Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1890-03-15

are in favor of the principle of collective
action in the solution of the great prob.
lem of poverty; or at any rate Of the OPP
posite principle not being carried to its
logical conclusion.
state" is very elastic word. and the
State of to-day may be very different
thing to the State of some years hence
But under every kind of composition its
interference in social matters is utterly
opposed to Mr.. Spencer's individualism,
which he has so strenuously advocated
for years past. Extreme individualism
Professor Huxley Indignantly repudi-
ates, and by implication admits the
principle of Socialism. Not to be behind
the professor, Mr.. Spencer hastens to
assure the public that his friend Huxley
has misunderstood him and his works.
And though he hedges a good deal las
he has done in regard to land nationali.
sation), the plain and logical inference
is that he also is in favor, not only of
private charity, but of collective action
on what he would call Estate interfer-
ence" as we'll Once having admitted the
principle where will they stop? The
truth is, Huxley and Spencer, like other
men, must move with the times, and the
latter begins to see with sorrow that all
the factors of social progress are strong
ly setting towards Socialism. This is to
him a very serious matter, for it means
that his theory of economic develop
| ment, persisted in to nearly the end Of
his life, is undoubtedly wrong; and that,
| so far as this part of his philosophy is
concerned, he will go down to posterity
as a collector Of facts, and nothing more.
This, to D man who wishes above all
things to pose as a philosophical ex-
FOUNDER of laws and principles, is, no
doubt, very humiliating. There are
many expressions in Mr.. Spencer's recent
utterances which seem to me to imply
that he is aware that he has misinter-
| preted the laws of social evolution, and
| would like to see him candidly acknow-
ledge it. Apart from this, the basis Of
his reputation is sufficiently broad to
satisfy the ambition of any man. More.
| over, most of his facts will fit in with
Collectivism or Socialism just as well as
with Individualism.
With Professor Huxley the matter is
somewhat different. Socialism is to him
little profitable diversion from cutting
up monkeys. And though do not wish
to make point Of it, may be permit
ted to say that those who advocate So
cialism spend their earnings-many of
them very scanty indeed-in SO doing
whereas their opponents, by their ma
gazine articles, etc, make the subject
source Of considerable profit. / have
read most of Huxley's writings on So
cialism, and venture to say there is no
internal evidence in any of them that
he has ever read, and, much less, under
stood, any work of authority on the sub
ject. His assumption that Socialism is
revival of Rousseauism is utterly false in
any sense whatever and without the
smallest atom of foundation and / chal-
lenge Professor Huxley to point to any
body of Socialists in the world which
bases its principles, its aims, or the JUS
LITIGATION of its actions upon the doctrine
that "all men are born free and equal"
Socialism has deeper and more
enduring foundation than any fanciful
hypothesis with dozen meanings. 1t
is based az surely in the law of econ
omic development as Professor Huxley's
biology is in the law Of organic develop
ment, and requires more time and study
for its comprehension.
The truth is Huxley knows that any
absurd statements and assumptions will
90 down with the public, in condem-
nation of Socialism. He knows how
largely he can draw upon the general
ignorance of the subject, or he would
. never, surely, have trotted out saying
| OF Rousseau's, admitting Of many inter-
pretations, and placed it before the pub
lie as the basis of the great science of
Socialism as known to-day. The laws of
economic development were unknown
in Rousseau's day. Nor could they pos
sibly have been known SO far as they
; relate to the transition from the wage
I system to Socialism. The conditions Of
: their existence had not arrived. 1t is not
d difficult to understand why Huxley went
to Rousseau for his Socialism, against
which he tells us he conceives it to be
his duty to run a-muck. To grapple
with the facts and arguments of true So
cialism requires more time and study
than Huxley is disposed to place at the
n service of his friends, though every such
/, exertion brings him nice little cheque.
. He has falsely assumed that Socialism il
based upon certain doctrines of Rous
l. seau; nothing could be more inaccurate
n or absurd. And furthermore, either il
Il ignorance of Rousseau's meaning, or fol
the purpose of a cheap and easy victory
:, he has placed false Interpretation upor
IL Rousseau's language; and then, having
II exposed the absurdity Of his own assump
!" tions, he hatters himself that he ha,
b done his friends, the capitalists, service
W 1 i IL: q IL.