements, and
conduct their farming about as their neighbors in general do.

“If they maintain harmony, they can readily pay this debt
and improve their mode of life. They are somewhat chary of
admitting new members, because they already have men enough
to farm their land, and they do not feel able to make their
settlement an asylum for all who hold communistic ideas. Their
school is one of the regular district-schools of the county.
It is located between the two communities and patronized by
both. The teacher at present is a French lady, educated in
Cincinnati—an Icarian in her early days—and the school is well
conducted. At the time of the split the library was divided.
Each village has a library of more than one thousand volumes,
mainly French, and containing the works of the standard old
French authors. In both communities newspapers are taken
freely, both English and French, and the people seem more
conversant with affairs—especially with European affairs—than
the average American farmer’s family. Their family-life seems
natural and affectionate. Their life is necessarily plain,
toilsome, and monotonous, but I think it is fully as agreeable
and diversified as that of isolated American farmers. The
life in the ‘New Icarian Community’ seems more genial and
social than in the ‘Icarian Community.’ At the time of the
split a number of individuals withdrew, and did not join
either party in reorganizing. Since, also, there have been
numerous accessions and withdrawals, the latter preponderating,
especially in the ‘Icarian Community.’

“The ‘Icarian Community,’ according to Mr. Peron, now contains
thirty souls: seven are men over twenty years; five are women
over eighteen years; eighteen are children. One man, Michael
Brumme, a German, is about seventy years old. There is one
lady over sixty years old. Both these were Nauvoo members.
All the other men and women are under forty years of age. All
are French except two Germans and one Spaniard. There were
several other old members, who have withdrawn within the past
two or three years. They have seven hundred and seventy-two
acres of land; two hundred acres are timber; three hundred
acres are seeded in clover or timothy grass. This year they
are planting one hundred and twenty acres of corn—they profess
to believe in _intensive_ agriculture. They are turning
almost exclusive attention to stock-raising, and all their
agriculture is with reference to feeding cattle and hogs.
They have now about ready for the market thirty-six steers
and seventy-five hogs. Altogether they have about one hundred
and thirty head of cattle, one hundred and fifty hogs, twenty
horses and colts. They are intending to raise sheep, and are
just beginning with a flock of seventy-five, expecting to
buy a larger flock soon. They have a productive vineyard of
nine or ten acres. Last year they made fifteen barrels of
wine; they made twenty barrels the previous year. Last fall
they made seven or eight barrels of cider and fifteen barrels
of vinegar; also five barrels of sorghum molasses, of which
they will make ten barrels this year. They have ten acres of
apple orchard. They have a blacksmith shop, wagon shop, and
shoemaker shop, for their own work exclusively. They give for
their financial report for April, 1883, the following: assets,
$30,300; liabilities, $8751.80. They estimate their real estate
at two thirds and their stock at one third their assets. They
expect that the hogs and steers which they will market in a
few days will bring about $3700—about $3000 of which will be
applied to the debt. They pay an average interest of seven
per cent. on their debt. They have a central hall similar to
the one already described. They also have eight frame houses
like those in New Icaria. (The houses in New Icaria were moved
bodily from old Icaria when the new settlement was formed,
except the hall and the outbuildings.) A picturesque feature
of old Icaria is the dozen old log cabins, now used as sheds,
etc., which were the original homes. They are close by the
present habitations. For a year or two this community has
been seriously talking of leaving Iowa. If they can make an
advantageous sale of their property they say they would go.
They have prospected somewhat in the South, but have concluded
that California is the place for them. In the spring of 1881
over a dozen persons, in five or six families, withdrew from
Icaria and moved to Sonoma Co., California, where they bought
eight hundred acres of land and have formed a commune. They are
said to be prospering as fruit-growers. Icaria talks of joining
them in California with a view to the fusion of the communes.
Peron (a prominent member) says they would like the climate
better than that of Iowa, and would also find fruit-growing
more congenial than general farming. It would give more time
for mental culture, and would admit of a more agreeable style
of living. The society publishes a monthly paper called the
_Communiste-Libertaire_—which is written and printed by Peron.
If there had been harmony, and no division, I think that Icaria
would have been prosperous to-day—with perhaps several hundred
members. As things now stand it is hard to foretell the fate
of either branch. If the one goes to California, the other may
have a slow, steady growth in Iowa. A good many young people
lack the devotion to the principle of communism necessary to
keep them in the society, and they withdraw from time to time.
The difficulty of Frenchmen living harmoniously in a commune
seems the great source of disaster. Spite of his theory to the
contrary, a Frenchman has a great deal of “individualism,” and
not a great deal of patience and forbearance.... It just occurs
to me to say one thing more. The Icarians are _good American
citizens_. Cabet and all his comrades took out naturalization
papers, and were all ardent abolitionists! They voted the first
Republican ticket (Fremont) in 1856, and Mr. Marchand tells
me that he has voted for every Republican president since.
The “old folks” in New Icaria are still solidly Republican in
politics; but Mr. Peron and his friends in the other community
have been voting the _Greenback_ ticket for a year or two. They
say that it seems to them that the Greenback party represents
the laboring classes in their struggle against great corporate
and moneyed monopolies; and it is in the spirit of agitators
that they support the Greenback party, and not so much because
they expect anything definite from that party.

“Peron is very brilliant and epigrammatic in conversation....
He is a scientist, a positivist philosopher, an
internationalist, somewhat of an avowed anarchist, and a
terrible proletarian. In short, he is a character whose
acquaintance I enjoyed making—Gérard, Marchand, Peron, Fugier,
Sauva, and Bettannier are the sort of men who figure in French
history or in Hugo’s novels. Their tremendous individuality
seems to me ill at ease in an obscure little commune where,
theoretically, no man is more than his fellow-man.”

They are still governed by the essential principles of Cabet’s
constitution, the two leading ideas of which are the equality of
all and the brotherhood of man. They elect executive officers every
year, who are, however, only empowered to execute the orders of their
fellow-citizens, and may not so much as buy a bushel of corn without
being authorized to do so by the society. They have no servants, and
are too poor for the enjoyment of luxuries. The directors buy the goods
needed by the Icarians twice a year at wholesale. Each one makes known
his wants previous to the semi-annual purchases. Marriage is essential
according to Cabet’s scheme,[31] and wives are highly honored. Not
only is the strictest fidelity enjoined upon the husbands, but they are
required to render special acts of homage to their wives.[32]

Education is valued. All children are sent to school till they are
sixteen, and they regret that their poverty does not allow them to give
the young a more extended mental training.

As is evident, the community has been by no means an entire failure,
although it has been one of the poorest communistic societies in our
country. The differences which have sprung up may possibly be beneficial
to the cause, as they have led, as has been seen, to three communes
instead of one. At present, it is safe to say that the only possible way
for communism to succeed is to adopt, as the Icarians have done, the
communal or township system. This affords room for a diversity of growth
and the development of at least local individuality.

A gentleman, learning that Mr. Nordhoff had visited Icaria, wrote to
him as follows: “Please deal gently and cautiously with Icaria. The
man who sees only the chaotic village and the wooden shoes, and only
chronicles those, will commit a serious error. In that village are buried
fortunes, noble hopes, and the aspirations of good and great men like
Cabet. Fertilized by these deaths, a great and beneficent growth yet
awaits Icaria. It has an eventful and extremely interesting history, but
its future is destined to be still more interesting. It, and it alone,
represents in America a great idea—rational democratic communism.”

A good notion of Cabet’s teachings may be obtained by studying Icaria
and its constitution; but, if more complete information is desired,
it can be found in the “Voyage to Icaria”—a really fascinating book.
His principles are quite simple, and all centre in the beneficent
effects of equality, to which fraternity, as understood by Cabet,
necessarily leads. “If we are asked, ‘What is your science?’ we reply,
‘Fraternity.’ ‘What is your principle?’—‘Fraternity.’ ‘What is your
doctrine?’—‘Fraternity.’ ‘What is your theory?’—‘Fraternity.’ ‘What
is your system?’—‘Fraternity.’”[33] But how were people to be taught
to practise communism? how induce the aristocracy to renounce their
privileges? This was to be accomplished by peaceful means alone. The
apostles of Icarianism should, like Christ, whose principles they were
only carrying out, convert the world by teaching, preaching, writing,
discussing, persuading, and by setting good examples.[34] The wildness
of his dreams is shown by the fact that he allowed fifty years for a
peaceful transition from our present economic life to communism. In the
interval, various measures were to be introduced by legislation to pave
the way to the new system. Among these may be mentioned communistic
training for children, a minimum of wages, exemption of the poor from
all taxes, and progressive taxation for the rich. But “the system of
absolute equality, of community of goods and of labor, will not be
obliged to be applied completely, perfectly, universally, and definitely
until the expiration of fifty years.”[35] No one who has studied the slow
formation of social organizations could possibly hope for a radical
change in so short a period. Some are doubtless led to such anticipations
by noticing the rapid changes in the commercial and industrial world.
This is, it is said, a fast age, and in not a few respects the saying is
true. But man’s nature and society are not changing so rapidly. It is the
mere externals of our life which change speedily.

Cabet’s political organization consists of a democratic republic.[36]
Representatives and executives are allowed, but they derive their power
from the people. Those whom the Icarians choose to rule over them prepare
laws and regulations which are submitted to the citizens for approval,
provide amusements, conduct industries in large establishments, and
divide the products of common labor equally among all. Houses, villages,
provinces, communes, and farms are as nearly alike as possible. The
economies of common production enable all to enjoy every comfort and many
luxuries. Elegance and beauty are encouraged.

The only choice allowed in one’s clothes concerns their color; otherwise
all are dressed alike, save that distinctions are made for age and sex.

Marriage and family are held sacred, as might perhaps be expected from
the high honors accorded by Cabet to the fair sex. Perhaps his views
concerning the elevated position due woman were influential in drawing to
him the large number of sympathizers he found among the ladies of Paris,
who encouraged him with kind words and frequent floral gifts.

As large an amount of liberty was granted by the Icarians as was
practicable. Work was common, as has been stated, but young men and
young women were allowed to choose their own career. However, if there
existed a disproportionate number of applicants for any particular trade
or profession, competitive examination decided who should be selected for
the said pursuit. The others were obliged to make another choice.

Diligence and thrift were enjoined on all. Men worked till sixty-five
years of age and women till fifty. The length of a day’s labor was seven
hours in summer and five in winter; for women, however, only four. All
labor ceased at 1 P.M. Dirty and disagreeable work was performed by
machines.

Science and literature were held in high esteem and encouraged, though
publication was not free. Any one might write books, but only those could
be printed whose publication had been authorized by law.

CHAPTER IV.

SAINT-SIMON.

When we turn from Babœuf and Cabet to Saint-Simon we discover a man
of a new type. He differed from his predecessors in aims, purposes,
and character. We find in him one who did not desire the dead and
uninteresting level of communism, but placed before him as an ideal a
social system which should more nearly render to man the just fruits of
his own individual exertions than does our present society.

Count Henry de Saint-Simon[37] was born at Paris in 1760. He belonged to
a noble family of France, which traced its origin to Charlemagne. The
family attained distinction early in the fifteenth century through the
gallant conduct of one of its members at the battle of Agincourt. It
divided into five branches in the seventeenth century. The celebrated
Duke de Saint-Simon, author of the “Memoirs of the Reign of Louis XIV.
and the Regency,” belonged to one branch; Louis François de Saint-Simon,
Marquis de Sandricourt, grandfather of the socialist, to another. Among
the sons of the marquis were Balthasar Henri, Maximilien Henri, and
Charles François Simeon, of whom the two latter became distinguished.
Balthasar Henri was the father of the subject of this chapter.

Although not the grandson of the duke, as has been erroneously
supposed,[38] Saint-Simon would naturally have inherited his titles and
property. They were lost to him, however, through the quarrel of his
father with the duke. The titles he lost were those of a grandee of
Spain and a duke of France, while the property he would have inherited
yielded an annual income of 500,000 francs. “I have lost the titles
and the fortune of the Duke of Saint-Simon,” he writes, “but I have
inherited his passion for glory.” This was manifested in a singular way
when he was only sixteen years of age. That he might not forget the
grand destiny in store for him, he ordered his servant to awaken him
every morning with the words, “Arise, Monsieur le Comte, you have grand
deeds to perform.” Saint-Simon had already entered the army at this
time, and the year afterwards went to America and fought in the War of
the Revolution under Washington. He took part in the siege of Yorktown
and witnessed the surrender of Lord Cornwallis. He distinguished himself
for bravery on this occasion, and received honorable recognition of his
gallant conduct from the Society of the Cincinnati. Upon his return to
France, he was made colonel of the Regiment of Aquitaine at the early
age of twenty-three. But he soon resigned his position and abandoned
all hopes of a military career, although his prospects were certainly
brilliant. In speaking of his sojourn in the United States, he says: “I
occupied myself much more with political science than military tactics.
The war in itself did not interest me, but the purpose of the war
interested me exceedingly, and this interest enabled me to endure its
hardships without repugnance. I desire the attainment of the purpose, I
was accustomed to say to myself, and I ought not to rebel against the
means thereto.... My vocation was not that of a soldier; I was drawn
towards a very different, indeed, I may say, diametrically opposite, kind
of activity. The life purpose which I set before me was to study the
movements of the human mind, in order that I might then labor for the
perfection of civilization. From that time forward I devoted myself to
this work without reserve; to it I consecrated my entire life.”[39]

Saint-Simon was taken prisoner by the British when returning to France
in the _Ville de Paris_, and carried to Jamaica, where he was detained
until the close of the war. In returning to Europe he visited Mexico,
and there made an attempt to carry out one of the magnificent plans for
the advancement of mankind which he had been revolving in his mind.
He endeavored to interest the viceroy in a project for building a
canal to unite the Atlantic with the Pacific. While his exertions were
unsuccessful, it is interesting to note that one who drew his inspiration
largely from Saint-Simon—viz., De Lesseps—may yet execute his plan.

A few years later Saint-Simon formed designs for a canal to connect
Madrid with the sea, and might possibly have succeeded in realizing them,
had not the French Revolution recalled him to France. He sided with the
people, although his family traditions and early training would have led
him to connect himself with the royalists, and although in the struggle
he lost the property he had inherited from his mother. He was elected
president of the commune where his property was situated, in 1789, and in
an address to the electors proclaimed his intention to renounce the title
of count, since he regarded it as inferior to that of citizen; and he
refused another office lest it should be supposed he owed it to his rank.
All this, however, did not prevent his imprisonment on account of his
nobility, which rendered him in the eyes of the terrorists a dangerous
character. He was kept in prison, first at St. Pélagie, afterwards at the
Luxembourg, for eleven months, and was released after the Revolution of
Thermidor. It was at this time that his ancestor Charlemagne appeared to
him and encouraged him with a prophecy of future greatness. He describes
the vision in these words: “At the most cruel epoch of the Revolution,
and during a night of my detention at the Luxembourg, Charlemagne
appeared to me and said: ‘Since the world has existed, no family has
enjoyed the honor of producing a hero and a philosopher of the first
rank; this honor has been reserved for my house. My son, thy success as a
philosopher will equal mine as a warrior and politician.’”

Upon his release from prison Saint-Simon began to speculate in the
confiscated national lands, in order to obtain money to enable him to
prosecute his plans for the improvement of society. He realized 144,000
francs from his investments, and then retired from business, as he
thought he had all the property he needed. He devoted the following
seven years to preparatory study, taking up his abode first in the
neighborhood of the École Polytechnique, afterwards near the École
de Médecine. Physiology and the physical sciences interested him
chiefly. What he had in view was a science of the sciences, a science
to classify facts derived from all sciences and to unite them into one
whole; and it was from him that his scholar, Auguste Comte, derived the
idea of founding a universal science, as he attempted in his “Cours de
Philosophie Positive.” In fact this work was only a development of his
“Système Politique Positive,” which he, as a scholar of Saint-Simon,
wrote at the instance of his master.[40]

Saint-Simon thought it necessary to add an experimental training to
his theoretical one in order to prepare himself for his mission, and
accomplished this by living every kind of life, from that of the wealthy
entertainer of savants to one of poverty and dissipation. While this
attempt to pass through all the experiences and feelings of a lifetime in
a few years was not altogether unsuccessful, it was unfortunate in making
him prematurely old.

Saint-Simon began his career as an author and social reformer at the age
of forty-three, in 1803, and never abandoned it until his death in 1825.

His life was a sad one. His property was soon gone, and he often worked
at his system while suffering the direst want, but he was sustained
by the spirit of the martyr. Saint-Simon endeavored to bring to pass
the happy future which he believed possible for the human race. “The
imagination of poets,” said he, “has placed the golden age at the cradle
of the human race, amidst the ignorance and grossness of the earliest
times. It had been better to relegate the iron age to that period. The
golden age of humanity is not behind us; it is to come, and will be found
in the perfection of the social order. Our fathers have not seen it; our
children will one day behold it. It is our duty to prepare the way for
them.”

Saint-Simon had thus devoted his life to a cause which he held sacred,
and he pursued it through fortune and misfortune, through good report
and through evil report. For a time he occupied the position of copyist
at a salary of $200 per annum; a strange place for a scion of one of
the proudest families of France. He copied nine hours a day, and robbed
himself of sleep in order to develop his philosophical and social
system. His health had begun to fail him, when he was relieved from his
deplorable situation by the kindness of a man who had been his valet
in brighter days. This servant, one of the few who never lost faith in
Saint-Simon, supported him, and assisted him in the publication of his
works. The death in 1810 of the former valet, Diard by name, again left
Saint-Simon in a wretched state, but he continued his labors, and wrote
two works, entitled “Sur la Science de l’Homme” and “Sur la Gravitation
Universelle.” As he had no means of printing them, he sent them in
manuscript to various scientists and other prominent men, with the
following letter:

“_Sir_,—Be my saviour. I am dying of starvation. For fifteen
days I eat only bread and drink water; I work without a
fire, and I have sold everything save my garments to cover
the expense of the copies. It is a passion for science and
the public good, it is the desire of discovering a means of
terminating in a peaceable manner the dreadful crisis in which
I find the entire European society engaged, that has caused
me to fall into this condition of distress; therefore, it is
without blushing that I am able to confess my misery and demand
assistance to enable me to continue my work.”

This letter met with no very favorable response, though Cuvier made
him a small donation and others showed a mild interest in his welfare.
His disciples, however, were afterwards proud of it. The following
exhortation follows its quotation in the “Doctrine de Saint-Simon:”[41]
“Children of Saint-Simon! generations of the future! guard as a religious
memorial these lines which your father has left you as a sacred legacy.
When his word shall have renewed the face of the earth, when the doctrine
of recompense according to works shall have been realized among men,
when the last of the living shall obtain from the solicitude of society a
guaranteed subsistence, a remuneration in proportion to merits, children
of Saint-Simon, you will then love to repeat how, in order to accomplish
his mission of regeneration, your father was reduced to begging.”

A small pension was finally granted Saint-Simon by his family, and
he worked on quietly till 1823, but he found little sympathy and
encouragement, and for once his courage deserted him. He was more than
sixty years of age, his strength began to decrease, he was in want
of every comfort and convenience and lacked the support and helpful
consolations of domestic life. In his state of loneliness he was filled
with despair by the thought that his life had been a failure, and he
resolved to put an end to his own wretched existence.

Fortunately, however, he only succeeded in inflicting severe but not
fatal injuries upon himself. His pitiable condition appears to have moved
some kind hearts, for he was cared for tenderly until he recovered, when
he regained faith in his mission and worked more diligently than ever. In
the same year he finished his “Catéchisme des Industriels,” and in 1825,
the year of his death, he completed the “Nouveau Christianisme.” These
two works and his “Système Industriel,” published in 1821-22, are his
three most important productions.

Perhaps the most celebrated of them all is his last work, the “Nouveau
Christianisme,” the New Christianity. It was from this that his disciples
chiefly drew their inspiration, and it was in this that his hopes centred
as he lay on his death-bed, surrounded by his friends, Auguste Comte,
Rodrigues, and others. Reybaud[42] describes the last scene in the
following manner: “Saint-Simon, feeling the approach of death, assembled
about his bed his confidants and said to them: ‘For twelve days, my
friends, I have been occupied with plans designed to assure the success
of our enterprise (a projected journal called _Le Producteur_); for
three hours, despite my sufferings, I have been endeavoring to present
to you a _résumé_ of my thoughts. You have arrived at a period where by
your combined efforts you will achieve a great success; ... The fruit
is ripe; you are able to gather it. The last part of my labors, the New
Christianity, will not be immediately understood. It has been thought
that every religious system ought to disappear because men have succeeded
in proving the weakness and insufficiency of Catholicism. People are
deceived in this. Religion cannot disappear from the world; it can only
be changed. Rodrigues,’ addressing his favorite scholar, ‘do not forget,
but remember that to accomplish grand deeds you must be enthusiastic. All
my life is comprised in this one thought; to guarantee to all men the
freest development of their faculties.’

“He paused for a few moments, then in the final struggle added,

“‘Forty-eight hours after our second publication the party of the
laborers will be formed; the future is ours.’

“After having said these words, he raised his hand to his head and died.”

There are certain leading doctrines in Saint-Simon’s writings, which I
will endeavor to present briefly, before passing on to a consideration
of his followers, the Saint-Simonians. Comparatively unimportant changes
of opinion respecting the details of his practical programme, as well as
other minor points, will be omitted in this presentation.

We find running through all the writings of Saint-Simon, from his first
work, “Lettres d’un Habitant de Genève,” to his last one, the “Nouveau
Christianisme,” an aim and purpose which may be considered the leading
feature of his system. It is the attempt to discover an authority which
shall rule the inner life of man as well as his external acts. There
have been powers which were able to do this. The Catholic Church, up
to the fifteenth century and the beginnings of the Reformation, was
one. Since then, however, it has failed to embody in itself all the
advances of science; it has consequently lost its hold on the minds of
men, has declined in influence, and ceased to be an organic bond uniting
different nations and molding men’s lives. The present age is, therefore,
critical: that is to say, the preponderating factors entering into it are
disintegrating. This was seen in the French Revolution, the culmination
of this period, which was destructive. This critical period was necessary
to clear away hinderances and prepare for an organic and constructive
period, which ought now to follow, since the time is ripe for a new
social system based on universal association.

We are now in a transitional stage which is called a crisis.[43] The
problem is to terminate the crisis. This can be accomplished only by
an advance in knowledge, accompanied by a passage from the feudal and
theological to the industrial and scientific system. War and industry
occupied the Middle Ages and must now be replaced by industry alone.
Belief, faith, having lost its power, must be replaced by knowledge.
Knowledge and industry are to be united and govern the world. They are to
furnish to men the guidance and leadership they need and desire.

Carlyle said that the poor laborer “would fain find for himself a
superior that should lovingly and wisely govern,” and that the wish and
prayer of all human hearts was “give me a leader; a true leader, not a
false sham-leader; a true leader, that he may guide me on the true way,
that I may be loyal to him, that I may swear fealty to him and follow
him, and feel that it is well with me.”[44] So thought Saint-Simon, when
he appealed to thinkers and workers to unite and lead. He would gladly
have seen England and France join in this movement, believing that they
could draw the other powers into it.

What were the specific objects of this leadership? What were the
functions of this restored authority?

First, universal peace was to be guaranteed. Formerly, the Catholic
Church, in its character of arbiter of nations, imposed a wholesome
restraint on kings, and lessened the number of wars. Since the decay of
belief it was no longer possible for it to accomplish this. A European
parliament composed of true leaders must now arbitrate between nations.
This was ever a favorite theme of Saint-Simonism, and modern sentiment
and agitation in favor of peace owe more than is generally known to
Saint-Simon and his followers.

Second, leadership is to establish universal association, guaranteeing
labor to all, and a reward in proportion to services rendered. Equality
is to be avoided, as involving greater injustice than our present
economic life. Recompense in proportion to merit is the true maxim.
But as all are to be guaranteed work, all must work either mentally
or physically. In a socially regenerated state there is no room left
for idlers. An idler is a parasite; he devours what others produce and
makes no return. Wealthy idlers are thieves; another class of idlers
consists of beggars, and this last class of do-nothings, we are told
by Saint-Simon, is scarcely less contemptible and dangerous than the
first.[45] This makes it sufficiently evident that the Saint-Simonians
were acting in the spirit of their master in proposing the abolition of
inheritance.

Again, this new society would not be ascetic, like the old
Christianity—Saint-Simon’s kingdom was of this world. Flesh and spirit
both had their rights, and their harmonious union and development alone
formed the perfect man. Everything that was good and true and beautiful
was to be encouraged. Luther is even accused of heresy because he
rejected art as a handmaid of religion. The new society is religious and
holy, and its chiefs are its priests.

Revolution is injurious and is not to be looked to as a means of social
regeneration. It is destructive, whereas a constructive power is
sought.[46] Reform must be brought about by public opinion; and public
opinion is to be enlightened by the printed and spoken word. An appeal
is made to royalty to assist in this noble work, as its interests are at
one with the industrials, and opposed to those of the do-nothings. In the
new state the king is to take the title of the “First Industrial of his
kingdom.”[47]

While Saint-Simon is not to be made responsible for all the later
extravagance of his school, it is true that authority is to be found
in his works for the fundamental ideas of his followers, and even for
their practical measures before the separation which took place between
Enfantin and Bazard. They were acting in accordance with his dying
instructions in organizing and in preaching in behalf of labor. I am
unable to separate, as some do, Saint-Simon from his disciples. So long
as they were united and moderate they were carrying out consistently his
teachings. They simply developed his thoughts and expressed precisely
notions at which he had only hinted in vague and indefinite language.

The New Christianity was the Bible of the Saint-Simonian religion.
Saint-Simon held that God had founded the Christian Church, and that we
ought to honor the Fathers of the Church with the deepest reverence.
Catholics and Protestants had, however, perverted the only true and
valid Christian principle, and it was this he sought to restore. “In the
New Christianity,” said he, “all morality will be derived immediately
from this principle; men ought to regard each other as brothers. This
principle, which belongs to primitive Christianity, will receive a
glorification, and in its new form will read: Religion must aid society
in its chief purpose, which is the most rapid improvement in the lot of
the poor.” It is thus that the social question becomes the essence of
religion. This was the starting-point of Saint-Simon’s disciples, and led
to the formation of a Saint-Simonian sect with a priesthood.

But let us devote a few moments to a description of the economic and
social organization proposed by the Saint-Simonians, before discussing
the religious society they founded to do honor to the memory of
Saint-Simon, to assist in carrying our their socialistic schemes, and to
satisfy the yearnings of hearts which refused to find satisfaction and
contentment in the Christian Church.

Saint-Simonism is the first example of pure socialism, by which I
understand an economic system in which production is entirely carried
on in common, and the fruits of labor distributed according to some
ideal standard, which appears to the promoters of the scheme just. This
standard will, of course, vary according to the subjective ideas of
different socialists. Any plan, to be practicable, must necessarily be a
compromise between various views and historical antecedents.

Another writer defines “Socialism Proper”—by which he means about
what I understand by Pure Socialism—as follows: “It is that system
which recognizes inequality both in the capacity and requirements of
individuals, and accordingly allows wages to be proportionate to work
done, and admits of private income along with collective property.”[48]

The Saint-Simonians were led to socialism by observing the ill-regulated
distribution of economic goods under our present social _régime_. They
found the idle surfeited in luxuries and the diligent without the
comforts and often without even the necessaries of life, the former
enjoying the right to live as parasites on the fruits of the toil of the
busy, the latter enjoying the right to choose between hard and ill-paid
labor and death by starvation. They were able to perceive no sufficient
connection between merit and recompense. Consequently the world appeared
in a state of disharmony and they proposed to restore harmony by a new
economic system.

It may be as well to state here that political economists are generally
inclined to admit a certain justice in such complaints and only object to
socialistic schemes as impracticable or as involving still worse evils.
To show how far a man who holds a high rank as an orthodox political
economist can go in his objection to the present method of distributing
economic goods, it may be well to cite a celebrated passage from John
Stuart Mill’s “Political Economy:” “If the bulk of the human race are
always to remain as at present, slaves to toil in which they have no
interest and therefore feel no interest—drudging from early morning till
late at night for bare necessaries and with all the intellectual and
moral deficiencies which that implies—without resources either in mind
or feeling—untaught, for they cannot be better taught than fed; selfish,
for all their thoughts are required for themselves; without interests
or sentiments as citizens and members of society, and with a sense of
injustice rankling in their minds, equally for what they have not and
what others have; I know not what there is which should make a person of
any capacity of reason concern himself about the destinies of the human
race.”[49] In another place Mill says that if the institution of private
property _necessarily_ carried with it all the sufferings and injustices
of the present state of society, and a choice had to be made between
private property and communism, “all the difficulties, great or small, of
communism would be but as dust in the balance.”[50]

Now, the Saint-Simonians believed it possible to remedy these evils of
distribution only by the substitution of state property for private
property. At the same time, they rejected any equal distribution of
labor’s products, which would give the active and energetic no more
than the slow and indolent, which would treat alike the stupid clown,
who was only a burden and a nuisance, and a great genius whose talents
increased the wealth and prosperity of the nation. The Saint-Simonians
held that men were by nature unequal, and that it was right to reward
superior power, when exerted for the general good. Their idea was that
each one should labor according to his capacity and be rewarded according
to the services rendered. They wished to organize civil society on the
plan of an army. This thought is distinctly expressed by one of their
leaders in these words: “In the army gradations in rank and authority
are already established, while in civil life that is precisely what
is wanting; and in an enterprise conducted upon the principle of
association, a central administration is imperiously required.”[51] The
officers are the directing authority in this scheme, and they decide on
the value of the services rendered to society and reward the citizens
accordingly. As society consists of priests, savants, and industrials—the
industrials comprising those engaged in manufactures, agriculture, and
commerce[52]—so the government consists of the chiefs of the priests, the
chiefs of the savants, and the chiefs of the industrials. All property
belongs to the church, _i.e._, to the state, and every profession
or trade is a religious exercise and has its rank in the social
hierarchy.[53]

It is not clearly stated how the ruling body was to be selected, whether
by popular vote or otherwise. The idea of the Saint-Simonians seems
to have been, however, that the good and wise, the best, would be
voluntarily and without dissension selected as leaders—an idea scarcely
warranted by the world’s experience with universal suffrage.

The Saint-Simonians necessarily rejected inheritance from their scheme,
as they regarded idlers as thieves, and wished each one to be rewarded
only in accordance with his own individual merits. All should start with
equal advantages and only avail themselves of nature’s inequalities,
_i.e._, superior talents. Christ’s command was “Away with slavery!”
Saint-Simon’s, “Away with inheritance!” Property now inherited would
naturally become common property in the new society.

The Saint-Simonians were accused in the Chamber of Deputies of advocating
community of goods and community of wives. They defended themselves in a
_brochure_ dated October 1, 1830, which it is worth while to quote, as
it gives their ideas on these two important subjects:[54]

“Yes, without doubt, the Saint-Simonians profess peculiar views regarding
property and the future of women, as well as concerning religion, power,
liberty, and, finally, concerning all the great problems which are
agitated so violently in Europe to-day. But these are very different from
those ascribed to them. The system of community of goods means a division
among all the members of society, either of the means of production or of
the fruits of the toil of all.

“The Saint-Simonians reject this equal division of property, which
would constitute in their eyes a more reprehensible act of violence, a
more revolting injustice, than the present unequal division, which was
effected in the first place by the force of arms, by conquest.

“For they believe in the natural inequality of men, and regard this
inequality as the very basis of association, as the indispensable
condition of social order.

“They reject the system of community of goods, for this would be a
manifest violation of the first of all the moral laws which it is their
mission to teach—viz., that in the future each one should rank according
to his capacity and be rewarded according to his works.

“But in virtue of this law they demand the abolition of all privileges
of birth, without exception, and consequently the destruction of
inheritance, the chief of these privileges, which to-day comprehends
all the others, and the effect of which is to leave to chance the
distribution of social privileges among a small number, and to condemn
the most numerous class to deprivation, to ignorance, to misery.

“They demand that land, capital, and all the instruments of labor should
become common property, and be so managed that each one’s portion should
correspond to his capacity and his reward to his labors.... Christianity
has released woman from servitude but has condemned her to religious,
political, and civil inferiority. The Saint-Simonians have announced her
emancipation, but they have not abolished the sacred law of marriage,
proclaimed by Christianity. On the contrary, they give a new sanctity to
this law.

“Like the Christians, they demand that one man should be united to one
woman, but they teach that the wife ought to be the equal of the husband,
and that, in accordance with the particular grace given to her sex by
God, she ought to be associated with him in the triple function of
temple, state, and family, in such a manner that the social individual
which has hitherto been man alone should hereafter be man and woman.[55]

“The religion of Saint-Simon is to put an end to this legal prostitution
which, under the name of marriage, consecrates frequently to-day a
monstrous union of devotion and egoism, of intelligence and ignorance, of
youth and decrepitude.”

The leaders of the Saint-Simonian religion were Enfantin and Bazard,
the Supreme Fathers. Rodrigues had been chosen by Saint-Simon as his
successor, but he generously ceded his position to them as his superiors,
in accordance with the rule that rank should be the measure of capacity.

The new faith gained a large number of adherents after the Revolution
of July, 1830.[56] Some of these became prominent afterwards, some of
them were then men of wealth and importance. The best known are perhaps
Buchez, who wrote a “Parliamentary History of the Revolution,” and was
President of the Constituent Assembly of 1830; Laurent, a distinguished
author and professor; Michel Chevalier, a civil engineer, since
celebrated as a writer and a political economist; Barrault, professor of
literature at the College of Sorèze, a dramatic author of distinction,
some of whose plays had been performed at the Théâtre Français, and
an orator of remarkable eloquence; Fournel, who had studied at the
Polytechnic and afterwards made a name as an engineer; Adolphe Blanqui,
who became an orthodox political economist, and wrote a “History of
Political Economy,” and Pierre Leroux,[57] who at a later period became
the exponent of Humanitarianism, a kind of Saint-Simonism modified and
tinctured with Hegelian philosophy, and under whose influence several of
Madame Sand’s works, as “Consuelo” and “La Comtesse de Rudolstadt,” were
written. Other men of more or less note, bankers, lawyers, merchants, and
particularly all kinds of engineers, joined them. The École Polytechnique
was ever their stronghold. De Lesseps, an engineer who has disturbed the
peace of many Americans, was also for a time connected with them.

Enfantin was, indeed, a strange man. It is scarcely comprehensible what
could have given him such power over men of ability, learning, wealth,
and shrewd business capacity. In commenting upon this circumstance, Mr.
Booth says: “He ruled despotically over their lives and thoughts; he
induced them ... to lead an ascetic life; he withdrew them from refined
society, and forced them to share in the coarsest toil; he compelled
them to undergo the humiliation of public confessions, and he received
from them the honors and the reverence accorded to a divine teacher.
Yet his intellectual powers were inferior to those possessed by some
of his disciples.” ... However, “his views were noble and generous and
he advocated them with all the sincerity of genuine enthusiasm and
the boldness of matchless self-confidence. It was natural that they
should fascinate young men of an ardent temperament, who burned with a
chivalrous desire to redress the evils of the world. They were readily
charmed by a prophet whose countenance was remarkable for its dignity and
repose, and whose affectionate disposition inspired them with boundless
confidence and fervor. It must be admitted also that both his religious
and political opinions contained a large amount of truth; but his vanity
has invested them with an appearance of absurdity, for he delighted
in fantastic dresses, in solemn processions, and imposing ceremonies;
and he exposed himself to the ridicule of the world by permitting his
disciples to speak to him of the majesty of his countenance and the
divine brightness of his smile.”[58] An absent follower writes to the
father, le Père, as they called him, from Corsica: “The kiss of my father
will give me power, and his eloquent voice; I have every confidence in
my father, for I am sure that he knows his children better than they
know themselves; why do I, nevertheless, tremble in going to him?” Other
expressions addressed to the father are too absurd, extravagant, and
impious to be quoted. Once, indeed, Enfantin rebuked the homage of his
disciples with the words: “No one of us is God: I am only a man.”

The Saint-Simonians in an early stage of their proselytism formed a
“Sacred College of Apostles,” consisting of six leaders. These chiefs
were Enfantin, Bazard, Buchez, Rodrigues, Laurent, and Rouen. The younger
and less influential disciples were organized as a subordinate order.
They established missions and bishoprics in Toulouse, Montpellier,
Sorèze, Lyons, in fact, in all parts of France, and also carried the new
gospel to foreign lands, as Belgium and Algeria. Paris was divided into
twelve districts and a male and a female missionary sent into each part.
They propagated their faith by numerous lectures and by the press. One
of their organs was called the _Globe_; its mottoes were: “Religion,
Science, Industry, Universal Association.

“The purpose of all social institutions ought to be the intellectual,
moral, and physical amelioration of the poorest and most numerous class.

“All privileges of birth, without exception, are abolished.

“To each one according to his capacity; to each capacity according to its
works.”

These mottoes are a good _résumé_ of their ideas.

The Saint-Simonians considered it necessary first to distinguish
themselves in marked manner by wearing a peculiar costume, afterwards to
separate themselves from the world by retiring to a sort of monastery.

Their costume consisted of blue cloth. Bazard and Enfantin wore light
blue, the other adherents a darker shade, according to rank, the lowest
members of the hierarchy being clad in royal blue. At a later period
a still more peculiar costume was adopted, which embraced a waistcoat
so contrived that no one could either put it on or take it off without
assistance; and this symbolized the dependence of man upon his fellow-man.

In 1831 a schism took place in the Saint-Simonian church. Enfantin’s
views regarding love and marriage were becoming constantly less and less
orthodox. His belief in the substantial correctness of the impulses of
the flesh led him to advocate, first, divorce, then views which can
fairly be called free-love. In this he departed widely from the doctrines
of the earlier and purer Saint-Simonism. A violent controversy followed
the announcement of Enfantin’s later opinions. The debates lasted day
and night for some time. They were all terribly in earnest. Young men
were borne from the room unconscious and some even lost their reason. The
matter did not terminate until Bazard and a large number of disciples,
including Mde. Bazard, M. Fournel and his wife, and Pierre Leroux,
withdrew from the association. To the credit of the women connected with
the Saint-Simonians, it should be stated that not one of them remained
with Enfantin.

Enfantin and Bazard had been the two fathers, and in their assemblies
Bazard had had a seat beside Enfantin. His chair was left vacant, as an
appeal to some female Messiah to come forward and occupy it, and form
together with Enfantin the _couple-prêtre_, the true priest man-woman.
As man and woman together formed one unit, the supreme priesthood could
only be perfect when composed of both. Enfantin’s beauty and wonderful
magnetism appear to have attracted numerous candidates, but the right one
never appeared. The perfect priest remained an unrealized dream.

After the schism Enfantin and a number of his disciples decided to come
out from the world, and for this purpose retired to Ménilmontant, where
Enfantin owned a house surrounded by a large garden. Here forty or fifty
of the faithful led a most strange life. It was one of severe asceticism.
Husbands separated from their wives for the sake of their religion, after
they had assumed the monastic dress. Sometimes the wives shared the
enthusiasm of the disciples; sometimes they murmured. One of them, who
finds the trial a hard one and yet appreciates her husband’s motives,
writes to him: “On Wednesday, I shall see you assume the dress of an
apostle, and then I can give you but a sisterly kiss. I will endeavor
to collect all my strength to hear you renounce me as a wife and your
Amelia as child. Such a proceeding requires an energy which I trust I
shall possess. Receive the tender farewell of her who will soon no longer
be able to subscribe herself—your Amelia.” To a friend she writes: “I am
sensible of the aims to which his noble and generous heart leads him,
when he separates himself from me. This knowledge is sufficient for me
to accept the sacrifice, and, after all, what is my grief, what are my
tears, when the enfranchisement of the world is concerned?”

As they held the performance of labor to be a religious act, they
employed no servants, and at Ménilmontant you might have been edified
by the sight of a man scrubbing the floor, who has since attained a
world-wide fame. They were generally cheered in their work by music.
Another part of their creed laid stress upon mental development, and we
find at the monastery instruction given in astronomy, geology, physical
geography, music, and civil engineering. Any one might well be proud to
have had such instructors as those who taught. To mention only one, the
teacher of music was David, the composer of the operas “Lalla Rookh,”
“Désert,” and “Herculanum.”

