Section I: Nature of Socialism. Its Relation to Communism

Communism has a wider signification than socialism. By communism in its wider sense we understand that system of economics which advocates the abolition of private property and the introduction of community of goods, at least as far as capital, or means of production, is concerned. Communism in this broad sense admits of various forms, the chief of which are the following:

1. Negative communism is restricted to the negation of private property. According to this form of communism all goods should equally be put at the disposal of all. This species of communism found a zealous apostle in the person of MOSES Hess, who flourished in the forties of the past century. Unrestricted right of enjoyment for every individual, no obligation of working, but active co-operation of all for the sake of the common interest, these were the fundamental dogmas of his gospel. This preposterous form of communism is no longer advocated by any one, at least not to our knowledge; for it is evident that a system which does not exclude others from the use of those things which individuals have appropriated to themselves would ruin all industry and bring about a state of universal misery and utter disorder. For who would till a field, if others were permitted to come at will and to reap the harvest?

2. Positive communism demands the total or partial transfer of all property to the community, which is to be owner, administrator, and distributor of all the products. This communism may be of two or rather three different kinds:

(a) Extreme positive communism advocates the transfer of all goods without exception to one great common administration. All production and the use of all goods should be common—common meals, common dormitories, common hospitals, etc. This system was advocated by some of the earlier communists, and by some religious sects.

(b) Moderate positive communism advocates only the abolition of private property as far as capital, or the materials of labor, or productive goods in contradistinction to non-productive goods, is concerned. By productive goods are meant real estate, all kinds of raw material, factories, machines, tools, means of transportation, in fine, everything not intended for immediate consumption. These goods should be handed over to and be administrated by some sort of commonwealth. This moderate form of positive communism is at present the only one having adherents. They are divided into two large groups bitterly hostile to each other: anarchism and socialism.

(a) Anarchism (anarchist communism) demands the transfer of productive property to independent groups of workingmen (communities). In these groups, united to each other by mere federation, each individual is to receive the entire product of his work. Moreover, all governmental functions are to cease. For, anarchists desire to realize absolute liberty and equality to their full extent. Nevertheless anarchism does not imply anarchy or disorder. If you ask, how can order be maintained without civil functionaries, without legislation, courts of justice, police administration, etc., anarchists will refer you to that highly modern theory of evolution, according to which mankind is supposed to ascend to higher and higher stages of perfection; after class differences and the domination of the rich are abolished, order will spring of its own accord from the lively sense of solidarity, which will then animate every human being. Every one will jealously safeguard the right of each one to do as he pleases as long as he does not inflict unwarranted injury on others. According to this doctrine free contracts are the only social bond, the compulsive power of the state being absolutely excluded.¹

¹ Cf. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie (1896), p. 137. There are also anarchists who demand the abolition of government, but wish to maintain private property.

Unlike socialists, these anarchists eschew the use of so-called political means for obtaining their purpose; thus they disdain to take part in elections, parliamentary discussions, and the like. They appeal principally to violence and explosives, their aim being the quickest possible destruction of existing society. Their principles were formulated in great part already by PROUDHON († 1865),² and again by MAX STIRNER (alias Karl Schmidt, † 1857);¹ but the real founder of anarchism is to be sought in the Russian BAKUNIN († 1876). For the rest, the details of the anarchist theory have never been fully developed, and the views of different anarchists are widely divergent. Other anarchists of note besides those already mentioned are the Russian prince KRAPOTKIN, the geographer ÉLISÉE RECLUS, the former socialist JOHN Most, and JOHN Mackay.

² Concerning Proudhon cf. Menger, Das Recht auf den vollen Arbeitsertrag (1891), p. 73 sqq.

¹ Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844); published anew by Reclam.

In May, 1901, the German anarchists assembled in convention at Bietigheim near Stuttgart issued a manifesto, which contains the first official programme of their party.

“The present order of society [they maintain] is based on the system of oppression and exploitation and will never make any concessions to the working classes; social-reform laws are made merely for the purpose of cajoling workingmen into peace and contentment, but their effect is mostly hurtful. Therefore anarchists reject all participation in parliaments or other legislative bodies. The revolutionary workingmen advocate the transfer to the community of all real estate, of the means of production, and of the public utilities of modern civilization. Their ideal is the free socialistic community, whose every member is at liberty to live and to act according to his own inclinations. In spite of persecutions on the part of the state and of capital, the revolutionary workingmen will pursue their goal undaunted. The ‘Federation of Revolutionaries’ promotes this purpose by enlightenment and culture, by revolutionary thought and sentiment, by supporting the anarchist press and literature, by establishing debating clubs, etc. Workingmen must be trained for the economic struggle, they must organize, found co-operative societies in order to obtain control of production and consumption and to hasten the socialization of the state. ‘These are our doctrines, our goal, our methods. For this we combat with the conviction of final victory. This victory will be tantamount to liberty and prosperity for the entire nation.’”²

² Cf. Germania (1901), No. 101, Supplement.

Besides these theoretical anarchists there are also practical anarchists who are perfectly unconcerned about speculative disquisitions. They aim at a radical destruction of civil organization and of all authority (Ni Dieu, ni maître); what is to happen thereafter they reck not. Such views are but the “phantoms of a heat-oppresséd brain.”

Anarchists are not to be confounded with the French communists, who aimed at the political independence of the single communes without demanding a general abolition of private property.

