A handbook of socialism: a statement of socialism in its various aspects, and a history of socialism in all countries ..

Front matter

‘4

[ANDBOOK OF SOCIALISM.

ey wy 8

Chapter I. The Definition Of Socialism

ALL Socialists and all authorities upon Socialism are agreed as to what Socialism is. This is shown by the following quotations, all of which, though using different expressions, are in well-nigh absolute agreement. As Sidney Webb has pointed out, not to know what Socialism is, is to-day simply intellectual laziness. « Socialism is not paternalism, nor the expansion of State activity, nor the regimentation of life, nor the adoption of a fixed form of society, nor even the co-operation of arbitrary groups of workers, nor the total abolition of competition, nor the leaping into a Utopia of brotherly love, nor the sudden and violent overturn of existing institutions. SOCIALISM IS THE FIXED PRINCIPLE, CAPABLE OF INFINITE AND CHANGING VARIETY OF FORM, AND ONLY GRADU- ALLY TO BE APPLIED, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE COMMUNITY SHOULD OWN LAND AND CAPITAL COLLECTIVELY AND OPERATE THEM CO-OPERATIVELY FOR THE EQUITABLE GOOD OF ALL. See the following definitions :—

ARISTOTLE. /olitics, bk. 1, 2, §§ 12-14 :—

The State is, by nature, clearly prior to the individual and to the family, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part... . The proof that the State is a creation of nature, and prior to the individual, is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing ; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.

BeLLamy, Epwarp (Nationalist) :—

Industrial self-government is a very convenient and accurate definition of Nationalism.

ti i2 Handbook of Socialism.

Century Dictionary :—

Socialism is any theory or system of social organisation which would abolish entirely or in great part the individual effort and competition on which modern society rests, and substitute for it co-operative action ; would introduce a more perfect and equal distribution of the products of labour, and would make land and capital, as the instruments and means of production, the joint possession of the members of the community.

CLARKE, WILLIAM. folitical Science Quarterly, Dec., 1888 :—

A Socialist is one who believes that the necessary instruments of production should be held and organised by the community, instead of by individuals, or groups of individuals, within or outside of the community.

Ety, Pror. RicHarp T. Socialism and Social Reform, p. Ona

The results of the analysis of Socialism may be brought together in a definition which would read somewhat as follows: Soctalism is that contemplated system of industrial society which proposes the abolition of private property in the great material instruments of production, and the substitution therefor of collective property ; and advocates the collective management of production, together with the distribution of social income by society, and private property in the larger proportion of this social income.

ENGELS, FREDERICK. Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, trans. by E. Aveling, thus briefly describes Socialism :—

With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and simultaneously the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. The struggle for individual existence disappears. . . . The whole sphere of the conditions which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who now for the first time becomes the real conscious lord of Nature, because he has now become master of his own social organisation. ... It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom,

Kipp, BENJAMIN. Social Evolution, p. 207 :—

True Socialism has one invariable characteristic by which it may be always recognised . . . always one definite object in view, up to which all its proposals directly or indirectly lead. This is the final suspension of that personal struggle for existence which has been waged not only from the beginning of society, but, in one form or another, from the beginning of life.

The Definition of Soctalism. 3

Kirkup, THomas. In £ucyclopedia Britannica :—

Whereas industry is at the present carried on by private capitalists served by wage labour, it must be in the future conducted by associated or co-operating work—men jointly owning the means of production. On grounds both of theory and history this must be accepted as the cardinal principle of Socialism.

Kirkup, THomas. Ax Luguiry into Socialism, pp. 11-12 :—

The essence of Socialism is this: it proposes that industry be carried on by associated labourers jointly owning the means of production (land and capital). Whereas industry is at present conducted by private and competing capitalists served by wage labour, it must in the future be carried on by associated labour, with a collective capital, and with a view to an equitable system of distribution,

LAFARGUE, PauL (Marxist). In Ze Figaro :—

Socialism is not the system of any reformer whatever; it is the doctrine of those who believe that the existing system is on the eve of a fatal economic evolution which will establish collective ownership in the hands of organisations of workers, in place of the individual ownership of capital. Socialism is of the character, therefore, of an historical discovery.