It is not necessary in this place to describe the strange and fantastic
life by which the apostles endeavored to attain a more elevated spiritual
state, reverencing Saint-Simon and Enfantin as sacred messengers of
God. They were finally dispersed by dissensions, the desire of some
to return to their families, financial difficulties, and external
persecution. Enfantin and Chevalier were imprisoned for holding illegal
assemblies. The faith, however, continued to prosper for a few years, and
missionaries were still sent out to teach the New Christianity. One of
the latest expeditions was headed by Enfantin himself after his release
from prison. Its aim was to connect the Red Sea with the Mediterranean.
De Lesseps was associated with them in this, but he finally separated
from them, as they could not agree upon the engineering plans. Enfantin
and other Saint-Simonians continued to advocate the project and scouted
Stephenson’s assertion that it was impossible. This may seem at first
like strange missionary work, but it does not, when you remember that to
them all labor for the advancement of humanity was sacred. It is owing
to Enfantin’s persistent endeavors that the Suez Canal was built. When
Enfantin heard that De Lesseps was going on with the canal alone, it was
thought that he might feel injured. He exhibited, however, a truly noble
spirit, and simply remarked that, “Provided the work which I have brought
into notice, and caused to be studied as highly useful to the moral and
material interests of humanity, be executed, I will be the first to bless
him by whom it is executed. Undoubtedly, it is but just that posterity
should know that the initiation of that gigantic enterprise was taken by
those whom the Old World could recognize only as Utopists, dreamers, or
fools.”[59]

The Saint-Simonians never reunited after the Egyptian expedition. A
considerable number were able to make themselves useful in that country
on account of their engineering skill. Mehemet Ali, the viceroy,
recognized their talents and employed them in numerous ways. One
received a commission to found a Polytechnic School at Cairo, another
was placed at the head of a school of artillery, two others were
appointed professors in the school at Kauka, and several medical men
received positions in the hospital. David delighted the Alexandrians with
concerts, and Barrault charmed them by his eloquent lectures. An Egyptian
paper declared of Barrault that “Alexandria, since the best days of its
glory, has never heard within its walls a voice so eloquent or a poetry
of language so harmonious.”[60]

The most of these Saint-Simonians returned to France, and, like many of
their former associates who had not left their native soil, acquired
positions of prominence and influence.

Enfantin himself received a post as director of the Lyons Railway and
became wealthy. He never lost faith in Saint-Simonism, but thought that
as much had been done for the system as was then possible, since its
doctrines had been proclaimed far and near, and were slowly leavening the
mass of society.

Many of the principles taught by the Saint-Simonians must receive our
hearty approbation. We sympathize with their endeavors to improve the
lot of the poor and oppressed, and assent to them when they preach the
dignity and sacredness of labor, the reverence due woman, and the duty of
maintaining peace between nation and nation. When Chevalier proposes that
the armies of Europe, “instead of being applied to the destruction of
property and life, should be employed upon works of public utility,”[61]
we are reminded that the coming of a time has been prophesied when
“nations shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into
pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more.”[62]

Saint-Simon has ceased to be the prophet of a religious school, but he
did not sacrifice life and happiness in vain. He still lives in the lives
and actions of men, and to-day possesses an historical importance which
has been well expressed in these words:

“Saint-Simon first taught us to consider the history of labor and
property as an essential element of human development, and consequently
to investigate the history of society.

“He first discerned clearly the separation of the two great classes of
industrial society, and implanted bitter hatred in the consciousness of
the lower classes. Saint-Simon’s word that the party of the laborers
would be formed, has been fulfilled. Saint-Simonism is the first
expression of the proletariat.

“He first represented social reform as the only true function of
government.

“Finally, he first brought forward the question of inheritance, the
question upon which the entire future of the social form of Europe will
rest during the next two generations.

“Thus through Saint-Simon is society, in its power, its elements, and
its contradictions, for the first time half understood, half vaguely
conjectured. He is the boundary of a new era in France. He left the
beaten track and laid down his life in discovering and opening for
society a new path. In it we have as yet taken only a few steps, and no
human eye is able to discern the goal whither we are tending.”[63]

CHAPTER V.

FOURIER.

In his “Social Movements in France”[64] Lorenz von Stein uses these
words, in comparing Saint-Simon and Fourier: “While Saint-Simon was
sacrificing his life in Paris in his efforts to attain an unknown and
only vaguely conjectured goal, and while his school was struggling
against foes from within and without, there lived in another part of
France a man who, without knowing Saint-Simon, was taking an essentially
different route towards the same goal. This man was Charles Fourier....
Never has any land at the same time produced two men of such importance
in the history of society.”[65]

These two men together constitute one whole. Each was required as a
complement of the other. The one started in his career as a man of wealth
and social eminence, the other as a man of the people. The one observed
society, studied its history, its development, and sought to find therein
a clew to guide him in his work of regenerating the world, morally and
economically; the other, regarding the past as such a series of blunders
as to afford no proper basis for future formations, searched the depths
of his own consciousness, and discovered a law which furnished premises,
enabling him to construct deductively an ideal and perfect society, and
to explain with mathematical accuracy the past, present, and future of
the entire universe.

Saint-Simon was a man of impulse and feeling; Fourier was a man of the
understanding and logic. The former founded a religion; the latter a
science.

Charles Fourier was born in 1772 in Besançon. He came of an ordinary
family and represented the middle-class. His father was a cloth-merchant
in his native city, and he himself spent the greater part of his life
in mercantile pursuits of one kind or another. Fourier seems to have
been a bright boy, for when only eleven years of age he took prizes for
excellence in French and Latin. He liked the study of geography, spending
a considerable part of his pocket-money for maps and globes, and was
passionately fond of music and flowers. It is said that he was himself a
good musician. His mechanical ability was remarkable enough to attract
attention at an early period in his life. As a commercial traveller he
visited Germany and Holland, and was thus able to gratify his desire
to see the world. Upon the death of his father, he inherited about one
hundred thousand francs at an early age, invested the money in foreign
trade, and lost it in the siege of Lyons in 1793, during the Reign of
Terror, when his bales of cotton were used to form barricades and his
provisions to feed the soldiers. But Fourier’s misfortunes did not end
here. He was taken prisoner, and kept in confinement for some time,
expecting daily to be led forth to execution. Release, however, enabled
him to join the army, for which he had some taste. It is, indeed, stated
that he was able to make suggestions concerning military operations
which were followed to advantage by his superiors. But ill-health obliged
him to retire from the army at the expiration of two years, and return to
a business life.

Fourier was never greatly prospered, nor did he ever, so far as I know,
give evidence of ability to achieve a large amount of worldly success.
In this he was unlike almost every other great communist or socialist.
However, it must be acknowledged that his mind was from childhood engaged
with other thoughts than the means of acquiring wealth, so that we are
scarcely in a position to say what he might have done in this direction
if he had devoted himself heartily to business. It is certain that to
him the words idler and bungler do not apply, and that he had no desire
to fork out his penny and pocket another’s shilling. On the contrary, it
was to give, and not receive, that he desired. This trait of all large
souls was manifested in a touching way when he was a small boy. There
came one morning to the door of his father’s house a poor cripple, asking
if little Charles was ill. When he was told that Charles was not ill,
but had left the city, he burst into tears. Inquiry disclosed the fact
that while on his way to school, and without the knowledge of others, the
little fellow had every day given half of his lunch to the poor man.

Two events occurring to Fourier in early life led him to a train of
thought which ended in his condemnation of the economic organization of
society as a disastrous failure.

When he was five years of age he proved himself an _enfant terrible_ by
telling the truth in an innocent and childlike manner to some customers,
about certain goods in his father’s shop; and for this he was punished.
The falsehood which his father or some person connected with the shop was
accustomed to tell the customers appears to have been one of the kind
common in some parts of the mercantile world, and which many might to-day
regard as not very sinful—as not worse, at any rate, than the white lies
of society.

The other incident occurred when he was nineteen years of age. He was
connected with a business house in Marseilles, and was required to assist
in throwing overboard rice, which his employer had kept for speculative
purposes and had allowed to remain in the hold of a ship until it was
spoiled. Prices were high, owing to a famine, and it was feared they
would fall if the rice were thrown on the market. Young Fourier argued
that a system which forced children to lie and men to allow food needed
by hungry people to rot must be radically defective.

He began to elaborate a social scheme which should promote truth,
honesty, economy of resources, and the development of our natural
propensities. This became the one aim of his life. He constructed an
ideal world, and in this he ever lived. Association with its imaginary
creatures was his company; the fancy that he had benefited them was his
consolation in adversity, and the unwavering belief that the creations of
his brain were good, enabled him to persevere to the end. Yet at times he
must have felt the severity of his struggle against self and the world.
He had published[66] what he considered a weighty work, “La Théorie des
Quatre Mouvements,” containing a prospectus and an outline of his system,
five years before he found even one supporter. Think what that means!
A reformer presents to mankind plans which he knows will save men from
poverty, selfishness, hypocrisy, corruption, intrigue, deceit, crime, and
all manner of misfortune and wickedness, and for five years his projects
are not so much as noticed. Like Luther of old, he offers to maintain his
theses against all comers, and no one thinks it worth while to engage in
the controversy. The sufferings of humanity pain his large heart, but
year after year slips by and brings not one sympathizer, not one helper,
in his endeavors to save the world. It is easy to speak the words “five
years,” but such a period has often seemed endless to those who have been
obliged to live it.

Fourier’s first supporter was not such a one as he desired to promote his
plans. Slowly others came, but he never had a large following. He wrote
to Robert Owen, the English communist, but received no encouragement,
while the Saint-Simonians treated him with contempt. He did not desire so
much the adherence of personal disciples as men of property, who could
enable him to make a trial of his scheme; for he thought the practical
workings of one experiment would convince the world. He announced
publicly that he would be at home every day at noon to meet any one
disposed to furnish a million francs for an establishment based on the
principles which he had published, and it is said that for twelve years
he repaired to his house daily at the appointed hour. The philanthropist
whom he awaited never came. Only one experiment was made in his lifetime.
In 1832 a member of the Chamber of Deputies offered an estate near
Versailles as the basis of an association, and the offer was accepted by
a few converts. Fourier was never satisfied with the management, which
seems to have been defective, and the experiment soon failed.

Fourier died at the age of sixty-five, without having had the
satisfaction of seeing any decided measures taken for the realization of
his plans. He had, however, succeeded in gaining the appreciation and
friendship of a number of followers, and he passed his last days in the
enjoyment of every comfort.

His tombstone bears this characteristic inscription, expressive of his
faith and his hope:

“Les attractions sont proportionnelles aux destinées,
La série distribue les harmonies.”

Fourier wrote three works of importance. The first is the one already
mentioned, “La Théorie des Quatre Mouvements et des Destinées
Générales”—“The Theory of the Four Movements and the General
Destinies”—published in 1808. The four movements were social, animal,
organic, and material, giving us society, animal life, organic life,
and the material world. The object is to show that one law, that of
attraction, governs them all. Newton discovered the law of one movement,
the material; Fourier, that this same law of attraction pervaded all
four movements. This discovery prepared the way for the most astonishing
and most fortunate event which could happen to this globe—viz., “the
sudden passage from social chaos to universal harmony.”[67] This work
was considered incomplete by Fourier himself, and the fantastic notions
and ridiculous prophecies contained in it were the subject of so much
ridicule and criticism that for a long time he would not mention
the book, and was unwilling to hear others speak of it. When he was
afterwards urged to republish it he refused, saying that it contained
errors, and he should be obliged to rewrite it, to make it satisfactory
to himself.[68]

Fourier’s chief work was his “Traité de l’Association Domestique Agricole
ou Attraction Industrielle”—“Treatise on Domestic Rural Association or
Industrial Attraction”—published subsequently in his complete works
under the title of “La Théorie de l’Unité Universelle”[69]—“The Theory
of Universal Unity.” The first edition appeared in 1822. The fourteen
years between the appearance of the “Théorie des Quatre Mouvements” and
the “Traité de l’Association” were passed in meditation, in revolving and
evolving plans in his mind.

He worked out a complete philosophy in the “Traité.” His system not only
included man and the earth, but the heavens above and the waters under
the earth. His scientific notions were crude in the extreme. Nature
was composed of eternal and indestructible principles—of God, active
and moving principle; of matter, passive principle; and of justice or
mathematics, the regulating principle of the universe, to which God
himself was subject. One of the most curious features of Fourier’s system
is the use he makes of figures. Pythagoras himself did not attach more
importance to them. They revealed to him hitherto undisclosed secrets, so
that he was able to give a precise answer to any conceivable question.
They enabled him to prophesy. He foresaw that the existence of the human
race on this earth was to continue until it completed a period of eighty
thousand years. This period is divided into four phases, two of them
ascending phases of vibration or gradation, and two descending phases of
vibration or degradation. The following table gives the four phases:

ASCENDING VIBRATION.[70]

FIRST PHASE.

Infancy, or ascending incoherence, 1/16 = 5,000 years.

SECOND PHASE.

Growth, or ascending combination, 7/16 = 35,000 years.

DESCENDING VIBRATION.

THIRD PHASE.

Decline, or descending combination, 7/16 = 35,000 years.

FOURTH PHASE.

Dotage, or descending incoherence, 1/16 = 5,000 years.
-------------
Total, 80,000 years.

The life of the race thus resembles the life of man. The earth is just
progressing out of its infancy. It will have passed into the second
phase when it has adopted Fourier’s plan of association. Its life up to
the present time has been weak, childlike, and full of sufferings, but
it is to receive reparation for this in seventy thousand happy years,
surpassing in good fortune any previously described millennium. Lions
will become servitors of man, and draw his carriage from one end of
France to another in a single day; while whales will pull his ships
across the waters, provided he does not prefer to ride on the back of a
seal. Sea-water will become a more delightful beverage than lemonade;
while a bright light at the North Pole will not only render that part of
the world inhabitable, but will diffuse an exquisite aroma over all the
earth. Our bodies are part of the earth, and it suffers with us. When we
adopt Fourier’s scheme we shall cease to suffer, and shall release the
earth from its ills. Our souls are also parts of the great world-soul,
and no part can be in pain without bringing grief to the whole. As
St. Paul has it, “The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain
together.”

Fourier believed, further, in the immortality of the soul, in its
existence hereafter, and in its previous existence. He held to the
transmigration of the soul, and in its frequent return to this earth to
partake in the happy future of the human race. According to him, mind is
always joined to matter so that it may ever enjoy material pleasures.
When the mind leaves one body it unites itself to another, and always
to a higher one. It develops continually. It passes also from world to
world, though ever and anon returning to the earth. Our souls will have
existed in one hundred and ten different worlds before the end of our
planetary system. The planets themselves have immortal souls, which are
also subject to transmigration. At the expiration of eighty thousand
years the soul of the earth will take up its abode in another and more
perfect body.

But it is not necessary to devote more time to these nonsensical
speculations. It is not on their account that Fourier is remembered. He
himself recognized the fact that his chief merit was the production of
his social system. On this point he says:

“But what do these accessories impart to the principal affair, which is
the art of organizing combined industry, whence will issue a fourfold
product; good morals; the accord of the three classes—rich, middle, and
poor; the discontinuance of party quarrels, the cessation of pests,
revolutions, and fiscal penury; and universal unity?

“My detractors condemn themselves in attacking me on account of my views
touching the new sciences—cosmogony, psychogony, analogy—which lie
outside of the domain of the theory of combined industry. Although it
should prove true that these new sciences are erroneous and foolish,[71]
it does not remain less certain that I am the first and the only one who
has presented a plan for associating inequalities and for quadrupling
the products of industry in employing such passions, characters, and
instincts as nature has given us. This is the only point upon which
people ought to fix their attention, and not upon sciences which have
only been announced.”

The “Traité de l’Association” is prolix and tedious. It abounds in
meaningless combinations of figures, letters, and hieroglyphics. New
and strange words, coined without necessity, often render the thoughts
difficult to understand. The wheat which it undoubtedly contains is
buried beneath such an immense pile of chaff that it is too likely to
be overlooked. Fortunately, Fourier has given us a better and more
condensed exposition of his doctrine in the “Nouveau Monde Industriel et
Sociétaire”—“The New Industrial and Social World”—published in 1829,[72]
and the latest of his more important works.

The central idea of Fourier’s social scheme is association. The
all-pervading attraction which he discovered draws man to man and reveals
the will of God. It is passionate attraction—_attraction passionnelle_.
It urges men to union. This law of attraction is universal and eternal,
but men have thrown obstacles in its way so that it has not had free
course. Consequently, we have been driven into wrong and abnormal paths.
When we return to right ways—when we follow the directions given us by
attraction, as indicated in our twelve passions or desires—universal
harmony will again reign. Economic goods—an indispensable condition
of human development—will be obtained in abundance. Products will be
increased many fold, owing, first, to the operation of the passion to
labor and to benefit society; secondly, to the economy of associated
effort.

Since happiness and misery depend upon the latitude allowed our
passions—our propensities—it is necessary to enumerate these. They are
divided into three classes—the one class tending to _luxe_, _luxisme_,
luxury; the second tending to groups; the third to series. By _luxe_
is meant the gratification of the desires of the five senses—hearing,
seeing, feeling, tasting, smelling—each one constituting a passion.
These are sensual in the original sense of the word, or sensitive. Four
passions tend to groups—viz., amity or friendship, love, paternity or
the family feeling (familism), and ambition. These are affective. The
three remaining passions are distributive, and belong to the series.
They are the passions called _cabaliste_, _papillonne_, and _composite_.
The passion _cabaliste_ is the desire for intrigue, for planning and
contriving. It is strong in women and the ambitious. In itself it would
tend to destroy the unity of social life, as would also the passion
_papillonne_, or _alternante_ (the love of change). These are, however,
harmonized by the passion _composite_ (the desire of union). All twelve
passions unite together into the one mighty, all-controlling impulse,
called _unitéisme_, which is the love felt for others united in society,
and is a passion unknown in civilization. It is rather difficult for the
uninitiated to see how this differs from the passion _composite_, unless
it be in strength. The following table serves to make the relations of
the passions clearer:[73]

Seeing } }
Hearing } Passions tending (pertaining) to }
Smelling } luxury (sensual or sensitive). }
Feeling } }
Tasting } }
}
Amity } }
Love } Passions tending to groups (affective). } Unitéisme.
Paternity } }
Ambition } }
}
Cabaliste } Passions tending to }
Papillonne, or alternante } series (distributive). }
Composite } }

A social organization must be formed which will allow free play to
our passions, so that they may combine harmoniously. Our present
society, called civilization,[74] does not, and cannot, do this. It is
a system of oppression and repression, and is necessarily a frightful
discord. Harmony can only be found in combinations of suitable numbers
in communities known as phalanxes, and occupying buildings called
phalansteries. Each phalanx is a unit, a great family, and dwells in a
single building, a phalanstery. What is it that determines the proper
number for a single phalanx? It is again the twelve passions of man.
These can be combined in eight hundred and twenty different ways in as
many individuals, and no possible combination ought to be unrepresented
in the workers of any phalanx, or there will be a lack of perfect
harmony. But in every community there will be found old men, infants, and
those disabled on account of illness or accident. Provision must also
be made for absences. There ought not, then, to be less than fifteen or
sixteen hundred members in a phalanx, though four hundred is mentioned
as a possible but undesirable minimum. Eighteen hundred to two thousand
members are recommended. A larger number would produce discord, and is,
therefore, inadmissible. But a further arrangement is necessary. These
different characters thrown together helter-skelter would no more produce
harmony than it would for one blindfolded to draw from a bag two thousand
combinations of notes for the piano and play them in the order in which
they were drawn. On the contrary, they must be ordered intelligently in
series, the series combined into groups, and the groups united into the
phalanx. Those having similar tastes form a series, which must consist
of some seven, eight, or nine members. Several series having related
tastes and desires unite in a group. A group undertakes some one kind of
labor, as the care of fruit-trees, and a series concerns itself with one
particular branch of the labor of a group, as the care of apple-trees.

All labor becomes pleasant to man, as nature meant it should be. It is
only when he is forced to do a kind which he does not like, or is obliged
to over-work, that productive exertion becomes repulsive. This is avoided
in the phalanxes, as each one is allowed to follow his own bent, being
at perfect liberty to join any group of laborers or to change from group
to group as he may see fit. In fact, the desire for change—the passion
_papillonne_, or _alternante_—is so strong that at the expiration of
two hours a change is usually made from one kind of labor to another.
Work of this character becomes play, and children like it, while men
are as fond of it as of athletic sports. We now discover men undergoing
severe physical exertion for the sake of excelling in running, swimming,
wrestling, rowing, etc. There will spring up a similar rivalry between
groups of cultivators in the phalanxes. One set of laborers will endeavor
to obtain more useful products from ten or one hundred acres than another
similar group from the same extent of land of like quality. We find
such a rivalry at present among cultivators of the soil, and it might
undoubtedly be increased in organizations such as Fourier described.
Every fall you see it reported in local papers that farmer A has raised,
let us say, four hundred bushels of oats from ten acres; this at once
provokes B to inform the world that his ten acres yielded five hundred
bushels. C may report five hundred and fifty bushels in the coming year.
This demonstrates the existence of a rivalry of a valuable kind, of
which much might be made. But Fourier pushed things to an extreme when
he thought that the productiveness of labor might thereby be increased
fourfold, or even fivefold. He held that a man could produce enough under
his social _régime_ from his eighteenth to twenty-eighth year, so that he
could pass the remainder of his life in elegant leisure. He maintained,
too, that if England should introduce his socialistic phalanxes her labor
would become so productive that she could pay off her national debt in
six months by the sale of hens’ eggs. This is what he says on this point:
“It is not by millions, but by billions, that we shall value the product
of small objects which are to-day despised. It is now the turn of eggs to
play a grand _rôle_, and resolve a problem before which those learned in
European finance have grown pale. They only know how to increase public
indebtedness. We are going to extinguish the colossal English debt on a
fixed day with half of the eggs produced during a single year. We shall
not lay violent hands on a single fowl, and the work of accomplishing our
purpose, instead of being burdensome, will be an amusement for the globe.

“Let us make an arithmetical calculation. We wish to pay a debt of
twenty-five billions during the year 1835, with hen’s eggs.

“Let us estimate, to begin with, the real value of these eggs. I appraise
them at ten sous or half a franc a dozen, when they are guaranteed fresh
and of a good size, like those of the hens of Caux....

“Valuing at ten sous a dozen the guaranteed good, large, and fresh eggs
of fowls, nourished with all the resources of art, we should have to
count upon fifty billions of dozens of eggs in order to extinguish in a
single year the English debt.

“The hen, the most precious of fowls, is a truly cosmopolitan bird. With
suitable care she becomes acclimated everywhere. She flourishes on the
sands of Egypt and among the glaciers of the North.

“I will prove that the hennery of one phalanx ought to contain at least
10,000 hens, not including the pullets, twenty times as numerous.

“Let us estimate that a hen lays 200 eggs a year. She ought not, perhaps,
to be expected to do this under our present social _régime_, but well
cared-for in a socialistic phalanx she could do rather more....

“Let us add up, and, after the manner of good housewives, neglect
fractions.... Let us suppose that the hennery of each phalanx contains
12,000 hens, instead of 10,000.

“One thousand dozens of eggs at half a franc the dozen would amount to
500 francs. Multiplying this by 200, we would have from each phalanx a
product valued at 100,000 francs. We must now multiply this by 600,000,
the number of phalanxes, which gives a total product of 60,000,000,000.

“Now, as we have estimated the number of hens at 12,000 for each phalanx,
in order to facilitate the calculation, it will be necessary to deduct
one sixth from our product, which will leave 50,000,000,000. Divide this
by two, and the quotient is 25,000,000,000, precisely the amount of the
English debt expressed in round numbers.”—Q. E. D.

Of course, such amusing and ridiculous passages in Fourier’s writings do
not give us any sufficient ground for condemning the cardinal principles
of Fourierism.

Besides the productivity of labor by a rivalry between producers, the
socialistic phalanx will avoid the waste of goods caused by industrial
and commercial competition. Twenty men are often employed to do what
three or four might accomplish with ease, were the labor properly
organized. Think of the enormous loss to society of labor and capital
due to a superfluity of retail shops all over a great country like the
United States! It may not have occurred to some that whenever capital,
consisting of economic goods, like houses, buildings, implements, etc.,
is not fully employed, or whenever men are waiting for work, economic
power is being wasted. This view of the effects of competition ought to
influence our legislators more than it does. Let us take the case of
two parallel railroads, where one might do all the business. Thousands
of acres of land are needlessly and forever removed from agricultural
purposes, thousands of tons of iron and steel are diverted from other
uses, the labor of hundreds of men is permanently wasted—in short, the
millions sunk in the enterprise in the first place, together with the
cost of maintaining and working it, are forever lost to the society.
Competition thus often makes it cost far more to do a given amount of
business than it would otherwise. If Fourierism could rid us of the evils
of free competition without depriving us of the benefits we derive from
it, it would, indeed, be in so far a great blessing to the world. Fourier
felt positive that it could, but he has never succeeded in convincing a
large number to put faith in his bright promises.

The economy of associated effort and associated life is one of the
leading factors which will increase the wealth of man. Every square
league of land has its one phalanstery occupied by a phalanx, consisting
of some four hundred families. It costs no more to build a palace for
all these families than it would to construct four hundred separate
and uncomfortable cottages. While each family has its separate rooms,
cooking is carried on in common, and great saving is thereby secured.
A fire to cook four hundred dinners may not cost ten times as much as
a fire to cook two, while it requires scarcely a greater exertion to
watch a large roast than a small one. In the housing of animals, foods,
implements, etc., a similar economy is secured. A large number working
together afford every opportunity for a fruitful combination and division
of labor. Other economies will be effected by the suppression of useless
classes. In the new society there will be no soldiers of destruction,
no policemen, agents of a discordant social _régime_, no criminals and
lawyers, both products of civilization, of disharmony; finally, no
metaphysicians and no political economists. Agriculture is the leading
occupation, while commerce and manufacturing industry are reduced to a
minimum. Products are conveniently exchanged among members of a commune,
while phalanx exchanges superfluities with phalanx and nation with nation
in the most economical manner.

Fourier’s socialistic system is not so pure a form of socialism as that
of Saint-Simon, inasmuch as he retained private capital and, temporarily
at least, inheritance. The division of products takes place in this wise:
A certain minimum—a very generous one—is set apart for each member of the
commune, and the enormous surplus is divided between labor, capital, and
talent—five twelfths going to labor, four twelfths to capital, and three
twelfths to talent. The division is made by the phalanxes through the
agency of officers whom they elect. The maxim is not labor according to
capacity and reward according to services, as with the Saint-Simonians,
but labor according to capacity and reward in proportion to exertion,
talent, and capital. Labor is divided into three classes—necessary,
useful, and agreeable—the highest reward accruing to the first and the
smallest to the last division, in accordance with the principles of
equity.

Government—for which, however, there seems to be little need—is
republican. Officers are elected. The chief of a phalanx is a unarch.
The next highest officer is at the head of three or four phalanxes,
and is called a duarch. Triarchs, tetrarchs, pentarchs, etc., follow;
while the highest officer of the world is the omniarch, who dwells at
Constantinople, the capital of the world.

While there are grades in society, the rich and powerful are so animated
by the spirit of association—_unitéisme_—that the differences give no
offence. Familism, the love of those nearest and dearest, loses its
excluding character. The law of social attraction, “while it conserves
the ties and affections of the family, will destroy its exclusive
interests. Association will mingle it to such an extent with the great
communal or phalansterian family that every narrow affection will
disappear, that it will find its own interest in that of all, and will
attach it sincerely and passionately to the public concern (_chose
publique_).”[75]

Fourier favored the so-called emancipation of woman, and assigned her a
high rank in society. He found the economic, legal, and social position
of woman at any given period, or in any country, an exact measure of the
true civilization of said period or country. At the same time he was
obliged to allow many things which good men generally regard as degrading
to woman, as he started from the belief that all natural desires and
propensities were good. It is much to be feared that he would practically
have abolished marriage and the family, as we now understand these
institutions. It is altogether probable that Fourier would have been more
successful in his propaganda had his ideas in every respect been more in
consonance with the teachings of Christian morality.

Fourier was naturally a man of peace. Holding, as he did, that a single
experiment would convince the world that his system of phalanxes was
the only correct organization, he could not consistently advocate a
violent revolution. He believed that the millennium was to dawn in a few
years, even within a shorter period than ten years. Once he advised his
followers not to purchase real property, as the progress of Fourierism
would soon cause it to depreciate in value. His disciples have been
disappointed in their hope that men would speedily accept the principles
of their master, but they have ever opposed violence.

Kaufmann, in his “Schäffle’s Socialism,” thus sums up the chief merits
of Fourier’s teachings: “There is a good deal of truth in some of
his critical remarks. The importance of co-operative production has
been recognized chiefly in consequence of his first pointing out the
economical benefits of the association. The narrow-minded fear of
wholesale trade, and machinery, too, was in a measure dispelled by
Fourier’s unqualified recognition of their value. His remarks on the
unnecessary hardships of labor and the evil consequences of excessive
toil have had their influence on modern factory-laws for the protection
of labor and the shortening of the labor hours. Sanitary reforms, and
improvements of the laborer’s homestead, which have become the question
of the hour, owe not a little of their origin to the spread of Fourier’s
ideas.”

Fourier’s first adherent was Just Muiron, who attached himself to the
master in 1813, and remained a faithful follower for many years. He
wrote two works,[76] in which he exhibited the vices of our existing
industrial society and explained the metaphysical principles of
Fourierism. Gradually others joined the movement, of whom the most
important was Victor Considerant, the author of “La Destinée Sociale,
Exposition Élémentaire, Complète de la Théorie Sociétaire”—“Social
Destiny, a Complete Elementary Exposition of the Social Theory”—published
in the years 1834-38, in three volumes, and in a new edition, in 1851,
in two volumes. This is the ablest presentation of the doctrine, and
has become, as another writer has said, the text-book of the school.
Among other members of note may be mentioned Baudet-Dulary, the deputy
who, in 1832, offered an estate for an experimental association; Madame
Gatti de Gammond, author of the best short and popular exposition of
Fourierism;[77] Madame Clarisse Vigoureux, a wealthy and talented
lady;[78] Charles Pellarin, the able biographer of his master;[79]
finally, Jules le Chevalier, a former Saint-Simonian, and author of a
Fourieristic work of importance.[80] When the Saint-Simonians separated,
a considerable number of them passed over to Fourierism. It will be seen
that the new doctrine lacked neither wealth nor ability. Its numbers were
at first small, but after the death of Fourier the school received large
accessions of adherents. The disciples published a paper, which, under
various names,[81] and with breaks in its appearance, was published as
a weekly, monthly, and daily. The disciples finally formed “The Society
for the Propagation and Realization of the Theory of Fourier”—“La
Société pour la Propagation et pour la Réalisation de la Théorie de
Fourier”—which is probably still alive. At any rate, a writer[82] stated
in 1872 that it was then in existence, in possession of a capital of
seven hundred thousand francs, and was still determined to labor for the
good cause. All the strictly Fourieristic experiments tried in France
thus far have failed. Possibly another trial may be more successful. At
present the school embraces only a small number of peaceful socialists,
living mostly in Paris. Victor Considerant, now seventy-five years old,
is among these.

One of the best fruits which Fourier’s teachings have borne may be found
in a social community at Guise, in France, where capital and labor are
associated much after his plans, although all objectionable and immoral
elements appear to have been left out. The founder is Jean Godin, a
wealthy manufacturer, and a Fourierist with modified views, who has used
his wealth to benefit his own laborers directly and immediately, by
providing them with comfortable homes, amusements, instruction, etc.,
and laborers, as a class, indirectly and remotely, by paving the way
for a higher form of social life, a certain kind of co-operation. He
himself says of the _Familistère_ at Guise, as the building in which
the community lives is called, that it “is the first example of a
capital resolutely employed under a single direction, with the view of
uniting in one place all the things necessary to the life of a large
number of working families; it is the first example of an administration
concentrating operations so diverse in order that the results may
accrue to the greatest good of the families, removing thus useless
intermediaries: all this in preserving, by an economic organization, the
capital engaged in the enterprise.”[83]

While the community resembles a phalanx, as described by Fourier, in many
respects, it also differs from it in many others. It resembles it in its
abode, constructed much like a phalanstery, and with a large share of
the elegance and comfort so glowingly pictured by Fourier. It resembles
it also in securing economy and increased comfort by associated effort.
Further resemblance is found in the care for the children, the sick, the
aged, and the disabled, in the provision for education and recreation,
and in the attempt to realize a condition of things fitting those who
believe in the brotherhood of man. Differences are found in the large
share of power which M. Godin has reserved for himself, the removal of
obviously ridiculous and fantastic contrivances, and in the absence
altogether of agriculture, which Fourier considered the chief occupation
of regenerated society. The establishment consists of iron, copper,
sugar, and chiccory factories. M. Godin regrets that agriculture has not
been included in the pursuits, but it does not seem to have been found
practicable.

The social body consists of about fifteen hundred members. The
_familistère_, or social palace in which they live, is thus described:
it is “‘an immense brick edifice in the form of three parallelograms,’
each of which encloses an interior court, covered with a glass roof
and paved with cement. The building is four stories high. The central
parallelogram, or rectangle, is two hundred and eleven feet front and
one hundred and thirty feet deep.... The stores of the association ...
on the lowest story of the central portion of the building ... contain
whatever is necessary for ordinary need and comfort, without reference to
luxuries.... ‘In the social palace fifteen hundred persons can see each
other go to their daily domestic occupations, reunite in public places,
go to market or shopping, under covered galleries, without traversing
more than two hundred yards, and, as comfortably in one kind of weather
as in another.’”[84] There is also a large nursery, where children are
taught “to associate equitably with one another.” They are brought there
by the mothers at about ten in the morning, and are taken back to the
family apartments between five and six in the afternoon. Many pleasant
things are connected with the life in this social palace, as it is
called. There are numerous concerts, and a theatre furnishes opportunity
for theatricals. Even a billiard-room is provided for the amusement of
the members. Two festivals are celebrated yearly—“The Festival of Labor,”
in May, and the “Festival of the Children,” in September.[85]

The following are a few extracts from the declaration of principles with
which their “laws” open:

“V. It is the essential duty of society and of every individual
so to regulate their conduct as to produce the greatest
possible benefits to humanity, and to make this the constant
object of all their thoughts, words, and actions.

“VI. The perception of this duty has dictated to the sages of
all time the following precepts:

“‘To love others as one’s self.’

“‘To act towards others as you would wish that they should act
towards you.’

“‘To make our abilities conduce to the perfection of our
existence and that of others.’ ...

“‘To unite together and give support to one another.’

“VII.... The laws of universal order, and especially the law of
human progress, place at the disposal of men—

“The resources of nature and those of the public property.

“Labor and intelligence.

“Capital or accumulated labor.

“VIII. It is for the good of all humanity that nature vivifies
and produces everything useful to human life, and it is,
without doubt, for the benefit of all, that each generation
should transmit to its successors its acquired knowledge.

“IX. By giving existence to man, God accords to him a right to
what is necessary for him in the resources which nature every
day affords to humanity, as well as the right to profit by the
progress of society.

“XI. (The) perpetual and gratuitous assistance from nature
proves that man, by the very fact of his birth, acquires, and
should never lose, a certain degree of natural right in the
wealth that is produced.

“Hence it follows that the weak have the right to enjoy what
nature and the public property place at the disposal of men.

“And that it is the duty of the strong to leave to the weak a
just share of the general product.”[86]

The products are divided according to this socialistic—not
communistic—scheme between labor and capital. It has existed upwards of
twenty years thus far, and has prospered. This may have been due to the
talent of M. Godin, its founder. Whether it will be able to maintain its
existence after his death remains to be seen.[87]

M. Godin has described his views on social problems and his endeavors to
benefit the laborers in a valuable work entitled “Solutions Sociales,”
which should be read carefully by those who contemplate founding
co-operative or other establishments for the benefit of the masses.

Fourierism was brought to America about 1840, and soon found numerous
advocates, including many names of which America is proud. Prominent
among the leaders were Albert Brisbane,[88] the head of the movement,
Horace Greeley, and Charles A. Dana. In his “History of American
Socialisms,” Mr. Noyes mentions thirty-four experiments made by
Fourierists in this country, all of which failed for some reason or
other. The most remarkable of these experiments was Brook Farm. At first
it was not called a phalanx, although from the start it combined many
of the features of Fourierism, but it shortly fell in line and became a
Fourieristic experiment. When it is mentioned that its leading spirits
were George Ripley, Charles A. Dana, Margaret Fuller, and others of like
character, it is needless to add that its moral basis was sound. Others,
more or less connected with the experiment, were George William Curtis,
Horace Greeley, Dr. Channing, and Nathaniel Hawthorne. Its exceedingly
interesting and pathetic history is to be found in Frothingham’s “George
Ripley.”[89]

CHAPTER VI.

LOUIS BLANC.

Saint-Simon and Fourier are first among French socialists. In the history
of society no socialistic systems occupy a higher rank than those to
which they gave their names. France has, however, produced two other men
who have taken positions as leaders in social movements. If Saint-Simon
and Fourier take precedence over them in the hierarchy of socialists,
there is certainly no Frenchman who can dispute their right to the next
highest places. They were chiefs after Saint-Simonism and Fourierism had
begun to wane and before German socialism had begun to exist. These two
men were Louis Blanc and Proudhon, and it is necessary to devote a few
words to them before passing over to a very brief consideration of the
latest phases of French socialism.

Saint-Simon and Fourier were social reformers only. They divorced
economic reform from politics. They did not seek to use the existing
political machinery of society as a means to their ends. They appealed
to religious fervor, to brotherly love, to self-interest, and to
passionate attraction, and regarded these as quite sufficient moving
and organizing forces. Although these men accomplished much, it was
very little in proportion to their hopes and expectations. What they
did bring to pass did not come precisely in the way they wished it. To
all intents and purposes the great social problem seemed as far from
solution as ever. The next step in the development of socialism was its
connection with politics. A man was needed who should recognize the
intimate relation between political and social life, and should take the
lead in the attempt to use the power of the one to regenerate the other.
Louis Blanc was the one destined to lead socialism into this way. This
is his true significance. He was the first state socialist. He was a
practical politician of too much influence to make it possible to ignore
him, but politics were always a means, never an end. Louis Blanc is
thus the connecting link between the older socialism, which was in many
respects superstitious, absurd, and fantastical, and the newer, which is
sceptical, hard, and practical.

