Socialism in Germany

I.

IT has been thought strange that in docile Germany, where order and submission have been proverbial, socialism, with which in the ordinary mind the excesses of the French Revolution are most intimately associated, could ever rise to the height of a strong party, and assume proportions which for solidity and the prospect of continuation and growth have been equaled in no other country. There are two main causes of this strength: first, the condition of the German laborer is, on account of natural and social causes, one of hardship; and, next, the German nature is made up of feeling to a greater degree than any other European character, — of feeling deep and solid, which, when roused in philanthropy or from convictions of personal injustice, is not turned to this side or that by some slight accident, as is the case in French character, but carries the philanthropist to the end in his plans for assistance; and the heavy, stolid, deep nature of the laborer keeps him consistent in his opposition to a condition of society which his leaders tell him is the cause of his misfortunes. The German laborer, then, is discontented, and educated philanthropists, in sympathy with him, think that in socialism they have found a cure for his hard condition, — a condition depending primarily on backwardness in industries and the poverty of the German soil, which, though fertile in the south, is generally hard, unyielding, and sterile.¹

Under such circumstances all labor must be poorly remunerated; but other causes tend still further to decrease the rewards of the laborer. The German is over-governed; the desire for good government and the implicit faith which the common citizen places in his rulers render possible an abnormally large number of officials, while the over-watchful care which the latter place on all the ordinary affairs of life, and the cumbrous and complicated forms regulating even the simplest official business, have created a mass of civil servants whose number to an American or Englishman is astounding. It must also be remembered that Germany now supports a standing army of four hundred thousand men, while her military improvements and constructions have for years been on an immense scale. In this condition we should expect incomes to be small and the luxuries, of life few. For example, take the case of Prussia, which is the poorest of the German states. The Political Economical Society of Königsberg published, in 1873, an article by the banker and economist, Adolf Samter, which gave the state of the incomes of Prussia at the end of 1871. Herr Samter stated that out of a population of 24,673,066, 8,900,000 had self-supporting incomes; and of these, 7,251,927, more than 82 per cent., had an income less than 200 thalers, on which they and their families could live. To place the whole in tabular form, it stood: —

7,251,927 had less than 200 thalers, or of the whole number, 82.36 per cent.

1,197,399 had between 200 and 400 thalers, or of the whole number, 12.45 per cent.

291,436 had between 400 and 900 thalers, or of the whole number, 3.29 per cent.

159,238 had over 900 thalers, or of the whole number, 1.80 per cent.

Thus of the population of Prussia only 159,238 have over $675 a year; while among 23,044,993 people, or over 96 per cent. of the whole population, not one has an annual income over $150. No better test exists of a nation’s standard of living than its consumption of sugar, and that of Germany is the lowest of the leading European nations, Russia excepted.

Let us look now at the position of the German peasant. Any one who has traveled through the northeastern part of Germany knows well the hard condition of the peasants, — knows that they are ill fed, hard worked, and that their hovels, many of them with only one window, some lacking even one, are hardly fit for the fowls which share them with the family. There are many huts containing only one room, with damp earth as a floor, and not more than fifteen feet square, where two families dwell; where sons bring their wives; where young and old of both sexes are thrown together; where modesty can furnish no barrier to vice, and fine feelings, if any could arise, are crushed by hard surroundings. There is a look of dejection on most faces, while the women especially seem utterly downcast. One feels that here are the descendants of those who for hundreds of years have been underlings, in whom habits of submission and obedience have been so thoroughly grounded that all will be borne to the last. But there is also a stolid strength here, that, when once roused, knows no retreat.

Dr. Von Goltz, in 1864, published at Berlin a work on the peasants of Northeast Germany. As domain administrator of Prussia, it was for his interest to furnish as favorable an account as possible, while his optimistic tendencies would lead him in the same direction. In the domain of Waldau, where, he states, “the condition is neither better nor worse than in other parts of the land.” he found that the peasants generally worked by threes,—a man, his wife, and a grown-up child or hired assistant. The combined wages of these three averaged in summer twenty-six cents, and in winter twenty-three cents. Besides this, the head of the family received a hut, a small lot of land, a pig, sometimes a cow, and a certain amount of corn, straw, etc. The whole amount, together with the wages received by the three, Von Goltz estimated to be $170 a year. If the third assistant be not of the family, and must be paid, the amount remaining for the family is $132.50, which, he says, is not sufficient for the satisfaction of the wants of healthy life. In 1874 he calculated that $225 at least was needed properly to support such a family.

