was paternal in the extreme; it lacked the advantages of modern production, and would be altogether abhorrent to the modern socialist. Curiously enough, one writer adduces the remark of a traveller, who visited Paraguay when under the socialistic régime, that he saw there many discontented faces, as a serious argument against socialism. One may walk down the street of any great American or English city and discover plenty of discontented faces; but he would be regarded as a strange man who, on this account, would want to overthrow the existing social order.

The allegation is made that under socialism there would be no provision for doing the disagreeable work which is socially necessary. We have already seen, however, that there would be reason to anticipate that if socialism could be made to work at all, far more of the disagreeable work than at present would be performed by machinery. Moreover, much of the work which is now considered unpleasant is so esteemed because of the associations which form no necessary part of it. Hoeing corn is not unpleasant work; on the contrary, it is agreeable work when not continued too many hours a day, say not over eight or ten, and when hoeing corn gives one agreeable companionship. When an educated and cultured man, however, finds that hoeing corn brings him the constant and exclusive companionship of uneducated and degraded men like, for example, the ignorant negroes of the far South, it becomes most intensely disagreeable. It is the associations of work which, so far as nearly all work is concerned, render it agreeable or disagreeable, provided, of course, one is strong and well and is not overtaxed. Should there remain still some work positively disagreeable, it would not seem, after all, unfair

that this should be distributed to a certain extent among all the members of the community, rather than heaped upon a few wretched individuals, who thus have to bear disproportionate burdens. It does not seem fair that one class should be made wretched for the sake of the community as a whole, unless it is absolutely necessary, in order that the work of civilization may go forward. It cannot be claimed, however, that there is any social necessity for this concentration of disagreeable work upon a few.

All this reminds one of the argument against socialism so current in Germany, which is called by that tremendous name, "das allgemeine Stiefelputzen müssen." This means simply that every one must black his own shoes. Will it, after all, interfere with the highest development of culture if each one should black his own shoes? The scholar in Germany rarely, if ever, performs this service for himself; but in America he ordinarily does it, and it would probably be hard to find an American scholar who would say that he found the performance of this task a serious obstacle in the way of the fullest unfolding of all his powers. We are reminded of the question which Abraham Lincoln put to the Englishman who told him. that in England no gentleman blacked his own boots. "Whose boots does he black then?" ▲

Another current objection to socialism is that it will not know how to deal with the idle. We have already seen, however, that socialism alone proposes the complete abolition of the idle classes. So far as the idle poor are concerned, we do not hesitate in present society to send them to the penitentiary, or, in the South, to put them

1 For some sensible remarks on this subject see "Die soziale Frage eine sittliche Frage," by Prof. Theobald Ziegler, p. 177.

in the chain gang when they become paupers and tramps. We do not hesitate to apply whatever physical force may be required to make a man work now, if he lacks the means of subsistence, and it cannot be necessary to apply greater compulsion under socialism. Socialists, however, hope that the desire of men to lead idle lives will disappear, or nearly so. The one who looks at this question with cold impartiality will hardly be inclined. to share the enthusiastic hopes of the majority of socialists in this respect; but, at the same time, it is instructive to learn that in the communistic settlements idleness has been one of the least difficult factors with which their members have had to contend.

These illustrations of fallacious arguments against socialism serve to throw light, it is hoped, upon the true nature of the problem with which we are confronted, and to clear the ground for those serious objections to socialism which seem to very many to be decisive against its proposals.

CHAPTER III.

SOCIALISM TOO OPTIMISTIC WITH RESPECT TO THE FUTURE, AND TOO PESSIMISTIC WITH

RESPECT TO THE PRESENT.

BEFORE we consider special objections to socialism, we will direct our attention to those of the most general character. First of all, certain weaknesses in socialism as ordinarily presented will be noticed, which objections do not, of necessity, adhere to socialism in itself.

If the question is asked, what is necessary to establish socialism, the answer cannot be difficult. It must be shown that socialism, while having its difficulties and its objectionable features, is, on the whole, preferable to the existing social order, both with respect to its characteristics when once introduced, and with respect to its promises for the future. It is conceivable, for example, that although socialism may be better than the present order when first introduced, it may not have in it the same potentiality of further improvement. This brings us to the first valid objection which may be urged against socialism, in its ordinary presentation at least. It is both too optimistic and too pessimistic. It is too optimistic with respect to the future, holding that conditions will be introduced which, on sober examination, seem incompatible with the existence of human beings upon an earth like ours. On the other hand, socialism is too pessimistic, as ordinarily presented, with respect to our present social order. The evils of our present system are

vast enough, and every effort to remove them, or to increase the good in the world, deserves cordial approbation. But it may not by any means be affirmed that the present order is without its bright side. If there is a most wretched class, the submerged tenth, there is also a very large class whose needs are fairly well satisfied, and along many lines there has been decided improvement, which is still in progress.

Socialism is too optimistic with respect to the possibilities of wealth creation under socialism. Socialists describe a condition of things in which everyone shall enjoy all those comforts and conveniences which now fall to the lot alone of those whom we regard as wealthy. The possibility of living in a condition of what would now be called luxury is held out to the masses as an inducement to adopt socialism. The necessary limits to the production of wealth found in external nature and in the possibilities of social organization are overlooked. There is no difficulty, to be sure, in regard to the production of cotton or wheat. There is reason to suppose that it is possible to supply all human beings with all that they can need of certain staple articles, although it becomes apparent that this means an immense extension of production, when one reflects upon the millions of human beings whose elementary wants are unsatisfied. There are articles of ordinary consumption which could not, without great difficulty, be so increased that all human beings, even in what are now the civilized parts of the world, could enjoy as much as they would like, or, let us say, equal the consumption of the wealthy at the present time. Meat might be mentioned as one of these articles. The production of meat requires an extensive use of natural resources, and with all the improvements