against man for private gain. The aim of Socialism is the fulfilment of service, the aim of Individualism is the attainment of some personal advantage, riches, or place, or fame. 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 interest will in the end secure public welfare" ("Socialism," pp. 3-4).

Now, it seems to me that to dissociate the term Socialism from the forms in which Socialism has manifested itself in history, and to claim it for nobler uses than to express what is distinctive of them, is too generous. What we really need the term for is to designate a species of actual schemes; and to define it aright we must understand by it what is characteristic of all schemes of that species. If nothing but good be admitted into the definition of the term, while the chief or only historical schemes which have an unquestioned right to the name are essentially evil, these schemes must derive from the name and its definition a credit and advantage to which they are not entitled. And if we are thus generous to Socialism we must be less than just to Individualism. Conceiving of it as the opposite of a system wholly good, we must regard it as a system wholly evil. An Individualism which views individuals as entirely unconnected and independent, which excludes co-operation, which deems the good of one as important as the good of many or all, is one which I cannot find to have existed. A Socialism which really regards humanity as an organic whole will also be difficult to discover. In its two great forms of Communism and Collectivism, Socialism is of all economic and political systems the one which most manifestly treats humanity as merely a mass or sum of individuals. The "society" to which it sacrifices individuals is just the majority of individuals. What it aims at is not the realisation of that true ideal of society which Bishop Westcott calls Socialism; it is not the attainment of the highest good of the whole and of every one in relation to the whole, but the attainment of the equal good of all, however much sacrifice of the exceptional and higher good. of any may be required for that purpose. Socialism as an historical reality demands the equality of individuals in regard to means, opportunities, labour, and enjoyment. It directly

appeals to the egoism and selfishness of the great majority of individuals. In the words of Mr. Bosanquet, "the basis of Socialism is as yet individualistic, the State being regarded, not as a society organic to good life, but as a machine subservient to the individual's needs quâ individual." But, it may be said, does that not of itself justify the employment of the term to signify the true theory of society? It seems to me that it does not, and for two reasons: first, because it is not in itself desirable to designate the true theory of society an ism; and second, because those who maintain an erroneous theory of society are in actual possession of the name Socialists, and will not forego their right to retain it. Therefore, I think, we ought to restrict the term Socialism as much as we can to their creed. That the term is already far too widely and vaguely used needs no other proof than the number of men recognised as eminently wise who have been befooled by it to such an extent as to tell us that " we are all Socialists now."

The following definitions may be added :-"We call Socialism every doctrine which affirms that it is the office of the State to correct the inequality of wealth which exists among men, and to re-establish by law equilibrium, by taking from those who have too much in order to give to those who have not enough, and that in a permanent manner, and not in such and such a particular case, a famine, for instance, or a public catastrophe, &c." (P. Janet, "Les Origines du Socialisme Contemporain," p. 67).—" In the first place, every Socialistic doctrine aims at introducing greater equality into social conditions; and secondly, it tries to realise these reforms by the action of the law or the State (E. Laveleye, "Socialism of To-day," p. xv.). "The word xv.).—"The Socialism has but one signification: it denotes a doctrine which demands the suppression of the proletariat and the complete remission of wealth and power into the hands of the community (collectivité)." (T. De Wyzewa, "Le Mouvement Socialiste," p. 111.) Socialism is the economic philosophy of the suffering classes." (H. v. Scheel in "Schönbergs Handb, der pol. Oekonomie," Bd. i. 107.)

CHAPTER II.

HISTORY OF SOCIALISM.

If we desire to form an intelligent estimate of Socialism we should not fail to take due account of its history. Here I can only make a few, seemingly indispensable, remarks on that history.*

We have of late years heard much about Primitive Socialism. I object to the designation whenever it is used to imply that Socialism was the primitive condition of man. We do not know what the primitive condition of man was. Recent science and research have enabled us to see much farther back into the past than our forefathers could, but they have not yet reached results which entitle us either to affirm or deny that history began with Socialism.

Two views of Primitive Socialism are prevalent, and they are essentially different, delineating two distinct social states, one of which only can have

* Of histories of Socialism, Malon's "Histoire du Socialisme," a fivevolumed work, is the fullest of information. In English, Rae's "Contemporary Socialism," Laveleye's "Socialism of To-day" (translated), Graham's "Socialism New and Old," and Kirkup's "History of Socialism," are all valuable. Rudolph Meyer's "Emancipationskampf des Vierten Standes," 2 vols., is a laborious compilation of facts, and rich in documentary sources. Reybaud, Stein, Thonissen, Franck, Janet, Jäger, Adler, and many others have done good work as historians of the socialistic movement.

been primitive, while both might be secondary, the one as a stage of degradation and the other as a stage of improvement. According to McLennan, Lubbock, and a host of other scientists, humanity was cradled in a coarse and brutal Communism. In their view, the earliest human societies knew neither a separate family life nor private property, being ignorant of any other laws than those of inclination and force. If this representation of man's first estate be correct we have only to congratulate ourselves that Primitive Socialism lies so far behind us, for it was not only man's earliest but his lowestand least human condition.

What is most generally meant by Primitive Socialism, however, is a much higher state, one comparatively moral and civilised. Greek and Roman poets sang of a golden age, when poverty and avarice were unknown, when there was no violence or fraud, and when all things were in abundance and in common. It is now claimed that modern historical investigation has discovered this golden age of ancient tradition, and that it is the true Primitive Socialism. Maurer, Maine, and many others, have exhibited a vast amount of evidence, tending to prove that in the history of every country inhabited by any division of the Aryan race, and of not a few countries lying beyond the Aryan area, there was a time when the soil was distributed among groups of self-styled kinsmen, and when private property in land was scarcely known or was non-existent. A very attractive and popular view of the evidence for this conclusion has

been given by M. Laveleye in his well-known work on "Primitive Property." In a general way this historical theory seems legitimately and satisfactorily established. But closer study is revealing that it has been presented too absolutely, and accepted without due criticism and limitation. Much which Laveleye calls collective property might more properly be called collective tenancy; and much which he calls primitive is probably not very old, and owed its existence largely to the fact that in turbulent times kings and chiefs could have got nothing out of isolated individuals; that only communities could cultivate land and pay taxes or yield services. There is no evidence that the land of the world was ever distributed among peaceful agricultural communities, entirely independent of lords and masters, within or without the community.* On the other hand, the theory which represented private property in land to have been always and everywhere recognised and in force is now entirely discredited. Property in movables naturally preceded property in land; and the collective tenure of land generally preceded, perhaps, its individual tenure.

The stage of society in which land was occupied by communities, not individuals, was one in which men scarcely existed as individuals. The law and the religion which corresponded to it knew next to

In the latest (fourth) edition of his "De la Propriété et de ses Formes Primitives," 1891, M. Laveleye replied carefully, and at considerable length, to the objections of Fustel de Coulanges, Denman Ross, and other critics of his theory; but not, I think, conclusively.