Socialism

Socialism

A social-economic system based on the common ownership of the means of production and exchange of wealth. The name is supposed to have originated in England in 1835 during the agitation of Robert Owen. The idea of common ownership as a remedy for the inequalities of life appears in Plato’s Republic, Campanella’s City of the Sun, and other writmgs of ancient and modern times. The philosophic basis for common ownership as a serious policy of social management was provided by Karl Marx (1818-1883) in his economic determmism or, as it is often called, the materialistic interpretation of history. Marx’s socialism is therefore called scientific. It is the inspiration of all socialism that is taken seriously in modern times, although in the stress of controversy socialists have abandoned most of the Marxian principles. The contributions made by Marx to socialism are: The Communist Manifesto (in collaboration with Engels), published in 1848 and contammg the germs of his theory; Das Kapital, the first part of which appeared in 1867; and the foundmg of the International Workingmen’s Association in 1864. This International provided the means for the spread of his ideas, while Das Kapital provided the philosophy of the movement. The strength of socialism has lain rather in the criticism of existing capitalism than in the appeal of its own program of social amelioration. In its original program, socialism was revolutionary rather than parliamentarian; but in practise socialists have yielded to opportunism, forming political parties, seeking seats in parliaments, and seeking to effect their policies by parliamentary means. Hence it is rather as a political than a revolutionary movement that socialism exerts its present-day influence.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Socialism

A system of social and economic organization that would substitute state monopoly for private ownership of the sources of production and means of distribution, and would concentrate under the control of the secular governing authority the chief activities of human life. The term is often used vaguely to indicate any increase of collective control over individual action, or even any revolt of the dispossessed against the rule of the possessing classes. But these are undue extensions of the term, leading to much confusion of thought. State control and even state ownership are not necessarily Socialism: they become so only when they result in or tend towards the prohibition of private ownership not only of “natural monopolies”, but also of all the sources of wealth. Nor is mere revolt against economic inequality Socialism: it may be Anarchism (see ANARCHY); it may be mere Utopianism (see COMMUNISM); it may be a just resistance to oppression. Nor is it merely a proposal to make such economic changes in the social structure as would banish poverty. Socialism is this (see COLLECTIVISM) and much more. It is also a philosophy of social life and action, regarding all human activities from a definite economic standpoint. Moreover modern Socialism is not a mere arbitrary exercise at state-building, but a deliberate attempt to relieve, on explicit principles, the existing social conditions, which are regarded as intolerable. The great inequalities of human life and opportunity, produced by the excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of a comparatively small section of the community, have been the cause and still are the stimulus of what is called the Socialistic movement. But, in order to understand fully what Socialism is and what it implies, it is necessary first to glance at the history of the movement, then to examine its philosophical and religious tendencies, and finally to consider how far these may be, and actually have proved to be, incompatible with Christian thought and life. The first requirement is to understand the origin and growth of the movement.

It has been customary among writers of the Socialist movement to begin with references to Utopian theories of the classical and Renaissance periods, to Plato’s “Republic”, Plutarch’s “Life of Lycurgus”, More’s “Utopia”, Campanella’s “City of the Sun”, Hall’s “Mundus alter et idem”, and the like. Thence the line of thought is traced through the French writers of the eighteenth century, Meslier, Monterquieu, d’Argenson, Morelly, Rousseau, Mably, till, with Linguet and Necker, the eve of the Revolution is reached. In a sense, the modern movement has its roots in the ideas of these creators of ideal commonwealths. Yet there is a gulf fixed between the modern Socialists and the older Utopists. Their schemes were mainly directed towards the establishment of Communism, or rather, Communism was the idea that gave life to their fancied states (see COMMUNISM). But the Collectivist idea, which is the economic basis of modern Socialism (See COLLECTIVISM), really emerges only with “Gracchus” Babeuf and his paper, “The tribune of the People”, in 1794. In the manifesto issued by him and his fellow-conspirators, “Les Egaux”, is to be found a clear vision of the collective organization of society, such as would be largely accepted by most modern Socialists. Babeuf was guillotined by the Directory, and his party suppressed. Meanwhile, in 1793, Godwin in England had published his “Enquiry Concerning Political Justice”, a work which, though inculcating Anarchist-Communism (see ANARCHY) rather than Collectivism, had much influence on Robert Owen and the school of Determinist Socialists who succeeded him. But a small group of English writers in the early years of the nineteenth century had really more to do with the development of Socialist thought than had either Owen’s attempts to found ideal communities, at New Lanark and elsewhere, or the contemporary theories and practice of Saint-Simon and Fourier in France.

These English writers, the earliest of whom, Dr. Charles Hall, first put forward that idea of a dominant industrial and social “system”, which is the pervading conception of modern Socialism, worked out the various basic principles of Socialism, which Marx afterwards appropriated and combined. Robert Thompson, Ogilvie, Hodgkin, Gray, above all William Carpenter, elaborated the theories of “surplus value”, of “production for profit”, of “class-war”, of the ever-increasing exploitation of the poor by the rich, which are the stuff of Marx’s “Das Kapital”, that “old clothes-shop of ideas culled from Berlin, Paris, and London”. For indeed, this famous work is really nothing more than a dexterous combination of Hegelian Evolutionism, of French Revolutionism, and of the economic theories elaborated by Ricardo, on the one hand, and this group of English theorists on the other. Yet the services of Karl Marx and of his friend and brother-Hebrew, Friedrich Engels, to the cause of Socialism must not be underrated. These two writers came upon the scene just when the Socialist movement was at its lowest ebb. In England the work of Robert Owen had been overlaid by the Chartist movement and its apparent failure, while the writings of the economists mentioned above had had but little immediate influence. In France the Saint-Simonians and the Fourierists had disgusted everyone by the moral collapse of their systems. In Germany Lassalle had so far devoted his brilliant energies merely to Republicanism and philosophy. But in 1848 Marx and Engels published the “Communist Manifesto”, and, mere rhetoric as it was, this document was the beginning of modern “scientific Socialism”. The influence of Proudhon and of the Revolutionary spirit of the times pervades the whole manifesto: the economic analysis of society was to be grafted on later. But already there appear the ideas of “the materialistic conception of history”, of “the bourgeoisie” and “the proletariat”, and of “class-war”.

After 1848, in his exile in London, Marx studied, and wrote, and organized with two results: first, the foundation of “The International Workingmen’s Association”, in 1864; second, the publication of the first volume of “Das Kapital”, in 1867. It is not easy to judge which has had the more lasting effect upon the Socialist movement. “The International” gave to the movement its world-wide character; “Das Kapital” elaborated and systematized the philosophic and economic doctrine which is still the creed of the immense majority of Socialists. “Proletarians of all lands, unite!” the sentence with which the Communist Manifesto of 1848 concludes, became a reality with the foundation of the International. For the first time since the disruption of Christendom an organization took shape which had for its object the union of the major portion of all nations upon a common basis. It was not so widely supported as both its upholders believed and the frightened moneyed interests imagined. Nor had this first organization any promise of stability. From the outset the influence of Marx steadily grew, but it was confronted by the opposition of Bakunin and the Anarchist school. By 1876 the International was even formally at an end. But it had done its work: the organized working classes of all Europe had realized the international nature both of their own grievances and of capitalism, and when, in 1889, the first International Congress of Socialist and Trade-Union delegates met at Paris, a “New International” came into being which exists with unimpaired or, rather, with enhanced energy to the present day. Since that first meeting seven others have been held at intervals of three or four years, at which there has been a steady growth in the number of delegates present, the variety of nationalities represented, and the extent of the Socialistic influence over its deliberations.

In 1900, an International Socialist Bureau was established at Brussels, with the purpose of Solidifying and strengthening the international character of the movement. Since 1904, an Inter-Parliamentary Socialist Committee has given further support to the work of the bureau. To-day the international nature of the Socialistic movement is an axiom both within and without its ranks; an axiom that must not be forgotten in the estimation both of the strength and of the trend of the movement. To the International, then, modern Socialism owes much of its present power. To “Das Kapital” it owes such intellectual coherence as it still possesses. The success of this book was immediate and considerable. It has been translated into many languages, epitomized by many hands, criticized, discussed, and eulogized. Thousands who would style themselves Marxians and would refer to “Das Kapital” as “The Bible of Socialism”, and the irrefragable basis of their creed, have very probably never seen the original work, nor have even read it in translation. Marx himself published only the first volume; the second was published under Engels’ editorship in 1885, two years after the death of Marx; a third was elaborated by Engels from Marx’s notes in 1895; a fourth was projected but never accomplished. But the influence of this torso has been immense. With consummate skill Marx gathered together and worked up the ideas and evidence that had originated with others, or were the floating notions of the movement; with the result that the new international organization had ready to hand a body of doctrine to promulgate, the various national Socialist parties a common theory and programme for which to work. And promulgated it was, with a devotion and at times a childlike faith that had no slight resemblance to religious propaganda. It has been severely and destructively criticized by economists of many schools, many of its leading doctrines have been explicitly abandoned by the Socialist leaders in different countries, some are now hardly defended even by those leaders who label themselves “Marxian”. Yet the influence of the book persists. The main doctrines of Marxism are still the stuff of popular Socialist belief in all countries, are still put forward in scarcely modified form in the copious literature produced for popular consumption, are still enunciated or implied in popular addresses even by some of the very leaders who have abandoned them in serious controversy. In spite of the growth of Revisionism in Germany, of Syndicalism in France, and of Fabian Expertism in England, it is still accurate to maintain that the vast majority of Socialists, the rank and file of the movement in all countries, are adherents of the Marxian doctrine, with all its materialistic philosophy, its evolutionary immorality, its disruptive political and social analysis, its class-conscious economics.

