"^ ii J.1 itiR^' J J&SiJi 
 
 0-OPERATIVE lOMMONWEALTH 
 
 G RON LUND 
 
 
^6 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE, INCOME 
 FROM THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 Hettrg m. Sage 
 
 1891 
 
 Jf.A/7Ai^3,. 
 
 IJljl':],.. 
 
 9963 
 
lire ^-^c:^ 
 
 M< 
 
 APR U 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 HX86 .G87 1903 
 
 The co-operative commonwealth : 
 
 III 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 030 332 450 
 
The original of tliis bool< is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030332450 
 
THE 
 
 CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 AN EXPOSITION OF SOCIALISM 
 
 LAURENCE GRONLUND M.A. 
 
 AUTHOR OF "9A IRA! OR DANTON IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION' 
 
 AND "OUR DESTINY — THE INFLUENCE OF NATIONALISM 
 
 ON MORALS AND RELIGION" 
 
 ' My object is not to make people read, but to make them think " 
 
 MoNTESqyiEU 
 
 REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 LEE AND SHEPARD PUBLISHERS 
 1903 
 
 ;d 
 
 11 
 

 Cop3Tight, 18S4, by LAUREtNCB Groi 
 
 Copyright, 1S90 
 
 By lee and SHEPARD 
 
 Ail rights reserved 
 
 The Co-operative Commonwealth 
 
 pnxBS or 
 B0ST02<r 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction vii 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 The Profit System 
 
 An Object Lesson. — What is " Value " ? — Capital: 
 Mainly Accumulated Fleecings. — Interest: A Fair 
 Division of the Spoils. — Harmony between Capital 
 and Labor; Yes! but what between Capitalists and 
 Laborers? 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 Social Anarchy 26 
 
 Capitalists Monopolize all Wealth and Social Bene- 
 fits. — Competition and Emulation. — All Work 
 Planless; hence our " Crises." — Farmers becoming 
 Hopelessly Indebted. — Speculative Vampires. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Th^ Culmination 51 
 
 History a Lesson in Co-operation. — Concentration 
 the Order of the Day. — InadequatiTness of Remedies 
 proposed. — The Approaching Real Crisis. —A Rhyth- 
 mical Swing from Individualism to Social Co-opera- 
 tion. 
 
 iii 
 
IV CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 The Sphere of the State 73 
 
 Organized Society. — It is to the Collectivity we 
 OWE OUR "Rights." — Society Employs Capitalists and 
 Laborers. — A Cla-js-State a Partially Developed 
 Organism. — The Commonwealth will insure Free- 
 dom. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Co-operative Commonwealth 103 
 
 We are not Architects. — I am a Collectivist, not a 
 Communist. — A Collectivist State in Outline. — City 
 and Country. — Practical Difficulties. — The Mal- 
 THUsiAN Law. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 Social Economy 140 
 
 Interest, Profits, and Rents. — Money. — Income and 
 Outgoings. — Rewards. — Everybody a Public Func- 
 tionary. — Co-operation is Discipline. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Democracy vs. Party Government 167 
 
 Worship of the Constitution a Growth of Later 
 Years. — Standing Parties. — The Parliamentary Sys- 
 tem A Device of Classes. — "I am the State," a Sort 
 of Constitution. — Democracy means Administration 
 BY the Competent. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 A Democratic Commonwealth ., 182 
 
 The Laboring Masses opposed to Anarchy. — Appoint- 
 ments from Below. — Tenure during Good Behavior. 
 — The Referendum. — The Superiors Dismiss. — Public 
 Opinion the Final Arbiter. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Administration of Justice 202 
 
 Codification of Law. — No' Judge-made Law. — No 
 Judicial Nullification of Law. — Lawyers Abolished. 
 
 — Costless Justice. — Arbitrators instead of Judges. 
 
 — No Appeals. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 Woman in the Co-operative Commonwealth . . .219 
 
 Economic Equality. — Special Vocations for Sexes. — 
 Married Women. — The Divorced Woman. — The 
 Social Evil. — No Drudgery. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 Education IN the Co-operative Commonwealth . . 235 
 " Minimum " Education. — Children not to be Bread- 
 winners. — Family Exclusiveness. — No Amateur 
 Teachers. — New Ideals. — Inborn Talent. — Complete 
 Men and Women. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Morals in the Co-operative Commonwealth . . 258 
 Morals the Fruit, not the Roots. — Wrong Identi- 
 cal WITH Anti-Social. — Integrity. — Sympathy. — 
 Religion. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 The Coming Revolution 28S 
 
 The Existence of Socialism the Greatest Evolution- 
 ary Fact. — A Happy Issue. — Discontent. — Labor 
 Organizations are the Skeletons of the New Order. 
 
 — Organized Humanity. — Blessedness, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Any one who, like myself, has been watching the 
 intellectual movement among Americans during the 
 last dozen years, must be impressed with the way in 
 which socialism, or nationalism, as it has been lately 
 called, has spread among them. I may say that I 
 know that the present work, in the shape in which 
 it first appeared in 1884, has contributed its share 
 to that effect ; it has sown the seeds of socialism in 
 all parts of our country, and there is sufficient evi- 
 dence to show that some of them have germinated. 
 I suppose this is due to the feature, which is pecul- 
 iar to The Co-operative Commonwealth, that it 
 gives, as well as can at present be done, the construc- 
 tive side of socialism, — that it attempts to present 
 the new social system in outline. 
 
 As far back as August, 1880, when I could count 
 all native American socialists on the fingers of one 
 hand, there appeared a remarkable dialogue in the 
 Nineteenth Century, entitled " Political Optimism," m 
 which occurred the following paragraph : — 
 
 We see that political systems in all progressive societies tend 
 towards socialistic democracy. We see everywhere that it must 
 come to that. We all of us feel this conviction, — or all of us, I 
 suppose, who have reflected on the matter. We feel, too, that 
 
vm INTRODUCTION. 
 
 nothing we can do can avert, or possibly long delay, the consum- 
 mation. Then we must believe that the movement is being 
 guided, or is guiding itself to happy issues. 
 
 Now, what I try to do in this book^is to take you 
 by the arm, lead you to a new point of view, and if 
 you are not near-sighted, nor wear colored specta- 
 cles, nor biased by your interest, you will surely 
 come to the above conviction. 
 
 The happiest effect of my book is that .it has led 
 indirectly, and probably unconsciously, to Mr. Bella- 
 my's "Looking Backward," the novel which without 
 doubt has stealthily inoculated thousands of Amer- 
 icans with socialism, just because it ignored that 
 name and those who had written on the subject. It 
 should, however, in justice to the cause, be stated, 
 that there are three ideas in that novel for which 
 socialism should not be held responsible, as has 
 been done by Prof. Francis A. Walker, in a criticism. 
 These are a love for militarism, equal wages, and ap- 
 pointments by the retired functionaries. They are 
 decidedly unsocialistic notions, belong exclusively to 
 Mr. Bellamy, and will be further noticed in the 
 course of this volume. 
 
 Jules Simon has remarked, "The nineteenth cen- 
 tury has, so far, been nothing but a riddle." It 
 looks to me as if the last ten years will give the 
 solution of the riddle. I should not be surprised 
 if we soon should witness an enthusiasm rivalling that 
 of the first crusade. Everything is ripe, especially 
 in the United States, for the great change, except 
 
INTRODUCTION. IX 
 
 leaders. I am convinced they will come out from 
 among the deeply religious minds among us. What 
 is needed is to convince them that this coming 
 change is God!s will ; that the society to be ushered 
 in is not a pig-sty, filled with well-fed hogs, but is, 
 indeed, the Kingdom of Heaven on earth; in other 
 words, those of the above dialogue, that "the 
 movement is guiding itself to happy issues." This 
 I have tried to do in an essay, which will be pub- 
 lished simultaneously with this volume, entitled 
 " Our Destiny." 
 
 Laurence Gronlund. 
 
 Boston, 1S90. 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE PROFIT SYSTEM 
 
 " That the masses of men are robbed of their fair earnings, that they have 
 to work much harder than they ought to worli for a very much poorer hv- 
 ing than they ought to get, is to my mind clear. " — Henry George. 
 
 " PoHtical economists are men of only one idea, — wealth, how to pro- 
 cure and increase it. Their rules seemed infallibly certain to that supreme 
 end. What did it signify that a great part of mankind was made mean- 
 while even more wretched than before, provided wealth on the whole in- 
 creased? " — Catholic Quarterly Review, Jan., 1880. 
 
 " The working class is the only class which is not a class. It is the na- 
 tion. It represents, so to speak, the body as a whole, of which the other 
 classes only represent special organs. These organs, no doubt, have great 
 and indispensable functions, but for most purposes of government the State 
 consists of the vast laboring majority. Its welfare depends on what their 
 lives are like, " — Frederic Harrison, 
 
 I SHALL commence with an object lesson furnished me 
 by our own country, which happens to be the only one 
 from which we can learn such a lesson. It will consist chiefly 
 of figures, and figures are tiresome things — but the lesson 
 will be a short one. Here are four diagrams — "cakes," 
 let us call them : — 
 
 i860. 
 1850. 
 
 $437,ooo,cx)0. 
 
 $805,000,000. 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 1870. 
 
 $1,834,000,000. 
 
 These " cakes " represent the net produce of all manu- 
 facturing industries of the United States for the respective 
 years ; mark ! not the gross value of the products on leaving 
 the factories, but only that value which has been given to 
 them in the factories, minus the wear and tear of ma- 
 chinery. That is to say, I have arrived at the above fig- 
 
THE PROFIT SYSTEM % 
 
 ares by first adding the value of the raw materials and the 
 depreciation of all machinery, implements, and buildings to- 
 gether, and then deducting that sum from the value of the 
 finished products. The value of the raw materials used, 
 and the gross value, I have gathered from the respective 
 United States Census Reports ; but for the estimate of the 
 wear and tear of machinery, etc., there are absolutely no 
 data' anywhere to be had. I have taken five per cent, of 
 all the capital invested in all manufactories in the respective 
 years as probably a fair estimate of such wear and tear, as 
 but a small part of all capital is invested in machinery and 
 implements, where most of the wear and tear occurs. Sup- 
 posing that I am somewhat out of the way on one side or 
 the other in this guess, it will not materially affect the con- 
 clusions of this chapter. 
 
 Observe, first, that these " cakes " grow at an even and a 
 very great rate : — 
 
 The cake of 1850 has a value of ^437,000,000, 
 that of i860 " « ;?8o5 ,000,000, 
 that of 1870 " " ^1,310,000,000, 
 
 that of 1880 " « ^1,834,000,000. 
 
 Observe, next, that these " cakes " are divided by a ver- 
 tical line into two very nearly equal portions. That to the 
 left was paid to the workers in the form of wages ; that to 
 the right I shall, for the time being, call the " surplus. " 
 
 Note, also, — for I do not want to make facts, but simply 
 to declare and explain them, — that the portion wages in- 
 creases both absolutely and relatively in proportion to t^ 
 number of workers. 
 
 The average wage in 1850 was ^248. 
 
 « « " i860 " $2()2. 
 
 « « « 1870 « $T,XO. 
 
 " " « 1880 " ^346, 
 
4 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 The portion surplus grows at a great rate. 
 
 In 1850 it amounted to $200,000,000. 
 " i860 it was $426,000,000. 
 
 " 1870 it was $690,000,000. 
 
 " 1880 it rose to $886,000,000. 
 
 The average " surplus, " that is, when divided by the 
 number of estabUshments, was as follows : — 
 In 1850 it was $1,500. 
 " i860 " $3,000. 
 In 1870 it fell to $2,736, because the number of establish- 
 ments had nearly doubled. 
 
 In 1880 it rose to $3,490, the number of establishments 
 being nearly the same as in 1870. 
 
 Lastly, let us see the average amount which each worker 
 during the respective census-years contributed to the " sur- 
 plus " (which the reader may compare with the respective 
 wages he got). 
 
 In 1850 it amounted to $209.00. 
 
 " i860 it amounted to $327.50. 
 
 " 1870 it rose to $345.00. 
 
 " 1880 it dropped to $323.50. 
 
 Here ends the lesson. It was all figures ; but I should 
 
 say that to a reflective mind these figures are not dumb, but 
 
 speaking. 
 
 The central point of interest to us is this " surplus. " 
 How does this surplus originate? For to know what a 
 thing is, we must know the process of its origin. How 
 came these " cakes " — the net results of our industrial pro- 
 duction — to be divided that way? In order to answer 
 these questions I shall have to dissect the system of pro- 
 duction which now prevails. 
 
 Take a number of moneyed men who agree to invest 
 
THE PROFIT SYSTEM 5 
 
 their surplus funds in some industrial enterprise. They 
 come together, form themselves into a joint-stock company, 
 and elect officers ; such companies, in fact, now own and 
 operate some of our largest establishments, and the ten- 
 dency is that all industries of any consequence in time will be 
 carried on by them. Suppose, then, our moneyed men en- 
 gaged in the cotton, or woollen, or iron and steel industry ; 
 either one of these will serve our purpose equally well, as 
 the "surplus" was in 1880 about the same in proportion in 
 all of them. Suppose they engage in the making of cotton 
 cloth. None of those men need have any knowledge what- 
 ever of the work to be done, and as a matter of fact the 
 stockholders of existing joint-stock companies have no such 
 knowledge. They need not know anything, indeed, except 
 to add and divide — this is not added impertinently, but 
 simply to emphasize a fact most pertinent to our subject. 
 All that they need do is to hire a manager at a stated salary 
 and place their funds at his disposal. 
 
 This manager then rents a factory — a cotton-" mill " — 
 or has one built ; goes then into the market and buys 
 spindles, bales of cotton, and other machinery and raw 
 materials. All that now is wanting is labor ; but that is 
 also to be found in the market — plenty of it. The man- 
 ager buys as much as he wants of it. Note, however, here 
 a difference. The machinery and raw materials he has to pay 
 for on, or a short time after, delivery ; not quite so with 
 labor. With that a contract is made to employ it for a 
 week or a month at an agreed price, and then to pay for it 
 after having used it. 
 
 All these wares — machinery, cotton, and labor — are 
 now taken to the cotton-mill, where our men with money 
 may, if they think fit, look on while labor spins and weaves 
 the cotton into cloth, using up in that process a certain 
 
6 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 small portion of the machinery and factory. Everybody 
 knows that this cloth is not made for the personal use of 
 these moneyed men or their families, — and we shall see in 
 another chapter that this fact is a truly distinguishing mark 
 of the era in which we are living, — but that it is manufact- 
 ured wholly for other people whom these men never saw 
 or heard of. This cloth is made for the express purpose of 
 being taken into and disposed of in the market of the world. 
 For there all wares, from guano to gold, from rags to silk, 
 have one quality in common : that of possessing value. 
 
 Now, please mark that my explanation of what this 
 "surplus" is, hinges on the question : What is value? I 
 shall, therefore, suspend my sketch of the present mode of 
 production, in order first to answer it. 
 
 But mark, again, my exposition of " value " is none other 
 than that of David Ricardo. Socialists regard Ricardo as 
 the last political economist who made any substantial addi- 
 tion to the science ; the one who, in regard to value and 
 wages, advanced it to its highest plane. And it was only 
 after the supporters of the present social order found out 
 what use could be made of his teachings, that Bastiat and 
 his disciples came to their succor and tried to impugn 
 these teachings. I build on Ricardo as the foundation. 
 
 To the question, then. By " value " we mean value-in- 
 exchange ; we do not mean value in use, nor utility, . nor, 
 what seems to us a more luminous name, and what Locke 
 called it, worth. The worth or utility of shoes is their 
 capacity to protect the feet; their value is what they 
 will fetch in the market. Their value is their relation 
 to other wares, in some way or other ; is another name for 
 equivalence. 
 
 But relation in what way? Not relation of worths. 
 Worth, or utility, is undoubtedly presupposed, but it does 
 
THE PROFIT SYSTEM 
 
 not determine the value. That will be seen from the follow- 
 ing illustrations : — 
 
 The reason why a man wants to purchase a pair of shoes is 
 that he needs them, that they will be useful, that they will pos- 
 sess " worth " to him. But their usefulness is not at all the 
 reason why he pays two dollars for them. He does not pay 
 twenty-five times as much for them as for an eight-cent loaf 
 of bread, because they are twenty-five times as useful to 
 him. Why not? Because the two " worths " or two useful- 
 nesses are just as incomparable as a pound of butter and a 
 peck of apples would be. Again, a loaf of bread is " worth " 
 infinitely more to a man who has not eaten anything for forty- 
 eight hours than to one who just comes from a hearty din- 
 ner ; yet the former can buy the loaf just as cheaply as the 
 latter. Value, then, is no relation of " worths," of useful- 
 ness ; though it is a relation between useful things. 
 
 Nor has money anything to do with determining values. 
 Wares would have value, the same as they have now, if all 
 money of all kinds were suddenly annihilated. In order to 
 eUminate that disturbing factor, money, I shall suppose an 
 exchange of goods for goods — pure barter. 
 
 Assume, then, a shoemaker to exchange one pair of boots 
 for a coat, another similar pair for a table, a third pair for 
 one hundred pounds of bread, a fourth pair for forty bushels 
 of coal, and a fifth pair for a book. All these articles are 
 said to be equal in value. 
 
 But equality presupposes comparison. We only compare 
 such articles with each other that are similar. In what re- 
 spect, then, are the above articles similar, except that of 
 being useful, which we saw was no point of comparison ? 
 
 They are dissimilar in regard to the material out of which 
 they are made, and the purposes for which they are made. 
 They are, on the other hand, similar in this respect : that 
 
8 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 they have been produced by human labor, working on nat- 
 ural products, which, again, have been won by human la- 
 bor. They have, then, this property in common, that they 
 have sprung from Nature, and contain in them a certain 
 amount of human labor.' Labor is their father and Nature 
 is their mother. 
 
 Nature, however, performs her work gratuitously. It 
 must, then, be human labor which gives these various arti- 
 cles their value. 
 
 That is, also, the teaching of Ricardo. He lays it down 
 as a fundamental principle, that the exchange values of 
 wares the supply of which may be indefinitely increased (as 
 is the case with the articles we enumerated) depend, exclu- 
 sively, on the quantities of labor necessarily required to 
 produce theni and bring them to market in all states of so- 
 ciety. He further says : " In all cases wares rise in value 
 because more labor is expended." 
 
 These various articles, however, have not only value, they 
 were supposed to have equal value ; consequently they must 
 contain an equal amount of human labor. And so it is. 
 
 These amounts are first measured by the time devoted to 
 produce these articles. Thus it is easy enough to say how 
 much bakering labor is contained in the bread ; how much 
 tailoring labor in the coat, etc. 
 
 These various labors, however, are very different in kind, 
 you will say. Undoubtedly. But the difference consists 
 simply in being more or less complicated. It takes simply 
 more time to learn the one than the other. The most com- 
 plicated kind of work can always be reduced to ordinary 
 unskilled labor, may always be considered as multiplied 
 common labor. Thus digging is easier to learn than type- 
 setting. There is contained in every hour's work of the 
 carpenter a part of the time he devoted to learning his 
 
THE PROFIT SYSTEM 
 
 trade. This is still more apparent in the literary labor 
 contained in a book. Years may be requisite for the pre- 
 liminary work ; months, and even years may have to be de- 
 voted to special studies, while the mere writing of the man- 
 uscript may take but a few months. One hour of writing 
 may thus be equivalent to twelve, or many more hours of 
 labor. 
 
 In this connection Ricardo very pertinently remarks : 
 " I am not inattentive to the difficulty of comparing one 
 hour's labor in one employment with the same duration of 
 labor in another. But the estimation of different qualities 
 of labor comes soon to be adjusted in the market with 
 sufficient precision for all practical purposes." 
 
 But we are not yet ready to define -what value is. Sup- 
 pose one man required twice as much time to make a pair 
 of boots as is usually required, and suppose he should then 
 want from the tailor two coats in exchange, instead of one, 
 he probably would get some such answer as this : " I don't 
 care how long time it takes you to make such a pair of 
 boots. I know that, on an average, an average shoemaker 
 can make them in half that time ; and therefore your la- 
 bor is of no more value." Value is not, then, determined 
 by the time which this or that worker may need. 
 
 Again : suppose to-morrow a machine were invented and 
 generally introduced which would make two pairs of boots 
 in the same time that now is required for one pair. Then 
 the value would be reduced one-half. 
 
 I, therefore, define value as the quantity of common 
 hiiman labor measured by tinee which on an average is req- 
 uisite, by the implements generally used, to produce a 
 given commodity. 
 
 I should now go on with my illustration and state the de- 
 duction which socialists draw from the definition just given, 
 
lO THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 were it not for some misunderstandings that very likely al- 
 ready have arisen in many a reader's mind. 
 
 Thus one may object : Suppose I find a diamond in the 
 highway. Its value is certainly far above the trouble of 
 picking it up. Does not this show that Bastiat's definition 
 of value — that its measure is " the service done to the 
 buyer, in saving him a certain amount of effort " — is the 
 more correct one ? The answer is : People are not in the 
 habit of finding diamonds in the highways. If they were, 
 diamonds would soon be as cheap as pebbles. Diamonds 
 would cost the finder dearly enough if he were to seek for 
 them in Hindostan or in Brazil where they are usually 
 found. Remember that the average amount of labor is a 
 part of our definition. 
 
 A word more in regard to that theory of "service" 
 which so many reformers have got into their heads without 
 knowing to whom they owe it. Bastiat it was who invented 
 that term in order to get over the apparent mischief Ricar- 
 do's theory worked ; who expressly selected it because its 
 meaning was equivocal. Its efficacy lies entirely in the 
 shifting uses of an ambiguous term. Bastiat's definition 
 really amounts to saying, that the value of a railroad ticket 
 from London to Liverpool is measured by the time, trouble, 
 and expense which I may " save " in not walking or driv- 
 ing that distance ! Why, our progress depends on exactly 
 the reverse ! On this, that values of articles become con- 
 stantly less and less in proportion to the trouble I should 
 have to undergo in producing them by my own efforts ! So 
 that, finally, values and troubles of mine bear no relation at 
 all to each other. 
 
 Again, I shall, of course, be charged with having disre- 
 garded the law of demand and supply. And yet I dis- 
 tinctly mentioned that I, so far, only spoke of articles that 
 
THE PROFIT SYSTEM I'l 
 
 may be indefinitely increased. Wares that cannot be thus 
 increased, like rare pictures, and other wares in times of 
 scarcity, have what is called a " monopoly value ; " that is, 
 their value is not measured by the labor contained — crys- 
 tallized — in them at all, but by demand and supply, 
 exclusively. And even with regard to wares that may be in- 
 definitely increased (the vast majority of all wares), I, with 
 Ricardo, do not deny that " there are accidental and tem- 
 porary deviations of the actual market from their primary 
 and natural price." 
 
 That which I lay stress upon is that the labor expended 
 on wares measures their primary and natural value. Labor 
 expended constitutes, so to speak, their level value. De- 
 mand and supply have, as to those wares, simply the effect 
 of making their price (that is, their value expressed in 
 money — in gold and silver) vibrate, now a little above, 
 now a little below that level value of theirs ; exactly as the 
 wind raises and depresses the waves in respect to the level 
 of the sea. 
 
 I claim, therefore, first (in the words of Ricardo) : 
 "Nature, by the aid of machinery, adds to utilities (to 
 'worths') by making society richer; but the assistance 
 which it affords adds nothing to values, but always makes 
 the latter fall ; " and, secondly, that human labor and 
 scarcity create all values. But since it is evident that scarcity 
 cannot create anything real, we must conclude that the 
 values which are due to it are unreal ones ; and that it is 
 human labor alone that creates all real values.-^ So it is not 
 only now, but so it has always been. So it will always be 
 under any industrial system. 
 
 Let us now return to our sketch. We left the manager 
 
 » This, of course, does not imply that there is not much labor which does not 
 create any values at all. 
 
12 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 having taken the cotton cloth into the world's market for 
 sale. Suppose one hundred hours of common labor (that 
 is, the unskilled labor to which, as we have seen, all skilled 
 labor can be ultimately reduced) necessary, under the pre- 
 vailing mode of production, to make this cloth, and another 
 hundred hours of common labor requisite to produce the 
 bales of cotton and that part of the machinery which has 
 been used up, then the value of the finished cotton cloth is 
 two hundred hours of common labor. That is, they will 
 exchange with that amount of labor crystallized in any other 
 ware. Suppose they are exchanged (disregarding for the 
 moment the oscillating influence of demand and supply) 
 for an amount of gold embodying two hundred hours of 
 common labor. That gold is then taken to the office of 
 our company. 
 
 But, since equal amounts of labor are exchanged, why do 
 these moneyed men engage in this operation ? Do they do 
 it for fun? 
 
 Not a bit of it. We have now arrived at the socialist 
 deduction which is drawn from our definition of value, and 
 which made it so important that it should be thoroughly 
 understood. Our moneyed men first deduct from that heap 
 of gold lying before them their outlay for raw materials and 
 the wear and tear of machinery. The balance — the 
 "cake," in fact — they divide into two, let us say, equal 
 portions. The one portion they give to labor, and the 
 other — ? 
 
 Remember that we stated that there is plenty of labor in 
 the market. Labor nowadays is a ware. Being a ware, 
 it possesses both worth and value. Its worth is its ability 
 to produce our " cakes " — values. Labor creates these. 
 And its (labor's) value is precisely what the value of other 
 wares is : the amount of common human labor necessary 
 
THE PROFIT SYSTEM 1 3 
 
 to " raise " and maintain a laborer in the manner custom- 
 ary at a given time and in a given country. 
 
 " Labor," as Ricardo says, " has its natural value — de- 
 pending on the price of necessaries — and its market price," 
 vibrating above and below the former. The laborer, in 
 other words, must sell his labor for wages, now a little above, 
 now a little below what it costs him to live and bring up his 
 family. 
 
 That which we have hitherto called the " surplus," then, 
 arises because the laborer gets only about half of what he 
 produces. And what becomes of it? Fancy these moneyed 
 men reasoning to themselves : " True, this surplus is the 
 product of ' our ' labor, but didn't we agree to pay a stated 
 price for that? and haven't we paid it? True, also, that 
 we have done nothing but going through the effort of hiring 
 our manager and looking on. Never mind ! we call it 
 profit " and then they put it into their pockets. It is for 
 the sake of that profit that in our age production is carried 
 on. 
 
 From this point we have no more use for the vague word 
 "surplus." We are now entitled to call it by the appropri- 
 ate name : fleecings. If there were an English word for 
 the process of abstracting honey from the bees, I should 
 prefer that ; for the process of pocketing the proceeds of 
 labor is also a stealthy one. Let it, however, be distinctly 
 understood that in adopting this word " fleecings " I have 
 not the remotest idea of reflecting upon persons ; I use it, 
 and shall use it repeatedly, to condemn as impressively as 
 possible the system -which allows, and sometimes compels 
 one class of men virtually to say to another class : " If you 
 will work five hours a day for us gratuitously, we will enable 
 you to work the other five hours for yourselves, " — that is, 
 to condemn the Profit System, the wage-system. Observe 
 
14 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 that I said " one class of men." For, while in the illustra- 
 tion I assumed that the owners of the cotton-mill had all 
 the means needed for their enterprise, I know that in many 
 cases employers have to rent land on which to build their 
 factories, and to borrow money to defray their expenses. 
 Such employers, of course, do not put all the fleecings into 
 their own pockets, but have to divide with landowners, 
 bankers, and other " gentlemen at large." But the fact is 
 — and on that it is I lay stress — that the workers receive 
 only about half of what they produce, just enough to keep 
 up life and strength and bring up a new generation of 
 laborers, while the other half stealthily passes into the 
 pockets of quite another class of men. It furthermore 
 will be objected that employers have to pay commissions, 
 insurance, taxes, etc., out of these " fleecings; " but, then, 
 please observe that it is the workers who pay for these 
 things. 
 
 Now we can illustrate our " cakes," so that they present 
 this appearance : — 
 
 Values for iS6o. 
 
 Values for 1850. 
 
 $437)000,000. Product of Labor. 
 
 $805,000,000. Product of Labc: 
 
THE PROFIT SYSTEM 
 
 IS 
 
 Values for 1870. 
 
 $1,310,000,000. Product of Labor. 
 
 Values for 1880. 
 
 $1,834,000,000. Product of Labor. 
 
 I ought, in passing, to remark that it will not do to trust 
 implicitly these figures in the census reports, or the calcula- 
 tions from them (remember it is the employers who have 
 furnished all data) ; especially is a comparison of one cen- 
 sus year with another liable to be misleading, since one- 
 
1 6 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 report differs materially from another, both in method and 
 accuracy. But these reports are of great service when only 
 a rough, approximate idea of the reality is required. 
 
