sozialismus in alten lexika

8/7/2019 Sozialismus in alten Lexika

1/21

Meyers, 1905

Sozialismus im weitern Sinn alle Bestrebungen, die eine Beseitigung der in der Gesellschaftherrschenden Klassenunterschiede bezwecken, im engern modernen Sinne dasjenige

volkswirtschaftliche System, welches das wirtschaftliche Leben unter Ersetzung desPrivateigentums durch das Gemeineigentum einer gemeinsamen und planmigen Regelungunterwerfen will. Der moderne S. hat viel Verwandtschaft mit dem Kommunismus (s. d.). BeideSysteme bezwecken eine bessere Staats- und Gesellschaftsordnung, als die bestehende ist, beidefhren die darin vorkommenden Mistnde auf verkehrte menschliche Einrichtungen zurck undfordern eine gnzliche Umgestaltung des Wirtschaftsorganismus, der Rechtsordnung und desStaatswesens der Kulturvlker, nach der unter Beseitigung der individuellen wirtschaftlichenFreiheit die Gesamtheit die Verantwortlichkeit und Sorge fr die konomische und soziale Lage der einzelnen zu bernehmen habe. Auf dieser Grundlage erfinden beide neue Organisationen der wirtschaftlichen Ttigkeit, der Produktion und der Verteilung der Gter, welche die Forderungeneiner angeblichen Gerechtigkeit verwirklichen sollen. Der Unterschied zwischen beiden bestehtvornehmlich darin, da der Kommunismus die Vergesellschaftung sowohl der Produktions- als der Konsumtionsartikel und eine auf alle Lebensverhltnisse sich beziehende zwangsweise Ordnungdes Lebens der einzelnen durch die Gesellschaft verlangt, whrend der S. nur Gemeinsamkeit der Produktionsmittel fordert, dem einzelnen aber auf dem Gebiete des rein individuellen Lebens einigeFreiheit gewhrt.Diese eben geschilderten Grundstze des S. sind aber erst unter dem Einflu moderner wirtschaftlicher Zustnde und Vorgnge zu wissenschaftlichen Systemen ausgebildet worden.Allerdings fehlt es nicht an Vorlufern. Denn es hat von jeher, seit es Ungleichheit in der Welt gabund den Menschen zum Bewutsein gelangt war, Richtungen und Bestrebungen gegen dasPrivateigentum und fr das Gemeineigentum gegeben. Die Vermgensungleichheit in der

hellenischen Welt erzeugte schon bei Phaleas von Chalcedon, einem Zeitgenossen Platons,namentlich aber bei Platon (s. d.) selbst, staatswissenschaftliche Lehren mit stark sozialistischer Frbung. In seinem Staat schildert dieser ein kommunistisches Gemeinwesen, in dem wenigstensfr die Regierenden (die Philosophen und Wchter) das Privateigentum aufgehoben ist undWeibergemeinschaft und staatliche Kindererziehung herrscht. In dem nchtern-praktischen, von privatwirtschaftlicher Erwerbslust erfllten Sinne der Rmer war kein Boden fr sozialistischeTheorien. Erst im Mittelalter leben sie unter dem Einflu des Christentums wieder auf und fhrenunter dem Einflu von extremem sittlichen Rigorismus zu kommunistischen Bildungen. So imManichismus, bei den Katharern (11. Jahrh.), der Sekte der Apostel (um 1300), den Homiliaten,den Begharden etc. Ein ganz andres Gesicht trug der S. von Morus (14781535); er war nichteingegeben von weltflchtiger Askese, sondern von dem Streben nach Verallgemeinerung desLebensgenusses (s. More 1 und Kommunismus, S. 332). An die Utopie des Morus schlossen sichandre kommunistische Staatsromane und Schriftsteller, wie Campanella, Vairasse, Morelly, Mably,Brissot de Warville, Boissel u. a., an (s. Kommunismus); zu Ende der franzsischen Revolutionversuchte Babeuf (s. d.) die kommunistischen Theorien zu verwirklichen. Im brigen aber sind diewhrend der Revolution und nach ihr auftretenden sozialistischen Theorien mchtig beeinflut vonden Lehren Jean Jacques Rousseaus (s. d., 171278), der in seiner Abhandlung ber den Ursprungund die Grnde der Ungleichheit unter den Menschen, und ob sie durch Naturgesetze geheiligt seiden Satz aufstellt, da die Frchte der Erde allen gehren und die Erde niemand.Aber alle diese Systeme hatten bestenfalls nur vorbergehenden Einflu gewinnen knnen.Epochemachend wirkten erst die im ersten Drittel des 19. Jahrh. erscheinenden Arbeiten von Saint-

Simon und Fourier. Erst bei ihnen ist der S. eine selbstndige Wirtschaftstheorie. Saint-Simon (s. d.2,17601825) selbst hat seine sozialistischen Anschauungen nicht zu einem geschlossenen Systementwickelt. Das geschah erst durch seine Schler (die Saint-Simonisten), besonders Bazard (s. d.)


2/21

und Enfantin (s. d.), die ihr System nach ihrem Lehrer und Meister Saint-Simonismus nannten. Diesoziale Frage betrachten sie nicht nur als eine konomische, sondern ebensosehr als einemoralische, religise und politische, da es sich in ihr um eine Reform aller Verhltnisse desVolkslebens handle. Von der Ansicht ausgehend, da die krperliche Arbeit die Quelle aller Wertesei, sehen sie das Hauptunrecht in Staat und Gesellschaft darin, da der Eigentmer die Arbeiter ausbeute, da Zins und Rente eine von den Eigentmern auf Kosten der Arbeiter bezogene Prmie

sei, da der ntzlichste Stand, der der Arbeiter (industriels), den letzten Rang einnehme, zumweitaus grten Teile miachtet, in traurigster Lage und politisch ohne Einflu sei. Es sei deshalbeine neue Organisation der Gesellschaft zu bilden, in der die Klasse der Besitzenden und der lgistes (Beamten, Gelehrten, Advokaten) wie die militrische Gewalt dem arbeitenden Teile der Gesellschaft untergeordnet sei, so da an die Stelle der bisherigen feudalen Organisation des Staateseine industrielle trete, die zugleich das ideale Ziel Saint-Simons erreiche, allen Menschen diefreieste Entfaltung ihrer Fhigkeiten zu sichern. Erziehung und Ausbildung[639] sollen auf der Grundlage einer neuen Religion, eines neuen Christentums der Bruderliebe und werkttigen Moral,die wirtschaftliche Ttigkeit durch eine nderung der Rechtsordnung umgestaltet werden. Um einegerechte Gterverteilung herbeizufhren, msse die Arbeit zum einzigen Eigentumstitel gemachtund eine Verteilung nach dem Prinzip organisiert werden: Jedem nach seiner Fhigkeit, und jeder Fhigkeit nach ihren Werken. Eine Zentralbank solle die Verfgung ber den Boden und dieKapitalien erhalten, die gewerblichen und kaufmnnischen Arbeiten verteilen, die Produktion leiten,die Produktionsmittel den Geeignetsten zuweisen. Vor allem sei das Erbrecht der Blutsverwandtschaft abzuschaffen und durch ein Erbrecht des Verdienstes zu ersetzen. Die Gter der einzelnen sollen nach ihrem Tode der Gesamtheit zufallen, der Staat der Erbe sein und die ihmanfallenden Gter denjenigen zuweisen, die sie am besten zum Wohl des Ganzen gebrauchenwrden. Auerdem sollen Staatsbanken zur leichtern Gewhrung eines billigen Kredits gegrndetwerden. Der Unterricht solle ein unentgeltlicher, ffentlicher und zwar der allgemeine theoretischeein gleicher fr alle (mit besonderer Bercksichtigung der moralischen Ausbildung), der professionelle aber ein den individuellen Fhigkeiten entsprechender sein. Die Saint-Simonistenhaben spter die Bazardsche Erbrechtsreform auf die Forderung hoher progressiver Erbschaftssteuern und Aufhebung des Erbrechts in den weitern Verwandtschaftsgraden beschrnkt.Gleichzeitig mit Saint-Simon, aber vllig unabhngig von ihm, entwickelte Ch. Fourier (s. d.2,17721837) ein sozialistisches System, das durch seine Schler, besonders durch V. Considrant(s. d.), um die Mitte der 1830er Jahre in Frankreich allgemeiner bekannt wurde. Im Gegensatz zuSaint-Simon konstruierte er seine neue sozialistische Gesellschaftsordnung bis ins einzelne. Er sttzt dieselbe auf eine eigentmliche, wissenschaftlich unhaltbare Psychologie und auf eineeingehende Kritik der konomischen Zustnde seiner Zeit, die sich namentlich gegen den Handelwendet und neben vielem Falschen wertvolle Wahrheiten enthlt. Die gegebenen Zustndeerscheinen ihm von Grund aus schlecht, weil die groe Masse des Volkes, durch eine kleine Zahlausgebeutet, eine elende Existenz fhre und keine Freude an der Arbeit und am Dasein habenknne. Er findet es vllig verkehrt, da die Produktion eine individualistische (inEinzelunternehmungen) mit freier Konkurrenz sei. Durch die Existenz der vielen kleinenUnternehmungen finde eine ungeheure Verschwendung in der Benutzung der Arbeitsmittel und-Krfte statt; wrde nur in groen genossenschaftlichen Unternehmungen produziert, so knnte mitgleichem Aufwand viel mehr produziert und bei gerechter Verteilung ein hheres Genuleben fr die Arbeiter herbeigefhrt werden. Sie bewirke weiter eine solche Ausdehnung der Arbeitsteilung,da die meisten Menschen keine Abwechselung bei der Arbeit htten und diese dadurch, statt zueiner Freude, zu einer unertrglichen Last werde. Sie veranlasse endlich auch die Existenz einer groen Zahl an sich vllig berflssiger Kaufleute und dadurch eine unntige Verteurung der Produkte. Fourier findet ebenso die bestehende Art der Konsumtion in den Einzelwirtschaften vlligunwirtschaftlich. Er fordert deshalb eine genossenschaftliche Produktion und Konsumtion in groenVerbnden, die, etwa 300400 Familien umfassend, mglichst alle Genumittel fr die Mitglieder herstellen, jedenfalls Landwirtschaft und Gewerbe betreiben, in einem groen Gebude(Phalanstre) alle ihre Wohnungen und Arbeitsrume einrichten, in wenigen Kchen die Speisen fr