In Socialism, to-day, as in most departments of human thought, the leading writers display a marked shyness of fundamental analysis: “The domain of Socialist thought”, says Lagardelle, has become “an intellectual desert.” Its protagonists are largely occupied, either in elaborating schemes of social reform, which not infrequently present no exclusively socialist characteristics, or else in apologizing for and disavowing inconvenient applications by earlier leaders, of socialist philosophy to the domain of religion and ethics. Nevertheless, in so far as the International movement remains definitely Socialist at all, the formulae of its propaganda and the creed of its popular adherents are predominantly the reflection of those put forward in “Das Kapital” in 1867. Moreover, during all this period of growth of the modern Socialist movement, two other parallel movements in all countries have at once supplemented and counterpoised it. These are trade-unionism and co-operation. There is no inherent reason why either of these movements should lead towards Socialism: properly conducted and developed, both should render unnecessary anything that can correctly be styled “Socialism”. But, as a matter of fact, both these excellent movements, owing to unwise opposition by the dominant capitalism, on the one hand, and indifference in the Churches on the other, are menaced by Socialism, and may eventually be captured by the more intelligent and energetic Socialists and turned to serve the ends of Socialism. The training in mutual aid and interdependence, as well as in self-government and business habits, which the leaders of the wage-earners have received in both trade-unionism and the co-operative movements, while it might be of incalculable benefit in the formation of the needed Christian democracy, has so far been effective largely in demonstrating the power that is given by organization and numbers. And the leaders of Socialism have not been slow to emphasize the lesson and to extend the argument, with sufficient plausibility, towards state monopoly and the absolutism of the majority. The logic of their argument has, it is true, been challenged, in recent years, in Europe by the rise of the great Catholic trade-union and co-operative organizations. But in English-speaking nations this is yet to come, and both co-operation and trade-unionism are allowed to drift into the grip of the Socialist movement, with the result that what might become a most effective alternative for Collectivism remains to-day its nursery and its support.

Parallel with the International movement has run the local propaganda in various countries, in each of which the movement has taken its colour from the national characteristics; a process which has continued, until to-day it is sometimes difficult to realize that the different bodies who are represented in the International Congresses form part of the same agitation. In Germany, the fatherland of dogmatic Socialism, the movement first took shape in 1862. In that year Ferdinand Lassalle, the brilliant and wealthy young Jewish lawyer, delivered a lecture to an artisans’ association at Berlin. Lassalle was fined by the authorities for his temerity, but “The Working Men’s Programme”, as the lecture was styled, resulted in The Universal German Working Men’s Association, which was founded at Leipzig under his influence the following year. Lassalle commenced a stormy progress throughout Germany, lecturing, organizing, writing. The movement did not grow at first with the rapidity he had expected, and he himself was killed in a duel in 1864. But his tragic death aroused interest, and The Working Men’s Association grew steadily till, in 1869, reinforced by the adhesion of the various organizations which had grown out of Marx’s propaganda, it became, at Eisenach, the Socialist Democratic Working Men’s Party. Liebknecht, Bebel, and Singer, all Marxians, were its chief leaders. The two former were imprisoned for treason in 1870; but in 1874 ten members of the party, including the two leaders, were returned to the Reichstag by 450,000 votes. The Government attempted repression, with the usual result of consolidating and strengthening the movement. In 1875 was held the celebrated congress at Gotha, at which was drawn up the programme that formed the basis of the party. Three years later an attempt upon the emperor’s life was made the excuse for renewed repression. But it was in vain. In spite of alternate persecution and essays in state Socialism, on the part of Bismarck, the power in 1890 and since then the party has grown rapidly, and is now the strongest political body in Germany. In 18909 Edward Bernstein, who had come under the influence of the Fabians in England since 1888, started the “Revisionist” movement, which, while attempting to concentrate the energies of the party more definitely upon specific reforms and “revising” to extinction many of the most cherished doctrines of Marxism, has yet been subordinated to the practical exigencies of politics. To all appearance the Socialist Party is stronger to-day than ever. The elections of 1907 brought out 3,258,968 votes in its favour; those of January, 1912, gave it 110 seats out of a total of 307 in the Reichstag — a gain of more than 100 per cent over its last previous representation (53 seats). The Marxian “Erfurt Programme”, adopted in 1891, is still the official creed of the Party. But the “Revisionist” policy is obviously gaining ground and, if the Stuttgart Congress of 1907 be any indication, is rapidly transforming the revolutionary Marxist party into an opportunist body devoted to specific social reforms.

In France the progress of Socialism has been upon different lines. After the collapse of Saint-Simonism and Fourierism, came the agitation of Louis Blanc in 1848, with his doctrine of “The Right to Work”. But this was side-tracked by the triumphant politicians into the scandalous “National Workshops”, which were probably deliberately established on wrong lines in order to bring ridicule upon the agitation. Blanc was driven into exile, and French Socialism lay dormant till the ruin of Imperialism in 1870 and the outbreak of the Commune in 1871. This rising was suppressed with a ferocity that far surpassed the wildest excesses of the Communards; 20,000 men are said to have been shot in cold blood, many of whom were certainly innocent, while not a few were thrown alive in the common burial pits. But this savagery, though it temporarily quelled the revolution, did nothing to obviate the Socialist movement. At first many of the scattered leaders declared for Anarchism, but soon most of them abandoned it as impracticable and threw their energies into the propagation of Marxian Socialism. In 1879 the amnesty permitted Jules Guesde, Brousse, Malon, and other leaders to return. In 1881, after the Anarchist-Communist group under Kropotkin and Reclus had seceded, two parties came into existence, the opportunist Alliance Socialiste Republicaine, and the Marxian Parti Ouvrier Socialiste Revolutionaire de France. But these parties soon split up in others. Guesde led, and still leads, the Irreconcilables; Jaures and Millerand have been the leaders of the Parliamentarians; Brousse, Blanqui, and others have formed their several communistic groups. In 1906, however, largely owing to the influence of Jaures, the less extreme parties united again to form Le Parti Socialiste Unifie. This body is but loosely formed of various irreconcilable groups and includes Anarchists like Herve, Marxists like Guesde, Syndicalists like Lagardelle, Opportunists like Millerand, all of whom Jaures endeavours, with but slight success, to maintain in harmony. For right across the Marxian doctrinairianism and the opportunism of the parliamentary group has driven the recent Revolutionary Syndicalist movement. This, which is really Anarchist-Communism working through trade-unionism, is a movement distrustful of parliamentary systems, favourable to violence, tending towards destructive revolution. The Confederation Generale du Travail is rapidly absorbing the Socialist movement in France, or at least robbing it of the ardent element that gives it life.

In the British Isles the Socialist movement has had a less stormy career. After the collapse of Owenism and Chartist movement, the practical genius of the nation directed its chief reform energies towards the consolidation of the trade unions and the building up of the great co-operative enterprise. Steadily, for some forty years, the trade-union leaders worked at the strenghening of their respective organizations, which, with their dual character of friendly societies and professional associations, had no small part in training the working classes in habits of combination for common ends. And this lesson was emphasized and enlarged by the Co-operative movement, which, springing from the tiny efforts of the Rochdale Pioneers, spread throughout the country, till it is now one of the mightiest business organizations in the world. In this movement many a labour leader learnt habits of business and of successful committee work that enabled him later on to deal on equal, or even on advantageous, terms with the representatives of the owning classes. But during all this period of training the Socialist movement proper lay dormant. It was not until 1884, with the foundation of the strictly Marxian Social Democratic Federation by H. M. Hyndman, that the Socialist propaganda took active in England. It did not achieve any great immediate success, not has it ever since shown signs of appealing widely to the English temperament. But it was a beginning, and it was followed by other, more inclusive, organizations. A few months after its foundation the Socialist League, led by William Morris, seceded from it and had a brief and stormy existence. In 1893, at Bradford, the “Independent Labour Party” was formed under the leadership of J. Keir Hardie, with the direct purpose of carrying Socialism into politics. Attached to it were two weekly papers, “The Clarion” and “The Labour Leader”; the former of which, by its sale of over a million copies of an able little manual, “Merrie England”, had no small part in the diffusion of popular Socialism. All these three bodies were popular Socialism. All these three bodies were Marxian in doctrine and largely working class in membership.

But, as early as 1883, a group of middle-class students had joined together as The Fabian Society. This body, while calling itself Socialist, rejected the Marxian in favour of Jevonsian economics, and devoted itself to the social education of the public by means of lectures, pamphlets and books, and to the spread of Collectivist ideas by the “permeation” of public bodies and political parties. Immense as have been its achievements in this direction, its constant preoccupation with practical measures of reform and its contact with organized party politics have led it rather in the direction of the “Servile State” than of the Socialist Commonwealth. But the united efforts of the various Socialist bodies, in concert with trade unionism, resulted, in 1899, in the formation of the Labour Representation Committee which, seven years later, had developed into the Labour Party, with about thirty representatives in the House of Commons. Already, however, a few years’ practical acquaintance with party politics has diminished the Socialist orthodoxy of the Labour Party, and it shows signs of becoming absorbed in the details of party contention. Significant commentaries appeared in the summer of 1911 and in the spring of 1912; industrial disturbances, singularly resembling French Syndicalism, occurred spontaneously in most commercial and mining centres, and the whole Labour movement in the British Isles has reverted to the Revolutionary type that last appeared in 1889.