 We then find (see object lesson) that in 1880 — a fairly 
 prosperous year, as all the above census years were, com- 
 pared with our years of distress — the employer paid the 
 worker on an average ^346 in wages, and fleeced, on an 
 average, from him the sum of ^324. That, perhaps, to 
 many does not seem extravagant. 
 
 But he who employed 10 workmen gained ^83,240. 
 " " " 25 " " ^8,100. 
 
 « " " 50 " " gl6,200. 
 
 " " " 100 " " ^32,400. 
 
 « « " 500 " " %\(i2,qoo. 
 
 " " " 1,000 " " ^324,000. 
 
 Three hundred and twenty-four thousand dollars this lat- 
 ter employer gained, fleeced, "accumulated" (mark!) in 
 one year ! For what ? What had the workers in return ? 
 The privilege each to earn ^346. The privilege to use the 
 soil, the machinery, and all the resources of our civilization, 
 which this employer possesses ! 
 
 It is on purpose that I so far in my exposition have 
 avoided to use the word "capital." Political economists 
 have surrounded this term with such a hazy atmosphere that 
 it now denotes a good many things. Yet the question, 
 What is capital ? is of fundamental importance, and relates 
 to the whole structure of our present social system. I 
 want that question answered, and the preceding pages, 
 indeed, have been written for that purpose. But I am not 
 concerned about the meaning of the word — throughout 
 this work I care for the essence of things, and not for the 
 definition of words. By "capital" I mean what in popular 
 speech is meant. 
 
THE PROFIT SYSTEM 17 
 
 He is called a " capitalist " who possesses wealth which 
 brings him an income without any work on his part. True, 
 many capitalists do some work of one kind or another, but 
 the remuneration they receive for that work has nothing to 
 do with their incomes as " capitalists " — these are some- 
 thing over and above such remuneration. I therefore 
 mean, by "capital," that part of wealth which yields its 
 possessors an income without work. But I am just as will- 
 ing to adopt the definition of some economists, that capital 
 is " the part of wealth which is employed productively with 
 a view to profit by sale of the produce ; " for it is only by 
 being thus employed that it yields an income. 
 
 The question, then, to which we are now intent upon 
 finding an answer is : What is the nature, the essence of 
 that which we have agreed to call "capital"? We want to 
 know it, and therefore must learn the process of its origin. 
 That is a comparatively easy thing to us who already know 
 the origin of the " surplus." Simply observe what our 
 moneyed men, the operators of the cotton mill, are doing. 
 They add their fleecings to what wealth they had already, 
 and make that increased wealth pass through such another 
 operation as we already have described. The oftener they 
 do that, and the more operatives they employ, the more 
 surplus labor their wealth absorbs. Now we have " capital " 
 and "capitalists." It is these fleecings which, absorbed by 
 wealth, turns it into "capital," and the pocketing these 
 fleecings turns wealthy men into " capitalists." 
 
 To sum up : " surplus " is the same as " fleecings " 
 — is the difference between the price of labor and the 
 price of labor's produce ; is the latter minus ( — ) the 
 former. 
 
 Capital is the original little amount of wealth with which 
 our employers start (which they may and may not have 
 
1 8 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 earned) plus (-f-) the sum of surplus values; is accumu- 
 lated fleecings — accumulated withheld wages. 
 
 Therein consists, really, the so-called " productivity " of 
 capital : in possessing the spongy capacity of steadily going 
 on absorbing surplus labor. This capacity distinguishes it 
 from all other wealth (which other wealth the old econo- 
 mists called, very happily, revenue). Far be it from me 
 to deny the invaluable assistance which capital renders 
 to labor. But capital itself produces no values whatever ; 
 what it does, is, it enables labor to be immensely more 
 productive. 
 
 We have now reached the very core, the grand secret of 
 the present mode of production. This fact — that such a 
 thing as " capital " exists, that it is acquired and increases 
 legitimately by fleecing those in its employ by the wage- 
 system, a fact unknown to all former periods — is the one 
 characteristic mark of this era ; wherefore it may with pro- 
 priety be designated the capitalist era. 
 
 The illustrations have been taken from the manufacturing 
 industries. The same lesson, however, might have been 
 equally well drawn from agriculture, to the extent that the 
 cultivator of the farm or plantation employs wage laborers. 
 And we arrive at the same results if we direct our attention 
 to the legitimate commercial enterprises. For commerce 
 — legitimate commerce — is an industry, and a productive 
 industry. The labor of those engaged in causing the cloth 
 of the cotton mills of Lancashire to be transported to Lon- 
 don, and there handing it out in small pieces to consumers, 
 creates an additional value in these pieces as fully as the 
 labor of the operatives creates value. But here, also, the 
 profits which swell the fortunes of our merchant " princes " 
 are not the result of their labor, but fleecings, exactions, 
 from the labor of their thousands of employes. 
 
THE PROFIT SYSTEM 19 
 
 Thus in all industries — manufacturing, mining, agri- 
 cultural, and commercial — the legitimate fleecings which 
 go to make up capital come out of the producers. I 
 say legitimate fleecings, following naturally, as they do, 
 from the wage-system. They are all fleecers, whether it 
 be the capitalist who joins millions to his millions, or the 
 workingman who brings his hard-earned savings to the 
 bank for the sake of the interest. One is no better than 
 the other. I do not blame either ; they simply conform 
 to the system under which we are living. But I claim 
 that in this difference between wages paid and the proceeds 
 of labor, in this little fold lies hidden the germ of all profit, 
 interest and rent, of all pauperism, and of nearly all modern 
 crime. 
 
 Now we can justly estimate the accounts which recent 
 economists have given us of capital. Some, with the 
 evident design of drawing their attention away from the 
 fleecing process, seek to confound men's minds with most 
 reckless definitions. When in popular speecli. knowledge 
 and skill are called " capital," every one is aware that it is 
 a metaphor. But when economists gravely apply that 
 term to such acquisitions as the wheelbarrow of the day- 
 laborer and the wooden horse of the wood-sawyer, then 
 we have a right to dismiss them, somewhat contemptuously, 
 with the remark that in such case we are all, indeed, a 
 band of brother- capitalists (since everybody has at least 
 got a coat to his back — such as it is) ; but then, also, we 
 have amongst us a great many starving " capitalists " ! 
 
 Others, John Stuart Mill among them, attribute capital to 
 saving. The tendency of such an account is equally ob- 
 vious. It insinuates that capitaUsts are indeed a highly 
 deserving class of people, since it is due to their abnormal 
 unselfish " abstinence " that we have any capital at all 1 
 
20 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 Well, all that we have is either consumable or inconsum- 
 able. The consumable goods, like grain or meat, cannot 
 be " saved " for any length of time ; they must be con- 
 sumed, or they spoil ; the capitalists therefore only save 
 here in the same way that soldiers " save " the chick- 
 ens from being eaten by the enemy. The inconsum- 
 able things — like machinery, leather, coin — must be 
 " saved " anyhow, since they cannot be devoured. And if 
 it is any merit in capitalists that they have " saved " — i.e., 
 not devoured — these, why then it must be accounted 
 them a merit, we suppose, that they have " saved " the 
 very earth, or the moon, since they have not consumed 
 these as yet ! " Saving," in fact, is absolutely inappropri- 
 ate here, as it properly means the accumulating such 
 things which might have been consumed. 
 
 Much more to the point, therefore, is that other stereo- 
 typic definition of capital, that it is " accumulated labor." 
 Yes, it is ; but why, then, do those who work most not " ac- 
 cumulate " capital ? Ah! nothing is so dangerous as a 
 truth in a delusive dress. This definition omits to state 
 who does the laboring and who the accumulating. What 
 a heaven-wide difference there is between the two activi- 
 ties, I have already noted. But the definition, by that 
 very omission, though it looks so innocent, insinuates that 
 capital at large is formed by wage-laborers laying up their 
 earnings, and that in that way they become the capitalists. 
 This insinuation is, to speak emphatically, untrue. The 
 first thousand dollars may sometimes be formed in that 
 way ; the following millions — never ! It is simply im- 
 possible. Let us suppose a laborer earning two dollars a 
 day, — a good deal more than the average wage, — that he 
 works steadily along, that he never loses a day's work, 
 that he is never sick, that he lives like a Chinese, and thus 
 
THE PROFIT SYSTEM 21 
 
 is able to save up half of his wages — one dollar a day. 
 It will take him more than three thousand years to accu- 
 mulate forty thousand dollars. It is this contemptible jug- 
 glery with words that the socialist critic unmasks. 
 
 Now, furthermore, I can understand one very curious 
 phenomenon ; namely, how it comes that the charging of 
 interest was, until not so very long ago, considered infa- 
 mous, while now it is considered the most natural thing in 
 the world. A conscientious man like Jeremy Bentham 
 even wanted to make it out to be one of the " natural 
 rights of man." The reason of the change must lie in 
 the nature of things. 
 
 The common arguments in favor of interest are trans- 
 parently flimsy. They say interest is a reward for absti- 
 nence. We have already seen what kind of abstinence that 
 is — that of not devouring gold coin and locomotives. But 
 even if the capitalist were abstinent, why should he be 
 especially rewarded for it by an increase? The apple 
 which the boy abstains from eating before going to bed 
 does not grow bigger during the night — the boy's " re- 
 ward " consists in his having his apple the next morning. 
 The German economist, Professor Roscher, is honest 
 enough to admit that " rent is an appropriation of the 
 gifts of nature ; and interest, at best, a further fruit obtained 
 by frugality, from older labor already remunerated." 
 
 That other argument, that interest is the payment of a 
 service rendered by the lender to the borrower, is not 
 better, for the service is reciprocal. The borrower pre- 
 serves the capital for the lender; no slight service, since 
 most capital will decay when not in productive use. So- 
 cialists give the only satisfactory explanation, and here 
 it is : — 
 
 The Roman jurists used to say, " What is mostly done 
 
22 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 governs all other cases." In former times when people 
 borrowed money, they generally did it. because they were 
 in distress, and it was, very naturally, deemed disgraceful to 
 take advantage of another's misfortunes. The law and the 
 Church, therefore, denounced all interest as usury. But 
 now-a-days a person generally borrows money in order to 
 «'make" money in the manner we have described. The 
 " trouble " he is in is the trouble how to get rich — and 
 the capitalists like to share that trouble with him. Interest 
 now is nothing but a part of the fleecings, nothing but a fair 
 division of the spoils — therefore proper. 
 
 Lastly, I can now fitly characterize the " harmony," the 
 "partnership " — compared to that of the Siamese twins — 
 between capital and labor, about which our comfortable 
 classes talk so unctuously. 
 
 " If there be in this world a partnership between men 
 which is natural, wise, and useful," one of our American 
 "statesmen" is fond of declaiming, "it is the partnership 
 between capital and labor." 
 
 Indeed, capital and labor are just as harmonious as roast 
 beef and a hungry stomach. There is the most beautiful 
 harmony, the most natural partnership between the two — 
 when they are united in one hand. But what another 
 contemptible juggling with words we here have ! As if 
 there were no difference at all between capital and in- 
 dividual " capital — ists " ! 
 
 Labor, indeed, could not get along very well without 
 capital. But we are not so sure that our workers would not 
 get along tolerably well if some beneficent spirit should take 
 all our capitaUsts and carry them up to some other planet, 
 say Venus ; especially if they had to leave their capital" 
 behind them. And, after all, they might take their capital 
 along with them, — what they could carry away, — for even 
 
THE PROFIT SYSTEM 23 
 
 political economists tell us that we should all be starving 
 within one year, naked within three, and houseless within ten 
 years, if capital were not constantly being re-created by 
 labor. 
 
 The beautiful harmony between capitalists and laborers 
 is happily illustrated by Carlyle in the address of Plugson, 
 the manufacturer, to his workmen : — 
 
 " Noble spinners ! We have gained a hundred thousand 
 pounds, which is mine ; the three and sixpence daily was 
 yours. Adieu ; drink my health with this groat each, which 
 I give you over and above." 
 
 There is, as a matter of fact, inharmony between labor, 
 reduced to a ware, and capital, whether in the form of 
 grain, or meat, or stone, or metal, or wood, or clay, which 
 is labelled : " Hands off ! " There is, as a matter of fact, 
 discord between the worker — to whom nothing is coming 
 beyond necessaries and decencies of life ; to whom even 
 the most loathsome and irksome labor does not insure 
 subsistence; who is not benefited by his own increased 
 capacity of production ; who is far from becoming richer 
 the more he works — and the capitalist who, contrariwise, 
 becomes richer the more the workers toil for him ; who is 
 constantly being immensely benefited by every increase in 
 productive capacity. Instead of harmony there is, as a 
 matter of fact, more than discord : there is a chronic war- 
 fare between capitalists and laborers, and as an evidence of 
 this we point to — strikes. 
 
 Capital and labor, Siamese twins ! Are capitalists and 
 laborers Siamese twins?- Why? Because they are in con- 
 tact with each other? So are the horse-leech and its 
 victim. 
 
 Socialism has a serious dispute with political economy, 
 or rather with its present teachers. The founders of the 
 
24 'i'J^H; CU-UFRRATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 science taught many truths ; truths which we acknowledge 
 and on which socialism, indeed, builds. But its professors 
 claim that it tells nations how to become prosperous. It 
 does no such thing. It tells individuals how to get rich ; 
 and it has found apt pupils in every civilized country. The 
 wealth of the civilized world is incredibly large and in- 
 creasing at an incredible rate. Its present magnitude may 
 be appreciated from the fact that the wealth accumulated 
 in England during the present century is far greater than all 
 the wealth accumulated during all previous centuries. Or 
 to come down to figures : The wealth of the United King- 
 dom was : — 
 
 In 1800 ..... ^9,000,000,000. 
 " 1840 ..... ^20,000,000,000. 
 " i860 ..... ^30,000,000,000. 
 " 1883 ..... ^45,000,000,000. 
 
 Could human efforts have accomplished more? But is 
 this enormous wealth "national wealth," as is pretended? 
 What part have the beggars in the streets of London in it? 
 What part have the British workingmen, who created this 
 wealth, in it? We shall see. 
 
 The income of the United Kingdom in 1883 amounted 
 to 1^6,325,000,000, distributed as follows : — 
 
 The working-classes (4,629,000 families) had $2,235,- 
 000,000, or $485 to the family ; while all others — " gentry," 
 "middle-class," and tradespeople (2,046,000 families) — 
 had 14,090,000,000 or ;?2,ooo to the family. The pro- 
 ducers, considerably more than two-thirds of all inhabitants, 
 thus enjoyed but one-third of the " national " income. 
 
 Our political economists are more offending yet. They 
 make their science sanction our present industrial arrange- 
 ments, instead of simply explaining them. They virtually 
 teach that, because things are as they are, they will always 
 
THE PROFIT SYSTEM 25 
 
 remain, and ought always to remain so. Socialists, or so- 
 cial economists, as they might call themselves, use the 
 truths of political economy to prepare for a higher stage of 
 development, show the workers that, though now 
 
 " The seed ye sow another reaps ; 
 The wealth ye find another keeps," 
 
 it will not always be so, and urge that a social order which 
 permits certain individuals to appropriate the withheld 
 wages of generations of weary workers ought not to last. 
 
 The first lesson of socialism, then, is that the wage-sys- 
 tem, the profit-system, the fleecing-system, is utterly unfit 
 br a higher civilization. 
 
 " But you are not fair. You have entirely omitted to 
 state that these individuals do contribute to the size of your 
 ' cakes.' They direct all these enterprises, a work of con- 
 siderable importance." 
 
 Granted. They do direct, or see to it that somebody 
 directs. But is not half the cake a pretty dear price for 
 —overseeing its baking and disposing of it? Could not that 
 work be done in some other way, just as well and some- 
 what cheaper? 
 
 This chapter must be looked upon simply as the doorway 
 by which we enter to examine our industrial system. 
 
26 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 SOCIAL ANARCHY 
 
 " It is not to die, or even to die of hunger, that makes a man wretched ; 
 many men have died ; all men must die. But it is to live miserable, we 
 know not why; to work sore and yet gam nothing; to be heartworn, 
 weary, yet isolated, unrelated, girt in with a cold universal laissez-faire" — 
 Carlyle. 
 
 "Competition gluts our markets, enables the rich 'to take advantage of 
 the necessities of the poor, makes each man snatch the bread out of his 
 neighbor's mouth, converts a nation of brethren into a mass of hostile, iso- 
 lated units, and finally involves capitalists and laborers in one common 
 ruin." — Greg. 
 
 " We all can see that there are all over our country energies which can 
 find no employment, or at all events, minds which are cruelly compressed 
 into duties far too narrow, and on the other hand, work which remains un- 
 done for want of adequate energies, because no systematic attempt has yet 
 been made to estimate the real needs of the social organism and to distrib- 
 ute its forces in accordance with them. — There is no organic adjustment 
 anywhere." — " TAe Value of Life',' anon. 
 
 THE wage-system may be said to be of vital interest only 
 to wage-workers. They are a considerable part of 
 the nation. They include not only the operatives in our 
 factories and mines, but the whole army of railroad em- 
 ployes, all agricultural laborers, all clerks engaged in stores 
 and mercantile establishments ; all, in fact, who help to 
 create values and receive a stated salary. But though the 
 wage-workers are an important fraction of the population 
 of every country, they, nevertheless, are but a fraction. If 
 socialism had regard to them only, it were nothing but a 
 class movement. 
 
 I claim there is a something wrong in society which vi- 
 
SOCIAL ANARCHY 2/ 
 
 tally affects the whole nation and every individual of it. In 
 prosperous years it may not obtrude itself on the attention 
 of thoughtless people ; but let " hard times " come on, and 
 it makes everybody feel restless. What is this " something 
 wrong"? Socialists say that it is nothing less than the 
 method, the policy which governs all activities of the prin- 
 cipal nations of our time. It is spreading itself in Catho- 
 lic societies, and throughout the whole world, but it arose 
 in Protestant countries. It is, in fact, simply the exagger- 
 ated form of one of the principles of Protestantism : the 
 independence of the individual ; which exaggerated individ- 
 ual independence we can properly call individualism. I 
 can also call the policy, the "let-alone" policy; its admir- 
 ers give it a more euphonious name, — private enterprise. 
 
 Let alone whom ? — what ? 
 
 In the middle ages the feudal barons erected castles, 
 from which they issued forth with their retainers, when 
 they espied merchants and adventurers approaching on 
 the contiguous highways laden with wealth, stopped 
 them — and levied tolls. All that these barons desired 
 was to be " let alone." In our age it is the successors of 
 these merchants and adventurers who have grown power- 
 ful, fattened on " fleecings." They in their turn demand 
 to be "let alone; " they demand that society shall bean 
 unrestricted hunting-ground for their "enterprise." They 
 are let alone ; we shall now note with what results to the 
 different classes of society. 
 
 Before our present industrial system got into full swing 
 — that is, before the power of steam was utilized — the 
 master-workman was an adept in his trade, and owned his 
 tools and the raw materials he used. This is all changed 
 now. The workman is now divorced from his imple- 
 ments and raw materials, which have got under the com- 
 
28 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 plete control of the capitalist class; he now has nothing 
 left but his naked labor. This it is, again, which enables em- 
 ployers to buy labor in the market for a price much below 
 the productivity of that labor; that is, at a value much 
 below its worth. 
 
 This monopoly has made employers into a class of auto- 
 crats, the laborers into a class of dependants — of hire- 
 lings. As Jesse Jones says in the International Review 
 of October, 1880, "A class is fixed, when nine-tenths of 
 those comprising it can never get out of it. . . . Why 
 mock workingmen by putting rare exceptions for a general 
 rule?" 
 
 The laboring men are dealt with by our managers as mere 
 tools. They are spoken of as tools, as things. This human- 
 itarian age counts steers and sheep by " heads " and the 
 workers by "hands." A pity God did not make them only 
 "hands " ! 
 
 It is a paltry evasion to say that the workers are free to 
 consent or to refuse the terms of the employer. It is, as 
 Dickens says in " Hard Times," " An evasion worthy of the 
 man who asked permission of the Virgin to rob her of her 
 necklace — and then did it, taking silence for consent." 
 The laborers have to consent. If they refuse the terms, 
 capitalists simply stop business ; they can stand it. " Hard 
 times" are really only hard on those whose subsistence de- 
 pends on having work to do. The wives and daughters of 
 capitalists do not as a rule leave oif during " hard times " 
 attending operas in their silks, satins, and diamonds ; do not 
 as a rule quit their luxurious brownstone-fronts, nor dismiss 
 their Uveried servants. 
 
 Henry George, in his " Progress and Poverty," epitomizes 
 the position of our laborers as follows : " Compelled to more 
 continuous labor than the savage, the laborer — a mere link 
 
SOCIAL ANARCHY 29 
 
 in an enoimous chain of producers and consumers, helpless 
 to separate himself, and helpless to move, except as, they 
 move — gains the mere necessaries of life, just what the sav- 
 age gets, and loses the independence of the savage." And 
 as to security he is not much better off. The irregularity of 
 his employment, the frequency with which he is out of work, 
 is the most alarming feature of the workingman's condition. 
 And that irregularity is often, very often, purposely brought 
 about by the employing capitalist class. For instance, in 
 order to put up the price of anthracite coal, of the work- 
 ing days of a month nine to twelve are frequently made 
 idle days by the coal companies of Pennsylvania. The 
 mining is interrupted to limit supply and the miners are left 
 to do the best they can with work for two days out of every 
 three. 
 
 This condition has been rendered yet enormously more 
 precarious by the remarkable industrial inventions of the 
 age. 
 
 These victories of man, of society, over nature's physical 
 forces ought certainly to have been unqualified blessings 
 to all. 
 
 Yet how often have they proven instruments of torture 
 to the working class ! How many has the introduction of 
 new machinery thrown out of employment ! How many 
 existences have thereby been destroyed ! 
 
 We are familiar with the commonplace that the outcry 
 of laborers against " new-fangled machinery " is a complaint 
 born of ignorance ; that in the end the working classes are as 
 much benefited as other classes. This outcry is by no 
 means an ignorant childish complaint. Machinery would 
 be an unqualified blessing, if the temporary injury which 
 it so often has caused to individuals and whole bodies 
 of men were considered in a spirit of social justice and 
 
30 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 brotherliness. That has never been done wherever the 
 working classes are considered, neither in this country nor in 
 any other. In their case our legislators persistently repu- 
 diate the duty to take care of the interests of those who are 
 sacrificed for the benefit of their fellow-citizens and of pos- 
 terity. But whenever other classes have been thus affected 
 there has never been the slightest hesitation to liberally 
 compensate those prejudicially affected. It is the action of 
 society that has made machinery an evil. This is the real 
 meaning of the outcry against " new-fangled machinery." 
 
 And I deny that working people hitherto have been es- 
 sentially benefited by machinery and inventions at all. The 
 sewing-machine is a pointed illustration. That was thought, 
 at all events, to be a blessing to the overworked famishing 
 needle-woman. Yet what has followed? That she is now 
 still moreover worked, more poorly paid, and her health 
 still more endangered. 
 
 But, to be sure, these inventions were not adopted by 
 capitalists for the benefit of workpeople, or for the general 
 benefit ; no, indeed ! For, of course, this machinery and 
 these inventions have also gone into the hands of capitalists 
 and are controlled by them for their exclusive benefit, and 
 with admirable results. It has been calculated that two- 
 thirds of all benefit arising from the use of machinery have 
 gone to these " pushing " fellows and the remaining one- 
 third to the consumers. Even our patent laws, with the 
 general advantage for their primary idea, have become a 
 means of enabling these capitalists, in no sense inventors, to 
 levy heavy tribute upon the community for an indefinite 
 length of time. 
 
 " Ah ! but the workers are also consumers, we should 
 think, and form the majority in fact of all consumers." 
 
 Hold on, sir ! Has machinery lightened the day's toil of 
 
SOCIAL ANARCHY 3 1 
 
 any worker? That is what ought to measure the benefits of 
 machinery to him. Let us see if it has. 
 
 Here is one picture : Massachusetts is a model State, we 
 suppose. Well, a statute of that State in i860 made ten 
 hours a maximum working-day for children under twelve 
 years of age. In 1867 her legislators became a little more 
 humane and enacted that no child under fifteen years of age 
 should work more than sixty hours a week. Go to Penn- 
 sylvania and see children ten years old taken down every 
 morning into the mines to work. 
 
 Here is another picture : In England, two hundred years 
 ago, ten hours — ay ! in the fifteenth century, eight hours 
 — were a normal working-day for strong blacksmiths and 
 robust agricultural laborers.^ 
 
 " But compare the comforts of our laborers two hundred 
 years ago. What a wonderful betterment in that respect ! " 
 
 What of it ? What comfort is that to our laborers ? You 
 might as well compare their condition with that of a savage 
 in Africa who does not need a coat, nor soap. Just so the 
 laborers of a former age did not need a good many things 
 which now are necessaries or decencies of life. We say 
 their condition has not improved, because it takes consider- 
 ably more toil to procure the needful now than it did then, 
 as testified to, among others, by Hallam : " The laborer is 
 much inferior in ability to support a family than were his 
 ancestors four centuries ago." Why, before the beginning 
 of this " capitalistic " system, laborers could live in England 
 a whole week upon the earnings of four days; now in 
 Massachusetts he cannot live a week upoii the earnings of a 
 week of much more continuous toil. No, in many cases he 
 
 1 Thornton; "Over-population and its Remedy." Prof. Thorold Rogers; 
 " Six Centuries Work and Wages." Hallam, 2d part of 9th chap, of " The 
 Middle Ages," 
 
32 THE CO-OPERATTVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 is obliged to disrupt his family, and send his wife and chil- 
 dren to the factory. 
 
 For that is the greatest curse of machinery — or rather of 
 " individualistic " monopoly of machinery — that capital 
 can be and is coined out of women, and even out of infancy ; 
 that women and children can be and are substituted for 
 men. Thus, not alone are men turned into wares, governed 
 by demand and supply, but men are made to scramble for 
 a precarious living with their wives, sisters, and children. In 
 the cotton and woollen factories of enlightened Massachu- 
 setts, women and children now ' compose two-thirds of the 
 working force. The necessary result is a great reduction in 
 wages. It is notorious that the wages thus earned by a 
 whole family do not on an average exceed those of the 
 head of the family in occupations where it has not yet be- 
 come habitual to employ women and children. 
 
 And do not venture to compare the independence of our 
 working classes with the artisans of England of a former 
 age, who partly worked for themselves, and possessed a cot- 
 tage and a cow and a strip of land to cultivate. Our ox- 
 eyed, docile wage-workers, restrained by arbitrary shop 
 rules prescribed by their lord, — rules that forbid them to 
 talk to each other, or even to laugh, — will not for a 
 moment bear comparison with the merry families of master 
 and men of the despised middle age. 
 
 The first result of the "let-alone " system, thus, is that 
 capitaUsts monopolize all the instruments of production, all 
 the previous acquisitions of society, all increase in the pro- 
 ductivity of labor, and, therefore, exercise an autocratic 
 control of all industries and of the whole working class. 
 
 The great weapon at the command of the capitalists is 
 competition. 
 
 " Competition," like most economic terms, is a very slip- 
 
SOCIAL ANARCHY 33 
 
 pery word. At one time it means something which ad- 
 vances the successful, but leaves the unsuccessful on his 
 former level ; that kind of competition rouses the energy 
 of the unsuccessful as well as of the successful, and increases 
 the capacity of both. I shall call that by a much more 
 appropriate term, — emulation. 
 
 At another time " competition " means the advancing 
 one's self at the cost of others, the pulling the many down, 
 the elbowing the many aside, in order to advance the one. 
 That "competition" is most cruel to the individual, and in 
 the long run most injurious to society. 
 
 It deserves the name of cut-throat competition when the 
 wage-workers are forced into a struggle to see who shall live 
 and who shall starve. 
 
 But these are by no means the only sufferers. The small 
 employers, the small merchants, are just as much victims of 
 that cruel kind of competition as the wage-workers. For 
 every one of the fleecers lives in a state of nature with all 
 of his brethren ; the hand of the one is against the other, 
 and no foe is more terrible than the one who is running a 
 neck-to-neck race with him every day. The mammoth fac- 
 tory, the mammoth store is a most implacable foe. The 
 fierce competition lessens the profit on each article, and 
 that must be compensated for by a greater number of them 
 being produced and sold ; that is, the cheaper the goods, 
 the more capital is required. 
 
 Precisely, then, for the same reason that the mechanic 
 with his own shop and working on his own account nearly 
 has disappeared in the struggle between hand-work and 
 machine- work, the small employers with their little machin- 
 ery, their small capital, and their little stock of goods are 
 being driven from the field. 
 