3/21

alle bereiten und zugleich fr Vergngungen und Unterricht sorgen. Er entwirft den Plan dieser sozialen Wirtschaftsorganismen, von ihm Phalangen genannt, im einzelnen und suchtnachzuweisen, da sie, richtig organisiert, eine Garantie dafr bieten, da jeder durch seine Arbeitdie Mittel erlange, ein behagliches Genuleben zu fhren, dabei an derselben Freude habe und fr alle aus der freien naturgesetzlichen Entfaltung der Triebe die Harmonie der Triebe sich ergebe, dienach Fouriers Philosophie die Glckseligkeit der Menschen sei. Die Grndung der Phalangen soll

aber nicht durch staatlichen Zwang, sondern durch den freien Willen der einzelnen erfolgen. Fourier trug sich mit der berspannten Hoffnung, da, wenn nur erst eine Phalange gebildet worden, diePhalangen sich allmhlich ber die ganze Welt verbreiten wrden. Fourier stellte zuerst dieAbschaffung der Lohnarbeit und Grndung groer Produktiv- und Konsumgenossenschaften als diePanazee fr die soziale Frage auf.Eine neue Ausbildung nach der Seite der Sozialdemokratie (s. d.) hin erfuhr der S. durch LouisBlanc (s. d. 2,181182), zuerst in dessen kleiner Schrift ber Die Organisation der Arbeit (1839).Auch er will die Lohnarbeit durch Produktivgenossenschaften beseitigen. Aber seineProduktivgenossenschaften sind wesentlich andrer Art als die Fourierschen Phalangen, und ihreGrndung fordert er vom Staate. Wie bei dem bisherigen Wirtschaftssystem der groe Unternehmer

den kleinen, das groe Kapital das kleine unterdrcke, so knne der Staat, als der grte Kapitalist,durch die Grndung von grern Unternehmungen, als die bestehenden, in der Form vonProduktivgenossenschaften alle, auch die grten Unternehmer allmhlich konkurrenzunfhigmachen und so ohne Zwang und Gewalt der hchste Ordner und Herr der Produktion werden. Wenndies geschehen, habe er es in der Hand, durch die Regelung der innern Organisation dieser Genossenschaften und der Art der Ertragsverteilung den arbeitenden Klassen die gengendematerielle Existenz zu sichern. Louis Blanc denkt sich dann die Entwickelung fr die gewerblicheProduktion in drei Stadien. In dem ersten grnde der Staat die Ateliers sociaux fr dieverschiedenen Industriezweige, zunchst als Staatsunternehmungen; nach einiger Zeit aber wandleer sie um in reine Produktivgenossenschaften, berlasse die Verwaltung den Mitgliedern und beschrnke sich nur auf die gesetzliche Regelung der Organisation und der Gewinnverteilung.

Diese Genossenschaften wrden sofort die bessern Arbeitskrfte an sich ziehen und mit geringernKosten produzieren, zumal wenn sie mit groen Konsumgenossenschaften verbunden wren. Die bestehenden Unternehmungen wrden gezwungen werden, entweder den Betrieb einzustellen, oder sich in solche Genossenschaften umzuwandeln. In dem zweiten Stadium sollen dann, damit keineKonkurrenz unter den Genossenschaften entstehe, die Genossenschaften gleichartiger Produktionszweige sich zu grern Genossenschaften assoziieren, bis in jedem nur eineLandesgenossenschaft existiere. Im dritten assoziieren sich auch diese, so da schlielich eine groeProduktivgenossenschaft produziere, deren Organisation und Gewinnverteilung das Staatsgesetzregele. Eine Reform der Erziehung (mit obligatorischem und unentgeltlichem Unterricht) wrdediese Entwickelung sichern. Um auch die Landwirtschaft zu reformieren, soll das Erbrecht der[640]Seitenverwandten fortfallen, an ihrer Stelle soll die Gemeinde erben und mit dem ihr so anfallendenVermgen hnlich verwaltete landwirtschaftliche Produktivgenossenschaften grnden. Da von der herrschenden Gesellschaft mit monarchischer Staatsform eine Lsung dieser Aufgaben nicht zuerwarten sei, so msse zunchst der Staat in eine sozialdemokratische Republik umgewandeltwerden, in der die untern Klassen, einmal im Besitz der Herrschaft, auf dem vorgezeichneten Wegevorgehen knnten. Diese Ideen wurden in den 1840er Jahren das Programm der franzsischenSozialisten, an deren Spitze Louis Blanc stand. Er ist der Grnder der Sozialdemokratie. Modifiziertwurde sein Programm durch die Beschlsse des Arbeiterparlaments, das 1848 nach der Februarrevolution, von der provisorischen Regierung einberufen, im Palais Luxembourg unter demVorsitz von Louis Blanc tagte. Nach diesen sollte ein eignes Ministerium (ministre du progrs) diesozialistische Reform herbeifhren: zunchst die Bergwerke und Eisenbahnen fr den Staatankaufen, das Versicherungswesen in Staatsanstalten zentralisieren, groe Warenhallen undVorratshuser zu entgeltlicher Benutzung errichten, die franzsische Bank in eine Staatsbank umwandeln und mit dem Reinertrag aus diesen Geschften industrielle und landwirtschaftlicheGenossenschaften nach dem Plane Louis Blancs grnden. Zur Beseitigung einer verderblichen


4/21

Konkurrenz sollte fr alle Produkte durch gesetzliche Feststellung des auf die Kosten zuschlagenden Gewinnes ein Normalpreis vorgeschrieben werden. Der Versuch zur Realisierung der Produktivgenossenschaften, der auf Louis Blancs Anregung durch ein Dekret der KonstituierendenVersammlung vom 3. Juli 1848 gemacht wurde, indem zur Grndung von Arbeiterassoziationen ausStaatsmitteln 3 Mill. Fr. verwendet wurden, scheiterte. Die Assoziationen gingen fast alle in kurzer Zeit vorwiegend infolge von Uneinigkeit unter den Mitgliedern wieder zugrunde.

Eine wesentlich andre Stellung nimmt P. J. Proudhon (s. d., 180965) ein; er will nicht dieAbschaffung des Privateigentums und der freien Konkurrenz, wohl aber sollen Geld und Zins, dienach Proudhon die Hauptbel der bestehenden Gesellschaft sind, beseitigt werden. Die Beseitigungdachte er sich so, da mit Hilfe einer Bank die Produzenten ihre Waren gegenseitig austauschten;die Waren sollten nach Magabe der auf sie verwendeten Arbeit bewertet und der Umtausch durchTauschwertzeichen (Bons d'change) vollzogen werden. Die in einer Bank vereinigten Produzentensollten sich auch gegenseitig unentgeltlich Kredit gewhren, und damit sollte der Zins allmhlichaus der wirtschaftlichen Welt verschwinden. Proudhon gilt brigens auch als der erste Vertreter desAnarchismus, freilich nicht im modernen radikal-revolutionren Sinne, sondern auf dem Gebieteder Politik. Proudhon ist infolge seines Ideenreichtums, seiner Rcksichtslosigkeit des Denkens,

seiner geistvollen Darstellung ein Sozialschriftsteller ersten Ranges, und seine Kritik bildet denAusgangspunkt des Denkens fr viele sptere Vertreter des S.Whrend in England nur Robert Owen (s. d. 2,17711858) als sozialistischer Denker in Betrachtkommt, ist die Fhrung in der Theorie des S. seit den 1840er Jahren auf Deutschland bergegangen.Schon vorher hatte Weitling (180871, s. Kommunismus, S. 334) eine kommunistische Agitation inSchriftwerken und durch Grndung eines Kommunistenbundes ins Leben gerufen, der aber baldzerfiel. Als erste grere wissenschaftliche Leistung der sozialistischen Doktrin auf deutschemBoden verdient Winkelblech (s. d., 181065), bekannt unter dem Pseudonym Marlo, besondereBeachtung. In seinem System der Weltkonomie gibt er eine Darstellung und Kritik der verschiedenen konomischen Systeme unter scharfen Angriffen gegen die Plutokratie. Anknpfendan franzsisch-sozialistische Ideen, insbes. an Fourier und Louis Blanc, zeigt er sich entschiedensozialistisch, wenn es sich um das Aussprechen allgemeiner Prinzipien und die pessimistischeSchilderung des Fabrikarbeiterelends und andrer sozialer Auswchse der neuesten Zeit handelt;seine positiven Forderungen dagegen unterscheiden sich nicht wesentlich von den sozialen Zielendes vorgeschrittenen Liberalismus. Weit entschiedener in seinen positiven Forderungen ist KarlRodbertus (s. d., 180575). Allerdings hat er, da er seine sozialistischen Ideen nur in reinwissenschaftlichen Werken ausgesprochen hat, auf die sozialistische Bewegung selbst keinen oder nur mittelbaren Einflu gebt; dagegen ist sein Einflu auf die sogen. Kathedersozialisten (s. d.)und den Staatssozialismus sehr bedeutend gewesen. Nach der Auffassung Rodbertus', in der brigens der Einflu des Saint-Simonismus und Proudhons unverkennbar ist, ist die Ursache desmodernen Arbeiterelends die Grundrente und der Kapitalzins, die so erhebliche Teile desVolkseinkommens beanspruchen, da den Arbeitern nur ein kleiner Teil des Wertes ihrer Arbeit inder Form des Lohnes vergolten werde. Auch die Handelskrisen seien dadurch bedingt; denn infolgedes niedrigen Lohnes fehlten den Arbeitern die Mittel zum Ankauf der immer massenhafter produzierten Waren. Es msse das Ziel der sozialen Entwickelung sein, das Gemeineigentum amBoden und an den Kapitalien allmhlich zu verwirklichen. Da aber das sich erst nach Jahrhundertenwerde erreichen lassen, so msse einstweilen auf dem Boden der bestehenden Gesellschaftsordnungnach Abhilfe gesucht werden. Und zwar fordert Rodbertus in der Hauptsache: Regelung der Lhneund Warenpreise durch staatliche Taxen, wobei aber die Preise, hnlich wie bei Proudhon, nicht inMetallgeld, sondern in Arbeitsgeld, d. h. nach dem Mae der geleisteten Arbeit, einschlielich einer Abnutzungsquote fr die Werkzeuge, ausgedrckt werden sollten; Ausgabe des Arbeitsgeldes durchden Staat und Errichtung von Staatsmagazinen, in denen die Waren aufbewahrt und gegen

