Socialism and the American spirit

Front matter

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE

SAGE ENDOWMENT ' FUND

THE GIFT OF . .

Preface

A noted author has urged the appointment in some leading university of a "professorship of America." He would like to see there one man whose special business it should be to teach the students "that there is such a reality as American thought, that there are certain principles which belong to the American government, that there are certain feelings which are experienced by none but an American, such customs as American customs, . . . and that there has grown up a social order which is distinctively American." Rev. Dr. Hale repudiates, of course, the notion that science is one thing in Europe and another in the United States. American economics has no more existence than Belgian physics or Spanish chemistry. But the main point is beyond dispute. There is "a social order which is distinctively American." It has been woven on the roaring loom of time by the American spirit. In these days when, as Mr. George Jacob Holyoake has said, the social question "is not only in the air, it fills the air," I have thought that a place is still open in an abundant literature for a discussion of the American answer to socialism.

This volume is not a history or exposition of modern socialism. Many matters that usually go to fill works on the general subject will be found conspicuvi PREFACE.

ous for their absence, and much is taken for granted, as already familiar to the reader ordinarily well acquainted with the existing literature. My one object is the treatment of a special aspect of socialism, — y its standing and its probable future in the United States. America has much to learn from Europe, but sheer imitation of the Old World by the New is by no means a duty. The American socialist, however, is • quick to assume that a governmental telegraph is advisable here because the system is reported to work well in England, and that national railways should be adopted in America because they are found in France and Germany. But the great differences in natural conditions and political institutions forbid such easy conclusions. A nation spread over an enormous area may well pause before copying a governmental telegraph or railway system from comparatively small and compactly settled countries like Great Britain and France. A constitutional republic of federated States may well pause longer before adopting an economic novelty from an empire like Germany. The deeper inquiry is pertinent, whether the spirit of the American people is consonant with such methods, and whether it gives reason to prophesy the spread of socialism as a guiding principle. Such an inquiry as to socialism under American conditions and confronted by the American spirit may be of sufficient interest and consequence to justify the existence of a volume which it is a happiness to be permitted to dedicate to James Bryce.

It has seemed desirable, in the first place, to give a little precision to the much abused terms "individualism " and "socialism." Each of these, strictly taken, denotes an ideal which never has been realized, and

PREFACE. vii

in all probability never will be. Conceived more loosely, as permanent tendencies in human nature which vary in the intensity of their expression from time to time, both have their justification. The present drift of many thoughtful minds is plainly toward socialism, in the general sense of an expansion of the powers of government — local, State, and national — beyond the sphere in which they have heretofore operated. The leading topic of this book is the American Spirit as it has been manifested in our history, and is now compact in our institutions, and expressed in the life and_ literature of the present. I consider the American temper only so far as it bears upon the two social theories, not in the least supposing that I have exhausted the subject.

Such a determination of the American attitude naturally leads to an exposition and criticism of the two forms of socialism attracting the most notice in the United States to-day. The first of these is so largely literary in its origin and its activity that one might well designate it "romantic socialism " rather than by the inappropriate name of "nationalism." In considering Christian Socialism, I have compared it with its English forerunner in 1848, and have tried to answer the fundamental question of the relation of the social teachings of the New Testament to modern civilization. I assume here, as elsewhere, in this work, that the economic unsoundness of scientific socialism has been sufficiently demonstrated by such writers as Professors B6hm-Bawerk, Marshall and Graham, and Mr. Eae.

Gladly turning to more constructive work, I next consider some industrial changes and reforms which would tend to correct the present bias toward individvm PREFACE,

ualism. Among these, the closer union of employer and employee still seems to me one of the most important and most feasible. The argument for industrial partnership here given is directed against objections which received little attention in my volume on profit sharing. The considerable progress which the system has made in the last four years is briefly summarized. The comparatively large amount of space devoted to profit sharing should not lead the reader to infer that I consider it a panacea for industrial troubles. This chapter may serve, rather, to counterbalance the necessarily general treatment of other subjects in this work. The social problem yields most surely to the exertions of specialists working on different lines. Legislation is one of these lines, but only one ; the governing powers in America need purification to-day, rather than an enlargement of their field; a variety of political reforms should precede much extension of the functions of the State.

A higher individualism and a social spirit are at the heart of our progressive civilization, the meaning of which I endeavor to point out. They make their strongest appeal to those who reject the name of "socialist," since they believe the socialistic ideal a thing as little to be desired as it is to be expected in a world of reality. The way to Utopia we must all, none the less, be traveling; it lies, for no small distance, over the difficult road of moral improvement. Economic science, individual culture and the social spirit, — all have claims upon us. May my readers find here some help toward a practical solution of the apparent opposition of these demands.

