theory from pure liberalism, but in its practical application would make use of measures which are but fragmentary portions of "socialistic" systems. As contrasted with the several systems thus enumerated, Marlo's economic federalism marks a step in advance (and one of superior value) in economic science. The system is developed in a work unhappily left incomplete, owing to the author's death, entitled "Researches into the Organization of Labour, or System of Universal Economy."*

For several reasons, but more especially because of the uncompromising tone of the book directing its unsparing attacks against communistic, socialistic, and liberal humbug alike, its sound and solid value has not been appreciated as much as it deserves. Its chief value consists in its thorough treatment of co-operative institutions, or the societary system, as applied both to production and consumption. Here we find a scholarly exposition of the advantages of co-operation, remarkable alike on account of its perspicuity and comprehensive grasp of the subject. There are faults and mistakes too, here and there, savouring a little after socialism, which we shall have occasion to

*"Untersuchungen über die Organisation der Arbeit, oder System der Weltoekonomie." Von Karl Marlo. Kassel, Verlag von Appel, 1857.

By co-operative institutions those copartnerships and associations must be understood here, which have for their object the independent confederation of labourers among themselves for the production of wealth: a process in which capital and labour are united, and all employed have a common interest and share the profits. The union of several associations would be a "federation." Hence the name of the system, federalism, and hence the denomination of the principles on which it is founded as federalistic, throughout this chapter. For a full discussion, with examples of the association among labourers, the English reader may also be referred to J. S. Mill's "Principles of Political Economy," Book IV., chap. vii., § 5 et seq.; p. 461 of the People's Edition.

MARLO BECOMES A FEDERALIST.

139

notice. But, taken as a whole, Marlo's social federalism has much to recommend it to serious attention; the arguments on which it is founded contain a vast amount of truth.

As I

It may be interesting to show how Marlo was himself led to excogitate the system which we are now considering. Let him describe for himself his "day of Damascus." "In the year 1843 I travelled in northern Europe. Being engaged upon a technological work, I visited among others the well-known Norwegian indigo factory, at Modum, where the lovely environs so fascinated me that I prolonged my stay for several days. As one morning I was from a hill taking a view of the surrounding neighbourhood, which rivals the Alps in its mountain scenery, a German labourer, undoubtedly recognising in me a fellow-countryman, approached me with the petition to do some commission for him in the Fatherland. granted his request he became more communicative, and gave me a touching account of his own experience, and the life of penury to which both he and his fellow-labourers were condemned. What is the cause of this, I asked myself, that the paradise spread before me conceals so much hidden misery? Is nature, or man, their real author? Like many other students of nature I had always given my attention in the workshops of industry to the machinery rather than the human beings, to the products of human industry rather than the producers themselves. I remained therefore entirely ignorant of the vast amount of misery which lies at the foundation of our varnished civilization. The convincing words of this labourer made me feel the comparative uselessness of my scientific investigations, and I arrived shortly at a determination in my own mind to investigate the sufferings of our race, their causes and their remedies. In the course

of many years I continued my researches most conscientiously, and found the extent of prevailing misery far beyond what I was first led to expect. Poverty everywhere! Among wages labourers and those who undertake work on their own account, among nations in the highest as well as those in the lowest state of industrial advancement, in the large manufacturing towns, the capitals of labour, and centres of luxury, as well as in the hovels of villagers, in the salubrious plains of Belgium and Lombardy as in the barren mountain heights of Scandinavia; everywhere I met wretchedness and poverty. I discovered, moreover, that the causes of all this are not to be found in nature, but our institutions founded on false economic principles, and from this I concluded that in the rectification of these alone lies the only hope of recovery. I began to feel convinced that in the present modes of production the eradication of poverty is impossible, that the utmost improvement in technical skill will by no means secure a diffusion of general prosperity; in short, that our civilization is in such a stage of development that further progress will entirely depend will entirely depend on the progress of economic science, and that the latter on this account is the most important of all sciences for the times. In the course of my investigations the doctrines of economists as well as the efforts of socialists were known to me in name only; for I avoided a closer acquaintance with them purposely in order to remain, as far as possible, entirely free from any external influences. It was only after I had arrived at my own conclusions, unaided, that I turned to the study of economic literature. From this I gathered that the results to which my own investigations had led me in all essential points, after numerous corrections (although not containing much that was original), departed entirely from the principles laid down in the existing

PLUTOCRACY DESCRIBED.

141

works on political economy. This led to a comparative examination of my own with the prevailing views of others, which only confirmed me more in my convictions. I thought now I might make the attempt of a new system of economy. This accordingly I began in the year 1847, and the first half of my works has only just appeared."

As Marlo died in 1859 without completing his book, we have in his work the result of twenty years' thought and study. His ideas on the various systems of economy, which preceded him have been noticed in the account we have given of those systems in former chapters. We now have to give a succinct account of his criticism of class differences in modern society; together with their economic bearings from a federalistic point of view. This will enable us to mention some of the more important facts in the history of modern social movements too, which could not be noticed before.

At the close of Marlo's first volume we have an excellent description of the growth of the power of middleclass society at the expense of aristocracy, and that of the moneyed classes at the expense of the landed gentry. Marlo draws a marked distinction (this is worthy of notice) between these three: the plutocracy, private persons who have a settled income, and the men of enterprise who are honest producers of wealth. The plutocracy represents that section of the mercantile world, whose speculations are both dishonest and unproductive; and Marlo insists upon their not being confounded with the honest capitalists engaged in greater or smaller productive undertakings. By mixing up those who occupy these different relative positions in society, he thinks, an unjust war is being kept up simply between the possessing and non-possessing classes, between employer and employed, between a hereditary and non-hereditary

aristocracy, to the great detriment of social reforms; whereas a never-ceasing battle ought to be waged between all those who follow an honest calling and those who belong to a scheming plutocracy.

After a pointed and correct description of our present landed and hereditary aristocracy, with its fine qualities of courage, honourable feeling, refinement, and decorum of manners, on the one hand, and its faults, as love of power, pride of rank, ambition, and contempt of labour, on the other, he makes a spirited attack on this plutocracy, whom he thus characterizes. The money nobility, at war at the same time with the aristocracy, clinging to their ancient privileges, and with the people, yearning to be saved from the evils of liberalism (i.e. the monopoly of capital), undisguisedly admits that its value does not lie in personal superiority. Its sole standard of value is money; despising all ideal interests in the pursuit of what is purely material, it is void of patriotism, cares nothing for higher or national education, prefers in short possessions to fame. Arts and sciences it values as means of practical utility. Sceptical with regard to moral sentiments, without an ideal of civil virtues, it judges all according to its own low standard. Its hatred against social reformers is unbounded. It calls them unruly, destructive spirits, who undermine civilization and society. Such being the case, it considers it imperative, in defence against such monsters, to "sacrifice liberty itself in order to save civilization."

It calls itself the constitutional party, but understands too well how to turn constitutional government to its own advantage, by indirectly appointing ministers and influencing the imperial legislature. Sometimes it calls itself the cream of the people, and becomes