Arbeitsgeld verabfolgt werden. Auf diese Weise wrde den Arbeitern ein breiterer Anteil amVolkseinkommen gesichert werden u. an die Stelle des Besitzeinkommens das Arbeitseinkommentreten.


5/21

Wirkte Rodbertus nur auf eine verhltnismig kleine Zahl von Gelehrten, so tritt in Lassalle (1825 bis 1864, s. d. und Sozialdemokratie) der erste deutsche Agitator auf, der seine konomischenTheorien sofort ins Leben umzusetzen bereit ist. Er betrachtet die soziale Frage alsEinkommensfrage, hervorgerufen durch die ungerechte Verteilung des Ertrags der Unternehmungeninfolge des ehernen Lohngesetzes der freien Konkurrenz, nach dem der Lohn stets um einenPunkt oszilliere, bei dem er den Arbeitern nur die notdrftige Befriedigung der Existenzbedrfnisse

gestatte. Die Lsung sieht er wie Louis Blanc in der Beseitigung dieser Lohnregulierung undAbschaffung der Lohnarbeit durch Produktivassoziationen mit Hilfe des Staates Aber dieser sollnicht, wie Louis Blanc will, dieselben grnden und ihre Organisation wie die Art der Gewinnverteilung bestimmen, sondern der Staat soll nur freiwillig sich bildende mit seinem Kredituntersttzen, wobei er zur Wahrung seines [641] Interesses sich die Genehmigung der Statuten undeine Kontrolle der Geschftsfhrung vorbehalten knne. Darin stimmt Lassalle wieder mit LouisBlanc berein, da, um diese Staatsuntersttzung zu erreichen, der Arbeiterstand sich zumherrschenden im Staate machen msse. Er whnte, da die Einfhrung des allgemeinen, gleichenund direkten Wahlrechts mit geheimer Abstimmung ihm in Deutschland zu dieser Herrschaftverhelfen wrde, und forderte deshalb die deutschen Arbeiter auf, ihre ganze Agitation zunchst nur auf dieses Ziel zu richten.Derjenige, der in neuerer Zeit den S. eigentlich allein in umfassender Weise und wirklichwissenschaftlich zu begrnden versucht, ihm zugleich die radikalste Ausbildung gegeben hat, istKarl Marx (s. d. 2,18181883). In seinem Hauptwerk: Das Kapital, sucht er nachzuweisen, dadie Verteilung in der bisherigen Volkswirtschaft eine durchaus ungerechte sei, denn das Kapitalentstehe und vermehre sich nur dadurch, da es einen mglichst groen Teil des Arbeitsprodukts insich aufsauge; die Arbeit, nicht das Kapital setze dem Produkt Wert zu, der Arbeiter leiste stetsmehr, als ihm im Lohn vergolten werde, der ihm nicht bezahlte Mehrwert seiner Leistung aber falledem Eigentmer der Produktionsmittel zu und vermehre das Kapital. Marx folgert daraus dieUngerechtigkeit des Einkommens aus Kapital- und Grundbesitz. Weiter sucht er zu erweisen. daaus der gegenwrtigen kapitalistischen Produktionsweise die sozialistisch-kooperative notwendig

entstehen msse. Zunchst wrden in dem freien Konkurrenzkampf die Produktionsmittel sich inden Hnden einer immer kleinern Anzahl konzentrieren, dadurch aber der Zustand fr die Arbeiter endlich so unertrglich werden, da diese, ihre Macht benutzend, die wenigen Expropriateureeinfach expropriieren und, geschult und organisiert durch den bisherigen kapitalistischenProduktionsproze, auf der Grundlage gemeinsamen Eigentums an den Produktionsmitteln in denschon bestehenden groen Unternehmungen weiter produzieren, den Ertrag derselben, entsprechendseiner konomischen Natur als Arbeitsertrag, aber fortan nur nach Magabe der Arbeitsleistungenverteilen wrden. Besser indes sei es, diesen Expropriations- und Produktionsumwandlungsprozezu beschleunigen. Scharf wendete sich Marx gegen die auf dem Boden der Nationalitt sich bewegende Richtung Lassalles, gegen dessen ehernes Lohngesetz, dessen Produktivassoziationen.Seiner Agitation ist es auch gelungen, die Lassalleschen Theorien vllig aus der deutschenSozialdemokratie zu verbannen, deren Programm nunmehr nur den Stempel des Marxismus (s.Sozialdemokratie, S. 635) trgt.In Deutschland entstand Mitte der 1870er Jahre neben der Sozialdemokratie vorbergehend einekonservative sozialistische Richtung, der sogen. Staatssozialismus, deren politischer Grundgedankeein Bndnis der Monarchie mit dem vierten Stande war, um die vermeintliche Herrschaft der Bourgeoisie und des Kapitals zu brechen, die berechtigten Forderungen der Arbeiterklasse durcheine sozialistische Organisation der Volkswirtschaft zu befriedigen uno damit zugleich dieMachtstellung der Monarchie zu befestigen. Es sollte mit der Manchesterschule (s. d.), demGrundsatz des Laissez aller (s. d.) gebrochen, der Staat zur Lsung der sozialen Frage, insbes. zumSchutze der Arbeiter herangezogen werden. Das unklare sozialistische Proqramm (s. dasselbe in Nr.

23 des Staatssozialist vom 1. Juni 1878) dieser Richtung, die wenige Anhnger fand, und derenHauptvertreter unter andern Pastor R. Todt (Der radikale deutsche S. und die christlicheGesellschaft, 2. Aufl., Wittenb. 1878) und der Schriftsteller Rudolf Meyer (s. d. 7) waren (Organ:


6/21

Der Staatssozialist, Wochenschrift fr Sozialreform, Berl. 187782), sttzt sich auf diesozialistischen Anschauungen von J. K. Rodbertus. ber den Agrarsozialismus, der auf dieBeseitigung des privaten Grundeigentums, bez. des privaten Grundrenteneinkommens abzielt, s.Bodenbesitzreform.In der Geschichte der sozialistischen Agitation ist die Phase des friedlichen, doktrinren S. und diedes gewaltsamen, praktischen S. zu unterscheiden. In jener, der die Ttigkeit Saint-Simons undFouriers und ihrer Schler angehrt, war die Bewegung eine wesentlich theoretische und friedliche.Jene Sozialisten erhofften auf friedlichem Wege die allmhliche Verwirklichung ihrer Ansichten.Sie wandten sich deshalb nur an die Gebildeten, nicht an diejenigen Klassen, deren Besserung siewollten, und wenn auch ihre uerungen nicht frei waren von Anklagen gegen die bestehendenEinrichtungen und Zustnde, so enthielten sie doch nur selten Anklagen gegen Personen und gegendie besitzenden Klassen. Diesen friedlichen Charakter verliert aber die sozialistische Agitation seitLouis Blanc und im Verlauf der Zeit mehr und mehr. Neue sozialistische Systeme und Forderungenwerden aufgestellt nicht mehr als wissenschaftliche Theorien, sondern als Programme praktischer Agitationsparteien. Ihre Vertreter wenden sich nun mit ihren Lehren direkt an die unternVolksklassen, um sie zum S. zu bekehren und fr dessen Durchfhrung zu gewinnen; sie werden

Arbeiteragitatoren. Ein Hauptmittel ihrer Agitation wird es, bei den untern Klassen die Gefhle der Erbitterung und des Hasses nicht blo gegen die bestehenden Zustnde des ffentlichen Lebens,sondern auch gegen die Trger der Staatsgewalt und gegen die besitzenden Klassen zu erzeugen.Das konomische sozialistische Programm wurde hiermit ein radikaleres, und da es durch den Staatverwirklicht werden sollte, wurde die Bewegung eine politische. Da man sich sagen mute, da die bestehenden Staaten die sozialistischen Wnsche nicht erfllen wrden, wurde die Erlangung der Herrschaft im Staate fr die Lohnarbeiterklasse in das Programm aufgenommen und das praktischeZiel. Die sozialistische Partei wurde eine sozialdemokratische. Naturgem gesellten sich nunweitere politische Forderungen (betreffend die Verfassung des Staates, das Wahlrecht, das Gerichts-,Schul- und Militrwesen etc.) hinzu, und wie das konomische wurde auch das politischeProgramm, namentlich seit der Grndung der Internationalen Arbeiterassoziation, immer radikaler.