N. P. G.

West Newton, Mass.

February 16, 1893.

The Wat to Utopia 351

Index 371

SOCIALISM AND

THE AMERICAN SPIRIT.

Chapter I. Individualism And Socialism

Twenty years ago a leading matter of debate among thoughtful people in the English-speaking world was "the reconciliation of Science and Religion. ' ' Peace between these forces has been practicallyattained, after much discussion, through the recognition of the simple fact that each holds a rightful place in human nature. Neither can be accepted as representing the entire compass of our being, nor should either be denounced by the other. Religion and Science are still vigorous and intact after the long and eager debate. The one power seriously injured was the dogmatic spirit, exemplified equally in theologians destitute of scientific training or method, and in natural scientists ignorant of philosophy and theology. Now that the dust of this controversy is settled, it should be plain to all that neither Science nor Religion can suffer real harm from the other. It is as plain that no "reconciliation " is needed, if each power will put away dogmatism, and be content to rule supreme over its part of that human nature which includes both, and much more than both, in its largeness and complexity. The adjustment of knowledge and faith in the creed and the practice of generations and individuals must be left, where it belongs, with each generation, with each individual, as life gives enlightenment.

At the present day, another pair of supposed combatants concentrate upon themselves the attention of civilized mankind in a large degree. The "social problem " which deeply occupies the mind and heart of our time is essentially the issue between Individualism and Socialism. Are the two reconcilable, or must one be preferred to the other by progressive races? Voices are not wanting to tell us that there is no half-way house between State Socialism and Anarchy, — between an enormous extension of the functions of the State on one hand, and a virtual abolition of State control on the other. The ears of them that will listen are filled with the cries of extremists who unite only in denouncing the actual order, employing a rhetoric and a logic which pay little heed to reason, and a sentimentality that has small concern for the laws of economics or the fundamental realities of human nature. When they occasionally give attention to each other, the Socialist has little difficulty in showing that the Anarchist is % a sentimentalist of the future, who dreams of an impossible race of men needing no constraint, since they have arrived at perfect virtue and entire reasonableness: the Anarchist has no more difficulty in demonstrating that the Socialist is a sentimentalist of the present, far astray in supposing that the majority of men can safely be trusted with extreme power over the minority.

Meantime, the man of scientific temper cannot recognize in the ideal picture drawn by the Socialist or by the Anarchist a natural development from existing society. He is altogether unable to perceive why the human race should be given up to exclusive control by the principle of Authority or by the principle of Liberty. These two principles have blended, in various degrees, throughout human history; and if to-day, as ever before, "only law can give us freedom," freedom only can give us law. The meliorist and the optimist must reject with decision the irrational denunciation by Socialist and Anarchist of the present order of things, which they declare incapable of improvement except by revolution. One may easily discover the fundamental pessimism underlying the superficial trust in human nature (in the future) professed by these two classes of extremists, — those who would free mankind from all control by government, and those who would give the majority unlimited power over the minority. If human society is now so evil as to need complete transformation, after thousands of years of life on this planet, where is the just foundation for hope that all will be well under any scheme, since this is to be administered, of necessity, by the same human nature? The scientific spirit, on the other hand, joins with practical philanthropy in declaring a deep faith in the ability of mankind to improve its lot upon earth through the method of evolution. The development may now be conscious to a great degree; reason can accelerate that "unreasoning progress of the world" of which Wordsworth speaks; but, in all probability, the forward movement will be on lines already found to be practicable, toward an ideal the equal of which no theorist has yet conceived.

The word "compromise," which will at once be spoken with profound disdain by many, is seen to be out of place when the philosophic mind perceives the truth that is in Socialism and the truth that is m Individualism, and advocates a course in accordance with impartial insight. No man sees by a "compromise" between his two eyes; no man walks by a "reconciliation " between his two feet; no man works by adjusting a "truce" between right hand and left hand. The two eyes, the two feet, the two hands, are parts of one and the same body: they are under the high direction of one and the same mind. So human society includes the Socialist and the Individualist. It has never been under the complete control of either: it never can be and remain both "society " and "human." It will continue to take from either, in every specific time, good counsel for the day and generation.

