Imágenes de páginas

substitute some form of "labor checks," exchangeable for consumption goods at the public stores. Among recent writers this view has been expressed by the late Mr. Edmond Kelly. This view is almost universally based upon the assumption that the Socialist State must accept the labor standard of value, and base upon it an ethical system of distribution. To most Socialists, however, the character of the medium of exchange seems a matter of very minor importance. There is nothing in the nature of Socialism which involves the abolition of money. It is not at all unlikely that future generations may be compelled to adopt some more stable standard of value than the gold standard, and to devise a more convenient medium of exchange. That, however, is pure speculation. All that can be wisely said here is that money, in practically its present form, will continue to be the medium of exchange for a long time in the Socialist State, so far as it is possible to see at the present time.

Land and rent: As we have already seen, there would be no reason for denying the right of individuals to the usevalue of land. The security of the individual in this right would be guaranteed by the State, subject to the right of the State to take the land for any public purpose, a right with which we are already familiar, alike as a theory and as a practice of government. But while the State would not interfere with the private use of land, it could not in justice permit individuals to enjoy land rents. It would be obliged to tax the socially created value of land to the full, and it would be obliged, also, to deny the right of any individuals to hold land in idleness. Improvements upon land made by individuals, whether in the form of clearing and fertilizing the soil, or the construction of buildings, would be regarded as a direct contribution to the social wealth to be rewarded according to its value.

Conclusion: In this rough outline of the economic structure of the Socialist State, toward which society is apparently moving, there are many gaps. We have attempted to sketch only the main conditions which we believe must characterize the class-less industrial democracy of the near future. We have confined ourselves to those things which appear to be 1 Twentieth Century Socialism, by Edmond Kelly, pp. 307-313.

the necessary outcome of present conditions and tendencies. Such a State bears very little resemblance to the oppressive bureaucracy sketched by the enemies of Socialism. Far from suppressing individual freedom and initiative, such an economic system would provide the necessary soil for the development of a noble individualism, and for those fruits of a noble individualism, a great art, a worthy literature, a generous culture and a fraternal State.


1. Socialism involves the collective ownership only of those things which are socially used. Social ownership is looked upon not as an end in itself, but as a means of abolishing exploitation.

2. Where no exploitation is involved, private ownership will probably remain unchanged under Socialism.

3. The Socialist State will develop existing forms, and it does not involve the establishment of a centralized bureaucratic regime.

4. The Socialist State must assume a monopoly of credit functions and of final land ownership.


1. Why are Socialists indifferent as to the form of ownership of minor productive enterprises?

2. Criticise the use of the phrase "abolition of private property." 3. What is the principal aim of the Socialist movement?

4. Give examples of industries apparently adapted to private enterprise under Socialism. To voluntary coöperation.

5. How may the disagreeable and dangerous work be done under Socialism?

6. What is the Socialist attitude toward money and credit?

7. What is likely to be the form of land tenure under Socialism?


See references at the close of the preceding chapter, also: Kelly, E., Twentieth Century Socialism, Book I, Chap. III, and Book III, Chap. I

and II.



Alleged antagonism of Socialism to the family: One of the most common ideas concerning Socialism, is that it would destroy the family organization. It is charged that the advocates of Socialism oppose the family based upon monogamous marriage, and that they hope to destroy it and make sexual relations independent of any interference on the part of the State. Sometimes it is added that Socialism necessarily involves these things, and the most promiscuous sexual relations, according to the fancy and desire of the individuals. This is the substance of the criticism which is summed up in the charge that Socialism involves what is euphemistically called "Free Love."

