Page images
PDF
EPUB

principle itself; if the tendency of legislation had been to favour the diffusion, instead of the concentration of wealth-to encourage the subdivision of the large masses, instead of striving to keep them together; the principle of individual property would have been found to have no necessary connexion with the physical and social evils which almost all Socialist writers assume to be inseparable from it.

129

decision will probably depend mainly If a conjecture may be hazarded, the on one consideration, viz. which of the two systems is consistent with the greatest amount of human liberty and spontaneity. After the means of subsistence are assured, the next in strength of the personal wants of human beings is liberty; and (unlike the physical wants, which as civilization advances become more moderate and more amePrivate property, in every defence nable to control) it increases instead of made of it, is supposed to mean, the diminishing in intensity, as the intelguarantee to individuals, of the fruits ligence and the moral faculties are more of their own labour and abstinence. developed. The perfection both of social The guarantee to them of the fruits of arrangements and of practical morality the labour and abstinence of others, would be, to secure to all persons comtransmitted to them without any merit plete independence and freedom of acor exertion of their own, is not of the tion, subject to no restriction but that essence of the institution, but a mere incidental consequence, which when it education which taught or the social of not doing injury to others: and the reaches a certain height, does not pro- institutions which required them to mote, but conflicts with the ends which exchange the control of their own acrender private property legitimate. To tions for any amount of comfort or judge of the final destination of the in- affluence, or to renounce liberty for the stitution of property, we must suppose sake of equality, would deprive them everything rectified, which causes the of one of the most elevated characteinstitution to work in a manner op- ristics of human nature. It remains to posed to that equitable principle, of be discovered how far the preservation proportion between remuneration and of this characteristic would be found exertion, on which in every vindication compatible with the communistic orof it that will bear the light, it is as-ganization of society. No doubt, this, sumed to be grounded. We must also suppose two conditions realized, without which neither Communism nor any other laws or institutions could make the condition of the mass of mankind other than degraded and miserable. One of these conditions is, universal education the other, a due limitation of the numbers of the community. With these, there could be no poverty even under the present social institutions and these being supposed, the question of Socialism is not, as generally stated by Socialists, a question of flying to the sole refuge against the evils which now bear down humanity; but a mere question of comparative advantages, which futurity must determine. We are too ignorant either of what individual agency in its best form, or Socialism in its best form, can accomplish, to be qualified to decide which of the two will be the ultimate form of human society.

P.E.

like all the other objections to the Socialist schemes, is vastly exagge rated. The members of the association need not be required to live together more than they do now, nor need they be controlled in the disposal of their individual share of the produce, and of the probably large amount of leisure which, if they limited their production to things really worth producing, they would possess. Individuals need not be chained to an occupation, or to a particular locality. The restraints of Communism would be freedom in comparison with the present condition of the majority of the human race. generality of labourers in this and most other countries, have as little choice of occupation or freedom of locomotion, are practically as dependent on fixed could be on any system short of actual rules and on the will of others, as they slavery; to say nothing of the entire domestic subjection of one half the

K

Tho

species, to which it is the signal | this form of it in their greatest force

honour of Owenism and most other forms of Socialism that they assign equal rights, in all respects, with those of the hitherto dominant sex. But it is not by comparison with the present bad state of society that the claims of Communism can be estimated; nor is it sufficient that it should promise greater personal and mental freedom than is now enjoyed by those who have not enough of either to deserve the name. The question is whether there would be any asylum left for individuality of character; whether public opinion would not be a tyrannical yoke; whether the absolute dependence of each on all, and surveilfance of each by all, would not grind all down into a tame uniformity of thoughts, feelings, and actions. This is already one of the glaring evils of the existing state of society, notwithstanding a much greater diversity of education and pursuits, and a much less absolute dependence of the individual on the mass, than would exist in the Communistic régime. No society in which eccentricity is a matter of reproach, can be in a wholesome state. It is yet to be ascertained whether the Communistic scheme would be consistent with that multiform development of human nature, those manifold unlikenesses, that diversity of tastes and talents, and variety of intellectual points of view, which not only form a great part of the interest of human life, but by bringing intellects into a stimulating collision, and by presenting to each innumerable notions that he would not have conceived of himself, are the mainspring of mental and moral progression.

§ 4. I have thus far confined my observations to the Communistic doctrine, which forms the extreme limit of Socialism; according to which not only the instruments of production, the land and capital, are the joint property of the community, but the produce is divided and the labour apportioned, as far as possible, equally. The objections, whether well or ill grounded, to which Socialism is liable, apply to

The other varieties of Socialism mainly differ from Communism, in not relying solely on what M. Louis Blanc calls the point of honour of industry, but retaining more or less of the incentives to labour derived from private pecuniary interest. Thus it is already a modification of the strict theory of Communism, when the principle is professed of proportioning remuneration to labour. The attempts which have been made in France to carry Social ism into practical effect, by associa tions of workmen manufacturing on their own account, mostly began by sharing the remuneration equally, without regard to the quantity of work done by the individual: but in almost every case this plan was after a short time abandoned, and recourse was had to working by the piece. The original principle appeals to a higher standard of justice, and is adapted to a much higher moral condition of human nature. The proportioning of remuneration to work done, is really just, only in so far as the more or less of the work is a matter of choice: when it depends on natural difference of strength or capacity, this principle of remune ration is in itself an injustice: it is giving to those who have; assigning most to those who are already most favoured by nature. Considered, however, as a compromise with the selfish type of character formed by the present standard of morality, and fostered by the existing social institutions, it is highly expedient; and until education shall have been entirely regenerated, is far more likely to prove immediately successful, than an attempt at a higher ideal.

The two elaborate forms of noncommunistic Socialism known as St. Simonism and Fourierism, are totally free from the objections usually urged against Communism; and though they are open to others of their own, yet by the great intellectual power which in many respects distinguishes them, and by their large and philosophic treatment of some of the fundamental problems of society and mora lity, they may justly be counted among

[ocr errors]

the most remarkable productions of the past and present age.

The St. Simonian scheme does not contemplate an equal, but an unequal division of the produce; it does not propose that all should be occupied alike, but differently, according to their Vocation or capacity; the function of each being assigned, like grades in a regiment, by the choice of the directing authority, and the remuneration being by salary, proportioned to the importance, in the eyes of that authority, of the function itself, and the merits of the person who fulfils it. For the constitution of the ruling body, different plans might be adopted, consistently with the essentials of the system. It might be appointed by popular suffrage. In the idea of the original authors, the rulers were supposed to be persons of genius and virtue, who obtained the voluntary adhesion of the rest by the force of mental superiority. That the scheme might in some peculiar states of society work with advantage, is not improbable. There is indeed a successful experiment, of a somewhat similar kind, on record, to which I have once alluded; that of the Jesuits in Paraguay. A race of savages, belonging to a portion of mankind more averse to consecutive exertion for a distant object than any other authentically known to us, was brought under the mental dominion of civilized and instructed men who were united among themselves by a system of community of goods. To the absolute authority of these men they reverentially submitted themselves, and were induced by them to learn the arts of civilized life, and to practice labours for the community, which no inducement that could have been offered would have prevailed on them to practise for themselves. This social system was of short duration, being prematurely destroyed by diplomatic arrangements and foreign force. That it could be brought into action at all was probably owing to the immense distance in point of knowledge and intellect which separated the few rulers from the whole body of the ruled, without any intermediate orders,

either social or intellectual. In any other circumstances it would probably have been a complete failure. It supposes an absolute despotism in the heads of the association; which woul probably not be much improved if the depositaries of the despotism (contrary to the views of the authors of the system) were varied from time to time according to the result of a popular canvass. But to suppose that one or a few human beings, howsoever sclected, could, by whatever machinery of subordinate agency, be qualified to adapt each person's work to his capacity, and proportion each person's remuneration to his merits-to be, in fact, the dispensers of distributive jus tice to every member of a community; or that any use which they could make of this power would give general satisfaction, or would be submitted to without the aid of force-is a supposition almost too chimerical to be reasoned against. A fixed rule, like that of equality, might be acquiesced in, and so might chance, or an external necessity; but that a handful of human beings should weigh everybody in the balance, and give more to one and less to another at their sole pleasure and judgment, would not be borne, unless from persons believed to be more than men, and backed by supernatural terrors.

The most skilfully combined, and with the greatest foresight of objections, of all the forms of Socialism, is that commonly known as Fourierism. This system does not contemplate the abolition of private property, nor even of inheritance: on the contrary, it avowedly takes into consideration, as an element in the distribution of the produce, capital as well as labour. It proposes that the operations of industry should be carried on by associations of about two thousand members, combining their labour on a district of about a square league in extent, under the guidance of chiefs selected by themselves. In the distribution, a certain minimum is first assigned for the subsistence of every member of the community, whether capable or not of labour. The remainder of the produce

very strong arguments; in particular by one which they have in common with the Owenites, viz., that scarcely any labour, however severe, undergone by human beings for the sake of sub

