u8 



labour, and by the famous encyclical letter on 

 " The Condition of Labour " of the very clever 

 Pope Leo, who knew how to run with the hare 

 and hunt with the hounds. But these imperial 

 rescripts, and these papal encyclicals because 

 we can neither skip nor suppress the phases 

 of social evolution can but fail in our 

 bourgeois, individualist, liberalist world. 

 Certainly it would not have displeased the 

 bourgeois world to strangle this vigorous con- 

 temporary socialism in the amorous embrace 

 of official artificialism and State socialism ; 

 for it had been perceived in Germany and 

 elsewhere that neither laws nor exceptional 

 repressions would be sufficient for this.* 



All this arsenal of regulations and inspec- 

 tions has nothing to do with scientific 

 socialism, which foresees clearly that the 

 administration of the new social organisation 

 will not be more confused than the adminis- 

 tration of the State, the provinces, and the 

 parishes, is now, and will, on the contrary, 

 correspond far better with social benefit and 

 individual benefit, because it will be a natural 

 and not a parasitic product of the new social 



* It is against State Socialism that the majority of 

 the individualist and anarchist objections of Spencer are 

 directed in The Man -versus the State, London, 1885. In 

 connection with this subject the celebrated controversy 

 between Spencer and Laveleye will still be remembered : 

 The State versus the Man, or Social Darwinism and 

 Christianity, in the Contemporary Review, 1885. 



Larfargue in an article on Herbert Spencer and Social- 

 ism, published in The Times, and reproduced in the 

 Ere Nouvelle, 1894, nas not mentioned this distincti<yn 

 between scientific and State socialism, against which are 

 directed the individualist criticisms of Spencer. 



