§ II. The Pioneers of Modern Socialism

1. Modern socialism differs essentially from its precursors by the fact that it is a permanent phenomenon, to be met with in all civilized countries, wherever industry is highly developed. This latter circumstance by itself proves to evidence that there is question here not of a merely external appearance produced artificially by popular agitators and demagogues, but that we are confronted by a phenomenon rooted in, and nourished by, the soil of modern social conditions.

The roots of modern socialism are to be found first of all in the great development of industry and the consequent modification of social conditions dating from the latter part of the eighteenth century. Since the French Revolution the unhampered development of industrial forces in unrestricted competition has undoubtedly brought about astounding results in the field of technical discoveries and their application to industry and commerce. But one of these results was also the great division of society into two hostile ; Classes—a small number of wealthy capitalists, and an immense multitude of laborers—which classes are usually designated respectively as capital and labor. But above all, the proletariat, that homeless, floating population of our great cities which has already assumed gigantic proportions, is the almost inevitable result of modern industry, in as far as by its machinery it practically precludes the existence of independent tradesmen and promotes the concentration of great masses of factory laborers.

Side by side with this increasing proletariat the disruption of family life, drunkenness, and dissolute morals have been growing apace. Moreover, by the baneful influence of the higher classes gross materialism and an insatiable craving for enjoyment have penetrated the masses of the people, whilst numerous upstarts with their quickly amassed wealth openly revel in senseless luxury. Thus the smouldering fire of discontent needed but a breeze to fan the flames into a fierce conflagration.

The French Revolution of 1789 marked indeed a new epoch in the world’s history. The third estate, the so-called bourgeoisie, raising the banner of liberty, equality, and fraternity, had come to power and influence. In opposition to them there was soon formed the fourth estate, consisting of penniless proletarians. From the very beginning of the revolution “fraternity” was no more than an ornamental catch-word. Liberty and equality were indeed granted in political matters, but for a numerous class of the population they meant no more than the privilege of being free and equal in misery. It was then that unrestricted competition was let loose upon the world to strangle the unprotected artisans in its clutches. These victims are marshalled into line by modern socialism; they are to be emancipated by destroying the monopoly of capital in the hands of a few. No wonder, therefore, that already at the cradle of socialism was heard the cry: “La propriété, c’est le vol”—Property is theft”¹—the cry repeated later on by Proudhon and Lassalle, and hurled as a firebrand among an excitable populace.

¹ Brissot de Warville, Sur la propriété et le vol (1780).

2. The first to raise the standard of modern socialism was FRANCIS NOËL BABEUF, or, as he was pleased to style himself in revolutionary times, Gracchus Babeuf. The starting-point of his theory is the idea of equality. At the head of the Constitution of 1793 were displayed the words: “All men are equal by nature and by law;” and again: “The purpose of society is universal happiness.” But for most people this declaration of equality and happiness remained mere waste paper, and the reason for this failure was imagined to be private ownership. To realize equality also on the field of economics Babeuf formulated the following demands: Every one is obliged to work; the time of work is to be determined by law; production is to be regulated by a supreme committee elected by the people; necessary work is to be allotted to the citizens; disagreeable jobs are performed in turn by every citizen; each citizen has a right to all commodities, which are to be distributed to each according to his needs.

At bottom Babeuf’s demands are identical with those formulated by Bebel and other modern socialists. Foreshadowing, as it were also, the tactics of modern socialism, Babeuf promised his adherents a tremendous increase in production to follow from the adoption of his plans. To promote the execution of his ideas he founded a secret society, which was discovered by the police and brought him to the guillotine, May 27, 1797.

3. Whilst Babeuf took the idea of equality as the basis of his reforms Count HENRI DE SAINT-SIMON (1760–1825) built his plans on the foundation of labor. He was the first who endeavored to place modern socialism upon a systematic scientific basis, and at the same time he called into existence a school of scientific socialists. From him dates “scientific socialism” in the present acceptation of the term.

Liberal political economists had established the principle that labor alone is the foundation and source of all value, and, consequently, of all wealth. Socialism seized upon this principle and made it the basis of its operations against the modern conditions of property, Saint-Simon drew from this principle the conclusion that labor—industry in its wider sense— must be the standard of all social institutions; in other words, that the laborers should not as heretofore take the last but the first place in society; it was, therefore, the business of social science to restore the laborers to the position due to them.

