Socialism

The social problem of the future we consider to be how to unite the greatest individual liberty of action with a common ownership of the raw material of the globe and an equal participation of all in the benefits of combined labor.

This statement was made by John Stuart Mill in his autobiographical account of the later studies and conclusions of himself and his wife. He said these conclusions went far beyond what is usually called democracy and would be classed under the general name of socialism.

This term is not easy to define, except as a principle. It is derived from the Latin word socius, a companion. It came into use, or was coined, in the year 1835, but did not displace the term “communism” for a long time, and has never properly meant the same thing. The term “socialism” is capable of indefinite expansion, as the idea of human fellowship evolves. Keeping the true meaning in mind, it is obvious that nothing which partakes of tyranny or injustice can properly be called socialism, and that the paternalism of “state” socialism is of a spurious kind.

Those who seek to define socialism by a study of its historical experiments make some mistakes, not distinguishing the transient from the permanent; but they find that socialism aims to increase the production and equalize the distribution of wealth, by substituting public management of industry and commerce in the common interest for private management with personal gain as the motive. Mr. Mallock, who is one of the strongest literary supporters of the present system of industry, declares that nothing is “essential socialism” (an income tax, for instance) which does not interfere with the flowing of rent, profits and interest into private pockets in the first place, and that whatever claims either or all three of these sources of income as belonging rightfully to the public is essentially socialistic.

Mr. Kidd, who, in “Social Evolution,” opposes socialism as the great enemy of progress, defines it as a system in which the individual “struggle for existence” is suspended and “natural selection” (or the crowding out of the weaker members of society by the stronger ones) has no chance to work for the “progress of the species.”

But this does not apply to anything but communism, as socialists usually insist on the universal application of the Scriptural law that every able person must earn his living. They say that the creed of communism is, “to every one according to his need;” of socialism, “to every one according to his deed;” of individualism, “to every one according to his greed.”

The ideal of socialism is modified in each country where it is found by the national character, social condition and government, but everywhere the ideal is undergoing changes as intelligence increases. The “Fabian Essays” give the best English conception, but it is merely tentative. The introduction to the “Essays” declares: “There are at present no authoritative teachers of socialism. The essayists make no claim to be more than communicative learners.” In its official programme the Fabian society says of itself: “It aims at the reorganization of society by the emancipation of land and industrial capital from individual and class ownership and the vesting of them in the community for the general benefit. In this way only can the natural and acquired advantages of the country be equitably shared by the whole people. The society accordingly works for the extinction of private property in land and of the consequent individual appropriation, in the form of rent, of the price paid for permission to use the earth, as well as for the advantages of superior soils and sites. The society further works for the transfer to the community of the administration of such industrial capital as can be managed socially, for, owing to the monopoly of the means of production in the past, industrial inventions and the transformation of surplus income into capital have mainly enriched the proprietary class, the workers being now dependent on that class for leave to earn a living.” The “Fabian Essays” were published in December, 1889.

In the preceding year “Looking Backward” was published and gave the start to the distinctively American ideal of socialism, called nationalism. Its essential principles are industrial co-operation on a national scale and economic equality. The possibility as well as the simplicity and economy of national organization is shown by the great trusts and monopolies which restrictive legislation seems powerless to prevent. The constant tendency is to a still closer combination in one great plutocratic oligarchy, with the people at their mercy, unless the people take their own business into their own hands for the “equal participation of all in the benefits of combined labor.” That is what nationalism means — the ideal of Mill.

The electrician Tesla prophesies that the labor of the future is to be mainly “touching electric buttons,” and statistics show that already, if the great powers and best inventions were applied to co-operative agriculture and mechanics, with all industries co-ordinated, the whole work of a nation could be done with scarcely more than an hour’s daily labor of the adult able-bodied people in the prime of life, and that an equal division of the annual value of that labor, after provision for public needs and the development of the “plant,” would give each member of the great partnership of the whole people an income sufficient to gratify all the honest needs of healthy bodies and cultivated minds and much to spare, with more than nine-tenths of the individual’s time at his own disposal. Nationalism is “not an extension of governmental power,” Mr. Bellamy says, “but an extension of the power of every individual except the monopolist.”

Nationalism is not communism, but, as “Looking Backward” shows, admits of accumulation and inheritance of property, there being no restrictive laws, “nothing to make laws about,” Mr. Bellamy says. Of course organization of industry under any system requires regulations and order, as every game has its rules, but co-operation leads to freedom. With the land owned equally by all any one unwilling to co-operate with others could always go and live without “any kind of socialism” on land not in use by the national family. Of course he would not have the national annual credit entitling him to his choice of the national products and services. As each would pay for his home “according to size, elegance and location,” no rent would go into private pockets, and the landlord would be extinct. No money being used, it would be impossible to accumulate standing orders against all wealth or tribute rights against labor. As business men do not now interfere with the habits or opinions of their partners, so an equal footing of all, economically, would do more than anything else could to insure freedom of thought, speech and publication and individuality of dress and manners and cultivation. As no one can decide just how much the character of each member of the community raises the land values, under national co-operation it would be as Mr. Bellamy says, “Nine hundred and ninety-nine parts in the thousand of every man’s produce are the results of his social inheritance and environment,” and each would get more than his “exact product.”

These latest ideals of socialism do not contemplate the sudden establishment of a ready made “system,” but work for a gradual evolution by the use of intelligent means.

FRANCES E. RUSSELL.
St. Paul, Minn.