New-York tribune., 1900-07-05
DEFINITIONS or SOCIALISM.

A recent article on college Men and Social
ISM in these columns has called forth two let
ters of dissenting comment which we print
elsewhere in this mornings paper and which
challenge some further consideration of the
subject The chief point at issue between these
correspondents and The Tribune is that of the
definition of socialism. Mr. Pumpelly for eX-
ample regards socialism as movement toward
equality of rights social justice and univer-
sal benpvOlenCe." 1t may be that socialism has
such aims. But it will not do to say that every
thing that has such aims is socialism. The
other writer. Mr.. Jennings. who describes him
self a socialist. tells us some fine things that
socialism is going to do, yet declares that
socialism has no definite formula or programme,
but is merely an opportunist system of social
reform, and he concludes by asking for our
definition of socialism.
We are not aware that any one has ever
given wholly satisfactory definition of social
ism since the word was invented by Leroux, or
Owen, or Reybaud or whoever did invent it.
The definition which our two correspondents
seem to have adopted is that of Proudhon:
Every aspiration toward the amelioration of
society But that will not do, for, as the Judge
replied to PrOudhOn then must all he
socialists" which assuredly are not. The
Dictionary of the French Academy gave a still
worse definition: The doctrine of men who
pretend to change the State and to reform it
ION altogether plan" Worst of all. per
haps. was that devised by Littr6 in his dictiOn-
ary: "A system which. regarding political re-
form as Of subordinate Importance, offers plan
"Of social reform" We are afraid that SINH
larly hazy and indefinite notions upon the sub
ject still prevail to a considerable extent, and
that they affect not only our two correspond
ents but also many other contemporary writer's
and speakers. who seem to regard n student Of
sociology necessarily socialist, and to iden-
tify all social reform with socialism.
If socialism were so nebulOuS n thing, ii
would not be worth while to discuss it further
But it is not The socialism which the average
militant socialist has in mind and that which
had in mind in the article to which our cor
respondents take exception is very different
thing. 1t Is much more concrete and tangible.
Lcroux himself first defined IL as IAN organiza-
'tiOn in which the individual is sacrificed to
society Mr., Bradlaugh declared that social
ism denies individual private property and
"atrms that society. organized as the State.
should own all wealth. direct all labor and
compel the equal distribution Of all produce"
Mr. BaX says that for the socialist love Of
country is no nobler sentiment than love Of
class and again. Socialism utterly deSpiseS
'the other world with all its stage properties
that Is. the present objects of religion" But it
is not our purpose TO review all the definitions
of socialism that have been put forth by men
At least comparable in authority with our COrre-
spondcnts II is sufficient 10 make clear the
salient features of the system which. as we
said, IS opposed TO nearly all that for which n
college education stands. We said that indi-
vidual distinction and indIvidualism are pre-
ciScly what socialism is opposed TO and aims
10 suppress LcrouX. who claimed to have in
vented the very word socialism, declared that
socialism aimed to sacrifice the individual 10
society. IF our correspondents do not like the
statement their quarrel Is with Leroux. and not
with us.