So entstand nun eine Art der Agitation, die nur die Vorbereitung zur Revolution war, die allein zumSieg verhelfen knne. Und deshalb ist diese Partei auch die Gegnerin einer starken, mchtigenStaatsgewalt in den bestehenden Staaten, deshalb bekmpft sie vor allem das stehende Heer,deshalb ihre ausgesprochene Feindschaft gegen die Religion, nicht blo gegen die Kirche. Inneuester Zeit ist aus der Sozialdemokratie eine noch radikalere Richtung in den Anarchistenhervorgegangen, die, ohne ein neues sozialistisches Programm aufzustellen, den sofortigen Umsturzalles Bestehenden mit allen nur mglichen Mitteln will, inzwischen aber die Beseitigung der Gegner durch Mord empfiehlt (s. Anarchismus).


7/21


8/21

drill. There was a short period in England when employers were allowed to draw advantage fromthe change without any hindrance from the state. But in no greater time than one generation theregulation of factories began, the period of anarchy ended, and the commercial competition of freeindividuals began to be surrounded with safeguards, more or less effective.Modern socialism, as defined above, is (a) opposed to the policy of laissez-faire, which aims at theleast possible interference with industrial competition between private persons or groups of persons,

and (b) suspicious of a policy of mere regulation, which aims at close surveillance and control of the proceedings of industrial competitors, but would avoid direct initiative in production and directattempts to level the inequalities of wealth. The leading idea of the socialist is to convert intogeneral benefit what is now the gain of a few. He shares this idea with the anarchist, the positivist,the co-operator and other reformers; but, unlike them, to secure his end he would employ thecompulsory powers of the sovereign state, or the powers of the municipality delegated by thesovereign. In the former case we have state socialism, in the latter municipal. Where there isdirection or diversion of industry by the public force mainly for the benefit of a few, this is hardlysocialism. It employs the same machinery, the public force; and it secures a revenue which may possibly be used for the general benefit, as in the case of protective duties. But in such cases thegeneral benefit is only a possible incident. So far (for example) as protection succeeds in keepingout the foreign competitors, the main result is the assured gain or prevented loss of a few among thecitizens. Socialism by intention and definition would secure benefits not for a few, a minority, or even a majority, but for all citizens. Communism has the same end in view; and socialism andcommunism (q.v.) are often confused in popular thought. But the communist need not be a socialist;he may be an anarchist, an opponent of all government; while the socialist need not be acommunist. The socialists of the 20th century rarely, if ever, demand that all wealth be held incommon,- but only that the land, and the large workshops, and the materials and means of production on a large scale shall be owned by the state, or its delegate the municipality. Thedespotism of gilds would not now be tolerated. The strictest public regulation of trade and industrywill probably continue to be that of the state, rather than of the municipality, for local rules can beevaded by migration, the state's only by emigration. But the smaller bodies are likely to displaymore adventurous initiative; and it is significant that they appear in the imagination nearer to theindividual than the state even of a small people can ever appear to its own citizens. Yet it is not thesmallest unit, the parish, that has shown most activity in England, but the county, a unitarithmetically nearer to the state than to the individual.It might be plausibly argued that the movement of modern events has been rather towards a kind of anarchism (q.v.) than a kind of socialism, if it were not for the element of compulsion (quitecontrary to anarchism). Even the English poor law, universally called socialistic, is administeredlocally and the degree of socialism varies with the parishes. When the state's regulation went further and further in a succession of Irish Land Acts (1870, 1881, 1903), it assumed a socialistic character;the face of agricultural industry was transformed for the benefit of the majority, if hardly of the

whole, by the action of the state. But the result has been a state-aided individualism. The attempt totransform all industries by protection has not been made by the English state in these days. Itremains broadly true that, since the English state became more democratic (Reform Acts of 1832,1867, 1884), its socialism has become more and more of the municipal character. The end in viewhaving more to do with economics than with politics, it mattered little theoretically whether the power exercised was that of the central authority acting directly or the delegated power in the handsof the smaller public bodies.This has been the course of events in England with little conscious theory or principle orb the partof the people or even of its leaders. It is certainly a partial fulfilment of the aspirations of thosewhose theory or principle is socialism. The most important form of modern socialism, which may be called for convenience " social democratic " socialism, is founded on economic theory more or

less clearly understood; it is therefore often described as economic or scientific socialism. Manymen have become socialists less from logic than from sympathy with suffering. But modernsocialism without disowning sentiment knows the need of facts and sound reasoning better than its


9/21

predecessors, whom it calls Utopian. While among civilized peoples the suffering has on the wholegrown less, the influence of socialism has grown greater; and this is largely owing to the effortsmade by the best socialists to reason faithfully and collect facts honestly. The remarkable extensionof socialism in Germany may be traced in great part to the special circumstances which have madesocial democracy the chief effective organizer of working men in that country. But modernsocialism is not a purely German product. To scientific socialism England, France and Germany

have all made contribution.Its theoretical basis came, in two curiously different ways, from practical England. The idea that theunderpaid labour of the poor is the main source of the wealth of the rich is to be found not only inGodwin and Owen but in the minor English landreformers and revolutionary writers of the 18th andearly 19th centuries, such as T. Spence, W. Ogilvie, T. Hodgskin, S. Read, W. Thompson. The positions of Ricardo that value is due to labour and that profits vary inversely as wages were taken by Marx (without Ricardo's modifications) as established doctrines of orthodox political economy.It was declared to be a scientific truth that under modern industrial conditions the " exploitation " of the labourer is inevitable. In the theory of ,rent the exploitation of the tenant by the landlord wasalready admitted by most economists. It was for the socialists to show that the salvation both of tenant and labourer lay in the hands of the central authority, acting as the socialists would have itact.France had been prepared for socialism by St Simon and Fourier. The revolutions of 1830 and 1848,though on the whole unsuccessful in directly organizing labour, made socialistic ideas circulatewidely in Europe. Men began to conceive of a political revolution which should be also a socialrevolution, or of a social and industrial revolution which should be also political. We may say broadly that the socialism of 1910 was either inspired by the ideas of that time or is coloured bythem. Modern scientific socialism was thus about fifty years old towards the end of the first decadeof the 10th century. It would have little claim to be scientific if it had undergone no change in thattime; but the change was not greater than the change in orthodox economic doctrine, which indeedit had followed.Its adherents may be classified (r) according to theory and (2) according to policy, though, asscientific socialism is really both theory and policy, being a political claim founded on an economicargument, the distinction is sometimes a matter of emphasis.There are theorists who find the exploitation of the tenant by the landlord to be the main evilwhether it involves the degradation of the labourer or not. As some theologians confine their criticism to the Old Testament, so Henry George and Professor A. Loria, shunning the name of socialist, would not directly attack the system of modern large capitals but the appropriation of land.The social-democrat attacks both. He either takes Marx as guide, or, allowing Marx to bevulnerable, he stands on received economic doctrines with the addition of a political theory. He mayhimself rest content with the nationalizing of the means of production or he may tend towardscommunism.

In policy there is a difference between those scientific socialists who admit of no compromise withthe existing order and the other scientific socialists who are willing to work with the existing order.The straitest sect would keep quite aloof from ordinary politics. The first step towards compromiseis to allow the formation of a socialistic party in the legislature, bearing a protest against all other existing parties. This is the rule on the continent of Europe. The next step is to allow members of the party to be also members of other existing political parties; this is common in England and her colonies. The political history of scientific socialism is to a large extent the history of its attempts toavoid, to effect and to utilize the compromise.There is, of course, a large body of socialists outside any organization. Partly from the teachings of socialists and partly from literary descriptions of the aims and reasons of socialism, there aremultitudes who think socialistically without defining their own position with the exactness of the

scientific socialist. It is often these amateurs who fall readily into Utopias and who confound the boundaries between socialism and communism. This is done for example by such writers as H. G.Wells and Upton Sinclair. The temptation is evident. The borderland between large production and


10/21

small may be sometimes debateable; and, as soon as the socialistic nationalizing of large productionis extended to small, the way is open to the Utopias of communism. Communism is an idea far more utopian than socialism. Like the idea of a kingdom of heaven or a millennium, it springs oftenfrom a spiritual enthusiasm that feels sure of its end and, at first at least, recks little of the means.The enthusiasm may spring from a real conversion of the sort described in the Republic of Plato(vii. 516). Even scientific socialism, depending theoretically on close adherence to economic