Mitt, JOHN StTuART. Sortnightly Review, April, 1879 :—

What is characteristic of Socialism is the joint ownership by all the members of the community of the instruments and means of production, which carries with it the consequence that the division of all the produce among the body of owners must be a public act performed according to rules laid down by the community.

ScHAFFLE, Pror. A. E. T. Quintessence of Soctalisin :—

The Alpha and Omega of Socialism is the transformation of private and competing capitals into a united collective capital.

Again :—

To replace the system of private capital (that is, the speculative method of production, regulated on behalf of society only by the free competition of private enterprises) by a system of collective capital, that is by a method of production which would introduce a unified (social or ‘‘ collective”) organisation, national income 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 co-operatively), as well as the distribution among all of the common products of all, according to the amount and social utility of the productive labour of each.

SoctaL Democratic FEDERATION (English) states its objects to be :—

The socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, to be controlled by a democratic State in the interests of the entire community, and the complete emancipation of labour from the domination of capitalism and landlordism, with the establishment of social and economic equality between the sexes.

WAGNER, PRor. ADOLPH :—

Socialism is a principle which regulates social and economic life according to the needs of society as a whole, or which makes provision for the satisfaction of those needs ; whereas, individualism is a principle which, in social and economic life, places the individual in the foreground, takes the individual as a starting-point, and makes his interests and wishes the rule for society. . . . Extreme Socialism, or the modern scientific, economic Socialism, is a system of economic legal order opposed to the present order. Socialism demands that the material means of production, that is, land and capital, should not be, as at present, mostly the private property of single private members of the social body, but should be the collective property of society itself; that, consequently, private undertakings designed to secure profit should not stand on one side, and wage-earners, paid according to the conditions of the labour contract, on the other, these various undertakings and wage-earners competing with one another; that production should not be conducted by individual capitalistic managers according to their individual estimate of demand, which means, on the whole, an unregulated production dependent upon the course of speculation and the influences of chance, and that the distribution of the product shouid take place according to the accidents of the law of supply and demand. Socialism requires, on the contrary, that production should take place according to plans based upon the carefully ascertained demand of the consumers, and that it should be duly regulated by public authority ; that it should be carried.on in a co-operative manner; or in State and municipal institutions, etc., and that the product should be divided among

he producers in a juster manner than at present, when the distribution is effected by means of the law of demand and supply.

WALLAS, GRAHAM. Fabian Essays, p. 133 i—

Socialists work for the owning of the means of production by the community and the means of consumption by individuals.

The Definition of Socialism. 5

Westcott, BisHop B. F. Address before Hull Congress, 1890 :—

Individualism regards humanity as made up of disconnected or warring atoms. Socialism regards it as an organic whole.... The aim of Socialism is the fulfilment of service ; the aim of individualism is the attainment of some personal advantage—riches, place, orfame. Socialism seeks such an organisation of life as shall secure for every one the most complete development of his powers; individualism seeks primarily the satisfaction of the particular wants of each one, in the hope that the pursuit of private interests will, in the end, secure public welfare.

Further on in the same address Dr. Westcott asserts that :—

The goal of human endeavour is the common well-being of all alike, sought through conditions which provide for the fullest culture of each man as opposed to the special development of a race or a class, by the sacrifice of others in slavery or serfdom, or necessary subjection.

He speaks of this as the central idea of Socialism.

From the Maniresto of the Joint CoMMITTEE of the (English) SociaList BopiEs :—

It is, therefore, opportune to remind the public once more what Socialism means to those who are working for the transformation of our present unsocialist state into a collectivist republic, and who are entirely free from the illusion that the amelioration or ‘‘ moralisation”’ of the conditions of capitalist private property can do away with the necessity for abolishing it. Even those readjustments of industry and administration which are socialist in form will not be permanently useful, unless the whole State is merged into an organised commonwealth. Municipalisation, for instance, can only be accepted as Socialism on the condition of its forming a part of national, and, at last, of international Socialism, in which the workers of all nations, while adopting within the borders of their own countries those methods which are rendered necessary by their historic development, can federate upon a common basis of the collective ownership of the great means and instruments of the creation and distribution of wealth, and thus break down national animosities by the solidarity of human interest throughout the civilised world.