In every European nation the Socialist movement has followed, more or less faithfully, one of the three preceding types. In Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, and Italy it is predominantly parliamentary: in Russia, Spain, and Portugal it displays a more bitterly revolutionary character. But everywhere the two tendencies, parliamentary and revolutionary, struggle for the upper hand; now one, now the other becoming predominant. Nor is the movement in the United States any exception to the rule. It began about 1849, purely as a movement among the German and other immigrants and, in spite of the migration of the old International to New York in 1872, had but little effect upon the native population till the Henry George movement of 1886. Even then jealousies and divisions restricted its action, till the reorganization of the Socialist Labour Party at Chicago in 1889. Since then the movement has spread rapidly. In 1897 appeared the Social Democracy of America, which, uniting with the majority of the Socialist Labour Party in 1901, formed the present rapidly growing Socialist Party. In the United States the movement is still strongly Marxian in character, though a Revisionist school is growing up, somewhat on the lines of the English Fabian movement, under the influence of writers like Edmond Kelly, Morris Hillquit, and Professors Ely and Zuelin. But the main body is still crudely Revolutionary, and is likely to remain so until the political democracy of the nation is more perfectly reflected in its economic conditions.

These main points in the history of Socialism lead up to an examination of its spirit and intention. The best idealism of earlier times was fixed upon the soul rather than upon the body: exactly the opposite is the case with Socialism. Social questions are almost entirely questions of the body — public health, sanitation, housing, factory conditions, infant mortality, employment of women, hours of work, rates of wages, accidents, unemployment, pauperism, old age pensions, sickness, infirmity, lunacy, feeble-mindedness, intemperance, prostitution, physical deterioration. All these are excellent ends for activity in themselves, but all of them are mainly concerned with the care or cure of the body. To use a Catholic phrase, they are opportunities for corporal works of mercy, which may lack the spiritual intention that would make them Christian. The material may be made a means to the spiritual, but is not to be considered an end in itself. This world is a place of probation, and the time is short. Man is here for a definite purpose, a purpose which transcends the limits of this mortal life, and his first business is to realize this purpose and carry it out with whatever help and guidance he may find. The purpose is a spiritual one, but he is free to choose or refuse the end for which he was created; he is free to neglect or to co-operate with the Divine assistance, which will give his life the stability and perfection of a spiritual rather than of a material nature. This being so, there must be a certain order in the nature of his development. He is not wholly spiritual nor wholly material; he has a soul, a mind, and a body; but the interests of the soul must be supreme, and the interests of mind and body must be brought into proper subservience to it. His movement towards perfection is by way of ascent; it is not easy; it requires continual exercise of the will, continual discipline, continual training — it is a warfare and a pilgrimage, and in it are two elements, the spiritual and the material, which are one in the unity of his daily life. As St. Paul pointed out, there must be a continual struggle between these two elements. If the individual life is to be a success, the spiritual desire must triumph, the material one must be subordinate, and when this is so the whole individual life is lived with proper economy, spiritual things being sought after as an end, while material things are used merely as a means to that end.

The point, then, to be observed is that the spiritual life is really the economic life. From the Christian point of view material necessities are to be kept at a minimum, and material superfluities as far as possible to be dispensed with altogether. The Christian is a soldier and a pilgrim who requires material things only as a means to fitness and nothing more. In this he has the example of Christ Himself, Who came to earth with a minimum of material advantages and persisted thus even to the Cross. The Christian, then, not only from the individual but also from the social standpoint, has chosen the better part. He does not despise this life, but, just because his material desires are subordinate to his spiritual ones, he lives it much more reasonably, much more unselfishly, much more beneficially to his neighbours. The point, too, which he makes against the Socialist is this. The Socialist wishes to distribute material goods in such a way as to establish a substantial equality, and in order to do this he requires the State to make and keep this distribution compulsory. The Christian replies to him: “You cannot maintain this widespread distribution, for the simple reason that you have no machinery for inducing men to desire it. On the contrary, you do all you can to increase the selfish and accumulative desires of men: you centre and concentrate all their interest on material accumulation, and then expect them to distribute their goods.” This ultimate difference between Christian and Socialist teaching must be clearly understood. Socialism appropriates all human desires and centres them on the here-and-now, on material benefit and prosperity. But material goods are so limited in quality, in quantity, and in duration that they are incapable of satisfying human desires, which will ever covet more and more and never feel satisfaction. In this Socialism and Capitalism are at one, for their only quarrel is over the bone upon which is the meat that perisheth. Socialism, of itself and by itself, can do nothing to diminish or discipline the immediate and materialistic lust of men, because Socialism is itself the most exaggerated and universalized expression of this lust yet known to history. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches and practices unselfish distribution of material goods, both according to the law of justice and according to the law of charity.

Again, ethically speaking, Socialism is committed to the doctrine of determinism. Holding that society makes the individuals of which it is composed, and not vice versa, it has quite lost touch with the invigorating Christian doctrine of free will. This fact may be illustrated by its attitude towards the three great institutions which have hitherto most strongly exemplified and protected that doctrine — the Church, the Family, and private ownership. Socialism, with its essentially materialistic nature, can admit no raison d’etre for a spiritual power, as complementary and superior to the secular power of the State. Man, as the creature of a material environment, and as the subject of a material State, has no moral responsibilities and can yield to no allegiance beyond that of the State. Any power which claims to appropriate and discipline his interior life, and which affords him sanctions that transcend all evolutionary and scientific determinism, must necessarily incur Socialist opposition. So, too, with the Family. According to the prevalent Socialist teaching, the child stands between two authorities, that of its parents and that of the State, and of these the State is certainly the higher. The State therefore is endowed with the higher authority and with all powers of interference to be used at its own discretion. Contrast this with the Christian notion of the Family — an organic thing with an organic life of its own. The State, it is true, must ensure a proper basis for its economic life, but beyond that it should not interfere: its business is not to detach the members of the family from their body in order to make them separately and selfishly efficient; a member is cut off from its body only as a last resource to prevent organic poisoning. The business of the State is rather that of helping the Family to a healthy, co-operative, and productive unity. The State was never meant to appropriate to itself the main parental duties, it was rather meant to provide the parents, especially poor parents, with a wider, freer, healthier family sphere in which to be properly parental. Socialism, then, both in Church and Family, is impersonal and deterministic: it deprives the individual of both his religious and his domestic freedom. And it is exactly the same with the institution of private property.

The Christian doctrine of property can best be stated in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: “In regard to an external thing man has two powers: one is the power of managing and controlling it, and as to this it is lawful for a man to possess private property. It is, moreover, necessary for human life for three reasons. First, because everyone is more zealous in looking after a thing that belongs to him than a thing that is the common property of all or of many; because each person, trying to escape labour, leaves to another what is everybody’s business, as happens where there are many servants. Secondly, because there is more order in the management of men’s affairs if each has his own work of looking after definite things; whereas there would be confusion if everyone managed everything indiscriminately. Thirdly, because in this way the relations of men are kept more peaceful, since everyone is satisfied with his own possession, whence we see that quarrels are commoner between those who jointly own a thing as a whole. The other power which man has over external things is the using of them;; and as to this man must not hold external things as his own property, but as everyone’s; so as to make no difficulty, I mean, in sharing when others are in need” (Summa theologica, II-II, Q. Ixvi, a. 2). If man, then, has the right to own, control, and use private property, the State cannot give him this right or take it away; it can only protect it. Here, of course, we are at issue with Socialism, for, according to it, the State is the supreme power from which all human rights are derived; it acknowledges no independent spiritual, domestic, or individual power whatever. In nothing is the bad economy of Socialism more evident than in its derogation or denial of all the truly personal and self-directive powers of human nature, and its misuse of such of such human qualities as it does not despise or deny is a plain confession of its material and deterministic limitations. It is true that the institutions of religion, of the family, and of private ownership are liable to great abuses, but the perfection of human effort and character demands a freedom of choice between good and evil as their first necessary condition. This area of free choice is provided, on the material side, by private ownership; on the spiritual and material, by the Christian Family; and on the purely spiritual by religion. The State, then, instead of depriving men of these opportunities of free and fine production, not only of material but also of intellectual values, should rather constitute itself as their defender.

In apparent contradiction, however, to much of the foregoing argument are the considerations put forward by numerous schools of “Christian Socialism”, both Catholic and non-Catholic. It will be urged that there cannot really be the opposition between Socialism and Christianity that is here suggested, for, as a matter of fact, many excellent and intelligent persons in all countries are at once convinced Christians and ardent Socialists. Now, before it is possible to estimate correctly how far this undoubted fact can alter the conclusions arrived at above, certain premises must be noted. First, it is not practically possible to consider Socialism solely as an economic or social doctrine. It has long passed the stage of pure theory and attained the proportions of a movement: It is to-day a doctrine embodied in programmes, a system of thought and belief that is put forward as the vivifying principle of an active propaganda, a thing organically connected with the intellectual and moral activities of the millions who are its adherents. Next, the views of small and scattered bodies of men and women, who profess to reconcile the two doctrines, must be allowed no more than their due weight when contrasted with the expressed beliefs of not only the majority of the leading exponents of Socialism, past and present, but also of the immense majority of the rank and file in all nations. Thirdly, for Catholics, the declarations of supreme pontiffs, of the Catholic hierarchy, and of the leading Catholic sociologists and economists have an important bearing on the question, an evidential force not to be lightly dismissed. Lastly, the real meaning attached to the terms “Christianity” and “Socialism”, by those who profess to reconcile these doctrines, must always be elicited before it is possible to estimate either what doctrines are being reconciled or how far that reconciliation is of any practical adequacy.