principles, depends practically on this conversion. It is as with Christianity, which depends on itstheology but also on its change of heart; till we have refuted both we have not refuted Christianity.So a change of heart, which is also a change of view, is to socialism, as a religion, what economicand political theory is to it as a creed. All that is best in anarchism shares this spiritual feature withsocialism. It is of a higher type than the human sympathy which went with utopian socialism; itincludes that sympathy and more. It requires a mental somersault of the kind taken by Hegel'smetaphysician and (analogically) by Dante at the earth's centre. The observer begins to see theworld of men all over again, throwing from him all the prejudice of his class and abstracting fromall classes. This abstraction may be less hard for those who belong to a class that has little, than for those of a class that has much, as religious conversion is held to be easier for the poor. But it is notreally easy for any. The observer tries to conceive what is at bottom the difference between rich and poor. Casuists can show that the line is a vanishing one, and that there are large groups of caseswhere the distinction is unsubstantial. Such borderlands are still the sporting ground of economistsand philosophers and biologists. We could hardly contend, however, that no distinctions are truewhich break down at the border. It seems unsafe to say there is no war of classes, because at their nearest extremities the classes pass into each other. At the utmost we might infer that the best wayto bring the war to an end was to crowd the nearest extremities. At present, taking the contrast not atits least or greatest but at its mean, we find it no fancy. The features that make the lower asdistinguished from the higher are of different quality and kind, not merely of amount. They aredescribed perhaps most fully by Tolstoy in Que faire ?, but they are brought to the ken of every oneof the rich who can overhear the daily talk of the poor, enter into their daily cares and put himself intheir place. If he makes the somersault and is " converted," all the little and great privileges of therich seem now to have as many presumptions against them as were before in their favour. Whyshould he have so much comfort and they so little? why should he be secure when they live fromhand to mouth? why should art and science and refinement be thrown in his own way and be hardlywithin their reach at all? Such and similar ponderings are not far from a revolt against inequality,whether the revolt takes the shape of anarchism or of socialism. It carries us beyond the paternalsocialism of Carlyle and Ruskin or even of the author of Sybil, relying as Disraeli did on the " proud control " of the old English state, which was occasionally and spasmodically constructive aswell as controlling, but was always actuated by a feeling like that of a chief to his clansmen. Theexponents of paternal socialism have no clear consciousness of the change in the state itself. Theythink they can still use the old tools. They see that the people have changed, but they do not see that

if the past cannot be revived for a people neither can it be revived for a state. The idea of lordship(as distinguished from leadership) is becoming intolerable; and this restiveness may contain asafeguard against one of the worst risks of socialism, bureaucracy. Before the governing bureaucracy had destroyed all originality and eccentricity, the sovereign people would havediscovered for itself that " tyranny is a poor provider." Great Britain. - In England a certainacademic interest in socialism was created by Mill's discussions on the subject in his PoliticalEconomy (1848) and a more practical interest by the appearance of the Christian Socialists. " Thered fool-fury of the Seine " caused prejudice even against such harmless enthusiasts. The People'sCharter (in the 'thirties) had no socialistic element in it. Socialism first showed signs of becoming a popular movement in England after the lecturing tour of Henry George (1881-1882) in advocacy of the nationalizing of the land. About that very time (1880) the Democratic (afterwards in 1883 the

Social Democratic) Federation was formed by advocates of the whole socialistic programme. Asecession took place in 1884 when William Morris, H. M. Hyndman and Belfort Bax founded theSocialist League. William Morris parted company with the league in 1890, and seems to have


11/21

become more anarchist than socialist. Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward (1887) made someimpression among intellectual people in England; but Robert Blatchford's Merrie England (1894)made much more way amongst the multitude, followed up as it was by his newspaper the Clarion.There were still few signs of a strong party. The first members of the Fabian Society (1888) were bydefinition opportunists, and though the Fabian Essays (1889) were socialistic they were thedeclarations of men willing to use the ordinary political machinery and accept reforms in the

present that might point to a socialistic solution in the very far distance. Most of the Fabians becamehard-working radicals of the old type, with general approval. England does not love even theappearance of a revolution. Nevertheless a change has come over the spirit of English politics in thedirection desired by socialists, though hardly through any efforts of theirs. The change was predicted by Herbert Spencer in 1860 (Westm. Rev. April) some years before household suffrage(1867). In The Man versus the State (1885) he demonstrates that liberal legislation which oncemeant the removal of obstacles now meant the coercion of the individual. Though a large part of thecoercive measures enumerated by Spencer are rather regulation than socialism, undoubtedly there ishere and there a socialistic provision. Thomas Hill Green's dictum, " It is the business of the State tomaintain the conditions without which a free exercise of the human faculties is impossible "(Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Cont. act, 1881), did not in appearance go much further thanHerbert Spencer's that " it is a vital requirement for society and for the individual to recognize andenforce the conditions to a normal social life " (The Man versus the State, p. 102); but the former saw clearly that the policy of the future must go beyond mere regulation. Too much importance has been attached to a saying of Sir William Harcourt in 1888, We are all Socialists now." He meant nomore than that we are all social reformers who will use the aid of the state without scruple if itseems necessary. He did not mean that the English people had adopted a general principle of socialism. Except in the case of free trade, it is hard to discover a general principle in English politics. The English people judge each case on the merits, and as if no general principle ever affected the merits. Regulation and not initiative is the prevailing feature of the action of government even now. The railways are still in private hands. The state railways, canals and forestsof India, though John Morley (afterwards Viscount Morley) " made a present of them to theSocialists " (House of Commons, 10th July 1906), are the public works of a modern benevolentdespotism, and do not go very far beyond those of its ancient prototype. They are the works not of the Indian but of an alien democracy. Contrariwise, in England itself, possessed of a fair measure of self-government, crown lands, government dockyards, army, fleet, post office were in existencewhen there was no thought of state socialism; they are not modern innovations but time-honouredinstitutions.The same is true of a great part of municipal socialism. It existed in the middle of the 19th century,and no local community would have been deterred from having its own water-supply or gas works by any fear of socialism. The fear is still less deterrent now; and we have seen electric lighting,tramways, parks, markets, ferries, light railways, baths and wash-houses, house property, river

steamers, libraries, docks, oyster beds, held by towns like Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester,Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield, Colchester. Sometimes the management is economical,sometimes wasteful; but in all cases the undertakings have been supported by a majority who carelittle for general theory and everything for local interests. The " unity of administration "successfully advocated by Edwin Chadwick in the later Victorian period, and requiring "competition for the field but not in the field," is not inconsistent with municipal socialism. This lasthas been provided with new machinery by the establishment of county and district councils (1888), parish councils (1894) and even the perhapsotherwise-intended metropolitan borough councils(1899). Till 1907, when the progressive party in the London County Council were heavily defeated,that council was certainly moving in the path of municipal socialism. But, in its achievements asdistinguished from its claims, it had not overtaken, still less surpassed, Birmingham or Glasgow.

Municipal socialism in Britain finds many critics; it has the drawbacks of all democratic self-government. It is sometimes wasteful; but it is seldom corrupt; and there is no general desire for areturn to a less adventurous policy. In the country districts democracy is still imperfectly conscious


12/21

of its own power. There are acts on the statute book that would well equip a parochial socialism; butsocialists seem to be able to do little more than accelerate slightly what seems to be the inevitablyslow pace of political reform in England. Whether the extension of the franchise to women willquicken the rate of reform is uncertain.With every allowance, the change in English politics has been real, and it has been due in a greatmeasure to the growth of organization among working men. The old trade unionism passed out of

its dark ages by the aid of legislation (in 1871), which was for thirty years (till the Taff Valedecision in 1901, the older view being restored by the Trades Disputes Act 1906) considered to giveto the trade unions the advantages of a corporation without the drawbacks. At the same time,through a better law of small partnerships (Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1852, 1862,1876), the co-operative societies were making rapid progress. Compulsory education (1870)increased the intelligence of the labouring classes and therewith their power to use their opportunities. Labour legislation, removing truck, making inspection and regulation of factoriesmore stringent (see the consolidating Act of 1878 and the Factory and Workshop Act 1901) and providing compensation for accidents (1906), was forwarded by both political parties. This was notsocialism but regulation. The old unionists were radicals of the old type. Not so the unionists whocame first into prominence with the Dock Strike in London in 1889. The way had been prepared bydemonstrations of the unemployed in 1887 and 1888. When unionism embraced unskilledlabourers, and at the same time pressed on the federation of all trades societies and their jointaction, when, too, in the trade union congresses the intervention of the state was repeatedly claimedas essential to the success not only of an eight hours' day but of such socialistic measures asnationalization of the land, it was manifest that there was a new leaven working. The larger thenumbers included in the trades societies the more their organization was bound to depart from thatof the mass meeting, and to become indirect instead of direct self-government, government byrepresentatives, and more and more by specially trained representatives. This was a tendencytowards bureaucracy, or government by officials, not the highest type of popular government. A better preparation for democratic government has been given by the co-operative societies. If it betrue that under a coming socialism the working class must dominate, then every phase of organization must be welcomed which widens their experience of self-government, more especiallyin the handling of industrial and commercial affairs. This last kind of education has been well given by co-operation, though chiefly through capital and hired labour on the old pattern of the ordinaryemployers. Co-partnership societies, best exemplified in the midland districts of England, are moredemocratic; but their numbers are few. The claims of the workman are somewhat in advance of hiseducation. On the other hand it seems impossible in England to secure moderate concessionswithout extravagant claims.