 Look at those queer princes of ours — vulgar men, far 
 
34 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 from possessing eminent faculties or high attainments ; men 
 having no more knowledge or mental capacity than is re- 
 quired in many mechanical pursuits — who by the employ- 
 ment and power of their capital yearly ruin multitudes of 
 hard-working merchants, and boast that they are selling 
 more goods in a day than the whole " crowd " of other 
 stores in a week ! Scores of such small merchants, driven 
 to the wall by the proprietor of a mammoth estabUshment, 
 have to be glad if the "prince" will make them his ser- 
 vants and graciously allow them to help swell his millions. 
 
 In short, the smaller fortunes invested in productive or 
 commercial enterprises are by this cut-throat competition 
 attracted to the great capitals, just as iron filings are to the 
 magnet. The great capitalist triumphs, the small capitalist 
 becomes a clerk, wage-laborer, or parasite of some kind or 
 other; the middle class disappears little by little. Our 
 social order may fitly be compared to a ladder, of which the 
 middle rounds are being torn away one by one. 
 
 This, then, is another fruit of private " enterprise," — that 
 the small employers are gradually being rooted out by the 
 great capitalists. 
 
 In former periods society was tormented with plagues, 
 caused, as we now know, by ignorance, and consequent vio- 
 lation of the laws of health. Our era is cursed with crises 
 occurring far more frequently than plagues and causing with 
 each occurrence as much misery. 
 
 Economists say that these crises are caused by overpro- 
 duction. " Overproduction ! " — a remarkable word in 
 truth, as long as one unfed and unclad human being wilUng 
 to work roams the earth. Would not our ancestors of any 
 preceding age have considered any one who would have 
 talked to them of overproduction a lunatic? Could they, 
 think you, have conceived of such an abnormity as that any 
 
SOCIAL ANARCHY 35 
 
 nation could ever suffer from too much industry, too much 
 commerce, too many tools, and too much food? But we 
 ought, in order to be fair, to take the word in the sense of 
 these economists. They mean by "overproduction" a too 
 large production, compared with the effective demand. 
 But, then, what is the cause of the too large production ? 
 
 Private enterprise, socialists say. Private enterprise com- 
 pels every producer to produce for himself, to sell for him- 
 self, to keep all his transactions secret, without any regard 
 whatever for anybody else in the wide world. But the pro- 
 ducer and merchant — the small ones, especially — daily 
 find out that their success or failure depends, in the first 
 place, precisely on how much others produce and sell, and 
 in the second place, on a multitude of causes — often on 
 things that may happen thousands of miles away — which 
 determine the power of purchase of their customers. They 
 have got no measure at hand at all by which they can even 
 approximately estimate the actual effective demand of con- 
 sumers or ascertain the producing capacity of their rivals. 
 In other words, private " enterprise " is a defiance of 
 nature's law which decrees that the interests of society are 
 interdependent ; and nature punishes that defiance in her 
 own crude way by playing ball with these individualists, and 
 what is worse, by rendering all production, all commerce, 
 chaotic. Risk is nature's revenge. 
 
 Just take a bird's-eye view of the way private " enter- 
 prise " manages affairs. Observe how every manufacturer, 
 every merchant, strives in every possible way — by glaring 
 advertisements, by underselling others, by giving long cred- 
 its, by sending out an army of drummers — to beat his 
 rivals. Not one here and there, not a few do this ; they 
 all do it. Let us suppose the season a favorable one ; 
 all of them receive orders in greater number than they ex- 
 
36 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONTVEALTH 
 
 pected. These orders stimulate each one of the manufact- 
 urers to a mor° and more enlarged production far ahead of 
 the orders received, in the hope of being able to dispose of 
 all that is being produced. But mark ! this production of all 
 these manufactures is, and must necessarily be, absolutely 
 planless. It depends altogether on chance and the private 
 guesswork of these " enterprising " individuals, who are all 
 guessing entirely in the dark. That means that all their 
 production, all their commerce, is in the nature of gambling. 
 To a thoughtful observer nothing will seem more inevitable 
 than that this planless production must end in the market 
 being at some time overstocked with commodities of one 
 kind or another ; that is, that it must end in " over-produc- 
 tion " as to those goods. In that branch of production 
 prices consequently fall, wages come down, or a great man- 
 ufacturer fails, and a smaller or greater number of workmen 
 are discharged. 
 
 But one branch of industry depends upon another ; one 
 branch suffers when another is depressed. The stoppage of 
 production at one point, therefore, necessarily shows itself 
 at another point in the industrial network. The circle of 
 depression thus grows larger and larger from month to 
 month, failure succeeds failure, the general consumption 
 diminishes, all production and commerce are paralyzed. We 
 have got the crisis. To those who were all the time plan- 
 ning and working in the dark everything seemed to be going 
 on as usual ; it has naturally come on them Uke a thunder- 
 bolt from a clear sky. 
 
 Vast quantities of stored-up goods now have to be dis- 
 posed of at great sacrifice, to the ruin not alone of their 
 owners, but of many others who thereby are forced, like- 
 wise, to sell under cost price. Then it is we hear from 
 every one in every calling this the strongest of all condem- 
 
SOCIAL ANARCHY 37 
 
 nations of this social " order " of ours : " We have too 
 many competitors ; half of us must perish, before the othei 
 half can live." All the result of planless work. 
 
 When such a crisis has lasted for years, when such sacri- 
 fice of goods and standstill of production has finally over- 
 come the " overproduction," then the inevitable demand at 
 length calls for renewed production ; and society commences, 
 to recover slowly, but only to repeat the old story. Pro- 
 ducers want to indemnify themselves for what they havf 
 lost, and hope to " make " sufficient before another crisis 
 comes on. Because all producers act in like manner, each 
 one trying to outflank the other, another catastrophe is in- 
 vited. It responds to the call, and approaches with acceler- 
 ated strides and with more damaging effects than any of its 
 predecessors. 
 
 These crises very much quicken the absorption of the 
 smaller fortunes by the large ones, for the capitalist with 
 large resources is the only one capable in the long run of 
 withstanding this rough treatment of outraged nature. The 
 smaller capitalists the crises swallow up like veritable mael- 
 stroms. 
 
 These maelstroms, the crises, then, are the direct pro- 
 duction of private enterprise. 
 
 Again, we saw how the workingmen were driven out of 
 their employment as producers, how the small employers 
 were pushed out of their business by this cut-throat cova.-. 
 petition. In nine cases out of ten they have only one 
 refuge left : that of squeezing themselves in between pro- 
 ducers and consumers as shopkeepers, saloon-keepers, 
 peddlers, " agents," boarding-and-lodging-house-keepers ; 
 that is, of becoming parasites. 
 
 It may seem hard to speak thus of persons who by no 
 means lead an enviable existence, who honestly try to makr 
 
38 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 some sort of a living, whose life often is a treadmill of 
 drudgery, and, if different from that of the workingman's, is 
 only different in this, that while the latter struggles for the 
 necessities of to-day, the former struggle for the threatened 
 necessities of to-morrow. 
 
 They are, nevertheless, parasites, unnecessary workers. 
 Going along our streets you observe one small store,. one 
 boarding-house, crowding another, one saloon, and often 
 several, in one block ; you will have all kinds of men and 
 women thrust their small stock into your face ; in your house 
 you will be annoyed by all kinds of peddlers and " agents," 
 so called. 
 
 All these people live. Somebody must earn their living 
 for them. 
 
 In the first place, they live by enhancing the price of 
 provisions and all other goods twice and three times what 
 the producers get. The difference between their prices and 
 wholesale prices makes just the difference between health- 
 ful plenty and half- satisfied hunger for the poor. It is a 
 great mistake to suppose that competition always, or nec- 
 essarily, lowers prices. It often has just the contrary ef- 
 fect. Probably two-thirds of existing small shopkeepers 
 cannot make a decent living without extravagant profits. 
 Or, if the prices cannot be enhanced, then — 
 
 In the second place, they live by depreciating the quaUty 
 of their goods and by short weights and measures. Adul- 
 teration of provisions and merchandise is notoriously car- 
 ried on in every branch of trade that will permit of it ; has 
 indeed become a social institution against which no law 
 can make any headway. A representative of a leading spice- 
 house lately said : " We sell to the trade more adulterated 
 goods than pure. We cannot help it. We simply sell the 
 retailer what he wants. It would ruin the trade to pro- 
 hibit adulteration." 
 
SOCIAL ANARCHY 39 
 
 Competition in drugs is now so hot that dealers, in order 
 to live, are compelled to adulterate, to weaken, and to sub- 
 stitute. It has gone so far, that manufacturers of " mineral 
 pulp " now boldly importune respectable millers and gro- 
 cers to mix rock-dust with their flour and sugar. 
 
 The laboring class, more than any other, is the natural 
 prey of these parasites. Remember, that the laborer's 
 ware, his labor, is never paid for till it has been used ; that 
 he must give his employer credit, always for a week, often 
 for two weeks or a month ; that he will have to wait for his 
 compensation, even while the values he has created have 
 been long since converted into cash in his employer's hands. 
 It is a necessary consequence that he, on his part, must ask 
 credit from his shopkeeper. He becomes the prey, • bound 
 hand and foot, of that shopkeeper. He dare not murmur 
 at the price charged, dare not be over particular as to 
 weight or quality. He is pretty much in the same fix as 
 the fly in the spider's web. 
 
 Thus the portion of the industrial cake allotted to labor 
 is further considerably curtailed, and all on account of pri- 
 vate " enterprise ; " for it, also, is exclusively responsible 
 for these parasites. 
 
 Let us pass over to our farmers. They, as yet the ma- 
 jority of the working population of the United States, are 
 still the great conservative force, the break, so to speak, on 
 the wheel of progress. Is it likely that they will continue 
 to be ? We shall see. 
 
 Its farmers were, half a generation ago, considered, and 
 are still considered, the most independent and prosperous 
 class of the community. 
 
 True, the prosperity of the western farmer, especially, 
 was and is not of a character to excite the envy of any- 
 body. His whole Hfe, and more particularly that of his 
 
40 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 wife, was one of toil. He had to break the lands and cleai 
 the forests. His family had to subject themselves to all 
 kinds of privations for a lifetime of dreary years. The so- 
 cial life of the farmers' wives was a mockery of our civiliza- 
 tion ; their sisters struggling in the cities had, at least, the 
 comfort of suifering in company. To the family of the 
 farmer, sugar, tea, and coffee were, for a series of years, 
 luxuries, especially when droughts and grasshoppers de- 
 stroyed the fruits of his toil, generally as severe as that of 
 his horse. And his reward? That of vegetating and 
 " raising " a family, as we so expressively term it ; yes — 
 and of being the owner of his farm. 
 
 But his ownership is, even now, frequently one in name 
 only. 'The capitalist has got hold of him also. Very 
 many of the western farms are covered with mortgages, 
 which their nominal owners have no hope of ever raising. 
 The fact is so well known, that the New York Times 
 some time ago advised the farmers to prepare themselves 
 for their fate. What fate? That of becoming tenant- 
 farmers like their brethren of Great Britain.' 
 
 We know how farms in our New England States are be- 
 ing deserted. There are 887 abandoned farms in New 
 Hampshire alone. The unworked farms in western Massa- 
 chusetts are a pitiful sight. They never were amazingly 
 fertile ; but they afforded a living until western competi- 
 tion destroyed their profitableness. And now fertile New 
 York feels the bitterness, as even her dairy products are el- 
 bowed out of the New York city market. But if there are 
 any States where farmers ought to flourish, they are Illinois 
 and Michigan. In both, farm mortgages grow almost un- 
 precedentedly. In the former, nearly 8,000,000 acres 
 of farming land are now encumbered, being pledged for 
 the enormous aggregate of ^124,000,000 ; and values by no 
 
SOCIAL ANARCHY 4 1 
 
 means keep pace with this debt. The testimony is that in 
 the same State farms have in the past eight years depreci- 
 ated twenty-five per cent. And in Michigan, a poorer 
 State, the debt of farms is still greater, roUing up to ^130,- 
 000,000, and we are told that one- half of all the farms of 
 the State are mortgaged. 
 
 What a sickening story this tells of ill-paid labor, of 
 pinching economy, of actual want ! And it gets still worse 
 when we are told that not only does the mortgage rest upon 
 the farms, but that the crop is usually pledged long in ad- 
 vance of the harvest. 
 
 "This mortgage business is a terrible traffic; the mort- 
 gages are written in blood. They represent the sweat and 
 tears of a prolonged, utterly hopeless struggle," has truly 
 been written. The high rate of interest often makes their 
 payment impossible, and brings at last the pathetic fore- 
 closure. Their attempt to save themselves by " trucking " 
 near cities and towns is heroic ; but capital soon hunts them 
 out of that too. 
 
 It is especially since the commencement of the last 
 decade that they are falling victims to " private enterprise." 
 
 There is in the Atlantic Monthly for January, 1880, a 
 most instructive article entitled "Bonanza Farms," con- 
 taining many startling facts which in the near future can- 
 not but have an important bearing on the condition of our 
 farmers. These " bonanza farms " are vast cultivated 
 tracts of land in Minnesota, Dakota, Texas, Kansas, and 
 California, each containing thousands of acres of land 
 owned by presidents and directors of railways, by bankers 
 in St. Paul and New York, London and Frankfort-on-the- 
 Main. They are conducted on purely " business " — that 
 is, capitalists' — principles. On these farms there are no 
 families, no women, no children, no homes. There is no 
 
42 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 need for them. But there is plenty of " labor " in the 
 neighborhood. There is such an abundance of unemployed 
 men, that the managers of the farms can hire all the labor 
 they want for ;?i6.oo a month during the busy seasons, with 
 thirteen hours of daily labor, and for ^8.00 a month during 
 the balance of the year.* 
 
 This fact alone would render it absolutely out of the 
 question for the surrounding small farmers to compete with 
 the bonanzas. For the former have to support a family, 
 and to feed, clothe, and shelter, and altogether provide for 
 the same number of persons throughout the whole year, 
 while the latter only need to hire about one-fourth the num- 
 ber of persons, in proportion to the work to be done, and 
 that for less than one-fourth of the year. But the small 
 farmer has other and greater odds still to contend with, — 
 the discrimination practised by other large corporations. 
 Thus, the bonanzas obtain special rates from the railroad 
 companies ; for instance, they are charged for the transporta- 
 tion of their produce, rates fifty per cent, below those which 
 the other farmers are obliged to pay ; they buy their machinery 
 and farming implements of the manufacturers and dealers 
 at a discount of thirty-three and one-third per cent, from 
 the published rates. We ought, therefore, not to wonder 
 when we are told that the surrounding small farmers are 
 hopelessly in debt, while the owners of these bonanza farms 
 — the aforesaid bankers and railroad presidents — are 
 amassing colossal fortunes j that they, even, with wheat at 
 less than seventy-five cents a bushel, realize twenty per cent, 
 the first year on their capital, and the second year — fifty- 
 five per cent. 
 
 The article concludes with the remark : " We are taking 
 
 1 Embodied in a book called "Land and Labor, "published by Charles 
 Scribner's Sons, Mr. Moody, of Boston, is the author. 
 
SOCIAL ANARCHY 43 
 
 immense strides in placing our country in the positionof Great 
 Britain, and even worse." So it seems. For here the fj,r;iis 
 are practically homesteads, while the bonanza farms have 
 nothing suggesting homes, except a building for the bachelor 
 superintendent and the boarding-house for the " hands." 
 
 There is no doubt that these bonanzas will in the near 
 future increase greatly in number. Thus our public lands 
 which were intended for happy homes are in a fair way of 
 becoming no better than penal colonies, and of being 
 robbed of their rich soil for the benefit of capitalists' 
 pockets. What will then become of our farmer " proprie- 
 tors " but farmer tenants ? If they are already running be- 
 hindhand now, how much time will it take for the bonanza 
 farmers to put an end to their proprietorship by means of 
 private " enterprise " — especially if the export to Europe 
 on account of good harvest there should happen to cease ? 
 Bear in mind that the United States already now produces 
 far more food than its population could possibly consume, 
 and yet thousands of acres are yearly added to the area 
 under cultivation. 
 
 Yes, the time will come when the farmers will learn that 
 socialism is the only refuge alike for them and the other 
 working classes, and their eyes may be opened to the ad- 
 vantages of the co-operative commonwealth. The great 
 dairy farms in New York State and elsewhere may also con- 
 tribute their quota to this lesson. 
 
 Thus even the farmers of the United States, as yet the 
 most splendid yeomanry the world has ever seen, are be- 
 coming the victims of private enterprise to fully the same 
 extent as the workingman and small employer. 
 
 But our big capitalists have a still more powerful sledge- 
 hammer than that of competition ready at head ; to wit, 
 combination. 
 
44 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 These gentlemen k'.iow practical dialectics. They know 
 that though competition and combination are opposites, 
 they yet may come to mean the same thing — to them. 
 They have already found that while competition is a very 
 excellent weapon to use against their weaker rivals, combi- 
 nation pays far better in relation to their peers. It is evi- 
 dent that it is combination they mainly rely upon for their 
 future aggrandizement. 
 
 Combination consists in one or several capitalists or cor- 
 porations helping along a third on the condition of partici- 
 pating in the fleecings. We have already mentioned one 
 such instance. We saw how railroad officers united with 
 bonanza farmers to crush out the small farmers. We read 
 of another instructive instance in an article published in 
 \he Atlantic Mo?ithly {or March, 1881, and headed, "The 
 Story of a' Great Monopoly." 
 
 It tells how the Erie and Pennsylvania Railroads and 
 Vanderbilt " pooled " their interests with the " Standard Oil 
 Company ; " how they agreed to carry, and did carry its oil 
 at much lower rates than the oils of other companies, and in 
 many cases absolutely refused to carry the oils of the latter. 
 It tells how, by such discrimination, the fleecings of the 
 " Standard " swelled to such an extent that, starting with a 
 capital stock of JS 1,000,000, it paid to its stockholders a 
 dividend of JS 1,000,000 a month, and had then piled up in 
 undivided profits and other forms a capital of ^30,000,000. 
 Truly a "great monopoly," a very dangerous monopoly, one 
 would think, for Pennsylvania and the public at large. 
 
 " By the same tactics," says the writer, " the railroads can 
 give other combinations of capitalists the control of the lum- 
 ber, cotton, iron, and coal of the United States." 
 
 In Europe such alliances between railroads and corpora- 
 tions would be impossible. But in the United States, where 
 
SOCIAL ANARCHY 45 
 
 private " enterprise " runs rampant, where the " let-alone " 
 abomination is carried to its highest logical pitch, such alli- 
 ances are certain to be a prominent feature of its future. 
 
 But the evils which flow from the something wrong in 
 society are not confined to wage-workers, farmers, and small 
 employers. The at present existing relations of men con- 
 stitute the comfortless mutual slavery of us all, as we shall 
 find, wherever we turn. Professional men of every kind 
 can, also, be divided into those who have and those who 
 have not ; and those aniong them who have not, are fully as 
 bad off as the wage-workers, indeed worse off, for their cul- 
 ture becomes an additional curse to them. We will sup- 
 pose such a man has talents, that he has qualified himself 
 by hard study for a responsible function in society ; yet this 
 anarchic society has no opening for him. He perhaps be- 
 comes a clerk, just as much dependent on his employer, 
 .just as much a hireling, as the wage-worker is ; he likewise 
 must hold his tongue, and constantly be on the lookout to 
 preserve the favor of his august autocrat, while he all the 
 while is doing the work of others Y'ho really receive the 
 pay. 
 
 John Stuart Mill was fully aware of this ; these are his 
 words : — 
 
 " What a spectacle, for instance,' does the medical pro- 
 fession present ! One successful practitioner we find bur- 
 dened with more work than mortal man can perform — in 
 the surrounding streets twenty unhappy men, each of whom 
 as laboriously trained, wasting their capabilities, starving, 
 perhaps, for want. Under better arrangements these twenty 
 would form a corps of subalterns under the really ablest 
 physician — and not merely the most successful impostor — 
 physicing people for headaches, while the latter treated 
 only more difificult cases." 
 
46 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 But now, even in all professions, the watchword is, 
 " Every one for himself and the devil take the hindmost " — 
 all due to unrestricted private " enterprise." 
 
 Our era may b^ called the Jewish age The Jews have, 
 indeed, had a remarkable influence on our civilization. 
 Long ago they infused in our race the idea of one God, and 
 now they have made our whole race worship a new true 
 god, — the golden calf. But, again, it is Jews who have 
 sounded the alarm for the most determined battle against 
 this very Jewism. It is to that noble Jew, Karl Marx, that 
 we owe the scientific basis of socialism ; it is to another 
 noble Jew, Lassalle, that we are indebted for its populariza- 
 tion. "Jewism," to our mind, best expresses that special 
 curse of our age : speculation — the transfer of wealth from 
 others to themselves by chicanery without giving an equiva- 
 lent. 
 
 If there be one species of gambling more despicable than 
 another it is gambling in grain. The sales of grain on 
 our produce exchanges are merely gambling transactions. 
 Cliques of the wealthiest men in Chicago, Milwaukee, and 
 New York, having behind them banks and other moneyed 
 corporations, make enormous combinations of capital to 
 "corner" the market, locking up millions of bushels of 
 wheat, and maintain famine prices in the midst of plenty. 
 Their profits are enormous. So are those of anothet clique 
 who owns all pork. And where do those profits come 
 from? From the workers, of course; from the bread-win- 
 ners, who thus earn the support and the wealth not only of 
 their employes, their so-called "bread-givers," but of those 
 vampires who use their backs as the green table on which to 
 play their games. 
 
 The vampires are quite different creatures from the para- 
 sites of whom I have already treated. The latter are 
 
SOCIAL ANARCHY 47 
 
 workers, though superfluous workers ; the former are not 
 workers at all. But, then, they do not call themselves 
 workers, but — " business men." There is quite a differ- 
 ence between work and business as the word is now com- 
 monly used. " Work " is effort to satisfy wants, and may 
 be either useful or useless ; but " business " is effort to ben- 
 efit by the work of others, and if that be called " work," 
 it is at any rate mischievous work ; in that sense our crimi- 
 nals also work, and generally pretty hard. "Work" is 
 being busy in benefit; " business," being busy in mischief. 
 Our parasites are useless workers; our vampires are not 
 better than thieves and swindlers. 
 
 On a par with speculation is much of our " traffic." The 
 "enterprise " of our mercantile " kings " and our " princes " 
 is very often but another name for chicanery and swindling. 
 " Suppose," John Ruskin says, " a community of three men on 
 an island. Two, the one a farmer and the other a mechanic, 
 are so far apart that they are wholly at the mercy of the 
 third who travels between them and effects their exchanges. 
 He is constantly watching his opportunities, and retains the 
 products of the one with which he has been intrusted and 
 which are needed by the other, until there comes a period 
 of extreme need for them and he can exact enormous gains 
 from their necessities. It is easy to see that while he may 
 in that way draw the whole wealth of the community to 
 himself and make his principals his servants, he also, in 
 fact, diminishes the amount of wealth by cramping the op- 
 erations of his two customers and diminishing Ihe effective 
 results of their labors. That is wealth acquired on the 
 strict principles of political economy." And the millions 
 which go into the pockets of these mercantile men of ours 
 as "profit" are by them called "reward for enterprise," 
 " compensation for risks." Do we call the gains of the 
 
48 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 swindler or the robber " compensation for risks " ? No ; 
 commerce, which is the interchange of commodities, is a 
 most beneficial social activity ; traffic, trade, which, as Her- 
 bert Spencer says, is " essentially corrupt," which partakes 
 of the nature either of gambling or overreaching, is not. 
 
 These vampires are the offspring of the " let-alone " 
 policy. Laissez faire, "let alone," — leave the honest at 
 the mercy of the cunning ; leave the innocent to suffer 
 for their innocence ; leave every one who profits by a cor- 
 rupt system to make the most for himself; let labor remain 
 something wholesale out of which fortunes are made and 
 which during that process yields such and such a percentage 
 of misery and sin — what a grand " principle " ! By adopt- 
 ing it for its guiding star our society has achieved — an- 
 archy. 
 
 Our comfortable classes talk much of " social order." 
 In ancient Greece and Rome there was a " social order," 
 such as it was ; during the middle age there was social 
 " order," such as it was. But in our age there is, as we 
 have seen, throughout our whole economic sphere, no so- 
 cial order at all. ' There is absolute social anarchy. It is 
 against this social anarchy that socialism, chiefly, is a pro- 
 test. 
 
 We have seen the various phases of this anarchy, all the 
 legitimate outgrowth of unrestricted private " enterprise." 
 
 All instruments of production are monopolized. The 
 evil of this monopoly does not so much consist in the plu- 
 tocrat having a right of property in that which he has 
 acquired. Though formed out of fleecings and in no other 
 manner whatsoever, he can, perhaps, claim these acqui- 
 sitions as his property, because he has got hold of them by 
 the express consent of society. The evil lies in this, that 
 he is able and permitted to use this property of his to 
 
SOCIAL ANARCHY 49 
 
 further fleece his fellow-men out of the proceeds of their 
 toil. 
 
 This unrestricted private enterprise is responsible for our 
 crisis, the inevitable consequences of defying the natural law 
 of interdependence between all the members of society. 
 
 It has produced our parasites and vampires. 
 
 It has given us competition with all its baneful conse- 
 quences. 
 
 Not emulation, which no society can afford to do with- 
 out, the loss of which would check all advance and deaden 
 all energy ; but cannibalism, that poisonous tooth, the ex- 
 traction of which would immensely relieve society. 
 
 It has put into the hands of our plutocrats a deadlier 
 club than competition for them to use whenever it serves 
 their purpose, — combination among themselves. 
 
 It has destroyed all the patriarchal, idyllic relations which 
 formerly existed among men and left only the one relation, 
 — cash payment. It has drowned the chivalrous enthusiasm, 
 the pious idealism which existed in previous ages in a chilly 
 shower of reaUstic egotism. It has put exchange value in 
 place of human dignity, and license in place of freedom. 
 It has made the physician, the jurist, the poet, the scientist, 
 retainers of the plutocracy. It has made marriage a com- 
 mercial relation and prostitution one of the established 
 institutions of society. 
 
 But let us be fair. 
 
 So far I have discussed only the evil workings of 
 unrestricted "private enterprise." I heartily admit, that 
 on the other hand it has performed wonders. It has built 
 monuments greater than the pyramids. Its universal ex- 
 positions have moved greater masses of men than the 
 crusades ever did. It has done mankind an immense 
 
so THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 service in proving by hard facts that wholesale manufacture 
 is the most sensible form of labor. 
 
 But I contend that it now has done nearly all the good 
 that it can, that the evils which now flow from individuaUsm 
 far outweigh the benefits it confers. 
 
 That is why I condemn it. I condemn it just as I con- 
 demn an old, decaying building, however useful it may have 
 been in its time ; or as nature condemns the cocoon of a 
 chrysalis when a butterfly is ready to be born. 
 
 But I know full well that "individualism " will for some 
 time yet go on working mischief. I know it must be- 
 come a good deal worse than it is before it can become 
 better. 
 
 But I also know that in the fulness of time the logic of 
 events will imperatively demand a change from this social 
 anarchy to true social order. 
 
THE CULMINATION 51 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE CULMINATION 
 
 " Real history is a history of tendencies, not of events." — Buckle. 
 
 " Nothing would lead the mass of men to embrace socialism sooner than 
 the conviction that this enormous accumulation of capital in a few hands 
 was to be not only an evil in fact if not prevented, but a necessary evil 
 beyond prevention. . . . 
 
 " If such a tendency should manifest itself, it would run through all forms 
 of property. A Stewart or a Claflin would root out small trades-people. 
 Holders of small farms would sink into tenants. The buildings of a city 
 would belong to a few owners. Small manufacturers would have to take 
 pay from mammoths of their own kind or be ruined. ... If this 
 went to an extreme in a free country, the ' expropriated ' could not endure 
 it. They would go to some other country, and leave the proprietors alone 
 in the land, or they would drive them away. A revolution, slow or rapid, 
 would certainly bring about a new order of things." — " Communism and 
 Socialism" by Dr. T. D. Woolsey. 
 
 THAT capital — not "wealth," not "property," but 
 capital — in private hands involves spoUation of the 
 masses; that our established order is nothing but estab- 
 lished anarchy, are the conclusions at which I have arrived. 
 Will such a state of things last forever? 
 
 Here we meet with one of the greatest obstacles with 
 which sociaUsts have to contend : the notion that whatever 
 is, is the immutable order of nature. Because the wage- 
 system and the " let-alone " policy now prevail and have 
 prevailed as far back as any one can remember, people, 
 even well-informed people, fancy that this policy and that 
 system constitute the necessary conditions for civilized 
 society. Socialists hold that this is a fundamental error. 
 They say, with all advanced scientists, that what is has 
 
52 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 grown out of something else that was, and that the present 
 is the parent of the future. The history of our race is a 
 series of preparations. 
 