Louis Blanc, journalist, author, politician, socialist, was born in
Madrid, Spain, October 28, 1813. His parents were French people, who
were living temporarily in Madrid, as his father had been appointed
General Inspector of Finance under Joseph Bonaparte. They naturally left
Spain soon after this and Louis Blanc passed his early years in Corsica,
his mother’s native land. He studied in the College at Rodez, and went
to Paris about 1830 to continue his studies. As the revolution had
ruined his father, Louis appears for some time to have been obliged to
live in cramped circumstances. He assisted himself at first by copying
and teaching, but he soon began to make his influence as a writer
felt. He became one of the editors of _Le Bon Sens_ in 1834, was made
editor-in-chief in 1837, and resigned in 1838, owing to a difference
of views between him and the proprietors of the journal, regarding the
railway question, they holding to the system of private railways while
he favored state railways. He also contributed at the same time to the
_National_, the _Revue Républicaine_ and other papers, all of which
were republican or radical periodicals. In 1839 he founded the _Revue
du Progrès_, which became the organ of the most advanced democrats, and
it was in this paper that his chief socialistic work, “Organisation du
Travail”—“Organization of Labor”—appeared in 1840. It was published
afterwards in book-form, and has achieved a world-wide fame. The ninth
edition appeared in 1850. The first volume of his most important
historical work, the “Histoire de Dix Ans”—“History of the Ten Years”
(1830-40)—appeared in 1841. It was completed in sixteen volumes[90] in
1844. A twelfth edition was published in Paris in 1874, in five volumes.
This is one of the most remarkable of histories. Few literary works have
exercised a greater influence in shaping events. It held up the meanness,
littleness, and narrowness of the reign of Louis Philippe to public
gaze and contributed not a little to the overthrow of that monarch.
It further contains a better account of the development of socialism
during that period than can be obtained elsewhere. Louis Blanc was an
actor in the events of the ten years described, and understood their
import. He saw the separation growing ever wider and wider between the
_bourgeoisie_ and the fourth estate, and the political influence which
the latter was beginning to acquire, and appreciated the significance of
this development as no other writer. His work has consequently become
an indispensable source of information regarding the reign of Louis
Philippe. Next to the “History of the Ten Years” his leading historical
work is the “History of the French Revolution”—“Histoire de la Révolution
Française,” published in twelve volumes[91] in the years 1847-62. A
second edition bears the date 1864-70. This work treats of a period
which he did not understand so well as his own age. Viewing the events
described through the eyes of a nineteenth century socialist, he does
not always appreciate the underlying spirit. Nevertheless the work is a
noteworthy one. “Charles Sumner used to say that the first volume was
one of those profoundly philosophical studies which mark an epoch in
literature and in the development of human intelligence.”[92] Another
writer says of this history: “By many eminent judges this has been
considered the most satisfactory history of the revolution yet produced.
It gives evidence of careful and ingenious research, abounds in most
striking delineations of character, and is written with great energy and
brilliancy of style. The portraiture of Robespierre, and the description
of events leading to his fall, are among the most satisfactory accounts
of the subject ever presented.”[93]

Louis Blanc was prominent in the Revolution of 1848. He was made a
member of the Provisional Government in February, 1848, and with his
colleagues, Albert, a workman, and Ledru-Rollin, a former member of the
assembly, attempted to commit the government to the introduction of a
large number of socialistic measures. The majority were, however, opposed
to him, and he did not meet with a great measure of success, although
the _droit au travail_ was proclaimed. This is the technical term for
the right of laborers to demand work from the government if they cannot
find it elsewhere.[94] He demanded the creation of a ministry of labor
and progress—_ministère du travail et du progrès_—which should concern
itself with the interests of labor. Unable to obtain the consent of the
majority of his colleagues, Louis Blanc tendered his resignation, but was
finally induced to withdraw it and content himself with the presidency of
a powerless commission appointed to meet in the Luxembourg and debate.
That was all—debate. But what does debate without authority signify
in a revolution? It means the loss of precious time and of all real
influence. It is contemptible and ridiculous in the eyes of the masses
at such times. Louis Blanc was lost when he consented to the formation
of a debating club as a substitute for a _ministère du progrès_. This
was the purpose of the government. They made a pretext of carrying out
what was implied in the _droit au travail_ by the erection of national
workshops—_ateliers nationaux_. The real purpose of the ministers was
the discredit of Louis Blanc, who had proposed _ateliers sociaux_ in his
“Organisation du Travail.” They planned the foundation of sham national
workshops, which should fail and demonstrate the impracticability of his
scheme, and they carried out the programme to the letter. M. Marie, the
Minister of Public Works, intrusted the management of the _ateliers_
to Émile Thomas, one of Louis Blanc’s worst enemies, informing Thomas
that “it was the well-formed intention of the government to try this
experiment of the commission of government for laborers; that in itself
it could not fail to have good results, because it would demonstrate to
the laborers the emptiness and falseness of these inapplicable theories
and cause them to perceive the disastrous consequences flowing therefrom
for themselves, and would so discredit Louis Blanc in their eyes that
he should forever cease to be a danger.”[95] The false reports which
were continually being circulated concerning the _ateliers nationaux_,
especially their unjust attribution to him, were a constant source of
annoyance to Louis Blanc. It is probable, however, that these falsehoods
have done more harm to the defenders of law and order than to the
socialists. The true state of the case is now generally known, and adds
bitterness to the minds of French and German laborers. The continual
circulation of the falsehood that Louis Blanc had tried his _ateliers
sociaux_ and they had failed, enabled Lassalle to begin an account
of them with the startling phrase: “Die Lüge ist eine europäische
Macht”—“Lying is one of the great powers of Europe.”[96]

Louis Blanc’s power was of short duration. Although he sacrificed his
popularity with the laborers in his endeavors to maintain peace and
order, he was accused of participation in their rising of May 15, and
fled to Belgium, thence to England, where he lived until the overthrow
of Napoleon III., in 1870. Louis Blanc was, on the whole, well received
in England, and maintained himself by literary work of various kinds.
He wrote an account of the Revolution of 1848, which was published in
two volumes, in 1870, in Paris. He was the English correspondent for the
great French newspaper _Le Temps_. His letters, interesting and valuable
essays on life in England, were published in four volumes in 1866 and
1867, in Paris, and in an English translation in London in the same
years.[97]

The 8th of September, 1870, witnessed his return to France, where he
labored for the Government of the National Defence. He was elected to the
National Assembly, February 8, 1871, and took his place on the extreme
Left. During the rising of the Commune of Paris he again lost popularity
with laborers of revolutionary sympathies, by opposing the insurrection
and taking the part of the Government of Versailles. The law of March 14,
1872, directed against the International Workingmen’s Association, even
found in him a supporter, although its severity is certainly extreme. It
was under this law that Prince Krapotkine was sentenced to five years’
imprisonment.

After his return to Paris Louis Blanc published a work on questions
of the time, entitled “Questions d’Aujourd’hui et de Demain.”[98] He
continued to advocate quietly his doctrines in behalf of oppressed
humanity, and had so gained in public estimation that upon his death, on
the 6th of December, 1882, in Cannes, France, the Chamber of Deputies
voted him the honor of a state funeral.[99]

Louis Blanc’s is a character which it is difficult to resist loving,
so frank, generous, simple, and whole-souled was he. If he erred, it
was largely because he attributed to others that warmth and devotion
for common interests which he experienced, and that high point of honor
which guided him. His tender solicitude and affection for his wife was
beautiful, while his love for his brother Charles, the writer on art,
has been celebrated far and wide. It is even said that his diminutive
size was due to his sacrifices in behalf of the younger brother, to whom
he gave the largest share of the lunch which they carried to school. A
sympathetic chord seemed to connect them, for when Charles was ill in
the summer of 1882, Louis, to whom the news had not been communicated,
said to his friends, “Charles is ill: he is in danger.” So it proved,
for Charles soon died. The affliction was a heavy blow to the surviving
brother, and probably hastened his own death, which happened only a few
months later. “Charles Blanc was a kind of complement to Louis. The
delicacy of his (Charles’s) intellectual nature was a source of ever-new
delight to the politician and man of the people, whose heart throbbed for
all the woes and wants of humanity, and whose life was devoted to action
rather than to the contemplation of art.”[100] This intimate affection
had been noticed long before, and Alexander Dumas had them in mind when
he wrote his “Les Frères Corses”—“The Corsican Brothers.”

Louis’s purity of character and his honesty of purpose were remarked
by every acquaintance. Mr. Smalley[101] applies to him what Emerson
said of Charles Sumner: “He was the whitest soul I ever knew:” and
continues: “If ever a man lived free from stain, it was he who has
just died. All his life long the fierce light of passionate political
and still more passionate social controversies beat upon him. He made
innumerable enemies; he was the object of innumerable calumnies. Not
one of his enemies hated the _man_, not one of the calumnies touched
his private worth.” Karl Blind, his friend, thus describes his personal
appearance: “A very small, but elegantly formed man; of almost Napoleonic
features, as may be common to many Corsicans; entirely beardless, which
was rare in the revolutionary days. The glance of his dark, prominent
eyes, brilliant, almost sparkling; his thick, dark-brown hair, long and
straight; the color of his countenance rather dark. Notwithstanding
his short figure—for he was not taller than Thiers—an impressive
appearance.”[102]

An examination of Louis Blanc’s social philosophy is best begun by asking
the question: what is in his opinion the aim of life? The answer to it
is the starting-point from which all his arguments proceed. Louis Blanc
finds the purpose of human existence to be happiness and development. Any
acceptable, any tolerable organization of society must make both possible
for every single human being. While development may come first, “it is
repugnant to reason to admit in the theory of progress that humanity
ought forever to be a victim of I do not know what strange and terrible
combat between the flesh and the spirit.”[103] But what does development
imply? It signifies that every one should enjoy precisely those means
which are required for his largest mental, moral, and physical growth;
or, to express it in a word, for the perfection of his personality. These
requirements are for each individual his _needs_. The next question
we have to ask is this: Does our present society guarantee to every
member of it his needs? If it does not, it must be condemned. Obviously
it does not. It is a war of all against all, a _bellum omnium contra
omnes_. It is a society whose fundamental principle is competition, and
competition means universal warfare. Every man’s hand is against his
brother. Individualism reigns, the principle of which is that, “taking
man outside of society, it renders him the sole and exclusive judge of
that which surrounds him, gives him an exalted sentiment of his rights
without indicating to him his duties, abandons him to his own powers,
and proclaims _laissez-faire_ as the only rule of government.”[104]
The result of this is want and misery, rendering the fulfilment of his
destiny impossible to man. This must be corrected by a new organization
of labor, which, abandoning individualism, private property, and private
competition, the fundamentals of existing society, shall adopt fraternity
as its controlling principle. “Fraternity means that we are all common
members (_membres solidaires_) of one great family; that society, the
work of man, ought to be organized on the model of the human body, the
work of God; and found the power of governing upon persuasion, upon the
voluntary consent of the hearts of the governed.”[105]

Let it not be objected that our aim, the abolition of misery, is
materialistic. “The most exalted spiritualism reposes on the suppression
of misery. Who does not know it? Misery restrains the intelligence of
man in darkness, in confining education within shameful limits. Misery
counsels always the sacrifice of personal dignity and almost always
demands it. Misery places him whose character is independent in a
position of dependence, so as to conceal a new torment in a virtue and
to change into gall what there is of nobility in his blood. If misery
creates long-suffering, it engenders also crime.... It makes slaves;
it makes the greater part of thieves, assassins and prostitutes.”[106]
The work before us is then eminently moral. It is the work which God
would have us do. In Louis Blanc’s own words: “In demanding that the
right to live should be regulated, should be guaranteed, one does much
more than demand that millions of unhappy beings should be rescued from
the oppression of force or of chance; one embraces, in its highest
generalization and in its most profound signification, the cause of
humanity; one greets the Creator in his labor. Whenever the certainty
of being able to live by one’s labor does not result from the essence
of social institutions, iniquity reigns.” The first step then is the
contrivance of means which shall guarantee to every one the certainty of
finding work _i.e._, the _droit au travail_. This must be accomplished
by the erection on the part of the state of social workshops, _ateliers
sociaux_, “destined to replace gradually and without shocks individual
_ateliers_.”[107] Violence of every kind is deprecated as injurious, as
productive of ruin.[108] The poor cannot now combine and produce for
themselves without the intervention of capitalists, because they lack
the instruments of labor. It is the function of the state to furnish
these and thus become the banker of the poor. It must found the _ateliers
sociaux_, pass laws for their government, watch over the administration
of these laws as of other laws, and do this for the profit of all.[109]
For the first year only the state regulates the “hierarchy of functions,”
that is to say, assigns to each one his place in accordance with his
ability, his faculties. After the expiration of the first year the
laborers will soon become acquainted with each other, and will then elect
their own chiefs.[110] This all requires funds. Whence are they to come?
The state is to grant its credit in aid of the _ateliers_, and for this
credit no interest is to be charged; it is to be gratuitous. The state
will repay the loans by general taxation and by the revenues derived from
the management of railways, which must become public property, and from
other public undertakings, as mines, insurances, and banking.[111]

The absorption of private industry will be gradual. The public _ateliers_
will all be united from the start into a grand federation, and will
form a mutual insurance company, so that the losses of one may be made
good by the profits of others. One part of all profits will be set aside
for this purpose.[112] Capitalists will at once be invited to join these
associations, and will be paid interest on whatever capital they put
into the _ateliers_, besides receiving their wages like other laborers.
While no one is to be forced by law to join the social workshops, the
competition of the _ateliers sociaux_, working without the payment of
interest and with all the advantages of a vast combination, will before
long become so severe that all private employers will be glad to fall in
line to save themselves from ruin. Then the socialistic state will have
been formed. It is for the interest of the rich as well as the poor. They
will then enjoy safety, tranquillity and the satisfaction of observing
universal happiness, whereas they are now harassed by all sorts of
dangers and anxieties, born of individualism and private competition.[113]

We have finally to inquire what is the principle in accordance with which
functions (positions, offices) and remuneration are distributed among the
workers in the _ateliers sociaux_? What is the ideal of social justice?

First, as to the social hierarchy, or social rank. Faculties, powers,
abilities, are of almost infinite variety in man. They are, however, all
talents meant to be used for others. Have I great strength? In giving
it to me God measured thereby my obligations to society. The same holds
regarding mental acumen, profundity of thought, poetic imagination,
a fine voice, etc. We must then be so placed that we can use to the
full our capacities. These are the measure of our rank in the ordering
of society. “Man has received of nature certain faculties—faculties of
loving, of knowing, of acting. But these have by no means been given
him in order that he should exercise them solitarily; they are but
the supreme indication of that which each one owes to the society of
which he is a member; and this indication each one bears written in his
organization in letters of fire. If you are twice as strong as your
neighbor it is a proof that nature has destined you to bear a double
burden.[114] If your intelligence is superior, it is a sign that your
mission is to scatter about you more light. Weakness is a creditor of
strength; ignorance of learning. The more a man _can_ (_peut_), the more
he _ought_ (_doit_); and this is the meaning of those beautiful words of
the gospel: ‘Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.’
Whence the axiom, _From every one according to his faculties_; that is
one’s DUTY.”[115]

But this is only one half of the formula of ideal justice. It shows what
each is to give. What is each to receive? We saw that the Saint-Simonians
constructed their social hierarchy in accordance with capacity. They
added, however, that reward must be proportioned to works. “To each one
according to his capacity, to each capacity according to its works.”
But is that a high moral standard? Ought we to complete our formula in
that way? Is it not selfish and hard? Would it not condemn the weak
and feeble to extinction? Has not God, in our wants, our needs, given
us a different indication? So thought Louis Blanc. Not equality, but
needs, are to determine the distribution of products. Each one must
have whatever he truly needs, in so far and in proportion as the means
of society will admit it. “All men are not equal in physical force,
in intelligence; all have not the same tastes, the same inclinations,
the same aptitudes, any more than they have the same visage or the
same figure; but it is just, it is in the general interest, it is in
conformity with the principle of solidarity, established in accordance
with the laws of nature, that each one should be placed in a condition to
derive the greatest possible advantage from his faculties in so far as
this can be done with due regard to others, and to satisfy as completely
as possible, without injuring others, the needs which nature has given
him. Thus there is no health and vigor in the human body unless each
member receives that which is able to preserve it from pain and to enable
it to accomplish properly its peculiar function. Equality, then, is only
proportionality, and it exists in a true manner only when each one in
accordance with the law written in some shape in his organization by God
himself, PRODUCES ACCORDING TO HIS FACULTIES AND CONSUMES ACCORDING TO
HIS WANTS.”[116] Here we have the formula of perfect justice complete.

We see, then, that Louis Blanc was not an _égalitaire_. He opposed
equality as unnatural and unjust.[117] He was, however, unwilling to
adopt works as a basis of inequality. It would, nevertheless, amount in
the end to pretty much the same, although the animating spirit might be
different. Who would occupy the superior positions in Louis Blanc’s ideal
state? Naturally the ablest, the largest natures. But those are precisely
the ones whose needs are greatest. The true wants of the ignorant day
laborer are simple and easily satisfied. Books tire him, grand music
wearies him, while he turns away uninterested from the greatest painting
of an old master. How different are the wants of a sensitive, refined
nature like Louis Blanc himself; how much larger, how much more expensive
to gratify! It is, indeed, pleasant to think of society as one vast
Christian family, in which each would gladly contribute to the common
good in proportion to his faculties, and in which all would cheerfully
accord to every member whatever he truly needed for his most perfect
development. But does the attempt to bring about such a state of society
take men as they are or presuppose them as they ought to be? It is truly
a glorious ideal! but will it ever become a reality this side of the
golden gates of Paradise?

CHAPTER VII.

PROUDHON.

The principle of authority occupied a prominent place in the socialistic
schemes of Saint-Simon and Louis Blanc. The former planned a religious
society in which the priests should exercise undisputed sway over the
production and distribution of goods, assigning to each member of the
society his proper rank and rewarding him in proportion to his services.
The latter expressly demanded a strong government, in order that it might
be able to transform the economic life of the people by the erection
of social workshops, although a large amount of local self-government
was in the end to be allowed to each group of workers. Fourier did not
explicitly reject the principle of authority, but contrived a system in
which it should be easy and natural to rule and to be ruled, in so far
as any ruling was necessary. There existed in his mind still a large and
compact social organization. He made war, not on authority in itself,
but upon all restraint placed on the desires and passions of man. He
thought a natural combination of these rendered compulsion unnecessary.
There was thus room left for another advance in the development of
French socialism. A problem which had not as yet been attempted, was to
unite absolute and unqualified individualism with perfect justice in the
production of goods, and in their distribution. Does not this imply a
contradiction? Can there be such a thing as individualistic socialism?
or socialistic individualism? Can collectivism and anarchy obtain in
the same group of people? Do they not mutually exclude each other? What
matter! The task must be tried; and a man appeared on the scene who
delighted in contradictions, and thought that truth sprang out of their
union. This man was Proudhon.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was born July 15, 1809, in Besançon, of humble
parents. His father was a cooper, while his mother was a bright and
vigorous country girl. He was of the people, the masses, and he spoke of
it freely as an advantage. Proudhon professed that he always remained
one of them and thus knew their life. It was early necessary that he
should assist in his support, and this he did by agricultural labor, in
particular by guarding the cows as they pastured on the mountains of
the Jura. Later he became a waiter in a restaurant. Time was, however,
found for the school and the college, where he distinguished himself for
unusual talents and carried off a large number of prizes and honors.
The public library furnished him with reading-matter, so that he read a
large number of books before he was fourteen. He used to call for as many
as six books at a time. At the age of nineteen Proudhon was compelled
to leave the college in order to assist his father, whose business had
fallen into a sad condition. He learned the printer’s trade and soon
became a corrector in a publishing house of some note, which became to
him a school. The house published a large number of theological works,
which he perused so carefully that it was afterwards supposed that he had
studied at a theological seminary. He learned Hebrew when they published
a Bible with an interlinear translation. The result was that he was able
to contribute a number of theological articles to the “Encyclopédie
Catholique.”

The Académie de Besançon having honors and prizes to distribute,
proposed every year a subject for an essay. In 1839 the subject was
“The Utility of the Celebration of Sunday.” Proudhon competed for the
prize, but was not successful, although the book met with some praise,
and passed through two editions in two years. He had, however, already
been fortunate enough to secure a pension of 1500 francs, which had been
founded to encourage literature and science, and placed in charge of the
Académie. Besides his work demonstrating the utility of the observation
of Sunday, Proudhon had written several essays of more or less merit
on comparative philology, and he was considered a very promising young
man. But he was thinking all this time of means to elevate the laboring
classes. When he solicited the votes of the Académie for the pension,
he told them plainly that it was his intention to direct his studies
towards the means of ameliorating the physical, moral, and intellectual
condition of the most numerous and the poorest class. In a letter to
Paul Ackermann, a distinguished man of letters, with whom he had formed
a connection, he wrote as follows, concerning the congratulations
he had received on being awarded the pension: “I have received the
congratulations of more than two hundred people. Why do you think that
people felicitate me? Because it is almost certain that I shall attain
honors equal to those which the Jouffroys, the Pouillets have obtained,
and perhaps, I am told, even greater honors. No one has come to me and
said: ‘Proudhon, you ought before everything else to devote yourself to
the cause of the poor, to the enfranchisement of the little ones, to the
instruction of the people. You will perhaps be an abomination to the rich
and powerful; pursue your way as a reformer regardless of persecutions,
of calumny, of sorrow, and of death itself.’”[118]

About this time he founded a printing establishment in his native city,
which appears never to have flourished greatly. He had already taken up
the study of political economy, in addition to theology and philology, to
both of which he hereafter devoted comparatively little attention. One of
his first instructors in his new study was the able economist, Pellegrino
Rossi. His economic studies bore fruit in 1840, in his work on property,
“Qu’est-ce que la Propriété?”[119]—“What is Property?” A startling answer
to the question is given—viz., “Property is theft” and “Property-holders
are thieves.”

The work marks a new epoch in the history of socialism, on several
accounts. First, he attacks in it directly the chief support of
individualism and the greatest obstacle to the realization of
communism—private property. Others had proposed phalansteries, religious
sects, and social workshops, all presupposing the abolition of private
property; but Proudhon was the first to attempt to prove directly and
scientifically that private property _per se_ was a monstrosity—was
robbery. Again, he set an example of harsh and rude attacks on classes
and institutions, which modern social democrats have not been slow to
follow. He could easily have expressed the thought which he wished
to convey otherwise than by using the word “theft,” but he preferred
the cruel, biting expression. Likewise, in condemning the God of the
theologians, he cried out, “God is the evil!” (“_Dieu c’est le mal!_”)
Very likely he simply meant to condemn certain ideas concerning God, but
it was not at all necessary for him to use an expression sure to give
offence and pain to many good people. In the same way he was not content
to call property-holders thieves. He says elsewhere that the “proprietor
is essentially a libidinous animal, without virtue and without shame.”

This reveals another side of Proudhon’s character. He felt for the
poor, but he hated the rich as a class, if not individually. He tells
us himself that he first experienced a feeling of shame on account of
poverty, but finding existence intolerable while tormented by such a
humiliating feeling, he succeeded in transforming it into hate and anger.
Afterwards his hatred turned into contempt and he became calmer, though
it is probable that he always retained a certain bitterness of feeling.
He writes to the Académie de Besançon: “When I sought to become your
pensioner, I was full of hate for that which exists and of projects of
destruction. My hatred of privilege and of the authority of man was
without measure. Perhaps I was sometimes wrong in confounding in my
indignation persons and things; at present I only know how to despise
and complain. In order to cease to hate, it was only necessary for me to
understand.”[120]

In the third place, this book is remarkable, because so many modern
socialistic schools can be traced back to it. The ideas of the
anarchists of France at the present time are well presented in it. We
also find in it a good presentation of that part of Marx’s doctrine of
value which treats of labor-time as the measure of value, and the portion
of the products which the capitalist takes under the name of profits as
robbery. Marx developed it, and doubtless understood its import better
than Proudhon, but nevertheless the germs of his most important theory
are very plainly contained in this work on Property.[121]

Finally, the essay on Property is important because it led socialists
and even political economists to a revision of their theories and a
more careful observation of facts. Louis Blanc discouraged fantastical
and supernatural schemes of reform; but the sharp, cutting criticism
of Proudhon, directed now against the communists, now against the
Saint-Simonians and Fourierists, now against the political economists,
rendered them impossible. High-priests and revealers of visions could
henceforth count on no favor on the part of the laborers.

Proudhon disposed of his printing establishment in 1843, but at such
a loss as to leave him in debt to the amount of 7000 francs, which,
however, he was finally able to pay. His next business enterprise was
the formation of a connection with a company which was engaged in
transportation on the Saone and the Rhone. This occupation lasted five
years, but he did not, in the meantime, cease his literary labors.
In 1846 he published his “Système des Contradictions Économiques
ou Philosophie de la Misère.”[122] If the work, “Qu’est-ce que la
Propriété?” ranks first in importance of all his works, this certainly
occupies the second place. It contains a sharp criticism of socialistic
and economic theories, which he opposes to one another, and shows that
they are mutually destructive. Here, as elsewhere, no one has doubted the
merit of his criticism. He adopted as the motto of the book “_Destruam
et ædificabo_”—“I will destroy and I will build up again.” He was
powerful as a destroyer, but weak as a constructor. He could not keep
the second part of his promise. He had become imperfectly acquainted
with the Hegelian logic at second-hand through Carl Grün, who became
his translator, and he sought to unite contradictories, “thesis” and
“antithesis,” into a “synthesis.” But Hegel is not an author whom a
Frenchman is likely to understand, and Proudhon did not succeed well in
the use of his logical method.

Proudhon took no part in the Revolution of February, as he was not a
politician, holding that all forms of government were equally vicious,
and it was of little importance whether this or that party triumphed.
He held himself aloof from any participation in the events which were
transpiring until the political revolution was past, in order then
to make his power more effectually felt in the settlement of social
questions. In April he became editor of the _Représentant du Peuple_, and
in June he was elected, by a large majority, to the Constituent Assembly
as one of the representatives of the Departement de la Seine. After he
had seen the various social parties retire, defeated, from the scene,
one after another, it became his turn to present positive measures of
social reform. He had combated all socialistic sects, while maintaining
persistently his position as a friend of the poor. What had he to offer,
now that he had assisted to overthrow every plan of improvement which
had been proposed? On the 31st of July he brought forward his scheme of
organization of credit, which would guarantee labor to all in the only
effectual way, as it would furnish every one with the instruments of
labor. What this was we will consider presently. It is only necessary to
state that it was rejected by the overwhelming majority of 691 to 2.[123]
He attempted the execution of his plan without the aid of the state,
by the erection of a bank, which failed about April 1, 1849, after an
existence of a few weeks. Thus ended the attempt of the last great French
socialist to carry out a scheme of social and economic regeneration.
Proudhon’s paper was suppressed, but it reappeared twice under different
names, before the arrest and sentence of its editor to three years’
imprisonment for breaking the press-laws terminated its existence.
During his imprisonment he wrote his “La Révolution Sociale Démontrée
par le Coup d’État du 2 Décembre”—“The Social Revolution Demonstrated by
the Coup d’État of 2d December” (1851). This created a sensation, and
six editions were sold in less than six months.[124] His imprisonment
terminated on the 4th of June, 1852, and he retired to private life. He
had been married in 1850 to the daughter of a merchant, and it is said
that his conduct as a husband and a father was exemplary. It is necessary
to mention only one other work which he wrote—viz., “De la Justice dans
la Révolution et dans l’Église”—which appeared in 1858.[125] He shows
in this book that outside of the Catholic Church and Christianity there
is no God, no theology, no religion, and no faith. Has Proudhon become
a Catholic and a conservative? By no means. He immediately proceeds
to demonstrate that the Church is ever in conflict with justice. The
book was seized eight days after its appearance, its author tried, and
sentenced to a fine of 4000 francs and to three years’ imprisonment,
which he escaped by flight to Belgium, where he remained until an amnesty
in 1860 allowed him to return to France. He died in Passy in 1865.

It is necessary to dwell more at length on three points in Proudhon’s
teachings—viz., his ideas concerning property, government, and positive
reform.

“Property is theft,” says Proudhon. Every argument brought forward to
sustain it destroys the institution. Some seek to justify it by the
theory of occupation, in accordance with which theory that which belongs
to no one becomes the property of him who takes possession of it.[126]
But if this be admitted, then property depends upon the accidents of
number of population and extent of territory. Those who are born too late
will be property-less. However, if the soil originally belonged to no
private individual it must have belonged to all collectively, and all
will not and cannot renounce their right to this common possession. If I
fashion a plough it is mine, because I made it. Who made the earth? God.
Well, let him then demand a rent for it—let him take his own. But this
he will not do. His gifts are free. We see that the theory of occupation
presupposes common property, and that cannot be surrendered any more than
life or liberty.

The second theory of property is the labor theory. But this theory
likewise destroys property. That only is mine which I produce. The earth
is mine only so long as I cultivate it. The moment another labors on my
farm it becomes his property. Again, labor presupposes the instruments of
labor, and where is one to obtain these in a system of private, personal
property, provided one does not already possess them? The theory of labor
demands the abolition of property, in order that every one may have free
access to the soil and to the other instruments of labor.

Property is robbery because it enables him who has not produced to
consume the fruits of other people’s toil. What I produce is worth what
it costs—_i.e._, the time and economic goods which enter into it. If
a capitalist or landlord takes away ten per cent., then the product
costs me more than it is worth. I am robbed of this ten per cent. The
proprietor is a thief.[127]

Shall we, then, return to the original state of society, to communism? By
no means. Private property is unjust. It is robbery of the weak by the
strong. Communism is the reverse injustice. It is robbery of the strong
by the weak. “Community is inequality, but in an inverse sense from
property. Property is exploitation of the weak by the strong. Community
is an exploitation of the strong by the weak. In the system of property
inequality of conditions results from force, under whatever name it may
disguise itself—force, physical and intellectual; force of circumstances,
hazard, _fortune_; force of acquired property, etc. In community
inequality springs from mediocrity of talent and of labor, elevated to
an equality with force; and this injurious equation is revolting to
conscience and causes merit to murmur.”[128]

We have now our thesis and our antithesis. The synthesis is found in
POSSESSION. I may possess the instruments of labor of every kind in
order to enable me to labor. It is labor which renders them mine—my own
individual labor. So long as I cultivate myself a piece of land, it is
mine and the product is mine. I may not rob another by charging for the
use of the instruments of labor. It will be seen thus that what Proudhon
really is fighting against is rent[129] and profits of capital. He allows
inheritance—everything except individual ownership. Of course, when this
is analyzed, it becomes apparent that inheritance can amount to very
little.

What is the ideal of government? ANARCHY. We desire absolute liberty.
Any control of man by man is oppression. “What form of government shall
we prefer? Ah, how can you ask? replies one of my youngest readers.—You
are a republican? Republican, yes; but this word defines nothing. _Res
publica_—that is, the public thing; now, whoever wishes the public
thing, under any form of government, can call himself a republican. The
kings also are republicans.—Ah, well, you are a democrat? No.—What! are
you a monarchist? No.—A constitutionalist? God forbid.—You are, then, an
aristocrat? Not at all.—Do you wish a mixed government? Still less.—What
are you, then? I am an anarchist.... Anarchy—the absence of master, of
sovereign—such is the form of government which we approach every day,
and our inveterate habit of taking man for a guide and his will for law
makes us regard it as a heap of disorder and an expression of chaos....
No one is king.... Every question of internal politics ought to be solved
according to the data of the Department of Statistics; every question of
international politics is a question of international statistics. The
science of government belongs of right to one of the sections of the
Academy of Sciences, of which the perpetual secretary necessarily becomes
the first minister; and since every citizen may address a _mémoire_ to
the Academy, every citizen is a legislator; but as the opinion of no one
counts except in so far as it is demonstrated to be true, no one can
substitute his will for reason—no one is king.... Justice and legality
are two things as independent of our consent as mathematical truth....
In order that truth should become law, it must be recognized. Now, what
is it to recognize a law? It is to verify a mathematical or metaphysical
operation. It is to repeat an experience, to observe a phenomenon, to
prove a fact.”[130]

What positive measures of reform are proposed to bring about equality
associated with anarchy? One is a great national bank, in which product
shall be exchanged against product without any intermediaries, so that
money-mongers shall not be able to stop the circulation and thereby
the production of goods. Paper money is to be given in exchange for
whatever is brought to this place of deposit. This paper is a check,
which indicates labor-time. It may be exchanged for anything else of
the same value, which has cost the same labor. Products are exchanged
for products, and what is received has the same value as what is given.
Property must be abolished, and no landlord or capitalist may intervene
and, by exacting toll, make what I receive cost me more than it is worth.

What Proudhon proposed in the National Assembly was a bank which should
effect exchanges of this sort. It was to be established by funds derived
from a part of the proceeds of a tax of one third, or thirty-three and a
third per cent. on revenues derived from property, and from a progressive
tax on salaries of government officers. Branches were to be established
in every part of France, and all were to be furnished with gratuitous
credit. Interest has shown a tendency to decrease, which may be traced
back for centuries.[131] Its normal rate is zero, and the national bank
is to assist in bringing it down to this point. Everybody wants credit
and everybody will be benefited by the measure.[132] All the world will
give and receive credit. Rights and duties, privileges and obligations,
are mutual. We may call this scheme MUTUALISM.[133]

But when interest becomes zero, it follows naturally and inevitably
that rents and profits become _nil_. Credit enabling every one to obtain
the instruments of labor without price, it is self-evident that no one
will pay anything to landlord or capitalist for their use. The problem
of abolishing the class of idlers is therefore solved. Henceforward
property does not exist. The laborer receives all, and products cost no
more than they are worth. This is the highest and the only true form
of SOCIABILITÉ. All men are associated on terms of equality; no one is
subject to another.

Proudhon rejected communism. His ground of opposition was of a twofold
nature. First, communism is based on property—not the property of an
individual, but of the community. We have in it, consequently, the same
kind of slavery as in our present society, save that we have many masters
instead of one. “The members of a community, it is true, have nothing
which is individual; but the community is proprietor, and proprietor
not only of goods, but of persons and of wills. It is according to this
principle of sovereign property that in every community labor, which
ought to be for man only a condition imposed by nature, became a human
command, and thereby odious.”[134] Second, communism is unjust, because
it is unequal. It is the robbery of the strong by the weak.

We have to ask, then, what is the equality which Proudhon desired? If
he did not wish to place all on the same level as regards recompense,
what did he wish? He tells us that “equality consists in the equality of
conditions—that is, of means—not in the equality of well-being, which
with equal means ought to be the work of the laborer.”[135] Was he not,
then, a Saint-Simonian? did he not wish to proportion reward to services?
He tells us distinctly, No.[136] He combats Saint-Simonism as unjust
and impracticable. He also speaks of equality as the corner-stone of
his system. The highest stage of society towards which we are moving he
calls LIBERTY—that is, the synthesis of the thesis, community, and the
antithesis, property—but “liberty is equality, because liberty exists
only in the social state, and outside of equality there is no society.”
And he again and again condemns inequality of wages and recompense in
his new society. Some writers, dwelling merely upon his condemnation
of community, have said that he was not in favor of equality. This
is a mistake. But how are we to reconcile his statements? They are
contradictories. Where is the synthesis? It is found in the fact that
all will hereafter produce alike. When possession takes the place of
property, each one will labor equally, and the products, being measured
by labor-time, will be equal in value. Equality of conditions becomes
absolute equality. “On the one hand, the task of each laborer being easy
and short, and the means of performing it successfully being equal, how
could there, then, be great and small producers? On the other hand, the
functions all being equal, either by the real equivalence of talents and
capacities or by social co-operation, how can a functionary, arguing from
the excellence of his work, demand a proportional salary?” (_i.e._, a
remuneration larger than the remuneration of others, in proportion to
the superiority of his work).

“But what do I say? In equality the salaries are always proportional
to faculties. But what is the salary or remuneration received? It is
that which composes the reproductive consumption of the laborer. The
act itself by which the laborer produces is then this consumption,
equal to his production. When the astronomer produces observations, the
poet verses, the savant experiences, they consume instruments, books,
travels, etc.; now, if society provides for this consumption, what
other proportionality of honors can the astronomer, the savant, and the
poet demand? Let us conclude, then, that in equality, and in equality
alone, the adage of Saint-Simon, ‘To each one according to his capacity,
to each capacity according to its works,’ finds its full and complete
application.”[137]

In intention, then, Proudhon was a communist in the sense of the
definition given in this work. No man ever preached more plainly and
unreservedly absolute equality as an ideal. He was not a communist in the
sense of favoring communities such as we see in a few places at present,
because they involve control and authority. He was, on the contrary, in
favor of anarchic equality. The distinction might be made by saying that
he was a communist, but not a communitarian.

I have, nevertheless, spoken of him several times as a socialist,
because the entire tendency of every positive proposal which he made was
socialistic, and not communistic. Equality has no logical connection
with his projects. He proposed to transform property into possession,
which means simply limiting very materially the rights of property. Now,
how could this change be so restricted without allowing inequalities to
arise? Each one cultivates his land as he pleases and works as he will,
all authority being banished from the face of the earth. Can any one,
without resorting to some supernatural and unwarranted theory, suppose
that all would derive the same products from the same instruments? Then
let us take up the case of gratuitous credit. Will all avail themselves
of it with equal profit in anarchy? What is to prevent my accumulating
labor receipts if my production exceeds consumption? Or shall the state
or some outside body prevent my taking more than I consume from the
magazines or banks, whatever they are called? If so, do we not have all
the interference and control of the hated community? It is thus seen that
Proudhon is inconsistent as well as paradoxical, and is unable to effect
his synthesis.

The following ten statements contain, in Proudhon’s own words, a _résumé_
of the system which we have just examined:

“I. Individual possession is the condition of social life; ...
Property is the suicide of society....

“II. The right of occupation being equal for all, possession
varies according to the number of possessors....

“III. The effect of labor being the same for all, property is
lost by its use on the part of others and by rent.

“IV. All human labor proceeding necessarily from a collective
force, all property becomes, for the same reason, collective
and indivisible; in terms more precise, labor destroys property.

“V. Every capacity for labor being, the same as every
instrument of labor, an accumulated capital or collective
property, _inequality of remuneration and of fortune_, under
pretext of inequality of capacity, _is injustice and theft_.

“VI. Commerce has for its necessary conditions the liberty of
contractors and the equivalence of products exchanged; now,
value having for its expression the sum of the time and of the
expense which each product costs, and liberty being inviolable,
the laborers necessarily remain equal in wages, as they are in
duties and in rights.

“VII. Products are purchased only by products; now, the
condition of every exchange being the equivalence of products,
profits from exchange are impossible and unjust. Observe this
principle of the most elementary economy, and pauperism,
luxury, oppression, vice, crime, and hunger will disappear from
among us.

“VIII. Men are associated by the physical and mathematical law
of production; ...

“IX. Free association, liberty, which confines itself to
the maintenance of equality in the means of production and
equivalence in exchanges, is the only form of society possible,
just, and true.

“X. Politics is the science of liberty; the government of
man by man, under whatever name it may disguise itself, is
oppression. The highest form of society is found in the union
of order and anarchy.”[138]

Proudhon’s earnestness and sincerity can scarcely be doubted. We must
give him credit for honesty, however strong our conviction that his
schemes are utterly impracticable, and however severely we condemn the
bitterness and injustice with which his views are presented. He closes
his first _mémoire_ on property with the following appeal to the Deity
to hasten the coming emancipation and to witness his unselfish devotion:
“O God of liberty! God of equality! Thou God, who hast placed in my
heart the sentiment of justice before my reason comprehended it, hear my
ardent prayer. Thou hast dictated that which I have written. Thou hast
formed my thought, thou hast directed my studies, thou hast separated
my spirit from curiosity and my heart from attachment, in order that I
should publish the truth before the master and the slave. I have spoken
as thou hast given me power and talent; it remains for thee to complete
thy work. Thou knowest whether I have sought my interest or thy glory.
O God of liberty! May my memory perish, if humanity may but be free; if
I may but see in my obscurity the people finally instructed, if noble
instructors but enlighten it, if disinterested hearts but guide it.
Shorten, if it may be, our time of trial; smother inequality, pride, and
avarice; confound this idolatry of glory which retains us in abjection;
teach thy poor children that in the haven of liberty there are no more
heroes nor grand men. Inspire the strong one, the wealthy one, whose name
my lips shall never pronounce before thee, with horror on account of his
robberies.... Then the great and the small, the rich and the poor, will
unite in one ineffable fraternity; and all together, chanting a new hymn,
will re-erect thy altar, O God of liberty and of equality!”[139]

CHAPTER VIII.

SOCIALISM IN FRANCE SINCE PROUDHON.

The last thirty years of the history of France constitute an unfruitful
period in the development of socialism. They have been years of dearth,
following in the wake of an equal number of plenteous years. There has
arisen during all this time no developed communistic or socialistic
system in France. The French socialism of to-day may be traced to three
sources—viz., pure dissatisfaction with existing economic life, previous
French speculations, like those of Proudhon and Fourier, and present
German theories.

A diligent search continued for some time convinced me several years ago
that there was little new or original in the ideas of the living leaders
of socialistic movements in France. Since then I have come across three
confirmations of this view in as many writers. Rudolf Meyer, a German,
in his “Emancipations-Kampf des Vierten Standes,” says: “Since Proudhon,
France has produced no socialists of importance.”[140] Frederic Harrison,
an Englishman, in an article in the _Fortnightly Review_ on “The French
Workmen’s Congress of 1878,” uses these words to express his view of
existing French socialism: “The first impression conveyed is this, that
communism, or, indeed, any systematic socialism, is entirely extinct in
France.”[141] A French socialist writes rather regretfully, “The second
remark is that we, the young generation of socialists, have discovered
little in the domain of theory. We live almost exclusively upon the
thoughts of our predecessors.”[142]

New life has, however, been manifested within the last year or two among
French socialists, and if they are not discovering new theories, they are
making large use of the studies of others. There is also a considerable
class whose communism, or socialism, whichever you call it, does not
get beyond the purely negative state of complaint. It is like a cry of
distress, like “blind yearnings for light—like the voice of one crying,
‘Watchman, what of the night? Will the night soon pass?’”[143] Those of
this class condemn our present society with unmeasured severity, but they
are unable to suggest plans for a better. They are groping about blindly
for a guide who shall lead them in their endeavors to realize the ideal
of the French device, “liberty, equality, fraternity.” If you purchase
at hap-hazard a French socialistic paper, you will very likely find in
it only murmurings, repinings, and bitter accusations against existing
institutions, ravings and outcries as incoherent as Carlyle’s collection
of exclamations which he calls the “History of the French Revolution.”
Perhaps Louise Michel and Felix Pyat ought to be classed among the
adherents of this group.

We may roughly divide the remaining communists and socialists of France
into three classes—viz., the Blanquists, the Anarchists, and the
Collectivists.