Under such a state of feudalism, the miserable condition of the peasant can be greatly alleviated by the generosity of the Graf or proprietor. The latter cannot well let his dependents starve, and he is frequently obliged to dispense large sums in charity. Such a state renders the peasant shiftless and careless; he works with bad grace and without vigor, for he knows he can never obtain more than a bare subsistence, and that must be furnished him of necessity. The amount of self-reliance engendered among the peasants from this life can be imagined.

Yet their state is far better than that of the independent laborer. In fact, the proprietors have within the last year offered to pay these semi-serfs in money only, that the peasant might have a motive to work for himself, and that they

might be relieved from the care of his support. The peasant, however, refused, knowing the conditions of the independent laborer. Liebknecht, in his work on the land and soil question, states of the independent laborers; “ They work for daily wages which in summer vary from twenty-six cents to thirty six cents for men, and eighteen cents to twenty-five cents for women. From this scanty pay they must save enough to live through the winter, when there is seldom an opportunity to work. As one can imagine, the tendency to save does not always prevail, and then the hunger fever must again restore the social equilibrium. In the winter of 1867 to 1868, this deliverer of society rode through the province of Eastern Prussia, and purged the proletarian classes, especially the independent laborers, with frightful thoroughness.” The condition of the city workmen has been naturally better than that of the poorest peasants, but even here hardship is visible enough.²

Those habits of docility and subordination which nature and years of iron rule have instilled into the German laborer, having followed him in his demands from his employers, have brought it about that the part of wages which is governed more by custom and by the personal influence of man with man than by economic laws, has been especially large in Germany, and it has operated against the lowest, forms of labor. Again, the poverty of the lower classes not permitting them to remain long without employment, they are placed at the mercy of the capitalist. All these causes, combined with the fact that the backward state of German growth has not matured those finer qualities of leniency toward the weaker element in society, have caused the wages of unskilled labor to hover at the very edge of the necessities of existence.³

Nor are the prices of food much lower in Germany than in England. Wheat, indeed, is cheaper, but meat is not.⁴ It must, however, be confessed that as little meat is consumed by the German laborer, meat being but rarely added to his scanty meal of potatoes and black bread, the food consumed is cheaper in Germany. It is now impossible for a common German laborer to support a family by working ten or twelve hours a day. All must labor, — father, mother, children; the few household duties being cared for by the youngest members of the family in their hours from school.

The present embarrassed condition of industry and trade adds to the laborer’s hardships. Thousands are now wandering in vain in search of employment, from the confines of Russia to France. This last and heavy straw it is which has broken the German laborer’s patience. He sees others in prosperity, while he is in misery. His long-suffering is at last worn out, and he clamors for a change, for assistance against his hard surroundings, for relief from giving two or three of his best years to military service, for relief from taxation, for anything that will lighten his burdens.

Meanwhile, thinkers had been studying his case; men of deep sympathy, and in whom feeling played a predominant part, — men like Rodbertus, Lassalle, Marx, Liebknecht, and Bebel. They had come to the conclusion that the lot of the laborer had been growing worse for generations; that property was rapidly coming into fewer hands, and the laborer becoming more and more the slave of the capitalists; that free competition and the demands of liberalism led to the servitude of the masses; and in socialism, in the state ownership of capital, in the regulation of wages by the state, they saw the only remedy for existing evils. Soon these leaders collected around them a band of enthusiasts, men of warm hearts and sympathetic feelings, thoroughly imbued with the truth of their doctrines, and glowing with ardor. Some of them were fine orators, and they threw themselves into proselytizing, both by public speaking and writing. Nor in private conversation was any opportunity missed of making converts. They were missionaries as zealous as Calvinists, whose force, fed by that lasting power in the German nature, never failed or diminished.

