[11] Vide the published programme of the Commune of Paris, April 19, 1871, in Pierroti’s “Décrets et Rapports Officiels de la Commune de Paris et du Gouvernement à Versailles du 18 Mars au 31 Mai, 1871” (Paris, 1871, pp. 181-185).
[12] The whole question is discussed in a satisfactory manner in Meyer’s “Emancipationskampf des vierten Standes” (Bd. ii. SS. 600-718). Among other authorities may be mentioned, as most noteworthy, Pierroti’s “Décrets et Rapports; Enquête Parlementaire sur l’Insurrection du 18 Mars”—an official report of the investigation of the French government; “Unter der Pariser Commune, ein Tagebuch von Wilhelm Lauser” (Leipzig, 1879); Maxime du Camp, “Les Convulsions de Paris” (6th ed., Paris, 1883); B. Becker, “Geschichte der revolutionären Pariser Kommune” (Brunswick, 1875).
[13] In his “History of American Socialisms” (Philadelphia, 1870), Noyes presents the opposite view, and argues forcibly in favor of it. He thinks “familism” and communism necessarily antagonistic, and adduces as proof the success of the Shakers and other communities which repress the family feeling, and the failure of many which allow marriage and private families as in the outside world. I do not think his arguments satisfactory. At most, they would hold of small communistic bodies living in a world practising individualism. They would not be conclusive in a discussion of the practicability of communism—much less socialism—as a universal system. It is true, also, that the leadership of social democracy in the United States and elsewhere has fallen into the hands of those who, for the most part, hold views regarding religion and the family which may fairly be called brutal. The irreligious attitude of social democracy is, however, to be explained partly by the fact that it is a German product, and Germany is to-day lamentably irreligious. What is, however, temporary, accidental, and transitional should not be mistaken for what is necessary and permanent.
[14] Dr. Rylance very properly distinguishes ecclesiasticism from Christianity.
[15] The decay of religion among the working classes was the subject of a conference of working-men, held in London in 1867. Mr. J. M. Ludlow, one of their friends and counsellors, writes as follows in the “Progress of the Laboring Classes from 1832 to 1867,” concerning their reasons for forsaking religious services: “At the bottom of those reasons there may be felt, not dislike or indifference to the Gospel itself, but, on the contrary, a deep yearning for some mighty manifestation of it. The complaint is not that Christianity is given, but that ‘priests and parsons’ have given of it ‘short weight and short measure;’ not that it is practised by its professors, but that their practice falls so far short of their professions; not that clergymen and minister intermeddle with the working-men, but that they do not come among them and show practical sympathy with them in their undertakings. Surely a temper like this, even when speaking out through hard and scornful words, instead of discouraging Christian ministers, should brace and quicken them to their work—ay, though that work should consist partly in the shaking off of their most cherished traditions and habits of religious thought” (p. 279).
[16] Schäffle’s “Socialism as Expounded by Kaufmann” (London, 1874, p. 103).
[17] Vide his manly article on the Dangerous Classes in the North-American Review for April, 1883.
[18] The words socialist and socialism were introduced into economic discussion by L. Reybaud, in 1840, in his “Études sur les Réformateurs ou Socialistes Modernes.”
[19] It does not fall within the province of this work to describe English communism. Its best representative is Robert Owen, about whose life and teachings information is to be found in “The Life of Robert Owen, Written by Himself,” and in A. J. Booth’s “Robert Owen, the Founder of Socialism in England.” Both of the works are interesting and valuable.
[20] 1762 is also given as the year of his birth.