Hume, Gibson, A.M., Ph. D. (Head of the Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto, Canada.)
To endorse and accept all the various conflicting and even contradictory proposals loosely and popularly called Socialism would indeed be absurd and ridiculous. Nevertheless, on the whole the term Socialism has stood for constructive rather than destructive plans. What might be termed Christian Socialism, or perhaps still better constructive Christian Socialism, has ideals and aims that I unhesitatingly adopt as noble, just and right. When it comes to a program or plan to give practical application and realization to these ideals there is much room for debate and difference of opinion. Here, it seems to me, we face real problems.
Christian theology dealing with the relations of God and man succeeded long ago in definitely rejecting the abstract atomism of atheism, and also, though perhaps not so clearly and definitely, the pantheism which over-zealous for God forgot to leave a place for human personality.
In our time modern Christianity is concentrating its attention on the problems of the relation of man to man, of the individual to the community, and logically and consistently with its past speculations opposes the extreme individualism that issues in anarchism and atomism, and also opposes the other extreme of communism which overshadows the individual overmuch in its zeal for the collective standpoint, and the opposition in this instance is the more notable because the early Christian Church for a short time really tried the experiment of having "all things in common." While modern constructive Christian Socialism rejects the opposing panaceas of a simple character offered by the extreme individualist on the one hand and the extreme collectivist on the other, it nevertheless sees in each of these one-sided proposals and theories a certain measure of truth, and it therefore faces the much more difficult and complex problem of trying to combine and harmonize these partial truths in such a manner as to secure a proper self-respecting individualism or personal responsibility on the one hand, and an adequate collectivistic co-operation on the other.
With this double aim and purpose in mind there has arisen a beginning at least of a positive and constructive program leading toward this goal. Emerging from the mediaeval twilight where the fallacy was widespread that made religion a thing apart, modern Christian thought is suspicious of any religious creed or profession which remains a merely intellectual assent or declaration of faith, and demands that a true religion should also permeate and transmute the life and issue in conduct touching and helping the lives and conduct of others.
The key to the Christian social position is the "Golden Rule," not as a mere sentiment of kindliness, though that is good as far as it goes, but it must be made to go further and issue in a principle of action, a principle in action controlling the practice, guiding and inspiring the actual conduct of life, both in its individual and in its social or collective aspect.
At the outset, then, it respects and preserves the individual, not by the negative and suicidal method of rejecting the claims of society, but, on the contrary, insisting that the individual can develop his moral personality only by accepting the duties of social service, which when properly understood becomes not a burden but a privilege, since in this way alone may real self-hood become realized.
Zeal for the preservation of the other person inspired the earlier attack on slavery; it now reappears in a crusade against industrial bondage. Corporations now resist control on the plea that it is an interference with personal liberty. The Christian view-point never granted to the individual a selfish liberty of defying properly constituted authority, much less such right to a corporation. It now makes it perfectly plain that the individual has duties, and to this view of the individual it would be ludicrous for the corporation to appeal in its dislike to bow to social demands.
In international relations the claim of Christianity to be under the Prince of Peace makes modern Christian Socialism demand that other nations should be treated not simply as good neighbors, but as actual brothers, since all are children of the same Father. Hence it follows that the brutality, waste and wickedness, the wholesale butchery and murder known as war, must be condemned and opposed. Furthermore, all militarism and jingoism, all journalistic or other stirring up of bad feeling, leading to strife between different races, the atavistic revival of ancient blood feuds or modern commercial intrigues to reap profit out of the piling up of armaments oppressing the common people, are all to be resisted. The specious claim that armies and navies are merely policy restraining criminals is easily seen to be erroneous, for if each army claims to be a policy restraining criminals, it must follow that each army is by the other army put among the class of criminals. And the fallacious claim that preparation for war is a guarantee of peace, an insurance policy against war, is met by the counterclaim that the best way in times of peace to insure the continuance of peace is to extend the principles and practices that teach the value of peace, that conduce to peace, that make people desirous that peace may continue. The bellicose claim that our neighbors cannot or will not attack us if we are powerful enough in armaments to intimidate them, simply teaches other nations to pursue the same policy of attempted intimidation, which can only breed ill will and ultimately tend to provoke actual hostilities.