The dispute concerning Science and Religion lost most of its bitterness when the contestants came to understand better the nature of both forces; when they at length appreciated the fact that neither can cast out the other from complete human nature, and that the only "reconciliation" needful or advisable is attention to its own sphere on the part of each! The existing controversy between Socialism and Individualism concerns material interests of vast importance, as well as great issues of thought and feeling; yet, however this fact may tend to prolong the discussion, the result can hardly be different from that reached in the more speculative debate between Science and Eeligion — a better understanding of the rights of each in the totality of human life. The problem in each particular case is to determine the advantage and disadvantage, to individuals and to society, of a proposed measure for industrial, social or political change. Some general considerations at the outset may aid in the just determination of such instances. Let us then, at the risk of commonplace, make clear to ourselves three important meanings of the two words at the head of this chapter : we may thus be able to rule out significations of Individualism and Socialism which are not germane to our discussion and serve only to confuse.

I. The subsistence of each human being as a distinct entity is the primary individualism. It implies physiological, intellectual and moral independence. Existence as a separate person, the life of which must be preserved by means of food and clothing and shelter directly appropriated; which should receive a training of its mental faculties and should have a moral character of its own, — this is the ineradicable nature of Homo sapiens. He can never merge himself in another personality, and cease to be an individual of his species. But he may live in contact, more or less close, with the other individuals who comprise, with himself, the entire number of the species living upon this earth. Next in force to the imperious instinct of self-preservation is the instinct which compels the preservation of the kind; and this implies the society of man and woman. Human beings who completely deny the social and the sexual claim, seeking the desert or the forest to live a purely individual life, — so far as this is possible, — have always been a slight and exceptional minority of the race. The mass of men have ever lived in sexual relations ; whatever form these might take, they have constituted a social bond of some kind, and rendered complete individualism — life by one's self — impossible.

The position, indeed, that the family, not the individual, is the unit of human society is in harmony with most of the known facts of the social development. The family produces the individual, rears him to the age of self-defense, and, in all but the lowest stages of human life, retains a hold upon him to the end of his days. Complete individualism from the first breath to the last is practicable for no human being. No man has ever desired it in whom human nature had a normal evolution. The social instinct, which Man shares with the other animal species, is deep-rooted in his being, and is reinforced by innumerable motives, of an intellectual and moral order, which the brute can never feel. We are under it, every hour, "the natural law which will have it that the species 'man ' cannot subsist and prosper but by association. Whatever else we may be in creation, we are, first and foremost, at the head of the species which are called by instinct and led by necessity to the life of association." The only individualism possible for a man who respects his own nature is within the limits of society. In the broadest sense of the terms, we exemplify, every day, a natural individualism embraced in a necessary socialism.

II. The individual, living in the social state and profiting by it every hour, may make himself the "number one " for which he very carefully provides at all times, or he may recognize his position as one of many members. He may, after the manner of most, practically shape his life by the maxim, " Each for himself," or he may adopt the wiser rule, "Each for all, all for each." The individualism of the former course is stigmatized as "selfishness" by all moral teachers. So common as to be considered by some the root of all wrong, — as when they say that "Self is Sin," — selfishness is often confounded with a due and proper care for one's own welfare, for which, obviously, each person can, on the whole, care best, and for which he is justly held responsible. "Selfhood" — a term of which Dr. Orville Dewey well suggested the revival — marks precisely this natural and fit single existence and activity of each human being: like "boyhood" or "manhood," it denotes a great fact of human life, not to be set down as wrong or* right, since it is fundamental, beneath all moral distinctions.

"Selfishness," the exaggeration of "selfhood," is, of course, far more common than "self -neglecting," although the latter is not so rare an offense as moralists generally suppose. Consistent egoism in moral practice is a fallacy as great as "solipsism" in metaphysics, — the doctrine that nothing exists but one's self, — to which in logical science the name "individualism " is, indeed, given. To view one's self as the central reality is a mistake to which all men are exposed in various degrees, so strong has Nature made the self - regarding instinct. Such individualism is the proper theme of the moralist; I advert to it here mainly to point out that we should not carry over into the sphere of economics and politics the moral judgments which are entirely proper in discussing the "individualism" which is equivalent to "egoism" or "selfishness." There is a sociability as well which must not be confounded with benevolence, and deserves no praise, in itself considered, as it is simply a natural craving.

