543 



SOCIALISM 



famous historic expression of it was the French 

 Revolution ; oud though the ideals of that revolu- 

 tion, lilKTty, m|iiality, and fraternity, were sadly 

 discredited by the extravagant and sai>guin;n\ 

 proceedings in France, it wHlgem-rally IK- admitted 

 that a great moral and political gain to the world 

 hit* been achieved through the growth of democracy. 

 At least no one will deny that its influence box 

 been vast, and as yet is far from exhausted. One of 



the first effects of the democratic movn t was 



to bring the middle-class into prominence. More 

 recently the working-class has teccived the chief 

 share of attention. While the middle-clans in most 

 civilised countries do more than any other in con- 

 trolling industry and politics, the working-class is 

 everywhere struggling into action. 



The general result of the industrial revolution, 

 therefore, has lieen the growing concentration of 

 industry and of the capital with which it is carried 

 on ; and the development of democracy has tended 

 to inspire working-men with a desire for a larger 

 share of political power and for a fairer distribution 

 of the means of culture and happiness. The rise 

 of socialism as a modern phenomenon was con- 

 ditioned by the two revolutions. It was the 

 industrial revolution, which hud made the work- 

 ing people the victims of machinery and the factory, 

 that Hubert Owen bad chielly in view ; the great 

 aim of his socialism was to render mechanical in- 

 vention subservient to human well-lieing. Saint- 

 Simon (q.v.)wasaFrenehman who hail lived through 

 the troubles and excesses of the Revolution ; and his 

 theories were moulded by that great event. After 

 the destructive liberalism of the Revolution he 

 believed that the time had come for a positive 

 reconstruction of society. His views were more 

 thoroughly elaborated by his disciples. In history 

 they recognised two kinds of epochs, the negative 

 or destructive, and the organic or constructive. 

 The former was marked by the spirit of criticism, 

 anarchy, and war ; during the latter religion, love, 

 and the spirit of association were dominant. Km 

 the spirit of association will more and more prevail 

 till it embrace the entire world. The keynote of 

 the history of the world during the past has been 

 the exploitation of man by man in its three stages, 

 slavery, serfdom, anil wage-lal>our. The keynote 

 of the 'future will be the 'exploitation of the globe 

 by man associated to man.' But according to the 

 Saint Simon school a l>etter society is possible only 

 through the aliolition of the hereditary principle, 

 by which ruling classes are from generation to 

 generation secured in the possession of the good 

 things of the world, while the other classes are 

 handed over to perpetual misery. There is only 

 one way to break the fatal chain of continuity, 

 and that is to vest the instruments of production 

 in the state, which will administer them for the 

 benefit of all its members. The state would 

 delegate to associations the practical industrial 

 work, and each man would be rewarded according 

 to his services. Saint -Simon and -his school would 

 therefore answer the problems raised at the Revolu- 

 tion not by the restoration of the old feudal and 

 priestly regime, not by following out the negations 

 of lilieralism, but by a new ixjsitive order, in which 

 the spiritual ilin-rii.ni would be given to the men 

 Of science and the practical control of production 

 to chiefs of industry. His system was not re- 

 actionary ; nor was it democratic or revolutionary. 



The system of Fourier (n.v.)is in several respects 

 an entire contrast to that of Saint Simon. Whereas 

 Saint Simon insisted on the principle of authority, 

 Fourier carried to it extreme development that 

 liberty which had l>een the chief watch word of the 

 French Revolution. While the school of Saint 

 Simon gave the state the ownership and control 

 of the instruments of production, Fourier left the 



capital in private possession, thus securing a fresh 

 guarantee for freedom, but providing against the 

 abuses of private capital by placing it under social 

 control. And Fourier devised another guarantee 

 for freedom by making the commune, or local 

 association, which he called the phalange, the 

 cardinal and decisive factor in social reconstruc- 

 tion. In the Saint-Simon school the state is the 

 point of departure and the controlling power, to 

 which the associated bodies are subordinate. With 

 Fourier the commune is substantive, self-sufficing, 

 and independent. The federal organisation into 

 which his communes may enter is entirely volun- 

 tary. In short, Saint Simon's is a centralised 

 socialism, Fourier's is a communal socialism. In. 

 this respect Owen agrees with Fourier. 



The three systems of Saint-Simon, Fourier, and 

 Robert Owen had been produced during the reaction 

 which set in after Waterloo. Though they had 

 been elaborated in full consciousness of the great 

 events which had marked the closing period of 

 the 18th century, they were intended rather as a 

 corrective of the democratic movement than as a 

 continuation of it. They had little faith in the 

 ordinary democratic ideals. In one important 

 respect, however, they fully participated in the 

 illusions of the early period of the French Revolu- 

 tion. They shared in the comfortable and con- 

 fident optimism which believed it to be a simple 

 thing to reconstruct society. They thought that 

 they had found a short and easy way to regenerate 

 society. They knew little or nothing of the prin- 

 ciples" which determine social development, and 

 this perhaps more than anything else lends an iiir 

 of utopianism and unreality to all their specula- 

 tions. Their theories never really took root in the 

 practical life of the time. 



The French socialism of 1848 had a solid basis in 

 the real life of the time, inasmuch as it entirely 

 and enthusiastically accepted the democratic prin- 

 ciples. The first condition of the socialistic pro- 

 posals of Louis Blanc (q.v.) was the thoroughly demo- 

 cratic organisation of tne state; the first duty of such 

 a state was to place its resources at the service of the 

 poor. The state, he maintained, was the banker 

 of the poor. In the social workshops, which he 

 advocated, meml>crship was to be voluntary, and 

 they were to be self-governing, as Wame the 

 institutions of a democratic state. It has now lieen 

 fully proved that Louis Blanc's schemes never had a 

 fair trial under the republican governments of 1848. 

 The Hiitiniiiil workshops were only a travesty of 

 his social workshops, expressly intended to discredit 

 them. Louis l!lanc luuf not robustness of character 

 or enduring political influence enough to enforce 

 attention to his plans. 



While Louis Blanc may thus be regarded as the 

 first historic advocate of the social-democracy, 

 another man who was jirominent during the troubles 

 of 1848 must be considered as the founder of a form 

 of socialism still more revolutionary. I'roudhon 

 (ii.v.) tirst associated socialism with iim<n-lii*ii<, 

 which holds that the goal of society is freedom 

 without government. I'roiidhon was one of the 

 storm birds of the revolutionary period of 1N4S ; but, 

 with all the violence and extravagance of his utter- 

 ances in the press and in the chambers, he was too 

 shrewd and kindly a man to have any concern in 

 the rising of June of that year. That was an out- 

 break of the proletariat, for which the socialist 

 leaders were not responsible. 



After the revolution of 1848 France ceased to lw 

 the pioneer in socialistic speculation and agitation. 

 ( lerinany and Russia have since produced tlie fore- 

 most men in both departments of activity. The 

 Cerman thinkers, Rodlierttu), Lassalle, and Karl 

 Marx, undoubtedly take the first place in the his- 

 tory of socialism as the scientific exponents of 