On this point all Socialists agree. Our aim, one and all, is to obtain for the whole community complete ownership and control of the means of transport, the means of manufacture, the mines, and the land. Thus we | look to put an end for ever to the wage system, to sweep away all distinctions of class, and eventually to establish national and international Com- -munism on a sound basis.

Those who signed the manifesto were :-—

ALFRED BEASLEY. HARRY QUELCH.

J. H. DOBSON. GEO, BERNARD SHAW, W. S. DE Mattos. WILLIE UTLEY.

H. M. HynpMAN. ERNEST EK. WILLIAMS.

WILLIAM MoRRIS. SYDNEY OLIVIER,

TOUZEAU PARRIS.

The Joint Committee of the Social-Democratic Federation, the Fabian Society, and the Hammersmith Socialist Society.

Signed on behalf of the under-mentioned bodies :— H. W. Les, Secretary, Social Democratic Federation, 337 Strand, W.C, Epwarp R. Prass, Secretary, Fabian Society, 276 Strand, W.C. EmEry WALKER, Secretary, Hammersmith Socialist Society, Kelmscott House, Hammersmith.

CHAPTER IT.

WHAT SOCIALISM IS NOT.

(a) SOCIALISM IS NOT GOVERNMENTALISM OR PATERNALISM.

In not one of the definitions from the authorities quoted in chapter i. does the word ‘‘ government ” appear, save in the phrase self-government. If these writers then, or if Socialists themselves, know anything about Socialism, Socalism is not turning things over to the State, to the municipality, or to government of any kind. By the derivation of the word from the Latin socews, an associate, by its history, by its use by Socialists themselves, Socialism is essentially fraternal, the very opposite of paternalism. All the great Socialists have been democrats; they have opposed paternalism ; they have opposed paternal governments and the extension of such governments ; some of them have opposed the State altogether. Robert Owen, Fourier, Blanqui, Louis Blanc, Karl Marx, Lassalle, Maurice, Hyndman, William Morris—where is there a paternalist or a governmentalist among the great Socialists ? In Germany the Socialists all vote against the State insurance schemes of the imperial government; in France the Socialists favour the maintenance for a while of peasant proprietorship, fearing that till the government become thoroughly socialised, to nationalise land would give the State too much power. If Socialists would largely use the State to realise their ideals, it is only because they would make the State first democratic. //the State be the community democratically or fraternally organised, then Socialists believe in the State, otherwise not. ‘To call paternalism Socialism is, therefore, hopelessly to confuse.

The so-called State Socialism of the German Empire, with its State insurance schemes, etc., was introduced to defeat Socialism. Said — Herr Liebknecht at the Socialist Congress at Berlin in November, 1892: “Social democracy has nothing in common with the so-called State Socialism, a system of half measures dictated by fear and aiming merely at undermining the hold of social democracy over the working classes by petty concessions and palliatives”. ‘To Socialists the State is a means, not an end. Says Prof. Ely (Suctalism and Social Reform, p. 33): ‘‘ Characteristic of the Socialism of to-day is the general desire, on the part of Socialists, to reduce the functions of government to a minimum. There is a general agreement among them that there should be as little government as is compatible with their main ends. ‘They all favour whatever government or regulation is necessary to secure the Socialistic production and distribution of wealth; and they will endorse all those measures which are held to be necessary to guarantee opportunities to all, for the full development of all their. faculties. But beyond this they will not go, and they continually seek to devise plans for the accomplishment of these ends with the least possible exercise of governmental authority. It can safely be said that, outside the educational and economic spheres, they advocate a general /aissez faire, or non-interference policy. The State Church, for example, is not of necessity incompatible with Socialism ; but, as a matter of fact, Socialist parties invariably oppose anything of the kind; and the German social democrats, in their platform, expressly declare religion to be a private matter.”

