as in all proposals for change there are two elements to be considered—that which is to be changed, and that which it is to be changed to—so in socialism considered generally, and in each of its varieties taken separately, there are two parts to be distinguished, the one negative and critical, the other constructive. there is, first, the judgment of socialism on existing institutions and practices and on their results; and secondly, the various plans which it has propounded for doing better. in the former all the different schools of socialism are at one. they agree almost to identity in the faults which they find with the economical order of existing society. up to a certain point also they entertain the same general conception of the remedy to be provided for those faults; but in the details, notwithstanding this general agreement, there is a [24]wide disparity. it will be both natural and convenient, in attempting an estimate of their doctrines, to begin with the negative portion which is common to them all, and to postpone all mention of their differences until we arrive at that second part of their undertaking, in which alone they seriously differ.
this first part of our task is by no means difficult; since it consists only in an enumeration of existing evils. of these there is no scarcity, and most of them are by no means obscure or mysterious. many of them are the veriest commonplaces of moralists, though the roots even of these lie deeper than moralists usually attempt to penetrate. so various are they that the only difficulty is to make any approach to an exhaustive catalogue. we shall content ourselves for the present with mentioning a few of the principal. and let one thing be remembered by the reader. when item after item of the enumeration passes before him, and he finds one fact after another which he has been accustomed to include among the necessities of nature urged [25]as an accusation against social institutions, he is not entitled to cry unfairness, and to protest that the evils complained of are inherent in man and society, and are such as no arrangements can remedy. to assert this would be to beg the very question at issue. no one is more ready than socialists to admit—they affirm it indeed much more decidedly than truth warrants—that the evils they complain of are irremediable in the present constitution of society. they propose to consider whether some other form of society may be devised which would not be liable to those evils, or would be liable to them in a much less degree. those who object to the present order of society, considered as a whole and who accept as an alternative the possibility of a total change, have a right to set down all the evils which at present exist in society as part of their case, whether these are apparently attributable to social arrangements or not, provided they do not flow from physical laws which human power is not adequate, or human knowledge has not yet learned, to counteract. moral evils [26]and such physical evils as would be remedied if all persons did as they ought, are fairly chargeable against the state of society which admits of them; and are valid as arguments until it is shown that any other state of society would involve an equal or greater amount of such evils. in the opinion of socialists, the present arrangements of society in respect to property and the production and distribution of wealth, are as means to the general good, a total failure. they say that there is an enormous mass of evil which these arrangements do not succeed in preventing; that the good, either moral or physical, which they realize is wretchedly small compared with the amount of exertion employed, and that even this small amount of good is brought about by means which are full of pernicious consequences, moral and physical.
first among existing social evils may be mentioned the evil of poverty. the institution of property is upheld and commended principally as being the means by which labor and frugality are insured their reward, and mankind enabled [27]to emerge from indigence. it may be so; most socialists allow that it has been so in earlier periods of history. but if the institution can do nothing more or better in this respect than it has hitherto done, its capabilities, they affirm, are very insignificant. what proportion of the population, in the most civilized countries of europe, enjoy in their own persons anything worth naming of the benefits of property? it may be said, that but for property in the hands of their employers they would be without daily bread; but, though this be conceded, at least their daily bread is all that they have; and that often in insufficient quantity; almost always of inferior quality; and with no assurance of continuing to have it at all; an immense proportion of the industrious classes being at some period or other of their lives (and all being liable to become) dependent, at least temporarily, on legal or voluntary charity. any attempt to depict the miseries of indigence, or to estimate the proportion of mankind who in the most advanced countries are habitually given up during their [28]whole existence to its physical and moral sufferings, would be superfluous here. this may be left to philanthropists, who have painted these miseries in colors sufficiently strong. suffice it to say that the condition of numbers in civilized europe, and even in england and france, is more wretched than that of most tribes of savages who are known to us.
it may be said that of this hard lot no one has any reason to complain, because it befalls those only who are outstripped by others, from inferiority of energy or of prudence. this, even were it true, would be a very small alleviation of the evil. if some nero or domitian was to require a hundred persons to run a race for their lives, on condition that the fifty or twenty who came in hindmost should be put to death, it would not be any diminution of the injustice that the strongest or nimblest would, except through some untoward accident, be certain to escape. the misery and the crime would be that they were put to death at all. so in the economy of society; if there be any who suffer physical privation or [29]moral degradation, whose bodily necessities are either not satisfied or satisfied in a manner which only brutish creatures can be content with, this, though not necessarily the crime of society, is pro tanto a failure of the social arrangements. and to assert as a mitigation of the evil that those who thus suffer are the weaker members of the community, morally or physically, is to add insult to misfortune. is weakness a justification of suffering? is it not, on the contrary, an irresistible claim upon every human being for protection against suffering? if the minds and feelings of the prosperous were in a right state, would they accept their prosperity if for the sake of it even one person near them was, for any other cause than voluntary fault, excluded from obtaining a desirable existence?
one thing there is, which if it could be affirmed truly, would relieve social institutions from any share in the responsibility of these evils. since the human race has no means of enjoyable existence, or of existence at all, but what it derives from its own labor and [30]abstinence, there would be no ground for complaint against society if every one who was willing to undergo a fair share of this labor and abstinence could attain a fair share of the fruits. but is this the fact? is it not the reverse of the fact? the reward, instead of being proportioned to the labor and abstinence of the individual, is almost in an inverse ratio to it: those who receive the least, labor and abstain the most. even the idle, reckless, and ill-conducted poor, those who are said with most justice to have themselves to blame for their condition, often undergo much more and severer labor, not only than those who are born to pecuniary independence, but than almost any of the more highly remunerated of those who earn their subsistence; and even the inadequate self-control exercised by the industrious poor costs them more sacrifice and more effort than is almost ever required from the more favored members of society. the very idea of distributive justice, or of any proportionality between success and merit, or between success and exertion, is in the present state of society so [31]manifestly chimerical as to be relegated to the regions of romance. it is true that the lot of individuals is not wholly independent of their virtue and intelligence; these do really tell in their favor, but far less than many other things in which there is no merit at all. the most powerful of all the determining circumstances is birth. the great majority are what they were born to be. some are born rich without work, others are born to a position in which they can become rich by work, the great majority are born to hard work and poverty throughout life, numbers to indigence. next to birth the chief cause of success in life is accident and opportunity. when a person not born to riches succeeds in acquiring them, his own industry and dexterity have generally contributed to the result; but industry and dexterity would not have sufficed unless there had been also a concurrence of occasions and chances which falls to the lot of only a small number. if persons are helped in their worldly career by their virtues, so are they, and perhaps quite as often, by their vices: by [32]servility and sycophancy, by hard-hearted and close-fisted selfishness, by the permitted lies and tricks of trade, by gambling speculations, not seldom by downright knavery. energies and talents are of much more avail for success in life than virtues; but if one man succeeds by employing energy and talent in something generally useful, another thrives by exercising the same qualities in out-generalling and ruining a rival. it is as much as any moralist ventures to assert, that, other circumstances being given, honesty is the best policy, and that with parity of advantages an honest person has a better chance than a rogue. even this in many stations and circumstances of life is questionable; anything more than this is out of the question. it cannot be pretended that honesty, as a means of success, tells for as much as a difference of one single step on the social ladder. the connection between fortune and conduct is mainly this, that there is a degree of bad conduct, or rather of some kinds of bad conduct, which suffices to ruin any amount of good fortune; but the converse is not true: in [33]the situation of most people no degree whatever of good conduct can be counted upon for raising them in the world, without the aid of fortunate accidents.
these evils, then—great poverty, and that poverty very little connected with desert—are the first grand failure of the existing arrangements of society. the second is human misconduct; crime, vice, and folly, with all the sufferings which follow in their train. for, nearly all the forms of misconduct, whether committed towards ourselves or towards others, may be traced to one of three causes: poverty and its temptations in the many; idleness and des?uvrement in the few whose circumstances do not compel them to work; bad education, or want of education, in both. the first two must be allowed to be at least failures in the social arrangements, the last is now almost universally admitted to be the fault of those arrangements—it may almost be said the crime. i am speaking loosely and in the rough, for a minuter analysis of the sources of faults of character and errors of conduct [34]would establish far more conclusively the filiation which connects them with a defective organization of society, though it would also show the reciprocal dependence of that faulty state of society on a backward state of the human mind.
at this point, in the enumeration of the evils of society, the mere levellers of former times usually stopped; but their more far-sighted successors, the present socialists, go farther. in their eyes the very foundation of human life as at present constituted, the very principle on which the production and repartition of all material products is now carried on, is essentially vicious and anti-social. it is the principle of individualism, competition, each one for himself and against all the rest. it is grounded on opposition of interests, not harmony of interests, and under it every one is required to find his place by a struggle, by pushing others back or being pushed back by them. socialists consider this system of private war (as it may be termed) between every one and every one, especially [35]fatal in an economical point of view and in a moral. morally considered, its evils are obvious. it is the parent of envy, hatred, and all uncharitableness; it makes every one the natural enemy of all others who cross his path, and every one's path is constantly liable to be crossed. under the present system hardly any one can gain except by the loss or disappointment of one or of many others. in a well-constituted community every one would be a gainer by every other person's successful exertions; while now we gain by each other's loss and lose by each other's gain, and our greatest gains come from the worst source of all, from death, the death of those who are nearest and should be dearest to us. in its purely economical operation the principle of individual competition receives as unqualified condemnation from the social reformers as in its moral. in the competition of laborers they see the cause of low wages; in the competition of producers the cause of ruin and bankruptcy; and both evils, they affirm, tend constantly to increase as population and wealth make [36]progress; no person (they conceive) being benefited except the great proprietors of land, the holders of fixed money incomes, and a few great capitalists, whose wealth is gradually enabling them to undersell all other producers, to absorb the whole of the operations of industry into their own sphere, to drive from the market all employers of labor except themselves, and to convert the laborers into a kind of slaves or serfs, dependent on them for the means of support, and compelled to accept these on such terms as they choose to offer. society, in short, is travelling onward, according to these speculators, towards a new feudality, that of the great capitalists.