Germany

In Germany it was long an axiom that socialists must leave ordinary politics and political machineryseverely alone as an evil thing. The short and futile struggle for constitutional liberty in1848-1849had driven most of those who were " thinking socialistically " into abandonment of politicalreform and into plans of fundamental change amounting to revolution. Karl Marlo (1810-1865) andK. J. Rodbertus (q.v.) contented themselves with laborious and profound studies not intended to bear immediate fruit in practice. Marx and Lassalle were not so pacific. The former was from thefirst (see his Manifesto of 1847) inclined to give socialism an international character, taking also no pains to distinguish it from communism. Lassalle desired it for his own nation first. Both of themwere in a sense Hegelians. From Hegel they had learned that the world of men, like: the world of things, was in constant process of development; but unlike Hegel they 'regarded human evolution as purely materialistic, effected always by a struggle between classes in society for the outward meansof well-being. Feudalism, itself the result ' of such a struggle, had given place to the rule of themiddle -:classes. The struggle to-day is between the middle classes and the working classes. At present those who do not possess capital are obliged to work for such wages as will keep them


13/21

alive, and the gains from inventions and economics are secured by the employers and capitalists.The labourer works at his cost price, which is " the socially necessary wages of subsistence " (the bare necessaries of a civilized life); but he produces much more than his cost, and the surplus due tohis " unpaid labour " goes to the employer and capitalist. This is what Lassalle called the " brazenlaw of wages," founded on Ricardo's supposed doctrine that (a) the value of an article that is not amonopoly is determined by its cost in labour, and (b) the wages of labour tend to be simply the

necessaries of life. The tendency of the labouring population to increase beyond the means of steadyemployment is a frequent benefit to the capitalists in the periodic expansions of investment andenterprise, arising in response to new inventions and discoveries. Large business in moderneconomy swallows up small. Not only the independent artisans and workers in domestic industries, but the small capitalists and employers who cannot afford to introduce the economies and sell at thelow prices of their large rivals are disappearing. But the growth of the proletariat, together with theconcentration of business into fewer hands and larger companies, will cause the downfall of the present system of industry. The proletariat will realize its own strength; and the means and materialsof production will be concentrated finally into the hands of the commonwealth for the good of all.This revolution, like that which overturned feudalism, is simply the next stage of an evolutionhappening without human will, fatally and necessarily, by virtue of the conditions under whichwealth is produced and shared in our times.Such was in substance the view of all the German socialists of the last half of the 19th century. EvenRodbertus had advanced a claim of right on behalf of working men to ,the full produce of their labour, but thought the times not ripe for socialism. The others made no such reservations. Lassalle planned a centralized organization of workmen led by a dictator, and called on the government of Prussia to establish from the: public funds co-operative associations such as his opponent Schulze-Delitzsch had hoped to plant by self help. His socialism was rather national than universal. Marxlooked beyond his own nation. He founded the International Union of Working Men in 1864, theyear of Lassalle's tragic death. Before the common danger of police prosecutions and persecutionthe followers of Lassalle and Marx were united at the congress of Gotha in 1875. The name socialdemocrats had crept into use about 1869 when the followers of Marx founded at a congress inEisenach the social democratic working men's party. The party began to be a power at the congressof Gotha. It is a power now,. but its doctrines and policy have undergone some change.The last quarter of the 19th century witnessed (1) the repressive laws of 1878, (2) their repeal in1890, (3) the three Insurance Laws and (4) a quickened progress of German industry and wealthduring thirty years of peace and consolidation.Bismarck's government, alarmed by attempts on the life of the emperor and by the increasednumber of votes given to socialistic candidates for the reichstag, procured the passing of theExceptional Powers Act (Ausnahme Gesetz) in 1878. The legislation at this time resembled the SixActs of 1819 in England. Combined action and open utterance in Germany became almostimpossible; and for organs of the press the social democrats had recourse to Zurich. Liebknecht and

Bebel could still raise their voices for them in parliament, for Bismarck failed in his attempt todeprive members of their immunities (March 1879). But the agitation as a whole was drivenunderground; and it speaks well for the patience and self-control of the people that no widespreadexcesses followed. The declaration of the Social Democratic congress at Wyden, Switzerland, in1880, that their aims should be furthered " by every means " instead of the old phrase " by everylawful means," was a natural rejoinder to the law that deprived them of the lawful means; and itseems to have had no evil consequences. In 1881 repression was so far relaxed that trade unionswere allowed to recover legal standing. In 1890 the reichstag refused to renew the law of 1878 for afifth period; and finally in 1899 it repealed the law forbidding the amalgamation of workmen'sunions, and specially aimed at the new socialistic unions, the natural allies of the social democrats.The vexatious prosecutions and condemnations for Majestatsbeleidigung (16 se majeste) following

1890 did the cause more good than harm. The socialistic voters increased from 437,438 in 1878 to1,800,000 in 1894 and 2,120,000 in 1898, while the elected members increased from 12 in 1877 to46 in 18 9 4 and 56 in 1898. By 1903 the voters had increased to three millions and in the elections


14/21

of February 1907 they were 3,240,000. The socialists, however, in 1907 found themselvesrepresented by 43 members as against 79 in 1903. The reduced representation was due to acombination of the other parties against them, the matters at issue not being industrial policy, butcolonial government and naval expenditure. The increase in the number of voters remains a proof that the power of the party in Germany has rather increased than diminished. In 1 9 08 they gainedseven seats in the Prussian Diet, where they had hitherto been unrepresented. Yet " remedial

measures " had been passed which were intended to make socialism unnecessary. Bismarck, whoadmired Lassalle and had no scruples about the intervention of the state, had planned a series of measures for the insurance of workmen against sickness, accidents and old age, measures dulycarried out in 1883, 1884 and 1891, respectively. The socialists not unreasonably regarded thegovernment as their convert. They could point to two other " unwilling witnesses," the ChristianSocialists and the " Socialists of the Chair." In the Protestant parts of Germany the socialists as arule were social democrats, in the Catholic as a rule they were Christian Socialists. As early as 1863and 1864 Dr Dellinger and Bishop Ketteler, followed by Canon Moufang, had representedsocialistic sentiment and doctrine. Ketteler, who had been under the influence of Lassalle, hadhopes that the church would make productive associations her special care. Moufang would havedepended more on the state than on the church. All were awake to the evils of the workmen's position as described by the social democrats, and they were anxious that the Catholic churchshould not leave the cure of the evils to be effected without her assistance. Ketteler died in 1877;and the pope's encyclical of the 28th of December 1878 bore no trace of his influence, mixing up asit did socialists, nihilists and communists in one common condemnation. The encyclical Deconditione opificum of 1891 might show that the views of the Christian Socialists had penetrated toheadquarters; but the encyclical on Christian Democracy of 1901 (January) betrays no sympathywith them. The Protestant church in Germany has been hampered by fear of offending thegovernment; but it contains a vigorous if tiny body of Christian Socialists. Rudolf Todt, a country pastor, was their prophet. His book on Radical German Socialism and Christian Society (1878) ledDr Stocker, the court chaplain, to found an association for " Social Reform on Christian Principles."This was denounced rather unfairly by politicians of all ranks as an organized hypocrisy. Itsinfluence was shortlived, and its successor, the " Social Monarchical Union " (1890), shared theunpopularity of Stocker, its founder. Even the Socialists of the Chair, middle class Protestants asthey were, would have nothing to say to it, but preferred to go a way of their own. From the year 1858 there had existed a league of economists and statesmen called the " economic congress "(Volkswirtschaftlicher Kongress), a kind of English Cobden Club, though it aimed chiefly at freetrade among all sections of the German people in particular. After the Empire its work seemedfinished; and a new society was formed, the " Union for a Policy of Social Reform " (Verein fiir Socialpolitik). Professors G. Schmoller, W. Roscher, B. Hildebrand, A. Wagner, L. J. Brentano, thestatistician E. Engel and others met at Halle in June 1872, and a meeting of their supportersfollowed at Eisenach in October of that year. These Katheder-Socialisten or Socialists of the Chair

(academic socialists) agreed with the social democrats in recognizing the existence of a " socialquestion," the problem how to make the labourers' condition better. To the old-fashioned economistthis was no problem for the legislature; competition solved its own problems. But, while the socialdemocrats looked for social revolution, the academic socialists were content to work for socialreform, to be furthered by the state. The state was, to them, " a great moral institution for theeducation of the race." They were a company of moderate state socialists, relying on the state andthe state as it then was. They did much gratuitous service to the government in the preliminaryinvestigations preceding the great insurance laws.The German people were made a little more inclined to state socialism than before by the efficiencydisplayed by the bureaucracy in the wars of 1866 and 1870. If the Insurance Laws are found towork well, this inclination may be confirmed, and the idea of a revolution may fall into the

background. The attitude of the social democratic party became less uncompromising than in earlier days. Since they regained their liberty in 1890, their leaders have kept them well in hand. Their principal journal Vorwarts was conducted with great ability. Their agitation became as peaceful as


15/21

that of trade unionists or co-operators in England. They ceased to denounce the churches. They triedto gain sympathy, quite fairly, by taking up the cause of any distressed workers, or even ill-usednatives in colonies, and urging redress from the state. The present state had become to them almostunconsciously their own state, a means of removing evils and not a mere evil to be removed. Theanarchists had been disowned as early as 1880. The extreme socialists who demanded return to theold tactics were cast out at Erfurt in 1891, and became " Independent Socialists." The controversy

between friends and critics of socialism still rages in learned circles, producing a prodigiousquantity of literature year by year; but the old strictures of Treitschke and Schaflle seem now tohave lost a little of their point. Though the programme adopted at Gotha in 1875 was not entirely or even seriously altered, the parts of it due to Lassalle fell into the background. For many years Marxand not Lassalle was the great authority of the party. Marx died in 1883, but remained an oracle till1894, when (just before his own death in 1895) Engels published the last volume of his friend's book on capital. The volume was expected to solve certain logical difficulties in the system. Insteadof this, it caused a feeling of disappointment, even among true believers. Many, like Bebel andKautsky, kept up the old adoration of Marx; but many, like Eduard Bernstein, rightly felt that togive up 1larx is not to give up socialism, any more than to give up Genesis is to give up theology.Bernstein openly proposed in congress that the old doctrines and policy of the party, involving asthey do the despair of reform and insistence on the need of revolution, should be dropped. He hadnot carried his point in 1908, but his influence seemed to be increasing. The death of Liebknecht(August 1900) removed from the ranks of the social democrats one of their most heroic figures, butalso one of the strongest opponentS of such a change of front. Yet Liebknecht himself had madeconcessions. It was impossible for a man of his shrewdness to close his eyes to what the state haddone for the German workman. It was impossible, too, to ignore the progress that Germany hadmade in wealth and industry since the creation of the Empire in 1871, Germany has been fast becoming a manufacturing country; and, though the growth of large manufacturing towns in theRhine valley and elsewhere has multiplied socialists, it has added to the income of the Germanworkman. He is further from poverty and distress; and his socialism means an endeavour after alarger life, not, as formerly, a mere struggle against starvation. It is likely, therefore, to have less andless of mere blindness and violence in it.The German socialists were chiefly interested in securing such an extension of the franchise inPrussia as would make their representation in the Prussian parliament correspond as near to thenumber of their adherents as in the Reichstag itself. They had only gained seven seats in the former in June 1908, though they had perhaps half a million of adherents in Prussia. They seemed for goodor for evil to be taking the place of the old radical party. The position in Austria was somewhatdifferent. The first general elections held under a really democratic suffrage (May 1907) resulted inthe return of eighty social democrats and sixty Christian socialists to the Reichsrath, as comparedwith eleven and twenty-six in the unreformed parliament. They were opposed (as anti-clerical andclerical) on many questions, but they made it certain that economic and industrial policy affecting

the whole nation would rival and perhaps out-rival the questions of racial supremacy and haute politique that absorbed the attention of the old Reichsrath.