The enthusiasm of the social democrats is remarkable. Previous to the restrictions of the government, they congregated nightly in their clubs, read with avidity works on political economy, history, and politics, the writings of Mill, Lassalle, and Marx, while conversation partook of topics well befitting the halls of ambassadors. Nor were men of culture absent. Many a wealthy philanthropist was a member, while a striking element at these clubs was the student. In Leipzig and Berlin many of the ablest students belonged to social democratic clubs, assisting most freely in giving lectures on history, literature, art, and politics; while many of the leading articles among the sixty-five social-democratic journals were from the pens of students. They preached unceasingly to the masses; in their meetings eloquence never lacked response, and there all the brotherhood and love of union which lies in the sentimental German nature came out. All were equals. The student drank to the porter’s health, and rich and poor took hands as the meeting joined in song. There are few scenes where a stranger is influenced with such strong contagion by his surroundings as in a socialist meeting. All is simple and unaffected. The charm acts particularly on the young, and it is an indisputable fact that the majority of young laborers and a large part of young men in Germany have leanings towards the social democrats. Clubs have been formed, libraries purchased, and socialistic works and statistics innumerable disseminated broadcast among the people It is not strange that a few men of preëminent abilities, like Lassalle, Liebknecht, and Bebel, have won over that vast mass of discontented laborers. The workman saw idlers in luxury, and beard that under socialism the fruits of labor would be enjoyed by none but those who had helped to produce them. He felt that he was wronged of his proper wages, and socialism demanded state help for labor. He was told that every man has a right to the necessaries of life; that while one single person suffers, no one has a right to luxuries. He was told that property once belonged to the community; that private possessions in land were first caused by robbery of individuals from society; that labor being the only justification of property, land belongs to no one person, but to all; that the laborer in every generation is coming more completely into the power of the capitalist ; that the boasted policy of liberalism has only increased the evils; that all else but socialism has been fairly tried, and in socialism alone is relief.

Great assistance has been given to socialism by the bitter feeling existing against religion amongst the working classes. With fierce resentment they see themselves forced to pay taxes, specifically mentioned on their tax-bills, for the support of a religion which they hate and despise. Socialism, openly irreligious, and advocating the disestablishment of the church, has gained, on this account, many adherents.

Suppose that, you ask the laborer how the blessings promised by socialism are possible without an iron restriction on the liberty of the individual, — a restriction far beyond that under any despotism now existing; whether he does not think that progress comes best under the greatest liberty; whether individualism, and not socialism, should be our aim. In answer, many will say that the matter is now in such a chaotic state that it is impossible to say there will or will not be any restriction of liberty. The great majority, however, will reply to these questions, “ I do not understand such matters. Let Marx, Lange, and Schäffle reason them out to their fullest extent. But the statistics of Liebknecht, our heavy burdens of army service, our enforced payment towards a religion in which we have no faith, the restrictions upon our liberty of speech, our ever-worsening condition, — these I understand. On these the leading socialists and the workmen are one, and on this account we will support them. What we want is freedom; relief from excessive army service; a government which shall treat foreign nations as brothers, not as foes; bread for our families; our own improvement,— these we seek, whether by socialism or individualism we care not. Experience and time will teach us where to go.”

Here, then, is a distinction; the vast body of social democrats in Germany are first democrats, and afterwards socialists. They are imbued with hatred of monarchies, of kings and princes, of all forms of caste, and the inherited enjoyment of peculiar privilege. But in regard to the doctrine of socialism, which they for the most part hardly comprehend, they are not confident, and demand time before deciding. Socialism in Germany among the laboring classes is simply the present and half-accidental form which the complaint against hardship and the resistance to over-government have assumed. The leaders of the movement, on the contrary, are socialists as well as democrats. They favor centralization of power, as tending to fit the people for the socialistic state, and are bitter opponents of the laissez-faire principle. Thus occurs the singular anomaly that in sympathy the ordinary mass of social democrats are with liberalism, when liberalism attempts to extend the prerogative of suffrage, and in all democratic movements. The masses, not understanding the fierce conflict of economic tendencies, are drawn by sympathy to the most advanced liberals. On democratic principles, the social democrats are ultra-liberals; while on economic principles and in reference to centralization, those of the social democrats who are socialists are ultra-conservatives.