The Blanquists are followers of the late Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881),
brother of Adolphe Blanqui, the political economist. Their principle
of action is to join hands under the leadership of some man, for the
negative work of pulling down existing economic institutions. They
come forward with no programme for reconstruction, because that would
be likely to disunite them, and it is as yet too early for positive
plans for the new society to be built on the ruins of the old. There
is a certain monarchical element in their operations, inasmuch as
they expect their adherents to follow the leader or leaders, without
knowing precisely whither they are going, but with confidence in the
guiding spirit. Leadership and agitation without a programme are both
unpopular with most modern socialists, and the Blanquists do not count
a large number of adherents. They are, however, active, courageous, and
irreconcilable. They are “intransigentes,” who will make no compromise
with our present institutions. Their leader is Eudes,[144] a member of
the Committee of Public Safety at the time of the rising of the commune.
The title of a paper which they published for some time indicates the
fierceness of their disposition. It was “Ni Dieu ni Maître”—“Neither God
nor Master.” Among its contributors Cournet, Breuillé, and Granger are
named. The paper has ceased to appear for lack of patronage, and they are
now compelled to make propaganda orally by conversation and by speeches.
It cannot be said that they differ from the other groups of socialists in
their attitude of defiance towards God and religion, and perhaps they do
not in this respect differ so widely as is supposed from a large number
of French and German political leaders and thinkers. It must be fairly
stated that their opposition to religion has no logical connection with
their socialistic views. On the contrary, it is as illogical for them
to reject Christianity as anything well could be. The French social
reformers of about 1850 perceived this. At that time, if one had visited
the assembly rooms of a communistic or socialistic society in Paris, he
would in all probability have found there a picture of Christ, with these
words written under it, “Jesus of Nazareth, the First Representative of
the People.”[145]

The anarchists are also a small but determined band. Their leading
representatives are Prince Krapotkine, a Russian by birth, and Elisée
Reclus, the celebrated geographer. Émile Gautier, Bernard, and Bordat,
who, like Krapotkine, were sentenced to five years’ imprisonment at the
Lyons trial, January 19, 1883, for connection with the International
Association of Laborers, are also prominent anarchists. Although their
programme may be found almost word for word in Proudhon, they profess
to follow more closely Bakounine, the Russian nihilist, who separated
himself from Marx and the Internationals, and formed secret societies in
Spain, Switzerland, France, and elsewhere, and thus propagated nihilistic
views; for anarchy and nihilism are pretty much one and the same thing
when nihilism is understood in the older, stricter sense, which does
not include, as it does in a larger and more modern sense, those who
are simply political and constitutional reformers.[146] Like Prince
Krapotkine, Bakounine came of an old and prominent Russian family; like
him, he revolted against the cruelties and injustices he saw about him;
like him, he despaired of peaceful reform, and concluded that no great
improvement could be expected until all our present political, economic,
and social institutions were so thoroughly demolished that of the old
structure not one stone should be left on another. Out of the ruins a
regenerated world might arise. We must be purged as by fire. Like all
anarchists and true nihilists, he was a thorough pessimist, as far as
our present manner of life was concerned. Reaction against conservatism
carried him very far. He wished to abolish private property, state, and
inheritance. Equality is to be carried so far that all must wear the same
kind of clothing, no difference being made even for sex. Religion is an
aberration of the brain, and should be abolished.[147]

Fire, dynamite, and assassination are approved of by at least a large
number of the party. They are brave men, and fight for their faith with
the devotion of martyrs. Imprisonment and death are counted but as
rewards.

Their press is comparatively insignificant. Their principal newspaper
appears to be the _Révolté_, a small paper published at Geneva since
1879. A paper was, a few years ago, published in their interests at
Verviers, Belgium, with the characteristic title, _The Cry of the People_
(_Le Cri du Peuple_). It lasted only a little over a year, its final
number appearing on the 21st of June, 1879, and containing this sentence,
among many similar: “Yes, we applaud all the executions made by the
Russian nihilists, and wish that their propaganda might extend itself
over the whole earth.”

Forty-seven anarchists signed a declaration of principles, which was read
by one of their number at their trial at Lyons. It was substantially as
follows:

“The anarchists are citizens who, in an age when one preaches
everywhere the liberty of opinions, have believed it their duty
to recommend unlimited liberty.

“Our only merit consists in speaking out openly what the masses
are thinking. We are several millions of laborers, who wish
absolute liberty, and nothing but liberty.

“We wish liberty—that is to say, we demand for every human
being the right and the means of doing that which pleases
him, and of doing only that which pleases him; to satisfy
integrally all his wants, without any other limits than natural
impossibilities and the wants of neighbors equally respectable.

“We wish liberty, and we believe its existence incompatible
with the existence of any power whatsoever, whatever its
origin and form—whether it be elected or imposed, monarchical
or republican—whether inspired by divine right or by popular
right, by anointment or universal suffrage.

“The best governments are the worst.

“The evil, in other terms, in the eyes of the anarchists, does
not reside in one form of government more than in another;
it is in the idea of government itself, in the principle of
authority.

“The substitution, in a word, in human relations, OF FREE
CONTRACT, perpetually _revisable_ and _dissoluble_, is our
ideal.

“The anarchists propose to teach the people how to get along
without government, as they already begin to learn how to get
along without God.

“They will learn, likewise, how to get along without
property-holders.

“No liberty without equality! No liberty in a society where
the capital is centralized in the hands of a minority, which
continually grows smaller.

“We believe that capital—the common patrimony of humanity,
since it is the fruit of the co-operation of contemporaneous
generations—ought to be placed at the service of all.

“We wish, in a word, equality—equality in fact, as corollary
or rather as primordial condition of liberty. From each one
according to his faculties, to each one according to his needs:
that is what we wish sincerely, energetically.

“Wicked and insane as people call us, we demand bread for all,
science for all, work for all; for all, also, independence and
justice.”[148]

The anarchists believe in a kind of collectivism. Their ideal consists of
independent communes united very loosely in a confederation. Of course,
the confederation has no powers save such as are voluntarily granted it
by each individual and during the time which it may please him to grant
them. It is no government. It is simply combined action. There are groups
and confederations within the communes based on similar principles.

The collectivists are French socialists and social democrats, who have
adopted the views of the Germans, chiefly of Marx and Lassalle. Their
opinions we will then discuss under the head of German socialism. It
is here only necessary to give evidence of the fact that they build on
German foundations; to mention their organizations and a few of their
leaders.

If French expositions of collectivism are examined, it will be found that
constant references are made to the German socialists and citations
taken from their writings. Thus Malon, himself a collectivist, cites
Depaepe’s presentation of international collectivism—and pretty much all
collectivism and social democracy are to-day international; and Depaepe,
in the passage quoted, states plainly that he has only given a more or
less perfect _résumé_ of Marx and Lassalle.[149] The French socialist
who wrote the article for the _London Times_ on French socialists, to
which reference has already been made, mentions familiarly the names
of Schäffle, Marx, and Lassalle. Émile de Laveleye, in his article
in the _Fortnightly Review_ on the “European Terror,”[150] follows
Schäffle’s “Quintessence of Socialism” in explaining the system of the
collectivists, and Schäffle simply presents German social democracy at
its best. The international spirit of social democracy was illustrated in
the marriage of two of Marx’s daughters to two French socialists, Longuet
and Lafargue, the latter of whom translated his work, “Das Kapital,” into
French.

The collectivists are divided into two branches—the evolutionist
collectivists and the revolutionary collectivists.

The evolutionist collectivists do not reject reform as a possible
substitute for revolution. While they do not claim to be able to say that
a social revolution will never be necessary, they recognize the fact
that a change of the economic forms of society is a matter of growth and
evolution, and are willing to approach the socialistic state by degrees.
A writer much in vogue with them is Colins, a Belgian, who advocated the
nationalization of land. His two chief works, “Qu’est-ce que la Science
Sociale?”—“What is Social Science?”—and “L’Économie Politique,” were
published between 1848 and 1857. A number of millionnaires belong to this
group of collectivists, and a society has been formed to publish and
disseminate the works of Colins. It is said that 40,000 francs have been
subscribed for this purpose.

Colins favored these four measures as a transition from private property
in land to its nationalization:

“1. Abolition of collateral inheritances.

“2. Proclamation of the liberty of bequest.

“3. A tax of twenty-five per centum upon all inheritances.

“4. Enlightenment of the masses, so that they shall soon demand
the collectivity of the soil, or, as the English say, the
nationalization of land.”[151]

Collectivists of this group are called “Possibilists” and “Opportunists,”
on account of their temporizing inclinations. Although M. de Laveleye
states that they are gaining favor with the laborers as opposed to the
Irreconcilables, they have few leaders, or, at any rate, talkers of
note. On occasion of the election at Belleville, when a deputy was to be
elected to replace Gambetta, the evolutionist collectivists nominated a
respectable mechanic by the name of J. B. Dumay. He was not, however,
elected.

The revolutionary collectivists, also called Marxists, are divided
into two factions, owing to personal rivalries. These are called the
“Fédération du Centre,” among whom are Jules Guesde, Paul Lafargue, Émile
Massard, and Gabriel Deville; and the “Union Fédérative,” among whom
are B. Malon, author of the work which I have several times cited; Paul
Brousse, and Joffrin, a municipal councillor, who recently demanded of
the council the execution of a large number of socialistic measures, like
the erection of city workshops (_ateliers municipaux_) to furnish work to
the unemployed, the establishment of bakeries and meat-markets in order
to sell provisions at a moderate price, and the construction of houses to
be let to laborers at cost price.

At the time when Dumay was candidate at Belleville for the place in the
Chamber of Deputies which Gambetta’s death left vacant, the revolutionary
collectivists nominated Jules Guesde, who received only a small number
of votes. He issued, however, an electoral programme, which is valuable
as an authentic statement of principles approved by his party at several
different congresses between 1879 and 1882. It is as follows:

“_Considering_: That the emancipation of the productive class
is that of all human beings, without distinction of sex or
race; that the producers can never be free until they are in
possession of the means of production (lands, factories, ships,
banks, credit, etc.); that there are only two forms under which
the means of production can belong to them:

“1. The individual form, which has never existed as a general
and universal fact, and which is being eliminated more and more
by industrial progress;

“2. The collective form, whose material and intellectual
elements are furnished by the very development of capitalistic
society:—

“_Considering_: That this collective appropriation can result
only from the revolutionary action of the productive class—or
the _proletariat_—organized as a distinct political party; that
such an organization ought to be pursued by all the means at
the disposal of the _proletariat_, universal suffrage included,
and thus transformed from an instrument of injury, as it has
hitherto been, into an instrument of emancipation—the French
socialistic laborers, in proclaiming as their end the political
and economic expropriation of the class of capitalists, and the
return into the collective form of all the means of production,
have decided, as the means of organizing the conflict, to enter
into the elections with the following demands:

“A. POLITICAL PROGRAMME.

“1. The abolition of all laws concerning the press, assemblies,
and associations, and especially the law against the
‘International Association of Workmen,’ suppression of the
workman’s book,[152] this registration of the laboring class,
and of all articles of the code establishing the inferiority of
the laborer _vis-à-vis_ his employer and of the inferiority of
woman _vis-à-vis_ man.

“2. Suppression of religious appropriations, and the return to
the nation of all property designated by the term _mortmain_
(_Decree of the Commune_ of April 2, 1871)....

“3. Suppression of the public debt.

“4. Abolition of standing armies, and the establishment of a
militia system to include all the people.

“5. The establishment of the freedom of the Commune as regards
its administration and its police.

“B. ECONOMIC PROGRAMME.

“1. One day of rest in seven; eight hours to constitute a day’s
labor for adults; prohibition of the labor of children under
fourteen in private establishments, and the reduction of their
labor to six hours a day between fourteen and eighteen.

“2. A protecting ‘surveillance’ of apprentices by corporations
of laborers.

“3. A legal minimum of wages, determined each year according
to the local price of provisions, by a statistical commission
composed of laborers.

“4. Legal prohibition of the right to employ foreign laborers
with smaller wages than those given to Frenchmen.

“5. Equal wages for equal work for laborers of both sexes.

“6. Free instruction in science, trades, and professions.

“7. Support of the aged and infirm by the public.

“8. Suppression of all interference of employers in the
management of funds destined for the benefit of laborers.

“9. Responsibility of employers for accidents to their
employees.

“10. Participation of laborers in the establishment of rules
and laws for different shops; suppression of the right of
employers to impose fines and penalties upon laborers.

“11. Annulment of all contracts which have alienated public
property (banks, railroads, mines, etc.), and the management of
all state-workshops by laborers employed therein.

“12. Abolition of all indirect taxes, and the transformation of
all direct taxes into a progressive tax on incomes exceeding
3000 francs; suppression of all collateral inheritances, and of
inheritances in direct line exceeding 20,000 francs.”[153]

Clovis Hugues, mentioned as “unclassed,” is a collectivist deputy. It
is stated, however, that he has announced his intention of leaving
the party, on account of the tyranny with which they have attempted
to control him in every step. Joffrin refused to attend Louis Blanc’s
funeral, as he held that he had proved false to the laborers in 1871.
Hugues, an old friend of Blanc’s, attended, and was reproved for this,
whereupon he indignantly declared the above-mentioned intention,
maintaining that Louis Blanc was an honorable, high-minded man, and a
true friend of the laborer.

De Laveleye believes that a majority of French workmen are socialists,
while Malon confidently speaks of the socialists as forming the _élite_
of the _proletariat_. The latter states their views and tendencies at the
present time in the following language: “We have rejected all religious
regenerations, whether they are called New Catholic, New Christian,
pantheistic, or theo-humanitarian; and we have accepted every scientific
demonstration, however much opposed it might be to the previous order of
our conceptions.

“We have recognized that the social and intellectual world, like the
physical world, are governed by natural laws, and are subject to
relations of succession and similitude independent of our personal
intervention. We have admitted that our will itself is determined by
natural laws which, it may not break.

“This has given us larger views, and especially has taught us to seek in
a _terrestrial_ future the ideal which is at the basis of every human
nature.

“We have acquired a more profound knowledge of the laws which govern
social phenomena. We know that as our human nature is essentially capable
of modification and perfection, so social phenomena and industrial
phenomena, being based thereon, are modifiable in large degree, and we
labor to modify them as much as possible.”[154]

CHAPTER IX.

RODBERTUS.

In turning our attention to Germany “we come to the period of classical
epoch-making socialism.” It is the only living socialism of world-wide
importance; for, with few comparatively unimportant exceptions, all
socialism of to-day, whether found in Paris or Berlin, in New York or
Vienna, in Chicago or Frankfort-on-the-Main, is through and through
German.

The German socialists are distinguished by the profundity of their
systems. These are not exhausted by a few hours’ study. You can come back
to them time and time again, and obtain ever new ideas. A great German
economist (Schäffle) declares that it took him years to comprehend the
full significance of German socialism. It gives no evidence of decreasing
power, but, on the contrary, its influence is manifestly spreading
and becoming more and more deeply rooted in the minds and hearts of
large masses. Its vitality is due, on the one hand, to the logical and
philosophical strength of the systems on which it is based; on the other,
to the patience and indomitable perseverance of its leaders.

One of its leading characteristics is its thoroughly scientific spirit.
Sentimentalism is banished, and a foundation sought in hard, relentless
laws, resulting necessarily from the physiological, psychological,
and social constitution of man, and his physical environment. Like
French socialism, its most prominent side is its negative character,
but this is not declamatory. Coldly, passionlessly, laws regulating
wages and value are developed, which show that in our present economic
society the poverty of laborers and their robbery by capitalists are as
inevitable facts as the motions of the planets. Histories, blue books,
and statistical journals are searched, and facts are piled on facts,
mountain-high, to sustain every separate and individual proposition.
Mathematical demonstrations as logical as problems in Euclid take the
place of fine periods, perorations, and appeals to the Deity. Political
economy is not rejected, but in its strictest and most orthodox form
becomes the very corner-stone of the new social structure. No writer is
valued so highly as Ricardo, who, in political economy, was the strictest
of the strict, a Pharisee of the Pharisees. English political economy
is developed to its logical and consistent conclusion with wonderful
learning and skill. In the German socialists, says Rudolf Meyer, “we have
learned men belonging to the higher mercantile and professional classes,
in affluent circumstances, who, out of pure love for the cause, devoted
themselves to profound economic investigations, and who united a serious,
searching mind with thorough knowledge of history, philology, and law.
They are political economists equal to the great English leaders in
this study, but having at their command a greater scientific apparatus,
especially such as is afforded by statistics.”[155] Roscher, indeed,
finds in them alike the strength and the weakness of the English school.
He describes them thus in his “History of Political Economy in Germany.”
“Some of them seem to be more historical than the Free-trade School, but
this is only an appearance, as they apply history so sophistically. As
far as doctrinal abstractions are concerned, they are at least equal to
the extreme Free-traders.[156] They indulge in the same cosmopolitism,
which entirely overlooks real peoples, states, and degrees of culture, in
the same _naïve_ assumption of the equality of all men, ... and in the
same mammonistic undervaluation of ideal goods.”[157]

Two of the earliest adherents of this school were Friedrich Engels, who
wrote a work on the “Condition of the Laboring Classes in England;”[158]
and K. Marlo, who published, in 1849, his “System of World-Economy, or
Investigations Concerning the Organization of Labor;”[159] and proposed
a federation of socialistic communities. Both of these writers, however,
were soon so far surpassed in importance by the three socialists,
Rodbertus, Marx, and Lassalle, that they are scarcely noticed in the
great current of German socialism. We will consequently at once proceed
to the consideration of the life and teachings of Rodbertus, from whom it
may be considered as taking its beginning. Its growth from the time he
published his doctrines has been unbroken.

Karl Rodbertus, who lived from 1805 to 1875, was a man of social
standing, universally respected alike for learning and character. He
was at first a jurist, and afterwards a farmer, having purchased the
estate in Pomerania called Jagetzow. On this account he is often called
Rodbertus-Jagetzow.[160]

Rodbertus took some part in politics during the stirring events of 1848,
and for a short time thereafter. He was member of the National Assembly
in 1848, and in 1849 of the Second Chamber of the Prussian Parliament. He
was Prussian Minister of Education and Public Worship for a brief period.
But he finally abandoned politics and led a quiet life in his country
home, devoting himself chiefly to scientific and literary pursuits. His
knowledge of some parts of Roman history is considered quite profound.

Rodbertus, one of the ablest socialists who ever lived, is perhaps the
best representative of pure theoretical socialism. Professor Wagner of
Berlin calls him the Ricardo of socialism. This gives him an important
place in the history of political economy, for political economists may
be considered as practically unanimous in the opinion that “scientific
socialism represents an economic system which no science of political
economy can any longer neglect” (Wagner). It is certain that he resembles
Ricardo in many respects, and I personally am quite inclined to think he
equalled him, though his name has never become very popular, as his life
was a quiet, retired one, and he took no part in agitation. His writings
are rather difficult reading for laborers, and they are consequently
little acquainted with him. His influence on the greatest living
economists has been remarkable.[161]

Rodbertus’s principal works are:

1. “Zur Erkenntniss unserer Staatswirthschaftlichen
Zustände”—“Our Economic Condition” (Neubrandenburg und
Friedland, 1842). This contains his leading views, which were
not changed thereafter. Out of print.

2. “Sociale Briefe an Von Kirchmann”—“Social Letters to Von
Kirchmann” (1850-51). Out of print.

3. “Zur Beleuchtung der Socialen Frage”—“Elucidation of the
Social Question” (Berlin, 1875). This contains a second edition
of the second and third letters to Von Kirchmann, and, with the
two following essays, gives a very good idea of his economic
theories.

4. “Der Normal Arbeitstag”—“The Normal Labor Day” (Berlin,
1871). Reprinted in _Tübinger Zeitschrift für die gesammte
Staatswissenschaft für 1878_. Cf. also, in the same volume
of the _Zeitschrift_, an essay on Rodbertus by Adolf Wagner,
entitled “Einiges von und über Rodbertus-Jagetzow.”

5. “Offener Brief an das Comité des Deutschen
Arbeiter-Vereins”—“Open Letter to the Committee of the German
Laborers Union” (Leipzig, 1863). Reprinted in Volume I.
of Lassalle’s collected writings—F. Lassalle’s “Reden und
Schriften” (New York, 1882).

6. “Zur Erklärung und Abhülfe der heutigen Creditnoth des
Grundbesitzes”—“An Explanation of the Necessity of Credit for
Land-owners and Proposal of Measures to Assist Them” (2 vols.
1868-69). Out of print.

The aim of Rodbertus is naturally to solve the social problem, to abolish
the sharp contradiction between the real life of society and the desired
and striven-for ideal. But there are two chief evils in the existing
economic life of man, which are the cause of most of the others. These
evils are PAUPERISM and COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL CRISES, the latter
leading to over-production and a glut in the market. Rodbertus directs
his attention principally to the means of abolishing these evils.

The starting-point of Rodbertus’s political economy is his conception
of labor expressed in the following sentence: “All economic goods are
to be regarded only as the products of labor, and they cost nothing
but labor.”[162] This proposition he claims was first introduced into
economic science by Adam Smith, and was more firmly established by the
school of Ricardo. His whole theory consists of a logical extension of
this theory, according to which pauperism and crises result from one and
the same circumstance—viz., “that when economic processes are left to
themselves in respect to the distribution of goods, certain relations
(_Verhältnisse_) connected with the development of society bring it about
that as the productivity of social labor[163] increases, the wages of the
laboring classes constitute an ever-decreasing portion of the national
product.”[164] This does not mean necessarily that what the laborer
receives becomes absolutely smaller; only that it decreases relatively.
If ten laborers produce now twenty bushels of wheat in a given time, and
receive ten bushels as wages, and at a later period the productivity of
labor has increased to such an extent that they produce thirty bushels in
the same time, but receive only thirteen, their portion, their quota has
decreased.[165]

Now let us see how this produces pauperism and crises.

In society we find laborers, capitalists, and landlords. These classes
can exist only because there is a division of labor, and laborers
produce more than they consume. Landlords and capitalists receive what
is called rent, which is any income derived from the fact of possession
and not from labor. All the rest is labor’s share. Now how does it
happen that rent-receiving classes are able to exist? in other words,
how is one man enabled to take from another a part of the fruits of his
labor? This is because private property in land and capital exists.
Land and capital constitute the instruments of labor, and without them
production is impossible. Their possessors refuse to give them up to
another’s use unless a share of the produce is guaranteed them therefor,
while the laborer’s hunger and the sufferings of his family compel him
to assent. Labor is treated as a commodity. It is bought and sold like
other commodities, and its value depends on its cost. What is the cost
of labor? Manifestly the cost of continuing labor; in other words, such
means as will enable the laborer himself to live and to beget children
who shall continue to labor after he is gone. What the laborers require
to live, and to marry, and beget children in sufficient numbers to supply
the labor market, is their standard of life. This they obtain and no
more. Labor costs labor, and is measured by labor; but labor produces
more than it consumes, and this surplus-value is rent. Does the laborer’s
standard of life rise with the increase in productivity of economic
forces? No, it is even doubtful whether it is rising at all. Then the
conclusion is inevitable that labor’s proportion or quota decreases.
Rodbertus thinks he can prove, from the income returns in England since
1800, and from the division of the national product of England into rent,
wages, and profits, that the increased production of machine power,
estimated as equal to the labor of five hundred and fifty millions of
men, has benefited wholly and entirely landlords and capitalists.[166]
Rodbertus puts the matter as follows to laborers: “Under the _régime_
of _laissez-faire_ and with our present property laws, your level, your
portion of the goods produced, tends to fall, not to rise; to convince
yourselves, look at our situation in general. Has the separation in the
incomes of social classes become greater or smaller since we possess
machines and railroads, and productivity and production have increased
so remarkably? The answer cannot, indeed, be doubtful. Or consider our
situation in particular, and ask the oldest among you whether, during the
last forty years, wages—real wages, measured in what wages will buy—have
increased as much in your fatherland or your native city as land-rent,
or, what is the same, the value of the land, and as much as capital has
increased.”[167] We have here, then, an explanation of pauperism and of
discontent. A man’s poverty does not depend so much upon what he has
absolutely, as upon the relation in which his possessions stand to those
of others about him, and upon the extent to which they allow him to share
in the progress of the age. A cannibal in the Sandwich Islands is not
poor because he has no coat; an Englishman is. When the vast majority
were unable to read, a man was not poor or oppressed because he was
unable to purchase books, but a German who to-day has not the means to do
so is both poor and oppressed.[168]

Rodbertus undertakes, in the second place, to prove that crises result
from the continued decrease in labor’s share of all the goods produced.
His arguments are remarkable, and contain the ablest explanation yet
given of the commercial and industrial crashes which occur every few
years.[169]

Let us suppose that the total national production equals at a given
moment ten millions of units. It makes no difference what a unit is. It
may represent the value of ten oxen, five horses, one thousand bushels of
wheat, ten tons of hay, and one hundred sheep, or it may equal the value
of any other amount of economic goods. That is a matter of indifference.
This production is divided between landlords, capitalists, and laborers,
so that each class receives three millions of units, one million going
to the state in the shape of taxes. Let us further assume that there is
at this moment an equilibrium in production. Three millions of units of
such goods, necessaries and comforts, as laborers require, are produced;
three millions of units of necessaries, comforts, and luxuries are
produced for capitalists; and a like amount for landlords. One million
units of goods, such as the state requires, are produced. So long as
this relation is maintained a cessation in production is needless. The
laborers have the means of purchasing all that is produced for them, as
have also landlords, capitalists, and state. If production is doubled,
and the same relations are preserved, no crisis is thereby occasioned.
But the difficulty lies in the fact that the same proportions are not
preserved. Production increases, but the laborer’s share diminishes. He
has not the means of purchasing what is produced for him. The capitalists
and landlords do not increase their consumption of luxuries _pari passu_
with the diminishing consumption of laborers, as they save in order
to become wealthy. Their savings are invested in putting up factories
and producing goods for laborers, which laborers have not the means of
purchasing in the additional amounts. Cotton goods, cloths, and other
commodities are heaped up, and finally there comes a crash. During
the period of depression the proper relations are gradually restored.
The production has increased to twenty millions of units, let us say,
of which the laborers receive four millions of units. Equilibrium is
restored, when four millions are produced for them and sixteen millions
for the other classes of society. CONSEQUENTLY, IN A STATE OF INCREASING
PRODUCTION, WE OBSERVE AN INCREASED CONSUMPTION OF LUXURIES AFTER EVERY
CRISIS. Production continues to increase in the same relations until the
laborers are again unable to purchase what is produced for them, when
goods are again heaped up, and we have the anomaly of magazines full of
commodities for which there are no purchasers, although there are plenty
who desire them. Those for whom they were destined have not the means of
purchasing them; and this entails also distress upon others, those who
handle these commodities, as well as upon a large part of the rest of
society, owing to the close relations existing between different members
of the social body. Equilibrium is finally restored by an increased
consumption of luxuries. So long as economic life is not regulated these
processes will never cease to repeat themselves.

Poverty and commercial panics can be banished only by arrangements
which guarantee to laborers a share in the national product, which
increases _pari passu_ with increasing production. How is this to be
done? I cannot, in this place, give the details, which must be sought in
Rodbertus’s writings, particularly in his “Normal Arbeitstag.” I will
sketch the outlines of his plan.

The state must interfere. An estimate must be made of the value of the
national product, and of the share which laborers receive at the time of
the valuation. We will assume that all the products of society during
a year can be produced by four millions of hours of the labor of an
average man. The value of the yearly production equals four millions
of hours. Let us suppose that the laborers receive the product of one
million hours. They are given in exchange for this receipts, a kind of
paper money, the unit of which is one hour. All that is produced finds
its way first into magazines, and laborers and others, on presenting
labor-time money, receive its value in goods. If the productivity of
labor doubles, an hour will secure double the amount of goods. This is
the solution, then, of the problem of securing for the laborers a fixed
share of production and an amount of goods which increases with increased
production.

It is probably in itself, _per se_, not impossible. What is lacking is
the will. This makes it practically impossible. Many practical men have
regarded the scheme with favor. Indeed, a German architect has prepared
and published tables showing the value of the product of an average
hour’s work in the building trade, and of the share received by the
laborer himself.[170] Their accuracy was not disputed by builders, though
they doubted the advisability of letting the laborers know exactly the
proportion which constituted their wages. Rodbertus did not claim that
it would be the task of a day to carry out this plan, but he thought a
state which regarded lightly the expenditure of four hundred millions for
military purposes ought not to begrudge one hundred millions at once, and
perhaps more hereafter, to banish pauperism and stagnation in trade and
industry. He spoke of one or two centuries as necessary to realize these
plans. He did not, however, regard private property in land and capital
as the ultimate form of their possession, although the above scheme
allows both. He thought there were three stages in economic development.
In the first, private property in human beings—slavery, serfdom, and
vassalage—existed; in the second, that in which we now live, private
property in capital—_i.e._, the instruments and means of labor—was a
social institution; in the third, private property in income alone was to
be allowed. Each one was to enjoy in this third stage the full fruits of
his labor.

It is needless to say that Rodbertus waged no crusade against land or
capital. No one was ever so great a fool as to do that. Every social
democrat, even, admits the necessity of both land and capital. He did
not, however, believe that it was forever necessary that capitalists and
landlords as separate classes should exist. There is the same difference
between capital and capitalist as there is between labor and slave. Once,
he who waged war on slavery was looked upon as a man who was trying to
abolish labor. In the future Rodbertus thinks we will separate in the
same manner capital and capitalist, and abolish the capitalist class as
we have already abolished the slave-holding class. This does not at all
imply equality. Great differences could still exist, but they would be
based on merit.

A period of _laissez-faire_ was held by Rodbertus to denote a
transitional stage and a preparation for a different social organization.
After the social order of the Roman republic, which was founded on the
possession of many slaves, and production on a large scale by them, had
had its day, freedom in trade and commerce reigned under the emperors,
but was terminated by the feudal system of the Middle Ages, for which
state it was only preparatory. In the same manner, the present imperfect
and unsatisfactory organization, or, as he perhaps would have said,
disorganization, was to end in a higher social stage. It was wicked
and impious to hope for an improvement from _laissez-faire_, which he
called a fool’s paradise. Good things did not come to us in this world of
themselves. It was intended that we should work for them, and for their
attainment use all the instrumentalities which Providence has committed
to us, the state included.

All of the leading socialists of to-day, to whatever socialistic
group they may belong, have been influenced greatly by Rodbertus. An
understanding of his theories renders it comparatively easy to understand
Marx and Lassalle.

German socialists of to-day may be divided into three groups—viz.,
social democrats, professorial socialists, and Christian socialists.
We also hear of state socialists, who form one class with professorial
socialists; save that a few of them may, perhaps, belong to the social
democrats. Sometimes they are separated from professorial socialists and
made to include simply German office-holders, but the ideas of German
office-holders, as such, can have no interest for us in this place. The
same man is sometimes called a professorial socialist and sometimes a
state socialist, as, for example, Professor Wagner—state socialist as
an office-holder who lays stress on the beneficial effects of state
activity, professorial socialist as a professor who does the same. It is
best to use the term professorial socialists in a wide sense, so as to
include all holding similar views.

CHAPTER X.

KARL MARX.

The more immediate theoretical founder of social democracy, and for many
years its leading representative, was Karl Marx, born in 1818 in Treves
(Trier). The social position of his family in Germany was excellent. His
father, a converted Jew, occupied a high position in the civil service.
Marx studied law at the universities of Bonn and Berlin. In the latter
place he became so much interested in philosophy that he abandoned law.
The philosophy which he adopted was the Hegelian. He intended to become
a professor, but was led into politics and journalism by the apparent
dawn of freedom accompanying the succession of Frederick William IV.
to the Prussian throne in 1840. He soon became editor-in-chief of the
_Rhenish Gazette_ (_Rheinische Zeitung_), which had been founded by
leading liberals, and began to criticise the government with what was
then called unheard-of boldness. But he was so skilful in his expressions
that the special censor of the press, who was sent from Berlin to Cologne
to watch the paper, could find no cause for legal proceedings against
him. Finally, government becoming weary of such attacks, and having
then the power to do so, simply decreed that at the expiration of the
first quarter-year of 1843 the paper should cease to appear.[171] The
interest which Marx had begun to take in matters of government showed him
the necessity of informing himself more fully on subjects of political
economy. He went to Paris, accordingly, after the suppression of the
_Rheinische Zeitung_, to study that science, thinking that France then
afforded better advantages for that purpose. He was, no doubt, right
in this, as the Germans have only lately become great in political
economy. In Paris he continued to wage war with the pen on the Prussian
government, and was banished from France in 1844 by Guizot, to please
Prussia. Going to Brussels, he continued his economic studies, interested
himself in the cause of the laborers, and in his writings at this time
expressed views similar to those which he held at the time of his death.
In 1847, in company with Friedrich Engels, he composed and published
a manifesto of the communistic party, which closed with these words:
“The communists scorn to conceal their views and purposes. They declare
openly that their aims can be attained only by a violent overthrow of
the existing social order. Let the ruling classes tremble before a
communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose except
their chains. They have a world to gain. Proletarians of all lands,
unite!”

The events of 1848 brought Marx to Germany again, where, with his
friends, Engels, Wolff, and the poet Freiligrath, he founded the _New
Rhenish Gazette_ (_Neue Rheinische Zeitung_). For one year this paper
was an able advocate of the cause of the laborers. German democracy and
reaction were alike rejected, and the interest of the laborers was
represented as irreconcilably opposed to that of all other classes. The
paper was suppressed in 1849, and its founders banished from Germany.
Marx lived thereafter in London.

The last issue of the paper contained a spirited farewell poem, by
Freiligrath, promising the reappearance of the journal when its undying
spirit should have triumphed over all its foes. The following is a good
translation:[172]

“FAREWELL OF THE NEW RHENISH GAZETTE.

“Farewell, but not forever farewell!
They cannot kill the spirit, my brother;
In thunder I’ll rise on the field where I fell,
More boldly to fight out another.
When the last of crowns like glass shall break
On the scenes our sorrows have haunted,
And the people its last dread ‘guilty’ shall speak,
By your side you shall find me undaunted.
On Rhine or on Danube, in war and deed,
You shall witness, true to his vow,
On the wrecks of thrones, in the midst of the field,
The rebel who greets you now.”

In London, Marx continued his agitation and literary work
uninterruptedly—the former reaching its climax in the foundation of
the _International_, in 1864; the latter in the appearance of his
most important work, “Das Kapital” (“Capital”), in 1867.[173] It is
a development and continuation of his “Zur Kritik der politischen
Oekonomie”—“A Critique of Political Economy”—published in 1859. Marx
intended, in “Das Kapital,” to present a complete system of political
economy in three volumes, but had published only the first, “On the
Process of Capital Production,” at the time of his death, March 14, 1883.
The delay was due, it is said, to the extraordinary thoroughness with
which he worked. He had, however, practically completed the second volume
and had the third volume well under way before his decease. These two
volumes, treating of the “Circulation of Capital” and “The Forms of the
Entire Process and the History of the Theory,” will be brought out by his
friend, Friedrich Engels. It is further stated that Marx had prepared a
third and improved edition of the first volume, which is now in press.

Marx’s book, “Capital,” has been called the Bible of the social
democrats, and it deserves the name. It defends their doctrines with
acuteness of understanding and profundity of learning, and certainly
ranks among the ablest politico-economic treatises ever written. I should
place it on a par with Ricardo’s “Principles of Political Economy and
Taxation.” Much has been said against its style. I think it, at least,
equal to Ricardo’s. It is difficult reading, not because it is poorly
written, but because it is deep. Any one, however, who has had some
training in political economy, and is ordinarily bright, ought not to
find its difficulty insurmountable.

Marx lived a quiet life in London, directing from that point the
movements of the International, corresponding for the _New York Tribune_
for a time, besides writing his books and pamphlets, and enjoying the
society of his friends. His family life was a happy one. His wife was
Jenni von Westphalen, daughter of the Prussian minister of the same
name, who belonged to the celebrated reactionary ministry of which Von
Manteuffel was president. He had four children, of whom two have already
been mentioned as wives of well-known French socialists. The death of a
son in early life was a severe blow to him, and he never recovered from
the death of his wife, in 1881.

About the ability of Marx there is unanimity of opinion. The
philosopher Professor Friedrich A. Lange regarded him as one of the
ablest political economists that ever lived. So conservative a man as
Professor Knies, of Heidelberg, has often spoken in high terms of his
talents and acquisitions; and the well-known _Cologne Gazette_ used
these words in an obituary notice:[174] “He exercised, perhaps, a more
lasting influence on the inner politics of civilized states than any
one of his contemporaries. Political economy, especially in Germany,
knows no writer who has influenced both masses and scholars in a more
decided, thoroughgoing manner than Karl Marx.... He was one of the
sharpest thinkers and readiest dialecticians ever possessed by economic
science.... His ‘Capital’ is classical and indispensable for every one
who wishes to concern himself earnestly with social and economic science.”

Immediately after the death of Marx, meetings were held in all parts of
the United States and elsewhere, as far as the laws would allow it, to
do honor to his memory. One characteristic feature of these meetings was
the vow which was taken in all to spread the works and to disseminate
the ideas of their departed leader. At the mass-meeting in the Cooper
Institute, in New York city, undoubtedly the largest one held, the
following resolutions were read and adopted:

“In common with the workers and the disinherited, with the true
friends of liberty of all countries, we deplore the death of
our great thinker and champion, Karl Marx, as a grievous and
irreparable loss to the cause of labor and freedom.

“We pledge ourselves to keep his name and his works ever in
remembrance, and to do our utmost for the dissemination of the
ideas given by him to the world.

“We promise, in honor of the memory of our great departed, to
dedicate our lives to the cause of which he was a pioneer—the
struggle in which he left so noble a record—and never, at any
moment, to forget his great appeal, ‘Workmen of the world,
unite!’”

Similar resolutions were adopted at the other meetings, in Baltimore,
Chicago, Cleveland, etc.

Marx’s followers boast particularly of two discoveries which he
made—viz., the correct theory of the development of history and his
doctrine of value. While it is not true that these were, by any means,
entirely original with him, no one would dispute that his presentation is
worked out in an original and remarkable manner.

His theory of history is that it is a development, and is shaped at each
period by the economic life of the people, by the manner in which goods
are produced and distributed. He takes, as his starting-point, the fact
that men must eat, drink, wear clothes, and find shelter from rain,
snow, and cold. Art, religion, and science come after the satisfaction
of these elementary wants. The production of wealth by slaves gave form
to the history of the classical world, while that of the Middle Ages
is dominated by serfdom and its accessories. The governing idea of the
present age is capitalistic production—that is to say, concentration
of large masses in factories, running a race with immense machines, and
systematically robbed by their employers. When we take the view that
history is a growth governed by the necessities of production, past
ages do not seem so inhuman as they otherwise do. It has hitherto been
necessary that the vast majority should toil incessantly, while only few
devoted themselves to the pursuit of the higher goods. The processes
of production were so primitive and imperfect that it was physically
impossible for the many to enjoy leisure for cultivating their minds and
bodies. Hence it was that the ancients regarded slavery as necessary and
natural. Plato and Aristotle both considered it a law of nature, just
the same as it has hitherto been supposed that private property in land
and capital was a law of nature; whereas, as already shown by Rodbertus,
they are all only institutions of positive and changeable law. Private
property in the instruments of production can be abolished, as private
property in human beings has been. This abolition could not, however,
take place until society had made such advance in the art of producing
goods that all requisites for human existence and progress could be
produced without requiring the unceasing toil of the vast majority.
That time has come. It is now easy to produce all the requirements of
civilization and at the same time to leave leisure to each one to make
the most of himself. Aristotle, in defending slavery, uttered words which
sound almost like a prophecy. In his “Politics” (i. 4) he uses this
language: “Every servant is an instrument more valuable than any other
instrument. For if every instrument at command, or from foreknowledge of
its master’s will, could accomplish its special work—if the shuttle thus
should weave and the lyre play of itself—then neither would the architect
want servants nor the master require slaves.” These remarks seem to
contain a dim foreboding of the marvellous invention of machinery which
has taken place in this age, and has substituted iron and steel for bone
and muscle.

A feudal aristocracy was once required to protect and guide industry
and agriculture. The growth of the _bourgeoisie_ in the cities finally
rendered feudalism an antiquated institution, and it had to make way
for the third estate, under whose guidance wealth has increased most
marvellously and laborers have been gathered together and organized. But
the _bourgeoisie_ has fulfilled its mission. It is now but a hinderance
and an obstacle. The repeated crises and the continual concentration of
property in the hands of a few mammoth millionaires prove conclusively
that they are not equal to the task of leadership. The time has arrived
when the _proletariat_, the fourth estate, must take the reins into
its own hands. It is now to play the grand _rôle_ in the history of
the world. “With the continually decreasing number of the magnates of
capitalism, who usurp and monopolize all the advantages of the changed
form of production, there is an accompanying increase in the mass of
misery, of oppression, of bondage, of degradation, of exploitation;
but there also arises a revolt of an increasing class of laborers, who
have been schooled, united, and disciplined by the mechanism of the
capitalistic processes of production. The monopoly of capital becomes a
shackle to the method of production, under and with which it has grown
up. The concentration of the means of production and the association
of laborers reach a point where they are incompatible with their
capitalistic shell. The shell is broken. The death-knell of capitalistic
private property sounds. The expropriateurs are expropriated.”[175] Thus
dawns a new and better era in the history of human development.

