New-York tribune., 1895-05-15
THE MAN AND THE STATE.
"A MAsTERLY DISCUSSION OF THEIR RELA-
TIONSHIP.

Socialism lacks UeIl1ltlOn lHdt II, pcihdPo
the most obvious fact connected with the whole
subject. 4 hundred authorities have striven to
supply the want, with various results. The
French Academicians in their famous Diction
ary called It "the doctrine Of men who pretend
to change the State. and to reform 1t. on an
altogether new plan" That Is comparable In
lucidty with the description Of lobster as "a
red fish which moves backward" A lobster Is
not fish, is not red. and does not move back
ward: otherwise the description Is quite correct
Proudhon declared Socialism to be every as
piration toward the ameoration OF society"
which is about far the other side OF the
golden mean of accuracy. Between the two
there are some definitions more satisfactory or
less unsatisfactory. than others. but nearly all
are marked with vagueness, extravaganza and
contra dic;ions In this year Of grace 1895 men
have been heard to assert that for the Government
TO construct and operate telegraph line would be
rank Socialism. Amid such wild and whirling
words II is. perhaps too much TO hope to find
wholly acceptable definition. That given by
Professor Flint, however. has at least the merits
OF explicitness and comprehensibiy. to wit:
"Any theory of social organization which sacri-
fees the legitimate liberties OF individuals to the
will or interests Of the community. That Is
partly definition and partly argument. Its
author does not expect 1t to be accepted by
a non Socialist point OF view: as, indeed. every
definition must be which does not concede to
Socialism the beauty Of holiness and a monopoly
Of all wisdom. human and divine. But he offers
It as the tangible starting point OF his discus
sion Of the subject and leaves Its correctness TO
be determined By the conclusion Of that discus
sion
From definition 20 history the change is from
one uncertainty to another: perhaps to lesser
In one form another. we may say, Socialism
has been coeva, with humanity. 1t seems en-
tirely probable that IL not at its origin. at some
remote period OF It's career the was rudely
Communist; there was not only no private prop
erty but no separate family life. save such as
was maintained by the exercise Of superior
physical force. Men Socialists because they
were not yet much different from the brutes At
a later and comparatively modern date. also as
NJ De Iavsleye has most convincingly set forth,
land and the bulk Of property-at least among
the Aryans-were held collectively by families or
groups. These facts belong to the history or
Socialism. but they have no practical bearing on
the present consideration of that theme. The
life Of the race is d prog g"ess as inexorable as
that o. the individual The youth OF humanity
IL past recall, and the conditions OF it's
youth Any return thereto would not be a re-
newal Of youth. but rather the senile decadence
OF second chi!dishness the certain and imnied
ate precursor o! dissolution. The Socialism OF
the cave-dweers was the ignorant Socialism OF
brute beasts. The Socialism OF the Middle Ases
was the unconscious Socialism OF those VINO had
known nothing else But the Socialism OF to-
day Is intelligent. conscious Of self and OF
others, having eaten the fr:lit Of the knowledge
of good and evil. And that is vastly different
thing from those that have gone before For
practical purposes therefore. we may dismiss
xol~
come at once to Fourier and Saint Simon. Those
extraordinary were the real founders OF
modern Socialism, and Louis Blanc and Proud
non were the apostles who made the doctrine
known to the world. France thus Its first
home and long its chief seat. But in Spain and
Italy and Belgium many have turned TO II for re-
lief from well-nigh intolerable burdens. Refugees
have carried ftSnto Switzerland. Czarism and its
nameless horrors have in Russia provoked a
form Of Indvidual,sm extreme as to meet the
other extreme OF Socialism and clasp hands
with Il. The doctrines o: Socialism We're intro
duced into Germany by Engels and Marx half a
century ago. and have of late made so rapid
growth that they now flourish there more than
in any other land And in the last ten years
there has been a considerable development OF
Socialist notions in Great Britain and the United
States, where some observers regard the move
ment already Of serious menace. but
where It's actual strength Is doubtless vastly
reckoned.
Proceeding next from the history OF Socialism
10 a consideration Of it's character as it exists to-
day, We perceive that It ~ Of two kinds. which
we may term pure and applied. Pure Socialism
Is what we call Communism; the ownership and
enjoyment OF ali things by all men IN common. |
This Is not only the oldest form OF Socialism. but
It is the one most practised. as for example. in
the early Christian Church. in certain religious |
societies IN all ages. and in various so-called |
communities. In the United States and else |
where. at the present day. 1t Is the logical form |
90 which all Socialism should come and 1t is in |
disputable that many communities thus organ |
lzed cave had great prosperity. fer exceeding |
that OF their non-oommunist nePhbors That |
prosperity however, has manifestly been due 20 |
extraneous circumstances. largely. indeed 10 the |
very fact tina: the ne!ghbors were non-commun- |
ist and is in no wise TO be credited 70 the prin-
cipie OF Communism. So far as the secret OF sue
cess lay within these organizations. 1t was to be |
found IN their small size and their rigid disci- |
p!ine, the latter usually maintained under the
stress OF some religious fervor. These latter con-
sdera tons make the general application OF Com
munism impossible unless We break UP States
into thousands OF small societies and Undue |
them all with some fanatic zeal. In that case.
while equality might exist between the members |
OF each one. there would certainly be gross in |
equalit.es between the communes themselves in |
point Of prosperity. and endless chickering's and |
conflicts would arise. Recognizing therefore. the |
impractlcabiiity Of such system Of pure Social |
ism. most propagand-ts now favor an applied |
or modified form. which may term Collectiv- |
ism. Under this private property in some minor |
details may continue to exist: but "all the means |
of production and distribution to be
loA 49, he cfofo 4 tc Dot
The State is to assume not only the functions OF |
government as hitherto understood. but also the |
ownership OF all land and capital. the employ |
snent OF all labor. and the conduct of all busi- |
ness. This is the Socialism OF the present day. |
and this II Is which our author discusses with |