 In the ancient States, where the civilization of our race 
 commenced, there was no wage-system ; there was slavery. 
 The master was lord of the persons of his slaves, lord of 
 the soil, and owner of the instruments of labor. We who 
 have reached a higher stage of development look very 
 properly back with horror on this ancient slavery ; and yet 
 we should not forget that we are indebted to this same 
 slavery for our civilization. 
 
 Progress takes place only when either some individuals 
 control other individuals, or when they voluntarily co-oper- 
 ate together. But voluntary co-operation is a hard lesson 
 for men to learn ; and, therefore, progress has to commence 
 with compulsory co-operation ; with control of everything 
 — with slavery. 
 
 Look at our Indian tribes. They work, in their way, as 
 well as civilized people do. Yet they are strangers to prog- 
 ress. Why? Because they never accumulated any wealth. 
 And they accumulated no wealth, because they worked as 
 isolated individuals ; because they never have known any 
 division of labor. Now slavery was to our race the first 
 division of labor ; it was the first form of co-operation ; for 
 it is too often overlooked that division of labor is at the 
 same time co-operation in labor. The ruling principle 
 during slavery was, of course, despotism, the irresponsible 
 will of the lord. 
 
 Serfdom constitutes the next great stage in the history of 
 our race, coming in contemporaneously with the ascendency 
 of Christianity and the dominion of the northern barbarians. 
 Under it the lords of soil were the dominant class ; but the 
 persons of the workers were free, though they were attached 
 
THE CULMINATION 53 
 
 to the soil where they were born. This change conferred 
 an immense gain on the working multitude. They were 
 now invested with the most elementary right of all : that 
 of creating a family for themselves. And their belonging 
 to the soil was far from being altogether an evil, since it 
 conferred on them the right to claim support from the soil. 
 
 The ruling principle during that period was custom, 
 which proved itself a most efficient protector of the work- 
 ers. It fixed strictly, and in many countries with the utmost 
 particularity in details, the amount of work due to their lord 
 for the use of the soil, and all other rights and duties of 
 every class and individual. " Freedom " during the middle 
 ages meant the enjoyment of those rights which custom 
 thus gave. It may well be a question whether the workers 
 of that long era were not a happier class than our wage- 
 workers. Indeed, we verily believe, with Carlyle, that the 
 middle age of western Europe (the period, say, of Dante), 
 with its feudal body and Catholic soul, was the highest real- 
 ized ideal thus far attained by man, but at the same time 
 far below that soon to be reached. 
 
 During those two stages of development "capital" was 
 unknown and unheard of. There was wealth, there were 
 revenues, plenty of means of enjoyment. The great folks 
 lived in splendor, certainly ; but they did not, and could 
 not capitalize their possessions. 
 
 Remember that best of economic definitions of capital, 
 which I adopted : " That part of wealth employed pro- 
 ductively with a view to profit, by sale of the produce." 
 During slavery and serfdom wealth was not employed pro- 
 ductively with a view to profit by sale of the produce, but 
 with a view to immediate personal enjoyment. The lords 
 could not make their possessions grow by "profit," by 
 "fleecings," could not invest them. 
 
54 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 But the progress of mankind demanded that another 
 step should be taken. The iron bands of custom had to be 
 sundered, and that is done by an assertion of the indepen- 
 dence of the individual. This individualism fructifies the 
 germ of capital, already found in the ' previous accumula- 
 tions of wealth ; in the closing years of the middle ages it 
 suddenly advances commerce to an unprecedented degree, 
 and develops the commerce of the world. It gives rise to 
 the discoveries and inventions which now crowd upon each 
 other ; foremost among which are the discovery of America, 
 the invention of the printing-press and the steam-engine. 
 These in their turn nourish capital. It becomes an infant, 
 grows up to youth and manhood, bursts completely the 
 fetters of the middle ages, first by the English Revolution 
 of 1688 (it is England that nearly always commences social 
 and political innovations), and then by the American 
 Revolution of 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789, 
 and has developed in our days into a giant by division of 
 labor being carried to an extent not dreamt of before, or — 
 what is the same thing — by a greater co-operation in pro- 
 duction than was known before. Thus we have arrived at 
 the third stage in the development of our race : this era of 
 the wage-system and individualism. Wealth during all three 
 periods governed the world, controlled the masses, but never 
 before in the form of capital. Our plutocracy, our indus- 
 trial, commercial, and moneyed aristocracy (in France " the 
 Third Estate" and in England the "Commons"), those 
 who by the control of the instruments of labor have 
 acquired the more advantageous position, are now our mas- 
 ters, the dominant power, who, by laws and usages enacted 
 by themselves, have made this advantageous position of 
 theirs a permanent one. Mark this ; it was the plutocrats 
 who profited by the English, by the American, and the 
 
THE CULMINATION 55 
 
 French Revolutions; these three revolutions were theirs. 
 The workers have hardly occasion to rejoice at the change. 
 They are free to own land, but have not the means to buy 
 it. They have personal liberty ; yes. They are no longer 
 bound to the soil ; they have got the barren legal right to 
 go where they please. But they have, at the same time, 
 lost the right to claim support from the soil. Their liberty 
 is one that benefits their masters, rather than themselves. 
 The power of discharge and the advantage of having every- 
 where an army of proletarians to hire from, is vital to the 
 ■ growth of capital. The workers have lost the power they 
 as serfs possessed to labor to advantage for themselves, for 
 in all branches of industry factory products have supplanted 
 domestic industry. They have co-operation in production 
 with a vengeance — think of Plugson and his spinners. 
 The division and enjoyment of the products, on the other 
 hand, is entirely one-sided. 
 
 As to the condition of the British worker during part of 
 this period, let us hear Prof. Thorold Rogers : " I am 
 convinced that at no period in English history was the con- 
 dition of manual labor worse than it was in the forty years 
 from 1782 to 1821, the period in which traders, capitalists, 
 and manufacturers accumulated fortunes rapidly, and in 
 which the rent of agricultural land was doubled. . . . 
 I contend that from 1563 to 1824 a conspiracy, con- 
 cocted by the law and carried out by parties interested in 
 its success, was entered into, to cheat the English work- 
 man of his wages, to deprive him of hope and degrade 
 him into irremediable poverty." 
 
 The plutocracy, the fleecing class and their retainers, is, 
 in this third stage of our civilization, the really governing 
 power all over the civilized world. But while it is checked, 
 to some extent, in European countries by the remnants 
 
56 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 of feudalism, — the nobility and clergy, — in the United 
 States it is absolute, simply because this is a new country. 
 Here its power is unquestioned and unrestrained. It is 
 the easiest thing in the world for it to maintain its domin- 
 ion here ; for all it has to do is to commancil the govern- 
 ment : " Leave us alone ! " Indeed our State governments 
 may be said to be merely committees of the plutocrats, 
 charged with watching over their common interests. 
 
 Now, observe that socialists hold that each of these 
 three periods, though together forming a long and weary 
 road, was yet a necessary link in the chain of progress, was 
 a preparatory step to each succeeding stage. We cannot 
 accomplish the progress of our race by leaps, but must do 
 it by growths. We cannot dispense with any of these 
 stages. We could not dispense with the present reign of 
 individualism and capital. If a magic wand could restore 
 the mode of production in vogue two hundred years ago, 
 it would require another two centuries to mature the con- 
 ditions for that new order which lies in the womb of time. 
 ■ And we also hold that history is radically incomprehensible 
 without the conception that the social state of each epoch 
 was just as perfect as the corresponding development of 
 our race permitted. The evils, therefore, of the " let- 
 alone " poUcy which we described in the preceding chap- 
 ter are to be considered the legitimate workings of a prin- 
 ciple to which humanity in times to come will find itself 
 greatly indebted. 
 
 This conception ought to guard us against feeling any 
 ill-will towards the individual members of our plutocracy. 
 Passions directed against the system are most proper ; for 
 it is only passion that can nerve us sufficiently to overthrow 
 the system. But our capitalists are as much the creatures 
 of circumstances as our paupers are. Neither should we 
 
THE CULMINATION 57 
 
 forget that there have here and there been employers -and 
 capitalists who would willingly have sacrificed their all to 
 right society. Robert Owen was the more noble a man 
 for being rich. 
 
 Having noted the principles and factors which thus far 
 have shaped the destinies of our rac6, and having seen how 
 the " let-alone " policy has worked, and how it is working 
 at this very day, the next inquiry naturally is : What will be 
 the outcome ? How will this policy work in the future ? 
 
 Dr. Theodore D. Woolsey is a very cautious man, as 
 befits his position as a representative of our luxurious 
 classes. He admits in his " Communism and Socialism " 
 that " there is some reason to apprehend that the ' free 
 use ' of private property must end in making a few capi- 
 taUsts of enormous wealth, and a vast population of laborers 
 dependent on them," if not prevented. This conclu- 
 sion is not due to any flights of fancy, nor unseemly 
 rashness on the gentleman's part, for he goes on to say 
 what I have quoted at the head of this chapter. If such 
 a tendency " should " manifest itself, then he thinks a 
 Stewart " would " root out smaller tradespeople ; small 
 producers "would" be ruined by mammoths of their own 
 kind, and the land and houses of a city "would" be more 
 and more monopolized. I should say that Dr. Woolsey 
 is, if anything, over-cautious. Most people would be ready 
 to say outright that those things are daily taking place ; and 
 that thus the tendency of the " free use of private prop- 
 erty" is manifest. Private "enterprise" will evidently 
 work in the future, as it has done in the past — ay ! it will 
 gather greater and greater momentum — if not prevented. 
 
 That is to say, concentration will be the order of the 
 day along the whole line of production, transportation, and 
 exchange. The small farm will give way to the large one ; 
 
t 
 
 58 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 the small produce to the wholesale producer. The whole- 
 sale trade will be more and more concentrated. All 
 retail trade of any consequence in our larger cities will be 
 gathered together in huge bazaars ; they will soon attract 
 to themselves the customers of the country stores, just as 
 the hardware factories already now do much of the work 
 formerly done by prosperous cross-roads blacksmiths. The 
 contract system of erecting buildings will soon constitute, 
 and constitutes now to a great extent, all engaged in the 
 building trades a movable, disposable force, to be hired now 
 by this contractor and now by that. A few years hence the 
 entire production and sale of the anthracite coal of Penn- 
 sylvania — that is, of the whole country — will be in the 
 hands of four companies : the Reading ; the Lehigh Valley ; 
 the Delaware, Lackawanna, and Western ; and the Delaware 
 and Hudson. In other words, four persons will practically 
 decide how much the producers shall be paid, and how 
 much the consumers shall be bled Probably it will not 
 last long before the whole output will be controlled by one 
 corporation. 
 
 The sugar-refining business will in a few years be in the 
 hands of a couple of houses. We shall not have to wait 
 long before the whole railroad system of the States is in 
 the hands of, say, four companies. The Standard Oil 
 Company already controls the oil business, and a few mag- 
 nates now control in one corporation the whole telegraphic 
 system, so there the concentration is almost complete. 
 
 The last United States census report demonstrates con- 
 clusively that this concentration of manufacturing indus- 
 tries commenced in good earnest during the last decade ; 
 while, as we already have seen, the number of workers and 
 values created considerably increased, the number of estab- 
 lishments was in 1880 almost exactly what it was in 1870. 
 
THE CULMINATION 59 
 
 Such complete centralization of all activities of society- 
 will evidently render the working classes more dependent 
 on their masters j will make it more and more impossible 
 for the workingmen to control their own conditions. 
 They will have individually less and less, if any, control as 
 to what shall be their hours of labor and what their pay. 
 That is clearly the tendency of the working of " unrestricted 
 private enterprise " — if not prevented. 
 
 That consummate advocate and retainer of our fleecers, 
 — I again use this word simply as a term of description, 
 to emphasize a fact, — William M. Evarts, saw the point 
 clearly when serving them in the office of Secretary of State 
 of the Union, and coolly said in an official document : — 
 
 " The first great truth to be learned by manufacturers and 
 workingmen is that the days of high wages are gone. In 
 the near future the workingman of New York cannot ex- 
 pect twice or three times the wages of his fellow-worker in 
 Europe, nor can the coal-miner of Pennsylvania expect 
 twice the wages of the Northumberland miner." 
 
 Thus there is not a shadow of doubt that the enormous 
 accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few capitalists, 
 and a vast population of laborers dependent on them, will 
 be "an evil in fact — if not prevented." But can it be 
 prevented ? 
 
 One of the proposed " remedies " is the extension of our 
 foreign markets. 
 
 This is a " remedy " which our fleecers, our plutocrats, 
 guarantee as an infallible cure for Dr. Woolsey's " evil ; " in 
 other words, for the discontent of the working classes. It must 
 be admitted that they seek for that " remedy " with a remark- 
 able zeal and pertinacity ; and not alone our plutocrats, but 
 the plutocrats of all capitalist countries as well. To get hold 
 of the panacea, their governments, i.e., their governing com- 
 
6o THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 mittees, write bushels of diplomatic notes and protests 
 (remember the American protest against prohibiting the 
 importation of American pork into Germany and France), 
 immolate men, ruin cities, annex or conquer half-civilized 
 countries, shake up by the roar of cannon the sleeping 
 Chinese, encourage the building of railways in Mexico and 
 incursions into the heart of Africa ; in brief, penetrate into 
 and ransack with feverish and frantic energy every nook 
 and corner of the globe where human beings are found that 
 can be coaxed or driven to — trade. 
 
 Our own Evarts spent much of his time and energy as 
 Secretary of State in hunting after these foreign markets. 
 Whatever motive our plutocrats may pretend in pursuing 
 their object, — and we shall soon see that they have an ex- 
 cellent motive on their own account, — Mr. Evarts cannot 
 very well pretend solicitude for the working classes after 
 the "advice" he gave them, — and our manufacturers, — 
 which has just been quoted. It was also Mr. Evarts who, to 
 fortify his advice, caused our consuls in other countries to 
 prepare reports for the State Department about the wages 
 paid to foreign workers, which were misleading, and after- 
 wards were published to show our workingmen that they 
 were altogether too well off. 
 
 But no matter what the motive was and is, this cry — 
 foreign markets — is very characteristic indeed of the 
 "statesmanship" of these plutocrats who rule us — of these 
 " rulers who are no rulers," in Carlyle's language. It, like 
 all their other public measures, proves them the veriest 
 quacks, in this that it shows that they are satisfied with 
 some temporary advantages, without considering the ulterior 
 consequences. For to anybody who takes into account the 
 immediate future these efforts to secure foreign markets 
 must on a little reflection appear as a writer in the Atlantic 
 
THE CULMINATION 6 1 
 
 Monthly for October, 1879, calls them, "the maddest of 
 all follies," — -and what follows applies fully as much to 
 Great Britain as to the United States. 
 
 Because, supposing we could secure them, we could not 
 possibly hold them. The nations whose custom we are 
 soliciting — even China, Japan, and Hindostan — are even 
 now adopting all our inventions and improvements, and are 
 fast learning to manufacture for themselves. 
 
 Because, to secure them, we have to manufacture cheaper 
 than any other nation ; that is, we have to lower the wages 
 and lengthen the working-day of our operatives. Well, that 
 of course does not disconcert Mr. Evarts. But now comes 
 the point. England and all other competing nations will, 
 on the same principle, try to oust us by manufacturing still 
 cheaper. It is, thus, only by continually lowering the re- 
 muneration of our workers, even below the starvation wages 
 of Europe, that we could possibly hold on to our " suprem- 
 acy," even temporarily. And then how contemptible a 
 supremacy ! Carlyle's words should be a fitting rebuke : 
 " Sad, indeed, that our national existence depends on our 
 selling manufactured cotton a farthing cheaper than any 
 other people." 
 
 Because, lastly, it is anyway a losing business. As the 
 wages of our operatives decrease, their power of consump- 
 tion decreases ; foreign markets can, therefore, only be ob- 
 tained at the cost of losing our home trade. The writer 
 mentioned above computes that, thus far, we have lost ten 
 dollars in domestic trade to every dollar gained in foreign 
 trade. 
 
 Foreign markets, thus, truly mean grasping at a shadow, 
 even to our plutocrats. That it is worthless as a " remedy " 
 against Woolsey's " evil " is apparent. 
 
 A second " remedy " is the voluntary individual co- 
 
62 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 operation advocated by the English economist, Professor 
 Cairnes, and which has become almost a hobby of so many 
 reformers. 
 
 Professor Cairnes is a man we must respect. He has a 
 clear conception of the condition of the laboring classes. 
 He says : — 
 
 " The conclusion to which I am brought is this, that, un- 
 equal as is the distribution of wealth already, the tendency 
 of industrial progress — on the supposition that the present 
 separation between individual classes is maintained — is 
 towards an inequality greater still." 
 
 And, unlike Evarts, he is anxious to raise them. 
 
 " The first and indispensable step toward any serious 
 amendment of the laborer's lot is that he should be, in one 
 way or another, lifted out of the groove in which he at pres- 
 ent works, and be placed in a position compatible with his 
 becoming a sharer in equal proportion with others in the 
 general advantages arising from industrial progress. . . 
 
 " The laborer shall cease to be a mere laborer." 
 
 But the way he indicates — " that the workmen contribute 
 of their savings towards a common fund which they employ 
 as capital and co-operate in turning to profit " — is decid- 
 edly not the way to solve the problem. 
 
 In the first place it should be apparent to a man like 
 Professor Cairnes that it is like mocking the laboring classes 
 to suggest to them to start productive enterprises in com- 
 petition with capitalists. Fancy them contemplating the 
 millions needed to build factories, to buy machinery and lay 
 in raw materials, and then feeling in their own pockets and 
 finding the mempty ! How can workmen save anything, 
 when their wages vibrate around the point of necessaries of 
 life ? And suppose that they, by adding together their pen- 
 nies, do start some factory or other, how can they possibly 
 
THE CULMINATION 63 
 
 succeed in enterprises that require more and more capital 
 — where capitalists with experience fail ? 
 
 But admit that such associations here and there have suc- 
 ceeded, and that others therefore likewise might succeed, 
 it yet leaves the kernel of the labor question untouched. 
 These successful associations are brilUant examples of work- 
 ingmen raising themselves out of their class, not raising their 
 class. They are not truly co-operative, but virtually joint- 
 stock companies. They compete among themselves just as 
 ordinary concerns do. They, the Rochdale pioneers, who 
 of late are a productive as well as mercantile association) 
 hire and fleece laborers after the approved fashion of the 
 age, and experience teaches that they are indeed the 
 hardest taskmasters. The interest of the members of these 
 associations becomes identified with capital, and if ever cir- 
 cumstances should make it easier for the smarter laborers to 
 start such companies successfully, that fact would create a 
 labor caste. In a general dispute between labor and capi- 
 tal these associations, instead of being a vanguard of labor 
 will go over to the side of capital. The sons of Rochdale 
 pioneers, living in luxury and imitating the airs and fashions 
 of the wealthy of all times, point the moral. Where is, then, 
 the gain to the laboring classes to come in ? No ; instead of 
 advising workingmen to save, and to invest their savings in 
 such risky enterprises, it would be much better to advise them 
 to put their savings into their own flesh and bone, where 
 they of right belong on account of their more efficient labor. 
 
 Voluntary co-operation in enterprises of consumption is 
 quite another thing. Such have in many instances suc- 
 ceeded ; in England they can be said to have had a splendid 
 success. They can succeed, because they require no very 
 large amount of capital. And socialists very often advise 
 workingmen, wherever and whenever they can, to start co- 
 
64 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMOIVIVEALTH 
 
 operative stores and thus get better goods and save the prof- 
 its otherwise going to the middlemen. It is, in other words, 
 a very prudent thing to do for the individual. 
 
 But how will it help the body of workingmen ? Evidently 
 it could only do so when the whole body, or at least a large 
 majority of them, became the beneficiaries of such co-oper- 
 ation. It is curious that an economist like Professor Cairnes 
 does not foresee the necessary consequences. 
 
 In such case, of course, the average wages requisite for a 
 standard of living and comfort would become less, and con- 
 sequently — for Professor Cairnes admits the law of wages of 
 Ricardo and the socialists — would fall to the new level. 
 The workmen thus would be no better off than before. 
 Next, what would become of the small traders and shop- 
 keepers thus displaced? They, naturally, would be ruined. 
 They either would have to become a burden on the com- 
 munity, or fall into the ranks of the wage-workers, and thus 
 contribute to lowering the rate of wages still more by their 
 frantic competition. The writer of this once heard a small 
 trader in a western town bitterly upbraiding the grangers 
 who had started one of their co-operative stores at his place, 
 because of their meanness. They ought to " live and let live. " 
 Was he so very unreasonable ? 
 
 Such voluntary co-operation may be very excellent for 
 the individual just as long as it is a sporadic phenomenon, 
 and no longer. 
 
 There has lately been started quite a different sort of co- 
 operative enterprise in California, called Kaweah, which is 
 assuming great proportions, and promises good results for 
 the future. But that which distinguishes it is, if I am cor- 
 rectly informed, that it is to be a nucleus for the agitation 
 of socialist principles ; it is not intended to take the place of 
 national co-operation. 
 
THE CULMINATION 65 
 
 A third " remedy," firmly relied upon by another class of 
 labor reformers, to check the increasing power of the capi- 
 talist and employing class, is the formation and strengthen- 
 ing of trades-unions. 
 
 I, and all socialists indeed, have nothing but commenda- 
 tion for and active sympathy with every effort that is made 
 to bind all the workers of the various crafts together, and 
 to gather these crafts again into greater unions. These 
 trades-unions and trades-assemblies are powerful instru- 
 ments for educating their members for the coming social 
 order, whether or not they are aware of it ; in another 
 connection I shall have more to say on that point. They 
 impress vividly on their members the fact that their in- 
 terests are mutual, and that their employers, far from being 
 identified with them, are diametrically opposed to them in 
 interests. They open the eyes of their members to the fact 
 that their masters are not wage -givers, but take wages from 
 them ; that their masters do not support them, but that they 
 support their masters. 
 
 Again, while I do not recommend strikes, — what the 
 trades-unions, indeed, are also far from doing, — I accept 
 them as necessary evils. I claim that as a matter of fact 
 (what I have already stated) there is an existing warfare 
 between capitalists and laborers, and that strikes are simply 
 the skirmishes in that warfare. Strikes are the efforts of 
 wares to act like men. 
 
 I also hold, as a matter of course, that eight hours of 
 hard daily work is a sufficient, more than a sufficient, task 
 for a mere living. 
 
 But I am at the same time convinced that trades-unions 
 and all these efforts of theirs are absolutely impotent to 
 counteract the workings of individualism. 
 
 The trades-unions of England have indeed succeeded in 
 
66 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 raising the wages in various trades and shortening the daily 
 toil — yes, they, and they only, have succeeded in procur- 
 ing for the English working classes the great boon of a nine- 
 hours working day, — but only as the masters have not 
 combined sufficiently. Strikes must necessarily fail, if due 
 resistance be made, because the immediate effect of them 
 is to deprive the worker of his means of subsistence, and 
 the capitalist of his profit simply. When " wares " try to 
 act like men, they naturally fail, for wares are only things. 
 
 And suppose the trades-union movement in our country 
 to accomplish its ultimate object, — that of uniting all the 
 workers of all the trades into one compact, comprehensive 
 body, — the result will evidently be, that the employers and 
 capitalists will be compelled to follow suit ; that is, such a 
 union of workingmen will call into existence a power that 
 can crush them at the first trial of strength. This I now 
 verily believe will be the commencement of the culmination 
 which may take place before this century closes, — that our 
 gigantic trust of capitalists and our gigantic labor organiza- 
 tions may oppose each other from ocean to ocean. 
 
 Thus it truly seems, Dr. Woolsey, that " this enormous 
 accumulation of capital in a few hands "is to be a " neces- 
 sary evil, beyond prevention " ! It, undoubtedly, will " run 
 through all the forms of property." The millionaires will 
 gobble up the capital of the whole middle class, and the 
 more their own possessions grow, the wilder will be their 
 chase after the smaller game. Our working classes, on the 
 other hand, will go on being gathered into larger centres. 
 There is no "if" at all about the matter; and there 
 is absolutely no patent medicine in the market that can 
 prevent it. 
 
 But is it philosophical to call that " an evil," Dr. Wool- 
 sey? 
 
THE CULMINATION 67 
 
 When a child is growing its teeth, it is, we know, a season 
 of misery to it ; yet we do not therefore call the process of 
 teething an " evil." What if the present and future work- 
 ings of" capitalism " — that is, of the " free use " of capital — 
 were the teething period of society ? We know, of course, 
 that the parallel is imperfect ; for there is this terrible dif- 
 ference, that in the latter case the suffering of myriads of 
 sentient beings is involved, for which reason the agitation 
 for shortening the daily toil and all other efforts to alleviate 
 the condition of the working classes are worthy of all our 
 sympathy. 
 
 Just as the teething process runs its course according to 
 the physical law of our organization and must run its course, 
 so the centralization of all social activities goes on according 
 to the laws indwelling in our social organism, and to stop it, 
 if we could, would be turning back the wheels of progress. 
 For there is no doubt that if they could succeed, the wage- 
 workers would be rendered almost satisfied with their lot as 
 wage-slaves, be reconciled to the wage-system, just what the 
 partial success of the trades-unions in England unfortu- 
 nately seems to have done with the British wage-workers. 
 
 When the culmination is reached, then comes the dawn. 
 
 And what will be the culmination ? 
 
 That the established order will be dying of exhaustion. 
 
 This conclusion lay, indeed, potentially, in my exposition 
 of "value" in chapter I.; wherefore I also can call it the 
 key to socialism. Since all real values are the results of 
 labor, and since labor under our wage-system, our profit- 
 system, our fleecing-system, receives only about one-half 
 thereof as its share, it follows that the producers cannot buy 
 back that which they create. 
 
 Now, we can see that this wage-system concerns the 
 whole nation, and not merely the wage-workers, as I for 
 
68 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 argument's sake granted at the commencement of chapter 
 II. For the more capital is being accumulated in private 
 hands, the more impossible this wage-system renders it for 
 the producers to buy what they produce. The more neces- 
 sary it becomes for capitalists to dispose of their ever- in- 
 creasing fleecings, the less the ability of the people to 
 purchase them will, relatively, become. The greater the 
 supply, the smaller the consumption. The more capital, 
 the more "overproduction." 
 
 This is a fatal contradiction. This " individualism," 
 which has created and nourished capital and is making it 
 bigger and bigger, is at the same time digging the grave of 
 capital. 
 
 The logic of the upholders of the present social order, 
 when they fancy it will last forever, or hope that it, like its 
 predecessors, will last for a thousand years, is sadly at fault. 
 Slavery and serfdom were long-lived, because they rested on 
 broad, endurable foundations, so that they had a chance to 
 petrify ; their nature, in other words, was stability. But our 
 social order cannot exist without repeated industrial revolu- 
 tions ; its very nature is insecurity and movement. It can 
 be fitly compared to a spinning-top which is only saved 
 from toppling over by being made to turn swiftly around on 
 its apex. It is individualism which imparts to our social 
 order this wild movement. But just as the top is sure to 
 finally topple over, so is this social order of ours. 
 
 That is the "logic of events." That events have logic, 
 simply means that "statesmen" and "leaders" have none. 
 
 And we have no need of trusting to logic ; we need only 
 trust our senses. Any one who has eyes to see can perceive 
 this social order tottering, not alone in our own country, but 
 in all industrial countries. Do we not hear from everywhere 
 the cry of the fleecers : " Foreign markets ! We must have 
 
THE CULMIATATIOJV 69 
 
 foreign markets ! " ? Did we not say that the fleecers had 
 excellent reasons of their own for hunting for them ? This 
 cry is the first frantic death-gasp of capitalism, showing it 
 is dying of inanition. What better evidence need we? 
 Socialists might simply fold their arms and calmly await its 
 dissolution. Thus our plutocrats, who a hundred years ago 
 untied the fetters that bound all industrial and social rela- 
 tions in their unyielding embrace, now find themselves in 
 the position of the magician who unloosed the elemental 
 forces of nature, and afterwards, not being able to control 
 them, was overwhelmed by them. 
 
 We are approaching the culmination with giant strides — 
 with railroad speed, in fact. Every invention that renders 
 production on a smaller scale more unprofitable, every bank- 
 ruptcy, every so-called " crisis," brings us nearer to the end. 
 Then will come the real " crisis." I do not say it will 
 not come before ; but, if not before, it will surely come 
 v/ith the culmination. 
 And then, what? 
 
 Well, political economy cannot tell us ; it came in with 
 the present social order, and it will go out with it ; its 
 whole scope is to bring the present social arrangements 
 into a system. 
 