The key to Marx’s economic doctrines is his theory of value, with an
exposition of which “Das Kapital” opens. It is based on Ricardo and
Rodbertus, but is developed and defended in an original manner. He
begins by separating value in use from value in exchange. Value in use
is utility, arising from the adaptation of an article to satisfy some
human need. Air, water, sunshine, wheat, potatoes, gold, and diamonds
are examples. It does not necessarily imply exchange value. Many goods
are very useful but not exchangeable, because they are free to all. Such
is the case, usually, with water. On the other hand, no good can have
value in exchange unless it is useful. Men will not give something for
that which satisfies no want or need. Both value in use and value in
exchange are utilities, but, as they differ, there must be some element
in the one which the other does not _per se_ contain. We find what that
is by analyzing the constituent elements of different goods which possess
exchange value. How can we compare them? Only because they contain some
common element. But what is there in common between a horse and a house?
You cannot say that this stick is longer than that sugar is sweet. Yet
you say this house is worth ten times as much as that horse. Materials
are not compared, nor stability with swiftness, nor color with color.
The common element is found alone in human labor. You compare labor
with labor. It requires ten times the amount of average social labor
(_gesellschaftliche Durchschnittsarbeitskraft_) to secure such a house
as it does to put one in possession of such a horse. Labor-time is the
measure which we apply to different commodities in order to compare them.
We mean thereby the ordinary average labor which is required at a given
time in a given society. The average man is taken as a basis, together
with the average advantages of machinery and the arts. This is average
social labor-time. Complicated labor is simply a multiple of simple
labor. One man’s labor, which has required long and careful training, may
count for twice as much as ordinary, simple labor; but the simple labor
is the unit.

This distinction between value in use and value in exchange enables us
to understand how capitalists exploit their laborers. They pay for labor
its exchange value, which depends upon the cost of labor or the standard
of life of the laborer, as we have already seen in our examination of
Rodbertus’s system. What it takes to support a laborer’s family is the
exchange value of all the labor which can be got out of that family.

Let us suppose that a laborer requires each day goods whose value is
denoted by A, each week in addition thereto goods denoted by B, besides
quarterly needs which are satisfied by goods whose value is C. Then his
support for each day will require the value of

365 A + 52 B + 4 C[176]
------------------
365.

Now, if it requires six hours to produce these goods, the laborer is
producing surplus value if he labors more than that time. This the
capitalist requires him to do, as he has hired his entire labor power.
Under these circumstances, the laborer who works twelve hours a day for
his employer is paid for six hours’ work, while he is robbed of the
product of the other six hours’ labor. The capitalist is able to do this
because he possesses the means of production. The laborer would gladly
work without recourse to the capitalist, but he has not the means, the
instruments with which to produce. He must accede to the terms of the
capitalist or starve. The capitalist goes on the market and finds there
the commodity, labor, for which he pays its value in exchange, as for any
other commodity. But value in use does not depend upon value in exchange.
The value in use of labor to the capitalist is all that he can squeeze
out of it. The capitalist pockets the surplus value, and it becomes
capital, enabling him to continue and enlarge his process of exploitation.

Let the line,

_a----b----c_,

represent the labor of twelve hours, _b_ dividing it into two equal
parts; _a----b_ is necessary labor; _b----c_ is unpaid labor productive
of surplus value. It is the capitalist’s interest to extend _b----c_ as
much as possible, as that governs his accumulations. Hence, the efforts
of employers to increase the length of a day’s labor; hence, the efforts
of employees to shorten _a--------c_, as they thereby diminish the amount
of unpaid labor, of whose value they are robbed.

This enables us to comprehend the significance of Marx’s definition of
capital, which is as follows: “A negro is a negro. In certain relations
he becomes a slave. A cotton-spinning-machine is a machine for spinning
cotton. It becomes capital only in certain relations. Capital is a
social relation existing in the processes of production. It is an
historical relation. The means of production are not capital when they
are the property of the immediate producer. They become capital only
under conditions, in which they serve at the same time as the means of
exploiting and ruling the laborer.... The foundation of the capitalistic
method of production is to be found in that theft which deprived the
masses of their rights in the soil, in the earth, the common heritage of
all.”[177] That is to say, Marx limits the name capital to economic goods
in the hands of employers.

The capitalist buys the commodity labor (_l_), for money (_m_), and
sells its product for more money (_m_+). The formula of capitalistic
production is therefore _m_-_l_-_m_+. In the socialistic state, the +,
surplus value, vanishes. The entire product belongs to the producer. If
he exchanges it for other products by means of money which must be based
on labor-time—labor-time money—the formula will be _c_-_m_-_c_. Money
becomes simply a medium of exchanging commodities (_c_) of equal value.
The only source, then, of obtaining the fruits of labor will be—labor,
physical or mental, but always labor of some kind or another. Idlers will
disappear from the earth. The race of parasites will become extinct.

One of Marx’s most important doctrines is his theory of crises. During
prosperous times manufacturers employ all the men, women, and children
who will work. The laboring classes prosper, marriage is encouraged,
and population increases. Suddenly there comes a commercial crisis.
The greater part of the laborers are thrown out of employment, and are
maintained by society at large; that is, the general public has to bear
the burden of keeping the laborers—the manufacturer’s tools—for their
employer until he may need them again. These laborers without work
constitute an army of reserve forces for the manufacturer. When times
begin to improve, he again gradually resumes business, and becomes more
prosperous. The laborer’s wages have previously been reduced on account
of hard times, and the manufacturer is not obliged to raise them, as
there is a whole army in waiting, glad to take work at any price. “If a
surplus labor population is a necessary result of the accumulation or the
development of wealth on a capitalistic basis, this surplus population is
in turn a lever of capitalistic accumulation. It forms an always ready,
industrial reserve army which belongs as absolutely to capital as if it
had been at the expense of raising it.... Surplus capital presses forward
with frenzy into all established branches of production, whose market
suddenly widens, and into new ones, as railroads, etc., the need of which
springs from this development. In all such cases must large masses of
men suddenly, and without loss to the leaders of production in other
places, be ready to be employed at the important point. These masses are
furnished by the surplus population.”[178]

CHAPTER XI.

THE INTERNATIONAL WORKINGMEN’S ASSOCIATION.

The International Workingmen’s Association (_Internationale
Arbeiterassociation_) is a society based on social democratic
principles, and intended to embrace all the laborers of Christendom. The
Internationalists believe that working-men, having nothing to hope from
the higher classes, must fight out their own emancipation. They hold,
also, that the interests of labor throughout the civilized world are so
vitally connected, that it is necessary for all lands to march together.
They are thoroughgoing cosmopolitans.

The following permanent “statutes” (by-laws) were adopted at its first
meeting in London, September, 1864, and confirmed at its congress in
Geneva in 1866:

“In consideration that the emancipation of the laboring classes
must be accomplished by the laboring classes, that the battle
for the emancipation of the laboring classes does not signify
a battle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal
rights and duties, and the abolition of class rule;

“That the economic dependence of the laboring man upon the
monopolist of the implements of work, the sources of life,
forms the basis of every kind of servitude, of social misery,
of spiritual degradation, and political dependence;

“That, therefore, the economic emancipation of the laboring
classes is the great end to which every political movement must
be subordinated as a simple auxiliary;

“That all exertions which, up to this time, have been directed
towards the attainment of this end, have failed on account of
the want of solidarity between the various branches of labor
in every land, and by reason of the absence of a brotherly bond
of unity between the laboring classes of different countries;

“That the emancipation of labor is neither a local nor a
national, but a social, problem, which embraces all countries
in which modern society exists, and whose solution depends upon
the practical and theoretical co-operation of the most advanced
lands;

“That the present awakening of the laboring classes in the
industrial lands of Europe gives occasion for new hope, but at
the same time contains a solemn warning not to fall back into
old errors, and demands an immediate union of the movements not
yet united;

“——, in consideration of all these circumstances, the First
International Labor Congress declares that the International
Workingmen’s Association, and all societies and individuals
belonging to it, recognize truth, right, and morality as
the basis of their conduct towards one another and their
fellow-men, without respect to color, creed, or nationality.
This congress regards it as the duty of man to demand the
rights of a man and citizen, not only for himself, but for
every one who does his duty. No rights without duties; no
duties without rights.”

The International resolved to hold yearly congresses. Its members have
met at Geneva at least twice, at Basle, at Lausanne, at the Hague,
and other places. It is not necessary to give the history of these
different meetings, as they were all of one general character.[179] Their
importance consists in the repeated emphasis given to the thought of the
oneness of the interests of laborers in all civilized states. Delegates
at the congresses gave reports of progress, of strikes, reductions in
labor-time, and of all matters likely to interest the working classes.
Measures for continuing the propaganda more successfully were discussed.
The congress at the Hague in 1872 is more important than the others,
as it witnessed a split in the ranks of the Internationalists. The
original International stood under the influence of Marx, who was the
guiding spirit of its general council, with its seat at London. The whole
arrangement was that of a strong government. Some were envious of Marx,
and others—the Anarchists—objected to the principles of the organization.
Bakounine led the opposition, and a new International was formed, based
on anarchic principles. Instead of a General Council, they instituted
a Federal Council. The Internationalists of the country where the next
congress was to be held carried on the correspondence with the various
societies, gathered statistics, etc. Thus, their leading body, their
central organ (not authority), changed from year to year. Each land was
left free to conduct its agitation in its own way, and every individual
atom, _i.e._, local organization, was left free to come and go as it
pleased. The Anarchists, and other adherents of this newer branch, made
strenuous efforts to spread their organization, and were particularly
successful in Spain, where Bakounine was their representative. Both
Internationals held congresses in Geneva in 1873.

It is often supposed that the International is dead. This is a great
mistake. The formal organization of the old International was dissolved
in 1875; but the original spirit survived. I am much inclined to
think that the association founded by Bakounine has still a formal
organization, but, however that may be, the International to all intents
and purposes is stronger to-day than it ever was before.

Membership in the International is one of the conditions of membership
in the revolutionary organization of the Black Hand in Spain.[180]
Prince Krapotkine and others were this year condemned to imprisonment
for belonging to an International Association of Laborers, and to-day
organizations are being formed in America, with the title of Branches
of the International Association of Laborers. At the great mass meeting
held in Cooper Union to honor the memory of Karl Marx, March 19, 1883,
speeches were delivered in English, German, Russian, and other languages,
to illustrate the spirit of the International, and to impress upon
laborers the fact that at such a time no differences existed between
them due to the accident of nationality. One of the speakers declared
triumphantly to the audience that the spectacle they were then witnessing
was conclusive proof that the International still lived. He was right.

The International has caused the governments of Europe no inconsiderable
alarm at various times, and it is likely that its importance has been
overrated. Still it must be acknowledged that the existence of such a
society, presided over by a man of undoubted ability, spreading itself
over Europe and America, was in itself a significant fact. Its importance
must by no means be estimated by the number of its declared adherents or
the attendance at its congresses. Where one laborer avows himself openly
an Internationalist, we may be sure that there are twenty holding like
views who conceal them from motives of policy. Moreover, the society is
still in its infancy. It may yet play a _rôle_ in the world’s history.

At present, the International appears like a little cloud on the
horizon, no larger than a man’s hand, but it is possible that it points
to growths and formations which in the future shall darken the heavens
with black and heavy clouds. It is possible, it foreshadows a tragedy of
world-wide import, which shall make all the cruelty and terror of the
French Revolution sink into utter insignificance. It is possible, it
portends the destruction of old, antiquated institutions, and the birth
of a new civilization in a night of darkness and horror, in which the
roll of thunder shall shake the earth’s foundations, and the vivid glare
of lightning shall reveal a carnival of bloodshed and slaughter.

These are all possibilities, but let us trust that they are not
probabilities. The International Workingmen’s Association is one
of many signs which gives us reason to hope for a continued growth
of international relations; and this growth may terminate in that
longed-for internationalism, which shall lead to the formation of a
world-organization, guaranteeing to the nations of the earth perpetual
peace. There are numerous evidences of this development, of which
the following are a few examples; the international postal union,
international congresses, international courts of arbitration, and the
efforts to establish international factory legislation. It was once hoped
that free-trade would help on the good work by knitting nation to nation
so firmly that they would realize the identity of their interests. In
this people have been disappointed. Free-trade has united, perhaps, a few
great merchants and manufacturers, and led to cosmopolitan feelings among
the wealthier classes. The masses have never been affected by questions
of international commerce. It may be that an international union between
the laborers of all lands will finally force upon men the recognition
of the folly and crime of war, and will bring to pass that peace and
good-will among men prophesied so long ago.

CHAPTER XII.

FERDINAND LASSALLE.

The most interesting figure in the history of social democracy is
incontestably Ferdinand Lassalle. In some respects he resembled Marx.
He also was of Hebrew descent, and belonged to the higher classes of
society. Both were interested in the welfare of the lower classes, and
made sacrifices willingly in behalf of their cause. Both intended to
become university professors, and there is not the shadow of a reason
to doubt that both might have succeeded as such. Lassalle, the son of
a wealthy wholesale merchant of Breslau, was born in 1825. His father
wished him to devote himself to business, but Lassalle was too fond
of his studies to consent. He went to the universities of Breslau and
Berlin, where he devoted himself to philology and philosophy. His career
as a student was brilliant in the extreme. The most distinguished men of
the time were carried away with admiration. Wilhelm von Humboldt called
him “Das Wunderkind”—“The Miraculous Child.” His first literary work was
an exposition of the “Philosophy of Heraclitus the Obscure.”[181] “Before
this book,” to use the words of another, “Humboldt and the whole world
bent the knee.” Lassalle’s second important work was one on a system
of jurisprudence entitled, “The System of Acquired Rights”—“Das System
der erworbenen Rechte” (2 Bde.). The great jurist Savigny called it the
ablest legal book which had been written since the sixteenth century. It
was published in 1861. Before this, Lassalle had become interested in the
case of the Countess von Hatzfeldt, the misused wife of a wealthy but
brutal man. While he was indulging in the most extravagant dissipation,
she was obliged to live in cramped circumstances. The Countess had begun
a suit against her husband for separation and alimony, but did not make
much headway until Lassalle took charge of the case, in 1846. After an
eight years’ contest, he secured a brilliant triumph. The Countess,
although over forty, was still beautiful, and Lassalle, in taking up
her case, appears to have been actuated by the same motives as the
knights-errant of an earlier period who went about redressing wrong and
protecting the weak. The entire affair is illustrative of his fiery,
romantic temperament.

It was in 1862 that Lassalle began his agitation in behalf of the
laboring classes, an agitation which resulted in the formation of the
German Social Democratic Party. Previous to his time, German laborers
had been considered contented and peaceable. It had been thought that
a working-men’s party might be established in France or England, but
that it was hopeless to attempt to move the phlegmatic German laborers.
Lassalle’s historical importance lies in the fact that he was able to
work upon the laborers so powerfully as to arouse them to action. It is
due to Lassalle above all others that German working-men’s battalions,
to use the social democratic expression, now form the vanguard in the
struggle for the emancipation of labor.

Lassalle’s writings did not advance materially the theory of social
democracy. He drew from Rodbertus and Marx in his economic writings, but
he clothed their thoughts in such manner as to enable ordinary laborers
to understand them, and this they never could have done without such
help. Even for an educated man their works are not easy reading; for
the uneducated they are quite incomprehensible. Lassalle’s speeches and
pamphlets were eloquent sermons on texts taken from Marx. Lassalle gave
to Ricardo’s law of wages the designation, the iron law of wages, and
expounded to the laborers its full significance, showing them how it
inevitably forced wages down to a level just sufficient to enable them to
live. He acknowledged that it was the key-stone of his system, and that
his doctrines stood or fell with it.

Laborers were told that this law could be overthrown only by the
abolition of the wages system. How Lassalle really thought this was to
be accomplished is not so evident. He proposed to the laborers that
government should aid them by the use of its credit to the extent of
100,000,000 of thalers, to establish co-operative associations for
production; and a great deal of breath has been wasted to show the
inadequacy of his proposed measures. Lassalle could not himself have
supposed that so insignificant a matter as the granting of a small loan
would solve the labor question. He recognized, however, that it was
necessary to have some definite party programme to insure success in
agitation, and could think of no better plan at the time than to work
for universal suffrage and a government subsidy. He wrote to his friend
Rodbertus to the effect that he was willing to drop the latter plank in
his platform, if something better could be suggested.[182] It would be
going too far to say that he was positively insincere, for he might have
thought that if government had voted the proposed credit of one hundred
millions, it would have opened the way for other reforms. He might have
regarded this modest proposal merely as an entering wedge.

Lassalle took this project of productive co-operative associations
founded on government loans from Louis Blanc, with whose work he was well
acquainted; indeed, as he began his agitation, he wrote to the French
socialist, and requested some kind of an open letter of recognition which
should give him credit with the laborers.[183] We may get some clew to
thoughts possibly lingering in the background, which Lassalle might have
intended to express later by recalling the proposals of the Frenchman.
Louis Blanc, as will be remembered, wished government to use its power
of taxation to assist the social workshops with large advances of money,
for which no interest was to be charged. No one was to be forced to join
these _ateliers sociaux_. According to this scheme private manufacturers
are allowed to continue their business as long as they choose. However,
as no interest is paid for the government loans to the co-operative
undertakings, the public establishments will be in a position to
undersell private employers of labor and thus compel them to fall in
line. The only possible termination is the socialistic state. As Lassalle
was thoroughly informed concerning Blanc’s ideas, it is quite possible
that in the course of time he may have intended to go equally far. The
way he presented the matter to the laborers was somewhat as follows:
There exists at present a conflict between labor and capital, which must
be abolished. This contradiction between the elements of production can
only be terminated by their union in co-operative associations, in which
no capitalist comes between the working-man and the fruits of his toil,
to levy toll thereon. But at the present time only large establishments
can succeed, as the increased division of labor makes it necessary to
employ a large force of men, and mechanical inventions have forced
producers to use many and expensive machines. The laborers have not the
means to found large manufactories; consequently government must advance
these means in order to cause the existing and unhappy social conflict to
cease. Government is to advance capital to different groups of laborers,
who conduct various enterprises. These groups are associated, new ones
are continually added, and, finally, their united power is so great that
they can stand alone without government aid.

This all appears harmless enough, and no government would be justified in
refusing 100,000,000 of thalers, or $75,000,000, if so much good could
be done by it. But one of the ablest men of his time must have been
fully conscious of the utter insufficiency of such a sum. If he had any
other idea in his mind than simply to use his demand of government as a
rallying-point for purposes of agitation, it cannot well be doubted that
he had further petitions to address to government as soon as they had
granted his first one. It is not at all improbable he might have been
willing to see collateral inheritances abolished, and the income derived
therefrom devoted to co-operative undertakings. Proposals, like abolition
of interest on loans, must have followed, with the view of rendering
private competition impossible. Thus would be introduced the socialistic
state longed for by the social democratic party founded by Lassalle.

“On the 23d of May, 1863, German social democracy was born. Little
importance was attached to the event at the time. A few men met at
Leipsic, and, under the leadership of Ferdinand Lassalle, formed a
new political party called the ‘Universal German Laborers’ Union’
(‘Der Allgemeine Deutsche Arbeiterverein’). That was all. Surely,
no one could be expected to ascribe great weight to the fact that a
handful of working-men, led by a dreamer, had met and passed a few
resolutions—resolutions, too, as modest in their expression of purpose
as they were harmless in appearance. It was simply declared that the
laborers ought to be represented in the different German parliaments,
as only thus could their interests be adequately cared for and the
opposition between the various classes of society terminated; and in view
of this fact it was resolved that the members of the Union should avail
themselves of all peaceful and legal means in endeavoring to bring about
universal suffrage.

“But it was soon discovered that the members of the Union, the first
organization in Germany of social democracy, desired political power only
as a means of overthrowing entirely the existing order of the production
and distribution of wealth.”[184]

Lassalle never tired of representing in vivid colors the injustice of our
present social institutions. The crimes, selfishness, and heartlessness
of the _bourgeoisie_ were unfailing topics in his agitation. The laborers
were told that they had no right to be contented with their lot. It is
this damnable, easily satisfied disposition of you German laborers which
is your ruin, they were told.[185]

“The German laborer was finally moved. His anger and discontent became
permanent and terrible in proportion as it had been difficult to arouse
him. He was not to be easily pacified. He soon showed strength and
determination in such manner as to attract the attention of the civilized
world. Statesmen grew pale and kings trembled.”[186]

Lassalle did not live to see the fruits of his labors. He met with some
success and celebrated a few triumphs, but the Union did not flourish
as he hoped. At the time of his death he did not appear to have a
firm, lasting hold on the laboring population. There then existed no
social-democratic party with political power. Although Lassalle lost
his life in a duel, which had its origin in a love affair, and not in
any struggle for the rights of labor, he was canonized at once by the
working-men, and took his place among the greatest martyrs and heroes
of all times. His influence increased more than tenfold as soon as he
ceased to live. This was not entirely undeserved. Men remembered and
appreciated better his extraordinary talents and his ardent, romantic
temperament. Even Bismarck, with whom he had been personally acquainted,
took occasion once, in the Reichstag, to express his admiration for
Lassalle. I was in Germany at the time, and remember well what a
sensation his words created. He expressed himself as follows:[187] “I
met Lassalle three or four times. Our relations were not of a political
nature. Politically he had nothing which he could offer me. He attracted
me extraordinarily as a private man. Lassalle was one of the most gifted
and amiable men with whom I have ever associated—a man who was ambitious
on a grand scale, but not the least of a republican. He had a very marked
inclination towards a national monarchy; the idea towards the attainment
of which his efforts were directed was the German Empire, and in this we
found a point of contact. Lassalle was ambitious on a grand scale, and
whether the German Empire should close with the house of Hohenzollern
or the house of Lassalle, that was perhaps doubtful; but his sympathies
were through and through monarchical.... Lassalle was an energetic and
exceedingly clever man, and it was always instructive to talk with him.
Our conversations have lasted for hours, and I have always regretted
their close.... It would have given me great pleasure to have had a
similarly gifted man for a neighbor in my country home.”

It has, indeed, been stated that Lassalle, at the time of his death, had
some thoughts of making terms with the Prussian government. He was to
come out as a supporter of Bismarck, and to receive a high appointment in
return. I am unable to say how much truth there may be in this report.
It is possible he may have begun to lose faith in social democracy;
still it must be confessed that he was not a man to be easily diverted
from a purpose which he had once formed. This is abundantly shown by his
indomitable perseverance in the case of the Countess von Hatzfeldt. It
is nevertheless significant that the second edition of his “System of
Acquired Rights,” which appeared in 1881, was edited by Lothar Bucher,
who bears the title of privy-councillor and holds a high position under
the government in Berlin.

There are three doctrines upon which the social democratic leaders lay
especial stress in their attacks on the economic institutions of to-day.

The first is “Das eherne Lohngesetz”—“The Iron Law of Wages”—or “Cruel
Iron Law of Wages,” as it is also called. It is with this law that the
name of Lassalle is especially connected.

The second doctrine teaches the systematic robbery of laborers by
capitalists. They rob them by taking from them all the surplus value
which they produce, over and above the means necessary to sustain
life. This is Marx’s doctrine of the appropriation of surplus value
(_Mehrwerth_) by employers.

The third doctrine is Marx’s theory of industrial crises and panics.

What is “The Iron Law of Wages”? It is, as already stated, only
Lassalle’s statement and interpretation of Ricardo’s “Law of Wages.”
Ricardo expresses his law in these words: “The natural price of labor is
that price which is necessary to enable the laborers, one with another,
to subsist and to perpetuate their race, without either increase or
diminution.” Ricardo has previously explained what is to be understood
by market price and what by natural price. Market price is the price
actually obtained for an article; the natural price is that which pays
labor and the profits of capital. Through miscalculation, too much or too
little of a commodity is at times offered on the market, and it departs
from its natural price. If too little is offered, profits will be too
high, and capital will rush to the production of the commodity in order
to gain the unusual profits, until competition forces them down to the
usual rate, or, very likely, below it, when capital will be withdrawn
from the production of said commodity. So the market price fluctuates
about the natural price with a continual tendency to return to it. Now,
labor is a commodity, and may be increased or diminished in quantity like
other commodities. In an advancing state of society the market price
will be above the natural price, and may continue so for a long time;
but early and frequent marriages and large families will produce all
the labor required, and reduce it to its natural price eventually. In a
declining state of society, on the other hand, labor would sink below
its natural price, and the supply would diminish on account of frequent
deaths, few marriages, and small families.

This law of wages may be difficult for those to comprehend who are not
thoroughly familiar with economic discussions. In order to make it
clearer, I will quote, with a few changes and abbreviations, a passage
of some length from John Stuart Mill,[188] giving a lucid explanation
of the law. “Mr. Ricardo assumes,” says Mill, “that there is everywhere
a minimum rate of wages—either the lowest with which it is physically
possible to keep up the population, or the lowest with which the people
will choose to do. To this minimum he assumes that the general rate of
wages always tends; that they can never be lower beyond the length of
time required for a diminished rate of increase to make itself felt, and
can never long continue higher. This assumption contains sufficient truth
to render it admissible for the purposes of abstract science.... But in
the application to practice it is necessary to consider that the minimum
of which he speaks, especially when it is not a physical, but what may be
termed a moral minimum, is itself liable to vary.” A rise of the price of
food will permanently lower the standard of living of laborers, “in case
their previous habits in respect of population prove stronger than their
previous habits in respect of comfort. In that case the injury done to
them will be permanent, and their deteriorated condition will become a
new minimum, tending to perpetuate itself as the more ample minimum did
before.” It is to be feared that this is the way in which a rise in the
price of provisions usually operates. “There is considerable evidence
that the circumstances of the agricultural laborers in England have more
than once in our history sustained great permanent deterioration from
causes which operated by diminishing the demand for labor, and which,
if population had exercised its power of self-adjustment, in obedience
to the previous standard of comfort, could only have had a temporary
effect; but, unhappily, the poverty in which the class was plunged during
a long series of years brought that previous standard into disuse, and
the next generation, growing up without having possessed those pristine
comforts, multiplied in turn without any attempt to retrieve them.” ...
The salutary effect of a fall in the price of food is of no permanent
value “if laborers content themselves with enjoying the greater comfort
while it lasts, but do not learn to require it.... If from poverty their
children had previously been insufficiently fed or improperly nursed, a
greater number will now be reared, and the competition of these, when
they grow up, will depress wages probably in full proportion to the
greater cheapness of food. If the effect is not produced in this mode,
it will be produced by earlier and more numerous marriages, or by an
increased number of births to a marriage.” I believe Mill renders the
law as plain as it can be made, without entering into subjects foreign
to this work. The standpoint is this: labor is a commodity, like wheat
or potatoes, which is increased or decreased according to the existing
demand. The laborers live not for themselves, but solely for the higher
classes, in particular, for the capitalists. This is the way Lassalle
expresses it to the laborers of Frankfort in an eloquent speech, which
has not yet ceased to be a power in Germany: “What is the consequence of
that law, which, as I have proved to you, is accepted by all political
economists? What is the consequence of the same? I ask. You believe,
perhaps, laborers and fellow-citizens, that you are human beings—that
you are men. Speaking from the standpoint of political economy, you make
a terrible mistake. Speaking from the standpoint of political economy,
you are nothing but a commodity, a high price for which increases
your numbers, just the same as a high price for stockings increases
the number of stockings, if there are not enough of them; and you are
swept away, your number is diminished by smaller wages—by what Malthus
calls the preventive and positive checks to population; your number is
diminished, just as if you were vermin against which society wages war.”
Lassalle then shows them how much shorter the average of life is among
the laboring classes than among the wealthy. He demonstrates to them that
poor and insufficient food means starvation. “There are, gentlemen,” says
he, “two ways of dying of starvation. It, indeed, happens seldom that a
man falls down dead in a moment from hunger; but when a man is subjected
to a greater expenditure of power than he is able to replace, on account
of poor food or a miserable mode of life—when he gives out more physical
energy than he takes in—then, I say, he dies of slow starvation.”

Rehearse this in a thousand different ways and with all the resources of
oratorical art, to laborers really ill-fed, ill-housed, and ill-clothed,
and you shall indeed find yourself soon standing upon a volcano, whose
forces are no longer latent and slumbering.

In his definition of capital Lassalle clothes the same thought contained
in his “Iron Law of Wages” in other words. The definition reads as
follows: “Capital exists where a division of labor obtains and where
production consists in the creation of values in exchange, and in such
a system of production it is the advance of labor already performed
(congealed, coagulated labor), which is necessary to sustain the life of
the producer. This advance of coagulated labor brings it to pass that the
excess of labor’s product over and above what is necessary to support
the life of the producer accrues to the person or persons who made the
advance.”

The more one reflects upon this definition, the more meaning is
discovered in it. It has furnished the text for many a social-democratic
sermon. Like Marx, Lassalle holds that capital is based on a theft—on
that theft, namely, “which deprived the masses of their right in the
soil, in the earth—the common heritage of all.”

It is substantially the same doctrine which we have met with so
often—viz., that labor alone is the source of wealth, and if capitalist
and landlord could be swept out of existence the entire social product
would go to the laborer. It resulted from a one-sided development of
certain teachings of Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” “The produce of
labor,” says Adam Smith, in one place—and, as will be seen, he means the
entire product—“constitutes the natural recompense or wages of labor.

“In that original state of things which precedes both the appropriation
of land and the accumulation of stock, the whole produce of labor belongs
to the laborer. He has neither landlord nor master to share with him.

“Had this state continued, the wages of labor would have augmented with
all those improvements in its productive powers to which the division of
labor gives occasion. All things would gradually have become cheaper.
They would have been produced by a smaller quantity of labor; and as the
commodities produced by equal quantities of labor would naturally, in
this state of things, be exchanged for one another, they would have been
purchased likewise with the produce of a smaller quantity.”[189]

Repeat this to the man toiling and moiling for a bare subsistence, while
he crouches before the employing capitalist surfeited in luxury; or
to the poor tenant farmer, whose half-starved family can hardly find
the wherewithal to cover their nakedness, while his absentee landlord
indulges in the extravagant pleasures of a gay capital—and do you imagine
that from it he will be slow to draw a very natural conclusion, and one
fraught with tremendous practical consequences? If that originally and
naturally belonged to him which another now enjoys, will he not long
to return to the state of nature? As he reflects upon his wrongs and
sufferings, will he not be filled with hatred towards that one who, as
he thinks, unjustly and cruelly keeps him from the fruits of his labor?
And as time goes on, and the hardships he endures sink more and more
deeply into his mind, will he not finally, in desperation, resolve to put
down his oppressor, be he landlord or be he capitalist, and to reverse,
by the force of a strong right arm, an unnatural and artificial social
organization?

In that thought and in that determination originated social democracy.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE IDEA OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.

Social democrats form the extreme wing of the socialists, though, at
present, many of them are inclined to lay so much stress on equality
of enjoyment, regardless of the value of one’s labor, that they might,
perhaps, more properly be called communists. But as they are usually
known as social democrats, and as the name is not likely to lead to
misunderstanding, there is no reason why we should not adhere to the
ordinary appellation, especially as there are those among them who do not
favor equality. They ought scarcely to be called simply socialists.

They have two distinguishing characteristics. The vast majority of
them are laborers, and, as a rule, they expect the violent overthrow
of existing institutions by revolution to precede the introduction of
the socialistic state. I would not, by any means, say that they are all
revolutionists, but the most of them undoubtedly are. The tendency of
their popular writings is revolutionary. They are calculated to accustom
the thoughts to revolution, and to excite the feelings of laborers to
such a pitch as to prepare them for risking all in battle. If one of
their prominent organs, as, for example, _Their People’s Calendar_
(_Der arme Conrad_—“The Poor Conrad”) for 1878, is examined, one finds
revolution mentioned frequently, and invariably in such manner as to
popularize revolution as revolution. Even the most exceptionable doings
of the masses in the French Revolution, in the revolutions of 1848, and
in the insurrection of the commune in 1871, are glorified. Every fallen
laborer becomes a hero and a martyr. Hitherto the people—so the readers
of the _Arme Conrad_ are told—have fought for others, but the next time
they engage in battle it will be for themselves, and they will then
obtain their well-earned wages.

The most general demands of the social democrats are the following:
The state should exist exclusively for the laborers; land and capital
must become collective property, and production be carried on unitedly.
Private competition, in the ordinary sense of the term, is to cease.
Officers, especially charged with this function, are, by means of
carefully collected statistics, to regulate production according to
the needs of the people. Our present money is to be replaced by money
representing labor units; labor is to become the sole purchasing
power. One of the party programmes requires a distribution of products
according to the needs of each recipient. Some of the planks of the
social democratic platforms would find sympathy with the best people
in America and England. So, for example, their unceasing demand that
even the present state should forbid work on Sunday, the employment of
very young children, and labor injurious to the health and morality
of working-women. Social democrats have never failed to recognize the
advantages of education and the need of improved methods of instruction.
Their cry, as that of all popular leaders, is to increase the
appropriations for educational purposes. It is unfortunately significant
that while in America proposals to decrease the pitiable salaries of
school-teachers and otherwise diminish school expenses are often calmly
and favorably listened to by even the poorer people, in Germany no
popular politician or newspaper would dare advocate such measures. Every
project for increasing the school appropriations is there regarded with
favor by the great masses of the people.

Even now, despite the movement of the party, as a whole, towards
communism, many of the best educated and most intelligent of the social
democrats are, no doubt, socialistically, rather than communistically,
inclined. I am speaking here not of the professional agitators—those
who make the most noise. These classes control the social democratic
conventions, and since the death of Lassalle they have approached more
and more nearly to the purest communism. By those who are socialistically
inclined, I mean such members of the party as do not think of all as
occupying like positions in the socialistic state, but expect it will be
organized more on the plan of an army. It is, in fact, on this account
that so many social democrats look with complacency on the great standing
armies of modern times, which include every able-bodied man in their
service for a considerable period of his life. They are training-schools
for the future social organization. It will thus be seen that emulation
and rivalry are provided for, as at present in the army. Those who serve
society best will be promoted. The higher officers will receive larger
salaries than the lower, while the rank and file will correspond to the
laborers of to-day. Industry and intelligence will enable one to rise,
but there will be no heaping up of PRIVATE productive property from
generation to generation, for all the means of production will be in the
hands of the state—that is, of society collectively. Property which will
not enable one to avoid labor, as books, pictures, statuary, all sorts
of ornaments, household furniture, etc., will remain private property,
and be transmitted from father to son. The children of the higher orders
of society will, of course, still enjoy, to a certain extent, superior
advantages, inasmuch as they usually inherit greater talents, besides
receiving the inestimable advantage of the personal training of gifted
and highly educated parents. Fathers and mothers, it might be expected,
would take more care than at present in bringing up their children,
knowing that their social rank depended entirely on their ability to make
themselves useful to society.

In a state like Prussia, where there is now a splendid civil service,
the office-holders are often children of office-holding fathers—are,
in fact, not rarely descended from families which have held office for
generations.[190] The offices are open to universal competition, and
are kept in the same families only by the exertions of the children and
the self-denial of parents, in expending a large part of their incomes
in giving them the best possible advantages. This might be expected
to continue to a considerable extent in the ideal socialistic state.
No one could, however, leave his children much else than personal
talents and abilities well developed, save such articles of enjoyment
as have been mentioned—paintings, old family plate, etc. Houses, lands,
shops, machines, and everything which yields an income, belong to the
socialistic state. No one could be left in such a position as to avoid
exertion of some kind. All are thought of as workers, but not what we
call common laborers. There would be artists, writers, physicians, etc.,
as now. If any child of even the poorest member of society should give
satisfactory evidence of any special aptitude or talent which might be
developed so as to become useful to society, provision would be made for
his special training after leaving the common-school. Every one would
have an opportunity to attain the highest development of which he was
capable. Those who were meant by nature for wood-choppers would not lead
an idle life of dissipation, consuming the fruits of other people’s labor.

It is supposed that there would be no financial panics, with their
terrible consequences, in the socialistic state. Indeed, if the
socialistic ideas could be carried out, panics would be impossible.
Every new invention, every advance, would accrue to the benefit of all.
The greater the product, the greater the value of each day’s labor; and
each one would receive the full product of his labor, as no capitalist
would retain a part. Capital exists and increases, but always remains
common property. All could live better; since many fold as much would be
produced as now. At present the chief difficulty appears to be to avoid
over-production. Government appoints a committee in Prussia to inquire
into the cause of the late depression, and they report over-production;
in England, committees also investigate and report likewise; in
America, business companies and factory owners explain their distress
by over-production, and are obliged to enter into mutual agreements
to produce less. In the socialistic state over-production is an
impossibility. The great waste of competition, furthermore, would cease
with the competition itself. Two railroads would not be built to perform
the service which one could render as well, nor would six dry-goods
shops exist in a town where two would be amply sufficient. This saving
of capital, labor, energy, and talent would benefit all alike. Strikes,
then unheard-of save as a reminiscence of the past, would no longer be a
considerable element in the cost of production. Business failures would
cease to impoverish the widow and the orphan.

It is impossible at present to enter into a criticism of social democracy
and attempt to separate the true from the false. The comparison, however,
which social democrats make between the future organization of society
and that of the army is suggestive. It might be that we could afford
to put up with what that implies, if we attained thereby all that is
hoped; still it is terrible to think of army discipline extending itself
over society in all its ramifications. To many—to the majority—the
restraint would be a very great evil. Then it must be remembered that
army discipline is maintained at the cost of no inconsiderable amount
of actual, positive suffering. As Roscher pointedly remarks, there are
thirty offences punishable with death according to the military penal
code.

I have thus presented, in their most favorable aspect, the doctrines of
social democrats, apart from the agitators who now preach them. The next
chapter will afford an opportunity to judge whether or not the social
democratic leaders of the present are men of such a character that it
would be wise to give them despotic power over one’s life and actions.

Social democracy is not now precisely what it was when it lost
Ferdinand Lassalle, its greatest agitator. Nevertheless, he is still
its father. It is the product of his activity. Lassalle did not write
history: he created it. He accomplished certain facts which no power
can undo. He infused into the minds of German laborers new thoughts,
ideas, aspirations. German emigrants become missionaries, and carry
with them, as they believe, a gospel of hope and promise, wherever they
go. They hold, as Lassalle taught them, “that they are the state, that
all political power ought to be of and through and for them, that their
good and amelioration ought to be the aim of the state, that their
affair is the affair of mankind, that their personal interest moves and
beats with the pulse of history, with the living principle of moral
development.”[191]

Thus have new factors, for good or for bad, entered into the life of the
world, and with them we must deal.

CHAPTER XIV.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY SINCE THE DEATH OF LASSALLE.

The last chapter contained a description of the desires and demands of
the German social democratic party, without entering into any discussion
of the careers and characters of its leaders or of the organizations
which have been formed to support its programme. This chapter will treat
of what may be called social democracy in the concrete. I shall first
take up the external history of the political party which is designated
by that name, and then enter into a consideration of its internal
history. By its external history I mean an account of its outward life,
as manifested in the field of politics; by its internal history I mean a
description of the men who have led the party, and a presentation both of
the ideas which have controlled it and the measures which it has adopted
in its political and economic propaganda.

It was the introduction of universal suffrage by the North German
Confederation, in 1867, and by the German Empire, in 1871, which enabled
the social democrats to enter into political contests with any reasonable
hope of success. German laborers do not appear previously to have played
any _rôle_ in the politics of their country. The Prussian constitution
is so constructed as to give a preponderating influence to wealth. This
is not the place to explain the Prussian system of voting. It is only
necessary to remark that the voters are divided into three classes,
according to their wealth, and that a voter of the wealthiest class in
Berlin counts for as much as fifteen voters of the poorest class. The
laborer could not, of course, hope to gain political influence with such
tremendous odds against him. It was to enable the poor man to fight his
own battles that Lassalle demanded universal and equal suffrage for all.
This was, as will be remembered, the only explicit demand of the social
democratic party, contained in the statutes or by-laws of the “Universal
German Laborers’ Union.” Lassalle appears to have been acquainted with
Bismarck’s intention to embrace it in the constitution of the empire he
was striving to found, and hoped great things therefrom. But as he died
in 1864, and the citizens of the North German Confederation first voted
in 1867, he was never able to make use of it in his agitation. It is
not often profitable to speculate upon what might have happened if this
or that event had not occurred, but it is self-evident that Lassalle’s
agitation would have been very formidable if he could have led the
laborers to the ballot-box and defended their cause, first in the North
German, afterwards in the Imperial, parliaments, with all the resources
of his learning, mental acumen, and impassioned eloquence. Lassalle’s
death discouraged the social democrats for a moment only. It can scarcely
be said that it caused an interruption in the progress of the party,
though this progress would, we may believe, have been far more rapid had
he lived. However, his death itself was made useful. Living, he could
scarcely have been glorified as he was after his death, and his name
could not have so influenced the laborers.