They are particularly silent in explaining the full methods of their system, seeming to spend their present power on the denunciation of the evils of life. The positive requests of the leaders are comparatively modest, and consist only of the famous Lassalle demand, —that the state shall first found a number of cooperative societies, whose members shall regulate their affairs, subject to the oversight of the state ; which societies, as the socialist hopes, will so increase by their own prosperity that finally the combined capital of the land will be brought by natural means under their control.

I am opposed to socialism, but I believe that the measures which the German government has directed against the social democrats are mistakes. The open discussion during the last ten years has caused the social democracy to cast away many of its worst tenets. Division of property is no longer to be demanded, and capital is to be made the property of the state by a slow and natural progress, permitting experiments of the worth of socialistic theories before they can be carried to perilous limits. Socialistic plans are chaotic, mixed, uncertain, but rarely revolutionary. If free discussion can go on, the party will continue casting aside its worst tenets, as it grows in wisdom and insight. Proper freedom would make that vast mass of earnest thinkers and laborers — men eager to learn and improve, seeking only their own good and that of humanity — a party of progress, of advanced liberalism, a strength and benefit to the German nation. Restriction, on the other hand, if carried far, will exasperate that sturdy iron band, in which there lies a force too immense to be crushed by the oppression of government, and transform it into an agency of stern, hard revolution.

II.

Having looked at socialism from the laborer’s stand-point, it is now necessary for us to take a short view of its purely political history. German socialism of to-day dates with Rodbertus, a man respected by all, and of the greatest personal influence, who, living in the retirement of study, wrote continually from 1842to 1875, and furnished the basis of all modern socialistic thought. The rise of those advocating Rodbertus’s views into a party is due to Lassalle and Karl Marx : the former founding by his brilliant powers a German party ; while Marx, working from London, founded the internationals, who, after the death of Lassalle, swallowed the German party, and now in Germany constitutes the social democracy.

The workingmen of Germany were first awakened to a consciousness of their power by the liberals, under the leadership of Schulze-Delitzsch. Born in 1808, in Delitzsch, Schulze came to Berlin in 1848, and threw himself into that struggle in which the employers fought against the socialistic tendencies of the workmen and the democratic leanings of the day. Workingmen’s societies innumerable, helped often by wealthy capitalists, rose and fell. Everything was in confusion ; all thought some change must be wrought, but few understood how. In the midst of this chaos Schulze came out prominently by his ability, courage, and energy, and promised the laborers relief under the principles of liberalism. Endowed with wonderful energy, he founded, with the help of capitalists, productive societies, loan societies, and, most important of all, the Laborer’s improvement Society. But in all these the aim was to keep the control in the hands of a select few, to exclude the masses from power, to raise the choicest of the laborers to the class of the bourgeoisie, and to supply their places by others taken from the ranks. Schulze thus hoped to cement the workingmen to the party of progress, and prevent, what he most dreaded, their becoming a separate party. The laborers were taught to oppose both the conservative platform and the state control of religion, and the progressist party had, by 1862, drawn to itself the great mass of workingmen, in opposition to the enlargement of the army and an increase of taxes, the aim of Bismarck at that time But the workingmen were by no means contented with the power they held in the party of Schulze, as they saw that his purpose was to receive their support and give them no active control in political affairs. Moreover, the writings of Rodbertus and Marx had become known, and many saw no help for the laborer under liberalism.

In the midst of this feeling Lassalle came upon the scene. Born of wealthy Jewish parents, in 1825, he was now thirty-seven, endowed with wonderful mental capacities, of a proud, vain nature, and with ability to move and inspire men, which, as his enemies confess, had never been excelled in any orator. He had first allied himself to the party of Schulze, but his opinions by no means coincided with those of his chief, and his anger at the cold reception given him by the progressists determined him to found a party of his own, gathered from the workingmen. In October, 1862, in a political speech at Berlin, he stated that the workingmen could expect nothing from the progressist party ; that they must care for their own interests, obtain universal suffrage, and thus bring into their hands the power of the state. He now went through Germany with wonderful success, gathering by his fiery eloquence thousands in every large city. He was often imprisoned, but his confinement gave him opportunity to write his best works. In August, 1864, he was killed in a duel, having in two years raised the workingmen into a distinct party, and acquired a personal following of two hundred thousand devoted adherents.