Friedrich Engels says (Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur Wissenschaft): “The first act in which the State really appears as the representative of society as a whole, namely, the seizure of the means of production in the name of society, is at the same time its last independent act as a State. Interference of the State in social relations gradually becomes superfluous in one department after another, and finally of itself ceases (goes to sleep). The place of government over persons is taken by administration of things and the management of productive processes,”

What Socialism is not. 9

Bebel (Die Frau und Soztalismus, pp. 312-314) argues that under Socialism, ministers, parliaments, armies, police, courts, attorneys, taxation, will all disappear, their place being taken by administrative colleges or boards. Even when English or American Socialists declare for the State they mean the same as German Socialists in declaring against it. Both denounce the paternal State, both favour a truly democratic, collectivist organisation of the people.

It is for the same reason that all Socialists are working for the decentralisation of government. ‘They wish to transfer functions from central governments to local political units, in order that the business of the people may be near the people. County Councils, Local Government bills, are supported by all Socialists. Fora further consideration of this point see chapter xy., ‘‘ Objections to Socialism ”.

(2) SOCIALISM IS NOT THE REGIMENTATION OF SOCIETY.

Mr. Sidney Webb says: “‘ It seems almost impossible to bring people to understand that the abstract word Socialism denotes, like radicalism, not an elaborate plan of society, but a principle of social action”. He points out that Socialism inevitably suffers if identified with any particular scheme, or even with the best vision we can yet form of collectivism itself. People become so much concerned with details, he tells us, that they miss the principle. “They cannot see the forest for the trees.” The moment will never come when we can say, ‘‘ Now Socialism is established,” for Socialism is not a status but a life. Society is not to be run intoit asa mould. Socialism is evolutionary, though the evolution may be a gradual and peaceful revolution. This evolutionary character of Socialism is its marked modern aspect. Fifty years ago Socialism was utopian. Owen, St. Simon, Fourier, Cabet, all had their ideal Utopias into which they would have run society. Many of these Utopias were tried in various local communities in America, Some of these still exist, but are slowly dying. Commencing mainly with German Socialism, modern European

IO Handbook of Soctalism.

Socialism has, as a movement, outgrown this utopian stage. It was a necessary stage. All great ideas are born in Utopia. But movements, as well as men, outgrow cradles, and European Socialism is now evolutionary, though revolutionary, and is not utopian. In America Socialism, being a younger movement, has scarcely outgrown its utopian stage. Nationalism may be said to represent this utopian stage. Zvue Socialism is as flexible in tts system, as it ts definite in its atm. Any system that would carry out its principle is Socialistic. ‘This means that in different countries and under different conditions, Socialism would take very various forms. In Germany to-day it aims at a national development. In France it makes little of the nation, and centres around the commune, or township. In Belgium it comes very near to non-political co-operation, and yet is Socialism, not co-operation. In England it is parliamentary and municipal. In Switzerland it centres around the canton. In the United States it will probably follow the national instinct, and be a federation of industrial and political federations. Socialism, therefore, cannot be identified with any one form of Socialism. It is not Fourierism, nor Marxism, nor Bellamyism, nor the system of any reformer. Characteristic of modern Socialism is the name of Engels’ latest book, Zhe Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science. Says Prof. Ely (Soctalism and Social Reform, p. 175): _ “Socialism is as strong as the strongest presentation which can be made of it. This must be clearly borne in mind by all students of the subject; for in the course of statement and re-statement Socialism will be made stronger than any presentation of it which has ever yet been given. No impartial person can deny this, any more than any such person can deny that it has become stronger in its programme as time has gone on, and this programme has been elaborated and improved.”

(c) SOCIALISM IS NOT CO-OPERATION.