The social democrats entered into the contest for election of members
to the Constituent Assembly of the North German Confederation. In one
of the districts their candidate ran against Bismarck and a leading
liberal, and received about one fourth of the votes cast for the three
candidates. As no one received a majority, a new election was ordered,
and Bismarck was elected by the aid of the social democrats, who always
prefer conservatives to liberals. As Bismarck was elected in another
district, it was necessary to vote for a third time in this place, when
the social democrat ran against the celebrated liberal, Dr. Gneist,
Professor of Constitutional Law in the University of Berlin, and one of
the leading jurists in Germany. The votes were about evenly divided,
but the social democrat was defeated by a small majority. The social
democrats elected two representatives, however, and in the fall of the
same year (1867) they sent eight members to the Parliament of the North
German Confederation.

Since the organization of the German Empire the social democratic votes
for members of the Imperial Parliament (Reichstag) have numbered as
follows: 1871, 123,975; 1874, 351,952; 1877, 493,288; 1878, 437,158.
The entire number of votes cast in 1877 was 5,401,021. We see, then,
that the social democratic voters numbered over one eleventh of all the
voters in that year. When it is remembered that there are nine or ten
political parties represented in the Reichstag, it must be acknowledged
that the elections revealed a large relative strength of the social
democratic party. Its votes have, however, been so scattered that it has
not had its proportionate number of representatives in Parliament. The
social democratic members of the Reichstag numbered two in 1871, nine
in 1874, twelve in 1877, and nine in 1878. The total number of members
of the Reichstag is about four hundred. It is thus seen that the social
democratic party advanced in strength, as far as that is measured by
votes, until 1878, when the decrease was only slight. Two attempts were
made on the life of the Emperor William in that year, and the social
democrats had to bear a good share of the blame. There was a considerable
popular indignation manifested; private employers, as well as government,
discharged laborers who entertained social democratic principles; and
in the elections following the police put every obstacle in the way of
the party. In the Reichstag the celebrated socialistic law was passed,
which gave government exceptional and despotic powers to proceed against
social democracy. The severity of the government appears to have done
more harm than good. In spite of what can be fairly designated as
persecution, in the elections which took place in October, 1881, the
social democrats secured thirteen seats, the largest number they have
ever yet gained.[192] This is, indeed, significant when it is remembered
that the exceptional law (_Ausnahmegesetz_) allows severe measures
against the social democrats which would not even be thought of against
any other party. Government has thus been enabled to suspend all their
party newspapers, to prohibit the sale of their books and pamphlets, and
to suppress all public agitation of the party. Their associations were
dissolved, and for a hotel-keeper even to rent them rooms for a meeting
was made an offence punishable with imprisonment for a length of time
varying from one month to a year.

The German government was undoubtedly placed in a trying position, but
they appear to have made a mistake. It is said that at the time the
_Ausnahmegesetz_ was passed, things were in a bad way with the social
democrats. They had twenty or thirty journals, but many of them were on
the point of bankruptcy. Differences existed in the party, and no one
seemed to know what to do next. It is possible, if the party had been
left alone, it might have fallen into a sad state of disorganization,
and have become so weak that it would have ceased to trouble the peace
of the government for years. However this might have been, it is certain
that the measures of government were not altogether unwelcome to the
party leaders. It relieved them of numerous perplexities. It was much
better, _e.g._, for them to have their newspapers and magazines suspended
by government than to cease to appear for lack of support. Governmental
persecution united the divided members and gave new energy to all. Every
social democratic laborer experienced, to a certain extent, the elevating
feelings of martyrdom. They all became secret missionaries, distributing
tracts and exhorting individually their fellow-laborers to join the
struggle for the emancipation of labor.

The German social democrats have held two congresses since the
socialistic law, both, of course, on foreign soil, and both have
indicated progress. The first was held at Wyden, Switzerland, August
20-23, 1880. This resulted in a complete triumph for the more moderate
party. The two leading extremists, Hasselmann and Most, were both
expelled from the party—the former by all save three votes, the latter by
all save two.

The next congress was held at Copenhagen, Denmark, from March 29 to April
2, 1883. It exhibited greater unanimity of sentiment and plan, and a more
wide-spread interest in social democracy, than any previous congress. One
feature of interest was the very considerable financial aid from America
which was reported.[193]

“Bismarck has acknowledged that the measures which government has adopted
up to this time have not proved successful in weakening social democracy,
or in checking, in any effectual manner, its spread among the people.
But he claims that he has not as yet carried out his full programme.
This is true. During the discussion upon the socialistic law of October
21, 1878, he declared distinctly that he did not expect to cure the
masses of the disease of social democracy by repressive measures alone.
Something more than external remedies was needed. The social democrats
had built upon well-grounded discontent of the people, and he proposed
to win back the masses for king and fatherland by removing the grounds
of discontent. These grounds were of an economic nature. Wages were
low, taxes high, work scarce, and the entire economic existence of the
lower classes uncertain and full of anxiety. But what was to be done
about it? No one knew exactly, but all looked forward with eagerness to
Bismarck’s proposals. Two years passed away without bringing any of his
plans to light. People began to think that the promises of relief to the
poor had been thrown out simply as a bait to catch votes for the bill
which became the socialistic law.”[194] That they were intended to serve
this purpose is undoubted. The only question is whether Bismarck really
intended to make any attempt to carry through legislation in behalf of
the laborers. The lapse of time made men sceptical. The opinion more and
more prevailed that the last had been heard of government institutions
designed to ameliorate the condition of the poor. “But Bismarck has a
good memory and a strong will. When he has once made up his mind to
pursue a certain course of action he is not to be diverted therefrom.
More than once Germany has thought that he had forgotten some threat or
resolve because he allowed years to slip by without making any public
move towards the execution of his plans, but in such cases she has
reckoned without her host. It now looks as if Bismarck might have meant
all he said when he promised to use the power of the state to relieve
the poor classes. He had not for a moment forgotten his promise, but
was only working out his plans and waiting for an opportune moment to
execute them.” The German emperor, too, had been urging him forward in
the path he had marked out for government. The old Kaiser—who seems, in
his way, to have a warm, fatherly affection for his people—professed
his distress at the sufferings of the unfortunate, and maintained his
sincere desire to relieve them. He was an old man, he said, and he longed
to see the labor question satisfactorily adjusted before his death. To
one who realizes the utter impossibility of his seeing this pious wish
gratified, there is something undeniably touching in the simple and
honest expressions of this good-natured father of his people. “Early in
the year 1881 the Reichstag obtained an earnest of Bismarck’s plans for
pacifying the discontented elements in Germany in the Accident Insurance
bill, which is merely an episode in the history of German socialism.
The aim of the measure is to make provision for industrial laborers
injured in the prosecution of their callings, or for their families when
they are killed. It is proposed to establish a great insurance society
somewhat like the one founded and managed by the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company.[195] The resemblance between many features of the two
plans is, indeed, surprising. It is desired, however, in Germany, that
government should bear a portion of the expenses; at any rate, that
is one characteristic of the government bill. Government also wishes
to manage the insurance society or societies undertaking this work,
although it might allow employers and employees some representation in
the administration of the business. In both these respects the bill is
clearly socialistic, and no one is better aware of this than Prince
Bismarck. It has been deliberately decided that private individuals, or
voluntary combinations of private individuals, are unable to perform all
the duties of society towards the poorer classes. The state is to become
a benefactor and protector of the weak and needy. Bills introduced by
government are always accompanied with so-called ‘motives,’ explaining
and defending them. The ‘motives’ accompanying the Accident Insurance
bill opened with these words: ‘That the state should care for its poorer
members in a higher degree than it has formerly done is a duty demanded
not only by humanity and Christianity—and the institutions of state
should be penetrated through and through by Christianity—but it is also a
measure required for the preservation of the state. A sound policy should
nourish in the indigent classes of the population, which are the most
numerous and least instructed, the view that the state is a beneficial,
as well as a necessary, arrangement. Legislative measures must bring them
direct, easily perceived advantages, to the end that they may learn to
regard the state not merely as an institution devised for the protection
of the wealthier classes, but as one which likewise ministers to their
needs and interests.’”

Bismarck proposes, then, to conquer social democracy by recognizing
and adopting into his own platform what there is of good in its
demands. It is curious to notice that friends of Bismarck and
supporters of the government have even gone so far as to adopt some
of the social democratic phrases. They have spoken of the laborers as
the “disinherited” classes of society. Yet this originated with the
social democrats; and a few years ago government gave as one reason
for prohibiting the sale of a certain book in Germany the fact that it
called the laborers the “disinherited” (_die Enterbten_). Thus far has
Bismarck gone in the way of making concessions. In the one point of the
Accident Insurance bill he has drawn a number of social democrats to his
support. They look upon it as only a beginning, and, indeed, Bismarck
has proposed to add features making provision for old age and for death
from disease and other causes than accident. But all that Bismarck
has promised is to them only one step. Those who regard the matter in
this light are willing to support him in this first step. Bebel, one
of their leaders at present, was one of the most earnest supporters of
Bismarck’s Insurance bill in the Reichstag, when the measure was brought
forward. Kayser, another social democrat, declared that he would let no
one “terrorize him—he would defend Bismarck.” All this makes a strange
impression upon us when we remember the cruelties and persecutions which
the social democrats have suffered through the instrumentality of the
great German statesman. It is amusing, and, at the same time, it is not
devoid of a certain pathos. It reminds one of an ancient prophecy—“The
wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like
the bullock.”

However, the two parties drew near together only for one special
purpose, and but for a moment. No reconciliation has taken place between
the opposing elements of industrial society in Germany. Only one of
Bismarck’s schemes for the amelioration of the condition of the laboring
man has been adopted.

In treating of these schemes I have brought the external history of
social democracy down to the present moment, for they are to-day being
discussed in Germany. They are viewed with the deepest distrust by large
classes of the population, and Parliament has greeted them coolly. Were
they accepted, they alone would not be sufficient to cure so deep-seated
a disease; perhaps they would scarcely mitigate it. Radical changes, not
to be hoped for in our lifetime, must take place before the conflict
between capitalist and laborer—between rich and poor—will cease to
disturb the peace of Christendom. The evil is rooted in the very nature
of society itself, and can only terminate in a transformation and moral
elevation of the various social elements. Its cause lies deeper than the
agitation of Karl Marx or the eloquence of Ferdinand Lassalle, who only
acted upon latent feelings and expressed thoughts, of which the laborers
had already a dim consciousness. Sooner or later their feelings were
bound to become active and their thoughts to find adequate expression.

Roscher, in his “Political Economy,” describes five conditions which,
meeting together, produce communistic and socialistic movements. As his
description of them has become celebrated, and explains not the mere
surface phenomena, but the underlying causes of communism and socialism,
I think it worth while to present them. I shall, however, take the
liberty of making abbreviations and changes, and interspersing such
remarks of my own as will better adapt the description to the purpose of
this volume.

The first condition is “a well-defined confrontation of rich and poor. So
long as there is a middle-class of considerable numbers between them, the
two extremes are kept, by its moral force, from coming into collision.
There is no greater preservative against envy of the superior classes
and contempt for the inferior than the gradual and unbroken fading of
one class of society into another.... But when the rich and the poor are
separated by an abyss which there is no hope of ever crossing, how pride,
on the one side, and envy, on the other, rage! and especially in the
centres of industry, the great cities, where the deepest misery is found
side by side with the most brazen-faced luxury, and where the wretched
themselves, conscious of their numbers, mutually excite their own bad
passions. It cannot, unfortunately, be denied that when a nation has
attained the acme of its development we find a multitude of tendencies
prevailing to make the rich richer and the poor, at least relatively,
poorer, and thus to diminish the number of the middle-class from both
sides; unless, indeed, remedial influences are brought to bear and to
operate in a contrary direction.”

The second condition mentioned is “a high degree of the division of
labor, by which, on the one hand, the mutual dependence of man on man
grows ever greater, but by which, at the same time, the eye of the
uncultured man becomes less and less able to perceive the connection
existing between merit and reward, or service and remuneration. Let us
betake ourselves in imagination to Crusoe’s island. There, when one man,
after the labor of many months, has hollowed out a tree into a canoe,
with no tools but an animal’s tooth, it does not occur to another, who,
in the meantime, was, it may be, sleeping on the skin of some wild
animal, to contest the right of the former to the fruit of his labor.
How different this from the condition of things where civilization is
advanced, as it is in our day; where the banker, by a single stroke
of his pen, seems to earn a thousand times more than a day-laborer in
a week; where, in the case of those who lend money on interest, their
debtors too frequently forget how laborious was the process of acquiring
the capital by the possessors, or their predecessors in ownership! More
especially, we have in times of over-population whole masses of honest
men asking, not alms, but only work—an opportunity to earn their bread,
and yet on the verge of starvation.”

The third condition: “A violent shaking or perplexing of public opinion
in its relation to the feeling of right by revolutions, especially when
they follow rapidly one on the heels of another, and take opposite
directions. On such occasions both parties have generally prostituted
themselves for the sake of the favor of the masses.... In this way they
are stirred up to the making of pretentious claims which it is afterwards
very difficult to silence.” It is in this prostitution of parties that
our greatest danger in the United States lies. It is already sought to
influence large classes by promises of office. The evils of political
contests controlled by those who hope to gain offices and those who
fear they may lose them will increase in two ways. First, the number of
offices will necessarily become greater with the increase of population
and the growth of public business. Instead of one hundred thousand
federal office-holders, we will yet have two hundred thousand. Second,
as population increases, and it becomes ever more and more difficult
to gain one’s bread, to say nothing about ascending the social ladder,
public offices will be coveted even more than at present, and over each
one there will be waged a bitter personal warfare. What, then, we have to
fear is that, as in ancient Rome, politicians will strive to influence
the great masses by promises of favors—food and entertainments (_panem et
circenses_). If a beginning is ever made in that direction the enemies
of the republic will have already crossed the rubicon. It behooves us to
stop in the downward path before it is too late. This can be done only by
putting our civil service—federal, state, and municipal—on a sound moral
basis.

The fourth condition: “Pretensions of the lower classes in consequence of
a democratic constitution. Communism is the logically not inconsistent
exaggeration of the principle of equality.” If you reflect upon it,
you will perceive that political equality, in the course of time,
very naturally leads to thoughts of economic equality—equality in the
enjoyment of spiritual and material goods.

The fifth condition: “A general decay of religion and morality in the
people. When every one regards wealth as a sacred trust or office, coming
from God, and poverty as a divine dispensation, intended to educate and
develop those afflicted thereby, and considers all men as brothers,
and this earthly life only as a preparation for eternity, even extreme
differences of property lose their irritating and demoralizing power.
On the other hand, the atheist and materialist becomes only too readily
a mammonist, and the poor mammonist falls only too easily into that
despair which would gladly kindle a universal conflagration, in order
either to plunder or lose his own life.” The maxim of the materialist,
sunk in poverty and despair, is, as is noticed, not that noble one of
our fathers, “Give me liberty or give me death,” but “Give me pleasure,
enjoyment in this life, or let me die in my misery.” “The rich mammonist
aggravates this sad condition of things when he casts suspicion on all
wealth by the immorality of the means he takes to acquire it and the
sinfulness of his enjoyments.”[196]

Turning to the internal history of social democracy after Lassalle’s
death, we have first to notice the condition of the “Universal German
Laborers’ Union” since that event. It was controlled for some time by
the Countess von Hatzfeldt. Her former connection with Lassalle and the
possession of large financial resources enabled her for some time to
maintain her position as its leading spirit. She interested herself in
politics, however, more on account of Lassalle than for the sake of the
laborers. She wished to honor his memory and promote the cause which had
been dear to him.

Before Lassalle died he mentioned the name of a man whom he recommended
as his successor in the presidency of the “Laborers’ Union.” The choice
was not a happy one. The new president soon made enemies of the ablest
members of the Union, and finally had a falling-out with the countess, in
whose house he lived, and who, for the sake of the cause, supported him.
It appears that one day the countess commissioned him to purchase butter
and cheese for the household. This was too much for the poor president.
He regarded the performance of such offices as incompatible with his
manly dignity and the respect due his high and honorable position. He did
not, indeed, fail to appreciate to the fullest extent the honor which
Lassalle had conferred upon him. Identifying the Union with all mankind,
he was accustomed to sign himself “President of Humanity.” He compared
his noiseless activity to the gentle rain, which, without thunder and
lightning, gradually penetrates the hard crust of the earth.

The amenities of life among the social democrats are curiously
illustrated by their dissensions during the presidency of this man—Becker
by name. Becoming enraged at Marx once, he proposed that the author of
“Capital” and the founder of the International should embalm himself with
his International and have himself hung in the chimney as a mad herring.
In return for this Liebknecht moved, in the Berlin association, that
Becker should be expelled from the Union as a low-minded slanderer and a
hopelessly incurable idiot.[197]

New presidents were elected yearly for two or three years, but the
countess could agree with none. She finally withdrew, with her followers,
and established a new association, called the “Female Line.” It never
played a considerable _rôle_, and in a few years died a natural death.

After the withdrawal of the countess the “Universal Laborers’ Union”
showed good sense enough to elect their ablest man president. This was
Jean Baptista von Schweitzer, a dramatic writer of some note, whose
comedies are considered among the best which have appeared recently.
Perhaps the best known are “Die Darwinianer,” “Epidemisch,” and
“Grosstädtisch.”

Von Schweitzer belonged to an old and wealthy patrician family of
Frankfort-on-the-Main. He had led a dissipated life, been involved in a
scandalous affair in Mannheim, and become a noted _roué_. When society in
Frankfort could tolerate him no longer he took up his abode in another
city, but here again became suspected of improper acts. It is surprising
that a man of such character should join the laborers and declaim about
their hardships. While it is possible that he was so thoroughly _blasé_
that he could find needed excitement in no other way, I should prefer to
regard this move on his part as the first step in a better path. He was
a man of talent, and was never entirely absorbed in sensual pleasures.
When he took up the cause of the social democrats he began to think about
other things than his own selfish and immoral gratifications. For four
years he held the post of president of the “Universal German Laborers’
Union;” and in this position not only displayed administrative ability of
a high order, but manifested an unwearied devotion in his leadership. He
found the Union weak and about to fall to pieces; he left it a strong,
compact body. The _Social Democrat_, one of the most prominent organs
of the party, was founded by him, and in this paper he defended the
doctrines of Lassalle with vigor and understanding.

Von Schweitzer withdrew from the social democrats in 1871, and led
thenceforth an unexceptionable life. The love of woman had finally
conquered his wild nature. He was happily married, and passed the last
years of his life in literary pursuits. He died in 1875,[198] having
already gained an honorable position as an author.

The Union elected another president, who continued to hold the position
as long as the association existed. Its importance soon began to decline,
however, and it was finally absorbed by the organization formally
known as the “Social Democratic Labor Party” (“Social-demokratische
Arbeiterpartei”). This grew out of the alliance of “German Laborers’
Unions” (“Verband deutscher Arbeitervereine”), whose members were
gradually led over into the social democratic camp, as I described in
the first chapter of this work. The two leading spirits in this party,
which swallowed up all other social democratic organizations, were
Liebknecht and Bebel.

Liebknecht, unlike some of the other social democrats, is, as generally
admitted, personally an honorable man. Nothing can be said against
his private life. He differed from Marx, Lassalle, and Von Schweitzer
in family and fortune. He was born poor, and has always remained so.
While in party matters Liebknecht is unscrupulous as to means, he would
sacrifice no principle for the sake of personal gain or advancement. If
he had been less conscientious his life might have been a prosperous one.
I have it directly from a friend, who associated with him considerably in
Leipsic, that Bismarck offered him an excellent position as editor of the
_Kreuzzeitung_, which I have already mentioned as the leading organ of
the conservatives. Liebknecht declined promptly, and without hesitation,
what was intended as a bribe. He is satisfied with the merest necessities
of life, so long as he can serve his cause. Mehring, who is far from
being a social democrat, says that in this respect he is irreproachable.
“No one can accuse him of improper motives in the lower sense of the
term.” It is only when the cause of the social democrats is concerned
that he shows himself unscrupulous, exciting envy and discontent, and
arousing class against class. His ideas have taken such hold of him that
he cannot see the deeds of opponents in their true light. He ascribes the
worst of motives to what government does with the best intention.

Although he must be called a demagogue, Liebknecht is a highly educated
man. He comes of what the Germans call a _Beamtenfamilie_—_i.e._, of a
family whose members have for a long time devoted themselves to the civil
service. This implies, at least, education and social respectability.
Liebknecht was only sixteen years of age when he graduated from a German
gymnasium—what we would call a college—but he had already decided that
a career as a civil-service officer placed one in a position of such
dependence that it was unworthy of a freeman. At the university he
took no regular professional course, as he despised bread-and-butter
studies, but devoted himself to various branches of science according
to his inclination, or as he fancied they might contribute to the free
development of his mind. At twenty he thought he had freed himself from
bondage to the antiquated institutions of a corrupt world.

Liebknecht took part in the revolutionary movement of 1848 in Germany,
and threw himself into the contest with admirable personal bravery.
Regardless of danger, he was ever to be found in the thick of the fight.
When the rebellion was put down, he found it necessary to flee to
Switzerland, whence he emigrated to London, where he lived in exile for
thirteen years. His life in London was a hard struggle for existence,
and this may have embittered him. His associates, while there, were the
old rebels, Engels, Wolff, and Marx, and they must have confirmed him
in his views. Amnesty was granted him when the present Emperor William
was crowned King of Prussia, and he returned full of hatred for Germany.
He has devoted his entire life to the purpose of making propaganda for
social democracy, and has never for a moment forgotten his end and
aim. Mehring says that in the years since he again set foot on German
soil there has been, perhaps, no day, no hour, no minute in which
he has not been conscious of the object of his existence. It is this
indomitable will, this inflexible purpose, this devotion on the part of
men of learning and intelligence, which has filled the world with German
socialism. Anything like it has never been known in history.

Liebknecht is not original, but is able to interpret Marx to the common
people, since he is not too much ahead of them, but only far enough
to take the lead, to express thoughts struggling in their minds for
utterance. He takes, however, extreme positions, and injures himself and
his party thereby. While he can excite those already won over to his
side, he cannot gain adherents from those as yet undecided, still less
from those opposed. He cannot persuade such, because he is unable, even
for a moment, to place himself in their position so as to understand
their thoughts and feelings.

Bebel is a disciple of Liebknecht, and his most important one. He is
a turner by profession, and his only education was received in common
schools, in Sunday schools, and in travelling about from place to place
in the practice of his trade. He has never left his trade, and has never
made any pretensions to being anything more than an ordinary artisan. He
is sincere, simple, and of sound understanding. Bebel has been called the
incorporated ideal of a modern laborer in the best sense of the word.
This was, however, before he had been embittered by Liebknecht. He is
unassuming, but has an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. His influence
on the people has been very great. He has a homely sort of eloquence
which appeals strongly to them. In the Imperial Parliament he has been
able to hold his own with men like Lasker and Simson, the Chief-justice
of the Supreme Court of Germany. Bebel’s historical importance lies in
the fact that he is the first and, up to the present time, the only
German artisan who has pushed himself into the foreground of political
life and shown himself an equal of other leaders.

He has become prosperous, and employs two or three hundred laborers.
He owns, also, a valuable house in Leipsic. Some have objected that he
was inconsistent in paying his employees just as other masters do and
in living well himself. Those who do so cannot understand the social
democrats. The very corner-stone of their belief is that the individual
is not responsible for the present condition of things; that harmony can
be secured only by the combined action of society—by a social, and not by
an individual, regeneration. All that the individual can do, they hold,
is to labor for the overthrow of existing society and the establishment
of the people’s state, and in the meanwhile to live like other people.

A change has taken place in German social democracy since the death of
Lassalle, who was a patriot, and with whom it was national. He sought
a basis in united Germany. Social democracy is now cosmopolitan and
international in the sense of anti-national. It has approached more and
more nearly to the most unqualified communism. Like French communism, it
lays most stress on equality, and at times appears ready to sacrifice
everything else to obtain that. The unity of interests (_solidarité_)
and economic equality (_egalité_) are the watchwords of the leaders.
Liebknecht says: “Human progress consists in the approach to equality;
freedom is only a conventional phrase, which conceals all possible
things.” It begins to be recognized that equality and liberty—as now
understood, at any rate—are incompatible, and greater value is attached
to the former.

Most, in his lecture in Baltimore, to which reference has already been
made, brought out vividly the gross, materialistic view the social
democrats take of liberty. “You boast of your American liberty,” cried
he, “but of what value is it? Has any one ever been able to clothe
himself with it? to house himself in it? or to satisfy with it the
cravings of his stomach?”

Previous to the attempts to take the life of the German emperor, in
1878, the necessity of overthrowing existing institutions by violence
was proclaimed with ever-increasing openness. Lassalle had spoken of
a radical change brought about peacefully, which he called a peaceful
revolution. The upper classes had the choice between yielding to the
demands of the fourth estate and a violent overthrow of existing economic
institutions. “I am persuaded,” said he, “that a revolution will take
place. It will take place legally and with all the blessings of freedom
if, before it is too late, our rulers become wise, determined, and
courageous enough to lead it. Otherwise, after the lapse of a certain
time, the goddess of revolution will force an entrance into our social
structure, amid all the convulsions of violence, with wild, streaming
locks and brazen sandals on her feet. In the one way or the other she
will come; and when, forgetting the tumult of the day, I sink myself in
history, I am able to hear from afar her heavy tread.”

But the social democrats soon became convinced that the existing powers
of state and society would not yield their positions without a combat.
Glorification of bloody struggles of laborers in the past became ever
more common. Laborers were taught that they had, in times gone by, seized
the sword and sacrificed life in behalf of their wealthy oppressors;
they were told that they must next use the weapons of war in their own
behalf, to fight for the day of their own deliverance from bondage.
This was made to appear just by representing them as humanity and the
few rich people as wilfully cruel and wicked taskmasters. The presiding
officer of the Social Democratic Congress, in 1869, used these words in
the address with which he closed their meetings: “There is a tree which
bears golden fruit, but when those who have planted it reach out their
hand to pluck it, it draws back and escapes them. Wound about the tree
there is a serpent, which keeps every one away from it. This tree is
society; the serpent is our present economic organization, which prevents
us from enjoying the golden fruit. Gentlemen, we are determined to enjoy
the golden fruit and to drive away the serpent. If that cannot be done in
peace, then, as men who do not tremble before a conflict, are we ready to
fell the old tree, and in its place to set a new, powerful tree.”

This sort of talk was stopped by the stringent law which was enacted
after the attempts on the life of the emperor. There is no evidence
to warrant the belief that the social democratic party had any direct
connection with these attempts, but those who committed them had been,
doubtless, excited by the constant talk of wrong and oppression, and of
release therefrom by a destruction of our present leaders of society.
They consequently struck at its very head.

Social democrats are fond of comparing themselves to the early
Christians. They speak of their leaders as the apostles of the present
and of laborers as the rock upon which the Church of the future must be
built. The German has a strongly religious nature, of which he can never
divest himself. So these social democrats make their economic belief a
matter of religion, and therein attempt, even unconsciously, to satisfy
their religious feelings.

We would not, for a moment, accept the comparison between social
democracy and Christianity in the sense in which these men mean it. Yet
when we find rude, uneducated men—for such are the social democratic
masses—turning the world upside-down, and striking terror into the hearts
of the powers that be, we are reminded of that earlier faith, propagated
by poor, ignorant men, which, in the course of centuries, has become
more powerful than statesmen, monarchs, and armies. No one, save a fool,
would pretend to be able to describe exactly the ultimate organization of
society; but we know that in profane, as well as in sacred, history, weak
and contemptible beginnings have, ere this, led to grand and glorious
growths and developments.

CHAPTER XV.

SOCIALISM OF THE CHAIR.

It is generally known that Bismarck has been endeavoring to introduce
new economic measures and institutions of a more or less socialistic
nature in Germany. One of these projects has been described in an earlier
chapter. It is not, however, an equally familiar fact that he may be
regarded as a member of an economic school. Such is, nevertheless, the
case. In the earlier part of his career as imperial chancellor Bismarck
accepted the doctrines of English political economy in modified form, as
taught by the National Liberals of the Reichstag. But he professes that
he received their teachings only as a makeshift, until he should find
time to study political economy and investigate economic problems for
himself. This he did some eight years since. The first-fruits of his new
researches were the tariff reform of 1879. Later fruits have been the
tobacco monopoly and labor insurance bills. He repudiates the politicians
with whom he formerly worked as “representatives of a party which in
political economy advocates the right of the stronger and deserts the
weak in the struggle against the might of capital, and which refers him
to free competition, to private insurance, and I do not know what else—in
short, refusing him all help of the state.”

It is, then, a matter of more than ordinary interest to study the
principles of the economic system, whose leading advocate at present
is the favorite counsellor of the most powerful statesman of modern
times. This is the system of the so-called professorial socialists, or
socialists of the chair.

In the ordinary or vulgar signification of the term professorial
socialists are not socialists at all; in the strict sense of the word
they are. They recognize the existence of a social problem, and hold
that the co-operation of government is necessary to its solution. They
believe that man, associated with his fellows in the state, has duties
to perform which, single and alone, he is unable to fulfil. They point
to the fact that all civilized governments are, even at present, more
or less socialistic. Sanitary legislation, governmental inspection
of buildings, the legal limitation of a day’s labor, the prohibition
of work on Sunday, the regulations respecting the labor of women and
children, temperance laws, state control and management of railroads,
the post-office, and other like arrangements, are socialistic in their
nature.[199] These matters are not left to individual initiative and
private competition. The state—in a certain sense, even now, the highest
and most majestic of co-operative associations—steps in and attempts to
do for the citizens what it is supposed they could not do for themselves
without the help of such a union as government represents. It is sought
to give, as it were, a divine sanction to this kind of socialism, by
calling to mind the strong socialistic tinge of the Mosaic legislation.
Of such character were the laws compelling the return of land in the year
of jubilee, of which one had been forced to dispose by reason of poverty,
the setting free of slaves at the same time, the forgiveness of debt,
and the prohibition of interest in passages like the following: “And if
thy brother be waxen poor and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt
relieve him.... Take thou no usury (=interest) of him or increase; but
fear thy God, that thy brother may live with thee.”[200]

The party of professorial socialists was formed ten years ago in Germany.
They received their name from an opponent, a clever newspaper writer. He
also called them “sweet-water” socialists, but the first name is their
ordinary designation, and they do not, as a rule, object to it. Some of
them have sought to give the word socialist an honorable and respected
meaning by avowing themselves unreservedly socialists on all occasions.
Others think that the prejudice against the name is so strong that they
only injure themselves thereby. They are, in the narrowest sense, all
university professors of political economy, though there is no reason why
the name should not be extended so as to include others who hold similar
views.

The scientific leader of the party is its most radical member, Adolf
Wagner, the Berlin professor. Other prominent members are Gustav
Schmoller, recently professor in Strassburg, now, likewise, professor
in Berlin, and Brentano, professor in Breslau, lately transferred, I am
told, to Strassburg. Adolf Held, the late young and talented professor
in Bonn, and later in Berlin, did not hesitate to speak of himself as a
professorial socialist. Although John Stuart Mill died before this school
of political economists became known, his views and tendencies as regards
social questions were so much in accord with theirs that he can properly
enough be ranked among them. It must be remembered that Mill placed no
limit to state activity save the general good, and declared that all the
difficulties of even communism would be but as dust in the balance if he
were called upon to choose between that system and a continuance of our
present economic life _without improvement_.

Perhaps, to-day, no professorial socialist could give a better statement
of his own aims and desires than Mill’s description of the views and
expectation of himself and his wife some thirty years ago. “While we
repudiated,” says Mill, “with the greatest energy, that tyranny of
society over the individual which most socialistic systems are supposed
to involve, we yet looked forward to a time when society will no longer
be divided into the idle and the industrious; when the rule that they
who do not work shall not eat will be applied, not to paupers only, but
impartially to all; when the division of the produce of labor, instead of
depending, as in so great a degree it now does, on the accident of birth,
will be made by concert on an acknowledged principle of justice; and when
it will no longer either be, or be thought to be, impossible for human
beings to exert themselves strenuously in procuring benefits which are
not to be exclusively their own, but to be shared with the society they
belong to. The social problem of the future we considered to be how to
unite the greatest individual liberty of action with a common ownership
in the raw material of the globe, and an equal participation of all in
the benefits of combined labor.” This is, I must remark in passing, an
extreme position. The professorial socialists are not accustomed to
express themselves in favor of carrying socialism so far, and I believe
Mill does it nowhere else. “We had not the presumption,” continues
Mill, “to suppose that we could already foresee by what precise form of
institutions these objects could most effectually be attained, or at
how near or how distant a period they would become practicable. We saw
clearly that to render any such social transformation either possible or
desirable an equivalent change of character must take place both in the
uncultivated herd who now compose the laboring masses and in the immense
majority of their employers. Both these classes must learn by practice to
labor and combine for generous, or, at all events, for public and social
purposes, and not, as hitherto, solely for narrowly interested ones. But
the capacity to do this has always existed in mankind, and is not, nor is
ever likely to be, extinct. Education, habit, and the cultivation of the
sentiments will make a common man dig or weave for his country as readily
as fight for his country. True enough, it is only by slow degrees, and a
system of culture prolonged through successive generations, that men in
general can be brought up to this point. But the hinderance is not in the
essential condition of human nature.” Ruskin expresses the thought that
one ought to be as ready to give money as life for one’s country when he
says: “I will tell you, good reader, what would have seemed Utopian on
the side of evil instead of good: that ever men should have come to value
their money so much more than their lives, that if you call upon them to
become soldiers, and take chance of a bullet through their heart, and of
wife and children being left desolate, for their pride’s sake, they will
do it gayly; but if you ask them, for their country’s sake, to spend a
hundred pounds without security of getting back a hundred and five, they
will laugh in your face.”[201]

The German professorial socialists held a meeting in Eisenach in October,
1872, and founded the “Union for Social Politics.” They hoped, by means
of an organization holding yearly meetings, to be able to exercise
greater influence on legislation and public opinion. Their proceedings
were published in Leipsic, in 1873, under the title “Transactions of the
Union for Social Politics,” and reports of meetings which have since been
held have been published at the same place under the same title.

They discussed such questions as joint-stock companies, insurance,
savings-banks, and factory legislation, including the prohibition of
labor on Sunday and protection of women and children in factories. Their
negative work consisted in combating the empty abstractions of the
English free-trade school, or, as they call it, the Manchester school.
They accused the Manchester men of lacking all appreciation for the
higher duties of the state or the ethical side of economic life, and of
having no warmth of heart for the interests of the lower classes. The
professorial socialists endeavored, on the other hand, to reconcile the
laborers and social democrats to society by recognizing and favoring what
might be called their just demands.

The difference between professorial socialists and other professors
of political economy in Germany is one of degree. The former emphasize
more strongly the beneficial effects of governmental intervention,
and believe that the state has not as yet gone nearly far enough in
recognizing its duties towards the weak and poor and in regulating the
distribution of wealth.[202] They regard political economy as, first and
foremost, an ethical science. To them the state is, above all things, a
moral person. It is, indeed, necessary to obtain a clear understanding
of their conception of the state before it is possible to comprehend
their teachings. They regard the state as something sacred and divine,
holding that it arises out of the essential characteristics of the human
nature given us by God. They have a reverence for state obligations which
reminds one of the doctrines of the ancient Greeks and of the heroic
self-sacrifice of Socrates, who considered it his duty to obey the laws,
even when they ordered his death. They consider that the rights of the
state spring from a higher source than a social contract, either implicit
or explicit, of the citizens with one another. The state stands above the
citizens as the Church above its members. Humanity, in their opinion,
progresses, and ever must progress, through Church and state. They see
God in both. They know nothing of any civilization in the past apart from
the state, and are able to imagine none in the future existing outside of
such a social organism. In this spirit Professor Schmoller defines the
state as the grandest moral institution for the education and development
of the human race.

The socialists of the chair deprecate any attempt to separate political
economy from the higher ideal side of our nature. They do not believe
that in business or anywhere should man be governed solely by selfish
motives.

In practical politics they reject decidedly violent change, but advocate
a gradual and peaceful development. Some of them do not expect that their
ideal will be realized for a thousand years to come.

Wagner believes that he has discovered a law according to which the
functions of government are constantly increasing—in many places, even in
spite of theory. According to him, government in all civilized countries
is uninterruptedly taking upon itself new duties. The post-office,
education, the telegraph, railroads, and the care of forests are
examples. The increase in state business in England, _e.g._, may be
seen from the fact that the expenses of government were forty times as
great in 1841 as in 1685, although the population had little more than
trebled its numbers.[203] If it can be shown that Wagner’s theory is
really a law, and that the apparent proofs of it are not merely temporary
social phenomena, it will at once be admitted that it is of the highest
importance. Its operation would, of itself, establish the socialistic
state, since, if government continually absorbs private business, there
will, in the end, be only state business. In this socialistic state
there would be the same differences in rank as at present between the
different governmental employees. At the top of the social ladder there
would still be an emperor, and at the bottom ordinary laborers, steadily
employed in the service of the state, as, _e.g._, the workmen on the
state railroads now.

At present things are moving pretty rapidly in Germany towards the
accomplishment of Wagner’s ideal, if we may suppose that expressed by
his law. In fact, since Bismarck is said to value him highly, it is
not impossible that he may have considerable to do with directing the
economic policy of Germany. He has always been a strong advocate of state
railways, the compulsory insurance of laborers by the state, and the
tobacco monopoly. What may be the ultimate results of the changes taking
place in Germany it is far too early to say.

The leading ideas of the professorial socialists may be best learned from
a little work by Professor Gustav Schmoller, entitled “A Few Fundamental
Principles of Law and Political Economy.”[204] It is an open letter,
addressed to Professor von Treitschke, a Prussian of the Buncombe type,
who, with a very insufficient study of their writings, had the rashness
to attack the professorial socialists in his “Socialism and Those Who
Favor It” (“Der Socialismus und seine Gönner”). Von Treitschke is
generally regarded as having fared ill in this encounter. As Schmoller
pointed out, those whom he attacked had spent more years in the study of
economic questions than he had weeks.

But one of the most interesting features of this new school of political
economy, altogether apart from the correctness of its other doctrines,
is its repudiation of selfishness, or self-interest, as it is more
euphemistically called, as a sufficient guide in economic matters. The
necessity of Christian self-denial and self-sacrifice is emphasized by
its adherents. They attack what they call the mammonism of the Manchester
school, and elevate man, not wealth, to the central position in economic
science. “The starting-point, as well as the object-point, of our science
is man” (Roscher). All hope of resolving “the social question” without a
moral and intellectual elevation of mankind is abandoned. The Christian
religion is assigned an important work in this field, and political
economy becomes a Christian science. To see the leaders of economic
thought, starting with anything rather than religious predilections,
gradually forced to this position, may indeed be styled a triumph of
Christianity.

CHAPTER XVI.

CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM.

We have come to a point now where professorial socialism and Christian
socialism meet. Professors of political economy, finding themselves
forced to abandon every hope of reconciling adverse interests of society
without a moral and religious regeneration of the various social
classes, turn to Christianity, and appeal to it for co-operation in
their endeavors to bring about an era of peace and harmony. Professorial
socialism terminates in Christianity. Christian socialism seeks in it a
starting-point.