Meanwhile, Karl Marx had been at work. Born in 1815, at Trier, he left a brilliant career in the service of the state in order to carry out his socialistic views. Driven from Brussels and Cologne, he settled in 1849 in London, whence he has since worked to form an international socialist party. International congresses were held until 1871, but in Germany the advent of Lassalle destroyed Marx’s power for a while in his native country. Lassalle cared not for the international question; his Verein was eminently German; he opposed the federation of Marx, and desired centralization and a strong state. He gradually drew away from Marx, and as the proud character of each could ill brook a rival, their respective parties bitterly resisted each other. After the death of Lassalle, the control of his Verein passed to Von Schweitzer, who vainly opposed the growing power of the internationalists. Liebknecht, the friend and disciple of Marx, and second alone to Lassalle in influence over the masses, separated from Schweitzer in 1865, and began to form a party of his own, —the social democrats. Acting in a manner the reverse of Lassalle’s, Liebknecht attached himself to the extreme left wing of the liberal party, and attempted to bring it slowly to socialism. He was joined by Bebel, who, having been the right-hand man of Schulze, at last became convinced of the utter hopelessness of benefiting the workingmen by Schulze’s method ; and these two had by 1868 brought seventy-four of Schulze’s one hundred and eleven societies over to their side and that of Marx. In 1871 the social democrats elected Bebel to the Reichstag, while Schweitzer was defeated, and resigned the control of his party. More and more Liebknecht drew the political reins into his own hands from 1871 to 1874, until at the election for the German Reichstag in 1874 six social democrats — among them Liebknecht, Bebel, Most, and Vahltrich — were elected, the party casting 160,000 votes ; while the followers of Lassalle, though casting 200,000 votes, elected only three members. Since that time the social democrats have gradually brought the followers of Lassalle under the banner of internationalism, and in 1877 polled 493,288 votes and elected twelve members to the Reichstag.⁵

The first political programme was put forth by the party at the Congress of Gotha in 1875; and although it has not been officially modified, its worst features have since been discarded through discussion, and the next programme, if permitted by the government to come forth, will appear moderate in comparison. The programme first States that “labor is the source of all wealth and culture; and as general beneficial labor is possible only through society, to society belong the combined products of all labor; that is, to all its members, with the general duty of work, with equal rights, and according to the reasonable needs of each.” The cause of the misery and slavery of the laborer is the monopoly of the means of labor by the capital classes. The destruction of this monopoly, of the system of wages, of profit in every form, and of all social and political inequality is the ultimate aim of socialism. The first step is the creation by the state of socialistic productive societies, which are to be under the democratic control of the workmen.

The programme demands, as the basis of the state, universal, equal, and direct suffrage for all members of the state above twenty years; the decision of war, peace, and law by the people; liberty of opinion and speech; the abolition of the standing army, and the creation of a people’s guard instead; the general right to carry arms; compulsory education, and free education in the highest forms of culture; and the disestablishment of the church. The demands within the present state of society are the greatest possible extension of political liberties; a simple progressive income tax, taking the place of all other taxes; a stated normal day’s labor, suited to the needs of society ; prohibition of Sunday labor, and of all detrimental children’s and women’s labor; “laws for protection of the life and property of the laborer; ” sanitary control of the laborers’ houses and workshops ; control of prison labor by the state; and “full control by the laborers of all help and moneys from the state.”