If it be found on examination that the general trend of the Socialist movement, the predominant opinion of the Socialists, the authoritative pronouncements of ecclesiastical and expert Catholic authority all tend to emphasize the philosophical cleavage indicated above, it is probably safe to conclude that those who profess to reconcile the two doctrines are mistaken: either their grasp of the doctrines of Christianity or of Socialism will be found to be imperfect, or else their mental habits will appear to be so lacking in discipline that they are content with the profession of a belief in incompatible principles. Now, if Socialism be first considered as embodied in the Socialist movement and Socialist activity, it is notorious that everywhere it is antagonistic to Christianity. This is above all clear in Catholic countries, where the Socialist organizations are markedly anti-Christian both in profession and practice. It is true that of late years there has appeared among Socialists some impatience of remaining mere catspaws of the powerful Masonic anti-clerical societies, but this is rather because these secret societies are largely engineered by the wealthy in the interests of capitalism than from any affection for Catholicism. The European Socialist remains anti-clerical, even when he revolts against Masonic manipulation. Nor is this really less true of non Catholic countries. In Germany, in Holland, in Denmark, in the United States, even in Great Britain, organized Socialism is ever prompt to express (in its practical programme, if not in its formulated creed) its contempt for and inherent antagonism to revealed Christianity. What, in public, is not infrequently deprecated is clearly enough implied in projects of legislation, as well as in the mental attitude that is usual in Socialist circles.

Nor are the published views of the Socialist leaders and writers less explicit. “Scientific Socialism” began as an economic exposition of evolutionary materialism; it never lost that character. Its German founders, Marx, Engels, Lassalle, were notoriously anti-Christian both in temper and in acquired philosophy. So have been its more modern exponents in Germany, Bebel, Liebknecht, Kautsky, Dietzgen, Bernstein, Singer, as well as the popular papers — the “Sozial Demokrat”, the “Vorwarts”, the “Zimmerer”, the “Neue Zeit” — which reflect, while expounding, the view of the rank and file; and the Gotha and Erfurt programmes, which express the practical aims of the movement. In France and the Netherlands the former and present leaders of the various Socialist sections are at one on the question of Christianity — Lafargue, Herve, Boudin, Guesde, Jaures, Viviani, Sorel, Briand, Griffuelhes, Largardelle, Tery, Renard, Nieuwenhuis, Vandervelde — all are anti-Christian, as are the popular newspapers, like “La Guerre Sociale”, “L’Humanite”, “Le Socialiste”, the “Petite Republique”, the “Recht voor Allen”, “Le Peuple”. In Italy, Austria, Spain, Russia, and Switzerland it is the same: Socialism goes hand in hand with the attack on Christianity. Only in the English-speaking countries is the rule apparently void. Yet, even there, but slight acquaintance with the leading personalities of the Socialist movement and the habits of thought current among them, is sufficient to dispel the illusion. In Great Britain certain prominent names at once occur as plainly anti-Christian — Aveling, Hyndman, Pearson, Blatchford, Bax, Quelch, Leatham, Morris, Standring — many of them pioneers and prophets of the movement in England. The Fabians, Shaw, Pease, Webb, Guest; independents, like Wells, or Orage, or Carpenter; popular periodicals like “The Clarion”, “The Socialist Review”, “Justice” are all markedly non-Christian in spirit, though some of them do protest against any necessary incompatibility between their doctrines and the Christian. It is true that the political leaders, like Macdonald and Hardie, and a fair proportion of the present Labour Party might insist that “Socialism is only Christianity in terms of modern economics”, but the very measures they advocate or support not unfrequently are anti-Christian in principle or tendency. And in the United States it is the same. Those who have studied the writings or speeches of well-known Socialists, such as Bellamy, Gronlund, Spargo, Hunter, Debs, Herron, Abbott, Brown, Del Mar, Hillquit, Kerr, or Simmons, or periodicals like the “New York Volkszeitung”, “The People”, “The Comrade”, or “The Worker”, are aware of the bitterly anti-Christian tone that pervades them and is inherent in their propaganda.

The trend of the Socialist movement, then, and the deliberate pronouncements and habitual thought of leaders and followers alike, are almost universally found to be antagonistic to Christianity. Moreover, the other side of the question is but a confirmation of this antagonism. For all three popes who have come into contact with modern Socialism, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X, have formally condemned it, both as a general doctrine and with regard to specific points. The bishops and clergy, the lay experts on social and economic questions, the philosophers, the theologians, and practically the whole body of the faithful are unanimous in their acceptance of the condemnation. It is of little purpose to point out that the Socialism condemned is Marxism, and not Fabianism or its analogues in various countries. For, in the first place, the main principles common to all schools of Socialism have been explicitly condemned in Encyclicals like the “Rerum novarum” or the “Graves de communi”; and, in addition, as has been shown above, the main current of Socialism is still Marxist, and no adhesion to a movement professedly international can be acquitted of the guilt of lending support to the condemned doctrines. The Church, the Socialists, the very tendency of the movement do but confirm the antagonism of principle, indicated above, between Socialism and Christianity. The “Christian Socialists” of all countries, indeed, fall readily, upon examination, into one of three categories. Either they are very imperfectly Christian, as the Lutheran followers of Stocker and Naumann in Germany, or the Calvinist Socialists in France, or the numerous vaguely-doctrinal “Free-Church” Socialists in England and America; or, secondly, they are but very inaccurately styled “Socialist”; as were the group led by Kingsley, Maurice and Hughes in England, or “Catholic Democrats” like Ketteler, Manning, Descurtins, the “Sillonists”; or, thirdly, where there is an acceptance of the main Christian doctrine, side by side with the advocacy of Revolutionary Socialism, as is the case with the English “Guild of St. Matthew” or the New York Church Association for the Advancement of the Interests of Labour, it can only be ascribed to that mental facility in holding at the same time incompatible doctrines, which is everywhere the mark of the “Catholic but not Roman” school. Christianity and Socialism are hopelessly incompatible, and the logic of events makes this ever clearer. It is true that, before the publication of the Encyclical “Rerum novarum”, it was not unusual to apply the term “Christian Socialism” to the social reforms put forward throughout Europe by those Catholics who are earnestly endeavouring to restore the social philosophy of Catholicism to the position it occupied in the ages of Faith. But, under the guidance of Pope Leo XIII, that crusade against the social and economic iniquities of the present age is now more correctly styled “Christian Democracy”, and no really instructed, loyal, and clear-thinking Catholic would now claim or accept the style of Christian Socialist.

To sum up, in the words of a capable anonymous writer in “The Quarterly Review”, Socialism has for “its philosophical basis, pure materialism; its religious basis is pure negation; its ethical basis the theory that society makes the individuals of which it is composed, not the individuals society, and that therefore the structure of society determines individual conduct, which involves moral irresponsibility; its economic basis is the theory that labour is the sole producer, and that capital is the surplus value over bare subsistence produced by labour and stolen by capitalists; its juristic basis is the right of labour to the whole product; its historical basis is the industrial revolution, that is the change from small and handicraft methods of production to large and mechanical ones, and the warfare of classes; its political basis is democracy. . . . It may be noted that some of these [bases] have already been abandoned and are in ruins, others are beginning to shake; and as this process advances the defenders are compelled to retreat and take up fresh positions. Thus the form of the doctrine changes and undergoes modification, though all cling still to the central principle, which is the substitution of public for private ownership”.

———————————–

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE W.E. CAMPBELLTranscribed by Lucia Tobin

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Socialism

a general term applied to several schemes of social arrangement which advocate community of property, and abandon or modify individual industry, the rights of marriage, and of the family. In discussing the subject of Socialism, two elements are to be considered: (1) the judgment of socialism on existing institutions and practices and on their results; (2) the various plans which it has proposed for doing better. Socialism affirms that the evils it complains of are irremediable in the present constitution of society. In the opinion of Socialists, the existing arrangements of society in respect to property and the production and distribution of wealth are, as a, means to the general good, a total failure. First among existing evils may be mentioned that of poverty. The institution of property is upheld and commended principally as being the means by which labor and frugality are insured their reward and mankind enabled to emerge from indigence. But Socialism urges that an immense proportion of the industrious classes are, at some period or other of their lives, dependent on legal or voluntary charity; that many are outstripped by others who are possessed of superior energy or prudence; that the reward, instead of being proportioned to the labor and abstinence of the individual, is almost in the inverse ratio to it that the great majority are what they are born to be some to be rich without work, others to become rich by work, but the great majority are born to hard work and poverty through life; that competition is, for the people, a system of extermination, resulting from the continual fall of labor. Cheapness, they say, is advantageous to the consumer, at the cost of introducing the seeds of ruinous anarchy among the producers. The Fourierists (M. Considerant, Destinee Sociale 1, 35-37) enumerate the evils of existing civilization in the following order: 1. It employs an enormous quantity of labor and of human power unproductively, or in the work of destruction, e.g. in sustaining armies, courts, magistrates, etc.; in allowing good society,’ people who pass their lives in doing nothing, also in allowing philosophers, metaphysicians, political men, who produce nothing but disturbance and sterile discussions.

