Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 18.djvu/343

* SOCIALISM. 289 SOCIALISM. sarily democratic. Owen and Saint-Simon both appealed to those now in control of political and economic poer to take the leadership in re- form. Philanthropy played a great rohf in so- cialism in this stage, and it was hoped that socialisjn would be introduced by the ruling classes. Saint-Simonians ein])hasizcd the natural inequality of men, and Saint-Simcm appealed to royalty to assist in the nolilc work of social re- form. He had a place for the King in his so- cialist State, and the King was to be called the '(irst industrial of his kingdom.' Even Ferdi- nand Lassalle was monarchically inclined. Socialists take a view of the State which in some respects suggests the position of Herbert Spencer and other individtialists. They hold that under socialism the functions of the State along man}' lines will be greatly diminished. Crime, they think, will very nearly disappear, and pauperism will entirel.y cease. Standing armies will be abolished and a popular militia substituted therefor. The functions of the law courts will also disappear, they maintain, with the abolition of private property in the instru- ments of production, which is the fruitful cause of litigation. The chief function of government will be found in the administration of indus- tries. They have, therefore, a conception of the State so different from that of the present State that they dislike the expression 'the State.' and abhor 'State' socialism. The word 'official' is also objected to because it suggests present bu- reaucratic governments. The attitude of the or- thodox socialist toward the State finds clear expression in the work of the German socialist August Bebel, Die Frau und der Socialismiis (27th ed., 1896). During the evolution of socialist thought which has just been sketched anarchism has be- come separated from socialism. ( See Anarch- ist. ) Among early socialists there were varia- tions of opinions concerning government, and some like William Godwin (q.v.) were in- clined to take an attitude of radical antagonism to government as such. We thus find anarchistic tendencies in socialism along with tendencies of a very different and altogether antagonistic sort. The cleavage gradually became more pronounced. Pierre Joseph Proudhon (q.v.) is frequently spoken of as the founder of anarchism, and in him we find the doctrines of anarchy reaching such a development that probably more than any one else he is to be designated as the founder, although his views are not worked out so clearly and systematically as those of his followers. For the sake of convenience we may take Proud- hon's book What is Property? and the date of its appearance, 1840, as the beginning of modern anarchism. The form of anarchism founded bj' Proudhon is that of complete individualism. This type of anarchism has had some develop- ment in the Ignited States under the leadership of Benjamin R. Tucker^ who for some years edited an organ called Liberty. The anarchists of whom we hear most are of quite a different stripe, and their anarchism is, by way of distinction, known as anarchist communism. This school of anarchy was found- ed by Mikhail Bakunin (q.v.), and may be re- garded as an outgrowth of the International Workingmen's Association, to which Bakunin belonged. Bakunin and Marx for a time worked together; they both regarded themselves as so- cialists, Marx calling himself a communist, and Bakunin describing himself as a collectivist. So- cialism and anarchism were not at first recog- nized as antagonistic principles, but the diifer- ences between them developed continuously. The anarchist conununists held to the doctrine of associated effort and considered themselves as true communists, and not as individualists. They are radically opposed to pul)lic authority and believe that with the abolition of the State men will spontaneously form cooperative associations which will voluntarily form fed- erations for mutual aid. Like the socialists, the anarchists advocate a coiipcratiye common- wealth, but they differ from the' socialists with respect to the organization of that commonwealth, and more especially in the methods whereby it is to be reached. The ques- tion of tactics has been largely instrumental in the growth of hostility between socialists and anarchists. Anarchists deny that the State rests upon any ethical foundation, and consequently there can be no wrong in opposing government and seeking its overthrow. Government to the anarchist means force and nothing more, and the question of resisting it is one of expediency only. If the anarchists believe that they have a su- perior force, they must necessarily attempt to overthrow organized government. Socialists, on the other hand, take no such attitude of antago- nism toward the State, although they may think and do think that the socialist State will be something diflerent from the present State. They hold, moreover, that changes must come about by evolutionary processes, and are opposed to insurrectionary movements where other means are open. Slarx and Engels condemned violent methods very early in their career, and as so- cialists have taken a part in the work of govern- ment in the various countries of the civilized world, they have increasingly favored the main- tenance of law and order, believing that their ends can be achieved by legal means, and that if revolution does take place it will be brought about, not by them, but by their opponents. Some Socialists think that the adherents of the present social order, when they see the coming triumph of socialism by legal means, will them- selves inaugurate a revolution, but the more con- servative hold that all classes will gradually adjust themselves to the changes leading to socialism. The socialist to-day is the strongest opponent of anarchism. It was the socialists, not the German Government, who really drove Johann !Most (q.v.), one of the leaders of com- munist anarchism, from Germany, and it is the German Social Democrats who practically ex- tinguished anarchism in their country. The attitude of socialism toward the family has varied, but now it has become a definite one of neutrality. Early socialists were inclined to assume a general position of radicalism with respect to all institutions of society, seeing more quickly and easily the disadvantages of any present social arrangement than its advantages. Moreover, the early socialists found the family to be the basis of the economic society which they attacked. Marriage in its present form seemed to them to carry with it the o[)prcssion of woman. It cannot be said that socialism ever had a dis- tinct doctrine of the family, but until recent