It is an old charge which has been levelled against nearly every great movement in history at some time or another. It was made against the early Christians. Centuries later it was made against Luther and his followers in the Protestant Revolt. In the political field we have one of the most conspicuous examples of its use against the founders of the present Republican party. In Frémont's campaign, in 1856, the cry of "Free soil, free speech, free labor and free men, was parodied by the enemies of the new party into the insulting cry, "Frémont, free soil, free niggers and free


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Origin of the charge: Before we proceed to discuss the relation of Socialism to marriage and the family we may with advantage consider the origin of the charge that it is opposed to them and aims at the abolition of monogamous marriage. The criticism is a heritage of the modern Socialist movement from the Utopian movements of the past. Plato's Republic, as we have seen, communalized women as well as goods. The two forms of communism went together. It might almost be said that he anticipated most of the

modern theories of eugenics and stirpiculture. In his ideal commonwealth all sexual relations are regulated by the State and confined to persons possessing certain qualifications of age and physical, mental and moral fitness. As Professor Jowett has pointed out,1 it was not "free love” at all, but rather a very highly developed form of State regulated stirpiculture, which eliminated personal choice and desire almost entirely.


It is not difficult to understand Plato's motive. essence of Utopianism is the faith that for all the ills of suffering humanity a remedy can be found or devised; that all its ill-working institutions can be set right. In this spirit of faith every institution which has not worked with perfect success has been subjected to the most searching criticisms and the most ingenious experiments by Utopian inventors. For minds of this type, the marriage relation and the family have at all times offered abundant challenge and opportunity. It must be confessed that, however sacred we may regard it as an institution of fundamental social importance, monogamic marriage is very far from being perfectly successful. The proportion of failures is unhappily great, so that marriage is spoken of as a lottery in which there are many more blanks than prizes.

Religious origins of hostility to marriage: So universal has been the recognition of the comparative failure of all marriage systems that the passion for perfection has almost invariably led to one of two forms of opposition to marriage the condemnation of sexual intercourse, on the one hand, or sexcommunism, on the other. This is especially true of religious movements based upon the desire for perfection. Thus, we have the celibacy of early Christianity and some of the later sects of religious communists, like the Shakers, for example, and the sex-communism of the Waldenses, the Anabaptists, and, in this country, the Perfectionists. No one can frankly study the history of sex-communism and its opposite, celibacy, without reaching the conclusion that both forms of hostility to marriage have commonly sprung from religious zeal and fanaticism. That all such schemes were inspired by the purest motives need not be denied, even by those who are most repelled by the schemes them1 Introduction to Plato's Republic, 1st Ed. Vol. II, pp. 145–147.

selves and the abuses which invariably attended themsuch as licentiousness, sex-perversion and self-emasculation. Secular origins of sex-communism: Celibacy is almost always religious in its origin. The early Christian church stamped it as the highest ideal and marriage as at best an evil, a concession to the flesh, a carnal indulgence. Where antagonism to the family appears in connection with communistic movements it almost invariably takes the form of sex-communism, more or less strictly regulated. Rarely or never does it take the form of celibacy. The reasons for this are not difficult to discover. All such experiments in Utopia making are attempts to establish the basis of a new social order within the old order. Every precaution must be taken to exclude the hostile principles and influences of the old order, less they destroy the new ideal order in its cradle, so to speak. Private property and the inheritance of property being so closely identified with the separate family, it is easy to understand how the founders and inventors of communistic movements and schemes have almost universally regarded individual marriage and separate family life with fear as a certain means of reversion to the old order of private property. Next to this fear of the disintegrating influence of monogamic marriage and family life comes the fear that unless the State in some manner controls sexual relations and procreation, population must outrun the means of subsistence. We know now, however, that population always tends to abnormal and unsafe increase where the standard of life is lowest and there is most poverty and pressure.

Modern Socialists and the charge: We have considered thus far only the chief sources of the hostility of communistic Utopias, both secular and religious, to marriage and the family. It is not strange that many honest and sincere men and women should believe that Socialism is but the modern expression of the same general aims, and that it seeks to abolish monogamic marriage and family ties. Nor is it strange that the enemies of Socialism in their defense of the present order should attempt to create prejudice against the movement by charging it with that purpose and aim. It may also be freely admitted that, like all popular movements directed against the existing order of

« AnteriorContinuar »