2. That even the industry and powers which, in the present system, are devoted to production do not produce more than a small portion of what they might produce if better directed and employed, e.g. the wastefulness in the existing arrangements for distributing the produce of the country among the various producers. Socialism seeks to put an end to the vices and suffering of men, not by individual regeneration and reformation, but by a new social organization. It is the employment of political and economic measures for a moral purpose. Proceeding upon the supposition that the individual is wholly or largely the creature of circumstances, it seeks to make the latter as favorable as possible. Thus it makes a religion of social regeneration, and proposes to renovate the world by a new arrangement of property and industrial interests. Although in some measure anticipated by movements in the ancient world, socialism may be considered a product of the French Revolution, which was an anarchic attack on the social system that had its roots in the feudalism of the Middle Ages. The first to revive or bring socialistic ideas into general notice was Francois Noel Babeuf (1764-97), in his paper Le Tribun du Peuple. The idea from which he started was that of equality, and he insisted that there should be no other differences than those of age and sex; that men differed little in their faculties and needs, and consequently should receive the same education and food. After his death his system, Babouvism, was for some time entirely forgotten, until, in 1834, Buonarotti again attempted its propagation in the Moniteur Republicain and Homme Libre. The three most noted developments of Socialism are Communism, Fourierism, and Saint-Simonism or Humanitarianism. The Nihilists of Russia at this time attract considerable attention because of the efforts made by the government towards their extinction. They believe that, in order to human progress, it is not only possible, but absolutely necessary, to begin at once with the present complicated social phenomena in the way of a sudden and complete social reform, or with a revolution. In April, 1879, an attempt was made by one of their number to assassinate the emperor. This has led to the arrest of hundreds, many of whom have been sent to Siberia. A number of Socialistic communities have been established in the United States, some of which have already been noticed. SEE HARMONISTS; SEE SEPARATISTS; SEE SHAKERS. Others will be treated in this article.

I. The Amana Society. This society takes its name from the Bible (Son 4:8), and has its location in Iowa, in the town of Amana. The members call themselves the True Inspiration Congregations (Wahre Inspirations Gemeinden), and are Germans. They came from Germany in 1842, and settled near Buffalo, N.Y.; but in 1855 they removed to their present location. The work of inspiration began far back in the 18th century, an account of the journeys, etc., of Brother John Frederick Rock in 1719 being given in the Thirty-sixth Collection of the Inspiration Record. Finally, in 1816, Michael Krausert became what they call an instrument, and to him were added several others, among them Christian Metz, who was for many years, and until his death (1867), the spiritual head of the society. Another prominent instrument was Barbara Heynemann, whose husband, George Landman, became spiritual head of the society. The removal to this country was inaugurated by Metz, who professed to have a revelation so directing.

1. Social Economy. The society was not communistic in Germany, and even after removal to this country the community intended to live simply as a Christian congregation. Being obliged to look after the temporal interests of each other, they built workshops, etc., out of a common fund, and thus drifted into their present practice. They have now seven villages, and carry on farming, woollen, saw, and grist mills. Each family has a house for itself; but the members eat in common, in cooking or eating houses, of which there are fifteen. Each business has its foreman; and these leaders, in each village, meet every evening to consult and arrange for the following day. The civil or temporal government is vested in thirteen trustees, chosen annually by the male members, the trustees choosing the president of the society. The elders are men of presumably deep piety, appointed by inspiration, and preside at religious assemblies. The members are supplied with clothing and other articles, excepting food, by an annual allowance to each individual. Usually a neophyte enters on probation for two years, and, if a suitable person, is admitted to full membership; although some are received at once into full membership by inspiration. They forbid the use of musical instruments (except a flute), and exclude photographs and other pictures, as tending to idol worship. Although not forbidding marriage, celibacy is looked upon as meritorious; and young men are not allowed to marry until twenty-four years of age. The society is financially prosperous, has no debt, has money at interest, and owned in 1874 about 25,000 acres of land, 3000 sheep, 1500 head of cattle, 200 horses, and 2500 hogs, with a population of about 1500.

2. Religion and Literature. The society is pietistic, and believes in inspiration as a result of entire consecration to God. It accepts both the Old and the New Testament, but not to the exclusion of present inspiration. It does not practice baptism, but celebrates the Lord’s supper whenever led by inspiration. Inspiration is sometimes private, at other times public; and the warnings, reproofs, etc., thus received are written down in yearly volumes, entitled Year-books of the True Inspiration Congregations. When a member offends against the rules of society, he is admonished by the elders; and if he do not amend, expulsion follows. These rules are twenty- one in number, and encourage sobriety, reverence, honesty, and abstinence. They hold religious services on Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday mornings, and every evening. They keep New year’s as a holiday, and Christmas, Easter, and Holy Week are their great religious festivals. At least once a year there is an Untersuchung, or inquisition of the whole community, including children an examination of its spiritual condition, in which each member is expected to make confession of sins. Their hymnology is found in The Voice from Zion (Ebenezer, 1851, pp. 958), and another hymn book in regular use, Psalms after the Manner of David, etc. (Amana, Ia., 1871). Among their books is Innocent Amusement (Unschuldiger Zeitvertreib), a mass of pious doggerel; Jesus’ A, B, C for his Scholars, also in rhyme; Rhymes on the Sufferings, Death, Burial, and Ascension of Christ.

II. Perfectionists of Oneida and Wallingford. This society is of American origin, having for its founder the present head, John Humphrey Noyes, born in Brattleborough, Vt., in 1811. He was educated at Dartmouth, Andover, and Yale. While in the latter institution he entered upon a new experience and new views of the way of salvation, which took the name of Perfectionism. In 1834 he went to Poultney, Vt., and slowly gathered about him a small company of believers, and in 1847 had forty persons in his own congregation, besides small gatherings in other states who recognized him as leader. Not a Communist at first, Mr. Noyes, in 1845, made known his peculiar views, and began cautiously to practice them in 1846. The community were mobbed and driven from the place, and in 1848 settled in Oneida, Madison Co., N.Y. Other communities were established, but all were eventually merged in those of Oneida, N.Y., and Wallingford, Conn. After various reverses, they began to accumulate property, engaged in manufacture and the preserving of fruits, etc., and in 1874 had 640 acres of land near Oneida, with 240 at Wallingford. In ten years (1857-66) they had netted $180,580, and were worth over $500,000. The two communities must be counted as one, and the members are interchangeable at will. In February, 1874, they numbered 283 persons, 131 males and 152 females. The members are mostly Americans, largely recruited from New England.

1. Daily Life, etc. The members live in one large building, the older people occupying separate chambers, the younger sleeping two together. There is no regulation style of dress, although plainness is expected of all. They have twenty-one standing committees on finance, amusements, arbitration, etc.; and, besides this, the duties of administration are divided among forty-eight departments, as publication, education, agriculture, manufacture, etc. Every Sunday morning a meeting is held of the Business Board, composed of the heads of all the departments, and any members of the community who choose to attend. The children are left to the care of their mothers until weaned, when they are placed in the general nursery, under caretakers, who are both men and women. They have no sermon or public prayers, and address one another as Mr. or Miss, except when the women were married before they entered the society. An annual allowance of thirty-three dollars is made to each woman, the men ordering clothes when in need. In the school the Bible is the prominent textbook, but a liberal education is encouraged. They receive members with great care, but exact no probation.

2. Religious Belief The Perfectionists hold to the Bible as the textbook of the spirit of truth, to Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God, and to the apostles and Primitive Church as the exponents of the everlasting Gospel. They believe that the second advent of Christ took place at the period of the destruction of Jerusalem; that the final kingdom of God then began in the heavens; that the manifestation of the kingdom in the visible world is now approaching; that its approach is ushering in the second and final resurrection and judgment; that a Church on earth is now rising to meet the approaching kingdom in the heavens, and to become its duplicate and representative; that inspiration, or open communication with God and the heavens, involving perfect holiness, is the element of connection between the Church on earth and the Church in the heavens, and the power by which the kingdom of God is to be established and to reign in the world. They also teach that the Gospel provides for complete salvation from sin, which, they say, is the foundation needed by all other reformers. Community of goods and of persons they believe to have been taught by Jesus, and hold that communism is the social state of the resurrection. In their system, complex marriage takes the place of simple, they affirming that there is no intrinsic difference between property in person and property in things; and that the same spirit which abolished exclusiveness in regard to money would abolish, if circumstances allowed full scope for it, exclusiveness in regard to women and children. Complex marriage means that, within the limits of their community, any man and woman may freely cohabit, having gained each other’s consent through a third party. They are firm believers in the efficacy of the faith cure, and quote instances in which invalids have been instantly restored to perfect health in answer to prayer.

This community has lately taken an important step towards reorganization by formally abandoning the system of complex marriage that father John Humphrey Noyes has consistently advocated for so many years. Considerable opposition having been experienced because of the promiscuous commerce of the sexes asserted to exist, father Noyes has decided to abandon his scheme called stirpiculture in practice, while retaining it in theory. He accordingly wrote (Aug. 20, 1879) a message to the community, containing modifications in their platform, of which the following is a summary:

I. To give up the practice of complex marriage, not as renouncing belief in the principles and prospective finality of that institution, but in deference to the public sentiment evidently rising against it.

II. To place themselves as a community, not on the platform of the Shakers, on the one hand, nor on that of the world, on the other, but on Paul’s platform, which, while allowing marriage as a concession to human weakness, prefers celibacy as the holier and more perfect state.

III. To continue to hold their business and property in common; to continue to live together, and to eat at the same table; to retain the common department for infants and juveniles, and to maintain the practice of regular evening meetings for mutual criticism.