 Only the socialist philosophy can lift the veil of the 
 future, for it only contemplates this social order and the 
 whole previous history of our race with a philosophic eye. 
 Therefore it can predict with the same claim to certainty 
 with which the Signal Service Bureau predicts to-morrow's 
 weather. 
 
 There are two alternatives. Barbarism ma/ be the out- 
 come. But we do not believe it will. 
 
 Thoughtful men observe that there never before was dif- 
 fused through society so large a sense of unhappiness. 
 
^0 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 Our large accessions and acquisitions of comfort have en- 
 hanced and aggravated our ideas of poverty. Capitalists, 
 for their own purposes, have taught the masses a thousand 
 needs, and at the same time rendered it impossible for 
 them to satisfy these needs. Society is from top to bottoni 
 seized by discontent — next to hope, the greatest gift from 
 the gods to man. 
 
 There is an old saga of a king and queen to whom a fair 
 son was born. Twelve fairie& came to the christening, each 
 with a gift. A noble presence, wisdom, strength, beauty — 
 all were poured upon him until it seemed he must excel all 
 mortal men. Then came the twelfth fairy with a gift of dis- 
 content ; but the angry father turned away the fairy and her 
 gift. And the lad grew apace, a wonder of perfect powers ; 
 but content in their possession, he cared to use them for 
 neither good nor ill ; there was no eagerness in him ; good- 
 natured and quiet, he let life use him as it would. And at last 
 the king knew that the rejected had been the crowning gift. 
 
 This discontent is a most promising sign. 
 
 Again, the masses are becoming more and more intelli- 
 gent, — too intelligent to submit to a new slavery or a new 
 serfdom. The working masses now feel themselves human 
 beings, and have become conscious of their power ; their 
 concentration in large centres of industry has given them 
 that consciousness which, perhaps, will make them too im- 
 patient to await the final crash. 
 
 And then — we socialists have now been born into the 
 world, a guarantee that society will go forward, not back- 
 ward. 
 
 The other alternative is Dr. Woolsey's : " That a revo- 
 lution, slow or rapid, will certainly bring about a n^^w order 
 of things." There we agree with him. 
 
 Whatever is, is not the immutable order of nature. It is 
 
THE CULMINATION yi 
 
 very natural that our well-to-do classes should believe that 
 arrangements which suit them have been settled by some 
 law of the Medes and Persians ! Nevertheless, when these 
 arrangements have done their work they are destined to dis- 
 appear. But whatever is, is rational. 
 
 This is by no means a finished humanity, but there is a 
 constant unfolding, a steady advance towards completeness 
 and perfection. True, this or that nation may decay, but 
 some other nation then comes to the rescue. All that so- 
 cialists undertake to do is to ascertain the several stages so 
 far reached by humanity on its onward march, therefrom to 
 infer the next advance that will be made by some one of 
 the social organisms in the van of progress, and then they 
 reverently propose to help humanity in taking the next step. 
 They full well kijow that all that individuals can do is to aid 
 or check that onward movement, but that to stop it is even 
 beyond a czar's control. 
 
 I have observed that it is around the working classes 
 that the battle of progress has been waged ; their condition 
 ' has determined the stage of civilization, though history has 
 given but scant account of them. During the two great 
 periods that lie behind us — slavery and serfdom — they 
 were in fact and in law subject to their lords, who took the 
 lion's share without disguise, as a matter of right. Based 
 on that subjection, however, there was an intense feeUng of 
 unity, which pervaded the whole of society; a unity of 
 sentiment and interest that made these systems so strong 
 and so lasting, and without which unity no social system 
 can be enduring. But men rebelled against the subjection. 
 Luther was fortunate enough to start that rebellion in the 
 religious sphere, for it is always at the top that all radical 
 changes commence. He introduced individuaUsm. 
 
 Then was inaugurated the era in which we are living, 
 
72 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 which really is nothing but a transition state between the 
 two great systems of the past and another great system of 
 the future, for it possesses no unity. It corresponds exactly 
 to the transition state between slavery and serfdom, when 
 Christianity was striving for mastery. It is an era of anar- 
 chy, of criticism, of negations, of oppositions, of hypocrisy, 
 as this was one. Instead of slavery or serfdom, we now 
 have the wage-system. That is to say, while formerly the 
 lords appropriated the results of labor openly, they now do 
 it underhandedly. The wage-worker, if he will live, must 
 consent to relinquish one-half of what he produces. There 
 is, in fact, fully as much subjection now as formerly, but it 
 has taken on a softer, a more hypocritic form. Tha,t is why 
 the rebellion not only continues, but has reached down into 
 the industrial sphere, and is shaking the very foundations 
 of society. It will not cease before all subjection is abol- 
 ished. 
 
 It will be abolished. 
 
 Individualism, a rhythmical swing of the human mind, has 
 already commenced its backward movement to find in due ' 
 time its compensation in social co-operation. 
 
 The divorce between capital and labor will cease. Cap- 
 ital, no longer the master of labor, will as true national 
 wealth become the invaluable handmaid of labor. 
 
 The steward of that national wealth will be the State ; it 
 having, as we shall now see, a title to all capital paramount 
 to that of either capitalists or laborers. 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 73 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 
 
 " It is only by being citizen of a well-ordered State, that the individual 
 has got rights." — Hegel. 
 
 " Not State-action in itself, but State-action exercised by a hostile class it 
 is that ought to be deprecated." — MaWiew Arnold. 
 
 " Look to the State ! From that you can expect the highest experience 
 and skill, publicity, concentration of power, real and efficient control, a na- 
 tional aim and spirit, and far more true responsibility." — Frederic Harrison. 
 
 I HAVE concluded the socialist analysis of the present order 
 of things. In a nutshell it is this : The fleecings in- 
 crease in our country and in all industrial countries at a very 
 great rate. In order that capital (the sum of these fleecings) 
 may be simply maintained (mark that!), it must be con- 
 stantly employed in production, and a market must be found 
 for the products which it enables labor to create. Foreign 
 markets will soon dry up ; our autocrats, therefore, will be 
 confined to their respective home markets. But the masses^ 
 at home are more and more becoming wage -workers from \ 
 the operation of " individualism ; " wage- workers receive 1 
 in wages only about half of what they produce ; the masses, 
 consequently, are becoming more and more unable to buy 
 back the values they create. Thus for lack of consumption 
 capital will be more and more threatened with depreciation. 
 The more capital, the more " overproduction." The I 
 wage-system and private " enterprise " will, indeed, involve 
 capitalists and laborers in one common ruin. 
 
 When long before the culmination has been reached, the 
 State will step in. 
 
74 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 But here we do not use State in the American sense. 
 The " State " of Pennsylvania and the other forty-two 
 "States" are not, and never were, States. By State we 
 mean with Webster " a whole people, united in one body 
 politic." That is the meaning of State in all languages, 
 English included — except the American language. Now, 
 not one of our American " States " was ever for one moment 
 a "whole people." They either were subjects of the crown 
 of England, or parts of the Confederation or of the Union. 
 The Union then is a State, just as France and Spain are 
 States,, and it is emphatically so since the American people 
 commenced to call themselves a Nation with a big N. This, 
 however, by no means excludes local centres of authority, 
 what we are wont to call " local self-government." 
 
 " The State " is a stumbling-block to many very worthy 
 persons. They apprehend — a fear very honorable in 
 them — • that State supremacy would be prejudicial to free- 
 dom. I hope to make it apparent that State-action and 
 individual freedom, far from being antagonistic, are really 
 complementary of each other. 
 
 The reason why " the State " is now-a-days such a bug- 
 bear to so many, is that this word has quite another mean- 
 ing in the mouth of an individualist, wherever you find him, 
 than when used by a socialist. Indeed, the fundamental 
 distinction between individualism and socialism must be 
 sought in the opposition of these two conceptions. 
 
 Individualists, and foremost amongst them our autocrats, 
 cherish this degrading notion of the State : that it is merely 
 an organ of society, synonymous with " government " — 
 with the poUtical machinery of society. I claim — to use 
 Webster's definition — that the State is " a whole people, 
 united in one body politic ; " in other words, that the State 
 is the organized society. 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 75 
 
 I cannot better make clear these two conceptions than 
 by contrasting certain views of Herbert Spencer with cer- 
 tain others of his speculations. 
 
 Spencer, when he was a young philosopher, wrote a book 
 called " Social Statics," which to a great extent has become a 
 manual to our " let-alone " politicians. In that work he starts 
 out with a " first principle " from which he proposes to rea- 
 son out, deductively, the whole science of government — a 
 ■method, by the way, that is thought rather precarious by 
 scientific men of to-day. This assumed axiom which, un- 
 doubtedly, looks very captivating at first sight, is that 
 " every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided 
 he infringes not the like freedom of any other man." From 
 this " principle " — of which we shall presently have 
 more to say — he proves with flawless logic that society is 
 simply a voluntary association of men for mutual protection, 
 and the State merely its organ to that end. The business 
 of the State, therefore, is only to secure to each citizen un- 
 limited freedom to exercise his faculties. Then, to be sure, 
 the State has no right to tax men of property for educating 
 other men's children, or for feeding the poor, or even for 
 looking after the public health. In taking upon itself these 
 functions the State is acting the part of the aggressor in- 
 stead of that of a protector. 
 
 The State is a policeman — nothing more. When the 
 millennium arrives the State will lose even that function; 
 it will become a rudimentary organ. The State will then 
 disappear altogether. As long as it exists it is nothing 
 but a necessary evil; only instituted for the bad, and 
 only a burden to the good. If the facts do not verify 
 that conclusion, so much the worse for the facts. If the 
 State's activity does spread more and more, even in 
 Spencer's own country, — in response to the pressure of thff 
 
-jS THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 " logic of events," and in spite of tlie frantic struggles of its 
 ruling class, the wealthy middle-class, — so much the worse 
 for the State. 
 
 These views of Herbert Spencer are accepted and prac- 
 tised by the ruling powers of our country, as far as iv 
 them lies. Our wealthier classes cry out : " You State I 
 You Government ! Your whole business, you know, con- 
 sists in securing us unlimited freedom to exercise our facul- 
 ties. That is all we are doing here ; the whole crowd of 
 us are exercising our faculties, each to the extent of his 
 ability. It does not concern you a bit whom or how 
 many we are able to fleece, nor how much we fleece 
 them, nor how many fall and are trampled upon. Let 
 us alone, then, and simply see to it that we are not 
 interfered with ! That is what you are paid for, you 
 know. ' Every one look out for himself, and the devil take 
 the hindmost,' is our rule of action, and must be yours too." 
 And the " government " lets them alone. That is to say, 
 it allows itself to be made into a peace-officer of a singular 
 sort. For suppose a policeman should see a bully attack a 
 weaker man, and should say to himself : " It is not my busi- . 
 ness to protect that weak man or to interfere with the com- 
 batants at all. I take it to be my duty just to see to it that 
 no one interferes with them. So I will make a ring round 
 them and let the best man win." That is what our so- 
 called " governments " virtually do, and so the shrewd, 
 greedy individuals who can " exercise their faculties " 
 do so to their hearts' content, and grow fat at the expense 
 of other individuals. Probably in no other age did in- 
 dividuals have such a power over their neighbors as they 
 have now, in consequence of this " let-alone " policy. 
 Every factory, mine, workshop, and railroad shows the 
 working of it. The individual Vanderbilt has acquired, say, 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 77 
 
 two hundred million dollars, while another individual — 
 perhaps the producer of part of his fortune — is sent to 
 prison as a tramp. 
 
 But that is all in order. For hear Spencer; "The 
 shouldering aside of the weak by the strong, which leaves so 
 many in shallows and miseries, is the decree of a large, far- 
 seeing benevolence, regarded not separately, but in connec- 
 tion with the interests of universal humanity. To step in 
 between weakness and its consequences suspends the prog- 
 ress of weeding out those of lower development " — and 
 Vanderbilt and Gould, of course, are the " strong," and 
 men of " higher development ! " 
 
 Why do not those men of property — of " higher devel- 
 opment" — abolish this good-for-nothing "State" alto- 
 gether? Would it not be a good speculation for them to 
 let courts of justice to the highest bidder, and farm out the 
 prosecution of wars to stock companies? Can they not 
 buy protection against violence, as well as insurance against 
 fire, and more cheaply too, on the glorious free-competition 
 plan ? Why do they not do it ? 
 
 Well, perhaps the State is something else than an organ 
 after all. 
 
 Now this same Herbert Spencer, in some very profound 
 speculations, pursues the far more scientific method of 
 studying society as it is, and the process of its develop- 
 ment, instead of evolving it, as once he did, out of his own 
 inner consciousness. 
 
 His results now are that the body politic instead of 
 being a " voluntary " association is, what socialists claim 
 that it is, an organism. 
 
 Beside arguments in other works of his, he devotes a very 
 able and ingenious essay to the drawing of parallels between 
 
78 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMON-WEALTH 
 
 a highly developed State and the most developed animals, 
 and sums up : — 
 
 "That they gradually increase in mass; that they be- 
 come, little by little, more complex ; that at the same time 
 their parts grow more mutually dependent ; that they con- 
 tinue to live and grow as wholes, while successive genera- 
 tions of their units appear and disappear, — are broad 
 pecuUarities, which bodies poUtic display, in common with 
 'all living bodies, and in which they and other living bodies 
 differ from everything else." 
 
 In several striking passages Spencer further shows with 
 what singular closeness correspondences may be traced in 
 the details between the two kinds of organisms, — as, for in- 
 stance, between the distributing system of animal bodies 
 and the distributing system of bodies poHtic, or between 
 our economic division of labor and that prevailing in or- 
 ganic bodies, — " so striking, indeed, that the expression 
 ' physiological division of labor ' has been suggested by it." 
 
 And some of the leading contrasts between the two kinds 
 of organisms, he shows, are far less important than appears 
 at first glance. Thus, the distinction that the Uving ele- 
 ments of society do not, as in individual organisms, form 
 one continuous mass, disappears when we consider that the 
 former are not separated by intervals of dead space, but 
 diffused through space, covered with life of a lower order, 
 which ministers to their life. And thus this other peculi- 
 arity, that the elements of a social organism are capable 
 of moving from place to place, is obviated by the fact that 
 as farmers, manufacturers, and traders, men generally carry 
 on business in the same localities ; that at all events each 
 great centre of industry, each manufacturing town or dis- 
 trict, continues always in the same place. 
 
 There is, then, but one distinction left that maybe deemed 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 79 
 
 material. In the social organism the living units are con- 
 scious, while in the animal organism it is the whole that 
 possesses coiifeciousness. 
 
 But then other highly developed organisms — to wit, the 
 vegetable ones — have no consciousness at all. Society- 
 could then be considered a mighty plant, the units of which 
 are highly developed animals. 
 
 Again, though the social organism has no consciousness 
 of its own, it certainly has a distinctive character of its 
 own — a corporate individuality, a corporate " oneness." 
 As a unit of that organism every individual certainly displays 
 a wholly different character from that of the organism itself. 
 Every nation has its own spirit, which the Germans call 
 the " Volksgeist," a spirit which has its life in the national 
 history ; which produces specific traits of nationality, diifer- 
 ing from the common traits of humanity. It generally lies 
 deep, hidden, unsuspected until such a moment arrives as 
 that with the Americans when Fort Sumter was fired 
 upon; then rising, as it were, out of an abyss, it urges 
 thinkers and actors resistlessly on to pursue unwittingly 
 the loftiest ideal of the race. This corporate individuality 
 is far from being identical with average " public opinion." 
 It is sui generis, and makes the social organism an organ- 
 ism sui generis. 
 
 I therefore insist, with even greater earnestness than 
 Spencer did, that the State is a living organism, differing 
 from other organisms in no essential respect. This is not to 
 be understood simply in a metaphorical sense ; it is not 
 that the State merely resembles an organism, but that it — 
 including, with the people, the land and all that the land 
 produces — literally is an organism, personal and territorial. 
 
 The " government " — the punishing and restraining 
 authority — may possibly be dispensed with at some future 
 
8o THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 time. But the State — never ! To dispense with the State 
 would be to dissolve society. 
 
 It follows that the relations of the State, the body politic, 
 to us, its citizens, is actually that of a tree to its cells, and 
 not that of a heap of sand to its grains, to which it is 
 entirely indifferent how many other grains of sand are 
 scattered and trodden under foot. 
 
 This is a conception of far-reaching consequence. 
 
 In the first place, it, together with the modern doctrine 
 of evolution, as applied to all organisms, deals a mortal 
 blow to the theory of " man's natural rights," the theory of 
 man's " inalienable right " to life, liberty, property, " happi- 
 ness," etc., the theory of which mankind during the last 
 century has heard and read so much ; the theory that has 
 been so assiduously preached to our dispossessed classes, 
 and which has benefited them so little. 
 
 Natural rights ! The highest " natural right " we can 
 imagine is for the stronger to kill and eat the weaker, and 
 for the weaker to be killed and eaten. One of the " natural 
 rights " left " man " now, is to act the brute towards wife 
 and children, and that " right " the State has already curtailed, 
 and will by and by give to it the finishing stroke. Another 
 " natural right," very highly prized by our autocrats, is the 
 privilege they now possess of " saving " for themselves what 
 other people produce. In brief, " natural rights " are the 
 rights of the muscular, the cunning, the unscrupulous. 
 
 These so-called " natural rights " and an equally fictitious 
 " law of nature " were invented by Jean Jacques Rousseau 
 (who followed Luther and the other reformers in the work 
 of making breaches in the old petrified system of the 
 middle ages) as a metaphysical expedient to get some 
 sanction to legitimate resistance to absolute authority in 
 kings, nobility, and clergy. He derived them from a 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 
 
 supposed " state of nature " which he and his disciples as 
 enthusiastically praised as if they had been there and knew 
 all about it. Now, modern historical comparative methods 
 prove conclusively that this " state of nature " never existed- 
 A man, living from the moment of his birth outside organ- 
 ized society, if this were possible, would be no more a man 
 than a hand would be a hand without the body. Civil 
 society is man's natural state. This " state of nature," on 
 the other hand, would be for man the most unnatural state 
 o\ all, and fortunately so, for in it we should not have been 
 able to make the least headway against our conditions, but 
 m'ist have remained, till the present moment, hungry, naked 
 savages, whose "rights " would not procure us a single 
 meal. And as to a " law of nature," if it is proper to use 
 that term at all, it is nothing but the conscience and reason 
 of ':ivil society. 
 
 Vo ; Rousseau did say several things worth notice — 
 as any author who is being refuted a century after his 
 death must have done. These speculations of his are 
 indeed worth notice to Americans especially, since they 
 foraed the logical basis of their revolution, though I can- 
 not help rernarking that the conclusion here justified the 
 premises rather than the reverse. And further, they also 
 furnished the justification, the steam-power, for the great 
 French Revolution. The incidents of the latter event, 
 however, showed that Rousseau could under certain cir- 
 ccmstances be a very unsafe guide ; they demonstrated 
 that the "natural rights of man" were good tools to tear 
 down rotten systems with, but sandy foundations on which 
 to e rect new systems. 
 
 I have been outspoken on this matter, because it is so 
 important that thoughtful people should know that philo- 
 sophic socialists repudiate that theory of" natural rights." and 
 
82 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 insist that the lesson taught by Rousseau and repeated (why 
 not say so outright ?) in the American Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence must be unlearned before any firm foundation can 
 be reached. Unfortunately, nearly all our " reformers " — 
 men with the noblest and often truly socialist hearts — cling 
 to it, and build on man's "God-given rights" as if they were 
 the special confidants of God. 
 
 But Carlyle is emphatically right when he says, " Noth- 
 ing soKd can be founded on shams ; it must conform to 
 the realities, the verities of things." 
 
 Here is such a reality : — 
 
 It is society, organized society, the State, that gives us all 
 the rights we have. To the State we owe our freedom. To 
 it we owe our living and property, for outside of organized 
 society, man's needs far surpass his means. The humble 
 beggar owes much to the State, but the haughty millionaire 
 far more, for outside of it they both would be worse off than 
 the beggar now is. To it we owe all that we are and all that 
 we have. To it we owe our civilization. It is by its help 
 that we have reached such a condition as man individually 
 never would have been able to attain. Progress is the strug- 
 gle with nature for mastery, is war with misery and inabili- 
 ties of our " natural " condition. The State is the organic 
 union of us all towage that war, to subdue nature, to redress 
 natural defects and inequalities. The State, therefore, so far 
 from being a burden to the " good," a " necessary evil," is 
 man's greatest good. 
 
 This conception of the State as an organism thus consigns 
 the "rights of man " to obscurity and puts duty in the fore- 
 ground. 
 
 In the second place, we now can ascertain the true sphere 
 of the State. That is, we now can commence to build 
 something solid. 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 83 
 
 We say sphere on purpose ; we do not ask what are the 
 "rights," "duties," or "functions" of the State, for if it is 
 truly an organism it is just as improper to speak of its rights, 
 duties, or functions towards its citizens as it is to speak of a 
 man's rights, duties, and functions in relation to his heart, 
 his legs, or his head. The State has rights, duties, and func- 
 tions in relation to other organisms, but towards its own 
 members it has only a sphere of activities. 
 
 The sphere of the State simply consists in caring for its 
 own welfare, just as a man's sphere, as far as himself is con- 
 cerned, consists in caring for his own well-being. If that 
 be properly done, then his brain, his lungs, and his stomach 
 will have nothing of which to complain. So with the State. 
 Its whole sphere is the making all special activities work 
 together for one general end, — its own welfare, or the 
 public good. Observe that the public good, the general 
 welfare, impKes far more than " the greatest good to the 
 greatest number " on which our "practical" politicians of 
 to-day base their trifling measures. Their motto broadly 
 sanctions the sacrifice of minorities to majorities, while the 
 "general welfare " means the greatest good of every indi- 
 vidual citizen. • 
 
 To that end the State may do anything whatsoever which 
 is shown to be expedient. 
 
 It may, as it always has done, limit the right of a person 
 to dispose of himself in marriage as he pleases. 
 
 The State is, in the words of John Stuart Mill, "-fully en- 
 titled to abrogate or alter any particular right of property 
 which it judges to stand in the way of the public good." 
 
 The State may to-morrow, if it judges it expedient, take 
 all the capital of the country from its present owners, with- 
 out any compensation whatsoever, and convert it into social 
 capital. 
 
84 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 In chapter I. I showed that the whole wealth of the 
 country (i.e., not natural wealth, but the sum of all values) 
 is the result of labor. As against capitalists, the producers, 
 therefore, would clearly be entitled to it. But as against 
 the State, the organized society, even labor does not give us 
 a particle of title to what our hands and brain produce. 
 
 One need not be a socialist to acknowledge that. 
 
 William B. Weeden, an American manufacturer, says, in 
 a criticism on Henry George's book in the Atlantic Monthly 
 for December, 1880 : ^ — 
 
 "The axe you use is not yours, though you may have 
 made it, instead of buying it in the market. The idea of 
 the axe, its potentiality, which enables it to prevail over 
 nature, does not belong to you. This is the result of long 
 generations of development, from the rudest stone-tool to 
 the elegant steel-blade which rings through the pine-woods 
 of Maine. This belongs to society. Neither the laborer 
 nor the capitalist owns that principle. So everywhere. 
 Neither labor nor capital employs the other. It is society 
 which employs both." 
 
 The workers are society's workers, and the capitalists are 
 simply her paymasters. 
 
 To whom does the telegraph belong? To society. 
 Neither Professor Morse, nor any other inventor, can lay sole 
 claim to it. It grew little by little. 
 
 With still greater force the State may reclaim possession 
 of all the land within its limits — all laws, customs, and 
 deeds to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 " With still greater force," I say, not because the 
 ownership of land is on a different footing from that of 
 other capital. Its value, like that of other capital, is partly 
 real, arising from the labor of this and former generations ; 
 
 1 Now incorporated in a boolt, ** Tlie Social Law of Labor." 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 8$ 
 
 and partly unreal, due to the monopoly of it and the con- 
 stantly increasing necessities of the community. It there- 
 fore is the creation of society as much as other capital. 
 I say " with still greater force," because the common law 
 of Great Britain and of America has always claimed, and 
 still does claim, that the State is the sole landlord. 
 
 " The first thing the student has to get rid of is the 
 absolute idea of ownership. Such an idea is quite un- 
 known to the English law. No man is, in law, the abso- 
 lute owner of lands ; he can only hold an estate in them." 
 Williams, " On the Law of Real Property." 
 
 When, therefore, the Trinity Church Corporation of 
 New York city claims to own city property of sufficient 
 value to pay all the debts of the State of New York, its 
 cities and villages, a value mainly created by the tenants 
 who have covered that tract of land with buildings, graded 
 and paved the streets, and built the sewers, it is simply a 
 glaring usurpation. 
 
 When, therefore, the increased values of real estate, due 
 simply to the progress of the country, are permitted, in the 
 form of increased rents, " to drop into the mouths of 
 landowners as they sleep instead of being applied to the 
 public necessities of the society which created it," in the 
 words of John Stuart Mill, it is only because the too " en- 
 terprising" individual has got the better of the State. 
 
 For the same reason, the landowner has been permitted 
 to possess whatever treasure may be hidden in it, even 
 treasure of which no man knew anything when the owner 
 entered into possession — a.i allowance than which no one 
 more foolish or absurd could be imagined. 
 
 For the same reason the splendid opportunities which 
 the United States had, both in the reconstruction of the 
 Southern States and the settlement of the public lands, 
 
86 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 for making the Nation the sole landlord, were not so much 
 as thought of. 
 
 Our landowners ought to admit with Blackstone, "We 
 seem to fear that our titles are not quite good ; it is well 
 the great mass obey the laws without inquiring why they 
 were made so and not otherwise." 
 
 But there is no need to devote more space here to dis- 
 cuss the supreme title of the State to the land since the 
 appearance of Henry George's book, " Progress and Pov- 
 erty," which we hope all our readers have studied. It is 
 the best forerunner a socialist could wish to have. The 
 main criticism which socialists have to make on this work 
 is that it pushes the land question — in America, especially, 
 but even in Great Britain, a secondary question in impor- 
 tance — so much into the foreground, that sight is entirely 
 lost of the principal question : Who should control the 
 instruments of production and transportation? It is, how- 
 ever, a most curious fact that its author should be an 
 American. To start the solution of the social problem in 
 our States, where as yet the great majority of farmers own 
 the land which they cultivate, even if it is generally mort- 
 gaged to its full value, with a proposition to divest all land- 
 owners of their titles, is to commence by making a very 
 large portion of the workers to be benefited hostile to all 
 social change. In the following pages I shall have more 
 to say of his " remedy." 
 
 I thus contend that the State is fully entitled to take 
 charge of all instruments of labor and production, and to 
 say that all social activities shall be carried on in a perfectly 
 different manner. 
 
 Undoubtedly the whole fleecing class will interpose their 
 so-called " vested rights." That is so, say, because the State 
 for a long time tacitly allowed a certain class to divide the 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 8/ 
 
 common stock of social advantages among themselves, and 
 appropriate it to their own individual benefit ; therefore the 
 State is estopped, they say, from ever recovering it. And 
 not alone will they claim undisturbed possession of what 
 they have, but also the right to use it in the future as they 
 have in the past; that is, they will claim a "vested right " 
 to fleece the masses' to all eternity. 
 
 But such a protest will be just as vain as was that of the 
 Pope against the loss of his temporal sovereignty. The 
 theory of " vested rights " never applies when a revolution 
 has taken place ; when the whole structure of society is 
 changed. The tail of a tadpole that is developing into a 
 frog may protest as much as it pleases ; nature heeds it 
 not. And when the frog is an accomplished fact, there is no 
 tail to protest. 
 
 This whole doctrine of "vested rights," moreover, has its 
 reason in the fact that, from the dawn of history to the 
 present time, we have had, and have, privileged classes. 
 Henry George remarks very pointedly : " When we allow 
 ' vested rights ' we still wear the collar of the Saxon thrall." 
 The only "vested right " any man has is the right to such 
 institutions as will best promote the pubUc good. A man 
 has no other right whatever in a civilized community. If 
 he is not satisfied with that, he may exile himself to where 
 there is no civilization — and even there his descendants 
 will necessatily grow up into a State. 
 
 Observe, further, that the pubUc welfare means more than 
 the welfare of all the living individuals composing it. Since 
 the State is an organism, it is more than all of us collec- 
 tively. 
 
 It would be absurd to say that a man is nothing but an 
 aggregation of his cells. Edmund Burke said rightly of 
 the State, that it includes the dead, the living, and the com- 
 
88 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 iiig generations. We are what we are far more by the 
 accumulated influence of past generations than by our own 
 efforts, and our labor will principally benefit those who are 
 to follow us. The public welfare thus includes the welfare 
 of the generations to come. This comprehensive concep- 
 tion places the pettiness and impotency of our " individual- 
 ism " in the most glaring light. For how can it ever be the 
 private interest of mortal individuals to make immediate 
 sacrifices for the distant future? 
 