Co-operation in social science means the union of any group of persons, not using government as an instrument, for the purposes

What Socialism ts not. Tr of joint purchase, production, distribution or consumption, on equitable principles and for their mutual benefit. Such groups may, and often do, compete with each other and with the world. They are composed of any persons, no matter where they live, who enter into the co-operation, and may represent a very small fraction of any community. Socialism is the union of the whole of any community for common ownership and management of land or capital; and while it may and often does favour the development of little groups or communes, it is the action of the whole of the community however small, and would not have the groups compete with each other. It would, too, very largely use the democratic State or municipality as an instrument to accomplish its ends, while co-operation fer se would not. Co-operation springs from individuals who unite ; Socialism from the natural or geographical unity of a whole community. Co-operation is usually for specific objects; Socialism would affect all industrial life. The distinction therefore is marked. Yet there is nothing contradictory between the two. Svwcialism is complete industrial co-operation. It has been called the Co-operative Commonwealth. Yet it does not follow that co-operation and Socialism differ simply in degree. ‘There is a qualitative as well as a quantitative difference. They work in different ways—Socialism starting from the community; co-operation from individuals. Hence co-operation is not partial Socialism, or necessarily even a stepping stone towards Socialism. The two are simply not inconsistent. Any Socialist may be a co-operator and any co-operator a Socialist. As a matter of fact, however, most Socialists have objected to co-operation on the ground (1) that it does not recognise the fundamental position and starting point of Socialism, the natural and necessary unity of the whole community; (2) that it would not completely replace the present competitive system, and is therefore reactionary, in absorbing the attention of wageworkers upon gaining a few petty advantages, while blinding them to the great advantages to be gained by Socialism. This opposition, however, is now somewhat modified. The great success of co-operation, particularly in Great Britain and in Belgium, is convincing Socialists of the advantages and immediate benefits to be gained by co-operation, while the recent spread of Socialistic ideas and principles is teaching co-operators the futility of mere co-operation and the necessity of political and Socialistic action. In Belgium, especially, co-operation is being used to raise the funds to spread Socialism (see chapter viti.); while in England the two movements are more and more coming to aid each other, though remaining distinct.

(2) SOCIALISM IS NOT COMMUNISM. .

Socialism and Communism are by some identified. The early Socialists, especially, used the two words synonymously, and by preference used the word Communism. Latterly, however, Communism is less used, and when used is more and more distinguished from Socialism. Socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution ; Communism on Ze in common. Communism makes less of existing political institutions as instruments ; Socialism would very largely use them. It is characteristic of the development that modern Socialism is undergoing that it talks less about Communism, though, perhaps, most Socialists hold Communism in their minds as an ultimate ideal. Says Mr. Kidd, speaking of modern Socialism (Social Revolution, p. 205): “The utopian projects which distinguished the writings of its earlier advocates have disappeared, and even the essential ideals of the movement tend to be kept in the background, to be discussed among the faithful as the ultimate goal, rather than with the adversary as the immediate end of endeavour. We have now not to deal with mere abstract and transcendental theories, but with a clearly defined movement in practical politics.” Socialists are to a man evolutionists. They are coming more and more, therefore, to leave the future to the future. They ask not how life should be organised in the future, whether communal or not. What they ask is that society now own and conduct all industry. Some Socialists are Communists ; some are not. Most Socialists would have all personal effects, clothing, furniture, books and

What Socialism is not. 13 pictures (to a moderate extent), heirlooms, etc., held as private belongings. They would have families and individuals live, either separately, or in common, exactly as they prefer. Socialism proposes the utmost freedom of personal choice in all ways of living. If Socialism produces Communism, it will be because individuals choose it ; Socialism does not require any one mode of life.

(c) SOCIALISM IS NOT ANARCHISM.

Anarchism is of two schoo!s—Individual Anarchism, sometimes called Philosophical Anarchism, or Anarchism Proper, and Anarchist Communism. In this section we consider the former alone. From it Socialism is utterly distinct. Anarchism bases itself upon a philosophy of Individual Sovereignty. Socialism, while believing that it will really ensure the freedom of the individual, vastly more than Anarchism, knows nothing of the philosophy of Individual Sovereignty. It holds this to be a mere philosophical figment of the imagination, having no basis in fact, —a dream, too, in which, as long as one lives, one can never find freedom in reality. As a matter of fact, say Socialists, man is born in society of one kind or another, and cannot escape from that fact ; so that the sooner it is recognised tlie better. Socialism starts from the recognition of this fact, and by giving man the lordship over his social organisation would make him free. Anarchism vainly struggles to abolish the fact ; and thus, aiming at a mirage, must always be nugatory.