The platform contained in the communication was adopted by a formal vote on the evening of Tuesday, Aug. 26, abolishing the offensive abomination of complex marriage at a stroke. The society will hereafter, therefore, consist of two classes of members celibates, and married persons living together as husband and wife under the laws of marriage as generally understood. The family idea is left, it is true; but with permanent families within the community family it is shorn of its main significance, and takes the form of a common work, a common interest in commercial ventures, and a common property. Among the literary productions of this community are, Paul not Carnal; The Perfectionist; The Way of Holiness; Berean Witness; Spiritual Magazine; Free Church Circular; Bible Communism; History of American Socialism; and Essay on Scientific Propagation (the latter two by J.H. Noyes).

III. Aurora and Bethel Communes. The founder and present ruler of these communities is Dr. Keil, a Prussian, born in 1811. At first a man- milliner, he became a mystic, and afterwards, at Pittsburgh, made open profession of his belief. He gathered a number of Germans about him, to whom he represented himself as a being to be worshipped, and later as one of the two witnesses in the Book of Revelation. He began to plan a communism somewhat resembling that of Rapp, but without the celibate principle. His followers, in 1844, removed to Bethel, Mo., and took up four sections of land, or 2560 acres, to which they added from time to time, until they possessed 4000 acres. In 1874 they numbered about 200 persons. In 1855 Dr. Keil, with about 80 persons, removed to Oregon, and the following year settled at Aurora. They numbered in 1874 nearly 400 people, and owned about 18,000 acres of land.

The government at Aurora is vested in Dr. Keil, who is both president and preacher, and has for his advisers four of the elder members, chosen by himself. The preacher and head of the Bethel Commune is Mr. Giese, with six trustees, chosen by the members. The people of both communes are plain, frugal, industrious Germans, with simple tastes, and seem contented and happy. They hold to principles which are chiefly remarkable for their simplicity.

1. That all government should be parental, to imitate the parental government of God.

2. That society should be formed upon the model of the family, having all interests and property absolutely in common.

3. That neither religion nor the harmony of nature teaches community in anything further than property and labor. Hence the family life is strictly maintained, and all sexual irregularities are absolutely rejected. Religious service is held twice a month, and after the Lutheran style.

IV. Icarians. This community was the offspring of the dreams of Etienne Cabet, who was born in Dijon, France, in 1788. Cabet was educated for the bar, but became a politician and writer. He was a leader of the Carbonari, a member of the French Legislature, wrote a history of the French Revolution of July, was condemned to two years’ imprisonment, but fled to London, where he wrote the Voyage to Icaria. In this book he described a communistic Utopia, and in 1848 set sail, with a number of persons, for Texas, where he started an actual Icaria. Sixty-nine persons formed the advance guard, which was attacked by yellow fever, and disorganized by the time Cabet arrived in the next year. They went to Nauvoo, Ill., and were established in that deserted Mormon town, May, 1850. They numbered here, at one time, not less than 1500 persons, and labored and planted with success; but Cabet developed a dictatorial spirit, which produced a split in the society. He and some of his followers went to St. Louis, where he died in 1856. Shortly after, the Illinois colony came to an end, and between fifty and sixty settled upon their Iowa estate, about four miles from Corning. They own at the present time 1936 acres of land; number 65 members and 11 families, most of whom are French. They live under the constitution prepared by Cabet, which lays down the equality and brotherhood of mankind and the duty of holding all things in common, abolishes servitude and servants, commands marriage under penalties, provides for education, and requires that the majority shall rule. In practice they elect a president once a year, who is the executive officer, but whose powers are strictly limited. They have also four directors, who carry on the necessary work and direct the other members. They have no religious observances. Sunday is a day of rest and amusement.

V. Bishop Hill Commune, now extinct, was formed by Swedish pietists, who settled in Henry County, Ill., October, 1846. Others followed, until, by the summer of 1848, they numbered 800 persons. At first they were very poor, living in holes in the ground and under sheds; but by industry and economy they prospered, so that, in 1859, they owned 10,000 acres of land and a town. Their religious life was very simple. Two services were held on Sunday and one each week night. They discouraged amusements as tending to worldliness, and after a while the young people became discontented with the dull community life. It was determined, in the spring of 1860, to divide the property, which was done. Dissensions still continuing, a further division was made, each family receiving its share, and the commune ceased to exist.

VI. Cedar Vale Community is a communistic society near Cedar Vale, Howard Co., Kansas, and was begun in January, 1871. Its members were recruited from among two essentially different classes of Socialists the Russian Materialists and American Spiritualists. They numbered in 1874 four males, one female, one child; and on probation, two males, one female, and one child. They are organized under the name of the PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY, and hold to community of goods and to entire freedom of opinion.

VII. Social Freedom Community is a communistic society established early in 1874, in Chesterfield County, Va. It has two women, one man, and three boys as full members, with four women and five men as probationary members. They own a farm of 333 acres, and are attempting general farming, sawing, grinding, etc. The members are all Americans. They hold to unity of interests, and political, religious, and social freedom; that every individual shall have absolute control of herself or himself. They have no constitution or by laws; ignore man’s total depravity, and believe that all who are actuated by a love of truth and a desire of progress can be governed by love, and moral suasion.

See Holyoake, History of Co-operation (1875); Noyes, History of American Socialism (1870); Stein, Der Socialismus und Communismus des heutigen Frankreichs (1844), and Geschichte der socialen Bewegungen in Frankreich (1849-51). For information as to societies mentioned in this article we are largely indebted to Nordhoff, Communistic Societies of the United States (N.Y. 1875).

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Socialism

SOCIALISM

1. Definition, etc.The watch-word of the Socialist is Co-operation; the watch-word of the anti-Socialist is Competition. Any one who recognizes the principle of Co-operation as a stronger and truer principle than that of Competition, has a right to the honour or the disgrace of being called a Socialist. This definition was written by Frederic Denison Maurice in the first of a series of Tracts on Christian Socialism, which was published in 1849. Maurice, Kingsley, and T. Hughes deliberately adopted the word Socialist for the movement which they founded, and incurred, as Hughes has testified, much anger and bitterness as a result; but, since then, the Socialist idea has had a secure place in the speculations and activities of modern Christianity. It is evident, however, that Socialism so defined is a much broader thing than the State Socialism of economic theory, or than that of the Social Democratic parties of contemporary politics. Fifty years ago, indeed, many men did regard competition as a stronger and truer principle than co-operation; and Socialism (in Maurices sense) has had an easy victory over the laissez-faire Individualism which was dominant in the political economy of his day; in this sense the famous saying is true that We are all Socialists now. But a man may be against Individualism or Anarchism, and to that extent a Socialist, and yet may be opposed to the current conceptions both of economic and political Socialism; he may possibly regard the growth of municipal undertakings with alarm, and he may even look, as Thomas Carlyle did, to the strong man, and not to the democracy, for deliverance from the evils of insufficiently restricted competition.

Yet general principles are of more importance than economic theories which must necessarily shift with changing conditions of life; and Socialism, defined as the principle of fellowship, may safely claim to be an integral part of Christianity, working itself out in one age through feudalism and canon law, in another through representative government and factory legislation, and tending, through the improvement of individual character, to the ideal state. That ideal state might prove to be either socialist or anarchist, or to be (as society now is) somewhere between these two extremes; for, indeed, if men were perfect, the machinery of society would be a matter of indifference. It is because men are imperfect that the economic and political machinery is a matter of urgent importance. Here Socialism, as an active Christian principle, comes in; for though Christians must always claim the supreme importance of personal regeneration, as against those who think that society can be made perfect by the mere operation of the State, it must also be admitted that a religion which attempts to deal only with the individual, and leaves society to its own devices and the laws of supply and demand, is untrue to itself, and is doomed to failure. Individual character cannot be regenerated while it is being destroyed by bad housing, or by intemperance, or by commercial selfishness and dishonesty, or while multitudes are submerged and sweated. Such things as these are therefore the immediate concern of the Christian; and far more so the great causeseconomic, political, ethicalwhich lie behind them. Now it is undeniable that, for a considerable period before Maurice wrote, the religious world as a whole had ignored this truth, and had neglected its social duty to the weak and oppressed,a neglect of which the results are still painfully evident to-day. There had indeed always existed a better tradition: the Quakers* [Note: A good example of 18th cent. Quakerism is John Woolman. See the Bibliography in the Fabian Societys edition of his tract, A Word of Remembrance and Caution to the Rich.] had been a powerful leaven of commercial morality; Wilberforce and his friends had, after a protracted battle of 20 years, conquered Individualism in the interests of the black slaves; Shaftesbury (a Conservative in politics) had already won a signal victory over the even more horrible white slavery that went on in English factories. Both these men were devoted religious leaders: but they were not the religious world; hence the protest of the Christian Socialists,a protest which has really changed the face of British Christendom.

The Maurician definition of Socialism is thus a very real one, and is practical as well as fundamental. The Christian men who opposed Shaftesbury were Individualists; they left society to the laws of supply and demandin other words, to competition; they regarded the aim of Christianity as the salvation of individualsor perhaps of a small minority of the elect, for Calvinism was in truth the theological parent of this Individualism. If Socialism be regarded broadly as the antithesis of Individualism, as a theory of life and not only of economics, then it is true that the Christian Socialists won the day and now hold the field. It will clear the ground if we give here a definition of Bishop Westcott in which Maurices words are repeated and expanded:

The term Socialism has been discredited by its connexion 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 forms of violence, or confiscation, or class selfishness, or financial arrangement. I shall therefore venture to employ it apart from its historical associations as describing a theory of life, and not only a theory of economics. In this sense 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 disconnected 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 regards 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, or 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 (Westcott, Socialism, pp. 3, 4).

