STUDIES IN SOCIALISM.

[BY CHAS. MALEY.]

SOCIALISM is very commonly regarded as an entirely modern thing. That this conception is wrong is evident on reflection. Whenever man first felt the pressure of social inequality and injustice, and began to devise methods for bettering social conditions, there was socialism of its kind. and in its degree. Hence it must be nearly as old as human society, for very early in the social history of the world men revolted against unfair social pressure, and in their dim, blundering way they did that which seemed to them to promise reform. It follows, then, that no one can make an exhaustive study of socialism without studying the history of social development and the social evils and the attempts at reform which have marked that history. Socialism has its literature, ancient and modern ; its exponents have been the intellectual giants of the ages.

Socialism may be divided into two periods—one long, often dark, counting from a venerable antiquity to comparatively modern times; the other ranging from the close of that to our own days. The socialism of the former period may be regarded as Utopian ; that of the latter as scientific.

The literature of Utopian socialism for the most part takes the form of socialistic fiction.

Plato, inspired by a study of Pythagorean doctrines, wrote his "Republic," the first book given to the world in which the principles of State socialism were laid down. He portrayed an ideal commonwealth, where social conditions were based on justice, where private interests were held subservient to the common good, and where universal virtue led to universal happiness. He stated clearly and unequivocally that wealth is a great national blessing, to be striven for by all lawful methods, but that private capitalism is a monstrous evil, eating out the vitals of industry by usury, and multiplying the drones on the one hand and the beggars on the other. His proposed remedy was the abolition of private property. He very clearly brought out the two different aspects of socialism, the one showing the duty of the State to the individual, the other the duty of the individual to the State.

In the study of Roman history we find that immense wealth and almost unlimited slavery were two of the most important factors in working the destruction of the empire. Immense landed properties were worked by slaves, and so the small farmers were destroyed in a hopeless competition, while many capitalists established large factories worked entirely by slave labor, and so the small tradesman was destroyed. Then, as now, there were agitators, and one of these, Titus Gracchus, said, in a stirring address on the agrarian troubles of the day:—" The wild beasts of Italy have their dens to retire to, but the brave men who spill their blood in her cause have nothing left but air and light;" and, further, in reference to private ownership of land, he asks the great question which if agitating the minds of the masses to-day, "Is it not just that what belongs to the people should be shared by the people?" One of the best commentators on Roman history, referring to these troublous times, says " Capitalism becoming omnipotent ruined the middle class, and this despite of unparalleled advances in commercial and economical prosperity which only served as a gloss and varnish to hide the moral and political corruption in the State." It is a striking fact that nearly all the terms in common use amongst socialists an of Latin origin, and originated in that troubled age, as, for instance agitation, private property, proletariat, communism, expropriation, &c.

Into the darkness of Roman heathenism came the light of the gospel which very materially influenced the current of social movements. Equality brotherhood, self-sacrifice based on love were the basis of spiritual life and men began to see that equally they should form the moral basis of social life. We are apt to sneer at the Church as allying itself with Capital, but the fact is indisputable that in many rough, rude age the Church was the only buffer between the tyranny of the oppressor and the sufferings of the oppressed, and certainly the teaching of the early fathers of the Church are condemnatory of the accumulation of private property.

To come to a late date, More's Utopia is regarded by many socialists as the first historic landmark of modern socialism. Certainly it embodies the protest of the men of his time against the inequality and injustice of then existing social conditions. It emphasises the fact that capitalism and militaryism are the joint cause of luxurious indolence in the upper classes and abject poverty in the lower, that the destruction of peasant proprietorship, the confiscation of church property, monopoly, an over-taxation are the sources of legalised injustice, of crime, and vagabondage. Erasmus, in the same age, teaches that " Christian charity knows nothing of private property and that " the Christian should regard his property as the common property of all."

Campanella, the friend of Galileo, was naturally impressed by the scientific awakening in which the latter so largely shared, and his socialistic conceptions were much influenced thereby. Hence we are not surprised that his ideal state was called the "City of the Sun." He held that science and religion working hand in hand would regenerate society. Like More, he advocated State ownership of property and limitation of the hours of labor. To education he looked as an indispensable aid in the effort to bring about social equality. Even Lord Bacon, the father of inductive scientific methods, had his dream of a Utopia. His "New Atlantis" combined the character of " Plato " up date, with a marvellous anticipation the ideas of Walter Besant. All his reliance was placed on scientific principles, which he regarded as all sufficient in the work of reform. Coming down the stream, we find every period has its socialistic agitators and its socialistic writers.

A bare list of books and authors would profit little, and so we pass them by for the most part silently. One, however, merits special notice. Mezlier, a priest by profession but a sceptic at heart, during his lifetime made no public exposition of his views, but he recorded them to be published posthumously. His book, " The Testament," was published in 1773 and at once made a powerful impression. Voltaire's abridgment of this work, published 29 years later, was even more favorably received. It dealt with the mistakes of Governments, the dangers of indolence and luxury, the unjust burdens of the poor, and social wrongs generally. He insists that the earth "produces at all times enough and even in abundance for, the purpose and support of necessary requirements," and that if a proper use were made of things " everybody would have enough to live in peace, and no one would want the necessaries of existence."

Now, all these Utopias have one great basal principle, they picture a sudden and unexplained development of virtue in society, working in prince, peer, and peasant alike, and causing perfect social institutions to rise like exhalations, as the walls of ancient Troy

" Rose slowly to a music slowly breathed.

A cloud that gathered shape."

But social reforms are never accomplished by magic, the stern, remorseless forces of evolution must have their course, and we no longer dream of Utopias : we seek by scientific methods to guide and control the forces of evolution, to

"Grasp the skirts of happy chance.

And breast the blows of circumstance,

And grapple with our evil star."

 23/4/1895 Barrier Miner, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article44172468