 " But if the State's sphere is to be extended to everything 
 that may affect the public welfare, why, then there is no 
 stopping to what the State will attempt."- 
 
 I let Professor Huxley reply ("Administrative Nihil- 
 ism ") : — 
 
 " Surely the answer is obvious, that, on similar grounds, 
 the right of a man to eat when he is hungry, might be dis- 
 puted ; because, if you once allow that he may eat at all, 
 there is no stopping, until he gorges himself and suffers all 
 the ills of a surfeit." 
 
 Does it not now seem more profitable, especially to our 
 dispossessed classes, to lay stress on duty rather than on 
 rights ? 
 
 Does, not our conception of the State furnish a vxry 
 firm foundation, firm enough to build a new social order 
 on? . 
 
 Let me then give due credit to Herbert Spencer for his 
 profound speculations on the social organism. He has in- 
 deed, in them, laid the foundation for constructive social- 
 ism, as far as the Anglo-Saxon peoples are concerned, just 
 as Ricardo, by his speculations on value, did it for critical 
 sociaUsm. True, Spencer is still the apostle of " individual- 
 ism," he exhibits still a morbid aversion to all State activ- 
 ity ; but I have a right to call his present utterances on 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 
 
 that point mere crotchets, since they do not receive the least 
 support from his splendid arguments in favor of the organic 
 character of society. 
 
 That is also Professor Huxley's opinion. He says : " 1 
 cannot but think that the real force of analogy is totally 
 opposed to the negative (individualistic) view of the State 
 function. 
 
 " Suppose that, in accordance with this view, each muscle 
 were to maintain that the nervous system had no right to in- 
 terfere with its contraction except to prevent it from hinder- 
 ing the contraction of another muscle — or each gland that 
 it had a right to secrete, as long as its secretion interfered 
 with no other ; suppose every separate cell left free to fol- 
 low its own interests and be 'let alone.' Lord of all ! what 
 would become of the body physiological? " 
 
 In the third place, let us note this important fact, that 
 the State, since it is an organism, is undergoing a process of 
 development. 
 
 The American Republic is a State, Parliamentary Great 
 Britain is a State. Imperial Germany, autocratic Russia, 
 and bureaucratic China are all social organisms. But not 
 one of them is a full-grown State, a fully developed organ- 
 ism. In all of them classes exercise the authority and direct 
 all social activity. 
 
 Do not here bring forward the insipid commonplace that, 
 "properly speaking, they have no " classes " in the States and 
 that the " people " govern there ! No classes? Indeed ! 
 
 Roam around in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, or in 
 any of the towns above a country village for that matter, 
 and you will find them all mapped out into districts strictly 
 according to the poverty or wealth of the inhabitants. 
 Those who live in the poorer districts along neglected, dirty 
 streets, in badly arranged and badly furnished houses, con- 
 
go THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 stitute a lower caste in fact, since nine-tentiis of tiiem can- 
 not by any possibility under our social system get out of it. 
 They and their children after them must remain in their 
 poverty, squalor, and degradation as long as this system en- 
 dures. In the healthy, beautiful, and comfortable quarters 
 we find those who arrogate to themselves the name of 
 "society," the "best people," "prominent citizens." 
 
 Which of these two classes govern, — the majority living 
 in tenement-houses, back alleys, and ill-smelling neighbor- 
 hoods, or the minority in the aristocratic districts ? 
 
 It is frequently remarked that " our best people " have 
 withdrawn themselves from politics. Suppose that is so, — 
 though it is also noticed that men of wealth lately have se- 
 cured seats in Congress to such an extent that the national 
 Senate to a great extent consists of very rich people, — still 
 that is very little to the point. For, since the State is the or- 
 ganized society, " politics " constitute but a trifle of the social 
 activities, compared with the various forms of industry. We 
 have seen that it is the " prominent citizens " who control 
 the manufactures, transportation, and commerce, who in- 
 deed exercise an autocratic control over these, and that 
 they are destined to do the like in agriculture within a short 
 time. Their control over the transporting interests of the 
 country — interests so dominant that it has been justly 
 said, " He who controls the highways of a nation, controls 
 the nation itself" — is indeed so supreme that Vanderbilt is 
 reported to have observed with refreshing candor, "The 
 roads are not run for the benefit of the dear public." No 
 matter whether he has been so candid or not, they certainly 
 are not. 
 
 Politics, then, form but a very small part of the social 
 activities. The people are said to govern these ; their 
 "government," in fact, consists in choosing on election day 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 91 
 
 between two sets of men presented for their suffrages. 
 What that amounts to we shall see in another chapter, and 
 shall here simply remark that as soon as the one or the 
 other set of men have been elected, they pass entirely out 
 of the control of the voters. Who, then, control the actions 
 of those thus chosen ? 
 
 I shall entirely pass by the ever-recurring charges of 
 bribery of legislators and whole legislatures. I shall pass 
 b)- another reported candid admission by Vanderbilt : 
 " When I want to buy up any politician I always find So- 
 and-so the most purchasable." I shall pass by the solemn 
 declaration of a committee of the legislature of the State 
 of New York, that no^bill could pass the Senate with- 
 out Vanderbilt's consent. I let all these things pass as 
 perhaps non-proven. 
 
 But one thing is so evident that no one will dream of dis- 
 puting it, as soon as its meaning is fairly understood : these 
 autocrats of the industrial affairs dictate the policy of the 
 government to legislatures and Congress, to presidents, 
 governors, and judges, and have dictated it since the es- 
 tablishment of the government. What I mean is simply 
 what I have all along insisted upon, that both the national 
 and local governments throughout profess allegiance to the 
 " let-alone " policy ; that all executive, legislative, and 
 judicial officers are trained from the day they enter schoof 
 or college to look on public affairs through " capitalistic " 
 spectacles. I simply mean to say that not one so-called 
 statesman of any influence in either of the two great politi- 
 cal parties ever dreams of interfering with the "business" 
 interests of our plutocrats, if he can help it. The very fact 
 that the sentiment, " Capital is sensitive ; it shrinks from 
 the very appearance of danger," is such a prominent one in 
 all State papers proves it. 
 
92 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMOmVEALTH 
 
 What need, then, for them " to go into politics" when 
 they already have their devoted retainers in every place of 
 authority ? 
 
 They need have no fear ever to be interfered with as long 
 as they retain their pre-eminent position in industrial affairs. 
 The ruling class industrially will always be the ruling class 
 politically. 
 
 Since the plutocrats form the ruling class in all modern 
 States, it is easy to understand why the negative view of the 
 State function has become the fashionable one ; and now 
 bearing in mind that their class dates its ascendency from 
 the late great revolutions, we are, furthermore, prepared to 
 be told that this view is a very modern one. No thinker nor 
 philosophic statesman up to the eighteenth century any- 
 where dreamed of it. Not until the exaggerated form of 
 the protestant doctrine of the independence of the individ- 
 ual had taken possession of men's minds ; not until the 
 great delusion had become prevalent that we have been 
 brought into this world each for the sake of himself ^ — a 
 delusion which suits our plutocrats, " our philistines," so well 
 — did it come into vogue. Then it was that the State was 
 by economic speculators deliberately degraded below a 
 peace officer or a watch-dog. 
 
 Class rule is always detrimental to the welfare of the 
 whole social organism, because classes, when in power, can- 
 not help considering themselves pre-eminently the State. 
 They, furthermore, cannot help being biased in favor of 
 their special interests, and, therefore, are necessarily hostile 
 to the rest of the nation, and, as we daily see in Amer- 
 ican free-traders and protectionists, hostile to each other. 
 Matthew Arnold speaks truly when he says that State action 
 by a hostile class ought to be deprecated. 
 
 Thus we find that while our autocrats generally are satis- 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 93 
 
 fied, and well may be satisfied, with their veto on all pro- 
 posed public measures prejudicial to their sinister interests, 
 and with interdicting all legislation in favor of the masses, 
 they never have objected to any State action that would 
 put money into their pockets. They have been, and still 
 are to a great extent, beneficiaries of the nation — another 
 proof that they really govern, even politically. 
 
 We all know that the national government has presented 
 six railroad companies with an empire of land as large as 
 Great Britain and Ireland, and half as much more ; and in 
 addition has guaranteed bonds of theirs, which with accrued 
 interest at the maturity of these bonds will amount to more 
 than ^180,000,000. We have already seen how the whole 
 machinery of government has been set and kept in motion 
 to acquire foreign markets for them our autocrats, and to 
 prepare the working classes for the requisite reduction in 
 wages, simply that this wage-system might secure a new 
 lease of life, however short and precarious, and however in- 
 jurious the eifect which this policy would have on the con- 
 dition of the workers. 
 
 We see to-day, as we have often seen, how agitated the 
 two great poUtical parties of the States are on the questions 
 of free- trade and protection. This issue makes it very 
 plain how paramount the influence of our autocrats is in 
 political affairs. It is the manufacturers who want protec- 
 tion j it is the commercial men who want free-trade. The 
 former undoubtedly pretend that protection benefits the 
 laboring classes ; but that this claim is a mere sham is evident 
 from the fact that they never have proposed to discourage 
 the immigration of foreign laborers ; that they violently 
 oppose proposals to that effect; that they, on the con- 
 trary, always have done all they could to encourage foreign 
 laborers to come over ; that they even send agents over to 
 
94 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 Europe to coax them by false pretences. The protection- 
 ist fleecers want protection for the results of labor, but free- 
 trade in labor. The commercial men, on the other hand, 
 whose interest it is to have free-trade in all things, never 
 have objected to handsome gifts from government for their 
 ships in the guise of, subsidies for the performance of mail 
 services. 
 
 Now, taking into consideration the sinister interests and 
 power of the ruling class, we say it is Utopian to hope to 
 have a legal normal working-day of eight hours, much more 
 so one of six hours, as Moody proposes in his " Land and 
 Labor," as long as the established order lasts. 
 
 Therefore it is Utopian to hope to have land nation- 
 alized, as Mr. George advocates, as long as we have the 
 wage- system. 
 
 Therefore the plutocrats will very likely succeed in their 
 strenuous opposition to the proposition made by a late 
 Postmaster-General, that the nation shall take possession of 
 the telegraphs of the country. But if they should at last be 
 compelled to yield, — because thfe necessities of the social 
 organism command it, — they are sure to demand and 
 receive extravagant compensation for their "property," for 
 the "vested rights" of capitalists have always been appre- 
 ciated j while, as we already have noted, the working classes 
 have never been thought entitled to compensation when 
 new machinery drove them out of old employments — all 
 for reasons above stated. 
 
 The Republic, therefore, just as all other modern States, 
 may properly be compared to some imaginable animal 
 organism where the blood, proceeding from the collective 
 digestion, is principally diverted to the stomach or the 
 brain, while the arms and legs are stinted as much as 
 possible. 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 95 
 
 And yet, mark one remarkable phenomenon : this, that 
 even ultra-protestant nations that adopted the negative view 
 of State activity in theory, have constantly been impelled by 
 an inward necessity to repudiate it in practice. It forbids 
 the State, as we have seen, to concern itself about the poor, 
 and yet the poor-law of Elizabeth (still in force in principle 
 in Great Britain and in the States) confers upon every man a 
 legal claim to relief from fiinds obtained by enforcing a con- 
 tribution from the general community. It forbids the State 
 to concern itself about schools, libraries, universities, asy- 
 lums, and hospitals, and yet it concerns itself more and 
 more with them. England is to this day proud of having 
 spent twenty millions of pounds in abolishing slavery in her 
 colonies; and in these latter days she is spreading her 
 activity over railroads and telegraphs without the least 
 apparent compunction of conscience. And the United 
 States (especially under Democratic control the champion 
 of this "let-alone" abomination) finds to-day her chief 
 glory in having torn slavery up by the roots with its strong 
 national arm. 
 
 How comes this? 
 
 Here we have reached the most important fact of human 
 history. 
 
 It is that, in the fourth place, the State, which is an 
 organism, and as such undergoing a process of develop- 
 ment, is, and has all along been, developing towards in- 
 creased activity. 
 
 Our modern civilization mainly consists in this, that the 
 State — that is, society in its organized form — has been 
 constantly expanding its jurisdiction, and has more and more 
 contracted the sphere of individual ownership and control, 
 Why, nearly everything the State now manages for us was 
 once intrusted to private individuals. 
 
96 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 Consider : criminal jurisprudence was once in private 
 hands, and was the first in time to be taken in charge by 
 the State. There was a time when the customs and na- 
 tional finances were farmed out to private persons ; but that 
 time is long passed by. Then the State turned its attention 
 to postal affairs, and they are now everywhere under na- 
 tional control. The world has entirely forgotten that these 
 affairs once were private enterprises, simply because the 
 State has managed them so much better than was formerly 
 done. The whole struggle between State and Church is 
 also here in point ; the principal consequence of that strug- 
 gle has been that nearly all civilized States have taken 
 charge of education, which undoubtedly will also soon in 
 America be a matter of national concein. There are still 
 other matters in which the older States of Europe in this 
 development are ahead of America, — national control of 
 railroads and telegraphs. And in proposing that the State 
 shall ensure workingmen against accidents and against want 
 in their old age, Bismarck is virtually impelled by the same 
 spirit, rather than by any concern for the welfare of the 
 working classes 
 
 Thus everywhere the social organism has once for all got 
 the impetus in that direction, and the movement is gather- 
 ing greater momentum. That is why it is now everywhere 
 in the air. Therefore this fact is the true rationale of 
 socialism. 
 
 Herbert Spencer sees it clearly. " The Man versus the 
 State" — and especially the essay, "The Coming Slavery " 
 — is written to call attention to that fact and to bewail it : 
 "The numerous socialistic changes made by act of Parlia- 
 ment, joined with the numerous others presently to be made, 
 will by and by be all merged in State socialism." " Evi- 
 dently, then, the changes made, the changes in progress. 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 97 
 
 and the changes urged will carry us . . . towards State 
 usurpation of all industries," etc. These essays, indeed, 
 have been written as a warning ; its author frantically cries : 
 " Beware, society ! you are reaching towards destruction ! " 
 
 In doing this, Herbert Spencer acts like the hen that had 
 adopted and tended an orphaned duckling, and that after- 
 wards flapped her wings and cackled horror-stricken when 
 her protege persisted in going into the water. He has 
 nobly vindicated the organic character of society ; but now, 
 when it is simply obeying the law of evolution, he is thor- 
 oughly convinced that it is going astray. To us the point 
 of importance is the direction in which society is tending ; 
 we believe that to be the one towards which it ought to 
 develop. 
 
 But, then, Herbert Spencer also teaches that individuals 
 are the source of State authority. Since the State is an or- 
 ganism, that cannot be. I am compelled to assume that 
 source to be some power behind — whether, with the theists, 
 we call it " God ; " or, with the atheists, " The Laws of Life ;" 
 or, with Spencer, "The Unknowable." I prefer to call it 
 the Will of the Universe, and" can say of it, with Carlyle, — 
 only changing a word, — " understand that that will is the 
 best for you ; that, howsoever sore to flesh and blood, you 
 will find it the wisest, best ; you are bound to take it so ; in 
 this world and the next you have no other thing that you 
 can do." 
 
 But the important thing is that this class-state will de- 
 velop into a commonwealth — a splendid English word, 
 prophetic of what is coming ! It will develop into a State 
 where the whole population is incorporated into society — 
 the full-grown society, the normal State. No more a par- 
 ticle of distinction between the terms " State " and society ; 
 the two ideas will come to cover each other, will become 
 
98 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 synonymous. In the place of the present partially evolved 
 organism, in which the arms and legs and to a great extent 
 the brain are stinted in blood as much as possible, we shall 
 have an organism " whose every organ shall receive blood in 
 proportion to the work it .does," in the language of 
 Spencer. 
 
 That is to say, the commonwealth will be a state of 
 equality. 
 
 It is said that " we already have equality," and when we 
 ask the meaning of thje phrase, we are told that all are 
 " equal before the law." If that were really the case — 
 what it is not — it would be but a poor kind of equality. 
 The cells of the root and of the flower in a plant are 
 " equal ; " the cells of the foot and of the heart in an animal 
 are " equal," for they are all properly cared for ; the organ- 
 ism knows of no " higher " and " lower " organs or cells. 
 And so it will be in the future commonwealth ; there 
 " equality " will mean that every unit of society can truly 
 say to any other unit, " I am not less than a man, and thou 
 are not more than a man." 
 
 Again, our commonwealth will put interdependence in 
 the place of the "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
 " happiness," asserted by the American Declaration of In- 
 dependence. What use is it to possess the " right " to do 
 something when you have not the power, the means, the op- 
 portunity to do it ? Is this right to the pursuit of " happiness " 
 not a mocking irony to the masses who cannot pursue " hap- 
 piness " ? We saw how the millionaire and beggar would be 
 equally miserable outside of the State, and behold how much 
 this rights-of-man doctrine has done for the former and how 
 very little for the latter ! 
 
 The future commonwealth will help every individual to 
 attain the highest development he or she has capacity for. 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE 99 
 
 It will lay a cover for every one at nature's table. " State " 
 and " State help " will be as inseparable as a piano and 
 music. 
 
 Do not now object, as young Spencer did in "Social 
 Statics," that this means " transforming every citizen into a 
 grown-up baby; " for the objection is not to the point at 
 all. 
 
 State help is not to do away with a man's own efforts. I 
 do not do away with a man's own efforts when I hand him a 
 ladder. I do not set aside his own exertions in cultivating 
 a field because I give him a plough. Our State does not 
 render useless the powers of a boy when it furnishes him 
 school, teachers, and libraries. Our commonwealth will 
 relieve none of self-help, but make self-help possible to all. 
 t will help everybody to help himself. 
 
 It is worth nothing that our modern insurance com- 
 panies, particularly those of life insurance, are training us up 
 to interdependence, for do they not make the strong and 
 temperate of us use their prolonged lives to pay up pre- 
 miums which go to the progeny of the weak and reckless? 
 
 " But what about liberty?" the reader may ask. 
 
 Many worthy persons, as I said commencing this chapter, 
 entertain the fear which shines forth in Mill's famous essay 
 on " Liberty " — the fear lest freedom should be drilled 
 and disciplined out of human life, in order that the great 
 mill of the commonwealth should grind smoothly.' To as- 
 certain whether or not this fear is well grounded, we must 
 first know what we are to understand by the words " free- 
 dom " and "liberty. " 
 
 Everybody calls not being oppressed, " liberty." That 
 
 1 1 must say that it is a g^reat pity that Bellam}' seems to justify this fear by 
 the love of militarism he displays in " Looking Backward. ' ' But this is not 
 socialism ; it is the very reverse of vt. 
 
TOO THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMON-WEALTH 
 
 is undoubtedly an indispensable, and yet, as has been 
 said, a most insignificant fractional part of human freedom. 
 Then, again, we mean by " liberty, " not being restrained ; 
 being " at liberty " to do this or that. Now, that may be a 
 good thing, or otherwise. Whether it be the one or the 
 other depends entirely upon the answer to the question : 
 To do what? 
 
 To be " at liberty" to be a tramp, or to die of starvation, 
 or to steal, or to be lodged in a jail, are not good things. 
 We sometimes find a great lout in a railroad car who thinks 
 he is " at liberty " to spread himself over four seats, but oc- 
 casionally he finds . that he is not ; that he must take his 
 feet down and sit along. The liberty of this lout is the 
 "liberty" which our shrewd, grasping, vulgar autocrats 
 glorify, for it means the predominance of their interests 
 over everybody's else interests, — over the general welfare. 
 It is in the name of that " liberty " that all fleecing is 
 done. 
 
 Of that kind of liberty there always has been too much 
 in the world — somewhere. That kind of liberty means 
 slavery to somebody ; means, as the Yankee defined it, " to 
 do what he liked, and make everybody else." 
 
 Every struggle for real liberty has been a struggle against 
 that sort of " liberty " entrenched in classes. Progress de- 
 mands the curbing of that kind of " liberty," and our 
 commonwealth will use no gloves in handling it. 
 
 The' fact is there is a radical difference between liberty 
 to do the right thing, and liberty to do the wrong thing. 
 That is why young Spencer could not draw any sound con- 
 clusion from his so-called " principle," — " That every man 
 has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he does not 
 infringe on the like freedom of any other man," — because 
 no one can do any wrong act without doing harm to other 
 
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE lOr 
 
 men ; or, as Professor Huxley puts it : " The higher the 
 state of civilization, the more completely do the actions of 
 one member of the social body influence all the rest, and 
 the less possible is it for one man to do a wrong thing with- 
 out interfering more or less with the freedom of all his fel- 
 low-citizens." 
 
 Liberty is a negative term ; the glorious English word 
 "freedom" is positive. There is the same difference be- 
 tween " liberty " and " freedom " as between " right " and 
 " might," between " fiction " and " fact," between " shadow " 
 and " substance. " 
 
 " Freedom " is something substantial. A man who is 
 ignorant is not free. A man who is a tramp is not free. A 
 man who sees his wife and children starving is not free. A 
 man who must toil twelve hours a day in order to vege- 
 tate is not free. A man who is full of cares is not free. 
 A wage-worker, whether laborer or clerk, who every day 
 for certain hours must be at the beck and call of a 
 " master," is not free. As Shelley says in the " Apostro- 
 phe to Freedom : " — 
 
 " For the laborer thou art bread." 
 
 Right, SO , far. But freedom is not alone bread, but 
 leisure, absence of cares, self-determination, ability and 
 means to do the right thing. As Locke says : " That which 
 has the power to operate is that alone which is free." Re- 
 straint very often is just requisite to develop that power ; 
 indeed, restraint is the very life of freedom. 
 
 Freedom is something the individual unaided can never 
 achieve. He is as drift-wood in a flood. It is something 
 to be conferred on him by a well organized body politic. 
 
 Now, certain people have altogether too much " liberty." 
 Our commonwealth will evolve that priceless good, freedom. 
 
102 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 That is what the State is developing up to : a Common- 
 wealth of interdependence, equality, freedom — The Co- 
 operative Commonwealth, which in the following chapter 
 will be seen to be now expedient, for the first time in 
 human history. 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 103 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 " The relations of structures are actually such, that, by the help of a cen- 
 tral regulative system, each organ is supplied with blood in proportion to 
 the work it does." — Herbert Spencer. 
 
 " No thinking man will controvert that associated industry is the most 
 powerful agent of production, and that the principle of association is sus- 
 ceptible of further and beneficial development." — John Stuart Mill. 
 
 " All human interests, combined human endeavors and social growths in 
 this world, have at a certain stage of their development required organizing; 
 and work, the grandest of human interests, does now require it." — Carfyle. 
 
 THE co-operative commonwealth, our objective point, 
 is now reached. The previous chapters were mere 
 stepping-stones, leading us to where we are, but, as such, 
 indispensable, for it is their reasoning, rather than its own 
 reasonableness, which will determine whether or not the 
 socialist system is to be, like Thomas More's imaginary 
 island, a "Utopia," an unreality. 
 
 The observation in the American Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, " that mankind are more disposed to suffer while 
 evils are sufFerable, than to right themselves by abolishing 
 the forms to which they are accustomed," is true of changes 
 in forms of government, but much more true of alterations 
 in the structure of society. To these, in fact, nations must 
 be driven by an inward necessity. 
 
 For this reason I had to show that the present chaotic 
 system with all instruments of labor in private hands will soon 
 become unbearable, and renders a change of some kind in- 
 evitably impending. For this reason, further, I had to point 
 
I04 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 out the significance of the recent factory and educational 
 legislation and State action in regard to railroads and tele- 
 graphs, accomplished or proposed in the United States and 
 Great Britain, and to show that this extension of the State's 
 activity was a sign that society is approaching a crisis in its 
 development ; an indication that this transitory state in which 
 we are living, after having lasted about as long as that other 
 transitory state between Paganism and Christianity, is on the 
 point of crystallizing into another enduring social order. 
 
 These reflections will make it clear — and we cannot lay 
 too much stress upon it — that modern socialists do not pre- 
 tend to be architects of the new order. That is to say, they 
 do not propose to demolish the present order of things, as 
 we tear down an old building, and then compel humanity to 
 rear a new edifice according to any plan that they have 
 drawn. They have no such absurd idea, just because they 
 know that society is not an edifice at all, but an organism ; 
 and men are not in the habit of " planning " the develop- 
 ment of a dog or a rose-bush. 
 
 Right here is the radical distinction between us socialists 
 of the German school, and such socialists as St. Simon 
 and Fourier. These had the same faults to find with the 
 present social order as we have ; they were, indeed, capital 
 critics ; but as reformers they were miserable failures simply 
 because they wanted to be architects — inventors. They 
 entirely ignored all social and political conditions and 
 wanted mankind to don their ready-made systems as men 
 do ready-made clothes. Fourier fancied that he had only 
 to publish his system and all classes of Frenchmen would 
 eagerly embrace it, and in the twinkling of an eye trans- 
 form all France into " phalansteries." St. Simon went even 
 to the length of having his first scheme patented. 
 
 They, and all the old-style socialists, represent the child- 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 1 05 
 
 hood of our movement, stand in the same relation to it as 
 astrology and alchemy do to physical science. All great 
 changes that have taken place in the world have had to pass 
 through a " Utopian " phase. These primitive socialists 
 were true "utopists." They invented systems; we are in- 
 tent on discovering the laws of development. They framed 
 universal precepts ; we ascertain universal sequences. 
 
 For what is the co-operative commonwealth ? 
 
 Extend in your mind division of labor and all the other 
 factors that increase the productivity of labor ; apply them 
 to all human pursuits as far as can be ; imagine manu- 
 factures, transportation, and commerce conducted on the 
 grandest possible scale and in the most effective manner ; 
 then add to division of labor its complement, concert ; 
 introduce adjustment everywhere where now there is 
 anarchy ; add that central regulative system which Spencer 
 says distinguishes all highly organized structures, and which 
 supplies " each organ with blood in proportion to the work 
 it does," and — behold the Co-operative Commonwealth ! 
 
 The co-operative commonwealth, then, is that future 
 social order — the natural heir of the present one — in 
 which all important instruments of production have been 
 taken under collective control ; in which the citizens are 
 consciously public functionaries, and in which their labors 
 are rewarded according to results. 
 
 A definition is an argument. 
 
 The above definition shows that our critics, when they 
 style socialism a Utopia, do not know about what they are 
 talking. We can imagine a caterpillar, more knowing than 
 its fellows, predicting to another that some day they both 
 will be butterflies, and the other sneeringly replying, 
 "What Utopian nonsense you are talking there!" Our 
 censors are just as ignorant of the groundwork of socialism. 
 
Io6 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 for our definition makes it evident that the co-operative 
 commonwealth is not to be regarded as a product of per- 
 sonal conceit, but as an historical product, as a product in 
 which our whole people are unconscious partakers. When 
 the times are ripe for social co-operation, it will be just as 
 expedient as feudalism was, or as a private enterprise was, 
 when each, respectively, made it's appearance. It will 
 prove its right to control by virtue of its own superior 
 fitness. 
 
 Or, is there anything Utopian in predicting that division 
 of labor will go on increasing ? Has not wholesale produc- 
 tion already vindicated its right to be the ruling system, and 
 is it Utopian to assert that private ownership of capital, so 
 far from being necessary to production in wholesale, will 
 prove a greater and greater obstruction to its inevitable de- 
 velopment ? ^ Is it Utopian to expect that all enterprises 
 will become more and more centralized, until in the fulness 
 of time they all end in one monopoly, that of society? 
 Are not, indeed, anti-monopolists — as far as they believe 
 that they can crush the big establishments, or even prevent 
 their growth — the real utopists ? 
 
 But that is by no means all. Not alone is the necessity 
 which we claim will drive the nations into socialism steadily 
 growing, but all civiUzed societies are being driven into ' 
 socialism under our very eyes, as Herbert Spencer bears 
 testimony. Not alone are the conditions for the establish- 
 ment of the new order fast ripening, but the new order is 
 amongst us and asserting itself vigorously. Not only is the 
 social organism growing from the circumference by society 
 multiplying and subdividing its activities and again concen- 
 trating them, but the central regulative system has silently 
 
 trating 
 
 ;his point William H. Mallock criticises me in several columns of the 
 es Gazette ; for particulars see " Our Destiny," Chapter I, 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH \OJ 
 
 put in an appearance and is irresistibly organizing one social 
 activity after another. This is a fact of transcendent signifi- 
 cance ; and yet our politicians, the gentlemen of our " edi- 
 torial staffs," our would-be-wise leaders and statesmen, seem 
 not to have the smallest inkling of it. They all look upon 
 the factory legislation, the agitation for nationalization of 
 the land and national control of the telegraphs as isolated, 
 rash expedients, while a philosopher like Herbert Spencer, 
 who does see the tendency of things, frantically proclaims 
 that society is going astray ! 
 