The organization of the party is most complete; the German tendency towards machine-like order having united with burning enthusiasm and that willingness in the ranks to yield to the leaders, caused by the latter’s intense zeal and the great disparity in intellect between the two. The recent political events in Germany — the fact that the social democrats, though burdened by two attempts against the life of the emperor by assassination, and opposed in a general election both by all other parties and the full strength of the government, often exercised unconstitutionally, have nevertheless increased their total vote in the country, and almost held their own in the Reichstag — are too well known for comment. The repressive measures against the socialists, already purged of their severity by the Reichstag, are by no means successful, their harshness depending on the character of local officials. In Leipzig and Dresden there is comparative liberty, and in the latter city the social democrats so fully attended a conservative meeting, recently, that, on the right of speaking being denied to one of their number, they voted to adjourn. The policy of the leaders is to let the oppressive system run itself out, and they are by no means gloomy in regard to the future of the party. Even Fritzsche, the Berlin member of the Reichstag, who is followed continually by the police, recently said to a friend of mine concerning the imperial chancellor, “ Had I been in his place, I should have adopted very different measures. If he had met us on the ground of philosophical discussion, shown the character of our ultimate aims, the apparent impossibility, the extreme improbability, of their realization, he could have kept the people from us for years to come, and postponed indefinitely the spread of our doctrines.”

The measures against the social democrats are more harassing and aggravating than crushing. Their newspapers have been suppressed, but copies can be had if any one will take pains to find them; and although they are prohibited from having meetings of their own, they can express themselves at those of their opponents, and their own meetings are often held under disguised names. Socialism in Germany cannot be crushed by the present oppressive measures, harsh as they are, and to harsher measures the people of Germany at this age will not submit.

III.

In proposing to sketch the opinions of the leading socialists, our only trouble comes from the great mass of material; for it has been truly said of socialistic literature in Germany, “ Its name is legion,” and no other subject has drawn so many writers in Germany during the last decade. Rodbertus, professing to rest on Ricardo and Smith, finds the cause of pauperism, commercial crises, and the hindrance to a regular and unbroken progress of society in the fact “ that with the increasing productivity of the labor of society the wages of the working classes are ever a smaller part of the national product.” Moreover, if the laborers could perceive that by a different combination of the same simple operations they could get more for their labor, they are not in condition to withstand the force of capital, on whose side fights their own hunger and the suffering of their families. On this account they throw away their labor in order to live in misery, and they obtain a remuneration dependent only on the amount required for mere existence and propagation. As means to change the present condition of society, — a condition the worst possible, since under it the few thrive at the expense of the many, — he demanded the removal of the wages contract system and the institution of a normal day’s labor; exclusive control by the state of the present circulating capital, which may be emitted to an unlimited amount in the form of banknotes, representing commercial products, in order to fix wages by special application; and the institution of a public magazine system, in order to control prices. By these means he hoped to bring men into the state where property is based alone on earnings, and thence gradually to the highest social order. Lassalle was the follower of Rodbertus, and though he discovered no new principles he breathed into Rodbertus’s teachings the fire of life, and threw them burning among the masses. He starts with the Malthusian theory that the remuneration of the laborer must always gravitate around the starvation point, and gives as a cause the present system of wages. Two changes are necessary for the emancipation of the laborer: first, the abolition of the wages system; second, the ability of the laborers to carry on large industries. Through the state alone can these changes be effected, and Lassalle makes the famous demand that the state shall gradually institute productive societies, where all property is in common and wages are governed by the vote of the workmen.

Marx, the master socialist, in his Das Capital asks how it is possible for the capitalist to increase his wealth, — how an article can be sold for more than was paid for it; and the answer is, Because it is bought for less or sold for more than its worth. The capital classes cannot prey upon themselves, but they find the laborer powerless before them, and prosper by preying upon him. Capital is a dead thing, and of itself gives nothing to production; labor alone gives increase, and should receive all products; but the fact is that capital, which creates nothing, but as a parasite drags down the laborer, takes by force the greater part of all products. The more the capitalist grinds the laborer, the longer and more severely the latter works, the more gain to the capitalist, since to him fall all products above the barest wants of the laborer. To improve this hard lot, Marx desires the state appropriation of capital, which he divides into two classes,— the means of production, and the articles produced. The first class, such as lands, factories, etc., he wishes to be common, while these of the second are to be given only to those creating them. All labor is to be on a large scale, and every community banded together. Marx is not pleased with the Lassalle demand for gradual change; he requires the expropriation of capitalists and the overthrow of the present condition of production and exchange.

Liebkneeht’s best work is on the Land and Soil Question. He takes England and France as examples where land is owned respectively by few and by many, and then shows that in both cases, under competition, the lot of the agricultural laborer is wretched. He sums up his result: “In France the land is divided into many hands, 7,846,000 being owners out of a population of 31,000,000. The result is small return from the soil and general indebtedness of the peasants, who are the indirect slaves of capital, and for the most part in miserable condition.’’ ⁶ On the other hand, in England, in place of free peasants we see unhappy slaves of wages, whose standard of comfort is lower than that of paupers. The French system ruins the state, the land, and the peasant; while the English system robs the working classes of the fruits of their labor, throws them into abject poverty, and allows much of their production to be squandered by the sons of their masters, — a system bad for all, immoral in the extreme. Germany, coming between England and France, is fast approaching the condition of the former country; every year the land is coming into fewer hands, and we have only to look at the misery of the working classes in rich England to consider what it will be in poor Germany. There is only one remedy, — the state ownership of land.

Of that small class of socialist writers who dare foretell the consequences of socialism — a class too few, and who leave most of what they attempt to prove for the experience of the future — Dr. Schäffle is by far the most able, and in his Die Quintessenz des Socialismus maps out the socialistic state. The change, he thinks, will not come before a century: first, centralization must so increase that the state can carry on the immense fabric of industry now carried on by private persons, and this will be helped by the centralization of wealth in few hands. Demand and supply are to be regulated by a board of statistics, which shall give for each year the amount of food, clothing, etc., needed for the community, and labor is to be governed accordingly. Money and trade will be destroyed, the former being replaced by certificates representing certain amounts of goods payable at the state stores. There is to be no interference in the private affairs of life; individuals as far as possible may choose their own occupations, and such professions as medicine, which cannot be centralized, can remain outside the central control. But the great question is, Can socialism be made to enter against this great power of individualism which controls trade? To do this, Schäffle says, socialism must first cause each individual to work as earnestly for society as he now works for himself; and then it must find an automatic control of wages; otherwise, if controlled by officials, we cannot be more sure of just wages than at present. Schäffle confesses that so far no such means have been found, and the solution of the question, together with that of the possibility of the state to control all labor and at the same time not restrict the liberty of the individual, he leaves (following the example of most of his brother socialists) to the future.

IV.

In examining the tenets of the socialists, it must first be conceded that in their two main assertions they are right: first, that there is much misery and injustice in life, of which the lower classes have the larger share; and, second, that the relative amount of production received by the working classes has, during the last two centuries, diminished, while capital has lately tended towards fewer hands.

The two latter facts are caused by the vast development of the division of labor, whereby great brain powers are more valuable in aiding production than formerly. Two centuries ago, when industry was mainly carried on by hand labor, there were no large factories and no demand for high executive ability. But at present a vigorous mind is the first requisite for success in trade or agriculture, and the scarcity of such a quality puts on it a high price. It is, then, the more complicated conditions of production which have in late years placed a high premium on brains. Men of the best mental capacities have become the capitalists, taking the place of the great nobles. It is therefore seen that this increase of the amount given to the enterprisers is only the payment for their rare business qualities. The recent gathering of capital into few hands is caused by the advantage that the large enterprisers have over the small, since the former can carry the division of labor to a further extent. But in countries like the United States, where large industrial corporations are frequent, this has not been the case, as the smaller owners have clubbed together, and can more than compete with their rich rivals; and thus nearly all the large industries are corporations, much of whose stock is owned by the working classes. This socalled gathering of property into fewer hands is the first necessary step towards the transition of the industry of a country from a small to a large scale.

The small enterprisers will hold out as long as possible, to their own loss and the great undertakers’ gain. But when the tide has set towards industry on a large scale, the large capitalists have no advantage; and as the inherited acquisition of wealth tends to diminish those qualities of mind fitted to acquire and preserve it, property is very likely, when unrestricted by law, not to remain long in the same families.

