SOCIALISM. 292 SOCIALISliI. ■n-itli these removed or impaired to the extent that they would be, even by the most conserva- tive socialism, those having control of the agen- cies of production would be given such vast power that liberty would be seriously threatened, and, indeed, overthrown by tyranny. A certain control of i)roduction would have to be exercised by individuals; and however these might be selected, they would have almost unlimited power in their hands over the destinies of other hu- man beings. There seems to be strong ground for the belief that liberty is better protected in a society having the dualism which we know now, in accordance w-ith which private property and private production on the one hand, and public authority with limited public production on the other, are reciprocal checks and restraints. Finally, it is urged that under socialism there would be revolutionary discontent. In a world like ours men must necessarily be discontented with what they receive as an outcome of eco- nomic production and with the treatment ac- corded to them in the processes of economic production. At the present time this discon- tent is directed toward a great many different persons and bodies. On the other hand, socialism means public ownership and public production, and those having control would be blamed for all mistakes and also for misfortunes, even pro- vided we assume that they should do their best, and provided also that that best should be much better than anything we know at the present time. Government would be blamed, and this concentrated discontent, it is held, would be revo- lutionary in character. So much has been said about Christian social- ism, that this article should not be concluded without at least a brief reference to it. Chris- tian socialism has had many different meanings. Where the leaders of socialism have been irre- ligious. Christian socialism has sometimes simply signified socialism plus religion. Now that so- cialists have come to place religion among private matters in which they are not directly concerned, less is heard than formerly about Christian so- cialism. Christian socialism has sometimes sig- nified simply a recognition of the principle of social solidarity, and a generous sympathy with those classes in society which are the least for- tunately situated, more specifically with the wage- earning classes. About tlie middle of the nine- teenth century a bod.y of Christian socialists existed in England and attracted wide atten- tion. They were led by men like Thomas Hughes, Charles Kingsley, .Tames Ludlow, F. D. Maurice, and E. Vansittart Neale. Theoretically they op- posed the principle of competition as a source of evil, and did so with great vehemence, and agi- tated in favor of coliperation in production and ex- change. They attempted to organize society on a cooperative basis, and succeeded in establishing a number of cooperative undertakings which enjoyed only a temporary prosperity, and finally disappeared. They entered, however, into the cooperative movement in England, which had been theretofore largely supported by men act- ing under the influence of Owen, and they con- tributed very much to the success of English cooperation. The high character and the in- tellectual power of these men were such that they have been able to exercise a profound in- fluence upon English thought, and to a less ex- tent upon the thought of other countries. The outcome of their efforts is seen in the multi- form attempts to improve social conditions. Socialism of the chair, or professorial social- ism, is frequently mentioned, but this also is something as indefinite as Christian socialism. It is not socialism at all, but simply a recogni- tion of grave evils in existing society, a deter- mination to remove these evils, and the convic- tion that the power of the State must be used to bring about desirable changes. The term social- ism of the chair originated in Germany, and was applied in ridicule to the progressive economists who expressed sympathy with the aspirations of the wage-earning classes. Among the leaders may be mentioned Professors Adolpli ^"agner and Gustav Sehmoller, now both of Berlin. These held that economics is an ethical science, and opposed the doctrines of the so-called Manchester school, which looked with little favor upon State action. The changes which have taken place among economists have been such as to lessen the differences among them with respect to eco- nomic improvement. Generally speaking, those who twenty years ago were most inclined to call upon the State for help have become somewhat more conservative, while at the same time those who most strongly antagonized public action have qualified their opposition thereto. The course of events has convinced practically all economists of the importance of labor legislation and of the necessity of state intervention at many points. Professorial socialism, then, never was socialism, and at the present time it can liardly be said that it indicates a line of cleavage among economists. Literature. The principal writers on so- cialism have been mentioned in the text, and their writings are mentioned in the articles dealing w'ith them. The Communist MaHifcsto (London, 1848) is perhaps the most im- portant single document in the history of socialism, and Marx, Das Kapital (3 vols., Hamburg, 1802, 1865, 1894), is possibly the most important single work. The works of Rod- bertus and Lassalle are important historically. Fabian Essays in Socialism (London, 1889) is the best work presenting the conservative, op- portunist socialism. One of the Fabians, Sidney Vebb, has written a work entitled Socialism in England (2d cd., London, 1893), which best de- scribes the advances of English socialism, as seen by a Fabian. Kelly, Government or Human Evolution vol. i., on Justice. London. 1900; vol. ii., on Individualism and Collectivism, Lon- don, 1901 ) , gives the best presentation by an American author of socialism as a principle of action rather than as a system. Hyndman, Eco- nomics of Socialism (London. 1896), is regarded as one of the best explanations of the economics of the Marxist school. Laveleye, Socialism To- dap (Eng. trans. London. 1885), gives a sym- pathetic account of socialism by a progressive economist. Rae. Contemporary Socialism (new ed., London and New York, 1901), is a more critical account of socialism, and, like the preceding, has much historical material. Kirkup, History of Socialism (new ed., London, 1900) is a more recent work than Laveleye's, and perhaps even more sympathetic, going so far as to advocate a very conservative sort of socialism. Ely's Socialism and Social Reform
