member is absolutely free to use his share of wealth as he pleases without interference from any, so long as he really uses it; that is, does not turn it into an instrument for the oppression of others. This view intends complete equality of condition for every one, though life would be, as always, varied by the differences of capacity and disposition; and emulation in working for the common good would supply the place of competition as an incentive.

These two views of the future of society are sometimes opposed to each other as socialism and communism; but to my mind the latter is simply the necessary development of the former, which implies a transition period, during which people would be getting rid of the habits of mind bred by the long ages of tyranny and commercial competition, and be learning that it is to the interest of each that all should thrive.

When men had lost the fear of each other engendered by our system of artificial famine, they would feel that the best way of avoiding the waste of labor would be to allow every man to take what he needed from the common store, since he would have no temptation or opportunity of doing anything with a greater portion than he really needed for his personal use. Thus would be minimized the danger of the community falling into bureaucracy, the multiplication of boards and offices, and all the paraphernalia of official authority, which is after all a burden, even when it is exercised by the delegation of the whole people and in accordance with their wishes.

Thus I have laid before you, necessarily briefly, a socialist's view of the present condition of labor, and its hopes for the future. If the indictment against the present society seems to you to be of undue proportions compared with the view of that which is to come, I must again remind you that we socialists never dream of building up by our own efforts in one generation a society altogether new. All I have been attacking has been the exercise of arbitrary authority for the supposed benefit of a privileged class. When we have got rid of that authority and are free once more, we ourselves shall do whatever may be necessary in organizing the real society which even now exists under

the authority which usurps that title. That true society of loved and lover, parent and child, friend and friend, the society of well-wishers, of reasonable people conscious of the aspirations of humanity and the duties we owe to it through one another, this society, I say, is held together and exists by his own inherent right and reason, in spite of what is usually thought to be the cement of society arbitrary authority to wit- that is to say, the expression of brute force under the influence of unreasoning habit. Unhappily though society exists, it is in an enslaved and miserable condition, because that same arbitrary authority says to us practically: "You may be happy if you can afford it, but unless you have a certain amount of money, you shall not be allowed the exercise of the social virtues; sentiment, affection, good manners, intelligence even, to you shall be mere words; you shall be less than men, because you are needed as machines to grind on in a system which has come upon us, we scarce know how, and which compels us, as well as you." This is the real, continuously repeated proclamation of law and order to the most part of men who are under the burden of that hierarchy of compulsion which governs us under the usurped and false title of society, and which all true socialists or supporters of real society are bound to do their best to get rid of, so as to leave us free to realize to the full that true society which means well-being and well-doing for one and all.

XVI

EDUCATION AND THE SOCIALIST

MOVEMENT1

JOHN BATES CLARK

[John Bates Clark (1847-), since 1895 professor of political economy in Columbia University, occupies perhaps the foremost position among English-speaking economists of the present time. Among his books and monographs should be mentioned his epoch-making work on the Distribution of Wealth (1899), which ranks among the ablest contributions to economic philosophy since the days of John Stuart Mill.

While always a theoretician, Professor Clark has shown an active interest in many current practical problems; this is exemplified in the following essay on Education and the Socialist Movement, a clear-cut presentation of the practical objections to socialism as they appear to the scientifically trained mind. Among the many analyses and refutations of the claims of the socialistic state, this essay is distinguished for its lucid argument, its moderate tone, and for the authority with which its author may speak on a question that must still be argued from theory. The optimistic attitude, with which the essay closes, toward the tendencies of the present industrial system is characteristic of the author's position on economic questions.]

In a noteworthy address delivered at Princeton University, President Cleveland expressed the hope that our higher institutions of learning would range themselves like a wall barring the progress of revolutionary doctrines. If one may judge by appearances, this hope has not been realized. There may be a smaller percentage of educated persons than of uneducated ones in the ranks of radical socialism. Those ranks are most readily recruited from the body of ill-paid workingmen; but there are enough highly educated persons in them to prove that socialism and the higher culture are not incompatible; and a question that 1 Reprinted by permission from the Atlantic Monthly, October, 1906.

is well worth asking and, if possible, answering, is, What is likely to be the permanent attitude of a scientific mind toward the claims of thoroughgoing socialism? Will it be generally conservative or the opposite? Will there be an alliance between intelligence and discontented labor the kind of union that was once cynically called a "coalition of universities and slums"? If so, it will make a formidable party.

It is clear, in the first place, that the scientific habit of thought makes one hospitable to new ideas. A man who cultivates that habit is open to conviction where an ignorant person is not so. He is accustomed to pursue the truth and let the quest lead him where it will. He examines evidence which appears to have force, even although the conclusion to which it leads may be new and unpleasant.

Now, at the very outset of any inquiry about socialism, there appear certain undisputed facts which create a prima facie case in its favor; and the first of them is the beauty of the ideal which it presents: humanity as one family; men working together as brethren, and enjoying, share and share alike, the fruits of their labor what could be more attractive? There will be an abundance for every one, and as much for the weak as for the strong; and there will be no cause for envy and repining. There will be fraternity insured by the absence of subjects of contention. We shall love our brethren because we shall have no great cause to hate them; such is the picture. We raise just here no question as to the possibility of realizing it. It is a promised land and not a real one that we are talking about, and for the moment we have given to the socialists carte blanche to do the promising. The picture that they hold up before us certainly has traits of beauty. It is good and pleasant for brethren to dwell together in unity and in abundance.

Again, there is no denying the imperfections of the present system both on its ethical and on its economic side. There is enormous inequality of conditions - want at one extreme and inordinate wealth at another. Many a workingman and his family are a prey to irregular employment and continual anxiety.

For such persons what would not a leveling out of inequalities do? To a single capitalist personally a billion dollars would mean palaces, yachts, and a regiment of retainers. It would mean a redoubling of his present profusion of costly decorations, clothing, and furnishings, and it would mean the exhausting of ingenuity in inventing pleasures, all of which, by a law of human nature, would pall on the man from mere abundance. What would the billionaire lose by parting with ninety-nine one hundredths of his wealth? With the modest ten millions that would be left he could have every pleasure and advantage that money ought to purchase. What would not the sum he would surrender do for a hundred thousand laborers and their families? It would provide comforts for something like half a million persons. It would give them means of culture and of health, banish the hunger specter, and cause them to live in mental security and peace. In short, at the cost of practically nothing for one man, the redistribution we have imagined would translate half a million persons to a comfortable and hopeful level of life.

Again, the growth of those corporations to which we give the name of "trusts" has lessened the force of one stock argument against socialism, and added a wholly new argument in its favor. The difficulty of managing colossal enterprises formerly stood in many minds as the chief consideration against nationalization of capital and industry. What man, or what body of men, can possibly be wise and skillful enough to handle such operations? They are now, in some instances, in process of handling them, and those who wish to change the present order tell us that all we have to do is to transfer the ownership of them to the state, and let them continue working as they do at present. We have found men wise enough to manage the trusts, and probably, in most cases, they are honest enough to do so in the interest of the stockholders. On the question of honesty the socialist has the advantage in the argument, for he will tell us that with the private ownership of capital made impossible by law, the temptation to dishonesty is removed. If the socialistic state could be