De Lamennais, who was born in 1782, was one of the earliest
representatives of Christian socialism. He was for a time a French
Catholic priest and an ardent defender of the faith. He sought to bring
about an alliance between the masses and the Church, in opposition to
kings, whom he regarded as oppressors of the people. The Church was
to become an organizing power, and was to gather the individuals, the
atoms, of industrial society, into a compact and harmonious whole. She
was to become the soul, the animating spirit, of the economic as well
as the religious world. He hoped to see her found a grand co-operative
association of laborers, which should free them from the yoke of
capitalist and the tyranny of landlord. The democratic views entertained
by Lamennais, and his opposition to the monarchs of Europe, did not give
satisfaction among the Church authorities. He went to Rome to plead his
cause before Leo XII., and was received with open arms. But afterwards
the motto of his journal _L’Avenir_, “Séparez vous des rois, tendez la
main au peuple”—“separate yourselves from the kings, extend your hand to
the people”—displeased Gregory XVI., and Lamennais, unable to win over
the Pope to his views, finally left the Church in despair. “Catholicism
was my own life,” said he, “because it is the life of humanity. I wished
to defend it and draw it from the abyss into which it sinks more and more
daily. Nothing was easier. The bishops have found that it would not suit
them. Thus Rome lagged behind. I went there and saw the most abominable
_cloaque_ which ever offended human eyesight.... No other God rules there
but egotism. For a piece of land, for a few piasters, they would bargain
away the nations, the whole human race, even the blessed Trinity.”[205]

He wrote, after his return, “Les Paroles d’un Croyant”—“The Words of a
Believer”—published in 1833, and perhaps his most celebrated work. It is
a strange, weird, fascinating book. In prose, yet with all the fervor,
imagery, and beauty of poetry, he describes the wrongs and sufferings
inflicted on the laborer by rulers and capitalists. How is it, one might
ask, that he, so far above the masses, can depict their sorrows as
vividly as if he had felt them? It is precisely because he is not far
above the toiling many; he has in sympathy drawn near to them; he feels
with and for them; what they have experienced, that has he also lived.
Their pain is his pain; their anguish is his anguish, and has penetrated
perhaps more deeply into his soul than into theirs.

In the following passage from “Les Paroles d’un Croyant” he shows how
much worse are modern employers who oppress their laborers than were the
earlier slave-owners. The story he tells is this:

“Now, there was a wicked and accursed man. And this man was strong and
hated toil, so that he said to himself: ‘What shall I do? If I work not I
shall die, and labor is to me intolerable.’

“Then there entered into his heart a thought born in hell. He went in the
night and seized certain of his brethren while they slept, and bound them
with chains.

“‘For,’ said he, ‘I will force them with whips and scourges to toil for
me, and I will eat the fruit of their labor.’

“And he did that which he had resolved; and others, seeing it, did
likewise, and the men of the earth were no longer brothers, but only
masters and slaves.

“This was a day of sadness and mourning over all the face of the earth.

“A long time afterwards there arose another man, whose cruelty and
wickedness exceeded the cruelty and wickedness of the first man.

“Seeing that men multiplied everywhere, and that the multitude of them
was innumerable, he said to himself:

“‘I could indeed enchain some of these, and force them to work for me;
but it would then be necessary to feed and otherwise maintain them, and
that would diminish my gains. I will do better: I will let them work
for nothing; they will die, in truth, but their number is great; I will
amass a fortune before their number is largely diminished, and there will
always remain enough of them.’

“‘Now all this multitude of men might live on what they received in
exchange for their labor.’

“Having thus spoken, he addressed himself separately to some of them,
and said: ‘You work six hours, and you receive a piece of money for your
labor; work twelve hours and you will receive two pieces of money, and
you and your wives and your little ones will live better.’

“And they believed him.

“Then he said to them, ‘You work only half the days of the year; work
every day in the year and your gains will be doubled.’

“And they believed him still.

“Now it happened that the quantity of labor having been doubled without
any increase in the demand therefor, the half of those who previously
lived by their labor could find no one to employ them.

“Then the wicked man whom they had believed said to them: ‘I will give
labor to all, under condition that you will labor the same length of
time, and that I shall pay you only half so much as I have been in the
habit of doing; because I indeed desire to render you a service, but I do
not wish to ruin myself.’

“And as they, their wives, and little ones were suffering the pangs of
hunger, they accepted the proposal of the wicked man, and they blessed
him; for, said they, ‘He gives us our life.’

“And, continuing to deceive them in the same manner, the wicked man ever
increased their labor and ever diminished their wages.

“And they died for lack of the necessaries of life, and others pressed
forward to take their places; for poverty had become so terrible in the
land, that entire families sold themselves for a morsel of bread.

“And the wicked, cruel man, who had lied to his brothers, amassed a
larger fortune than the wicked man who had enslaved them.

“The name of the latter is tyrant; but the former has no name save in
hell itself.”[206]

The Christian socialism of England has peculiarities which render it
exceedingly interesting in connection with an account of French and
German Christian socialism, furnishing, as it does, opportunities for
instructive comparisons.

It arose about thirty years ago. Its founders were men like Charles
Kingsley, Frederick Maurice, and Thomas Hughes. They were filled with
horror at the wrongs and hardships of the lower classes, and rejected
with lofty moral indignation the theory of the Manchester men that state
and society were to do nothing about it. They refused to believe that
the action of self-interest led to the most perfect social harmony, or
that government should do nothing to alleviate suffering and elevate the
masses. Some of their expressions might have satisfied even a social
democrat. Kingsley expressed his opinion of economic liberalism by
describing the Cobden and Bright scheme of the universe as the worst of
all narrow, hypocritical, anarchic, and atheistic social philosophies;
while he predicted the coming of good times to the poor, and the
overthrow of mammonism, in these words: “Not by wrath and haste, but by
patience made perfect through suffering, canst thou proclaim this good
news to the groaning masses, and deliver them, as thy Master did before
thee, by the cross and not the sword. Divine paradox! Folly to the rich
and mighty—the watchword to the weak, in whose weakness is God’s strength
made perfect. ‘In your patience possess ye your souls, for the coming
of the Lord draweth nigh.’ Yes, he came then, and the Babel-tyranny of
Rome fell, even as the more fearful, the more subtle, and more diabolic
tyranny of mammon shall fall ere long—suicidal, even now crumbling by
its innate decay. Yes; Babylon the Great—the commercial world of selfish
competition, drunken with the blood of God’s people, whose merchandise is
the bodies and souls of men—her doom is gone forth. And then—then—when
they, the tyrants of the earth, who lived delicately with her, rejoicing
in her sins, the plutocrats and bureaucrats, the money-changers and
devourers of labor, are crying to the rocks to hide them, and to the
hills to cover them, from the wrath of him that sitteth on the throne;
then labor shall be free at last, and the poor shall eat and be
satisfied, with things that eye hath not seen nor ear heard, nor hath it
entered into the heart of man to conceive, but which God has prepared for
those who love him.”[207]

Kingsley and his confrères held that modern competition was only one
kind of warfare, and consequently sinful. They sought to replace it by
co-operation, in which they found a practical carrying-out of Christian
principles. Mr. Ludlow, Maurice, and others talked the matter over, and
finally formed a society in London to promote co-operative undertakings
and the education of the lower classes. They assisted laborers to found
productive co-operative associations. They established also a newspaper,
the _Christian Socialist_, in which they made propaganda for their faith.
They thought they had discovered the panacea for all social evils: “I
certainly thought,” said Mr. Hughes afterwards—“and, for that matter,
have never altered my opinion to this day—that here we had found the
solution of the great labor question; but I was also convinced that we
had nothing to do but just to announce it, and found an association or
two, in order to convert all England, and usher in the millennium at
once, so plain did the whole thing seem to me. I will not undertake to
answer for the rest of the council, but I doubt whether I was at all more
sanguine than the majority.”[208]

The Christian socialists established seventeen co-operative societies
in London and twenty-four in other parts of England, but chiefly, if
not wholly, in the south, before their organ ceased to appear. These,
however, all failed. But about this time there began to spring up in the
north of England distributive co-operative societies, not designed to
produce commodities, but, as their name implies, to distribute them by
establishing stores. These associations, which have prospered greatly,
furnished an opportunity for some of the Christian socialists to exert
themselves in behalf of the laborer. So far as there is to-day any active
Christian socialism in England, it is to be found in the Co-operative
Union. Indeed, Mr. Thomas Hughes seems to identify the two movements in
a letter,[209] which he was kind enough to write me about Christian
socialism. As it is interesting, and Americans are always glad to hear
what the author of “Tom Brown at Rugby” has to say, I will take the
liberty of quoting such parts of his letter as bear on our subject:

“The details of the Christian socialist movement may still be
gathered from _The Christian Socialist_ newspaper, and tracts,
_The Journal of Association_, its short-lived successor, and
_Politics for the People_, its more short-lived predecessor....
The leaders are quite scattered—Maurice, Kingsley, and
Mansfield dead; Lord Ripon, Governor-general of India; Ludlow,
Registrar of Friendly Societies; Ellison, a metropolitan
magistrate; I a county-court judge. The only one left actively
in this movement (which I have left only two months since) is
E. Vansittart Neale, who is general secretary (and backbone and
conscience) of the Co-operative Union. I was chairman of the
southern section till I took this judgeship.

“We have managed to keep this great organization, now
consisting of some thousand societies, with some millions
of capital, up to the principles of the Christian
socialists—nominally, at any rate—and I really think the old
spirit is, at any rate, alive in a large proportion of the
rising leaders, though the mammon devil is, I am bound to own,
vigorous among them, and hard to put down.... I still look to
this movement as the best hope for England and other lands.”

Mr. Neale has been good enough to write me a fuller account of the
connection between co-operation and Christian socialism, which he regards
as two distinct movements—in their origin, at least. I will quote what he
has to say about them:

“MANCHESTER, December 4, 1882.

...

“I think that the Christian social efforts of Messrs. Maurice,
Kingsley, Hughes, etc., and the co-operative movement out of
which our present Union has grown up, ought to be distinguished
as really separate actions, independent of each other in their
origin, though they have subsequently, to a certain extent,
coalesced.

“The distributive societies have grown up since 1844,
principally from the impulse originating in the Rochdale
Pioneers, which was, so far as it can be said to embody any
moral principle, Owenite rather than Christian. No doubt it
included, from the first, members of the various religious
bodies which exist in England, and it never professed to
substitute any other religious teaching for that given in
the name of Christianity, as R. Owen’s followers had done.
Therefore, among the disciples, men soon appeared who said,
This co-operation which you advocate is nothing else than the
practical application of Christianity to the ordinary business
of life. Likewise, when, at a later date, those who had
gathered around Mr. Maurice’s endeavors to show systematically
the connection of Christian ideas with the Co-operative
Union, as is done by Mr. Hughes and myself in the ‘Manual
for Co-operation,’ ... this application was accepted by the
Congress of the Co-operative Union as a legitimate descent of
co-operation, and is more or less assented to at the present
time by co-operators who never were in any way connected with
Mr. Maurice.

“But this has been, as I have said, a result of relations which
have grown up between two movements, distinct in their origin,
but similar in their tendencies, and from this similarity, and
the aid afforded by each to the other, naturally disposed to
coalesce.

“In their origin the stores were antecedent to the teachings of
the Christian socialists, which did not begin in any definite
shape until 1849 and 1850, when the Rochdale Pioneers had got
over the difficulties of their beginnings, and were doing a
business of £6611 8_s._ 9_d._ in 1844 and £13,179 17_s._ in
1850; and other stores were beginning to spring up and attain
considerable proportions in various towns of Lancashire and
Yorkshire, under the influence of the success of Rochdale. In
London we had scarcely any knowledge of these societies till
the end of 1850; and our efforts took principally the direction
of attempts to form productive associations of workers by
means of advances of capital to them on loan at four per cent.
interest, and with no other security than the stock in trade of
the societies founded by these endeavors.

“Theoretically, the idea we endeavored to spread was the
conception of workers as brethren—of work as coming from a
brotherhood of men associated for their common benefit—who
therefore rejected any notion of competition with each other
as inconsistent with the true form of society, and, without
formally preaching communism, sought to found industrial
establishments communistic in feeling, of which it should be
the aim, while paying ordinary wages and interest at the rate
I have mentioned, to apply the profits of the business in
ways conducive to the common advantage of the body whose work
produced them.

“The Christian element about this teaching was rather a
something floating over it than definitely embodied in it.
No attempt was made to formulate any religious creed which
should be professed even by those who formed the central
body—‘The Council of Promoters of Workingmen’s Societies,’
as it was called. Still less was there any attempt to limit
the men employed in any of the societies to those professing
Christianity. There was a general understanding that the tone
of any writings put forth by the council or any of its members
should be such as Maurice and Kingsley would approve. But this
was all. Of the freedom of opinion in the council a striking
proof is Mr. Lloyd Jones, who had been one of R. Owen’s
missionaries, and never professed any form of Christianity, and
who was one of the most active members.

“Such was the character of this Christian socialism, even where
it was most concentrated. In its relation to the co-operation
of the north the religious element was yet more thrown into the
background. Our connection with these societies came through
the law—I mean the English law—not the Gospel. Mr. Hughes, Mr.
Ludlow, Mr. Furnivall, another active member of our council,
and I, were barristers. The law relating to such societies
as we desired to form, and as our northern friends desired
to form on their own account, was then very little suitable
to our wants. Mr. Slaney, a member of Parliament, who took a
great interest in all efforts of the working population to
help themselves, got a committee appointed to inquire into the
investments of the middle and working classes. Much interesting
evidence was given before this committee in 1850 and in 1852.
Mr. Slaney introduced into Parliament a bill originally
drawn by Mr. Ludlow, with some assistance from me, which was
carefully considered by a special committee of the House of
Commons, who suggested many improvements in it; and on their
report was accepted by the House, and became the original law
of ‘Industrial and Provident Societies.’ These operations
established, as you will easily suppose, friendly relations
between us in London and our friends in the north, who went on
and flourished greatly in their distributive societies under
the protection given them by the law of 1852; and were in
continual communication with Mr. Ludlow, Mr. Hughes, and myself
during the next seventeen years as to alterations and amendment
of their law, of which there were several in the course
of these years, and as to questions of a legal character
affecting their business.

“In the meantime the societies formed under our special
influence in London had all come to grief. Had it not been
for the growth of distributive co-operation in the north the
movement would have been at an end in England. And this growth
took place spontaneously, with no other help from us than was
afforded by the legal assistance that I have mentioned and
occasional visits of some one of our body. At last, in 1869,
principally through the influence of the late Mr. William
Prior, one of the disciples of R. Owen, a conference was
held in London, which was continued for four days, and was
attended by several delegates from the northern societies.
At the conference papers were read on a number of topics of
a social character. Discussions were carried on upon them,
and an impulse was given to the feeling of union out of
which our present organization has arisen. From that time a
conference—or, as we call it, a congress—has been held every
year in some part of Great Britain. Subscriptions from the
societies have been organized. In 1873 a systematic division of
Great Britain into districts, for the purposes of propaganda,
was established. Sectional committees were appointed in
each district, and a united board formed by delegates from
them, which has the general direction of the whole movement.
Now, with the formation of this organization, the southern
influences which had given birth to the notion of Christian
socialism began again to make themselves felt. We have supplied
more largely than our northern friends the intellectual factor,
which has found the material to which to apply itself in the
co-operative societies of manufacturing Britain. Thus it is
that the ‘Manual for Co-operation,’ which I think must be
considered as the most matured and complete exposition of the
relation between Christianity and social reform, has come to
be accepted by the Co-operative Union, and published at its
expense, as a recognized exposition of the views entertained
by most of those who endeavor to give a distinct form to their
views.”

The Englishman, like the American, is eminently practical. He must
find some concrete form in which to embody his ideas. If he cannot
now obtain all he desires, he will take what he can get and wait for
an opportune moment to gain possession of what remains. He does not
cease to think, plan, and even dream, but he spends more time in
action than in talk. Thus have the Christian socialists of England,
without changing their views, contented themselves for the present with
distributive co-operation. They have, however, done far more than to
establish co-operative associations. They called attention to the duties
and responsibilities of wealth as well as its rights. They induced
men to stop and consider whether it might not, after all, be possible
to do something to ameliorate the condition of the unfortunate and to
improve the poor and degraded. The results have been seen in generous,
philanthropic, and, to a large extent, successful endeavors to elevate
those low down to a higher plane of life and thought. Legislation has
followed, limiting the length of a day’s work, restricting the employment
of young children, regulating the labor of women, protecting operatives
in factories, and otherwise benefiting the laboring classes. This has
counteracted the effects of discontent and dangerous agitation so far as
to prevent the violent attempts at revolution, once feared. The humane
and enlightened views, which to-day obtain to such an extent in England,
are due, far more than is generally supposed, to the warm-hearted zeal of
those noble Englishmen who were called Christian socialists.

In Germany, there are two branches of the Christian Socialists, the
Protestants and the Roman Catholics.

The Protestant Christian Socialists are not numerous, nor are they
sufficiently important to justify much more than the mention of their
existence. Their two leaders are Dr. Todt, a pastor, and Dr. Stöcker,
court-chaplain, who is known on account of his leadership in the
Anti-Semitic agitation in Germany. His part in this latter movement
shows how little nobility there is in his nature. I attended one meeting
of the Christian Socialists in Berlin. Instead of proposals to ameliorate
the condition of laborers, I heard little save abuse of the Jews. When
any member of the audience was invited to reply, a bright-appearing young
man of twenty or thereabouts came forward and began to talk in a sensible
sort of way concerning the position of the Hebrews, but his arguments
were soon drowned by the hooting of the rabble. Court-pastor Stöcker
bowed him off the stage with mock ceremoniousness. I thought the young
man showed to far better advantage than the leader of those whom he was
addressing.

The ideas of the Protestant Christian Socialists are rather vague and
indefinite. They favor, however, legislation in behalf of the laboring
classes similar to that which is now in force in England, and desire
a strong monarch to take the lead in measures designed to elevate the
toiling masses. They wish also to bring the people back to the Church,
that they may enjoy the consolations of religion. Dr. Todt appears to
hope for a peaceful introduction of communism, or some form of socialism
approaching thereto, in a far-distant future.

Catholic Christian Socialism in Germany is a far more important, a far
nobler, movement. Its leading light was the late Bishop of Mainz or
Mayence, Baron von Ketteler.

Wilhelm Emanuel Baron von Ketteler was born in 1811, in Münster. He came
of an old and honorable family. He studied law, and began his career in
the German courts, before he decided to devote himself to the Church. He
was ordained as priest in 1844 and was made bishop in 1850.

Von Ketteler was keen, eager, eloquent—a valiant champion of the Church,
who fought for her emancipation from state control, and obtained
important concessions. His activity was remarkable, and displayed itself
prominently in the foundation of numerous institutions, as monasteries,
unions, schools, orphan-asylums, and houses of refuge. He understood how
to make use of the press in forwarding his designs, which included plans
intended to promote the welfare of the masses. After the formation of
the German empire Von Ketteler took a leading position in the party of
the Ultramontanes, and was ever ready with tongue and pen in all matters
concerning the relations of state to Church and school.

He opposed the proclamation of the doctrine of papal infallibility as
inopportune, but, after it had been proclaimed, he became its ardent
supporter.

Von Ketteler’s eventful life ended in 1875, and his body now rests in the
cathedral at Mainz.

Von Ketteler accepts the doctrine of the iron, cruel law of wages, and
assents to many of the teachings of the social democrats, in so far as
they are directed against our present social organization. He seeks
salvation, however, in the Catholic Church.

He holds that God or the Church is the supreme owner of all property,
and that human rights are only secondary. Men have only the right
of administering what has been committed to them. The Church has
always held, says he, that if a starving man took a loaf of bread to
satisfy hunger which he could still in no other way, it was no theft.
In that case human proprietary rights yield to the divine right of
self-preservation.

The good-will of the Church is also shown in the large property
which she has accumulated to alleviate the sufferings of the poor.
It was not her fault that she was deprived of a great part of this
by the secularization of her possessions, which took place after the
Reformation. It increased the distress of the unfortunate, and the
worldly powers were obliged to enact poor-laws to relieve those who had
thereby been reduced to helplessness.

The misery of the present time is due to materialism and liberal
politics. The state and the Church should exercise greater control over
human conduct in such matters, _e.g._, as marriage.

“We will not deny,” says Von Ketteler, “that in various regions the
contraction of marriage is made too difficult; but, on the other hand,
a certain limitation is justifiable—is founded in reason as well as
in Christianity—and the abolition of all limitations cannot fail to
promote thoughtlessness in the contraction of marriage, and thus injure
the family. Of such a character is the general effort and tendency
to regard marriage as a simple civil institution, to introduce the
_Civilehe_—_i.e._, marriage by civil authorities alone—and to separate
it entirely from the Church. The stability of the family is based on the
religious and Christian doctrine of marriage. Especially is the view of
the Catholic Church that marriage is a sacrament, and can be dissolved
only by death, the immovable foundation of this stability.”[210]

Von Ketteler regards the dissolution of the organic bonds, or ties of
society, as one cause of our present troubles. He is, consequently,
in favor of trade corporations, and has a friendly feeling for the
guilds of the Middle Ages. He combats vehemently the atomism of modern
liberalism. There is, in my opinion, a great deal of truth in what he
says about the necessity of religion to cure the ills of modern society.
He declares that “Christ is the Saviour of the world, not only because
he has redeemed our souls, but also because he brought salvation for all
human institutions and relations—civil, political, and social. Especially
is he the Saviour of the laboring classes.... He has elevated the
labor-class from servitude to its present condition;[211] without him all
humanitarian tendencies of the so-called friends of the laboring man will
not prevent his sinking again into a state of slavery.”

Von Ketteler mentions five remedies which the Church has to offer the
laborer.

1. She founds and manages institutions for the benefit of the laborer
unable to work. These are managed by those who have a tender interest in
his welfare. Love to Christ will enable the Catholic nurses to perform
disagreeable and repulsive services in a mild and gentle manner.

2. She offers him the institution of the Christian family.

3. She presents to him the truths and doctrines of the Church, which
are the true education of the laborer. The doctrine of the liberals,
that education for the laborers is to be found in self-help and in their
unions for instructing working-men is only a _simulacrum_ and deceit.

4. She offers him the social power of the Church. This unites men, and
may be used to assist in founding unions and societies of laborers. Such
unions are Christian in nature.[212]

5. This social power of the Church might be used in establishing
productive co-operative associations on a Christian basis. Nothing could
be more pleasing to God and beneficial to man than gifts of the wealthy
for this purpose.

For our part, we rejoice that men of all shades of opinion are turning
to Christianity for help in the solution of social problems, and trust
that the poor and needy, where they are now estranged from the Church,
may ere long be led to recognize in her their best friend. All Christian
men, and particularly the authorities of the Church, should see to it
that no opportunity is lost to win to her the toiling masses. We fully
agree with a celebrated Belgian professor[213] of Political Economy when
he writes: “The proletarians have been detached from and will return
to Christianity when they begin to understand that it brings to them
freedom and equal rights, whereas atheistic materialism consecrates their
slavery and sacrifices them to pretended natural laws. By a complete
misapplication of its ideas, the religion of Christ, transformed into
a temporal and sacerdotal institution, has been called in as the ally
of caste, despotism, and the ancient _régime_ to sanction all social
inequalities. The Gospel, on the contrary, is the good news to the
poor—the announcement of the advent of that kingdom when the humble
shall be lifted up and the disinherited shall possess the earth.”[214]

FOOTNOTES

[1] _Vide_ “Histoire du Communisme,” par Alfred Sudre (5th ed., Paris,
1856), ch. xiv. sec. iv. pp. 232-250.

[2] _Vide_ “Rousseau,” by John Morley (Lond. 1873), vol. i. p. 192.

[3] Vol. i. pp. viii. ix.

[4] _Vide_ Von Sybel, “Geschichte der Revolutionszeit,” Bd. i. Buch i.
Capitel 1, and Bd. ii. Buch vii. Capitel 3. In regard to absenteeism,
consult, especially, Taine’s “Ancient Régime,” bk. i. ch, iii. pt. iii.

[5] Cf. De Laveleye’s “La Démocratic et l’Économie Politique” (Bruxelles,
1878), pp. 8, 9.

[6] To many a thoughtless man, who has misused his wealth and social
position to drag down women of the poorer classes, it would doubtless
seem like a new revelation to have the truth brought home to him that the
fathers, mothers, and brothers of his victims had precisely such feelings
as his own father and mother, or himself, towards his sisters. But the
socialistic agitation in Germany has brought out clearly the fact that
this is true. Poor men hate the wealthy on account of their sins. Nearly
all of the thousands and tens of thousands of fallen women in cities
like New York and Berlin, it is said, come from the poorer classes. It
is terrible to think of the anguish they have brought to parents whose
only crime has often been poverty. If the wealthy use their superior
advantages to oppress and afflict the poor, terrible retribution will
some day be exacted of them as a class, and the innocent will suffer with
the guilty. The French Revolution should forever be a terrible warning to
those to whom much has been committed.

Modern novelists have devoted themselves assiduously to the work of
reform. Every oppressed class has found some one to sympathize with it
and describe its wrongs. Married women, misused by their husbands; school
children, maltreated by masters; orphans, wronged by tedious processes
of law; the negro slave in our South—all have been made interesting, and
excited our pity. The fourth estate, with which Dickens concerned himself
more or less, has also found its novelist, whose skill reveals to us the
laborer’s views and feelings, so that we laugh when he laughs and weep
when he weeps. I refer to Max Kretzer, whose latest and best work is “Die
Betrogenen” (Berlin, 1882). For an excellent review of his writings,
_vide_ the _Wochenblatt der Frankfurter Zeitung_, 20 Aug., 1882.

For a further illustration of the views of social democrats concerning
the crimes of the wealthy, _vide_ a story in the newspaper _Die Fackel_
(Chicago, 20 Mai, 1883) entitled “Die Geschichte einer Arbeiterin.”

[7] In _Contemporary Review_, April, 1882.

[8] Quoted by Mrs. Fawcett in her article on “Communism” in the
“Encyclopædia Britannica.” Cf. De Laveleye’s article on the “Progress of
Socialism” (_Contemporary Review_, April, 1883, pp. 567, 568).

[9] “Money in its Relations to Trade and Industry,” by Francis A. Walker
(New York, 1879).

[10] “Die deutsche Social-Demokratie” (Bremen, 1879).

[11] _Vide_ the published programme of the Commune of Paris, April 19,
1871, in Pierroti’s “Décrets et Rapports Officiels de la Commune de Paris
et du Gouvernement à Versailles du 18 Mars au 31 Mai, 1871” (Paris, 1871,
pp. 181-185).

[12] The whole question is discussed in a satisfactory manner in Meyer’s
“Emancipationskampf des vierten Standes” (Bd. ii. SS. 600-718). Among
other authorities may be mentioned, as most noteworthy, Pierroti’s
“Décrets et Rapports; Enquête Parlementaire sur l’Insurrection du 18
Mars”—an official report of the investigation of the French government;
“Unter der Pariser Commune, ein Tagebuch von Wilhelm Lauser” (Leipzig,
1879); Maxime du Camp, “Les Convulsions de Paris” (6th ed., Paris, 1883);
B. Becker, “Geschichte der revolutionären Pariser Kommune” (Brunswick,
1875).

[13] In his “History of American Socialisms” (Philadelphia, 1870), Noyes
presents the opposite view, and argues forcibly in favor of it. He
thinks “familism” and communism necessarily antagonistic, and adduces
as proof the success of the Shakers and other communities which repress
the family feeling, and the failure of many which allow marriage and
private families as in the outside world. I do not think his arguments
satisfactory. At most, they would hold of small communistic bodies living
in a world practising individualism. They would not be conclusive in a
discussion of the practicability of communism—much less socialism—as
a universal system. It is true, also, that the leadership of social
democracy in the United States and elsewhere has fallen into the hands
of those who, for the most part, hold views regarding religion and the
family which may fairly be called brutal. The irreligious attitude of
social democracy is, however, to be explained partly by the fact that
it is a German product, and Germany is to-day lamentably irreligious.
What is, however, temporary, accidental, and transitional should not be
mistaken for what is necessary and permanent.

[14] Dr. Rylance very properly distinguishes ecclesiasticism from
Christianity.

[15] The decay of religion among the working classes was the subject of
a conference of working-men, held in London in 1867. Mr. J. M. Ludlow,
one of their friends and counsellors, writes as follows in the “Progress
of the Laboring Classes from 1832 to 1867,” concerning their reasons
for forsaking religious services: “At the bottom of those reasons there
may be felt, not dislike or indifference to the Gospel itself, but,
on the contrary, a deep yearning for some mighty manifestation of it.
The complaint is not that Christianity is given, but that ‘priests and
parsons’ have given of it ‘short weight and short measure;’ not that it
is practised by its professors, but that their practice falls so far
short of their professions; not that clergymen and minister intermeddle
with the working-men, but that they do not come among them and show
practical sympathy with them in their undertakings. Surely a temper like
this, even when speaking out through hard and scornful words, instead of
discouraging Christian ministers, should brace and quicken them to their
work—ay, though that work should consist partly in the shaking off of
their most cherished traditions and habits of religious thought” (p. 279).

[16] Schäffle’s “Socialism as Expounded by Kaufmann” (London, 1874, p.
103).

[17] _Vide_ his manly article on the Dangerous Classes in the
_North-American Review_ for April, 1883.

[18] The words socialist and socialism were introduced into economic
discussion by L. Reybaud, in 1840, in his “Études sur les Réformateurs ou
Socialistes Modernes.”

[19] It does not fall within the province of this work to describe
English communism. Its best representative is Robert Owen, about whose
life and teachings information is to be found in “The Life of Robert
Owen, Written by Himself,” and in A. J. Booth’s “Robert Owen, the Founder
of Socialism in England.” Both of the works are interesting and valuable.

[20] 1762 is also given as the year of his birth.

[21] For the details of the conspiracy, consult Von Sybel, “Geschichte
der Revolutionszeit,” Bd. iv. Buch i. Capitel 4, and Buonarroti’s
“Histoire de la Conspiration pour l’Égalite, dite de Babœuf” (2 vols.,
Brussels, 1828). A fourth edition in one volume appeared in Paris in
1850. An English translation by Bronterre appeared in London in 1836.

[22] The best authority on the economic movements of this period is L.
Blanc’s “Histoire de dix ans 1830-40” (12th ed. 1870).

[23] _Vide_ the Manifesto of the Equals. This, as well as a number of
their most important papers, may be found in Reybaud’s “Études sur les
Réformateurs” (vol. ii. pp. 423-453, 7th ed., Paris, 1864).

[24] _Vide_ the “Manifesto of the Equals.”

[25] “Histoire Populaire de la Révolution Française de 1789 à 1830” (5
vols., 2d ed., Paris, 1845-47).

[26] “Voyage en Icarie” (2d ed., Paris, 1842, 1 vol. 8vo, pp. 566).

[27] Ibid. p. 3.

[28] Page 335.

[29] Mr. Albert Shaw, late graduate student in the Johns Hopkins
University.

[30] After the death of Cabet a few of his adherents, in the quarrel at
Nauvoo, founded a short-lived colony at Cheltenham.

[31] “The community adopt the institutions of marriage and the family
purified from everything which injures and debases them. Voluntary
celibacy, when not induced by any physiological reason, is regarded
as a transgression of natural laws” (Arts. 32 and 33 of the “Icarian
Constitution”).

[32] Cf. “Voyage en Icarie,” p. 137.

[33] Quoted by B. Malon, in his “Exposé des Écoles Socialistes
Françaises” (Paris, 1872), pp. 104, 105.

[34] “Voyage to Icaria,” p. 563.

[35] Page 358.

[36] _Vide_ p. 37 _et seqq._

[37] An interesting account of his life and teaching is given in A. J.
Booth’s “Saint-Simon and Saint-Simonism” (London, 1871).

[38] It is so stated in the “Encyclopædia Britannica” and elsewhere.

[39] _Vide_ Lettres à un Américain, deuxième Lettre in his “L’Industrie
ou Discussions Politiques, Morales, et Philosophiques,” tome ii. pp. 33,
34 (Paris, 1817). Interesting comparisons between America and Europe are
also to be found in the letters.

[40] One finds in the writings of Saint-Simon all the fundamental
ideas of Comte’s philosophy: the oneness of science; its progress
from the theological stage to positivism—called by Saint-Simon
physicism—accompanying the transition from the military to the industrial
_régime_; the present crisis of society due to the fact that this is a
transitional period, or disharmony in the material world accompanying
the disharmony in the world of thought; the belief that a restoration of
harmony is dependent upon the advancement of science, and that social
regeneration must be physico-political; the subordination of knowledge to
feeling; finally, the view that religion of some kind is indispensable
to social progress, and that the priests of this religion must be the
rulers of the world. Indeed, Comte did not hesitate to acknowledge more
than once his indebtedness to Saint-Simon for his scientific impulse,
although in later years he seems to have become embittered towards the
Saint-Simonians and refused all credit to his former teacher. Comte was
original in so far as he expanded and developed what he received from his
master, but this does not lessen his obligation. This whole question,
which has been much debated, is discussed in a masterly way by John
Morley in his article on Comte in the last edition of the “Encyclopædia
Britannica.” Consult also Karl Hillebrand’s essay on “Die Anfänge des
Socialismus in Frankreich” in _Deutsche Rundschau_, Bd. xvii., 1878, and
Booth’s “Saint-Simon and Saint-Simonism,” pp. 61-81.

[41] “Première Année” (1828-29, 2d ed., Paris, 1830), pp. 72, 73.

[42] “Études sur les Réformateurs” (7th ed., Paris, 1864), vol. i. pp.
83, 84.

[43] _Vide_ “Du Système Industriel” (Paris, 1821), preface.

[44] _Vide_ “Chartism, Past and Present” (Harper’s ed.), pp. 320 and 345.

[45] “L’Industrie,” tome ii. p. 9 (Paris, 1817).

[46] Saint-Simon again and again protests against revolution, _vide_
“Catéchisme des Industriels” (ed. 1832), pp. 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 69, 70.

[47] _Vide_ “Catéchisme des Industriels” (ed. 1832), pp. 38, 44, 62, 63,
74, 75.

[48] _Vide_ Kaufmann’s “Socialism,” p. 115.

[49] “Political Economy,” bk. ii. chap. xiii. sec. 1.

[50] _Loc. cit._ bk. ii. chap. 1. sec. 3.

[51] Quoted by A. J. Booth.

[52] _Vide_ “Catéchisme des Industriels,” p. 2.

[53] Reybaud, vol. i. pp. 82, 83.

[54] Taken from Reybaud, _loc. cit._ vol. i. pp. 105-7. The translation
is abridged in places.

[55] _i.e._ one unit—man-woman.

[56] Perhaps there is no better authority than Louis Blanc concerning the
activity of the Saint-Simonians at this time. Cf. his “Histoire de Dix
Ans,” tome vii. ch. xxv. (ed. Bruxelles, 1843-44).

[57] His principal work is “De L’Humanité,” published in 1840.

[58] Pages 102, 103.

[59] Quoted by Booth.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Quoted by Booth, p. 170.

[62] Isaiah ii. 4.

[63] _Vide_ Lorenz von Stein, “Geschichte der Socialen Bewegung in
Frankreich” (Leipzig, 1850), Bd. ii. SS. 226, 227. The translation is
abridged and is rather free in places.

[64] Bd. ii. S. 228.

[65] That is, of so much importance to one writing or studying the
history of social movements.

[66] In 1808.

[67] _Vide_ Introduction to the “Théorie,” tome i. of Œuvres Complètes.

[68] _Vide_ Preface of editors to second edition (Paris, 1841).

[69] Tomes ii.-v. of Œuvres Complètes (1841-43).

[70] _Vide_ “Théorie des Quatre Mouvements,” Œuvres, tome i. p. 50.
These phases are subdivided into thirty-two periods, of which a table
accompanies p. 52.

[71] He seems finally to have been inclined to believe that they were so.

[72] Third edition, as vol. vi. of Collected Works (Paris, 1848).

[73] _Vide_ Fourier’s Œuvres, tome ii. pp. 142-147, and references there
given. Lorenz von Stein sets a high value on the philosophical value of
this classification, as compared with similar efforts of Pythagoras and
Bossuet. Although appreciative, he criticises Fourier vigorously, and
shows the contradictions involved in his classification (_vide_ Stein,
“Sociale Bewegung,” Bd. ii. SS. 276-285).

[74] Always thus designated by Fourier. He attaches such a reproachful
meaning to it that the word has an ugly sound to one immediately after
reading his works.

[75] _Vide_ “Fourier et son Système,” par Madame Gatti de Gammond (3d ed.
1839), p. 86.

[76] “Vices de Nos Procédés Industriels” (1824; 2d ed., with the title
“Aperçus sur les Procédés Industriels,” 1840) and “Nouvelles Transactions
Sociales, Religieuses et Politiques de Virtomnius” (1832).

[77] “Fourier et son Système” (1st ed. 1838; 3d ed. 1839, pp. 384).
Madame de Gammond modifies Fourier’s views concerning the relations of
the sexes in her presentation, as would naturally be expected of a lady
of culture.

[78] Wrote “Paroles de Providence” (1835).

[79] “Fourier, Sa Vie et sa Théorie” (5th ed. 1872).

[80] “Études sur la Science Sociale” (2 vols. 1831-34).

[81] 1832, _La Réforme Industrielle, ou le Phalanstère_; _La Phalange_,
whose mottoes were “Social Reform without Revolutions,” “Realization
of Order, of Justice, and of Liberty,” “Organization of Industry;” _La
Démocratie Pacifique_, the daily, suppressed in 1850.

[82] Arthur Booth, in article on Fourier in _Fortnightly Review_, vol.
xii. N. S. (July-Dec. 1, 1872).

[83] Godin’s “Solutions Sociales” (Paris, 1871), p. 529.

[84] “Association of Capital with Labor” (translated by Louis Bristol;
published by the “New York Woman’s Social Science Society,” Room 24,
Cooper Institute, 1881).

[85] The exercises at the former of these celebrations is described
in the _Overland Monthly_ for March, 1883, by Marie Howland; in the
_Californian_ for January, 1881, a description of the latter festival may
be found.

[86] “Association of Capital with Labor,” pp. 5, 6.

[87] This enterprise is admirably described in an article entitled “The
Social Palace at Guise” (_Harper’s Monthly_, April, 1872).

[88] Wrote “The Social Destiny of Man,” founded on Considerant’s
“Destinée Sociale.”

[89] Published in the “American Men of Letters Series,” and _vide_ also
Noyes’s “History of American Socialisms,” ch. xi.

[90] Small 12mo.

[91] 8vo.

[92] G. W. Smalley, _New York Tribune_, Feb. 4, 1883.

[93] C. K. Adams’s “Manual of Historical Literature,” p. 332.

[94] For a satisfactory description of the true import of this measure,
_vide_ John Stuart Mill’s essay, “The French Revolution of 1848 and its
Assailants;” “Dissertations and Discussions” (Am. ed.), vol. iii. pp.
54-58.

[95] _Vide_ “Lorenz von Stein,” iii. S. 292.

[96] There was once some doubt about the case, but the publication
of official documents and later testimony has settled the question
conclusively, _vide_ article on Louis Blanc in “Nouvelle Biographie
Générale,” vol. vi.; Roscher’s “Political Economy,” sec. 81, note 6;
E. Thomas, “Histoire des Ateliers Nationaux;” Louis Blanc, “Historical
Revelations,” and “La Révolution de 1848,” vol. i. ch. xi.

[97] “Lettres sur l’Angleterre” (Paris, 1866-67); “Letters on England,”
translated from the French by James Hutton and revised by the author
(London, 1866, 2 vols.). “Letters on England,” second series, translated
by James Hutton and L. J. Trotter (London, 1867, 2 vols. in one).

[98] Paris, 1873.

[99] The vote was 380 to 85.

[100] Edward King in _Evening Post_, Dec. 28, 1882.

[101] In the letter in the _New York Tribune_ already referred to.

[102] _Die Gegenwart_, 6. Januar, 1883.

[103] “Organisation du Travail,” 9th ed. p. 9.

[104] Quoted from Louis Blanc, by H. Baudrillart in his “Publicistes
Modernes” (Paris, 1863), p. 308.

[105] Quoted in Baudrillart, ibid. Cf. “Droit au Travail,” pp. 9, 10.

[106] “Organisation du Travail,” p. 4. Cf. “Histoire de la Révolution de
1848,” pp. 265, 266.

[107] “Organisation du Travail,” p. 13.

[108] “Droit au Travail” (Paris, 1849), pp. 65-67; “Organisation du
Travail,” pp. 18, 19.

[109] Ibid. pp. 13, 14, 17, 18, 199.

[110] Ibid. p. 71.

[111] Article 3 on p. 120 of “Organisation du Travail.”

[112] “Organisation du Travail,” pp. 72, 114, 120.

[113] _Loc. cit._ pp. 18, 19.

[114] “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the
weak.”—Rom. xv. 1.

[115] “Histoire de la Révolution de 1848,” vol. i. pp. 147, 148.

[116] “Organisation du Travail,” p. 72.

[117] Cf. _loc. cit._ pp. 72, 73, 77, 187, 188, 195, 196, 207, 208, _et
passim_.