If the social principle, the principle of brotherhood, had been forgotten, it certainly came to its own again in the 19th cent., though it may be at present rather overwhelmed by the problems which had grown up during its abeyance. Its rapid revival in the Churches was due to the fact that the men who proclaimed it were able to point to half-forgotten Scripture ideasas with other objects men had gone back to the teaching of Scripture at the Reformation. It was easy for the pioneers of the social revival to show that the Gospels and Epistles were full of social teaching, and gave no support to the doctrine of the devil take the hindmost, or (in more subdued language) of noninterference. The following extract from a pronouncement of the entire episcopate of the Anglican Churches throughout the world (Lambeth Conference, 1887) shows, on the one hand, how completely the principle was accepted within 40 years of the first Christian Socialistic movement, and, on the other, how entirely its justification was felt to lie in the NT. Such utterances seem commonplace now, only because the Christian Churches have changed. They are not to be found in the official documents of the preceding era:

The Christian Church is bound, following the teaching of her Master, to aid every wise endeavour which has for its object the material and the moral welfare of the poor. Her Master taught her that all men are brethren, not because they share the same blood, but because they have a common heavenly Father. He further taught her that if any members of this spiritual family were greater, richer, or better than the rest, they were bound to use their special means or ability in the service of the whole. It will contribute no little to draw together the various classes of society, if the clergy endeavour in sermons and lectures to set forth the true principle of society, showing how Property is a trust to be administered for the good of Humanity, and how much of what is good and true in Socialism is to be found in the precepts of Christ.* [Note: This extract is given because it emanated at a comparatively early date from a body which had for long been specially associated with conservative opinions. Its sentiments can be paralleled from the statements of the Lambeth Conference of ten years later, and from the official utterances of most other religious bodies in recent years. The Church of England, the Church of Scotland, and some other Churches have now large Christian Social societies. Nor must it be supposed that the movement which it illustrates is confined to Great Britain. It is equally strong both among Protestants and Roman Catholics on the Continent of Europe and in America; indeed, it is numerically far stronger on the Continent than in Great Britain. The subject may be studied in Professor Nittis Catholic Socialism, Laveleyes Socialism of To-Day, the Preface to Ensors Modern Socialism, and other works mentioned at the end of this article. The most recent English work on the subject is Woodworths Christian Socialism in England.]

2. The Gospels.The Gospels are certainly full of those ideas which inspire the Christian Socialist. The Incarnation itself proclaims as the root principle of religion the unity and solidarity of the human race (this is worked out in Westcott, The Incarnation, a Revelation of Human Duties (S.P.C.K.)); and the manner of Christs comingHis lowly birth, His humble companions, His hard life, His death at the hands of the Lawcan well be claimed as democratic. He declared, indeed, at the outset, according to St. Luke (Luk 4:18), that He had come to preach good tidings to the poor; to His mother His coming meant the exaltation of them of low degree (Luk 1:52); to His forerunner also it meant a certain levelling of existing conditions (Luk 3:5), and indeed John the Baptist himself advocated that voluntary communism which is an undisputed characteristic of all early Christian teaching (He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none, etc., Luk 3:11). There is in all this a definite proclamation of brotherhood. When we turn to the teaching of our Lord, we find quite clearly that He concerned Himself with secular things, and did not give any justification for that other-worldliness which would ignore physical evils. His miracles were in the main works of mercy, designed to reduce the misery, or, as at Cana, to increase the happiness, of everyday life. His parables teach social principles of the most far-reaching importance. The parables, e.g., of the Kingdom explain the nature of the Christian fellowship, its inclusiveness (e.g. Mat 13:24-30), its ultimate world-wide extension (e.g. Mat 13:31-33). The condemnation of riches could hardly be more strongly expressed than in the parables of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16), and of the Rich Fool (ch. 12), and in the warning about the needles eye (Mar 10:25). The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) gives a new meaning to the word neighbour, and teaches the obligation of what nowadays is called social service; and this lesson is even more strongly expressed in the most important parable of allthat of the Judgment (Mat 25:31-46)where we are told that salvation will depend on whether we have succoured the poor and outcast, with whom Christ identifies Himself.

The Sermon on the Mount in this aspect may be called a simple manual of social teaching. It is sufficient to allude to the Beatitudes, and to point out how much of the teaching in the rest of the Sermon is still regarded as Utopian, as that about love of enemies (Luk 6:27), oaths, non-resistance, litigation and property, free giving (Mat 5:33-48), lending without interest (Luk 6:34-35, money-making (Mat 6:19), worrying about the future (Mat 6:24-34). The Christian Socialist may agree with the Socialist of the Chair that Collectivism would make these principles less difficult of application than they are to-day; but he would add the warning that the secular regeneration of the world can only be accomplished by spiritual means. One sentence of the Sermon sums up the whole truth, when, after picturing in a vivid image material well-being (Mat 6:26-29), our Lord says, Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you (Mat 6:33).

If we turn to another central part of Christs teaching, the Lords Prayer, we find again the social side interwoven with the spiritual. It was given as a private prayer (Mat 6:6), yet it begins, Our Father, and is throughout a prayer for the human brotherhood. It asks for the hallowing of Gods name, the coming of His Kingdom, and the doing of His will upon earth,in other words, it teaches the Christian to pray for Utopia, and it makes incumbent upon him the duty of considering all social and political schemes with a view to the perfecting of society in this world. The prayer for daily bread asks that all may have the necessities of material life, and this again involves far-reaching social considerations. The prayer for forgiveness is accompanied by a special clause guarding it against an individualist interpretation. As for the prayer against temptation, the temperance movement alone shows that British Christianity has appreciated the social significance of that clause; and in other matters it is clear that, if the worship of Mammon be the antithesis of the worship of God, a society based upon commercial competition is constantly leading its members into the gravest temptation of all.

Christ then teaches that man has a double dutyto love God and love his neighbour. He must love his neighbour not less than himself, and must do to others as he would have them do to him. Christ condemns the rich and blesses the poor; He teaches brotherhood, social service, and the abnegation of private possessions; He teaches that men are to strive to bring about a Divine Kingdom of justice on the earth, and that they will finally be judged by their works of mercy to those whom the world despises. And, binding it all together is the gospel of Love which St. John has preserved most fullyThis is my commandment, that ye love one another (Joh 15:12).

3. The Apostles.The rest of the NT contains abundant evidence that this social gospel was understood. Indeed, in the first flush of their enthusiasm the Christians of Jerusalem established a voluntary communism, and had all things common (Act 4:32-35). It was voluntary, and did not deny the right of a man to possess his own property, as St. Peter said to Ananias (Act 5:4), but it shows that almsgiving had a very thorough meaning to the first Christians. The doctrine of equality and brotherhood was also strongly felt. St. Paul more than once had to remind slaves that though in the sight of God there was no respect of persons (Col 3:25, cf. Jam 2:9), yet slaves must not turn against their masters: this balance between the brotherhood of master and slave on the one hand, and the duty of slave to master on the other, are very beautifully expressed in Philemon (cf. 1Co 7:20-24, Eph 6:5-9). This is characteristic of the early Fathers also (see below, Patristic Teaching); the conditions of society were to be accepted, and men were to do their duty in them, although the Christian fellowship was working out towards a higher ideal (e.g. 1Ti 6:1-2, cf. 1Pe 2:13-17). But St. James (whose Epistle contains passages which are often quoted on democratic platforms at the present day) is very definite as to the levelling power of the gospel, e.g. But let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate: and the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away (Jam 1:9-10; cf. Jam 2:5-10). St. Paul is as strong as St. James as to the danger of riches (e.g. 1Ti 6:10), and the evil of covetousness (e.g. Col 3:5), and the duty of mutual service (e.g. Php 2:4), and of mutual love (1 Corinthians 13). But his most valuable contribution to the social aspect of Christianity is his teaching about the solidarity of mankind; the social principle in its very essence is in the declaration that There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female: for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28; cf. Col 3:11, 1Co 12:13); nor could it be better taught than by the illustration of the body and its members in 1 Corinthians 12, and the great description of the unity of the Christian body in Ephesians 4. The fundamental doctrine of brotherhood and love is the theme of the First Ep. of St. John, in which it is definitely stated that without loving his brother whom he hath seen, a man cannot love God (1Jn 4:20); that the children of God are distinguished from the children of the devil by their righteousness and love of their brethren (1Jn 3:10); that to dwell in love is to dwell in God (1Jn 4:16), and that every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God, while he that loveth not, knoweth not God (1Jn 4:7-8). This is indeed the evidence of salvationWe know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren (1Jn 3:14). It is clear, then, that from the beginning it was taught that Christianity had an intensely strong and real practical side in secular matters, that this sidethe duty to the neighbourwas equally incumbent on the believer with the duty to God, and that it is bound up with the social ideas of brotherhood, solidarity, unity, mutual love, co-operation, voluntary equalization of condition by giving up of possessionsin some cases, as in that of the Rich Young Man (Mar 10:21). of all possessions; while there is throughout strong condemnation of riches, of luxury, pride, and the clinging to class distinctions.

