The numerous phases of opinion in application of this principle cannot be presented even by name in this short chapter. They are worthy of study as indicating a growth of opinion and sentiment in recognition of the mutual dependence of all human beings. They are also worthy of study as indicating how arbitrary a zealot may become in enforcing his opinions upon others. All of them are grouped somewhat loosely under the name of “socialism,” but there are many gradations in the supremacy of the social ideal over the individual welfare. There are also many shades of opinion as to how the final result of social supremacy shall be reached. Many are expecting a revolution by force of arms to establish the ideals of the leaders. More are opportunists, snatching every opportunity in legislation, in decision of courts, and in executive power, to apply their methods.
Under the name of “collectivism” appeals are made to the multitude to combine their energies under leadership: first, to overcome present restraints; and then to [pg 332] secure combined action in all modes of production and consumption. “Nationalism” is more familiar to our thought in the United States, as embracing the aim of a somewhat noisy party to bring about the compulsory organization of all industries under the control of the nation, even to placing all property and all methods of consumption under an official despotism.
Few recognize the actual logic of their views as compelling complete subjection of every individual to others' judgment, and fewer still have any idea of the official machinery needed for such control. The great majority are satisfied in seeing evils which might be cured by greater social accord, expecting at once to vote into existence the necessary machinery. Most of these are misled into considering wealth and its uses to be the chief elements of welfare. They forget that wealth is only a means of accomplishing one's purposes toward his fellows and himself. The greed of power and position and praise are far stronger as evil motives than greed of wealth. If wealth were distributed by omniscient wisdom and power according to the maxim of Louis Blanc, the higher welfare would still be as far away as ever, unless the same omniscience should control all actions. Such control by outward force would banish the very idea of virtue, the highest of all welfare.
It is easy to see that every form of socialism, in practical methods, involves a leveling process inconsistent with human nature and its surroundings. Equality of environments is possible only by reducing all to the lowest condition. Equality of aspirations reduces all toward the most brutal of the race. Even equality of [pg 333] efficiency reduces all to the power of the least efficient. So the whole range of method, assuming equality of wealth as important to welfare, lowers the welfare of the whole by destroying the best abilities and the best capacities for enjoyment in order to prevent inequality.
And yet it has not been proved that equality in any of these particulars is desirable. It is equally beyond proof that actual equality is possible. The most absolute communism implies the greatest inequality in official power. Even the pleasing phrase, “Equality of opportunity,” will not bear analysis as applied to human nature and human welfare, under the very highest ideals of social unity. Indeed, the lesson of facts in all activity is that inter-dependence of unlike and unequal forces makes the true unity of organization, and the surest welfare of multitudes. That each individual should have the best opportunity possible for his own development is best for each and for all in a community; but that such opportunities shall be equal in any other sense no wisdom can contrive. Most socialistic theories presuppose almost immediate change of human nature under the new form of administration. But for this supposition there is little ground in the history of the race or of all nature. Growth there will be, and evolution of ideals; but the administration grows out of these, instead of being their cause.
Socialistic tendencies.—Socialistic theories gain adherence under the provocation of certain tendencies in society. First, they appear whenever by oppression or fraud of any kind a community is made up of one class possessing wealth directly opposed to another class without [pg 334] wealth, with no extended middle class, and therefore with no ready means of transition from one class to another. As long as the doors are open for real progress in power of accomplishment, all the way from poverty to wealth, society has a unity in its variety that is better than any communism promises. At present in our own country, with the great multitude of farmers' families furnishing not only the necessities of life, but the larger part of human energy that goes into every calling and every rank, socialism does not appeal to any large number. An earnest, thriving farmer's family will never believe advantage to come either to themselves or to the race by making them all practically mere wage-earners.
Second, a common cause of socialistic views is separation, under extreme division of labor and opposing organizations sustained by it, of the workers in very distinct fields of labor. The jealousies arising between these classes, or guilds, or between employers and employed, foster the revolutionary spirit which jumps at any promise of relief from unsatisfactory conditions.
In the third place, a political revolution, if it has destroyed landmarks of the past and any natural sentiments growing out of social relations, leaves a mass of people at sea with reference to the nature of rights. Under such circumstances socialism offers an apparent solution of difficulties unprovided for. Though any practical effort to apply these theories under such circumstances usually results in despotic assumption of authority by a few, the people are moved by the pleasant-sounding phrases. If, in the settling of social affairs after a revolution, an earnest effort is made to agree upon [pg 335] set phrases embodying principles of constitutional liberty, the chances are in favor of some sweeping statements, too general to control action, but over-emphasizing individual rights in comparison with individual duties. Action under these declarations usually conforms to the necessities of the case, accepting the immediate welfare of the society as a guide to more complete welfare.
All these conditions are abnormal, wholly unfavorable to a fair consideration of what will promote welfare. Even if socialistic methods might work fairly well when all were favorably disposed, there is great question whether they would work as well as present social methods, under equal good will. It must not be forgotten that every scheme of nationalization, for its own sake, implies the government of every individual by everybody else, thus hampering under petty regulations and by force of multitudes the growth of every individual. No scheme for national direction provides as natural tests for merit, ability, enterprise or necessity as present methods are known to do wherever fraud and tyranny are abolished.
Coöperative consumption.—In the natural order of social development there is room for much more general association in the consumption of wealth than we sometimes think. The world has made great progress in this direction during the last fifty years, through voluntary organizations for prudent expenditure. The only limit to such community of organization for special purposes is in the nature of the work and the relation of the workers. Coöperative stores, banks, building and loan [pg 336] associations, laundries and even kitchens are within the range of actual experiments. We have already seen how such coöperative interests may operate in simple investment of capital for production. The chief obstacles in them all are the lack of certain characteristics of prudence in a multitude. In general the best management does not accord with the judgment of the mass.