 The growth of State activity is therefore, I again insist, 
 the true rationale of socialism. 
 
 The cry, " Beware, it is socialistic ! " will have absolutely 
 no effect. The State will go on expanding its jurisdiction, 
 hurry on to its destiny, without asking or caring if it is 
 "socialistic." The workingmen and grangers will continue 
 to importune the State to come to their relief, without 
 knowing anything about sociaUsm. Henry George has writ- 
 ten a book that has enticed very many persons very far out 
 on the road to socialism, protesting all the time that he is 
 not a socialist. Frederic Harrison abominates socialism, 
 and yet preaches, " Look to the State ! From that you can 
 expect the highest experience and skill, publicity, concen- 
 tration of power, real and efficient control, a national aim 
 and spirit, and far more true responsibility." 
 
 But it is evident that the process of placing all industries 
 and all instruments of labor under collective control will be 
 carried on with far more energy and directness, when once 
 the eyes of people are opened to the fact that the State is 
 not some power outside the people, but that it is the social 
 organism itself, and that, as an organism, it is destined to 
 grow until it embraces all social activities. Hitherto the 
 State has acted from impulse, in opposition to accepted 
 
I08 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 theories. But a logical foundation of some sort is necessary 
 to all great movements. Rousseau's theory of a "social 
 contract," though false, did a great service to humanity, by 
 serving as a logical basis for the American and French 
 Revolutions. 
 
 The new social order to which we look forward is thus, 
 certainly, the very reverse to Utopian. As an historical prod- 
 uct from every point of view wc consider it, it will be a 
 natural product, hence rational. "Whatever is, is rational," 
 Hegel said ; that is, it necessarily conforms to the inner- 
 most nature of things ; and so, whatever is to be, is ra- 
 tional. As soon as the people learn not to be scared by 
 the word " socialism ; " as soon as they learn the true nature 
 of the State and see whither they are drifting, the co-oper- 
 ative commonwealth will be the only expedient — fit, suita- 
 ble — system. But it certainly was not expedient when 
 Plato wrote his " Republic ; " it was not expedient, but was a 
 " Utopia," in the times of Thomas More ; it was not expedi- 
 ent when St. Simon " invented " his system, for private en- 
 terprise with the steam-engine and other inventions had 
 first to increase the productive capacity of a man a thou- 
 sand times, and thus to prepare the way for it. And when it 
 becomes expedient, it will be so for the first time in human 
 history. 
 
 The co-operative commonwealth — (mark !) the full- 
 grown society; the normal State — will be a social order 
 that will endure as long as society itself, for no higher evolu- 
 tion is thinkable, except organized humanity, and that is 
 but social co-operation extended to the whole human race. 
 It will effect a complete regeneration of society : in its 
 economic, politic, and juridic relations ; in the condition of 
 women and in the education of youth (indeed its chief con- 
 cern, its true starting-point) ; in morals, and, we may add, 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 1 09 
 
 in religion and philosophy. The remainder of this treatise 
 will draw in barest outline this normal State in these various 
 relations, in the order above named, for the economic feat- 
 ures are the foundation of every social system, out of which 
 grow all the others, morals and religion last of all. It is — 
 as I once observed, at the top — in morals and philoso- 
 phy that all changes from one social order to another com- 
 mence, from whence they insinuate themselves down to the 
 material conditions ; there the change of base takes place 
 and the new superstructure is then gradually built up. 
 Therefore, also, I defined my system in economic terras 
 alone. It is the economic features which alone will be 
 traced in this and the following chapter. 
 
 It must be evident to every fair-minded man that this 
 new order — where every worker will be remunerated ac- 
 cording to results — is in no sense communistic. Socialism 
 and communism are, in fact, two radically different systems ; 
 and yet they are constantly confounded, even by well-in- 
 formed people. I wish I could in a serious work like 
 this entirely ignore the vulgar conception of communism, 
 that it proposes "to divide all property into equal parts j " 
 but wherua man like Professor Fawcett, of England, gives 
 currency to this vulgarism in these words and then proceeds 
 to lecture us, saying, " If the State divided all lands among 
 the inhabitants, there would gradually arise the same in- 
 equality of wealth which exists now," we must notice it 
 sufficiently to say that nowadays no one outside of a 
 lunatic asylum proposes any such thing, and that Professor 
 Fawcett ought to know it. 
 
 The communism I mean is that practised by the Shak- 
 ers and similar bodies, bound together by some form of re- 
 ligious belief or unbelief. Their peculiar method of giving 
 practical effect to their doctrines is different from ours ; I 
 
no THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 believe that to retire from the world, as they do, is a pool 
 way of reforming the world ; I believe it is with reformers 
 as with yeast, — it must be mixed with the dough to act upon 
 it ; if kept to itself, it spoils. But what is most important, 
 their principles — in which they agree with political com- 
 munists — are diametrically opposed to ours. Communists 
 make all property common property, while our common- 
 wealth will place only the instruments of production — 
 land, machinery, raw materials, etc. — under collective con- 
 trol. They require every one to do his share of labor, and 
 allow him to consume as he needs. Our commonwealth 
 leaves everybody at perfect liberty to work as much or as little 
 as he pleases, or not at all, but "makes his consumption 
 exactly commensurate with his performances. Adam Smith 
 observed that " the produce of labor is the natural recom- 
 pense of labor," and St. Paul laid it down, " Whoever 
 does not work, neither shall he eat ; " and the new system 
 — as my definition points out — will put these doctrines 
 into practice. 
 
 In short, the motto of socialism is : " Everybody ac- 
 cording to his deeds ; " that of communism is : " Everybody 
 according to his needs." The communist motto is undoubt- 
 edly a very generous one, more generous than ours ; but our 
 motto is 'more just, taking human nature as it is; and the 
 fact that socialists take human nature as it is, is just their 
 merit. Indeed, if I define capitalism as the fleecing of ■ 
 the weak by the strong, communism might be defined to be 
 a fleecing of the strong by the weak, an observation already 
 made by Proudhon ; though the " strong " under our sys- 
 tem simply means those buoyed up to the top, while under 
 the latter system they would mean the truly, physically or 
 intellectually, strong. 
 
 Communism must therefore plead guilty to the charges : 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMOmVEALTH ill 
 
 first, that it means to abolish the institution of property ; 
 and, next, that it must result in crushing out all individu- 
 ality. Socialism not only will do neither of these things, but 
 the very reverse. Instead of taking property away from 
 everybody, it will enable everybody to acquire property. 
 It will truly sanctify the institution of individual ownership 
 by placing property on an unimpeachable basis, that of 
 being the result of one's individual exertions. Thereby jt 
 will afford the very mightiest stimulus for individuality to 
 unfold itself Property will belong to its possessor by the 
 strongest of all titles, to be enjoyed as he thinks proper, 
 but not to be used as an instrument of fleecing his fellow- 
 citizens. 
 
 Next let us pass in review one after another of the chief 
 industries, and note the most obvious advantages that 
 will flow from social co-operation. But especially here 
 will our motto apply, that " our purpose is not to make 
 people read, but to make them think. " For the experi- 
 ence of our readers will naturally supply them with innu- 
 merable other cases in point. 
 
 Take, first, manufacturers. 
 
 Suppose there are at present in a given city a hundred 
 blacksmiths, who together employ four hundred men. The 
 hundred bosses spend necessarily a great deal of their time 
 in seeking jobs. In this pursuit they are constantly thwart- 
 ing each other's purposes and trying to beat each other. 
 ,When in their shops, they have directions to give, estimates 
 to prepare, letters to write, and bills to make out. They all 
 perform a laborious and necessary work, and yet the pro- 
 ductive result of their work is very insignificant. 
 
 Again, these hundred employers have a hundred different 
 shops, a hundred different fireplaces, whjch take up very 
 much space and use up very much fuel. The money spent 
 
112 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 in renting these shops, in constructing these fireplaces and 
 bellows, and for the fuel which is thus wasted, would be 
 sufficient to build a most magnificent co-operative factory 
 in which these bosses and wage-workers might, as co-opera- 
 tive workers, find steady and remunerative employment. 
 
 Again, in these hundred shops there are a number of 
 tools and machines that might be reduced immensely, if 
 these five hundred blacksmiths worked in common ; while, 
 on the other hand, a good many machines and implements 
 could be introduced into such a co-operative factory which 
 at present even the richest of those employers is not able, 
 or at least not willing, to procure, because even his business 
 is not large enough to warrant the outlay. 
 
 Add to this that very seldom a man is a good artisan and 
 a good man of business, and it will be evident from this 
 example, that if all manufactu-riug enterprises were concen- 
 trated to the same extent that we might imagine this smith- 
 ing business concentrated, the dispensing with much useless, 
 and therefore unproductive work, the reduction in operative 
 expenses, and especially the most fruitful division of labor 
 which could be inaugurated, would immensely enrich so- 
 ciety. Every large factory which arises on the ruin of the 
 shops of the small artisans I consider an advance in civil- 
 ization, simply because the more production is being organ- 
 ized on a large scale, the easier it will be for the associated 
 worker, by the authority of the co-operative common- 
 wealth, to take charge of it, and secure to themselves the 
 utmost benefit of inventions, machinery, and division of 
 employments. 
 
 Further : at present our hundred bosses are frequently in 
 financial embarrassment ; but few of them accumulate a 
 competence for their old age ; many succumb to competi- 
 tion and crises, while their workmen are nothing but wage- 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 1 13 
 
 slaves, having violent periods of overwork, followed by long 
 and terrible stagnation. The working in concert under the 
 co-operative commonwealth will reduce all risk, all crises, 
 all production beyond the effective demand, to a minimum. 
 
 Peter and Paul run risks, because the cannibals John and 
 James stand ready to eat them up at a given opportunity. 
 But the whole production of a country in any given branch 
 need run hardly any risk at all. Do away with the secrecy 
 which now obtains in our manufacturing establishments ; 
 shut up those gambling shops, the stock and produce ex- 
 changes ; let scientific statistics be taken of the demand 
 and supply in all parts of the country, and elsewhere if 
 practicable ; in other words, introduce systematic work 
 instead of planless work, and crises and " overproduction " 
 will be next to impossible. Whatever losses may occur 
 from inaccuracies in statistics or unavoidable mishaps will 
 be almost inappreciable, being borne by the whole country. 
 Thus, our commonwealth will be what a commonwealth 
 ought to be, — the general insurance company. 
 
 The advantages of the commonwealth being the sole 
 merchant are evident ; they will be .all that our grangers and 
 voluntary co-operationists are in the habit of expecting from 
 their schemes, and not include one of the disadvantages 
 which, in a previous chapter, we saw necessarily resulting 
 from these. Under our commonwealth the small shop- 
 keepers, peddlers, commission merchants, and all of that 
 sort will disappear. No more need for bribing newspapers 
 for puffs ; no longer any temptation to use lying labels or 
 sell adulterated goods. A bale of cotton will not, as now, 
 have to be sold ten times over to get from the producer into 
 the hands of the consumer. Never more shall we find 
 twenty drug-stores in a little town that only needs one. 
 
 No, indeed ! In place of that we shall have great per- 
 
114 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 manent bazaars, embracing all possible articles of consump- 
 tion, of which we even now, here and there, can find insig- 
 nificant miniature models — and thanks to their chiefs foi 
 furnishing us those models ! 
 
 The salesmen and saleswomen in these bazaars will be 
 quite different beings from those of the present day, who 
 are very often slaves from morning till late at night. They 
 will, like all other citizens, be self-respecting human beings, 
 with plenty of leisure at their command. 
 
 The greatest gain to society, however, in taking control 
 of commerce will perhaps be found in the suppression of 
 that talent, so peculiar to our philistines and seemingly ac- 
 quired by them with their mother's milk, — ■ the faculty of 
 speculation ; a talent which contributes nothing to produc- 
 tion, but whose only end and aim is the transfer of wealth 
 from one pocket into another. Nearly all workers are de- 
 void of that talent. The new regime will, like the Man of 
 the New Testament, lash the howling lunatics, the brokers 
 and coroners, out of our stock and other exchanges, which 
 will be devoted to nobler uses ; for co-operation and spec- 
 ulation are strangers. 
 
 "Trade " — as far as it means the buying and selKng of 
 goods for the sake of profit — will at home be changed 
 into distribution of the produce of labor among the work- 
 ers, and, as to foreign countries, into genuine commerce ; 
 i.e., the exchange of such home products we do not need 
 for such foreign products we may need. 
 
 These changes in manufactures and commerce will natu- 
 rally affect transportation in a remarkable degree. While 
 now our mails, railroads, ships, and wagons do business for 
 innumerable private concerns, in the new commonwealth 
 they will do business for one only. What a colossal con- 
 centration and simplification of transportation does that, in 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 115 
 
 itself, imply ! Bear in mind simply the mass of drays and 
 wagons of every sort which now in every one of our popu- 
 lous cities choke up our streets and distract most people's 
 nerves ! Think of the amount of human and animal la- 
 bor now absolutely wasted in this way ! It might, indeed, 
 be difficult for those now living to recognize the aspect of 
 our cities, to b0 brought about by this simplification alone, 
 under the new order of things. 
 
 Transportation itself, of course, will be taken under col- 
 elective control, and thus the radical wrong undone of grant- 
 ing public concessions to individuals for the express purpose 
 of making our highways subservient to private interests. For 
 what are now our railway corporations but a clique of per- 
 sons empowered by law to use these highways, in the first 
 place for their own benefit, and only incidentally for the 
 public convenience? 
 
 It is just as easy to demonstrate the vast superiority of 
 social co-operative farming, over the present style. 
 
 The prevailing isolated mode of agriculture wastes an 
 immense amount of human and animal labor, of time, and 
 of materials. What an economy would there be in having 
 one large stable, one large yard, one large barn, in the 
 place of one hundred stables, yards, and barns ! What an 
 enormous sum of money could be saved in this single item 
 of fences ! How many wagons and horses will be rendered 
 superfluous when the co-operative commonwealth takes 
 charge of agriculture ! How many persons will be made 
 available for manufacturing and other productive pursuits ! 
 And as to time, these words of Professor Fawcett are sug- 
 gestive : " It has been calculated that a steam-cultivatoi 
 w Duld plough a square field of ten acres in half the time 
 occupied in ploughing two fields of five acres each, and 
 with two-thirds the expense." 
 
Il6 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 But why waste any words in abstract demonstration ? Do 
 not the "bonanza farms" teach us practically the lesson? 
 And will not the hundreds of " bonanza farms " of the near 
 future eventually knock the lesson even into the heads of 
 our country cousins ? Do they not already practically de- 
 monstrate that there are a hundred thingb requisite for thor- 
 ough farming, that only can be had by cultivation on a 
 grand scale? Do not the "creameries" that everywhere 
 are springing up show that butter and cheese can be made 
 much better and more cheaply in one dairy than on a hun- 
 dred farms ? The farmers of the United States cannot help 
 finding out, by and by, that social co-operative farming will 
 prove to them an immense benefit, simply in a financial 
 point of view ; and it should be a matter of greatest en- 
 couragement to know that the agricultural laborers of Eng- 
 land are, through the efforts of Bolton King and others, in 
 many places demonstrating to their fellows the practicability 
 and the benefits of co-operative agriculture. 
 
 It is certainly easy to comprehend that association, in 
 Mill's words, "is the most powerful agent of production." 
 A few words ought to suffice to prove that. It ought, 
 indeed, to be easy to see that social co-operation will in- 
 crease the total production of our country at least as much 
 beyond the capabihty of the present system as the latter 
 surpasses that of the middle ages in proportion to popula- 
 tion. This it will do by adding, simply, concert ; by inocu- 
 lating into the social organism that central regulative system 
 which Spencer finds in all other high organisms, but of 
 which he apparently sees no need in the social organism, 
 the highest of all. For this concert, this regulative system, 
 will reduce immensely all- operative expenses, in manu- 
 factures, in exchange, in transportation, in agriculture ; it 
 will prevent waste ; it will do away with nearly all risk 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 1 17 
 
 and, lastly, it will permit the most advantageous division of 
 labor. 
 
 He is said to be one of the great benefactors of man- 
 kind who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew 
 before. What then is to be said of the men who are deter- 
 mined to develop society, as quickly as possible, up to the 
 adoption of a system of production demanded by the condi- 
 tions of the age, and which will increase to an unprece- 
 dented degree the net results of all our industries, and evi- 
 dently lead to innumerable technical improvements in all 
 their branches ? 
 
 This fructification of labor will, on the first view, readily 
 make social co-operation appear highly desirable. But the 
 objection, that this increase of the means of subsistence and 
 enjoyment really means a far greater " overproduction " 
 than has yet confronted us, lies very near. It is precisely 
 the principal excellence of the co-operative commonwealth 
 that it will create an effective demand for even the greatest 
 imaginable production. 
 
 I said in the preceding chapter that the full-grown State 
 will help every one of its citizens to help himself. That, 
 first of all, means that it will furnish employment — pro- 
 ductive employment, and such employment as they respect- 
 ively may be best fitted for — to all citizens ; thus enabling 
 them to pay for anything they may want or wish for, which 
 is what is meant by " effective " demand. 
 
 After what I have already said in regard to "natural 
 rights," it cannot be supposed that I lay any stress on the 
 so-called natural " right to labor." And yet more can be 
 said in favor of that claim than any other " natural right." 
 Of course " right to labor " is a very inept phrase ; nobody 
 really complains of not being sufficiently burdened with toil. 
 But all know well enough that it is meant to assert a claim 
 
Il8 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 to a decent livelihood, to be gained by profitable labor. 
 Now, if it be once admitted, what even Herbert Spencer 
 affirms, that land is the common heritage of all, then there 
 is very great force in the argument of such philosophers as 
 Fichte and Considerant, that " Those who are not proprietors 
 of land must, as a compensation for the common property 
 which they have lost, be guaranteed the right to labor." 
 And communities have, as a matter of fact, recognized 
 the force of that claim. The poor-law of England is a 
 recognition of it. And though it seems unknown to even 
 professional lawyers, a Pennsylvania statute provides as fol- 
 lows : " If such poor person be able to work, but cannot 
 find employment, it shall be the duty of the overseers to 
 provide work for him according to his abihty, and for this 
 purpose they shall procure suitable places and a suitable 
 stock of materials." 
 
 But it should be distinctly understood that I do not 
 think the coming commonwealth will base its action on this 
 ground, but on quite another. 
 
 Malthus says brutally, in his " Essay on Population," that 
 the man born into the world whose family cannot support 
 him and whose labor is not in demand, must take himself 
 away. " For him there is no cover laid at nature's table. " 
 
 Now, in reply, I affirm that in our commonwealth there 
 will be a demand for the labor of every citizen. This is a prop- 
 osition to which every one, on a little reflection, will assent. 
 
 Mark ! I speak of productive labor, and mean thereby 
 labor that creates anything which men desire. This desire 
 is absolutely unlimited. The desire for certain staple arti- 
 cles of food, or for this or that manufactured article, or for a 
 given means of enjoyment, may be limited ; but the desire 
 for the products of human labor and skill in general, physi- 
 cal, artistic, or intellectual — never 1 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 119 
 
 The desire for — that is, the power of — consumption in 
 the body of the citizens is thus boundless ; and they will 
 have the means to pay for all there is to consume. Under 
 the new order all will be productive workers ; they will be 
 paid an equivalent for what they produce, — not merely one- 
 half of it, as now under the wage-system, — in some form. 
 Consequently their purchasing powers will in all cases bal- 
 ance the total production. 
 
 There is a demand for the labor of eyery man under any 
 well-ordered social system. If there is a waste of men now, 
 it is Hie. fault of the wage-system. A slave was actually 
 ■ worth what he would fetch, and there were very few slaves 
 who would fetch nothing. Why, in a free commonwealth, 
 should men be of less account ? Cattle are valuable ; why 
 not men ? Carlyle remarks : " A white European man, 
 standing on his two legs, with his two five-fingered 
 hands at his shackle bones, and a miraculous head on his 
 shoulders, is worth, I should say, from fifty to one hundred 
 horses." 
 
 By giving all the idle employment, by putting all our 
 parasites and superfluous workers where they can work pro- 
 ductively, our commonwealth will create the needed effective 
 demand. And more than that, the stock of the good 
 things of this Ufe will thereby be very much enlarged, per- 
 haps doubled. 
 
 But do not believe that when I say that the State will 
 furnish all profitable employment, I mean that every one 
 will have to do manual labor. Labor undoubtedly will then 
 come to honor ; work will then be a beneficent law, and 
 not an oppressive rule as now ; but brain work will have its 
 due weight : the new commonwealth will not be a State of 
 mechanics. In all States that at present pretend to give its 
 citizens educational facilities, it seems to be entirely over- 
 
I20 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 looked that education and aspiration go hand in hand. 
 America, in particular, which gives such of its young men 
 and women who can afford to improve themselves free ac- 
 cess to high schools, colleges, and universities, afterwards 
 leaves them to scramble for a precarious existence, for 
 which their very education has unfitted them ; yet an edu- 
 cated pauper is the most pitiable subject of all. Our com- 
 monwealth, on the other hand, will nourish the aspirations 
 it has awakened ; it will use for its own good talents it has ma- 
 tured, and enable every man and woman to develop his or 
 her peculiar aptitudes, whether it be in brain work or hand 
 work. This fact, that every citizen will be able to follow 
 his or her peculiar bent, will also itself vastly increase the 
 productive result of all social activities, for it is well known 
 that a person accompUshes most when he works in the line 
 of his greatest inclination. 
 
 I may note here that the enlargement of the purchas- 
 ing power of the masses will also contribute considerably to 
 increase the wealth of society by materially changing the 
 character of the demand from what it is at present. That is 
 to say, articles of use and beauty will more and more 
 crowd out costly goods, which at present are principally in 
 demand because, and only because, they are costly, and by 
 that quality enable our moneyed aristocracy to display their 
 wealth. 
 
 It has been computed that if everybody now worked at 
 some useful calling, everybody could live in comfort on 
 four hours' daily labor. There is some good reason for be- 
 lieving that this computation is not so very far from being 
 correct. But who can doubt that in the coming common- 
 wealth, with all objects of desire thus increased, the hours 
 of labor could be very much reduced, and yet everybody 
 willing to work have everything that heart could wish ? 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 121 
 
 Why should anybody then object to being restrained from 
 working more than six or four hours a day? That very 
 many workingmen should object to such a check on their 
 liberty now, when they often are reduced to absolute want 
 by seasons of enforced idleness, is natural enough, and may 
 be noted as the immovable stumbling-block in the way of 
 those who agitate for a compulsory eight-hour law under the 
 present system. 
 
 In our commonwealth all men and women may be en- 
 dowed with that supreme good, — leisure, the mother of 
 culture. Observe, there is the greatest difference in the 
 world between leisure and idleness. The idler, whether 
 poor or rich, has no leisure ; for it means the delightful 
 hours reserved from some regular employment, of not too 
 long duration, and which secure the satisfaction of all ma- 
 terial wants. 
 
 Under the new regime, " charity " and "charitable insti- 
 tutions " will be the things of the past. By the way, is it 
 not a pity that the noble word " charity " has in this hypo- 
 critical era come to. mean almsgiving? In our commonwealth 
 no alms will be given ; indeed, nothing will be had gratis. 
 Everybody will get the full produce of his labor in direct 
 revenues or in public benefit. Every citizen will be enti- 
 tled to the use of all public institutions — be it of libraries, 
 of schools for his children, of hospitals, asylums, or as- 
 sistance in his old age — on the same principle as the in- 
 sured is entitled to the amount named in his policy, on the 
 happening of a certain event. This makes it clear how our 
 commonwealth is to be the general insurer ; and our va- 
 rious companies that insure against so many forms of risk 
 point out the right road to pursue. They, indeed, embody 
 whatever of corporate responsibility there is left in this 
 chaotic age. 
 
122 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 I should therefore say that the co-operative common- 
 wealth will be highly promotive of social welfare by secur- 
 ing to all its citizens abundance, by furnishing them leisure, 
 and by enabling them to follow their natural bent. Work 
 will no longer be a tribute to physical necessity, but a 
 glad performance of social office. It will for the first 
 time in human history establish harmony between per- 
 sonal egoism and the public welfare, by simply distributing 
 the forces of the social organism in accordance with its real 
 needs. 
 
 I make a distinction between the soil of cities and towns 
 and agricultural lands. The former will have to be taken 
 under collective control simultaneously with other capital, 
 while the nationalization of the latter, in a country like ours 
 especially, may be postponed for years. That this change 
 will prove highly beneficial to our city population is not 
 difficult to see. ^ 
 
 The greater a city is, the worse are the " homes " — as 
 they are still by courtesy called — of the masses that inhabit it, 
 mainly because the ruling class, the moneyed aristocracy, 
 becomes the more exclusive. There was a time when this 
 aristocracy formed one class with the masses. For a long 
 time after the settlement of the United States it had only this 
 one class. As long as this state of things continued, the 
 chiefs of industry and commerce lived over their shops, 
 near their offices, among their people. Now they have de- 
 serted their posts of social duty. They live in separate 
 districts, in the suburbs, and only come into town to spend 
 a few hours in their places of business on week-days. This 
 modern fashionable suburbanism and exclusiveness is a 
 real grievance of the working classes. Had the rich men 
 continued to live among the masses, they would with their 
 wealth and influence have made our large towns pleasant 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 123 
 
 places to live in, especially as they are almost the exclusive 
 owners of the ground and buildings. 
 
 It is evident that when the community assumes the own- 
 ership, all kinds of improvements can and will be carried 
 on in a far grander and more systematic manner than now, 
 when many a measure, imperatively demanded even by the 
 public good, is met and often checked by some opposing 
 private interest. Then the many unsightly vacant lots in 
 the very heart of cities will disappear. Then, and only 
 then, we can hope for the introduction of such sanitary 
 measures, both in dwellings and factories, as the present 
 development of public hygiene recommends and as the ag- 
 gregation of workers imperatively demands. Compare now 
 the public institutions in any city — schools, asylums, or even 
 jails — with the factories found in the same place, and note 
 the difference in the workings of corporate responsibility on 
 the one hand, and private greed and indifference on the 
 other. Every community owning the soil on which it lives 
 can be made responsible for the death of nearly every per- 
 son who may fall a victim to the yellow fever or any other 
 epidemic. For all the conditions of epidemic diseases, 
 like foul air, stagnant pools, alleys filled with garbage, can 
 be brought wholly within the control of an energetic admin- 
 istration, as General Butler conclusively proved in New 
 Orleans, during the American civil war. 
 
 But this subject leads up to another problem. The present 
 relation of city to country is an abnormal one. Every civ- 
 ilized country, with its overgrown cities, may fairly be com- 
 pared to a man whose belly is steadily increasing in bulk, 
 out of all proportion to the body, and whose legs are con- 
 stantly growing thinner. This evolution is as yet perfectly 
 legitimate. Our large cities and towns are the necessary fruits 
 of our industrial system, and are destined to become the 
 
124 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 needed and inevitable centres for the coming changes ; in 
 their hands will chiefly lie the threads of destiny. But then 
 their purpose will have been fulfilled. Then the evolution 
 will necessarily have to go back in the contrary direction j 
 population will have to take its inarch back into the coun- 
 try. It will become a life problem. 
 
 Why do the sons of farmers in the States now flock into 
 the cities? Because their fathers, and especially mothers, 
 lead a life of drudgery and privation that no mechanic in 
 the city would wish to undergo ; because they want to get 
 rid of the prosy, stunting, isolated, barbarian life on a farm. 
 The working masses stay in our overcrowded cities because 
 such a farm life has no attractions for them. They are not 
 going to leave the cities before they can carry with them the 
 civilization in which they have been reared ; and well it is that 
 they cannot be made to do it. Only our commonwealth 
 and collective control of all land can bring the pleasures and 
 comforts of city life, the blessings of our civilization, into 
 the country. This consideration, beside the financial one 
 I already have suggested, may in time make our farmers 
 see the beauties of socialism. 
 
 But the nationalization of the land and social co-operative 
 farming will not prove beneficial merely to the agricultural 
 class and our surplus city population, but also pre-emi- 
 nently to society at large. It may, indeed, in a short time 
 be imperative on society to adopt it. 
 
 Our present mode of farming impoverishes the soil; 
 " bonanza " farming does so to a still greater extent. Every 
 bushel of wheat sent to our large cities or abroad robs 
 the soil of a certain amount of nutriment. And next to 
 nothing — in fact, on the bonanza farms nothing at all — 
 is done to reimburse the soil for that loss. The object of 
 the bonanza farmers is simply to plunder the soil as much 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 125 
 
 as possible in order to fill their own pockets. When it be- 
 comes no longer profitable to work the lands with even the 
 most extensive machinery, they will be left mere deserts. 
 