FranceIn France the socialists have found it harder to work in the parliamentary harness. Marx had saidlong ago that for the success of socialism besides English help there must be " the crowing of theGallic cock." French enthusiasm for social revolution is feeble in the country districts but verystrongly pronounced in the large towns. The Communards of 1871 might be called municipalsocialists of a sort, but their light went out in that annee terrible. Something like a movementtowards organized socialism began in 1880 on the return of some prominent members of the oldcommune from exile. A congress was held at Havre under the leadership of J. Guesde and J. A.Ferroul; it adopted a " Collectivist" programme, Collectivisme meaning state socialism. A minorityunder J. F. E. Brousse and J. F. A.


16/21

Joffrin broke away (in 1881) from the main body and stood out for municipal socialism,decentralization and, later (1887), selfgoverning workshops aided by public money. Co-operativeworkshops are already subsidized in France from the public funds, and favoured by preferences in public works and other privileges, without striking results. The Broussistes are also calledPossibilistes, as content with such socialism as is immediately practicable. They supported, for example, agrarian reform on the present basis of private property (Marseilles, 1892). After several

unsuccessful negotiations, the amalgamation of the Collectivists, Possibilists and Blanquistes(extreme revolutionaries)) was accomplished in 1899. But the body had not the cohesion of theGerman party. Though the socialists in the Chamber acted more or less loyally together, they werenot closely controlled by the organization outside. In consequence (like Mr John Burns in Englandin 1905-1906) those who accepted office usually came under a cloud. This happened to M.Millerand when he became minister of commerce in the Waldeck Rousseau government of 1899,and in a less degree to M. Jaures when he became vice-president of the Chamber. M. Millerand was,indeed, expelled from the party, and at the socialist congress of Amsterdam (August 1904) astrongly worded resolution condemned any participation by socialists in bourgeois (middleclass)government. The vote was not unanimous, and the resolution itself was attributed to the GermanBebel. An attempt was made in Paris (April 1905) to bind the various parties of French socialistsmore closely together by forming a new " Socialist party, the French Section of the InternationalLabour Union." It laid down stringent rules for the guidance of socialist deputies. In comparisonwith the steady united action of the Germans, the proceedings of the French socialists, perhaps fromtheir greater political liberty, seems a wayward guerilla warfare. The French state is not on principleaverse from intervention. It has been always more ready than, in England to interfere withcompetitive trade and to take the initiative on itself. It controls the Bank of France, owns most of the railways, and directs secondary as well as primary education. After the disputes at Carmaux (in1892) it proposed to take over the mines. There is no general poor law; but o] d-age pensions have been voted, and workmen's compensation is as old as 1888. State socialism might have gone farther if French bureaucracy had not proved less efficient than German.Though there are socialistic French professors there can hardly be said to be a body of academicsocialists in France. The strongest economic writing is still that of the orthodox economists, P. E.Levasseur, P. P. Leroy-Beaulieu, Yves Guyot. Even Professor Charles Gide, though reformer, is notsocialist. Of the two party periodicals La Revue socialiste is moderate, Le Mouvement socialistehardly so. The latter is in many ways more akin to anarchism than state socialism. Socialism has itsallies in the sporadic Christian socialism of the Churches, both Catholic and Protestant, and in thesolidarists who would transform the existing system of employment without abolishing private property. The school of Le Play, though devoted to social reform, can hardly be called an ally of socialism.

NetherlandsSocialism has found a kindlier soil in Belgium and Holland, and these countries have been thefavourite meeting-place in recent years of congresses of all denominations of socialists. In Belgiumthe Flemish social democratic party led by de Paepe united in 1879 with the Brabantine or Walloon.They organized trade unions. They helped the liberals in 1893 to procure the extension of thesuffrage. In 1907 they had thirty representatives in parliament. The flourishing co-operativesocieties, Vooruit (Forwards) in Ghent and Maison du people of the Brussels bakers, were the work of their members. Its success in co-operation is almost the distinctive feature of Belgian socialism.Socialists helped to procure the adoption by Belgium of a system of old-age pensions for the poor in1900, and of the cheap trains which do so much for the workmen in town and country. In Holland,which is not a crowded manufacturing country but even now largely agricultural and pastoral, thesocialists are less formidable, if that be the right word. They came into line with the Germansocialists in 1889. Social reform proceeds with or without their aid. There has been a factory actsince 1889 and an act for workmen's insurance against accidents since 1900. Municipal socialism


17/21

has made progress. The great railway strike of 1903 aroused public interest in the condition of theworkman, but the legislation that followed was rather regulative than socialistic.

SwitzerlandSwitzerland, for generations a refuge to exiles, shows them hospitality without sharing their views.There is little legislation of a socialistic nature; socialists are to be found here and there, especiallyin the German cantons.

ScandinaviaScandinavia stands less apart from European movements than formerly, but industrial legislation israther regulative than socialistic. Hjalmar Branting, one of the most prominent socialists, was in1908 a member of the Swedish parliament. The trade unions of Denmark are largely socialistic, butDenmark is no nearer complete conversion than England.Italy, Spain. - Socialism might be thought to find a better soil in Italy and Spain. Italy has beendescribed as " all proletariat." But a great depth of poverty fits a people rather for the anarchism of violence than for socialism. The social democrats have made way, notwithstanding, and in 1895returned fifteen members to parliament. Milan is still the capital of the movement. Laveleye had theidea that revolution was hopeless in Italy because Rome was uninhabitable every summer. Butsocial democracy in Germany, its own country, is not bound up with Berlin. Italy as a whole mustmake progress in social and political development before it can receive the new ideas and still more before it can grow beyond them. The burden of taxes leads to revolts of sheer despair, followed byrepression which has extended to socialistic clubs (fasci dei lavoratori) and even workmen's unions.State socialism in the form of state railways has not been very efficient. Factory legislation is behind that of other civilized countries, and is of very recent origin (1902). Old-age pensions wereintroduced in 1898, and 'accidents insurance on the German model in the same year. Municipalsocialism, finding some trammels removed, had in the first decade of the 20th century begun toshow itself in the large towns. In Spain there is a Socialist Federation; there are socialistnewspapers; and there seems to be no doubt that the cause has gained ground, even as againstanarchism. It may perhaps yet be a power in the legislature. It is mainly in Russia that anarchismhas the field to itself.

RussiaIn spite of the hopes excited by the Duma, reformers in Russia have been strongly tempted to beanarchists, even of a violent type. Democracy had special difficulties in reaching legislative power.Partly for this reason, " social democracy" has had a subordinate place. The Russian socialists have,some of them, rebelled against the view once essential to socialistic orthodoxy: that Russia must pass through the stage of " capitalism " before reaching the stage of " collectivism." Marx himself (in 1877) conceded that the progress might be direct from the system of village communities to theideal of social democracy. Capitalism is already extending itself, and the consistency of the theoryneed not have been broken. Even so, in the absence of democratic government, the prospects of socialism are doubtful. In Finland there were in 1908 eighty socialist members in a parliament of two hundred. The party might console itself by the thought that over the whole Russian empiremany more were socialists than could declare themselves so.

AustraliaIn contrast to nearly all the countries of " Old Europe," the self-governing colonies of Greater Britain stand out as nothing if not democratic. Nowhere is democracy sturdier than in Australia, the


18/21

separate states of which have since 1900 been federated as one commonwealth. But while it has a protective tariff and makes no pretence of a laissez-faire policy, the central government is lesssocialistic than the separate confederated states. The progress even of these has been, as in England,rather in municipal than in state socialism. It is true that crown lands, mines and railways figuremore largely. But to find state socialism in its vigour we must pass to New Zealand.

New ZealandRemoved 1200 m. from Australia, its nearest civilized neighbour, secured by English naval power and " compassed by the inviolate sea," New Zealand is better suited for the experiment of a closedsocialistic state than perhaps any other country in the known world. It began its new career in 1880-1890, too late for perfect success but not too late to secure a large measure of public ownership of what elsewhere becomes private property. It owns not only the railways but two-thirds of the wholeland, letting it on long leases. It sets a limit to large estates. It levies a progressive income tax andland tax. It has a labour department, strict factory acts and a law of compulsory arbitration in labour disputes (1895). There are old-age pensions (1898), government insurance of life (1871) and against

fire (1905). Women have the suffrage, and partly in consequence the restriction of the liquor trafficis severe. There is a protective tariff, and oriental labour is excluded. The success of the experimentis not yet beyond doubt; compulsory arbitration, for example, did not work with perfectsmoothness, and was amended in 1908. But there has been no disaster. The decline of the birth-ratehas been greater than in Britain. It is fair to add that the experiment is probably on too small a scaleto show what might happen in larger countries. New Zealand has only ioo,000 sq. m. of territoryand about one million of inhabitants, mainly rural and of picked quality. The conditions of combined isolation and security are not easily obtained elsewhere. The action of the state has beenin the great majority of instances rather regulative than constructive.

