Art. 5.-SOCIALISM.

I. ITS MEANING AND ORIGIN.

1. The Quintessence of Socialism. By Dr A. Schäffle. Translated from the eighth German edition by Bernard Bosanquet, LL.D. London: Sonnenschein, 1889. 2. A History of Socialism. By Thomas Kirkup. Third edition. London: Black, 1906.

3. Das Philosophisch-ökonomische System des Marxismus. Von Dr Emil Hammacher. Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot, 1909.

4. L'Individualisme économique et social. Par Albert Schatz. Paris: Armand Colin, 1907.

Par Paul Louis.

5. Le Socialisme. Par Mermeix. Paris: Ollendorf, 1906. 6. Histoire du Socialisme Français. Paris: Revue Blanche,' 1901.

7. Capital. By Karl Marx. London: Sonnenschein, 1908. 8. Socialism in Church History. By Conrad Noel. London: Palmer, 1910.

9. Socialism and Modern Thought. By M. Kaufmann. London: Methuen, 1895.

10. The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour. By Dr Anton Menger; with introduction by Prof. H. S. Foxwell. London: Macmillan, 1899.

11. Collectivism. By P. Leroy Beaulieu. Translated by Sir Arthur Clay. London: Murray, 1908.

12. A Critical Examination of Socialism. Mallock. London: Murray, 1908.

13. Socialism in Theory and Practice.

By W. H.

By Morris Hill

quit. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1909.

OF all the 'isms' invented by man for his edification or his torment, none has excited so much controversy and produced so much confusion of thought, none is so variable and elastic in meaning, none so slippery and elusive, as Socialism. It presents so many aspects, embraces so many conceptions and touches so many interests that it is, if not all things to all men, something to every man, and something different from each point of view. It is both abstract and concrete, theoretical and practical; it is a philosophy, a religion, an ethical scheme, an interpretation of history, an imagi

native vision, an economic theory, a juristic concept, a popular movement, a philanthropic ideal, a political programme, a revolution, an evolution, a class war, the end of strife, a greedy scramble, a gospel of love, a gospel of hate, the bright hope of mankind, a dark menace to society, the dawn of the millennium, and a frightful catastrophe-as you choose to regard it.

And as if these different views were not bewildering enough, the subject is further complicated by the practice, of which advocates and opponents are both guilty, of identifying Socialism with anything to which it bears any resemblance, and applying the name to all actions and ideas which have, or ever have had, anything in common with it. For instance, it aims at brotherly love and the elevation of mankind; therefore it is one with Christianity which has the same aims. Or, it involves State action for the benefit of the poor; therefore, any State action for their benefit is socialistic. Thus it is indistinguishable from 'social reform'; and we are said to be 'all Socialists now.' Again, it stands for justice, for equality, for sympathy; and straightway a host of moralists, from Plato onwards, who have discoursed of these ideals for hundreds of years before the thing was invented, are discovered to be Socialists. It would interfere with the free play of commercial activity and favour one section at the expense of another; protective tariffs do so too, and are therefore in the same boat. Or, to take the other side, it would revolutionise the social order, and is therefore held to be in line with all other revolutionary and lawless forces. It denies the rights of property and preaches the doctrines which criminals merely practise; the relationship is obvious. In short, by this method of reasoning, those who incline to Socialism can claim the support of almost everything that is good, and those who oppose it are equally free to maintain its connexion with everything bad.

To find a way out of these labyrinthine confusions it is necessary to start at the centre and grasp the clue which lies there.

All forms of Socialism have one element in common; all discussions upon it circle round one central idea; all proposals made in its name start from the same point and aim at the same goal, however different the roads

may be by which they would reach it. This common element and central idea is the economic state of society; the starting-point of every Socialist system is the present defective state, its objective is a future better one. All the varied and multitudinous forms in which the subject presents itself have this at their core; they are merely different modes of expression determined by the temperament and intellectual bent of their authors or advocates. The imaginative man brings his fancy to bear; he pictures a new society, and you get the Utopias; the philosophic mind seeks an explanation of the present evils and their remedy in abstract principles, and produces treatises on justice, social evolution, and the like; the religious temperament seizes on the aspect congenial to itself and brings in an old religion, as with Christian Socialism, or invents a new one, such as the New Christianity, the New Moral World, or the religion of Humanity; the legal intellect is preoccupied with the juristic basis, and gives us disquisitions on the right to subsistence, the right to the whole produce of labour, and so forth; the economist analyses capital, wages, rent, etc., and their bearing on the problem; the politician turns to legislation or administration, draws up programmes, and organises parties; the prophet cries his message in the market-place and leads a devoted band of followers to found a new community in the wilderness; the practical man forins associations and starts co-operative systems; the fanatic, with his head full of revolution, urges violence, plots, conspiracies and assassinations; the mere sentimentalist sees a vague prospect of satisfying his altruistic emotions more fully than by personal effort, and becomes a subscriber to the cause; the needy, the discontented, the lazy and the envious see the promise of getting something for themselves and welcome it; conversely, the well-to-do, the selfish and the idle see the menace of giving up something and dread it.