is shared in certain proportions, to be determined beforehand, among the three elements, Labour, Capital, and Talent. The capital of the community may be owned in unequal shares by different members, who would insistence, exceeds in intensity that that case receive, as in any other joint which other human beings, whose substock company, proportional dividends. sistence is already provided for, are The claim of each person on the share found ready and even eager to undergo of the produce apportioned to talent for pleasure. This certainly is a most is estimated by the grade or rank significant fact, and one from which which the individual occupies in the the student in social philosophy may several groups of labourers to which he draw important instruction. But the or she belongs; these grades being in argument founded on it may easily be all cases conferred by the choice of his stretched too far. If occupations full or her companions. The remunera- of discomfort and fatigue are freely tion, when received, would not of pursued by many persons as amusenecessity be expended or enjoyed in ments, who does not see that they are common; there would be separate amusements exactly because they are ménages for all who preferred them, pursued freely, and may be disconand no other community of living is tinued at pleasure? The liberty of contemplated, than that all the mem- quitting a position often makes the bers of the association should reside in whole difference between its being the same pile of buildings; for saving painful and pleasurable. Many a perof labour and expense, not only in son remains in the same town, street, building, but in every branch of do- or house from January to December, mestic economy; and in order that, without a wish or a thought tending the whole of the buying and selling towards removal, who, if confined to operations of the community being that same place by the mandate of performed by a single agent, the cnor- authority, would find the imprisonment mous portion of the produce of industry absolutely intolerable. now carried off by the profits of mere distributors might be reduced to the smallest amount possible.

This system, unlike Communism, does not, in theory at least, withdraw any of the motives to exertion which exist in the present state of society. On the contrary, if the arrangement worked according to the intentions-of its contrivers, it would even strengthen those motives; since each person would have much more certainty of reaping individually the fruits of increased skill or energy, bodily or mental, than under the present social arrangements can be felt by any but those who are in the most advantageous positions, or to whom the chapter of accidents is more than ordinarily favourable. The Fourierists, however, have still another resource. They believe that they have solved the great and fundamental problem of rendering labour attractive. That this is not impracticable, they contend by

According to the Fourierists, scarcely any kind of useful labour is naturally and necessarily disagreeable, unless it is either regarded as dishonourable, or is immoderate in degree, or destitute of the stimulus of sympathy and emulation. Excessive toil needs not, they contend, be undergone by any one, in a society in which there would be no idle class, and no labour wasted, as so enormous an amount of labour is now wasted, in useless things; and where full advantage would be taken of the power of association, both in increasing the efficiency of production, and in economizing consumption. The other requisites for rendering labour attractive would, they think, be found in the execution of all labour by social groups, to any number of which the same individual might simultaneously belong, at his or her own choice; their grade in each being determined by the degree of service which they were found capable of rendering, as appre

desired, and to which they have a just claim, is opportunity of trial. They are all capable of being tried on a moderate scale, and at no risk, either personal or pecuniary, to any except those who try them. It is for experience to determine how far or how soon any one or more of the possible systems of community of property will be fitted to substitute itselt for the "organization of industry" based on private ownership of land and capital. In the meantime we may, without attempting to limit the ultimate capabi

ciated by the suffrages of their comrades. It is inferred from the diversity of tastes and talents, that every member of the community would be attached to several groups, employing themselves in various kinds of occupa tion, some bodily, others mental, and would be capable of occupying a high place in some one or more; so that a eal equality, or something more nearly approaching to it than might at first be supposed, would practically result: not from the compression, but, on the contrary, from the largest possible development, of the various natural supe-lities of human nature, affirm, that the riorities residing in each individual.

[ocr errors][merged small]

political economist, for a considerable time to come, will be chiefly concerned with the conditions of existence and progress belonging to a society founded on private property and individual competition; and that the object to be principally aimed at in the present stage of human improvement, is not the subversion of the system of indi vidual property, but the improvement of it, and the full participation of every member of the community in its benefits.

CHAPTER II.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

1. Ir is next to be considered, | which they have not produced. For what is included in the idea of private example (it may be said) the opera property, and by what considerations tives in a manufactory create, by their the application of the principle should labour and skill, the whole produce; be bounded. yet, instead of its belonging to them, the law gives them only their stipalated hire, and transfers the produce to some one who has merely supplied the funds, without perhaps contributing anything to the work itself, even in the form of superintendence. The answer to this is, that the labour of manufacture is only one of the conditions which must combine for the production of the commodity. labour cannot be carried on without materials and machinery, nor without a stock of necessaries provided in advance, to maintain the labourers

The institution of property, when limited to its essential elements, consists in the recognition, in each person, of a right to the exclusive disposal of what he or she have produced by their own exertions, or received either by gift or by fair agreement, without force or fraud, from those who produced it. The foundation of the whole is, the right of producers to what they themselves have produced. It may be objected, therefore, to the institution as it now exists, that it recognises rights of property in individuals over things

The

« PreviousContinue »