is not practical; and so too it is impossible to carry out the formula of Louis Blanc, in his "Organization of Labour," where he virtually lays down this rule for all, viz., liability to work in proportion to labour capacity, and enjoyment in proportion to individual requirements. The gap between these two is liable to become so formidable as to defy any attempt to bring about an equation between them. The requirements of any given individual are capable of endless expansion, whereas the capacity of the same individual for making himself useful to society may be infinitesimally small. Who is to measure either? The difficulty of the problem increases as population increases, and the requirements of individuals have to be circumscribed accordingly. The slightest mistake in the measure of enjoyment granted to individuals would be injustice towards somebody else, and thereby a due proportionate distribution would be made illusory. No less untenable are the proposals for the organization of labour according to which every one is to help in producing according to his capacity, where the most talented would only be taxed to do a greater amount of work without having a greater share of enjoyment; where everything is to be done on co-operative principles, competition and compulsion are both excluded. Again we ask who is to tax the labour power of every individual, and without compulsion who will warrant its being turned to account as it ought? Who is to regulate the distribution of labour, and direct the various branches of the co-operative system? Louis Blanc replies, the officials of the different associations. But who is to guarantee for their capacity in calculation, foresight, and economic skill? We know how much national wealth is squandered even with the help of the present capitalistic system, by reason of official blundering. Is it likely that the financial operations of the association conducted by officials would be more successful? If no one is actually responsible for a proper valuation of the cost and use of commodities to be produced and consumed, in the absence of the regulating principle of competition, the wildest extravagance may be expected as a natural result. It is true, normal prices and a system of mutual insurance are recommended, to avoid disastrous consequences. But it is forgotten that normal prices having to be regulated by cost price, the question stands as before, who is to fix the cost price-the official who produces economically, or he who does not, and who is to decide the question between them? The aid supplied to those associations who fail, out of the general insurance fund, would only become a premium for waste and bad management, and would thus imperil the well-being of the whole confederation. That fund, to be formed out of the 25 per cent. of the net income of all branches of the federation, would be swallowed up by the less successful among them as the lean kine of Pharaoh's dream swallowed up the fat ones. And this applies also to the 25 per cent. to be similarly raised for the sick, the aged, and the unfortunate; and another 25 per cent. for the liquidation of debt incurred in the proposed state bank, to be founded at the first establishment of the federation to grant general loans for initiating co-operative production. How a net revenue, without excess of normal over cost price, is to be effected in this non-capitalistic system is not stated. From all this it follows that either in this system force must be resorted to by the chief direction or commission, the "ministry of progress" as Louis Blanc calls it (in that case his system could be scarcely distinguished from communism); or everything toward combining and distributing the various productive forces in the most economic manner would be wanting, as well as all guarantees against mismanagement and loss and an uneven division of labour and capital. In the former case economy, liberty, and individual development would become less possible than at present under the hegemony of capital. In the latter case, instead of an "organization of labour" we should have uneconomic anarchy. The great mistake underlying all the reasonings of Louis Blanc consists in his assumption that the federal or co-operative mode of production is the only legitimate mode of producing at all, whereas it has only a relative value, and his forgetting that capitalism though requiring reforms may not be altogether rejected. Besides this he failed in comprehending and applying the full federalistic principle, which requires the most effective distribution of property (Gütervermögen) according to individual capacity and willingness to labour, and the right of all to reap the fruit of their own labour obtained by means of such equitable distribution. We may call his system a utopian federalism, and it marks a transition from pure communism to what may be strictly called socialism. By socialism proper we mean that system which recognises inequality both in the capacity and requirements of individuals, and accordingly allows wages to be proportionate to work done, and admits of private income along with collective property. These admissions separate socialism from abstract communism, inasmuch as it respects individual rights, and avoids the half-way system of Morelli and the dualistic principle of Louis Blanc. The disappointment at the barren results of the first French revolution, as far as the general well-being of all classes in society is concerned, gave rise to socialism, which, as the name implies, demands material improvement in the social condition of the people, a result vainly expected from the fine speeches of the liberal agitators of the revolutionary period. An opposition was formed against them, which discarding their notions respecting the rights of property started from this fundamental idea, that the social body, the totality of social life, and not the state, must become henceforth the subject of reforms. The first representative of this social opposition was the Count St. Simon, who, having severely suffered by the revolution, after many vicissitudes of fortune during his eventful career, died in 1825. He it was who first used the word "bourgeoisie" in its present acceptation, and his great aim was to raise the condition of the "industrial" classes to an equality with that of the middle classes. He laid the foundation too of modern historical criticism, from a social-economic point of view. But he did not go further in a positive direction than giving expression to a general desire for the salvation of the working people and a revival of Christianity as a religion of brotherly love.* His ideas were further developed by his followers Bazard and Enfantin, who gained many adherents during * His two principal works, inspired by these two great wishes respectively, are the "Catechism of the Industrials,” and the "New Christendom." He was prosecuted for the publication of a pamphlet under the title "Parabole," in which he shows how France, by the death of 300 of her leading artists and scholars, would suffer for a whole generation; whereas by the loss of the upper 3000, including persons of the highest rank in church and state, as also some of the wealthiest members of the bourgeoisie, the heart of France, but not her general interests, would suffer. ST. SIMONISM-BAZARD. 117 the first few years after the Revolution of July. Enfantin's practical experiment on his own seat, where he acted as the "father" of his people, brought the cause into ridicule and discredit; but Bazard's opinions, as having more moral weight and thoughtful significance, deserve attention. His principles were concentrated in this demand: "property for everybody in proportion to their ability, and for every ability a reward commensurate with services rendered." This is to be carried into effect by sequestrating all legacies and distributing the sum total among the living generation in proportion to their abilities. But, like Louis Blanc, he fails to point out who is to value individual abilities satisfactorily to all parties. Both forget that in abolishing the right of inheritance the individual development of children, already commenced in their homes, would be subjected to a constant deterioration, with a decrease of moral strength and the annihilation of individual happiness. In this respect communism is more practical than socialism; it would bring up all children on the same level by making all education public, and providing eventually for all an equal share of enjoyment. Socialism admits at first in quality in education and individual development, and then by confiscation cruelly deprives the children of those very means which could supply the requirements which have become natural by habit. Besides, with the removal of the right of inheritance, much less property would be created, a great deal of it would be squandered and embezzled; very little would be left to reward ability, and that little, owing to over population, would have to be divided among a good many. And what will become of justice towards those who have no special abilities? Bazard ignores the fact that different occupations, even where talent is equal, require unequal amounts |