4. Patristic Teaching.There is not space to do more than allude to the teaching of the Christian Fathers. Authorities on the subject are given at the end of this article: some of their more salient sayings will be found in Nittis Catholic Socialism, where their socialist character is exaggerated, and in Carlyles Mediaeval Political Economy, vol. i., where this side is perhaps underestimated. The Patristic writings are, indeed, extremely difficult to estimate, because of the distinction between what was ideally right as belonging to Gods plan (Jus naturale) and what was right under present conditions (Jus gentium)a distinction which is characteristic of Cicero and Seneca as well as of the Christian writers of a later date. Thus the Fathers held that all men were naturally equal, but at the same time they accepted slavery, though indeed the manumission of slaves was a recognized Christian virtue. It was the same with private property. Extracts can be gathered from the Fathers which are as strong as anything in the writings of modern socialists; for instance, Proudhons famous saying, La proprit, cest le vol, is almost exactly paralleled by St. Ambroses Natura igitur jus commune generavit, usurpatio jus fecit privatum (de Off. i. 28). But St. Ambrose does not mean that property is unlawful, only that it is not a natural institutionit belongs to the jus gentium. In the same way he does not advocate land-nationalization when he says, Deus noster terram hanc possessionem ominum hominum voluerit esse communem, et fructus omnibus ministrare: sed avaritia possessionum jure distribuit (In Psa 118:8; Psa 118:22); but goes on to say that for this reason the poor have a just claim on the rich to give them a share of what was meant for all. This may be taken as typical also of the earlier Chriatian writers. They assume the existence of private property as an institution, and that it is not evil if rightly used; but they do not consider it as belonging to the state of innocencelike slavery it is due to the fall into sin; their whole thought, Mr. Carlyle says, is dominated by the sense of the claims of the brotherhood, and the Christian man is bound to use his property to relieve the wants of his fellow-man. This is almsgiving, but, unlike modern almsgiving, it is based on a definite principle of justice. An early example of this is in the Didache (iv. 8), Thou shalt not turn away from him that hath need, but shalt share all things with thy brother, and shalt not say that aught is thine own: for if ye are partners in the immortal, how much more are ye partners in the perishable? Here the reference to the community of goods in Act 4:32 is obvious. Compare with it the All is common with us, except women, of Tertullian (Apol. xxxix.), or St. Justins declaration, We bring all we possess into a common stock, and share everything with the poor (Apol. i. 14). There are many passages in other Fathers, such as Chrysostom and Basil, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great, which have a strong socialist character, and they all used language about the selfishness of the rich which would cause some offence if uttered from the pulpits of the present day. The fact that Clement of Alexandria took a different view in his Quis Dives salvetur considerably increases the significance of the rest of the Patristic literature: he explains the command to the Rich Young Man in Mar 10:21 in a purely allegorical sense, and protests that there is no advantage in poverty except when it is incurred for a special object, and that riches are serviceable if rightly used, and are not to be thrown away. That he should stand almost alone even in this much qualified defence of property is a remarkable fact.

If we turn from theory to practice, there is no doubt that the Church produced a profound social change in the Roman Empire, and was recognized from the first as based upon the principle of fraternity. In this connexion it is noteworthy that Lucian was struck as much by the social as by the theological aspect of the new religionTheir original lawgiver, he remarks, had taught them that they were all brethren one of another. Membership in the Church meant the admission into a fellowship in which the rich man became poorer and the poor man richer; in which the stranger, the outcast, and the slave were welcomed and loved as brothers. Harnack, in his Expansion of Christianity (i. bk. ii. c. iii.), describes this change, pointing out, amongst other things, that the principle of Labour was consistently put into practice. Following St. Pauls maxim (2Th 3:10), the Church insisted, (1) that it was the duty of every Christian man to work, (2) that it was the duty of the Christian Society to see that there was work for all its members, and (3) that it was the duty of Christians to make provision for those who were not able to work. This fails to be pure State Socialism only because the Church was not yet coterminous with the State.

5. Later Developments.It is impossible here even to sketch the developments of Christian social theory and practice in subsequent history. The subject can be conveniently studied in Ashleys Economic History and Theory. But it is necessary to point out two main facts: first, that the principle of voluntary communism was preserved as a living fact by the Monastic orders, and was pressed further by St. Francis and the early Friars; and, secondly, that the Church taught certain social doctrines which were accepted and practised by the whole community. The two leading doctrines were that concerning the justum pretium, and that concerning usury: these were enforced not only in the pulpit but also in the ecclesiastical courts. The first doctrine was aimed against free competition: a man was not to ask what he could get for an article, but the just price, what it was worth, that is, what would enable him to earn by his work a decent living according to a definite standard. The second doctrine was aimed against usury (because of Luk 6:34-35), and usury meant all receiving of interest on capital. In other words, the system upon which modern manufacture and commerce and indeed the whole of modern society is based, was forbidden by the Church up till the Renaissance and Reformation; and not only this, but the prohibition was accepted and carried out in ordinary business affairs. Here again the modern social-democrat touches hands with Christian principles that were practiced throughout the Middle Ages and summed up by St. Thomas Aquinas; just as the modern trade unionist finds that the great Christian trade gilds were carrying out his principles of fellowship even among the peasantry before the modern era began. The gilds were destroyed in the sixteenth century, and the whole mediaeval system crumbled away to make room for a new order. Of that system Professor Ashley says: No such sustained and far-reaching attempt is being now made, either from the side of theology, or from that of ethics, to impress upon the public mind principles immediately applicable to practical life (Econ. Hist. i. 388). The modern era has brought many reforms, notably in connexion with liberty and the democratic idea; but as the humanitarianism of its later phase has begun to work in the realms of sociology and economics, it has but joined hands with the great tradition of Christian fraternity,a tradition that has always been at work in society since the foundations of brotherly love were laid by our Lord and His Apostles. The success of the Christian principle has always been partial and its application incomplete, because its perfect realization is dependent on the regeneration of mankind. Whether we call it Socialism will depend upon our conception of what Socialism is; but those to whom Socialism is an ethical ideal will not cease to find their inspiration in Christianity; and those who take Christ in thoroughness and simplicity as their Guide In secular affairs will increasingly remember that He who said One is your Master, said also and all ye are brethren. From St. John to St. Francis of Assisi, from Latimer to Maurice, what is now called Christian Socialism has had many prophets. At the present day it is a great and growing force in all Christian countries.

Literature.The mass of Literature on Christian Socialism in general is very large. A list of 140 books and pamphlets bearing specially on the movement in England was compiled by the present writer in 1897, and may be mentioned because it can be obtained for a penny (Appendix to Socialism and the Teaching of Christ, by [J. Clifford, Fabian Society, Clements Inn, W.C.). A better and more recent bibliography is in A. V. Woodworth, Christian Socialism in England. Tracts containing statements of the position can be obtained from the Hon. Sec., Christian Social Union, Pusey House, Oxford. This Union has also produced several volumes of Sermons, Lombard Street in Lent, The Church and New Century Problems, Preachers from the Pew (lay sermons on social questions), etc. For the social teaching of the Fathers, see A. J. Carlyle, History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, vol. i. (1903), with its bibliography; F. S. Nitti, Catholic Socialism (1895); Laveleye, Le Socialisme Contemporain (Soeialism of To-day) (1890); Feugueray, Essais sur les doctrines politiques de Saint Thomas dAquin (1857) (ch. on Dmocratie des Pres de Iglise); F. Villegardelle, Histoire des Ides Sociales (1846); L. Brentano, Die Arbeiterversicherung gemss der heutigen Wirthschaftsordnung (1879). The mediaeval history of the subject can be studied in W. J. Ashleys Economic History, where a list of authorities is given at the head of each chapter. Kirkups History of Socialism is an admirable summary. An excellent short history is H. de B. Gibbins Industrial History of England. Perhaps also it may be worth while to allude to the various Lives of the Saints, and to the literature of St. Francis, e.g. the Fioretti; to T. Carlyles Past and Present, W. Morris Dream of John Ball, Thorold Rogers Six Centuries of Work and Wages, Hyndmans The Hist. Basis of Socialism in England; to Ruskins works in general, and especially Unto this Last; and to such classics of English literature as Piers Plowman, Latimers Sermons, and Mores Utopia. For the history of modern Christian Socialism, see L. Brentano, Die Christliche Sociale Bewegung in England (1883), and cf. B. Webb, The Co-operative Movement, and S. and B. Webb, History of Trades Unionism. See also Kingsleys Letters and Life (1877); Ensor, Modern Socialism; M. Kaufmann, Christian Socialism (1888) and Charles Kingsley (1892); E. de Laveleye, The Socialism of To-day; F. Maurice, Life of F. D. Maurice (1884); F. S. Nitti, Catholic Socialism (1895); J. Rae, Contemporary Socialism (1901); G. von Schulze-Gavernitz, Zum Socialen Friedentranslation Social Peace (1893). See also the flies of The Christian Socialist, Journal of Association, Politics for the People, The Church Reformer, The Economic Review, The Commonwealth, the last two being still in existence. See also the writings of T. Hughes, Charles Kingsley, F. D. Maurice, E. V. Neale among the early Christian Socialists, and the following among the later, J. G. Adderley, Prof. R. T. Ely, Bishop C. Gore, T. Hancock, Stewart D. Headlam, H. Scott Holland, Bishop C. W. Stubbs, and Bishop B. F. Westcott. Among these may be specially mentioned Kingsley, Sermons, Alton Locke, and Yeast; Maurice, The Kingdom of God; Ely, Social Aspects of Christianity; Gore, The Social Doctrine of the Sermon on the Mount; Hancock, Christ and the People; Headlam, The Laws of Eternal Life; Holland, Sermons; Stubbs, Christ and Economies, and A Creed for Christian Socialists; Westcott, The Incarnation, a Revelation of Human Duties, and especially Social Aspects of Christianity. The name of Tolstoi should also be mentioned, since, though his writings cannot be classed with the above, they have a far-reaching influence over European and American thought.

Percy Dearmer.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels