anxiety to unite all the productive powers of the world into one, that civilization and humanity stand above nationality. And thus, from an economic and political point of view, the cause of humanity gains from true federalism, for the federation of mankind will put to silence the sneer of Voltaire that "the love of country consists in wishing ill to other people."

In conclusion, we shall endeavour to point out the true position of federalism relatively to the ancient systems of monopolies and the more modern systems of liberalism and communism. The difference between heathenish and Christian principles of economy is thus stated by Marlo: "The heathenish principle grants to the few enjoyment at the expense of the many; Christian principle demands a moral regard for those natural conditions which ensure general prosperity, with a view to effect the highest possible happiness for all in due proportion." The social order of our forefathers resulted from a partial following of the heathenish principle of exclusiveness and oppression (monopoly), and a partial following of the Christian principle of societary combinations and reciprocal duties. Federal society rejects the heathenish principle, and is founded on Christian principle solely. It utilizes all the civilized institutions of the middle ages, and retains what is best in them, whilst it rejects the rest. The trade corporations, the parish organization, the mercantile company, and the family, all retain their place and have their own rights, grouping themselves into associations of greater or lesser magnitude, with their respective subdivisions, in which the interests of all the members are consonant with the interests of the association, and that with the interests of society at large. Hence, in countries where the fixed monopolies of antiquity have been gradually superseded by the changing monopolies of the liberal

RELATIVE POSITION OF FEDERALISM.

159

(capitalistic) world in its own way of acquiring property, we meet with opposition to the principles of federalism.

There are points of contact, indeed, between liberalism and federalism, such as the free choice of calling, competition, and the rights of inheritance. The chief differences between them are: that in federalism there is room left for the corporative constitutions, the formation of various spheres for the production of wealth, the guarantee of labour, the removal of unproductive modes of creating wealth, the expansion of public authority in social transactions, the increase of public and private property, the admittance of the societary form of business, insurance against risk and the vicissitudes of life, and preventive legislation to counteract the dangers of over population. In a society founded on federalistic principles, the freedom of choice of any calling or profession is greater than at present under liberal institutions, because both the instruments and the capital necessary for productive operations are granted. Competition too has here a wider field, because of the multiplication of new spheres of productive and competing industrial bodies.

Many belonging to the liberal or half-liberal school will probably denounce federalism as a socialistic chimera, and represent it as too much of a police institution, in open antagonism with their principles, founded on their muchpraised liberty in the abstract. Others may consider that though in principle federalism may be true enough, there are insurmountable difficulties in the way of its being practically adopted.

Communism regards federalistic institutions with scarcely more favour. There are here too points of con tact, as for example the general participation in the use of natural resources, the association of labour, and the public direction of social commerce. The points wherein

the two systems differ are: the diversity in the condition of life of individuals, the maintaining of the private family and private property, with the right of inheritance which is connected with it, the non-exclusion of competition, the scale of wages in proportion to work rendered, and the regulation of population by authority, which are all peculiar to federalism. But the final results arrived at, according to the principles of the latter, would, in many cases, be similar to those which communists expect from their system. The condition of life of all would become very much assimilated, partly in consequence of the removal of poverty, partly by a more equal distribution of enjoyment. Thus, nearly everything which makes unequality now so hateful would, in great measure, be removed. Competition, no longer trying to overreach opponents, would rather seek to increase general prosperity. The destructive influence of capital would cease when all sources of lucrative misappropriation are cut off. The social independence of individuals is secured by their forming themselves into an association. The union of all members of society, as far as this is compatible with their integral independence, is effected by their incorporation with various associations which have for their object the combination of various interests. But all this will not reconcile the communists. They will say federalism is so far impotent as it does not dare to vindicate the principle of absolute fraternity, and thus they will call it a half-measure, trying to reconcile ideas which are essentially contradictory.

Occupying these different relative positions, liberalism, communism, and federalism follow with different interests and expectations the course of history. The liberals, having thus far succeeded in combating monopolies, hope

FINAL TRIUMPH OF FEDERALISM.

161

to conquer in the end over all opposition, and to gain the triumph over socialism and other rival systems. Communists, on the other hand, thoroughly understanding the nature of liberalism, consider these victories over monopolies of little value, as their destruction only paves the way to other monopolies equally obnoxious. They recognise the services rendered by liberalism in introducing democratical forms of government and heightening production. But they remain unsatisfied with the social order under this system. They remain firm, notwithstanding past reverses, in opposing monopolism and liberalism alike, and are confident of final success. And when we consider that monopolies are now wellnigh dead, that liberalism bears in its bosom the germs of decay, and when we observe at the same time how with the increased impoverishment of the working classes the ranks of communism are being fast recruited, we almost have reason to believe that there exists sufficient cause for such expectations on the part of communism.

Federalists, seeing that liberals are thus pressed hard by their opponents, and year by year losing influence (all the more so by allying themselves with those who cling to monopolies), feel that sooner or later communism must overthrow them, although its triumph can be but of very short duration. Federalism regards these two as inimical brothers, fighting for the mastery which neither of them is able to retain when won. The result of the battle may be either a transition from a semi-liberal to a federal order of society, brought about by the opponents of social reform, who, afraid of the ogre communism, would rather accept such a compromise, and so avert the storm; or the victorious communism, unable to build up after it has destroyed,

M

will leave the fragments of society as the material out of which federalism may build up a new social edifice.

Although the peaceful way to reform is far the most wholesome for all parties, and the destruction of existing society by violent measures would hold out the prospect of a terrible effusion of blood and tears, yet federalists doubt whether their endeavours for a peaceful reformation of society will be successful.* The obstinacy and blindness of the upper classes make them deaf against the voice of reason. They will have to sacrifice real interests to imaginary ones in the end, and in their defence of abuses in the acquisition of wealth they are likely to lose what is thus got with every other kind of property. But their despoilers will fare no better; they will find themselves kicking against the pricks in trying to establish an order of society contrary to the laws of nature. And in their failure federalists see the earnest of their own ultimate success; whichever way the die falls, the final issue of the universal movement must remain the same. The history of revolution is the history of the subversion of monopolism by the power of liberalism

* Dr. Schäffle, in the recently published third edition of his "Gesellschaftliche System" (Social System), a work of the highest order on the science of political economy, points out that an important moral and intellectual elevation of the working classes must be secured before the association system can be generally introduced. He admits that of necessity its growth must be slow, and also that, as it increases in importance, and the independence and self-respect of the labouring population with it, many of the well-disposed employers of labour will meet it half way, and adopt a co-partnership with their working men, as some have done already and with considerable success, and so pave the way for its general acceptation.