CanadaThis last feature is still more marked on the great North American continent. The Dominion of Canada, from its foundation by confederation in 1867, has given its land away too freely. TheDominion, indeed, has only had the land of new territories to dispose of; the original states are theowners of their own unsettled lands. The Dominion government owns the Intercolonial railway butcontents itself with subsidies to the rest, over which it has a very imperfect control (by its RailwayCommission). It levies royalties on Yukon gold, carries out public works, especially affecting themeans of transport between province and province; and in theory whatever functions are notspecially reserved to the provinces fall to the Dominion government. The provincial governments,however, show the greater activity. Ontario owns mines and railroads, Nova Scotia coal and ironfields. " The operation of public utilities " by the municipalities is encouraged. Over Canada withthe rise of large towns there has been an advance of municipal socialism, not only in the largest, likeToronto, but in the newer and smaller, such as Port Arthur on Lake Superior, where half the localexpenditure is paid by public works. Municipal socialism is still in advance of state socialism. Yetthe Dominion has a democratic franchise, paid members, a labour department and free education.The democratic basis is not lacking; but the nature of the country is not such as to make it likely thatCanada will lead the way in socialistic experiments. The protective tariff, by developing groups of manufacturing industries before their time, introduced into Canada some of the troublesomefeatures of urban civilization in older countries. Accordingly trade unions became better organized.Trusts (like that of the grocers, 1908) began to show themselves. But socialistic propaganda wasmainly confined to the mining districts, especially in the far west.


19/21

United StatesThe great American republic would seem a better field for socialistic experiment, having more men,more states and ample political liberty. But state socialism, in the strict sense of the action of thecentral supreme authority, is limited by the Federal constitution, and any functions unassigned to thecentral authority by the constitution fall to the separate states. The separate states have rarely gonefarther in a socialistic direction than England itself. In the way of restriction and regulation theyhave often done more (see Bryce, Amer. Commonwealth, part. v., chap. 95). From 1876 the separatestates have had an admitted right to control undertakings having the nature of monopolies. Therailways are in private hands; and it was not until 1887 by the Interstate and Commerce Act(followed in 1888 by the Railway and Canals Act) that the Federal power secured control over themeans of transport running beyond one state into another. In the same way the Anti-Trust Law of 1890 gave control over the great combinations for " forestalling and engrossing " the supply of articles of necessity or wide use. Socialists have regarded trusts as the stepping-stones to statesocialism; but the American people would seem to prefer to see government controlling the trustsrather than itself displacing them.Trade unionism has made better progress under the Federation of Labor than in the more ambitious

Knights of Labor (1878). Like their English counterparts, the societies in the United States includenumbers of socialists, and perhaps even more followers of Henry George in advocacy of thenationalization of the land and the " single tax." The death of Henry George (1897) has not endedhis influence. On the other hand the socialists without compromise have had a " Socialistic Labor Party " since 1877. Bellamy's socialistic Utopia, Looking Backward (1888), caused nearly as great asensation as Henry George's Progress and Poverty (1879). It led to the movement called " Nationalism," the scope of which was the nationalizing of the means of production generally. Of aless literary sort was the influence of " Populism " and the People's party (formed in 1889). Mixedup with the politics of W. J. Bryan in 1896, it lost a little of its uncompromising socialistic flavour.

General CriticismsIf the ideal of state socialism be viewed in an equally critical spirit, many of the objections brought by the moderate anarchists are seen to have their weight. A strong central government to which all power was given over all the chief industries in the country would, they say, be contrary to liberty.Our leaders would be too likely to become again our masters. Supervision would become irksome.Great powers would be a temptation to abuse of power. A democracy with a strong centralgovernment would need to leave much to its chosen guardians, and to retain the same men in the position of guardians till they fully learned the difficult business of their office; but this in the endmeans either what we have now, a government by elected leaders, who, once elected, consult our wishes only on rare occasions, - or a government by permanent officials, which means liberty to go

on in the old ways but great fear and jealousy of new ways, in fact, order without progress, noliberty of change.This criticism becomes rather stronger than weaker if we press the doctrine of the supremacy of theworking-classes, a doctrine that figures largely with some socialists. We are told that having beennothing, the working-classes will be everything; having so long been the ruled, they will be therulers; they have produced for all the rest, the product will now be theirs instead of another's. Thisdoctrine is not essential to socialism; it is indeed hardly consistent therewith. It would not be fair to press it, for no men know better than the scientific socialists that under modern conditions it is inmost cases quite impossible to say what is the product of one man's labour. Articles are not made atone stretch by one individual. The contributions of the various hands and minds concerned fromfirst to last in the production of a pocket-knife or a pair of trousers would travel over our stage like

Banquo's ghostly descendants in a line that seemed to have no ending. What the socialists demand,when they are not declaiming to uncritical sympathizers, is not that a man should have what hemakes but that what is made by great capitals or on great estates should be so distributed that it is


20/21

not engrossed by individuals, but satisfies the wants of as many as possible. There is no superior enlightenment in the ordinary unskilled or even skilled manual labourer to fit him above others for supreme power. According to socialists and anarchists and indeed all of us who are not incurableoptimists, the hungry generations have trodden the working man down too much to make himinstantly or even speedily fit to do the work of government himself. He is of like passions withourselves. He will be perfectly qualified in process of time to share in such responsible work. But at

present he needs training.The anarchists for their part do not desire the concentration of industry and the rule of it from thecentre by anybody, working man or not - and they think the social democrats quite wrong in believing the concentration inevitable. They point to the fact that at the present moment there is a partial revival of domestic industries, assisted by gas and electricity. These are the small industriesof people with small means; they make a less imposing figure before the public than the great trusts,such as the Steel Trust, and the Shipping Trust. The sums involved are so immense that it mightseem impossible for competitors to cope with the trusts; therefore, it is thought, the trusts will soonrule alone, and, lest they should rule ill, the state should take their place. A great combinationapproaches monopoly, and a far-reaching, wide-stretching monopoly (say of the carrying trade)might mean a public danger. Should we listen to our friends the socialists and avert the danger bymaking the state the monopolist?There seems no proof of the necessity of this extreme step. Where there is political danger the old-fashioned method of regulation and control by the state seems quite equal to the occasion. As yetthe trusts are on their trial and their success is not certain, still less their abuse of the success when itcomes. Their monopoly is not an absolute monopoly; and they have a wholesome consciousness of the possibility of competitors. A government trust would have none such. In some instances therewould be the further difficulty that to prevent political friction it would need to be a trust of severalnations - an idea difficult to realize on such a scale and in such matters.The English mind does not turn readily to state trusts; but it finds no difficulty in municipal andlocal trusts. Private local monopolies, like those of the water companies in London, were astroublesome to the locality as any universal monopoly of the article could be; and the remedy whicheven London must find for the troubles will be the municipal trust. There are few instances inEngland of successful appropriation by the state of a business formerly competitive; railways arestill only regulated. But there are so many examples of successful appropriation by the localauthorities that the future absorption by them or the central authority of habitually unruly companieswhich have contrived in any way to abuse their monopoly may be deemed almost certain. The greatdemand of the scientific socialists is thus likely in England at least to break up into smaller separatedemands that will obtain their answer separately by patient political action.Socialism is making progress, but not to any great extent state socialism. New Zealand itself, whereit has perhaps done most and best, is not a proof to the contrary, the province of Ontario in Canadahaving twice the area and population. Rather is it true that the state is more decidedly regulative.

The ultimate result, to judge by the old countries, may be that each nation will include a communityof groups more or less socialistic in organization, but will not itself be a socialistic state. Thesocialistic experiment is more likely to be tried by provinces than by states, by districts than by provinces, by towns than by districts. They all get their compulsory powers, as delegated to them,from the central authority; but the central authority itself has shown little power of originativeaction, and it lacks the minute knowledge of the people on the spot. The one or two great industriesand businesses (railways, post office, telegraphs, forests, census, coinage, in some countries) thathave formed the chief public works that are everybody's business and nobody's business, will probably remain a state concern; but the limits to the state's activity except in regulation soon arrive.On the other hand, there is no visible assignable limit to municipal or local socialism, as long as thestate's parliament leaves it a free course. If the localities choose to make social experiments there

seems no rule of general policy to prevent them, if we put aside experiences of financial failure or of the tendency to corruption. The great fear conjured up by the vision of socialism has been thefear of a new despotism. The despotisms of some hundreds of local bodies are likely to checkmate


21/21

one another, or at least always likely by their varieties of pattern to provide a means of escape for individuals unhappy under the rule of any one of them.Anarchism, when at all rational, resolves the state into its component municipalities and smallgroups. The question which carries us beyond anarchism is how such groups can last and be securewithout a central state. They could only be so on the assumption of a change in human nature of which their is no sign. It seems not improbable that in the far future the strong central government

will be so democratic and at the same time so wise with the wisdom of a great representativecouncil that all that is sound in the contentions and aspirations of anarchists and socialists will besecured by it. Before such a future arrives, we can best prepare for it by seeing to it whether in anew country or an old that our representative system represents us at our best. Our small councilsand our great councils will not of themselves become cleaner for having larger powers. If they arenot clean they are a public danger. If they are clean, the coming socialism, whatever be its precisecomplexion, need have no terrors. It too will represent the people at their best.

sozialismus in alten lexika

Documents