ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

for it; but it can appeal to private individuals to supplement public appropriations, to raise salaries if they are inadequate for the best work on the part of the professors, to provide more abundantly books and apparatus, and especially to endow those departments the importance of which is not generally sufficiently appreciated.

Classical philology might be cited as an instance. An American legislature rarely appreciates the importance of classical studies; but a right-minded man of wealth, knowing their value, might give them a firm foundation in a State university by adequate endowment. It would seem, then, that we shall achieve better results if we have the possibility of a co-operation of individual effort with the public effort, than if we rely exclusively upon what the public, as such, is willing to do; for it must be borne in mind that socialism, even if moderate and conservative, would ultimately reduce incomes to such an extent that no one person could do very much out of his own resources to carry forward the work of society.

What we need everywhere in modern society, and especially in the United States, is a natural aristocracy, by which we mean an aristocracy of merit. Provision may conceivably be made for a true aristocracy in the structure of government itself. Such is to some extent the case in countries like England and Germany, although in both countries the so-called aristocracy is largely based upon artificial distinctions, and has no real foundations in superiority of talent or services. Nevertheless, we do find that, on the whole, in these countries, and especially in Germany, those who have control of government show considerable appreciation of the higher goods of life. They know the value of art, of letters, of

the highest education, and are well aware of the fact that public expenditure for the encouragement of the higher fruits of civilization yields large return to the tax-payer. The public authorities of Germany know the importance, for example, of investigation in universities, and understand that quality in work means more than quantity. They know also how essential it is to work of the best sort, that professors should enjoy freedom in instruction and research, and also permanent positions with assured income.

This merely offers one illustration of many which might be adduced. Now, the point which we must bear in mind is this: If the structure of government itself does not furnish scope for a true aristocracy, then a place outside the government must be found to give to true aristocracy opportunity to exercise the beneficent influence which belongs to it. And we must not by any means underrate that cultivation of the finer forms and graces of life which is one part of the functions of a true aristocracy. We must only insist that those who have great social opportunities should not use them selfishly, but generously for the public weal.

A wise truth for the guidance of society was offered by Christ in these words, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him much will be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." 1

All this is naturally opposed to a false and most pernicious doctrine of equality. A full recognition of the actual and, indeed, marvellous inequalities among men, in their natural capacities as well as requirements, must tend to mitigate the hardships and injustice which are

1 St. Luke xii, 48.

apt to accompany actual inequalities. If all men claim that they are naturally equal, then the logical conclusion is that they should be all treated equally. But as a wellknown jurist has said: "Nothing can be more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals." The result of a failure to recognize natural inequalities is seen in those judicial decisions which break down beneficent labor legislation on the ground that it interferes with free contract. It is assumed that the feeble, and perhaps half starved, working girl, occupies a position of substantial equality with her powerful millionaire employer, and that she is able to guard her own interests in labor contracts.

The law of population is regarded by many as a fatal objection to socialism. It is generally held that guaranteed incomes, and assured support for one's family as well as one's self, would lead to an excessive growth of population from which all would suffer. At the present time, the very conditions of life impose restrictions upon the growth of population. What, under socialism, would take the place of these conditions, which are often very hard? Experience shows that under favorable circumstances population is capable of doubling itself at least once in twenty-five years; and this would lead to an overpopulation of the world in a very short time, and in a few centuries would fill the world with so many people that there would not be standing-room for any more.

It is easy to say that the increase of population brings new hands and consequently additional productive power,

1 "Man weiss eben heute, dass es keine grössere Ungleichheit gibt, als das Ungleiche gleich zu behandeln." Prof. Anton Menger in "Das bürgerliche Recht und die besitzlosen Volksklassen," Archiv für soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik, Bd. II. § 20.

but it is only up to a certain point that additional labor power increases production proportionately.

Much may be said about this principle of population, and certain contrary tendencies, which, it is alleged, make the fear of over-population groundless. Certain authors assert that, as men develop intellectually, the rate of population tends to decrease. Others claim that it is the wretched and miserable who add most recklessly to the present population, and that material prosperity, in itself, checks the growth of population. Still others suggest artificial remedies. It is also urged that public opinion would be an adequate restraining force. It must be said. that the principle of population has not yet been sufficiently discussed, and that we are still much in the dark in regard to the possibilities which it carries with it, under this or that social system.

Certainly there is more than room on the earth for all who now live upon it; and were society well organized, the population might increase rapidly for some time without disaster. On the other hand, we cannot, in our plans of social reconstruction, safely neglect the dangers and disadvantages of an excessively large population.'

1 Cf. "Die Stellung der Sozialisten zur Malthus'schen Bevölkerungslehre," by Heinrich Soetbeer, and "The Evolution of Sex," by Patrick Geddes and J. Arthur Thomson, chap. xx.

CHAPTER VIII.

OTHER OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM

We have now considered the most serious objections to socialism; and chief among these are the tendencies to revolutionary dissatisfaction which it would be likely to carry with it; the difficulties in the way of the organization of several important factors of production under socialism, notably agriculture; difficulties in the way of determining any standard of distributive justice that would be generally acceptable, and at the same time would enlist the whole-hearted services of the most gifted and talented members of the community; and finally, the danger that the requirements of those persons engaged in higher pursuits would be under-estimated, and the importance of those occupations which contribute most to the advancement of civilization should fail to secure adequate appreciation. These we should call the four main weaknesses of socialism. If socialism could overcome the difficulties which have already been mentioned, perhaps a multitude of others could also be satisfactorily surmounted. Socialists are not, we must confess, altogether wrong in their position that they cannot be expected to solve in advance all the difficult problems of a new society, and that it will be time to meet difficulties when they arise. It is true that if we are persuaded in regard to the main features of socialism, we can make the claim that we can only be required to meet the problems which immediately present them.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »