meant to be brothers and helpers instead of rivals and hurters of each other, if Jesus Christ meant what he said, and spoke with any authority when he said of love to God with the whole heart, soul, strength, and mind, and love to neighbor as to self, "On these two hang all the law and the prophets," then there is a possible social organization in which economic relations shall be moral and wholly beneficent, in which men shall not cut the ground from under each other's feet for the sake of private gain, and in which the economic monstrosities that mark our present industrial system cannot exist. It is the assumption of the Christian Socialist that the spirit of Christianity as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ is practicable down to the smallest, most purely commercial transaction between man and man, and that to the requirements of this spirit the people as they grow enlightened will steadily and ever more completely adjust the whole machinery of government and industry. Now, it may be asked, if scientific Socialism and Christian Socialism are economically identical, why use the adjective "Christian"? Because the Christian Socialist puts the spirit or temper which is characteristic of Christ before economics. He would have that spirit create and inform economics. He believes that Christian and scientific economics are, or should be, identical. He aims not at social revolution, but at social evolution along the line of that idea and sentiment of human brotherhood, which, because it is divine, is at once the most beneficent and the most rational. Christian Socialists believe that Christianity is not a mere annex to the secular occupations of men, a private chapel for occasional use, - but that it is a "spirit and life" which is to qualify and guide all human action. Unfortunately it is not uncommon for professed Christians to say that "religion is religion, and business is business"; but Christian Socialists hold that there is no sanctity attaching to the house of worship that ought not to attach to the Chamber of Commerce, and that men should regard each other as benevolently in their mutual relations in industry and trade as they are assumed to do when gathered about the same communion table. But many say, "All Christians hold to the obligation of love to our neighbor as to ourselves. What has this to do with Socialism?" Just this: the quintessence of Socialism morally is love between man and man as the ruling motive of action. The quintessence of Socialism economically is co-operation of each with all in those industries which produce the sustenance of individual and social life. It is entirely possible to separate the spirit of Socialism from the method by which at any moment men may seek to realize that spirit in the constitution of society. But Christian Socialists believe that only by some form of co-operative industry can the true spirit express itself and attain the desired end of the good of all at the involuntary expense of none. It is true that all Christians theoretically believe in the obligation of love. In form, certainly, they accept the teachings of Jesus Christ on the relations of men to each other. But the Christian Socialist asks, does any one need to ponder long the actual state of the world socially and economically in order to perceive that in the industrial and economic relations of men the principle of love does not prevail and is not suffered to prevail? Is it not apparent to the candid mind, that our industrial system, with its professed liberty of competition and its actual industrial and commercial despotisms, is distinctly not the expression of the Christian principle? Since my task is mainly one of definition and interpretation, I may be allowed to quote somewhat at length from that renowned Christian scholar, Brooke Foss Westcott, D. D., bishop of Durham. In an address to the Church Congress in Hull, England, Oct. 1, 1890, Bishop Westcott said: "The term 'Socialism 'has been discredited by its connection with many extravagant and revolutionary schemes; but it is a term which needs to be claimed for nobler uses. It has no necessary affinity with any form of violence or confiscation or class selfishness. . . Socialism is the opposite of individualism, and it is by contrast with individualism that the true character of Socialism can best be discerned. Individualism and Socialism correspond with opposite views of humanity. Individualism regards humanity as made up of dis connected or warring atoms; Socialism regards it as an organic whole, a vital unity formed by the combination of contributory members mutually interdependent. It follows that Socialism differs from individualism both in method and in aim. The method of Socialism is co-operation; the method of individualism is competition. The one Degards man as working with man for a common end; the other regards man as working 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, place, or fame. Socialism seeks such an organization 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." The address concludes with these striking words: "The proof of Christianity which is prepared by God, as I believe, for our times, is a Christian society filled with one spirit in two forms, righteousness and love." Many will approve this last statement who refuse to give even a candid thought to Christian Socialism. Do they not perceive that, if society is filled with righteousness and love, it must be structurally a very different society from that which now exists? Christian Socialism is a movement toward the realization of such a society as Dr. Westcott has described, by the endeavor simultaneously to bring the Church to the true point of view morally, the point of view given by Jesus Christ, and to create in Christian minds that degree of economic enlightenment which will make political action for economic ends rational and beneficent. It is common, and it is very easy, to sneer at Christian Socialists as visionaries, or to denounce them as revolutionary. their fundamental idea they are visionary only as Jesus Christ was visionary, as the apostles and martyrs and prophets have been visionary. As to their practical aim they fearlessly subject themselves to the severest scientific criticism, with the disposition and purpose to adjust their methods to the necessary implications of all clearly determined economic facts. They believe that the better social order will come as a true product of moral and spiritual influences and in conformity with the laws of organic social development. They are not looking for any In "fool's Paradise," but they do expect that the Kingdom of God will come, that it is coming, through divinely guided human endeavor, and that in that Kingdom, even in its nascent form, there will be an approximate realization of the law of love; and that the Golden Rule will be no longer an impracticable and unattempted ideal in the sphere of man's industrial relations, but a formula for universal conduct. They do hold that the logic of social evolution, as a divine process in humanity, makes it not only probable but inevitable that, as slavery yielded to feudalism and feudalism to economic individualism with its attendant features of wage-labor, competition, and increasing capitalistic domination, so the present system must be and will be displaced by a system under which economic production and distribution will be secured by the co-operation of all members of the state for the good of all. They hold, moreover, that economic combination, as defined by Schäffle, will not repress but, on the contrary, will emancipate individuality, giving it opportunity and scope for the fullest development; that it will not destroy competition, but will purify it and restrict it to its proper field; and that it will invade no rights, but, instead, will make possible the realization of fundamental rights. Christian Socialism puts emphasis on the worth of man rather than on the worth of any material possession; and it places duties before rights, because the fulfilment of duties is the necessary condition for the free and beneficent exercise of rights. The law of love is determinative of both duties and rights. It is not only the basis and spring of ethics, but also the universal moral test. Christian Socialism is grounded in the universality of the Christian ethics; apart from that principle it has no reason of being. In the following pages I propose to take up in detail some of the obstructions that lie in the way of a candid consideration of my theme. "Truth is the strong thing." My main endeavor shall be to prepare the minds of readers for an honest and unprejudiced investigation of Christian Socialism, and, if possible to stimulate them to such investigation, rather than to persuade them to accept any theory. 1. The first of these obstructions is the instinctive and unreasoning conservatism, which prevents many men from seeing or even suspecting that there can be any social order other than that with which they are familiar by experience. Are intelligent readers unaware of the fact that the system of wage-labor is but of yesterday? The economic and industrial institutions of men are no more fixed than their political institutions. In Europe, generally, absolute monarchy was supplanted by constitutional monarchy only a century ago. The mediaval forms of industry and of land tenure gave way to the beginnings of free labor and competitive industry, that is, free competitive individualism, in the decade of the last century marked by the French Revolution. Thomas Kirkup truly says that "Free private ownership of land, the free right to choose what industry you please, and to follow it as you please, have, even in Western Europe, come into force only since 1789." The present social and economic order is only a stage in the long process of social development. It certainly is not the last. "God plants us where we grow," said Browning; and Tennyson, another of the prophet-poets of our century, has said with Shakespearian force: "The old order changeth, yielding place to new, And God fulfils himself in many ways, Lest one good custom should corrupt the world." The custom or the dogma that was good yesterday may not be good to-day. Because humanity is alive, it must grow, and because it is capable of ideals, and is guided by God, it must be progressive. It is in the highest degree rational to expect changes in methods of industry. No one can study the social life of our time without perceiving that society is actually in process of transition. The deep-lying tendency of social life is steadily away from the extreme economic individualism which characterized the first half of this century. The social order has ceased to be one of pure competitive individualism, and a new order, call it what you will, economic syncretism, collectivism, centralized capitalism, state socialism, or nationalism, - is capsulate in the present. It is no longer a question whether we shall have Socialism or not. The question is simply, How much shall we have? The bugbear of timid minds is already here. A little reflection will make this apparent to the dullest intellect. In a republic, or a country that is practically republican or democratic in its government, like England, there are inevitable Socialistic Socialistic elements, though as yet, through the persistence of archaic ideas concerning the relation of the government to the people, these Socialistic elements are not generally recognized as such. The army, navy, postal service, highways, parks, schools, municipal sanitation, in many cases municipal light and water service, factory and railway legislation, and hundreds of other elements and functions of public life, are distinctly Socialistic in their nature. England furnishes, perhaps, the most notable example of the present rapid progess toward Socialism, as evinced by the steadily increasing extent of its actual municipal and national collectivism. Says Mr. Sidney Webb: "The innumerable multiplicity of services now performed by the local governing authorities makes it indeed impossible to record them all, and causes the English government, in its various ramifications, to be by far the largest direct employer of labor in the country. Besides our international relations and the army, navy, police and the courts of justice, the community now carries on for itself, in some part or another of these islands, the post-office, telegraphs, carriage of small commodities, coinage, surveys, the regulation of the currency and note issue, the provision of weights and measures, the making, sweeping, lighting, and repairing of the streets, roads, and bridges, life insurance, the grant of annuities, shipbuilding," etc. The passage is too long to give in full, but Mr. Webb mentions nearly one hundred important particulars, and then Mr. Herbert Spencer is right: England is rapidly drifting into Socialism. And it must be said that England was never better governed than it is to-day, and no nation is more vigorously and effectively grappling with its own social problems than the English nation. Yet it must also be said that very many Englishmen do not perceive the meaning of the changes which are taking place about them. It is an amusing but not at all a fancy sketch that Mr. Webb draws in these words : "The 'practical man,' oblivious or contemptuous of any theory of the social organism or general principles of social organization, has been forced, by the necessities of the time, into an ever-deepening collectivist channel. Socialism, of course, he still rejects and despises. The individualist city councillor will walk along the municipal pavement, lit by municipal gas and cleansed by municipal brooms, with municipal water, and seeing by the municipal clock in the municipal market that he is too early to meet his children coming from the municipal school hard by the county lunatic asylum and municipal hospital, will use the national telegraph system to tell them not to walk through the municipal park, but to come by the municipal tramway, to meet him in the municipal reading-room, by the municipal art gallery, museum and library, where he intends to consult some of the national publications in order to prepare his next speech in the municipal town hall, in favor of the nationalization of canals and the increase of the government control over the railway system. Socialism, sir,' he will say, 'don't waste the time of a practical man by your fantastic absurdities. Self-help, sir, individual selfhelp, that's what's made our city what it is.'" The increasing tendency of the times, say the Christian Socialists, is toward Socialism; and this tendency, they affirm, attests at once the progressiveness of the human species, industrially as well as politically, and the slowly growing consciousness that the community or the state is organically one; and only that social system is sound which contemplates and provides for the health and comfort and free development of all its members. That many men are blind to the signs of the times and deaf to the voices of prophecy all about us is not strange. It has been so in the past. 66 Not an ear in court or market Hears the low, foreboding cry A different and a more peaceful crisis than that of which Lowell sang is upon us. It is the part of wisdom to prepare for it by seeking to know the real facts and forces of our present industrial system, and the nature of the changes that are now going on, and to aid in making the transition tranquil and beneficent. 2. A second obstruction to the candid consideration of Christian Socialism is the lingering force of certain economic dogmas that upon examination prove to be economic fallacies. The only one I need to mention here is that one so often quoted as if it had biblical authority, "Competition is the life of trade." So far is this from being true, that the contrary is true. Unlimited competition is the death of legitimate trade. An able article in the Forum for December, 1891, luminously demonstrates this. But it needs no demonstration beyond that of experience. The larger part of the economic legislation of the last fifty years has been to restrain and limit competition. Unre"Competition is war." strained it cuts the ground from under the feet of the weaker tradesmen and manufacturers, and it pares down wages to the lowest point at which the laborer can live and work. One of the ablest of recent American