Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 15.djvu/279

 REVIEWS ' 265

one curable by itself. "The socialists, on the other hand, see a clear connection and necessary interdependence between these evils," and "regard them as mere symptoms of one deep-rooted disease" — ^the unhealthy organization of industry under private ownership. This is Hegelian dialectic with a vengeance! If you believe that all social problems are connected, especially if you think they have an economic basis, you are a socialist; if you do not you are — the implication is plain. It must be admitted how- ever that Mr. Hillquit puts his finger anew on one of the weak points in middle class philanthropy and "social science." But others besides socialists have done that.

An estimate of the socialist position with regard to nearly a score of reform movements, industrial, political, and administrative, is given. Always the author insists that lasting, thorough reform can be had only by changing the industrial system. Were it not for this the reader would feel no particular interest in being in- formed anew that socialists oppose child-labor, government owner- ship (in the narrow sense), standing armies, and the single tax, that the relations of socialism with trade unionism must be the closest possible because the socialists "translate the economic strug- gle of the working classes into political action ;" that socialism does not attach great importance to co-operative societies ; that the slum evil can be relieved only by better wages and shorter hours. The discussion of social reform covers over one hundred pages ; it might, so far as socialism is concerned, have been condensed into ten. It will however serve the general reader as a compact, rapid, but not over-accurate outline of reform movements.

For the student of socialistic literature, the two most interest- ing chapters are those in Part I dealing with socialism in its re- lation to the state and to politics. Mr. Hillquit, impressed as he is with signs of change, is convinced that the present state is the "transitional state" which with the aid of a lengthy list of "im- mediate" socialist demands is to lead to the socialist state par excel- lence. These signs of transition please the author, for they give him opportunity adroitly to sidestep the idea of a violent revolution. He does not seem to consider the possibility that the present reaction against laissez faire may not be leading the socialism after all.

What the socialistic state will be like, he refuses to say, holding that "all such descriptions are mere guesses." If we can demand no definite outline of the main features of such a state, if, as he