Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

ABUSES OF CAPITALISM NOT DECISIVE.

65

defraud another; it makes it possible for one man to appropriate dishonestly other men's labour, and the amount of life-force expended does not secure to every individual labourer the result, as his own; many disharmonies and acts of injustice result as the social process in production is carried on on a higher scale; and, so far from removing the more ancient modes of impoverishing the majority by a powerful minority, capitalism, under the semblance of liberty, is guilty of a more cruel injustice towards the proletariat. Proletarians, they say, are the slaves and serfs of capitalists, but as such are attached to their masters by no such tender ties as in ancient days: what is the good, they say, of a heightened productivity of labour and capital, if the benefit is felt only by a few, and capital becomes the insatiable sponge which absorbs the surplus value of labour, leaving the working man exposed to the fluctuations and disturbances on the social ocean, and making him the scapegoat of those commercial crises and other contingencies which are the result of overspeculation and the abuse of credit, private and public? By these abuses, it is asserted, millions of interest are paid over to a few members of the plutocracy, and one man without labour is made rich at the expense of thousands drudging in misery; this they call an "anarchical socialism," which in spite of a heightened productivity nevertheless leaves the masses in degradation, and even contributes towards utter failure in the mission of the wealthy.

Such are the complaints of the socialistic opposition. In answer to these it must be acknowledged .that the fleecing process complained of here is possible in the present social combination. However, it is possible even for Robinson Crusoe by foolish manage

F

ment to expose himself to death by hunger, although being alone he is not exposed of course to the contingencies arising from the commercial movements of a whole community. It is moreover an undeniable fact that horrid abuses do now exist, which have been laid bare by socialistic critics, abuses against which the lower classes are raising their voices with invigorated fervour. Capitalism in many of its departments is rotten to the core; and wholesale frauds are being now perpetrated in European capitals, compared with which the feudal robberies and theocratic extortions were a mere trifle.

But the abuses existing do not touch the principles on which capitalism is founded, and the incompleteness of the positive and constructive part of socialistic literature does not give us a warrant of a better system in its place, supposing it to be abolished. Socialistic neology has to offer nothing else except the following. Either a co-operative system in which still competition for the highest profit forms an important element; this would only be capitalism in another form. Or it recommends the abolition of capitalism in favour of other forms, which however, whilst retaining all its defects, even in an intensified degree, fall far below it in its economic effects. Or, in fine, something is proclaimed as socialism which in part has always existed side by side with capitalism, namely the free, humane exertions for the public weal, in applying the eternal duties of justice and brotherly love in church and state; for this purpose we do not require an abolition of capitalism, although we may wish to see these duties carried out more intelligently and with more integrity than they are now. The first of these proposals of socialism is only a sheep in wolf's clothing, from which we have nothing to fear; the second is no reform, but

CAPITALISM PROBABLY PERMANENT.

67

reaction; the third is a by no means new and altogether harmless socialism.

Regarded therefore from its darker side, with its many defects, capitalism in the present day may appear only as a passing phase in the economic development, like feudalism of old. Regarded however as an economic organization, we may feel reassured as to its destiny as a lasting and ever increasing field of human economy. The ultra liberal view of reducing the whole social system to the speculative capitalistic form exclusively, as the only organization, is a doctrinaire idea, indefensible from a historical point of view. The communism of the family, the public organisms of the state, corporations, benevolent societies, and institutions for the encouragement of the arts and sciences, and the improvement of morals and religion, still will be necessary within their spheres just as much as the capitalistic organization in its own. On the other hand, the distorted view presented of capitalism and its many disharmonies is often overcharged. Besides, it is the object of political economy as a science to counteract these, and to adjust the irregularities in due course of time. At all events, the positive proposals of socialism are not such as to inspire us with any confidence. This we shall see in the next book, where we propose to consider them in order and judge them on their own merits.

BOOK II.

HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF SOCIALISM, AND A REVIEW OF ITS
LEADING REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS
TO THE PRESENT.

CHAPTER I.

Importance of a just Historical View of Socialism.-Economic Systems of Antiquity.-The Gracchi and Modern Agrarian Agitation. A picture of Feudal Economic Systems as drawn by Lassalle.-His Criticism criticised.

WE shall now endeavour to direct attention in a candid and impartial spirit to the leading points in the criticisms of socialists as directed against capitalism. We shall also delineate more at large the main theories of socialism itself, so as to present a correct and unprejudiced view of its various phases, both in its negative and positive bearings.

What strikes us as peculiar at first sight in these socialists is the wide range of view of their criticism. Ordinary political economists seldom go beyond the present state of economy in capitalism, and are ever anxious to show what vast strides we have been making on the march to civilized perfection in modern days. Socialists look beyond the horizon of the present, and take in the historical past, with its own peculiar economic systems. In doing so they, undoubtedly, are often prejudiced. They paint in too glowing colours the feudal systems and slavery of old, in contrast with the capitalistic forms of modern society. Still their retrospective views, one-sided

THE SOCIAL SYSTEM OF SPARTA AND ATHENS. 69

though they be, are highly interesting. Now the three bygone systems of society, Greek, Roman, and feudal, are called alike by socialists "systems of monopoly," where monopoly stands for privilege, i.e. systems in which inequality prevails, and where the liberty of some is curtailed by the power of others. Socialism, which calls itself the true system of "panpolism," on the contrary contends for the equal rights of all, and of course blames the ancient and feudal states because of the encouragement afforded by their constitution to the injustice and extortion of the masters practised against the slaves and vassals.*

Still socialism is loud in its praises of the economic organizations of the community of full and free citizens, at Sparta and Athens. There it is affirmed all the necessary precautions were taken in forming a constitution which had for its object the preservation of comparative equality of fortune of all those who enjoyed full civic rights. This was done in Sparta by the division of the soil into inalienable family properties, by allowing free access of all to forest, meadow, and hunting grounds, by attaching a certain number of helots to every family

66

66

*This inequality of rights, as Marlo justly remarks (see his 'Organisation der Arbeit," or System der Welteconomie," Vol. I., 1, p. 35), is referred back by writers of all times to three reasons: 1. Divine arrangement. 2. Right of the stronger. 3. Diversity of natural capacities. The first, he says, is founded on fiction, the second is a contradiction in itself, and both survived the classic age although irreconcilable with the true spirit of Christianity. The third, embraced by Plato and Aristotle alike, rests on the notion that mankind are divisible into the noble and base. And although experience contradicts this assumption, still it was used as an argument in favour of slavery by the Stagyrite, and led to legislation which admitted class distinctions in various strata of society, with their rights and privileges. It is the notion to which our own aristocracy still clings, for similar well- or illfounded reasons.

« НазадПродовжити »