The Labor enquirer., 1885-03-14

sgIsa|
81 tho ibrI 80 pefiods - We do
u ID 81 Like 4thene II
c1me inhs denly and full
aedeed s6d yls1 Culiously
enough, roly S y ever to have
asksd tho Il phenomenon.
And ~ tk3 = - ! reason for II.
We think ia j6und il ID the fact
that politS Hony concerns itself
With thapSo1 ~ and distribution Of
wealth md wsge system exclu-
sively. Eor reeson, of course, in
cludes that vsuld have no ralson
d'etre, noIrea3 fpr being under sys-
tenn Of alsysr eeriage.
But in Qrde{ q naintain q nimbus of
DSl0xlG9s IL " l4lCU1C1bto Sd0s V4AAc
wage systsm permanent system, the
normal condit tdn of efective production.
And thus it II como to pass that philos-
ophy which ~ legitimate if it limited
itself to its prober sphere, that ofexplain-
ing the workIis Of the present system
has been prosatuted by being made to
Justify the present social arrangements
As having Universal validity.
But il, Is He maintain, this wage sya-
tenn is nothins but q temporary phase Of
the evolutionaM society. then it follows
thatpolit eesn6my is destined to be
superseded ~ ! new philosophy, new
science, as soon as the new conditions
arise. Under social cooperation we
shall have perfectly different philoso-
ply Of the production and distribution Of
wealth which we may not inaptly term
aSocial Economy" But do not suppose
/ for moment that we intend here to elab-
crate that new science, we are all of us
too much the children of our own age to
make such an attempt. Yet we know
that both Americans and Englishmen
cannot be expected to consciously CO.
operate with the natural development Of
the new social order before they have
learned to know its leading features. and
found them on the whole desirable. Such
an attitude is decidedly commendable,
hut it may easily degenerate into dis
position to PROFOUND conundrums; and
such we have no disposition to try tc
solve.
Do not forget that Socialists are not
willing I'd be taken for Anarchists. He
is bad architect who cannot plan the
building he is required to erect, to the
incest details, who cannot tell the size o.
this drawingroom, or the extent of that
closet. Do not demand such details
from us.
From these extracts we may fairly
draw the following conclusions:
l. That the so-called science of politi
cal economy is a spurious science, ano
sooner or later must be repudiated by
scientific minds.
2. That new philosophy, a true
science, Of the production and distribu
ton of wealth will be developed wher
new conditions arise, j. g., under the Co
operative Commonwealth.
8. Therefore, that Socialism, as pre-
4scutus. ~, rae. =5tsr,
philosophy or science of the production
and distribution of wealth.
4. That the new philosophy, or science
underlying these problems is not looked
for until the Socialistic Commonwealth
shall haye been permanently established
5. That the present moralising system
unfi is and incapacitates everybody from
discovering or attempting to elaborate
the true science that is to be-.
6. That Socialists are unwilling to be
taken for Social architects. This is some.
thing new.
7. That it is altogether unreasonable
that they-any more than other people
should be able to unravel the mystery
of the coming science. -
l am glad that Mr.. Gronlund has been
SO outspoken and explicit on these inter
esting points, because there are those
among Socialist teachers who boldly as
sumo and inculcate that Socialism as
they teach it is the true science. the ne
plus ultra regarding all social, industrial
and economic questions. Mr.. Gronlund
admits that he is ignorant of the true
science" Of these things, and expresses
his belief that "all of us" are as badly
off. ~ -
With Mr.. Gronlund's opinion that po-
litical economy is a counterfeit science
and must be repudiated, 1 decidedly
agree; also, that Socialism is not the
science of those economic problems,
whatever its merits may be as theoretic
social system. But with the other posi-
tions assumed by him I as decidedly
dissent. It is certainly going too far to
say that the science of the labor or
economic problem cannot be discovered,