By communards, on the other hand, are meant the supporters of the Paris Commune in 1871.

Nihilism is a peculiarly Russian phase of anarchism. Among its adherents are found a number of anarchists, but in itself it is a purely practical political party of revolutionary tendencies aiming at the destruction of the Czar’s autocratic powers.

(8) Socialistic communism, or simply socialism, advocates the transformation of all capital, or means of production, into the common property of society, or of the state, and the administration of the produce and the distribution of the proceeds by the state. Since modern socialists, and chiefly the followers of Karl Marx, intend to realize this scheme entirely upon a democratic basis, they call themselves social democrats, and their system social democracy. Social democracy may be defined as that system of political economy which advocates the inalienable ownership on the part of the state of all capital, or materials of labor, as also the public administration of all economic goods and the distribution of all produce by the democratic state.¹

¹ Many socialists protest against the expression “socialistic state;” whether they are right in doing so we shall see later on.

We call socialism a system of political economy, not as if it did not also lead to many political and social changes, but because the gist of socialism consists in the nationalization of property and in the public administration and distribution of all goods. Socialism, at least as it is conceived by its modern defenders, is in the first instance an economical system, and only secondarily and subordinately a political system affecting society, the state, the family, etc.

Socialism has been defined as the political economy of the suffering classes,¹ that is, “a philosophy which in its nature and in the sentiments of contemporaries is actually the economic philosophy of the suffering classes.” This explanatory clause is, to say the least, superfluous; to our mind it is incorrect. It makes the nature of socialism dependent on an external factor, namely, the actual subjective conception of men. Even though all the socialists of to-day could be convinced of the impracticability of their system and made to abandon it, yet socialism would still remain the same system, though it no longer existed in the consciousness of contemporaries. On the other hand, the ideal state imagined by Plato is in truth socialistic, although his contemporaries looked upon his theory as an idle dream. Moreover, if such a definition were correct, the moderate economic system which is advocated by the German Centre party and other conservative politicians for the relief of the laborer and artisan would be socialistic, which we cannot grant to be the case.

¹ Schönberg, Handbuch der politischen Oekonomie, vol. I. p. 107 (2d ed.).

The definition given by E. DE LAVELEYE² is equally vague and incorrect. By socialism he understands “every doctrine which aims first at greater equality of social conditions, and secondly endeavors to obtain this reform by means of the state or legislation.” No wonder, therefore, that he speaks of conservative, Catholic, evangelical, and international socialism. It is perfectly evident that such loose notions and comprehensive definitions cannot possibly form the basis for a clear and thorough discussion of the nature of socialism.

² Le socialisme contemporain, 6th ed., p. xii.

EDWARD BERNSTEIN defines socialism as “the movement toward, or the actual existence of, the co-operative organization of society.”¹

¹ Die Voraussetzungen des Socialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie (1899), p. 84.

From our own definition it is evident that every socialist is a communist in the broader sense of the term; but not every communist is a socialist. Positive communism is related to socialism as the genus to the species. Every system advocating common property or common ownership may be called communistic. But only that system can be termed socialistic which intends to organize the production and distribution of goods by means of the entire society. Of course, this organization presupposes the common ownership of the means of production.

Karl Marx, the chief founder of modern socialism, often spoke of himself as a communist; and rightly so, since the general notion of communism is always contained in the specific notion of socialism. Every horse is an animal, but not every animal is a horse. Thus every socialist is a communist, but not vice versa. It is also manifest that neither in communism generally nor in its special form called socialism is there any question of a distribution of property either taking place once for all or else recurring at stated periods. For the basic principle of communism is the absolute negation of private ownership in the means of production.

Moreover, it also follows that the so-called agrarian socialists, who deny only the right of private property in land, cannot simply be called socialists, although they defend many principles which would logically lead to the total abolition of private property.¹ Nor can those politicians and theorists who in principle admit the right of private property, but in their economical systems put the administration of private property almost entirely into the hands of the state, be confounded with true socialists.²

¹ Concerning agrarian socialists cf. our work: The Champions of Agrarian Socialism (Buffalo, N. Y., Peter Paul & Bro.) and Moralphilosophie 4th ed., vol. II. p. 247 sqq.

² Cf. our Moralphilosophie, vol. II. p. 597. Wagner, Grundlegung der polit. Oekonomie, 3d ed., pt. I. § 18 sqq.

In the meaning which we have assigned to it the term socialism is current not only in German and English, but also in French, Italian, and Spanish, especially so in works of a scientific character. Also Pope Leo XIII. in his Encyclicals on the social question (Quod Apostolici, Dec. 28, 1878, and Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891) employs the word socialism exactly as we do. Therefore we perfectly agree with Cardinal Manning in maintaining that to speak of Christian or Catholic socialism is a proof of vagueness of thought or at least of expression. It is our urgent desire that this term should retain its accustomed signification. Why breed confusion and obscurity by the ambiguous use of terms in discussions which stand most in need of clearness and of a well-defined terminology? However, we call attention to the fact that there is a great difference between socialistic and social. Socialistic or socialist is applied to everything referring to socialism, whilst social refers to life in human society. Every one may and should be an advocate of social reform, whilst combating strenuously all socialistic tendencies.

Wherever socialism exists at present it is also democratic, aiming at the introduction of the greatest possible equality; therefore the terms socialism and social democracy may be regarded as synonymous. In French and English socialism is also often spoken of as collectivism.