STUDIES IN SOCIALISM.-II.

[BY CHAS. MALEY.]

HAVING briefly reviewed the literature of the period of Utopian socialism, we cannot expect a sudden and definite change into the socialism of the scientific period. There must necessarily be a transition period, and in Morelly's "Basiliade" we find a beginning of this. This work, often referred to as the Utopia of the Revolution, appeared in 1753. In it we have no longer mere socialistic dreams and imaginings, but a system based on natural principles. The writer, like his predecessors, insists upon the abolition of private property, the establishment of absolute equality, and an abandonment of the errors and sins of civilisation. Private property he defines as " the mother of all crimes," and private interest as " the universal pest, the slow fever, or consumptive disease of society and, again quoting from Rousseau, he says : —" The land belongs to no one person, but to all ; all that an individual acquires beyond the means of subsistence is a social theft."

In the initial stages of the French Revolution we have the Declaration of the Rights of Man. This is socialistic to the core. It declares that all men are born and remain free and equal, and that social distinctions are purely conventional and only admissible when necessary for public utility ; that society is an association of men to preserve the natural rights of men ; that all sovereignty is vested naturally in the people, and can only rightly be vested in an individual or in a body of men when so delegated by the people. This was theory ; but what about practice ! The people proceeded to make it a matter of experiment, and there followed the greatest war of conflicting interests the world had ever known. Anarchy was for ever discredited. Men could see that something was needed to give cohesion to society, to restore harmony to national life, and then was born socialism as we know it to-day; in fact, the work of socialism is, and has been ever since, to secure the fruits and supplement the work of the Revolution.

We come now to the three prophets of the new socialistic dispensation, St. Simon, Fourier, and Owen.
An aristocrat of the aristocrats by birth, St. Simon nevertheless bestowed his sympathies on the people. As an aristocrat, he had suffered imprisonment and loss of fortune at the hands of the people, so that his predilections would naturally have run in the opposite direction. He voiced the teachings of socialism with no uncertain sound. He says:—"The industrial class ought to occupy the first rank because it can do without the others, whilst they cannot dispense with its services, because it subsists on its own strength, its personal worth. The other classes ought to work for it since they are its creatures and owe their existence to it. The highest point of civilisation can only be reached when the industrial class, on which the existence of society depends, shall have attained to the highest position in the commonwealth." The great underlying principles of his creed are a deep, strong faith in social evolution and an equally strong faith in the forces of Christianity as an aid to social reform. He believed that without the inspiration of religion there could be no perfect enthusiasm, and that without enthusiasm men could never do grand things.

In St. Simon we have the striking spectacle of an aristocrat of the ancient régime preaching the aristocracy of labor ; equally striking is the spectacle of Fourier, the man of the middle class, the representative of commerce, proclaiming that commerce is the curse of civilisation, and that merchants are but swarms of vultures. I must confess myself anything but an admirer of his philosophy : but I cannot deny his grasp of social questions. I suppose there is not a genuine worker on the Barrier to-day who will not agree with him that the present industrial condition is only "a social contract founded on hunger and bayonets." His theory of selection is admirable, but all attempts to reduce it to practice have resulted in failure. He teaches that labor is in itself attractive; that men only dislike work because their appointed tasks are uncongenial; that a man who follows his natural instincts in this direction will fulfil his destiny. Men should, he says, form themselves into groups according to their natural tastes, and these groups should be formed into series, and so on; and then labor would become charming rather than repulsive, and friendly rivalry would do the work of competition. In this way he works out a plan for the formation of the "Industrial Phalanx," the "Phalanstere," and the " Commune." Fourier's weakness seems to me to be that he ignores historical continuity, that he disowns evolution, that he seems to hope for a sudden and radical change which from social chaos shall produce kosmos.

Robert Owen's great aim was the reorganisation of society on a moral basis. His practical, business-like methods, his strong individuality, his inflexible persistence of character secured for him a large measure of success. He was a cotton spinner, and became in 1789 the manager of a factory in Scotland, of which he subsequently became proprietor. Having amassed a considerable fortune, he proceeded to spend it in promoting his scheme of social reform. We must remember the social unrest in the midst of which he lived. The workers were having their first experiences of the displacement of men by machinery ; bad times in Ireland had filled the English market with Irish labor ; wages were very low ; distress prevailed in town and country ; agitation was rife ; and even organised riots were not unknown Owen was deeply impressed by the miseries of the workers, and devoted himself to their cause. Co-operation seemed to him to be the best method for reconciling the interests of capital and labor. At this stage his views were simply philanthropical ; but the logic of facts and the lessons of experience subsequently converted him to socialism. Houses which admitted of decency and comfort were built for his employees; stores were opened where they were supplied at wholesale prices; a common dining hall materially reduced the expense of cooking, &c. Children under ten years of age were prohibited from working in his factories ; creches were provided where young children might be cared for during the day; infant schools were established ; in short, everything was done that could be done to make the lives of the people a little less brutal, a little more human. Owen held that as man was made by heredity, environment, and development, the best social policy was to educate the young, surround them with the beet possible associations, and train them to participate in social life. The success of his plans was so great that thousands visited Lanark to study this new social scheme. Having succeeded so far, Owen attempted to found a commune on a larger scale. He went to America, where he founded the settlement of "New Harmony." The failure of this venture was as striking as was the success of the previous one ; and it has been accounted for in various ways by many writers. Owen himself attributed it to the individualistic tendencies which were almost instinctive in men brought up as his followers had been, and which were not as easily eradicable as he had imagined. Practically his explanation was that heredity and association had really left in these men no chance of a thorough conversion from individualism. There is no doubt that Owen's religious opinions and the personal unpopularity that sprang from them had much influence in frustrating this as well as other schemes which he set afoot.

In these three, then— St. Simon, Fourier, and Owen— we recognise the pioneers of modern socialism. The diversity of their views and of their writings was as strongly marked as were their strong individualities, and each may be regarded as the father of a distinct school of thought. Those who are familiar with the algebraic demonstrations of Carl Marx will find their prototype in the mathematical methods of Fourier. St. Simon, with his evolutionary theories, was the predecessor of Deville, La Fargue, and Engels, the great exponents of the doctrines of social evolution. Owen's great theories were the brotherhood of man and the importance of environment, and we see the influence of his work in the rapid growth of international socialism which is going on to-day. In spite of these diversities they all hold to common fundamental principles. They are agreed as to the injustice of existing conditions, the equality of man, the dignity of labor the sovereignty of the people, the rottenness of hereditary aristocracy. Their views have been aptly summarised by Lamennais :— " A patrician caste, nobility, royalty, all prerogative not resting on its own merits, and professing to be independent of the practically popular sovereignty, is an assault on society, a revolutionary usurpation, the germ at least of tyranny."

Space will not allow me to deal with the lesser lights of the transition period, to do more than mention Pierre Leroux, Lamennais, Enfantin, Cabet and others. Here we leave the history of pre-scientific socialism.

 Barrier Miner 30/4/1895,