Saint-Simon was only a theorist. He made no practical attempts to give effect to his views; nay, he did not even venture directly to question the right of private property. From the principle that labor alone is the source of value his disciple ENFANTIN drew the conclusion that the unearned increment obtained without working by landowners and capitalists is unjust and therefore to be abolished. His conclusion is thereafter to be met with in socialistic literature in endless variations. BAZARD, another disciple of Saint-Simon, intending to remove the inequality and seeming injustice of the existing conditions of property, demanded a complete modification of the rights of inheritance. In place of kindred he would make merit the base of inheritance; or rather, the state alone was to be the heir of all its children and distribute the property of the deceased among the most worthy of the living.

4. Almost contemporaneously with Saint-Simon, CHARLES FOURIER (1772–1837) proposed his system of socialism. Fourier proceeds from the supposition that what is ordinarily called the will of God is nothing else than the laws of universal attraction, which uphold the universe and manifest themselves in the instincts and tendencies of all things. Also in man these instincts are revelations of the divine will. Therefore it is unlawful to suppress them; they should be gratified; from their gratification arises human happiness; but the means to this gratification is the organization of labor. For, as he claims, every man is entitled to his share of labor, viz., he has the right to demand remunerative labor from the state, if he cannot obtain it elsewhere. As it seems, Fourier was the first to enunciate this right in the sense in which it is accepted by socialists nowadays.¹

¹ Especially in his books: Théorie des quatre mouvements (1808) and Traité de l’association domestique-agricole (1822). Fourier’s disciple CONSIDÉRANT developed his master’s idea more fully and gained for it many adherents. Cf. Menger, Das Recht auf den vollen Arbeitsertrag, p. 16.

This organization of labor is to be brought about in this wise. Proprietors, without losing the right of property, should contribute all their wealth to the common industry, in order that each individual in continued succession may be able to apply himself to that occupation to which his momentary instinct may incline him. Such labor would be a delight. Fourier, moreover, makes the following propositions. On every square mile should dwell two thousand persons (a phalanx) in one large building (phalanstère) under the control of an overseer (unarque). The phalanxes, again, should be divided into series, the series into groups. Thus each one might at pleasure change his labor. From the proceeds of the labor four-twelfths goes to the capital as interest; three-twelfths is given to genius, and the rest, five-twelfths, is given to labor. Yet neither Saint- Simon nor Fourier ventured to suggest the abolition of private property. For the rest, there is an intrinsic contradiction in the very fact that Fourier allows private property to exist and wishes to compel the proprietor to give all his capital for common use.

5. ROBERT OWEN (born 1771 at Newtown in Wales, died 1858) exercised a far-reaching influence upon the modern labor movement by being the first to introduce social reforms in his own spinning-factory at Lanark. By his benevolent institutions and his numerous writings he called the attention of the public to the wretched condition of factory hands.

His leading principle was: Man is but a chemical combination, the result of circumstances; every man may be trained to any kind of disposition and sentiments if he is but put into suitable surroundings. By careful organization the productiveness of labor might be raised to an incredible height, furnishing ample provision for everybody. Owen tried to put his ideas into practice by establishing a number of communistic colonies, the first and most important of which was at New Harmony in Indiana. An atheist himself, he decided to exclude God and religion from his communistic establishments. But before long all his experiments were doomed to dismal failure.

6. The example of Owen induced also ETIENNE CABET (born 1788 at Dijon, died 1856) to draw up a communistic programme. His plan was to change France into a republic consisting of communist municipalities. His ideas he developed in the celebrated novel, “Voyage en Icarie” (1840), which caused a great stir among the laboring population of France.

In 1848 he founded his communist colony Icaria, at first in Texas, and, after this attempt had failed, in the abandoned Mormon city Nauvoo, Illinois.¹ Slowly but steadily the colony began to prosper, and at one time contained up to 500 colonists. They succeeded in making their quarters comfortable, and their cottages bore the stamp of neatness and cleanliness. Assiduous work was required of all Icarians, but they were not wanting in entertainments and enjoyments. A select library was free to all; music, theatricals, and dances agreeably diversified the monotony of the daily routine. Newspapers in several languages were issued at Icaria both for the instruction and amusement of the colonists and for advertising and money-making purposes, Cabet insisted on retaining family life; education, however, was to belong to the community. The instruction imparted was very thorough and calculated to instil communist principles. Public worship was unknown; each one could choose his belief as he pleased. Financially the colony was at first a marked success. But, as prosperity increased, discord and petty quarrels became rife, resulting finally in the expulsion of Cabet and his partisans from Icaria, August 3, 1856. His few faithful followers founded a new colony at Cheltenham near St. Louis; but notwithstanding the financial support obtained from France, internal strife caused its disruption within a few years. Icaria, on the other hand, now established in southern Iowa, began to prosper anew; toward 1875 it numbered about 70 members living in frugal contentment. But here also discord and disputes were unavoidable. The Icarian youth nurtured in communistic principles soon became unmanageable, fond of novelty, despising the experience of their elders. The year 1878 witnessed the complete rupture between the older and younger generation. The faction of the juniors remained at the old homestead, forming the so-called Icarian Community which in 1884 moved to California, where it was soon dissolved.¹

¹ Cf. Hillquit, History of Socialism in the U. S. (1903), p. 129 sqq.

¹ Cf. Hillquit, loc. cit., p. 137.

The “old party” were assigned the eastern part of their former domain and were incorporated as the New Icarian Community. With no accession from the outside they struggled on till their final dissolution.

On March 13, 1895, the Cincinnati Wahrheitsfreund had the following communication from Corning, Iowa: ‘After long but useless struggles the communistic settlement called Icaria Community, situated about three miles east of here, has finally been disrupted. A receiver is to be appointed and the existing property is to be distributed among the members or their heirs.”²

² Cf. A. Shaw, Icaria (New York, 1884).

7. Like Bazard, so also Louis BLANC (1813-1882) finds the root of all economic evils in free competition; and the only remedy, according to him, is in the public organization of labor. The state should undertake the part of the chief producer, and gradually extend its production so as to make private production impossible. After the state has achieved this result it should regulate and control the entire industry of the nation. Louis Blanc was also the first who endeavored to bring the right to labor into action by erecting national workshops for laborers out of work.

8. In Germany KARL RODBERTUS (1805-1875) is considered the first representative and pioneer of “scientific” socialism. He developed his theories in his letters and essays on social questions and political economy.¹ He himself characterizes his doctrine as the “logical development of the principle introduced into political science by Adam Smith, and further developed by Ricardo, that all goods, considered from an industrial standpoint, are only the product of labor, and cost nothing but labor.”

¹ Soziale Briefe an v. Kirchmann (1850–51); Briefe und sozialpolitische Aufsätze (1882). Lately there has been a good deal of controversy whether Rodbertus borrowed from Marx or vice versa. Some are of opinion that both have “borrowed,” Rodbertus from the Frenchman Proudhon, and Marx from the Englishman W. Thompson.

If the division of the national produce is left to itself, says Rodbertus, the wages of the laborer become an ever smaller portion of the national produce the more production increases: and this gives rise to pauperism and to industrial crises. These evils can be remedied only by the gradual introduction of society into a condition in which neither real estate nor capital can further exist, but only wages or labor income.

9. The great agitator FERDINAND LASSALLE (1825- 1864) has exercised a more permanent influence upon the development of socialism, at least in Germany, than even Karl Marx, of whom there will be question anon. Thousands of cheering workingmen surrounded the famous “labor king,” as he passed his army in review or inflamed the passions of the multitude by his overmastering eloquence. In blatant self-conceit he boasted that “every line he wrote was equipped with the culture of the century.” But for his theories the renowned demagogue was entirely dependent on Karl Marx. As peculiarly his own we may in some respect designate what he called the iron law of wages, which, to avoid useless repetitions, will find an explanation later on.

Another idea original with Lassalle was his plan of establishing co-operative associations of workingmen. These associations were to be subsidized by the state in order to overthrow the despotism of capitalists and gradually to lead over to complete socialism. It appears that Lassalle intended to realize his plans of reform by lawful means and upon a national basis. The followers of Lassalle forming the General Union of German Workingmen were fiercely antagonized by the adherents of international socialism, the so-called “Eisenacher,” who, under the leadership of Bebel and Liebknecht, stood up for Marxian ideas. The feud was finally patched up at the Gotha convention, 1875, by the adoption of a compromise platform.