‘Differing thus in their philosophy, Socialism and Anarchism differ even more in their methods, Socialists would largely use the State to gain freedom; Anarchists would abolish the State. Government Anarchists define as ‘‘the subjection of the noninvasive individual to an external will” (Tucker), the State as “the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an individual or band of individuals assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area ’”’.

These definitions Socialists cannot accept. States hitherto have been largely invasive, it is true ; but it is a limping logic that declares that therefore they must always be so. Through all history, with exceptions which only prove the rule, States have been growing steadily less invasive, while they are, according to the Anarchists themselves, a mighty power. Which is the wiser, then, to take this mighty and steadily improving force and use it for the service of man, or to throw it away, because it has often been badly used? Natural philosophers could once have made out a stronger case as to the evil properties of electricity than Anarchists make out against the State. Do Anarchists to-day advise the disuse of electricity? No; the terror of man has now become his servant. So with the State. The State is the collective expression of the popular will. No king, no veriest tyrant ever ruled except by the will of the people. Because the popular will has been ignorant and evil, States have been evil. As the popular will grows less invasive under the workings of co-operative industry and freedom of life, so will the State grow less invasive. Socialism would use the State to further freedom ; Anarchism would overthrow the State. Differing thus in their philosophy and in their methods, Anarchism and Socialism, it must be added, do not materially differ in their ultimate aims. Both seek the most absolute freedom for the individual. Many Anarchists would find this in voluntary co-operation; any man, however, unwilling to co-operate being left free to carry on industry by himself, if he can. Socialists would have society through the democratic State carry on industry in co-operative ways, and believe that it will be sure to be so advantageous to all that no one will desire to conduct private undertakings. Some Socialists are so sure of this that they would even allow anybody who desired to conduct private business to do so, convinced that he would soon fail; yet even these people are not Anarchists, because they believe in the State. They are voluntary Socialists. ‘The ultimate aims of Anarchism and Socialism are thus not so far apart, though their ways of reaching them be utterly distinct. In Germany, in France, in England, in the United States, in all countries, Socialism is a political movement, obeying law, supporting government, respecting life. Anarchism in all countries despises politics,

What Socialism 1s not. 15 breaks law, plots against government, makes life unsafe. Socialism is peaceable, orderly, fraternal. Anarchism is a confessed self-seeking that knows no law.

(/) SocIALISM IS NOT ANARCHIST COMMUNISM.

Anarchist Communism is the theory that “all things belong to all; and, provided that men and women contribute their share of labour for the production of necessary objects, they are entitled to their share of all that is produced by the community”. This is to be realised not in the name of religion or of the State, ‘‘ but in the name of the people” (Kropotkine). It claims to spring, like Philosophical Anarchism, from the doctrine of Individual Sovereignty, though the Philosophical Anarchists do not allow this claim ; and it is hard to see how it can be substantiated, since if the individual be sovereign, why may he not own private property, if he can hold it, as the Philosophical Anarchists indeed consistently do allow, but which is contrary to the creed of Anarchist Communism? With these inconsistencies, however, we have not here to do. If Anarchist Communism does spring from the philosophy of Individual Sovereignty, Socialism differs from it fundamentally as from all Anarchism. In any case it wholly differs from its methods. Anarchist Communism, like all Anarchism, would overthrow the State. As a matter of fact, it is far more revolutionary in point of deed than Individual Anarchism. The Individual Anarchists have no scruples against using physical force; but they are wise enough to see that they are too few, at present at least, to use force successfully, and so they only resort to the dynamite of ideas. The Anarchist Communists, however, from the days of Bakunin to the present of Ravachol and Cesario Santo, and including Kropotkine and Reclus, quite as truly as Louise Michel and Vaillant, have glorified physical force, and magnified ‘“‘the propaganda of the deed”. Almost all the recent dynamiters and political assassins of Europe and America have been Anarchist Communists. Such methods Socialists utterly abhor. How near Socialism would come to Communism, how completely Socialists desire the freedom of the individual, we have seen ; but in the way of obtaining it, Socialism and Anarchism of all kinds are as different as light and darkness.