[118] Quoted from Sainte-Beuve’s “P.-J. Proudhon, Sa Vie et sa
Correspondance” (1872), by H. Baudrillart, in his article on Proudhon in
the _Revue des deux Mondes_, 1873.

[119] New edition (Paris, 1873, tome i.) of “Œuvres Complètes.”

[120] Preface to “Qu’est-ce que la Propriété?” p. 5.

[121] Chap. iv. 2d Proposition. I do not mean to assert positively that
Marx borrowed his ideas from Proudhon. He was more indebted to Rodbertus,
who, contemporaneously with Proudhon, but probably independently of him,
was carrying on similar investigation and arriving at similar results. It
is, however, true that Proudhon was the first of the three to publish an
extensive presentation of his ideas.

[122] Vols. iv. and v. of “Œuvres Complètes.”

[123] Details given in “Œuvres Complètes,” vol. vii. pp. 263-313.

[124] New edition (Paris, 1864) of “Œuvres Complètes,” tome vii.

[125] “Œuvres Complètes,” vols. xxi.-xxvi.

[126] The formula of Roman law is “Res nullius cedit primo occupanti.”

[127] “Qu’est-ce que la Propriété?” pp. 133-137.

[128] “Qu’est-ce que la Propriété?” p. 204; cf. pp. 205, 206.

[129] Henry George and others might get some useful hints from him.

[130] “Œuvres Complètes,” tome i. pp. 214, 216, 217.

[131] “Œuvres Complètes,” tome vii. p. 271.

[132] Ibid. p. 290.

[133] This name is frequently given to Proudhon’s plans by the socialists.

[134] “Qu’est-ce que la Propriété?” chap. v. 2e partie, sec. 2.

[135] “Qu’est-ce que la Propriété?” chap. v. 2e partie, sec. 3. Cf. also
his speech in the National Assembly on 31st of July, 1848, in “Œuvres,”
vol. vii. pp. 268, 269.

[136] Ibid. chap. iv. 5e “Prop. et Appendice.”

[137] “Qu’est-ce que la Propriété?” p. 157.

[138] “Qu’est-ce que la Propriété?” pp. 222-224.

[139] “Œuvres Complètes,” tome i. pp. 224, 225.

[140] Bd. i. S. 42.

[141] _Fortnightly Review_, May, 1878.

[142] “Exposé des Écoles Socialistes Françaises,” par B. Malon (2d ed.
Paris, 1872). “Avant-Propos,” p. iii.

[143] Frederic Harrison, in article in _Fortnightly Review_, already
referred to.

[144] For this, as well as a few other facts, I am indebted to an article
on “French Socialists” which appeared in the weekly edition of the
_London Times_, March 30, 1883.

[145] _Vide_ B. Malon’s “Exposé,” etc., p. 230.

[146] Consult, on this point, Stepniak’s “Underground Russia” (London,
1883). Careful inquiry of a large number of Russians, young and old, rich
and poor, convinced me long since that the views this book expresses
concerning the condition of Russia are substantially correct.

[147] Cf. Rudolf Meyer, Bd. i. SS. 42, 43, and two articles on Michael
Bakunin, in the _Deutsche Rundschau_ (1877), Bde. 11 u. 12.

[148] This was copied in the February (1883) number of the _Journal des
Économistes_ from the _Révolté_. I take it from the _Journal_.

[149] “Exposé,” etc., p. 260.

[150] April, 1883.

[151] _Vide_ Malon’s “Exposé,” etc., p. 183. A further account of
Colins’s ideas is given in a very interesting manner in an article
already referred to—viz., De Laveleye’s “European Terror” (_Fortnightly
Review_, April, 1883).

[152] A little book which a workman is compelled to keep and exhibit to
each employer, in order that the latter may know who have employed him
before, the new employer in turn signing his name in the book when the
laborer enters his service and when he leaves it, and expressing his
opinion of the laborer’s conduct.

[153] Quoted from _Journal des Économistes_ for March, 1883, pp. 450-452.

[154] “Exposé des Écoles Socialistes Françaises,” pp. iii., iv.

[155] “Emancipationskampf,” etc., Bd. i. S. 43.

[156] Free-trader is used here, as often in Germany, not to denote simply
an advocate of free-trade, but a supporter of the entire abstract and
theoretical system of the _English_ free-traders.

[157] Page 1023.

[158] “Die Lage der arbeitenden Klassen in England” (1845).

[159] “System der Weltökonomie, oder Untersuchungen über die Organisation
der Arbeit.”

[160] As this German custom is not generally understood in America and
often leads to confusion, it may be well to state that it is customary
to affix the name of a man’s estate or native village or even his wife’s
name to his own to distinguish him from others of the same name. Thus,
the founder of the people’s banks is called Schulze-Delitzsch, because
he lived formerly in a little place called Delitzsch. He afterwards
lived in Potsdam, but was still called Schulze-Delitzsch. Delitzsch
is, however, really no part of his name. In speaking to him you would
generally have addressed him as Mr. Schulze, never Mr. Delitzsch. In
reading a book recently written by a learned American, I was amused to
see him spoken of seriously as Mr. Schulze von Delitzsch. It originated
undoubtedly in Lassalle’s calling him in contempt for his admiration for
the _bourgeoisie_ Mr. Bastiat-Schulze von Delitzsch.

[161] Cf. Wagner, in _Tübinger Zeitschrift_ (1878), SS. 211, 212.

[162] “Zur Beleuchtung,” etc., SS. 23, 24.

[163] That is, the labor of man in economic society.

[164] “Zur Beleuchtung,” S. 24.

[165] The Fourteenth Annual Report of the Massachusetts Bureau of
Statistics of Labor for 1883 goes to substantiate this theory. In 1875
the “percentage of wages paid of value of product” in over two thousand
establishments was 24.68; in 1880 only 20.33. _Vide_ p. 371; cf. also
other statistics on the same page and on p. 370.

[166] “Normal Arbeitstag;” _Tübinger Zeitschrift_, S. 361.

[167] “Offener Brief,” etc., in Lassalle’s “Reden,” Bd. i. S. 270.

[168] Cf. Lassalle’s “Reden,” Bd. i. SS. 40-42, where this thought is
brought out clearly and forcibly.

[169] I do not mean by this to state that I consider the explanation
correct.

[170] “Hülfstafeln zu Preisberechnungen für Zimmerarbeiten, auf
Grundlage der durchschnittlichen Leistung der Arbeiter,” von H. Peters.
Schwerin i. M., and “Hülfsbuch zur Aufstellung von Lohnregulativen und
Preisberechnungen für Bautischlerarbeiten, mit Angabe des Materialbedarfs
und des durchschnittlichen Arbeitswerths nach Stunden und Minuten,” von
H. Peters (Berlin, 1877).

[171] For these and other facts, _vide_ Mehring’s “Die Deutsche
Social-Demokratie,” ch. v.

[172] This translation, by Ernest Jones, appeared in John Rae’s “The
Socialism of Karl Marx and the Young Hegelians” (_Contemporary Review_,
October, 1881).

[173] Second edition (Hamburg, 1872).

[174] “Wochenausgabe,” 23. März, 1883.

[175] “Das Kapital,” 2te Aufl. S. 793.

[176] “Das Kapital,” S. 158.

[177] Quoted by Knies in “Das Geld,” S. 53.

[178] “Das Kapital,” SS. 656, 657.

[179] A good account is given in Rudolf Meyer’s “Emancipationskampf,”
etc., Bd. i. SS. 93-174. The Frenchman Villetard has written a “History
of the International,” which was translated into English by Susan M. Day,
and published in New Haven in 1874.

[180] _Vide_ De Laveleye’s “European Terror” (_Fortnightly Review_,
April, 1883).

[181] “Die Philosophie Heracleitos des Dunkeln,” 2 Bde. On account of his
absorption in the celebrated Hatzfeldt case for eight years, it was not
published until 1858.

[182] _Vide_ “Briefe von Lassalle und Carl Rodbertus-Jagetzow, mit einer
Einleitung von Adolf Wagner” (Berlin, 1878), SS. 44, 67, 71, 72.

[183] This matter was referred by Louis Blanc to Karl Blind, who advised
him to not grant the request, as he had no faith in Lassalle, believing
that he intended from the start to “sell out” to Bismarck. _Vide_ article
on Louis Blanc, in _Die Gegenwart_, 6. Januar, 1883.

[184] Quoted from my article on “Bismarck’s Plan for Insuring German
Laborers” (_International Review_, May, 1882).

[185] _Vide_ Lassalle’s “Ronsdorfer Rede,” held May 22, 1864, and
published in Berlin.

[186] See first note above.

[187] On the 17th of September, 1878. I translate Bismarck’s words as
given in his “Ausgewählte Reden,” Bd. iii. SS. 131, 132.

[188] “Political Economy,” bk. ii. chap. xi. sec. 2.

[189] Bk. i. ch. viii.

[190] _Beamtenfamilie_ is a common expression.

[191] John Rae (_Contemporary Review_, June, 1881).

[192] One candidate was elected in two districts which required a new
election in one of them, in which the social democrats lost. This reduced
the number of their members to twelve.

[193] The leading organ of the social democrats, the _Sozial-demokrat_,
of Zurich, gave a fair report of the proceedings, which was reprinted in
the _Vorbote_ of Chicago, May 5, 1883.

[194] This quotation is taken from my article in the _International
Review_ on “Bismarck’s Plan,” etc., May, 1882. The remaining quotations
in this chapter are taken from the same article when no other reference
is given.

[195] _Vide_ a description of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Employees’
Relief Association, by B. J. Ramage, in the Johns Hopkins University
Studies in Historical and Political Science.

[196] The first four conditions are taken from the American translation
of Roscher; the fifth is translated by the author from a subsequent
German edition.

[197] Mehring, S. 80.

[198] Born in 1833.

[199] The Rev. Samuel A. Barnett mentions the following as socialistic
laws on the statute-book of England: “The Poor Law,” “The Education Act,”
“The Established Church,” “The Land Act,” and “The Libraries Act;” _vide_
his article on “Practicable Socialism” (_Nineteenth Century Magazine_,
April, 1883).

[200] Cf. Lev. xxv. and Deut. xv.

[201] “Munera Pulveris” (New York, 1872), pp. 141, 142.

[202] Cf. Wagner’s celebrated “Rede über die sociale Frage” (Berlin,
1872).

[203] _Vide_ Macaulay, “History of England.” Cf. article “Budget,” by
Spofford, in “Cyclopædia of Political Science,” in regard to increase of
expenses of various states.

[204] “Ueber einige Grundfragen des Rechts und der Volkswirthschaft”
(Jena, 1875).

[205] Quoted by Kaufmann in “Lamennais and Kingsley,” _Contemporary
Review_, April, 1882.

[206] “Paroles d’ un Croyant,” pp. 16-18.

[207] Alton Locke, ch. xli.

[208] Quoted from Kaufmann’s article.

[209] Dated Chester, October 6, 1882.

[210] “Die Arbeiterfrage und das Christenthum” (Mainz, 1864), Seite 112.

[211] He attributes the abolition of slavery to the Church.

[212] The Catholic Church in Germany has been instrumental in
establishing a large number of _Gesellenvereine_, or bachelors’ unions.
They resemble in many respects our Young Men’s Christian Associations.

[213] De Laveleye.

[214] Quoted by Kaufmann in his article on Lamennais and Kingsley, in the
_Contemporary Review_, April, 1882.

INDEX.

Adams, C. K., criticism on Louis Blanc’s “Histoire de la Révolution
Française,” 111.

Albert, colleague of Louis Blanc, 111.

Anarchists, Proudhon avows himself one of them, 135;
their prominent representatives in France, 146;
equality their doctrine, 147;
declaration of principles, 148;
separation from the International Workingmen’s Association, 185.

Antonelle, member of the Committee of Insurrection, 32.

Aristotle, defence of slavery, 176.

Association, to be established by leadership (Saint-Simon), 64;
the central idea of Fourierism, 91-99.

Babœuf, opposed to the _laissez-faire_ system, 12;
sketch of his career, 31;
connection with the Reign of Terror, 32;
execution, 33;
equality the leading idea of his system, 34;
equality be obtained by degrees, 36;
his scheme, 37;
a cheerless scheme, 38.

Bakounine, pessimist, leader of the Anarchists, 147;
leads the opposition to the old Internationalists at the Hague, 185.

Barnett, S. A., socialistic laws on the statute-book of England, _note_,
236.

Barrault, a Saint-Simonian, 72;
lectures in Alexandria, 78.

Baudet-Dulary, offers an estate for a trial of Fourierism, 101.

Bazard, separates from Enfantin, 65, 75;
a leader of the Saint-Simonians, 71.

Bebel, a supporter of Bismarck’s Insurance Bill, 220;
a disciple of Liebknecht, 230;
historical importance, 231.

Becker, president of the Laborers’ Union, 225, 226.

Bismarck, admiration for Lassalle, 196;
plans for universal suffrage, 212;
checks to social democrats, 216;
his determination, 217;
his Accident Insurance Bill, 218;
his plan to conquer social democracy, 219;
concessions, 219, 228;
his schemes in behalf of labor viewed with distrust, 220;
a member of an economic school, 235;
appreciation of Wagner, 243.

Black Hand of Spain, members of the International, 186.

Blanc, Charles, affection of Louis Blanc for, 115.

Blanc, Louis, an authority on the times of Louis Philippe, 34, _note_;
first state socialist, 109;
life, 109 _et seqq._;
“Organisation du Travail,” 110;
“Histoire de Dix Ans,” 110;
perceived the widening separation between the _bourgeoisie_ and the
fourth estate, 110;
“Histoire de la Révolution Française,” 111;
_droit au travail_, 112;
_ateliers sociaux_, 112, 119;
experiments, 112;
flight from France, 114;
character, 115;
social philosophy, 116;
evils of present society according to, 117;
suppression of misery by fraternity, 118;
his formula for the distribution of functions, 121;
of products, 122;
not an _égalitaire_, 122;
correspondence with Lassalle, 192 and _note_.

Blanqui, Adolphe, a Saint-Simonian, 72.

Blanqui, Auguste, founder of Blanquism, 145.

Blind, Karl, description of the appearance of Louis Blanc, 116;
no faith in Lassalle, 192, _note_.

Booth, A. J., criticism on Enfantin, 73;
statement regarding the Society for the Propagation, etc., of the
Theory of Fourier, 102 and _note_.

_Bourgeoisie_, the third estate, 4;
rise of, 7;
enmity of the poor against, 10;
separation from the fourth estate, 110;
growth of, inimical to feudalism, 177;
Lassalle’s indictment of, 195.

Brentano, a professorial socialist, 237.

Bright, his schemes called narrow by Kingsley, 249.

Brisbane, Albert, head of Fourierism in America, 107.

Brissot de Warville declares private property theft, but afterwards
defends it, 3.

Brook Farm, a Fourieristic experiment in America, 107.

Bucher, L., edits Lassalle’s “System of Acquired Rights,” 197.

Buchez, a Saint-Simonian, 72.

Buonarroti, connection with Babœuf, member of the committee of
insurrection, 32;
escapes to Switzerland, 33;
his history of the conspiracy of Babœuf, 33 and _note_, 34;
preaches Babouvism, 34.

Cabet, Étienne, career of, 39-42;
“Voyage en Icarie,” 40;
the Icarians at Nauvoo, 41;
division among the Icarians, 42;
letter of Albert Shaw concerning present condition of Icarians, 42-48;
the New Icarian Community, 44;
the Icarian Community, 46;
government and marriage among the Icarians, 48 and _note_, 51;
education, 49;
success, 49;
fraternity the principle of the Icarians, 50.

Carlyle, necessity of sympathy, 15;
the laborers need a leader, 63;
“History of the French Revolution,” 144.

Chevalier, Michel, a Saint-Simonian, 72;
imprisoned, 77;
proposal about the armies of Europe, 79.

Church, relation to people before the French Revolution, 6;
the Catholic before the Reformation, 62;
restraint of, 63;
duty of, 66;
Proudhon’s work on justice in, 132;
views of Malon, 154, 155;
an organizing power, 245;
remedies offered to laborers by, 260.

Civil service, in Prussia, 207;
need of reform in the United States; possible future dangers arising
from its prostitution, 223.

Cobden, Kingsley’s dislike of the plans of, 249.

Colins, an advocate of the nationalization of land, 150.

Collectivists, French socialists, and social democrats, 149;
are international, 150;
evolutionists, 150;
revolutionists, 151;
Guesde’s electoral programme, 152.

Commune, its nature explained, 20;
aims of the communists, 21;
the communal government, 22.

Communism, object, 1;
cosmopolitan, 3;
proper method of treatment, 14;
modern hatred of, 16;
modern fallacies about, 19;
not chargeable with the doings of the Commune, 20;
connection with atheism and free-love, 22;
opinions of Noyes and Rylance, 23 and _note_, 24;
not necessarily anti-Christian, 25;
included in socialism, 30;
schemes of, 30;
Babouvism, 34;
Icarians, 40;
to be preferred to the present state of society (Mill), 68;
objected to by Proudhon, 133, 137;
in France, 144;
movement of the social democrats towards, 206.

Comte, A., a pupil of Saint-Simon, 57 and _note_.

Considerant, Victor, presentation of Fourierism, 101, 103.

Co-operation, scheme of Lassalle, 189;
to replace competition, 250;
societies to promote, 251;
efforts of Hughes, 251;
letter of E. V. Neale, 252, 255;
Church can aid, 261.

Crises, one of the evils Rodbertus sought to abolish, 161;
state interference needed, 166;
Marx’s doctrine of, 181;
social democrats to abolish, 208.

Crosby, Dr. Howard, attitude of, towards laboring class, 28 and _note_.

Curtis, George William, 107.

Cuvier, a benefactor of Saint-Simon, 59.

Dana, Charles A., prominent among the Fourierists of America, 107.

Darthé, member of the committee of insurrection with Babœuf, 32.

David, teacher of music at Ménilmontant, 77;
afterwards at Alexandria, 78.

Debon, member of committee of insurrection, 32.

Democratic constitutions, pretence of lower classes in consequence of,
a condition productive of socialism, 224.

Depaepe, presentation of international collectivism, 150.

Diard supports Saint-Simon, 59.

Dickens treats of the laboring class, 11, _note_.

Didier, agent of the committee of insurrection, 32.

Distribution of products, complaints about, 1;
Babœuf favored equal, 36;
Saint-Simonians advocate, according to works, 64, 68, 71, 74, and
reject equal, 70;
Fourier’s doctrine of, 98, 99;
at Guise, 106;
Louis Blanc’s doctrine concerning, 122;
Proudhon’s, 140;
Rodbertus’s, 162;
Marx’s, 180;
social democrats, 205;
Mill’s plea for justice in, 238.

Division of labor, effects of, 8;
implies capital, 201;
extreme, a condition productive of socialistic movements, 222.

Dumas, Alexander, derives the idea of “Les Frères Corses” from Charles
and Louis Blanc, 115.

Dumay, candidate of the collectivists to succeed Gambetta, 151.

Economic programme of Guesde, 153.

Enfantin, leader of Saint-Simonism, 71;
character, 73;
views regarding marriage, 75;
retires to Ménilmontant, 76;
expedition to Egypt, 77;
Suez Canal due to him, 77;
director of Lyons Railway, 79.

Engels, “Condition of the Laboring Classes in England,” 158;
one of the founders of _Neue Rheinische Zeitung_, 171.

Equality, promised by agitators, 2;
Christian idea of underlying communism, 25;
idea of Babouvism, 34;
among Icarians, 50;
Saint-Simonians oppose, 64, 68, 70;
opposed by Louis Blanc, 122;
“community is inequality” (Proudhon), 133;
how obtained by Proudhon, 138;
of anarchists, 147, 149;
_égalité_ and _solidarité_ the watchwords of German social
democrats, 231.

Eudes, leader of the Blanquists, 145.

Feudalism, Thorold Rogers points out certain good features in, 5;
swept away by French Revolution, 6;
makes way for third estate, 177.

Fourier, opposed to _laissez-faire_ system, 12;
compared with Saint-Simon, 81;
life, 82 _et seqq._;
generous and truthful, 83;
influences leading him to a study of political economy, 83, 84;
his social scheme, 84, 91;
“La Théorie des Quatre Mouvements,” 84, 86;
Association at Versailles, 85;
“Traité de l’Association,” etc., 87;
use of figures, 87;
duration of the world, 88;
religious belief, 89;
“Nouveau Monde Industriel,” etc., 91;
classification of the passions, 92;
evils of modern civilization, 93;
phalanxes, 93;
beneficial effects of rivalry, 94;
scheme for paying the English debt with hens’ eggs, 95, 96;
evils of competition, 97;
Fourierism not so pure a socialism as Saint-Simonism, 98;
division of products, 98;
_unitéisme_, 99;
ideas about women, 100;
opposes violence, 100;
criticism of Kaufmann, 100;
adherents, 101;
Fourieristic experiments, 102;
experiment of Jean Godin, 103;
Fourierism in America, 106;
criticism on, 108;
principle of authority, 124.

Fournel, a Saint-Simonian, 72.

Free-trade school, comparison of, with German socialism, 158;
cosmopolitan tendency of, 187.

Freiligrath, one of the founders of the _Neue Rheinische Zeitung_, 171;
farewell ode, 172.

French Revolution, chap. i.;
writers immediately preceding, 3;
the war of La Vendée, 5;
sweeps away feudal institutions, 6;
history of, by Louis Blanc, 111.

Fuller, Margaret, a leading spirit in the Brook Farm experiment, 107.

Gammond, Madame de, exposition of Fourierism, 101.

Gneist, Dr., is elected to the Assembly, 213.

Godin’s _Familistère_, 103;
extract from laws, 105.

Government, Babœuf’s idea of, 37;
among the Icarians, 48;
Saint-Simon’s idea of, 64;
Fourier’s, 99;
Louis Blanc’s opinion of, 117, 124;
Proudhon’s contempt for, 130;
anarchy is Proudhon’s ideal of, 134, 141;
opinion of the anarchists about, 148;
Lassalle’s idea, 193;
demands of the social democrats, 205, 208;
Wagner’s law of expenses of, 242.

Greeley, Horace, prominent among the Fourierists of America, 107.

Guesde, Jules, a revolutionary collectivist, 151;
his electoral programme, 152.

Guilds before the French Revolution, 4.

Guise, M. Godin’s experiment at, 103.

Harrison, F., view of existing French socialism, 143.

Hasselmann expelled from Social Democratic Party, 216.

Hatzfeldt, Countess Von, interest of Lassalle in the case of, 190, 197;
controls the Universal German Laborers’ Union, 225.

Held, Adolf, a professorial socialist, 237.

History, theory of, by Marx, 175.

Hughes, Thomas, a Christian socialist, 249;
co-operation to solve the labor question, 251;
letter of, about Christian socialism in England, 252.

Hugues, Clovis, a collectivist deputy, 154.

Humboldt, Von, admiration for Lassalle, 189.

Icarians, _vide_ Cabet.

Individualism, result of French Revolution, 7;
advice to the government, 29;
opinion of Louis Blanc about, 117;
individualistic socialism, 125;
attacked by Proudhon, 127.

Inheritance, rejected by Saint-Simonians, 69, 70, 80;
retained by Fourier, 98;
allowed by Proudhon, 134;
abolished by collectivists, 151;
doctrine of social democrats regarding, 207.

International Workingmen’s Association, members of the communal
government, 21;
law against, 114;
separation of Bakounine from, 146;
Guesde’s political programme demands the abolition of the law
against, 151;
based on social democratic principles, 188;
statutes, 183;
congresses, 184;
at the Hague, 185;
importance, 186;
possibilities of, 187.

Joffrin, a revolutionary collectivist, 152;
refuses to attend Louis Blanc’s funeral, 154.

Kaufmann, Schäffle’s socialism, 2;
on Lamennais, 12;
definition of socialism proper, 66;
merits of Fourierism, 100, 101.

Kayser, a defender of Bismarck’s Insurance Bill, 220.

Ketteler, Baron von, life, 257, 258;
character, 258;
doctrines, 258;
on marriage, 259;
remedies the Church offers to laborers, 260.

King, Edward, describes the affection of Louis Blanc for his brother
Charles, 115.

Kingsley, Charles, a Christian socialist, 249;
opinion of economic liberalism, 249, 250;
competition sinful, 250.

Knies’s opinion of Marx, 174.

Krapotkine, Prince, imprisoned on account of membership in the
International Workingmen’s Association, 114, 186;
a prominent anarchist, 146.

Kretzer, Max, novelist of the fourth estate, 11, _note_.

Laboring class, rise of, 7;
their novelist, 11, _note_;
decay of religion among, 24, _note_;
no permanent, in America as yet, 25;
prophecies of, 26;
Most’s method for the emancipation of, 27;
needs a leader, 63;
scheme of Fourier for, 93;
plans of Louis Blanc for, 112;
sympathy of Proudhon with, 128;
his plan for, 136;
opinion of De Laveleye, 154;
their share of products (Rodbertus), 164;
increasing misery of, 177;
statutes of the International Workingmen’s Association
concerning, 183, 184;
agitation of Lassalle for, 190, 194;
duration of life among, 201;
political influence of, in Germany to-day, 211;
plans of Bismarck for, 219, 220;
lesson taught them by the social democrats, 233;
alliance with the church, 245;
sympathy of Christian socialists for, 249;
legislation in behalf of, favored by Christian socialists, 257;
benefits offered by the Church, 260.

_Laissez-faire_ system, revolt against, 12;
the advice of the individualist, 29;
condemned by Louis Blanc, 117;
effect of, 163;
opinion of Rodbertus, 168.

Lamennais, De, distress at results of the French Revolution, 12;
sketch of his life, 245;
does not satisfy the church authorities, 246;
“Les Paroles d’un Croyant,” 246;
modern employers worse than early slave-owners, 247.

Lange, F. A., warnings of, to the progressists, 18;
his opinion of Marx, 174.

Lassalle, war-cries against capital, 2;
party of progress opposed to, 17;
his success attributed by Mehring to his enemies, 19;
account of the _ateliers sociaux_, 113;
life, 189 _et seqq._;
interest in Countess Von Hatzfeldt, 190;
agitation in favor of the laboring class, 190;
success of his writings, 191;
the “Iron Law of Wages,” 191, 197;
productive co-operative associations, 192;
leader of the Universal German Laborers’ Union, 194;
Bismarck’s appreciation of, 196;
father of social democracy, 210;
nominates Becker as his successor in the presidency of the laborers’
union, 225.

Laurent, a Saint-Simonian, 72.

Laveleye, De, “La Démocratie et l’Économie Politique,” 8, _note_;
“European Terror,” 150;
regards Christianity as the hope of the laboring class, 261.

Le Chevalier, Jules, a Fourierist, 102.

Ledru-Rollin, a colleague of Louis Blanc, 111.

Lepelletier, member of the Committee of Insurrection, 32.

Leroux, exponent of humanitarianism, 72.

Lesseps, De, inspired by Saint-Simonism, 55, 72;
Enfantin associated with, in agitation for the Suez Canal, 77.

Liebknecht moves the expulsion of Becker from the Universal German
Laborers’ Union, 226;
character, 228;
decides not to enter civil service, 229;
takes part in the revolution of 1848, 229;
interpreter of Marx, 230;
an extremist, 230.

Louis Philippe criticised by Louis Blanc, 110.

Ludlow, J. M,, describes causes of decay of religion among the
working-men, 24, _note_;
assists in forming co-operative societies in England, 251.

Luther accused of heresy by Saint-Simon, 64.

Mably compared with Babœuf, 31.

Macaulay mentions growth of state business in England, 242, _note_.

Malon, B., a collectivist, 150;
description of present tendencies of French socialism, 154.

Manchester school, sympathy of the party of progress with, 17;
attacked by professorial socialists, 240;
indignation of Christian socialists at, 249.

Maréchal, member of the Committee of Insurrection, 32;
prepared the “Manifesto of the Equals,” 33.

Marie, M., wishes to discredit Louis Blanc with the laborers, 112.

Marlo, “System of World Economy,” 158.

Marriage, absence of, among the Shakers, 23, _note_;
among the Icarians, 48 and _note_, 51;
among the Saint-Simonians, 71;
Enfantin’s views regarding, 75;
Fourier’s, 100;
Von Ketteler’s, 259.

Marx, Karl, indictment against liberalism, 13;
indebtedness to Proudhon and Rodbertus, 129, _note_;
his views adopted by the collectivists, 140;
life, 170 _et seqq._;
“Das Kapital,” the Bible of the social democrats, 172, 173;
his ability, 174;
meetings after his death, 174, 175;
theory of history, 175;
doctrine of value, 178;
labor-time the measure of value, 179;
head of the International, 185;
enmity of Becker for, 226.

Maurice, Frederick, a Christian socialist, 249;
takes part in the formation of co-operative societies in England, 251.

Mehring, on the misery of the poor, 10;
“History of Social Democracy in Germany,” 17;
on the relations between Progressists and the social democrats, 18;
his opinion of Liebknecht, 228.

Meyer, R., on socialism in France since Proudhon, 143;
estimate of German socialists, 157.

Mill, John Stuart, objects to present method of distributing economic
goods, 67;
exposition of Ricardo’s law of wages, 199;
a professorial socialist, 238.

Morality, state of, after French Revolution, 10;
to be derived from principle of fraternity, according to
Saint-Simon, 65;
decay of among laboring class as productive of socialistic
movements, 224.

More, Sir Thomas, his “Utopia” socialistic, 3;
character of, 20;
inspired Cabet, 40.

Morelly, “Code de la Nature” the inspiration of Babœuf, 34.

Morley on Rousseau’s social ideas, 4;
on Comte’s relation to Saint-Simon, 57, _note_.

Most, lecture in Baltimore, 27, 232;
expelled from the social democratic convention, 216.

Muiron, adherent of Fourier, 101.

Müller, Adam, head of the romantic party, against liberalism, 12, 13.

Mutualism, Proudhon’s scheme, 136.

Neale, E. V., letter about the Christian social efforts of Maurice,
Kingsley, Hughes, etc., and co-operation in England, 252-258.

Nordhoff criticises Cabet, 41.

Noyes thinks “familism” and communism antagonistic, 23, _note_;
on Fourieristic experiments in America, 107.

Nuremberg contains magnificent remains of mediæval civilization, 6.

Owen, Robert, character of, 20;
representative of English communism, 31, _note_;
does not encourage Fourier, 85.

Parisian mob of 1871, 20.

Pauperism one of the evils Rodbertus sought to abolish, 161;
abolition of requires state interference, according to Rodbertus, 166.

Pellarin, Charles, biographer of Fourier, 102 and _note_.

Peron, one of the Icarians, 46, 48.

Peters, H., values the average work of a laborer in the building
trade, 167.

Plato, his “Republic” socialistic, 3;
not a demagogue, 20;
idea of slavery, 176.

Political programme of Guesde, 153.

Progressists, their contest with Lassalle; defection of laborers
from, 18.

Proletarians, men without property, 4;
Saint-Simonism first expression of, 80;
mentioned in Guesde’s electoral programme, 152;
Malon’s opinion about, 154;
call of Marx to the, 171;
growing importance of, 177;
will return to Christianity when they understand its true mission
(De Laveleye), 261.

Proudhon, life, 125-130;
study of theology, 125;
his work on the observation of Sunday, 126;
studies political economy, 127;
importance of “Qu’est-ce que la Propriété?” 127-129;
hatred of rich, 128;
discouraged visionary projects, 129;
“Système des Contradictions Économiques,” etc., 130;
a destroyer, 130;
combats other systems, 129, 131;
failure of his bank designed for the benefit of the laborers, 131, 136;
ideas on property, 132;
anarchy his ideal of government, 134;
mutualism, 136;
rejects communism, 137;
how equality is to be obtained, 138;
anarchic equality, 139;
_résumé_ of his system, 140;
his honesty of purpose, 141.

Reybaud introduces the word socialist, 29, _note_;
“Études sur les Réformateurs,” 34, _note_;
description of the death of Saint-Simon, 61.

Ricardo, estimation of, by German socialists, 157;
law of wages, 191, 197, 199.

Rich, confrontation of, by poor productive of socialistic movements, 221.

Ripley, George, one of the leading spirits in the Brook Farm
experiment, 107.

Rochdale, co-operative experiment at, 253.

Rodbertus, Karl, life, 159;
representative of pure theoretical socialism, 159;
compared with Ricardo, 160;
his writings, 160;
describes pauperism and crises as the great social evils, 161;
his starting-point is his conception of labor, 161;
the cause of pauperism and crises, 162;
evils of the _laissez-faire_ system, 163;
division of products, 164;
pauperism and panics to be banished by state interference, 166;
his influence, 169;
correspondence with Lassalle, 192.

Rodrigues chosen by Saint-Simon as his successor, 71.

Rogers, Thorold, points out certain good features in feudalism, 5.

Roscher, criticism on German socialism, 158;
offenses punishable with death in the army, 209;
conditions productive of socialistic movements, 221;
elevates man to the central position in economic science, 244.

Rossi, Pellegrino, instructor of Proudhon, 127.

Rothschild, his refutation of communism, 35.

Rousseau, opinions about property, 3.

Ruskin, complains of a lack of patriotism in money matters, 239.

Rylance, Dr. J. H., “Lectures on Social Questions,” 17;
relation between socialism and Christianity, 24.

Sacred College of Apostles founded by Saint-Simonians, 74.

Saint-Simon, opposed to the _laissez-faire_ system, 12;
life, 53 _et seqq._;
in America, 54;
life purpose, 55;
Mexico, Panama Canal scheme, 55;
president of the commune, 56;
imprisonment, 56;
teacher of Comte, 57;
destitution, 58;
writings, 59;
obtains a pension, 60;
“Nouveau Christianisme,” 60;
doctrines, 62;
teaches the need of authority, 63;
association, 64;
revolution injurious, 64;
economic and social organizations, 66;
a representative of pure socialism, 66;
state property _versus_ private property, 68;
society to be organized as an army, 68;
his followers, the Saint-Simonians, accused of advocating communism of
wives and property, 69;
they reject inheritance, 69;
their views regarding women, 71;
their costume, 75;
schism among them, 75;
Ménilmontant, 76;
beneficial results of Saint-Simonism, 79;
Saint-Simon compared with Fourier, 81;
contempt of Saint-Simonians for Fourier, 85;
Saint-Simon’s rank among French socialists, 108.

Savigny, opinion concerning “Das System der erworbenen Rechte” of
Lassalle, 190.

Schäffle, his “Socialism as Presented by Kaufmann,” describes war-cries
against capital as modern, 2;
considers communists as not necessarily anti-Christian, 25;
criticism on Fourier, 100;
his “Quintessence of Socialism,” 150;
took him years to understand German socialism, 156.

Schmoller, a professorial socialist, 237;
definition of state, 241;
his open letter to Professor von Treitschke, 243.

Schweitzer, Von, president of the Universal German Laborers’ Union, 226;
his life, 226, 227;
withdrawal from the social democrats, 227.

Shakers referred to by Noyes in the question of “familism” _versus_
socialism, 23, _note_.

Shaw, Albert, his letter on present condition of the Icarians, 42-48.

Sismondi, purpose of the poor and rich in labor, 9.

Slaney introduces in Parliament a bill which becomes the law of
industrial societies in England, 254.

Smalley, G. W., eulogy on Louis Blanc’s character, 116.

Smith, Adam, regards economic goods only as products of labor, 161;
the wages of labor, 202.

Social democrats, views of, concerning the crimes of the rich, 11;
Mehring’s history of, in Germany, 17;
irreligious attitude of, 23;
one of the divisions of communism and socialism, 30, 169;
the collectivists are social democrats, 149;
are international, 150;
admit the necessity of land and capital, 168;
Marx their leading theoretician, 170;
“Das Kapital” the Bible of, 173;
Lassalle their leading agitator, 189;
rise of, 194, 203;
doctrines, 197;
extremists, 204;
characteristics, 204;
demands, 205;
some beneficial doctrines, 205;
movement towards communism, 206;
their programme involves army discipline, 209;
since the death of Lassalle, 211;
universal suffrage, 211;
number of their votes for the members of the Reichstag, 213;
blamed for attempts on the life of the emperor, 214;
congress at Wyden, 1880, 215;
at Copenhagen, 1883, 216;
grounds of their discontent, 216;
internal history of the party after Lassalle’s death, 225;
the Laborers’ Union, 225;
Social Democratic Labor Party, 227;
change in since Lassalle, 231;
violence thought necessary, 232;
connection with attempts on the life of the emperor, 233;
compared with early Christians, 233.

Socialism, object, 1;
peculiarities of modern schemes, 2;
cosmopolitan, 3;
older schemes, 4;
before the French Revolution, 4;
taught the necessity of new forms of society after the French
Revolution, 13;
proper method of treatment, 14;
hatred of most authors for, 16;
opposed to individualism, 29;
distinguished from communism, 30;
modern schemes of, 30;
Saint-Simonism _vide_ Saint-Simon, Fourierism _vide_ Fourier,
connection with politics, 109;
principle of authority, 124;
Proudhon, 124;
in France since Proudhon, 143;
cause of French, 143;
existing French, 144;
Blanquists, 145;
anarchists, 146;
nihilism, 146;
anarchists believe in collectivism, 149;
collectivists, 150;
classical epoch-making is to-day German, 156;
vitality of German, 156;
German, like French, is negative, 157;
adherents of German school of, 158;
Rodbertus, 159;
classification of German, 169;
Marx, 170;
International Workingmen’s Association, 183;
Lassalle, 189;
conditions productive of, 221;
Bismarck’s measures, 235;
professorial, 236;
belief of professorial, 236, 241;
mosaic legislation, 237;
formation of party of professorial socialists, 237;
Mill’s statement of doctrines of professorial, 238;
convention at Eisenach in 1872, 240;
questions discussed, 240;
exaltation of the state by professorial, 241;
Wagner’s law of expenditures of government, 242;
accomplishment of Wagner’s ideal, 243;
professorial repudiates self-interest, 243;
De Lamennais and Christian, 245;
Christian, in England, 249;
co-operative societies, 251;
letter of Mr. Neale, 252-255;
two divisions of Christian, 256;
Protestant Christian, 256;
Catholic Christian, 257.

Stein, Von, describes Saint-Simon’s historical importance, 79, 80;
comparison between Fourier and Saint-Simon, 81;
comparison between the classification of the passions by Fourier
and that by Pythagoras and Bossuet, 92, _note_.

Stöcker, a leader of Protestant Christian Socialism in Germany, 256.

Strikes, to be reported to the congresses of the International
Workingmen’s Association, 184;
to be abolished by the Social Democrats, 209.

Sumner, Charles, opinion of Louis Blanc’s “Histoire de la Révolution
Française,” 111.

Sybel, Von, History of the French Revolution, 6, _note_, 33, _note_.

Taine, “Ancient Régime,” 6, _note_.

Thomas, Émile, manager of the _ateliers nationaux_, 112.

Todt, Dr., a leader of Protestant Christian Socialism, 256.

Treitschke, Von, attacks the professorial socialists, 243.

Union for social politics, formation of, 240.

Universal German Laborers’ Union, formation of, 194;
demanded universal and equal suffrage, 212;
since Lassalle, 225;
its presidents, 226;
presidency of Von Schweitzer, 227.

Value, Marx’s doctrine of, presented by Proudhon, 129;
is found in “Das Kapital,” 178.

Vigoureux, Madame Clarisse, a Fourierist, 102.

Wages, Iron Law of, significance of, 191;
Lassalle’s statement of, 197;
Mill’s statement of, 199;
accepted by Von Ketteler, 258.

Wagner, opinion of Rodbertus, 159;
a professorial socialist, 169;
leader of the professorial socialists, 237;
his law of expenditures of government, 242.

Walker, F. A., proper method of dealing with social questions, 16.

Weitling, alleged dependence of Lassalle upon, 19.

Wolff, one of the founders of _Neue Rheinische Zeitung_, 171.

Workshops, Louis Blanc’s system of, 112, 113, 119-122, 192.

THE END.

RICHARD T. ELY’S WORKS.

THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN AMERICA. $1 50.
TAXATION IN AMERICAN STATES AND CITIES. $1 75.
PROBLEMS OF TO-DAY. $1 50.
SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 90 cents.
SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORM. $1 50.

T. Y. CROWELL & CO., NEW YORK.

AN INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL ECONOMY. $1 00.
OUTLINES OF ECONOMICS (College Edition). $1 25.

HUNT & EATON, NEW YORK.

FRENCH AND GERMAN SOCIALISM IN MODERN TIMES. Cloth, 75 cents;
Paper, 25 cents.

HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW YORK.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "French and German Socialism in Modern Times" ***

Home