Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 18.djvu/345

* SOCIALISM. 291 SOCIALISM. the laborers would gain possession of the means of production. It is to be observed that each stage in eco- nomic development has its own place. Feudalism was once a suitable social organization, but in time it had to make way for capitalistic produc- tion. Capitalistic production has performed a service which Mar.x recognized as clearly as a modern economist, but Marx held that capitalis- tic production has very nearly run its course, and that it has rendered the chief services of which it is capable. Mar.K held that "along with each decrease in the number of magnates of capi- talism there goes an increasing mass of misery and degradation." Belief in the increasing mis- ery of the masses was an essential part of so- cialistic doctrine a generation ago; but it has to a great extent been abandoned, some socialists, like Bernstein, going so far as to claim that with capitalism there has been an increase in the economic well-being of the masses. Intelligent socialists now clearly see that from the masses of men simk in misery there can come no able and vigorous recruits for socialism. An. impor- tant practical consequence is that socialists now are more favorably inclined to take measures which elevate the masses, even while the present social order continues, because they hold that thereby men will become better prepared for so- cialism. Another theory of Marx finds expression in what is now termed class-consciousness. It was, according to him, necessary that the wage-earn- ers should become conscious of themselves as a class in the community having interests of their own, and that they should rely upon self-help and not upon the help of other classes for their emancipation. Class-consciousness is now the chief test, as it is the great rallying ciy of or- ganized socialism. Socialists frequently make a distinction now between socialism as a system and socialism as a principle of action. This is a distinction made by Sidney ^Yebb (q.v.). the intellectual leader of the Fabian socialists, and also by Kdmond Kelly. Kelly regards socialism, or, to tise his own term, collectivism, as the method of attainment of justice rather than as a condition of society in which justice has been attained. He has little concern with collectivism as "an ideally perfect state of society." but he looks upon collectivism as a principle of action, pointing out a general line of growth which seems to him desirable, and which he believes can be aided by intelligent effort. In other words, socialism in the sense in which it has been defined forms a goal which we may not succeed in reaching, but it does point out a line of action. Let us now turn to the criticism of* socialism by economists. First of all. it should be noticed that no professional economist is a socialist un- less it be the Italian economist Loria. Socialists claim that the opposition of all economists does not signify anything as to the correctness of socialism. They maintain that economists are generally blinded by their self-interest, their professional interests requiring them to keep aloof from socialism. The economists, on the other hand, maintain that the rejection of so- cialism by economists signifies its rejection by science truly conceived. Economists are not generally inclined to deny the evils in the existing economic order, but they believe that there is better prospect of improvement under this order than under .social- ism. They are social reformers, not socialists. They hold, first, that there is no law of evolu- tion carr^-iug us inevitably to socialism; sec- ondly, that the prospects of social reform are sullicientl}- promising to warrant us in the maintenance of private property in the instru- ments of production and private management of production ; and, thirdly, that socialism carries with it dangers and disadvantages suliiciently grave to w-arrant us in opposing it until it is clearly seen that great improvements are not compatible with the present social order. In its details the reasoning of economists against socialism is as varied as the reasoning of socialists in its support. To Marx's labor theory of value, economists oppose theories of value which differ in detail, but wiiich agree in placing other forms of cost in coordination with labor in the determination of value. ( See Value. ) To the theory of class-consciousness and class-action on the part of wage-earners as the only means of reform, economists oppose what may be called a doctrine of social solidarity. They uniformly hold that all classes in society must work together for social improvement, and they do not believe that there is any such neces- sary antagonism of interests among classes as this theory of class-consciousness implies. Modern economists recognize the evolutionary theory of society, and recently they have given generous recognition to Marx for his services in the formulation of this doctrine of evolution. Very few economists, however, hold that eco- nomic causes alone underlie all social develop- ment, and that the political and intellectual his- tory of nations is a mere expression of a social organization resulting from the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange. Socialism implies unified control of produc- tion, and economists believe that the disad- vantages of such control outweigh the advantages. Economic theory still rests upon the assumption that competition is a principle of progress, and that the advantages which it brings to a society far outweigh the disadvantages. Economists seek to point out means for the elevation of competition to higher planes and the removal of the evils which it carries with it, while retain- ing the principle itself. The difficulties in the way of the socialization of agriculture are emphasized in opposition to socialism. The economists claim that socialists have pointed out no method whereby agriculture can be advantageously carried on, except by pri- vate initiative and private eff'ort. There can be little doubt that when agriculture is mentioned one of the weakest points in socialism is brought to our attention. Even .should manufacturing industries, commerce, and transportation Ije car- ried on as public enterprises, so long as agri- culture remains private industry, based upon private property, society must still be something very different from socialism. Two other points only in the arguments against socialism can be considered in this place. The first is the danger to liberty. It is main- tained by defenders of our present economic so- ciety that private property and private enter- prise are necessary bulwark's of liberty, and that