But all of them-all who take an active interest in Socialism, whether for or against, or as dispassionate students are concerned with the same thing at bottom, and that is the economic structure of society, the distribution of wealth, poverty and riches. This is not the whole of the subject-matter, because to many the economic factor is only the means to an end. Their

ultimate aim is the elevation of mankind, moral and spiritual as well as physical; but they regard a change in the economic relations of men as an indispensable step, because they see in the present relations the source of all, or nearly all, the evils that afflict mankind to-day. Primarily and fundamentally, Socialism is an economic question, as Schäffle long ago pointed out, and as Mr Kirkup, in common with every recent writer, admits in his 'History of Socialism.' To put it in another way, if there were no poverty or no riches there would be no Socialism. For that reason its object is sometimes said to be equality, and in a limited sense that is true. But it is only economic equality that is aimed at. No Socialist has ever proposed to make people equally tall or equally strong or equally clever. The proposal rather is to abolish or minimise the economic results arising from these and other inequalities; but many Socialists have long abandoned the idea of even economic equality. It would be more correct to say that the aim of Socialism is the more equal distribution of wealth.

Similarly with the other abstract ideas associated with Socialism. Justice is one of them; but only economic justice is in question. That is seen from the juridical treatment of the subject, which deals only with rights relating to property, work, subsistence. The object from this point of view may be said to be the equitable distribution of wealth. Or again, where Socialism is regarded as a principle opposed to Individualism, only economic individualism is thought of; other forms have dropped out of view or are explicitly and even vehemently excluded. In short, from whatever standpoint the question is approached, the economic content emerges as the central, essential and dominant element. The connexion of politics is merely that of a means toward the economic end.

This will seem to many a mere truism hardly worth stating; but, like other truisms, it conceals a truth which is by no means recognised. Why did this great economic agitation arise in the last century? The explanation usually given and accepted is that it arose out of what is called the industrial revolution. That is particularly elaborated by Marx in connexion with his theory of capital, and is recognised by Schäffle in his 'Quintessence

of Socialism.'The question,' he says, 'is the result of a fundamental revolution in the organisation of the social circulation of products, an economic phenomenon which grew out of the destruction of the system of small producers and small traders.' But, though this change has undoubtedly played a large part in stimulating the movement and giving it direction, especially under the influence of Marx, it does not account for the origin, which was quite independent of any such condition. The earliest preliminary signs of the movement appeared long before the industrial change began; some of its most prominent early advocates acted under entirely different influences; and it was in full swing in France before the industrial revolution-which has never to this day been completed there-had fairly begun. Moreover, the conditions of poverty and misery, which Socialism sets out to cure, existed long before the rise of mechanical power, of the grand industry, and of capitalistic development; they existed, in fact, in a far greater degree. Lastly, if the factory system' were the cause, the movement would have arisen among the employed, as trade unionism actually did under that influence; whereas Socialism made its appearance from above as a message to the labouring population and a campaign waged on their behalf, which indeed they have only been induced to take up for themselves with difficulty in recent times, and that under more educated leadership.

We must seek for a larger explanation of this remarkable phenomenon; and it is not difficult to find if we fix our attention on the real and essential character of the movement and ignore the elaborate obscurations accumulated round it by ingenious minds.

The economic structure of society, with which Socialism is essentially concerned, governs the material, physical conditions of life; its importance lies in that. But the growing attention paid to these conditions extends far beyond the range of this particular agitation; it is common to the whole of our civilisation. It represents a great pandemic ferment, of which Socialism is merely a particular manifestation. The metaphor is appropriate enough to justify a little fuller application.

Fermentation is a gradual process of change produced in certain composite substances by the introduction of a