economists, Prof. J. B. Clark, says: "Competition without moral restraints is a monster." Free competition, hailed at first as economic emancipation and the panacea of all industrial ills, soon proved itself, first a doubtful benefit and then a positive evil. Says Prof. Clark: "The purely competitive system of industry has had its youth, its manhood, and its decrepitude. It has developed, first, a conservative rivalry, then a sharp and destructive contest, and, finally, a movement toward consolidation and monopoly." The recent rapid formation of "trusts" in the spheres both of production and of distribution demonstrates that competition has become intolerable, and the very men who once loudly advocated competition as a sound economic principle have been the first to destroy competition by creating gigantic monopolies. The situation today is immensely significant. Competition has stimulated the invention of labor-saving machines and enormously increased power to produce and to distribute. In that fact lies its temporary and only historic justification. But the "trust," the child of the competitive system, now turns and destroys its parent. The purely competitive principle, when tried by the higher ethics, is proved immoral. A well-known student of economic sciences says: "The free play of individual interests tends to force the moral sentiment pervading any trade down to the level of that which characterizes the worst man who can maintain himself in it. So far as morals are concerned, it is the character of the worst men and not of the best men that gives color to business society." I may quote from this writer, Prof. Henry C. Adams, of Michigan University, a single illustration of this startling state ment: "Suppose that of ten manufacturers nine have a keen appreciation of the evils that flow from protracted labor on the part of women and children, and, were it in their power, would gladly produce cottons without destroying family life, and without setting in motion those forces that must ultimately result in race-deterioration. But the tenth man has no such apprehensions. The claims of family life, the rights of childhood, and the maintenance of social well-being are but words to him. He measures success wholly by the rate of profit, and controls his business solely with a view to grand sales. If now the state stand as an unconcerned spectator, whose only duty is to put down a riot when a strike occurs (a duty which government in this country is giving up to private management), the nine men will be forced to conform to the methods adopted by the one. Their goods come into competition with his goods, and we who purchase do not inquire under what conditions they were manufactured. In this manner it is that men of the lowest character have it in their power to give the moral tone to the entire business community." Under the competitive system many a business man feels impelled to say, when confronted with the evils which appear in industrial life down even to the utmost horrors of "sweating": "I am powerless, however much I might desire to manage my business on any other principle than that of getting the most out of the men for the least money." Under such circumstances it is manifestly the duty of all the people to protect the some who are the victims of a system that is founded on "self-interest," that is, on private greed. Socialism recognizes the bad morals and the bad economics for the whole people of the competitive system, and is ostensibly a complete remedy for those twin evils. It does not destroy competition in the right sense, but it aims to elevate it to an honorable emulation, a fair and friendly rivalry. In the language of Thomas Kirkup, the Scotch economist, under Socialism," the widest recognition of merit would be a possible and desirable thing. It would be a control of society by the best for the good of the whole. There would be competition for social distinctions and rewards, but that competition which places at hazard the daily bread of so many of the industrious people would, Socialists hope, be entirely abolished." 3. The last obstruction to candid consideration and just treatment of Christian Socialism, which I shall mention, is the misconceptions concerning Socialism which, for various reasons, possess many minds. Among these misconceptions are: (1.) The notion that Socialism involves spoliation, or invasion of individual rights in property. Ex-Senator Ingalls, who facetiously described himself as "a statesman out of a job," is credited with saying that "statistics show that over ninety per cent of men fail in life." There is an element of truth in this estimate. A very large proportion of men who engage in manufacturing or mercantile pursuits do fail to realize a fortune, and many fail even of a competence; while it is a sad fact that large numbers sink into positive indigence. The chief explanation of this fact is found in the competitive system. The weak men and the ill-furnished men are pushed to the wall. The track of every monopoly is strewn with the wrecks of ruined enterprises. But the ex-senator goes on to say that "Socialists propose to dispossess the ten per cent, who have succeeded, and put the ninety per cent who have failed on top to manage affairs." It is difficult to understand how a man of Senator Ingalls's intelligence could make a statement so ridiculous and so entirely contrary to truth as to suggest extreme disingenuousness or unpardonable ignorance on his part. |