In the world of economics and politics, Individualism has a distinct meaning as a name given to the

"theory of government which favors the non-interference of the State in the affairs of individuals." Obviously, this is a principle or doctrine which one may hold consistently with the most hearty desire and effort for the good of others. The common welfare being the object to be reached, the question is of the best means for attaining it. The judgment to be pronounced on any person for holding that individual effort is this best way, is, properly, a purely intellectual matter. One gives no sign of immorality, no indication of selfishness, if he expresses distrust of the fitness of Socialism — in the general sense of a "theory of government which favors the interference of the State in the affairs of individuals " — to promote the general welfare, and prefers the method of Individualism. A belief in Socialism as the most advisable method, on the other hand, is no proof of the moral unselfishness of any person. He may have embraced this opinion from thoughtlessness, from sentimentality, from any one of a hundred varieties of unreason. His personal adhesion can be judged to have moral quality only when acts of self-sacrifice accompany it, and purely on account of these. A very selfish person, of the most pronounced despotic vein, may preach Socialism as the one proper theory of national construction. The most unselfish of men, assiduous for the common welfare, may hold that Socialism is economically impracticable and ethically undesirable. At the start, therefore, we should put away decisively a common assumption of the Socialist, — however often it may be unconscious, — that the Individualist is such because of the selfishness of his character.

The only species of individualism which deserves moral condemnation is the practical sort which pays very little regard to the general welfare. Confusion and fallacy must result from passing moral judgments upon Individualism and Socialism when put forth simply as economic and political theories. If the former may serve as a cloak for selfish unconcern for the common good, the latter may likewise be a convenient substitute for personal effort. "Egoism" is an illegitimate connotation of economic and political individualism: " self -f orgetf ulness " is an equally illegitimate connotation of socialism in the same field. III. When we attempt a stricter definition of Individualism and Socialism as economic theories, to the carrying out of which certain political institutions are necessary, we find that Socialism is the more easily denoted of the two terms. This probably arises from the circumstance that such Socialism is still chiefly a theory, while the opposite Individualism is largely a fact of the existing order: it is usually easier to define a theory than to describe a condition. This Socialism is a scheme for an ideal industrial state, never yet realized ; it is put forward as likely to be a vast improvement on the actual order of civilization, which, in all its varieties, is usually designated in contrast as Individualism. "The economic quintessence of the socialistic programme," according to Dr. Albert Schaffle, who is generally recognized as speaking with authority here, is "a method of production which would introduce a unified (social or 'collective ') organization of national labor, on the basis of collective or common ownership of the means of production by all the members of the society. This collective method of production would remove the present competitive system, by placing under official administration such departments of production as can be managed collectively (socially or cooperatively), as well as the distribution among all of the common produce of all, according to the amount and social utility of the productive labor of each." 1 Again, he says more briefly: "The Alpha and Omega of Socialism is the transformation of private and competing capitals into a united, collective capital."' 2

In contrast with the precision of these two definitions of Socialism, the definition of Individualism already given from the "Century Dictionary" — "The theory of government which favors the non-interference of the State in the affairs of individuals " — seems vague. We shall do well, therefore, to define the term again, in exact contrast with the words of Dr. Schaffle. Economic Individualism would then be the system of production by means of private capital (held by single persons, firms, corporations or cooperative associations) : this method of production demands a free labor-contract, open competition, and distribution to individuals. The Alpha and Omega of individualism is, accordingly, private and competing capitals, with a large measure of individual freedom from State control.

As a matter of fact, however, the complete antithesis of State Socialism is scientific Anarchism, — the doctrine that all interference of the State with the individual is unadvisable, and that the State — in the sense of Government — should be abolished. The actual condition of civilized man in the modern State is, of course, the logical negation of anarchy, and the institution of private capital is everywhere recognized,

1 The Quintessence of Socialism. By Dr. A. Schaffle. English edition, p. 4.

in opposition to Socialism. But each existing government differs from every other in the degree to which it intervenes in the affairs of individuals. Thus, as a practical matter, the doctrine of Individualism professed in any given country has respect much more to specific proposals for enlarging the present degree of State ownership or control, than to a complete denial of the right of government to control at all. The individualist will reject in toto the quintessential doctrine of socialism that all the means of production should be owned by the community; but he is, practically, known rather by his opposition to specific measures which would extend the functions of government as it is. The declaration, that "Government is a necessary evil," should be a sure indication of the anarchist, contemplating the present state of things, rather than of the individualist; but, in fact, it is a maxim with thinkers like Mr. Herbert Spencer who reject anarchism and profess individualism. "Government is a necessary good" is the natural belief of the socialist, but it can also be professed as a creed by all opponents of anarchism, even by those who would grant to the State but a limited measure of control over the individual: within those limits State control might well be good, and often only good.