as i shall have ample opportunity in future chapters to state my own opinion on these topics, and on many others connected with and subordinate to them, i shall now, without further preamble, exhibit the opinions of distinguished socialists on the present arrangements of society, in a selection of passages from their published writings. for the present i desire to be considered as a mere reporter of the opinions of [37]others. hereafter it will appear how much of what i cite agrees or differs with my own sentiments.
the clearest, the most compact, and the most precise and specific statement of the case of the socialists generally against the existing order of society in the economical department of human affairs, is to be found in the little work of m. louis blanc, organisation du travail. my first extracts, therefore, on this part of the subject, shall be taken from that treatise.
"competition is for the people a system of extermination. is the poor man a member of society, or an enemy to it? we ask for an answer.
"all around him he finds the soil preoccupied. can he cultivate the earth for himself? no; for the right of the first occupant has become a right of property. can he gather the fruits which the hand of god ripens on the path of man? no; for, like the soil, the fruits have been appropriated. can he hunt or fish? no; for that is a right which is dependent upon the government. can he draw water from a spring enclosed in a field? no; for the proprietor of the field is, in virtue of his right to the field, [38]proprietor of the fountain. can he, dying of hunger and thirst, stretch out his hands for the charity of his fellow-creatures? no; for there are laws against begging. can he, exhausted by fatigue and without a refuge, lie down to sleep upon the pavement of the streets? no; for there are laws against vagabondage. can he, dying from the cruel native land where everything is denied him, seek the means of living far from the place where life was given him? no; for it is not permitted to change your country except on certain conditions which the poor man cannot fulfil.
"what, then, can the unhappy man do? he will say, 'i have hands to work with, i have intelligence, i have youth, i have strength; take all this, and in return give me a morsel of bread.' this is what the working-men do say. but even here the poor man may be answered, 'i have no work to give you.' what is he to do then?"
"what is competition from the point of view of the workman? it is work put up to auction. a contractor wants a workman: three present themselves.—how much for your work?—half-a-crown; i have a wife and children.—well; and how much for yours?—two shillings: i have no children, but i have a wife.—very well; and now how much for you?—one and eightpence are enough for me; i am single. then you shall [39]have the work. it is done; the bargain is struck. and what are the other two workmen to do? it is to be hoped they will die quietly of hunger. but what if they take to thieving? never fear; we have the police. to murder? we have got the hangman. as for the lucky one, his triumph is only temporary. let a fourth workman make his appearance, strong enough to fast every other day, and his price will run down still lower; then there will be a new outcast, a new recruit for the prison perhaps!
"will it be said that these melancholy results are exaggerated; that at all events they are only possible when there is not work enough for the hands that seek employment? but i ask, in answer, does the principle of competition contain, by chance, within itself any method by which this murderous disproportion is to be avoided? if one branch of industry is in want of hands, who can answer for it that, in the confusion created by universal competition, another is not overstocked? and if, out of thirty-four millions of men, twenty are really reduced to theft for a living, this would suffice to condemn the principle.
"but who is so blind as not to see that under the system of unlimited competition, the continual fall of wages is no exceptional circumstance, but a necessary and general fact? has the population a limit which it cannot exceed? is [40]it possible for us to say to industry—industry given up to the accidents of individual egotism and fertile in ruin—can we say, 'thus far shalt thou go, and no farther?' the population increases constantly: tell the poor mother to become sterile, and blaspheme the god who made her fruitful, for if you do not, the lists will soon become too narrow for the combatants. a machine is invented: command it to be broken, and anathematize science, for if you do not, the thousand workmen whom the new machine deprives of work will knock at the door of the neighboring workshop, and lower the wages of their companions. thus systematic lowering of wages, ending in the driving out of a certain number of workmen, is the inevitable effect of unlimited competition. it is an industrial system by means of which the working-classes are forced to exterminate one another."
"if there is an undoubted fact, it is that the increase of population is much more rapid among the poor than among the rich. according to the statistics of european population, the births at paris are only one-thirty-second of the population in the rich quarters, while in the others they rise to one-twenty-sixth. this disproportion is a general fact, and m. de sismondi, in his work on political economy, has explained it by the impossibility for the workmen of hopeful [41]prudence. those only who feel themselves assured of the morrow can regulate the number of their children according to their income; he who lives from day to day is under the yoke of a mysterious fatality, to which he sacrifices his children as he was sacrificed to it himself. it is true the workhouses exist, menacing society with an inundation of beggars—what way is there of escaping from the cause?... it is clear that any society where the means of subsistence increase less rapidly than the numbers of the population, is a society on the brink of an abyss.... competition produces destitution; this is a fact shown by statistics. destitution is fearfully prolific; this is shown by statistics. the fruitfulness of the poor throws upon society unhappy creatures who have need of work and cannot find it; this is shown by statistics. at this point society is reduced to a choice between killing the poor or maintaining them gratuitously—between atrocity or folly."