As to Marx’s assertion, that as capital is a dead thing, doing nothing towards production, it has therefore no right to receive any part of the products, I must say, with the socialists, that right being a matter of utility, the question is whether it is best to interfere with this self-working order, and deprive capital of the share that mankind at present are willing to give to it. This brings us to the root of the whole question. At present, in a society where the laissez-faire system rules, every manufacturer, proprietor, or laborer is a servant. The large mill owner serves an immense body of consumers, and manages his factory according to their wants. All these servants of society are paid according to the estimation that society places on their services. If one line is particularly well paid, all are at liberty to enter if and try their powers; and wherever demand for certain qualities exceeds supply, those obtain a corresponding high reward. It is not a majority vote, but each member of the minority, as well as of the majority, makes his vote count in the total payment. What now does socialism wish? It is not satisfied with the remuneration which certain classes receive, and so wishes to have the community control wages. But that is done at present, and each member votes every day of his life, his vote being cast in the exact proportion of his conflicting judgments.

It is impossible for the people to give directly by actual ballot, or by means of representation, their estimation of the relative merits of different labor. It surely would not be correct to reward all labor the same. Philosophically, perhaps one sort of labor is as necessary to production as another; but it is not so judged by the combined opinions of the people, and that is the only just estimate. It is said that at present the strong oppress the weak, and personal influence does much to regulate the amount of wages. Does any one think this personal influence would not work if the value of labor were decided by a commission? Would not overbearingness, sycophancy, and underhanded play work more effectually than now? What better chance for hatred, cruelty, and injustice than under a scheme where wages are governed by officials? For so must wages be governed under socialism; only under laissez faire can a self-acting system be possible. When there is a restriction on that system, wages must be given by dictum, not by contract.

Nor is it possible to see how a board of officials can govern the infinite ramifications of industry and trade. There is no man, or number of men, existing who can fully comprehend the combined conditions of commerce in a city like London so as to guide its massive and intricate movements to advantage. No government has ever attempted one hundredth of that contemplated by socialism, and yet we know that all attempts at interference with industry have hitherto been disastrous. Even on such questions as free trade there have been differences of opinion among the ablest men. What, then, can a government do when it takes on its shoulders the entire control of a country’s industry and trade ?

Again, it is a well-established fact that government works are carried on more expensively than private works. The former are noted for being slow, cumbrous, and lacking in progress, because they are outside of the sphere of competition. The removal of individual enterprise will take away many a spur to progress, and mankind, not made by nature to rise with rapidity, will proceed still more slowly. The control of industry and trade by the state can be effected only by restrictions on individual activity, and this must decrease production.

In time, again, the state officials must form a class, whence a despotism must arise, despite the forms of universal suffrage. But the greatest evil is that this system interferes with the freedom and judgment of the individual by allotting to government or society an increase of authority over the ordinary affairs of life. Society is to be one vast machine, in which only the heads are the thinkers, the vast majority of its members being mere automata. Progress is the progress of individuals, and that comes only from experience, the only teacher, the only improver of man’s character; and experience should be left as free and as wide as possible.

A man does not always advance from having more food and clothing. Pure advancement is in character and prudence, which proceed from a man’s free experience. A man is not made prudent or far-sighted by outside restriction, but only when he has worked himself to that point can he stand there without help. The progress that has been made during ten centuries shows that in the nature of man good predominates over evil. Let, then, that nature work out its own salvation without restriction. I sympathize with socialists in their noble love for their suffering brothers. But what can we do? How will the forms of socialism change the injustice and cruelty of life for the better?

I am with socialists in condemnation of those beings who, having inherited the labor of thousands, live in luxury and idleness, doing nothing for the advance of their fellows, or to repay the boon they have received from the labor of those who have lived before them. There is no class more worthy of contempt. But what can be done ? Restrictions can be placed on them only by general laws affecting the liberty of society. The most feasible plan is for the state to place a high tax on inheritance. But even that could be avoided by transfer, or mock sale, before death. It will doubtless be the first step, if any, towards socialism, and is destined to be a future political question. For the present, we must fall back on the hope that progress will instill into the nature of all the desire and pride of giving to the world as much as has been received.

Willard Brown.