If we attend chiefly to the facts of the existing situation in the United States, we should, then, consider Individualism and Socialism as two opposite tendencies, moved by either of which an American citizen may advocate or attack a definite and particular measure of legislation. The Utopia of the individualist, if Mr. Herbert Spencer may speak for him, is an approach to anarchy : the Utopia of the Socialist melts into communism. But neither scheme is proposed for immediate adoption here by sensible advocates. Specific measures tending to enlarge the present field of State action — such as fuller control or ownership by government of the telegraph and the railway, or the shortening of the hours of labor by statute — make up the programme of the socialist of to-day; he welcomes support of any such measure by those who are far from accepting or desiring it because it is a step toward the full realization of the socialistic ideal. He criticises the existing State for not going far enough in positive legislation for the general welfare. From principle, he supports every proposed law which would have the effect of enlarging the functions of government, and, so far, restricting the activity of the individual, bent on his own welfare alone. The socialist feels sure that the result of each experiment of this kind will be so satisfactory that further steps in the same direction will follow, one by one, until the expediency of the complete plan of State production will at length be conceded by the great majority.

He does not often take into serious consideration the probability that the extension of State control which is desirable at any given time is limited; or the further probability that, at some stage of the progress toward the ideal, assumed to be necessary, the opposite tendency toward a fuller assertion of individualism will set in, and give the onward movement of society quite another direction. If in these United States, for instance, the National Government should erelong operate the telegraph as it now does the mail system; if the National Government or the various States should afterwards buy up all the railways and run them at cost ; if, contemporaneously, the cities of the whole country should take into their hands the manufacture of gas and electric light, and assume ownership of the street-railways — it is plain that, if all of these measures were successful, the movement to establish the State as the one capitalist and producer would acquire far greater strength than it now has. But it is entirely conceivable that the limit of the profitable extension of the functions of government might be soon reached, and that the success of some of the undertakings men^ tioned would be so moderate as to discourage the people from proceeding farther in this direction. That the progress of human society is on one straight j line, under the control of one predominant force, and ( that this force is the tendency to State Socialism, is ( the fundamental assumption of the Socialist. " The Individualist, on the contrary, in all his degrees, tends to unfavorable criticism, not to high admiration, of the manner and the results of governmental activity at present.

He concedes that a nation may well tolerate a certain degree of inefficiency on the part of its officials in executing their present tasks, this being, on the whole, more endurable than the evils which would result from putting the same duties upon private persons. He opposes, however, any considerable further extension of the sphere of the State, and looks to education of the individual mind and conscience and to general progress for relief from existing evils. The extreme individualist would not only resist the tendency to socialism, but would also retrace some steps already taken in that direction, as he would say, such as universal free education. There are very few, to be sure, in America who hold the creed with such rigor. The practical effort of those who here accept the name of Individualist is to maintain the actual status against the strong tendency toward socialism which characterizes the time. If this can be successfully resisted, they trust to gradual enlightenment to weaken gradually the power of the State. The anarchistic ideal, into which extreme individualism blends, is not to be reached by crying and striving. The individualist trusts in natural law and in the unforced evolution of society: he exerts himself with more or less energy simply to resist efforts contrary to this law which tend to promote an artificial development. He does not often concede the probability that such individualism as is well for the society of one age may be unfitted to the free development of the society of a later age. The present tendency toward socialism he would explain as a reaction toward primitive ideas which have long since, for the wiser minority, been fully exploded by experience. He stands stubbornly on the defensive against this tendency, feeling sure that, unchecked, it can only result in great evil.

Between the apparent fanaticism of the extreme socialist and the patent Philistinism of the extreme individualist, there is sufficient standing ground for the great body of human beings who would not govern their lives by one hard-and-fast theory, but willingly confess that mankind is influenced by many forces, that progress is a resultant from the diverse action of these, and that the appeal is always open to experience, — the teaching of the past and trial in the present. In the actual situation such a party of "animated moderation " neither desires nor attempts a theoretical "reconciliation" between the Anarchist and the Communist, between the extreme Individualist and the full-fledged Socialist. The reflective "opportunist" prefers to follow the statesman who adapts legislation to the needs of the day, rather than the enthusiast or the Bourbon. He knows that progress is rendered more secure if action is preceded by the fullest discussion between extremists; this he accordingly welcomes, but he reserves ample right to criticise each extreme as irrational in theory and impracticable in fact, unless qualified by the other. He will calmly bear any amount of reproach from the typical individualist or the thorough-going socialist, for being a "trimmer," a "compromiser," or an "empiric." Such reproaches are the natural portion of those who strive to form a philosophic idea of human progress through sincere submission of the mind to the teachings of history and the counsels of moderation.