 Dressing is just as requisite for the soil as food is for hu- 
 man beings. The large cities, constantly growing, are the 
 especial consumers of the substance of the soil, without 
 returning to it their refuse, — this dressing which is so all- 
 important to it. Evidently the result must be that the agri- 
 cultural production will be paralyzed, if an end be not put 
 to this system of plunder. 
 
 Nothing but social co-operation will put an end to it. 
 Only that can institute a wise system of gathering and of 
 distributing this invaluable refuse of men and animals. 
 This is evidently a matter in which society at large is vitally 
 interested. And there are other measures that only yield 
 in importance to this matter of manure, which only social 
 co-operation will know how to deal with properly, as a 
 comprehensive system of drainage, without which land can- 
 not be cultivated to its highest degree, and the preservation 
 and culture of our forests, which even in our days call loudly 
 for the interposition of national authority. 
 
 However, volumes would be requisite to give an adequate 
 conception of all the benefits to be conferred by the co- 
 operative commonwealth in detail, for, as has been truly 
 observed by the reputable German political economist, Pro- 
 fessor Schaefifle, " It requires years to think one's self into it." 
 
 But all this will not satisfy people who pride themselves 
 on being practical. "Practical people are people whose 
 knowledge is limited to what is going on under their eyes ; " 
 this is Buckle's definition, not ours. These near-sighted 
 gentlemen will say : " Your commonwealth may be ever so 
 much in harmony with the conditions of this age ; it may 
 be able to create ever so great an abundance and even to 
 
126 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 furnish the most effective demand for it ; it may be able 
 to establish the most perfect social adjustment : yet it is im- 
 practicable ; it cannot be made to work, for many reasons." 
 
 Now, we are not here concerned about how to institute 
 that new order, — when the time is ready, when we reach 
 that brink, a bridge will grow before our way, somehow, — 
 but it may be worth our while to notice some of these 
 reasons. 
 
 " It is a stupendous scheme ! That is enough to make it 
 impracticable. It is an insane idea to propose to make 
 fifty or a hundred million people work in concert. 
 
 Yes, the philistines of the middle ages, likewise, undoubt- 
 edly would have scorned, as insane, the idea that a city like 
 London could possibly be provided with the necessaries of 
 life under any system of free competition. And now, when 
 it is daily done, our modern philistines consider the fact as 
 an evidence of " the beautiful harmony between private in- 
 terests and public necessities." Yet it is a far greater won- 
 der that we get along under the present system as well as 
 we do, than that our commonwealth should work without 
 the least friction. We have, indeed, every reason to expect 
 that it will be a social order as regular and unobtrusive as if 
 it were a law of nature, 
 
 " But how are you going to nationalize the land ? How 
 would you go to work to bring these innumerable private 
 enterprises under collective control? Eveh Herbert Spen- 
 cer — who, like you, condemned private ownership in land, 
 in that very " Social Statics" that you criticised — sees no 
 means of overcoming the difficulties in the way of making 
 land collective property." 
 
 It would be easy enough. Suppose the Constitution of 
 the United States were to-morrow amended to this effect : — 
 
 " All titles in fee in private persons to any real estate are 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 127 
 
 hereby abolished j all such titles shall henceforth vest in the 
 United States exclusively." 
 
 Or suppose, in Great Britain, an act of Parliament be 
 passed to that effect. 
 
 What then? Not anything like the overturning of exist- 
 ing relations which followed the aboUtion of slavery would 
 be caused by such an amendment. Not a single person 
 would need to be ousted from the premises he uses, still less 
 from the dweUing he inhabits. The tenants of private 
 parties would simply be turned into tenants of the nation ; 
 the payments of the present proprietors to the community 
 would be changed from " taxes " into "rents." 
 
 Undoubtedly in other respects the change would be tre- 
 mendous. The occupants of lands and buildings could no 
 longer sell them, no longer mortgage them, no longer rent 
 them. Land as capital and as a source of capital would 
 evaporate into thin air like mist before the morning sun, but 
 would remain as social wealth. It would lose its specula- 
 tive unreal value, but would retain its intrinsic real value. 
 Then an " enterprising " individual could no longer one 
 day acquire a piece of land for twenty-five cents an acre, 
 and, without spending a day's work or one dollar for im- 
 provements on it, ten years thence dispose of it for ten or a 
 hundred dollars an acre ; this way of fleecing the com- 
 munity would be stopped. In short, land held for specula- 
 tive purposes would be dropped like a hot potato, to be 
 sure, but occupants in good faith could use it precisely as 
 they do now. The difficulties of such a measure would be 
 reduced to absolutely nothing, if the amendment proposed, 
 instead of taking effect at once, were made operative say 
 twenty-five years from the date of its adoption ; for then 
 values and relations would have ample time to settle them- 
 selves. 
 
128 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 This is Henry George's " remedy." Now, from the very 
 moment when I read the title-page of George's book, I 
 did not think well of his being ready with a remedy at all. 
 This fact shows that he considers society sick, and thinks it 
 must have some medicine. His medicine is the confisca- 
 tion of land, though afterwards he seems to recoil from the 
 drastic operation of it — it might shock the preconceived 
 notions of people — and proposes, instead of that heroic 
 treatment, the confiscation of rent. 
 
 After having, in the above, shown our men-in-spectacles 
 that it would be easy enough to do what Mr. George pro- 
 poses (confiscation of land or rent is practically the same), 
 I must emphasize that to do so would be, especially in 
 America and in Germany and France, commencing from the 
 wrong end. Society is not sick ; but society may be said 
 to be suffering the pangs of childbirth. Now, to assist her 
 deliverance by touching agricultural lands with the socialist 
 wand would be as inexpedient as to help a woman in travail 
 by forcing the feet of the infant out first ; and inexpedient 
 everywhere, for the simple reason that the evolution in agri- 
 culture is everywhere far behind the evolution in all other 
 industries. ODserve that this applies with just as much 
 force to Great Britain and Ireland as to other countries. 
 And yet I cannot help feehng very glad of the phenomenal 
 success of " Progress and Poverty " just now in Great Britain, 
 for the nationalization of land is there a most excellent cry 
 with which to start agitation for State ownership of all 
 capital, simply because the land there is concentrated in so 
 few hands. Thoughtful people will soon come to see that 
 George's distinction between land and other capital is 
 absolutely baseless. 
 
 The above objection, of course, would not apply to land 
 used for manufacturing and mining purposes, or to that of 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 129 
 
 towns and cities, as has already been remarked. But the 
 nationalization of such land should not be considered as a 
 measure by itself, but as an adjunct to the taking our manu- 
 factures, distribution of products, and transportation undel 
 collective control. 
 
 What practical difficulties would there be in the way of 
 doing that ? 
 
 Why, if our " statesmen " were less blind to the logic of 
 events, which is pushing us with railroad speed toward a 
 total and abrupt revolution, they might from to-morrow 
 bring it about gradually and peaceably by a series of meas- 
 ures, each consistently developing itself out of the previous 
 ones. They might begin from the two poles of society at 
 once. 
 
 See how. It is now proposed to take the telegraph sys- 
 tem of our country under Government control, and incor- 
 porate it in our Post Office Department. The latter is 
 already essentially a socialist institution, though to make it 
 such fully will require some important changes that I shall 
 refer to in the following chapters. Suppose this measure 
 realized, as it is sure to be some time. Then do likewise 
 with our railroads, our express business, and thus onward ; 
 absorb one great enterprise after another as quickly as prac- 
 ticable. 
 
 And so from the other pole. I now speak of those 
 interests which so vitally affect the inhabitants of different 
 communities, but which are confined to them. Why could 
 not our cities commence by furnishing to their citizens fuel 
 in winter and ice in summer? Are not these things just as 
 essential to the public health as water? After that let them 
 furnish all the milk needed. Then let them take under 
 their control and operate their gas works and horse railways^ 
 their bakeries and drug-stores. Yes, and let them take 
 
I30 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 charge of the liquor traffic, so that the number of saioons 
 may be restricted to the wants of their respective popula- 
 tions, and be conducted as the beer-selling co-operative 
 stores of England — not the least beneficial of her many co- 
 operative establishments — are conducted. 
 
 Now pleas^ observe, I do not say — nor even think — 
 that the social question will be solved in that manner, but 
 that it seems to me the most practical way in which to solve 
 it for " practical " people. And mark further, that to 
 carry out one or a few of these measures (as the national- 
 izatifln of land, or collective control of the telegraph system, 
 or communal control of the coal business) and then stop 
 there, will not solve the question at all. These measures, 
 standing alone, will be almost worthless to the working 
 classes. They will benefit the small number employed in 
 these enterprises ; they may benefit all by the resulting pub- 
 lic improvements, but they will not help the great body of 
 the workers in any material respect, for, to the same extent 
 that the price of their necessaries of life and rent may fall, 
 their wages are sure to come down. That is the iinal an- 
 swer to George's proposition. Even if he could possibly 
 persuade the social organism by his insinuating periods to 
 swallow his medicine, she would not be less restless than 
 before. That child, the new social order, is going to be 
 born. 
 
 " But whence will your commonwealth take the money to 
 indemnify the present owners? " 
 
 O, that matter of compensation will not worry us so 
 very much 1 SociaHsts, indeed, claim that it is society to 
 whom our plutocrats owe all their wealth, and that, there- 
 fore, society has the right at any moment to take it back. 
 Besides — a fact to which I already before have called 
 attention — society has never yet compensated the laboring 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 13 1 
 
 classes when their interests have been sacrificed to the gain 
 of their fellow-citizens and posterity, as they have repeatedly 
 been during this century by the introduction of new machin- 
 ery and the adoption of new inventions. But they are, also, 
 ready to admit that, if our autocrats are willing peaceably to 
 give up their possessions to the commonwealth, they ought 
 to be fairly compensated, on the sole ground that these pos- 
 sessions were acquired by the sanction of society. But 
 what of that ? 
 
 All the wealth of the United States in the year 1880 is 
 estimated at nearly J45, 000,000,000. Much of that is 
 composed of speculative unreal values. All that socialists 
 wish to expropriate is only the most important instruments 
 of production, a fractional part of that wealth. If, now, this 
 nation could spend more than ^5,000,000,000 to deliver 
 a foreign race out of slavery, could it not spend, say, 
 ^10,000,000,000 to make most of its citizens free? Com- 
 pare such a debt with the incumbrances of so many modern 
 wars, waged in the interests of a few persons of a small 
 class, and remember that, in this case, the consideration 
 will be bequeathed with the debt; for the land and ma- 
 chinery will remain intact, or rather will multiply itself in 
 course of a few generations. On this point I shall have 
 more to say in the next chapter. 
 
 But should our autocrats choose to make the revolution 
 a violent one, then I suppose they will be dispossessed 
 without compensation. Read history, and you will find that 
 the dominant class has furnished us with plenty of prece- 
 dents. 
 
 The various privileges of the nobles and clergy were 
 " property ; " they are so no longer. Germany, Italy, 
 Spain, and France have repeatedly confiscated the estates 
 of nobility and clergy. England has done the same thing 
 
132 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 with the soil of Ireland. It is worth while for our philis- 
 tines to bear in mind Carlyle's words : " Who can be 
 hoodwinked into believing that loyalty to the money-bag is 
 nobler than loyalty to nobles and clergy? " The workers of 
 the United States need not go away from home ; their coun- 
 try confiscated the slaves of the South ; that is a splendid 
 precedent for them. 
 
 " But it is certainly granted that government never can 
 do business as well as private individuals, simply because 
 the latter are personally interested in their affairs." 
 
 This is decidedly not granted. It is only a commonplace, 
 manufactured to order by interested parties ; a stigma, in- 
 geniously fastened on State activity by individuals who profit 
 by the absence of it. The fact that the Government of the 
 United States carries a letter promptly and safely across the 
 continent for two cents ; the fact that the English telegraph 
 service now sends a despatch to any part of the United 
 Kingdom for twelve cents ; the fact that the Belgian railway 
 management only charges thirty-six cents for every thirty 
 miles, — these prove that the State, even as now constituted, 
 can and does manage national interests better than any pri- 
 vate parties could do. Or, to clinch our argument, suppose 
 a proposition were submitted to the people of any country 
 to relegate this postal service back to private corporations, 
 does any sane man doubt that it would be oyerwhelmingly 
 defeated ? 
 
 There is one particular State activity that has proved the 
 eminent fitness of the State to direct the work of society, 
 and that is its scientific labors. Look at the exceptional 
 efficiency of Coast Survey, Lighthouse Service, the labors 
 of the Naval Observatory, Signal Service, Patent Office, 
 Geological Surveys of the United States. 
 
 And, in point of fact, is the management of any of our 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 133 
 
 big corporations better entitled to be called management by 
 the " person interested," than the administration of a pub- 
 lic office? The State can evidently be far more efficient 
 than the most efficient private company to-day, simply be- 
 cause it will have in its service the best capacities that the 
 country contains, and can organize the greatest possible 
 division of labor. 
 
 " But what an unbearable omnipotent centralization ! 
 Unbearable to a degree before unheard of in history. Your 
 commonwealth will have the supreme power, without ap- 
 peal, to domineer over all the social and industrial interests 
 of the country at its pleasure, even to the extent of saying 
 how many hours a man shall work, and how much money he 
 may earn. And what an enormous crowd of officials ! If 
 corruption is now everywhere cropping out in the American 
 civil service, how will it be when the service shall be in- 
 creased a thousand fold?" 
 
 One thing at a time, friend, though it is very well to have 
 these objections noticed. Civil service increased, you say. 
 Then you are truly near-sighted. What else are now our 
 merchants, our foremen, our superintendents, our bank 
 presidents, cashiers, — yes, and all our workers, — but per- 
 sons who serve us, or pretend to serve us ? What else but 
 functionaries of society, though they are so in a private ca- 
 pacity ? Is there not an immense number of men now occu- 
 pying private positions, intent only on their interests or 
 the interests of their employers, and yet to all intents and 
 purposes officials of society ? The only change, then, which 
 our commonwealth will bring about in that respect will be 
 to change these private functionaries into public officials ; 
 but, far from increasing the " civil service," this change will 
 actually vastly decrease the number of those who now spend 
 their time as mere overseers, managers, or middle-men. 
 
134 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 And why should a change from private into public func- 
 tionaries tend to make these officials corrupt? Public ser- 
 vice always lends dignity to the servant (that the profes- 
 sions are more honored than other occupations is entirely 
 due to their semi-oflficial character), and if the American 
 civil service be corrupt, it is evidently due to the uncertain 
 tenure, and the fact that political adventurers have the inside 
 track. But politicians will not have much to say under the 
 new order, as we shall see later on. 
 
 And centralization ! Well, what of it? There are people 
 who pronounce that word with unaffected horror, as if it 
 signified something exceedingly execrable. And yet every 
 healthy man is an instance of the most perfect centraliza- 
 tion in his own person. Indeed, the moment that perfect 
 centralization ceases, suffering is the result. And as with 
 the human organism, so with the social organism. Division 
 of labor demands centralization, or anarchy is the result. 
 
 We, however, can very well appreciate the cause of that 
 outcry. The centralization of industries that we witness 
 around us is not altogether good ; our monopolies are 
 not altogether good things (that is exactly what I took 
 pains to show in my second chapter), for the simple 
 reason that they are centred in private, irresponsible indi- 
 viduals, bent only on private gain, who only manufacture 
 and work for profit. And so whenever any one advocates 
 the centralization of industrial or political activities in the 
 State, everybody thinks of the present State, which, as we 
 have seen, is as yet only the representative of certain 
 classes ; everybody thus has in mind a private party, a 
 power outside of the people. 
 
 It is no wonder that people shudder at the thought of 
 giving unlimited, supreme control over all our social, politi- 
 cal, and industrial affairs to a lot of politicians of the sort that 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 135 
 
 now sit in Washington, and in the British Parliament. They 
 think of the princes of the middle ages who arbitrarily in- 
 terfered with and domineered over the private affairs of 
 their subjects, and imagine that socialists propose to intro- 
 duce similar tyranny on a far greater scale. This must also 
 have been in Mr. George's mind when he wrote, " It is 
 evident that whatever savors of regulation and restriction is 
 in itself bad," for he certainly cannot mean that order and 
 method are bad. 
 
 It must therefore be borne in mind that we contemplate 
 the fully developed State ; the State that has incorporated 
 in itself not only all social activities, but also the whole 
 population ; the State where every citizen is a part of the 
 administration, not in a Pickwickian sense as now, but a 
 real, integral part, performing his share of it in the place 
 where he is put ; a State where, according to my definition, 
 every one is a public functionary, where, therefore, all State- 
 help is really and truly self-help. 
 
 Such a State, of course, will require quite other machin- 
 ery than any present State has ; and perhaps it is difficult 
 to grasp the idea of such a State, without considering the 
 kind of machinery that will be necessary to work it ; but 
 that I must defer to the eighth chapter. 
 
 In order, however, to dispel the notion that centralization 
 of all social activities in the co-operative commonwealth 
 implies any domineering whatever, or anything whatever 
 analogous to the arbitrary interference of mediaeval princes, 
 I shall call attention to the parallel between that normal 
 State and a human organism. The latter possesses a central 
 regulative system, which is not the man, but quite distinct 
 from the .man ; which is but an organ on a footing with the 
 other organs. In like manner the normal State will pos- 
 sess its central regulative system, and will exactly thereby 
 
130 THE CU-UPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 distinguish itself from the present State, which has no such 
 system, or but a very, very imperfect one. But this regula- 
 tive system will not be the State, but simply an organ on a 
 footing with the other organs, — the associated workers of 
 each branch of industry or social activity. It will, I sup- 
 pose, have three essential functions : that of being chief 
 superintendent, chief statistician, and arbitrator. Each of 
 the other organs may manage their own affairs, subject 
 simply to the supervisory control of what is temporarily 
 called the central regulative organ. That is the socialist 
 idea. 
 
 Suppose the cotton-workers were to control the whole 
 manufacture of cotton. They settle among themselves the 
 rate of remuneration which shall be paid to unskilled labor, 
 and to the various grades of skilled labor ; they, further, 
 calculate for themselves how much labor is embodied in 
 their products, and from these data the remuneration to be 
 paid to each worker is a simple matter of figures. 
 
 But the prices of the products is a matter that vitally con- 
 cerns the whole people ; wherefore, most naturally, the cen- 
 tral regulative organ will claim the right to have the annual 
 price-lists laid before it for its approval. 
 
 The rate of reitiuneration and the hours of labor of these 
 cotton-workers, on the other hand, concern only these 
 workers themselves. There need be no fear that they will 
 not be able to settle these matters among themselves ; for if 
 they do not come to an agreement they will have to starve. It 
 will not pay to " strike " in the coming commonwealth, and 
 there <vill be no reason for " striking." Moreover, if any of 
 the workers should feel himself aggrieved by the action of 
 his fellows, there will be the recourse to the courts of the 
 country left him ; that is, recourse to the central regulative 
 organ as arbitrator. 
 
THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 137 
 
 With such an arrangement I fail to see where the "un- 
 bearable " centralization will come in. Will it not rather 
 be an ideal sort of self-government? 
 
 Now we can see why socialists put such a value on trades- 
 unions as they do. It is not that these unions are always 
 models of associations — though even the most faulty unions 
 are better in every way than no unions ; it is not that they 
 always materially benefit their members ; but that these 
 unions are destined to form the skeletons of these industrial 
 departments of the future, of which I, in another chapter, 
 shall have more to say. Especially will these unions prove 
 invaluable during the transition period. In places where 
 they afe well organized and embrace all the best workers of 
 the trade, they may, on the establishment of the co-operative 
 commonwealth, take possession of the industrial plant of 
 their trade, and go right to work as if they never had known 
 any other arrangement. Organization is only second to 
 sound ideas. 
 
 " But, then, don't you know the Malthusian law ? Don't 
 you know that if your commonwealth succeed as you expect, 
 if four hours of daily labor will provide the laborer and his 
 family with all comforts, then this country will very soon 
 not have standing-room for its population ? Do you not 
 know that your commonwealth cannot last a generation, 
 unless it command its people when to marry and how many 
 children they may have? " 
 
 Yes ; socialists know Malthus very well, that English cler- 
 gyman, himself the father of not less than eleven children, 
 who told the poor that they have themselves to thank for their 
 miseries, because, forsooth, they marry too early and beget 
 too many children ! But they also know that this doctrine of 
 his is a vicious monstrosity, hatched in the salons of the 
 wealthy, and flattering to the conscience of the ruling classes, 
 
138 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 and that therefore it has been so widely accepted. Just as 
 well say if you crowd millions of people into a city, and 
 besiege it for months, it, also, is nature's fault when they 
 die of starvation and plagues. 
 
 No ; neither England nor Ireland had at the time of Mal- 
 thus, nor has had at any time since, too large a population. 
 It may safely be said, on the contrary, that Great Britain even 
 now has too small a population for a really high civilization. 
 If the smart fellows of the Stone Age had been Malthusians 
 and had been able to prevent increase of population beyond 
 xhe supply of the then existing caves, we never should have 
 nad brown-stone fronts or architects. 
 
 Again, it is not true that the better fed and better off 
 people are, the more they will propagate. The reverse is 
 the fact. Hopeless poverty makes men reckless and only 
 intent on animal gratifications. Facts prove that the in- 
 crease of any class is in reverse ratio to its social position 
 and wealth. 
 
 In England it is a matter of common observation that the 
 families of the nobility and gentry constantly tend to die out. 
 In the United States it is even so. In the beginning of this 
 century famihes with from ten to fifteen children each were 
 not rare in New England ; now one with more than six is 
 found only among the poor. In the co-operative com- 
 monwealth there will rather be reason to fear that the 
 population will tend to decrease than that it will ever be 
 too redundant. 
 
 The best service that Henry George has rendered to 
 socialism with his "Progress and Poverty" is, that he has 
 laid bare the utter absurdity of the Malthusian philosophy. 
 All we now have to do when anybody brings it forward as 
 an objection, is to tell him to go and study the second book 
 of his work. 
 
If the misery of the world were caused by overpopulation, 
 as Malthus would have it, then, indeed, socialism, or any 
 other progressive movement, would be a Utopia. Fortu- 
 nately the reverse is true : it is misery that causes overpopu- 
 lation. 
 
140 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 SOCIAL ECONOMY 
 
 " The best state of human nature is that in which, while no one is poor, 
 no one desires to be richer, nor has any reason to fear being thrust back by 
 the efforts of others to push themselves forward." — John Stuart Mill. 
 
 " The principal narrowness of political economists is that of regarding 
 their present experience of mankind as of universal validity, mistaking 
 temporary phases of human character for human nature itself." — Augtiste 
 Comte. 
 
 " The citizens of a large nation, industrially organized, have reached 
 their possible ideal of happiness when the producing, distributing, and 
 other activities are such that each citizen finds in them a place for all his 
 energies and aptitudes, while he obtains the means of satisfying all his 
 desires." — Herbert Spencer. 
 
 POLITICAL economy pretends to be a science. Proud- 
 hon, on the other hand, remarks that the merit of 
 Malthus — not dreamt of by his admirers — is that he has 
 reduced political economy to an absurdity. When we 
 think of the dogma of the " wages fund," which, divided 
 by the number of laborers, is said to determine the current 
 rate of wages, Proudhon's observation must strike us as 
 pat. A philosophy which turns the labor question into a 
 question in long division is certainly a counterfeit science. 
 Political economy is at all events a very modern science. 
 Like Athene, it came into the world suddenly and full- 
 fledged about one hundred years ago. Curiously enough 
 nobody seems ever to have asked for the reason for this 
 phenomenon, and yet there must be a reason for it. I 
 think I have found it in the fact that political economy 
 concerns itself with the production and distribution of 
 
SOCIAL ECONOMY 141 
 
 wealth under the wage-system, exclusively ; for this explana- 
 tion, of course, includes that it would have no raison d'etre 
 — no reason for being — under a system of slavery or 
 serfage. But in order to maintain the nimbus of a " science," 
 it has to inculcate that this wage system is a permanent sys- 
 tem, the normal condition of effective production, and thus 
 it has come to pass that a philosophy which was legitimate 
 if it limited itself to its proper sphere — that of explaining 
 the working of the present system — has been prostituted 
 by being made to sanction the present social arrangements, 
 as having universal validity. 
 
 But if, as I maintain, this wage system is nothing but a 
 temporary phase of the evolution of society, then it follows 
 that political economy is destined to be superseded by a 
 new philosophy, a true science, as soon as the new condi- 
 tions arise. Under social co-operation we shall have a 
 perfectly different philosophy of the production and distri- 
 bution of wealth, which we, not inaptly, may call social 
 economy. 
 
 But do not for a moment suppose that I here intend to 
 elaborate that new science ; we are all of us too much the 
 children of our own age to make such an attempt. Yet we 
 also know that both Americans and Englishmen cannot be 
 expected to co-operate consciously with the natural devel- 
 opment of the new social order before they have learned to 
 know its leading features and have found them on the whole 
 desirable. Such an attitude is decidedly commendable, but 
 may easily degenerate into a disposition to propound co- 
 nundrums, and such I am not disposed to try to solve. 
 
 Do not forget that socialists are not willing to be taken 
 for architects. He is a poor architect who cannot plan the 
 building he is required to erect to the nicest details ; who 
 is unable to tell the size of this drawing-room, or the exact 
 
142 THE CO-QPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 location of that closet. Do not demand such details from 
 us. Rather may we liken ourselves to naturalists. A bota- 
 nist ought to be able to tell what plant will develop out of a 
 certain seed, but he cannot tell how many leaves it will 
 have. In like manner we ought to be able to indicate the 
 most striking economic consequences which with the logical 
 necessity will flow from collective control of the instruments 
 of labor. 
 
 I beheve that interest, profit, and rent, being nothing but 
 the spoils which private monopoly of the instruments of pro- 
 duction at present enables individuals to exact, will become 
 things of the past as soon as the commonwealth shall take 
 possession of the whole industrial and agricultural plant. 
 
 Interest will for the first time in human history be given 
 a fatal blow. All laws against usury have proven worse 
 than useless. When under the Roman Republic usury was 
 punished with death, it flourished the most, — at the rate 
 of a hundred per cent. We have already seen how in this 
 capitalist era the taking of interest has become a normal 
 and legitimate feature of our system, even one of " the 
 inalienable rights of man," in Bentham's words. All usury 
 laws limiting the rate of interest are set at defiance simply 
 because they clash with the prevailing mode of doing busi- 
 ness. 
 
 The coming commonwealth will be the effective destroyer 
 of both interest and usury. For, when all enterprises have 
 been taken in hand by society, wealth will no longer be used 
 — and consequently will no longer be borrowed — as 
 capital; in the words of a previous definition, it can no 
 longer be " employed productively, with a view to profit." 
 Thus with the reason for it, with its raison d'itre, interest 
 itself will cease to be legitimate. Interest and usury will 
 once more be convertible terms ; that is, it will become, as 
 
SOCIAL ECONOMY 143 
 
 of old, infamous to charge interest for sums of money 
 loaned to persons in embarrassed circumstances. And who 
 will need to be in such circumstances ? 
 
 As a matter of course, that which is now called profit — 
 which is the reason why our "phihstines" work at all — 
 will disappear. It will be added to the reward of labor. 
 Under " morals " we shall see what will take the place of 
 profit as an incentive to effort. 
 
 Rent, as rent, as a tribute levied by individual monopo- 
 lists of land, will be no more. All land used for agricultural 
 or industrial purposes will have become a part of the col- 
 lective plant. Land used by citizens for homes or other 
 private purposes will yield rent or taxes — whatever you 
 choose to call it — to the commonwealth; which rent will 
 probably be regulated by demand and supply, for there is 
 no reason why the more desirable sites should not then, as 
 now, be the more valuable. 
 
 The commonwealth will derive whatever revenues it 
 needs for collective purposes from two sources : rent, and 
 probably a percentage on every article sold, added to the 
 cost of production, which then will mean what "cost of 
 production " should even now always, but does not always, 
 mean, — the value of the article, the sum total of labor em- 
 bodied in it. Everybody will thus bear his share in the 
 public charges in proportion to his consumption. And his 
 consumption will in all likelihood be pretty nearly equal to 
 his income. He will not be able very well to go beyond his 
 income, as is so frequently the case now (this system of 
 " living upon credit," by the way, is responsible for a very 
 large proportion of the miseries by which modern society is 
 afflicted), and he will be, at least, under very great tempta- 
 tion to spend all he earns. It will be public policy to en- 
 courage him in doing so. It is not for the individual citizen 
 
144 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 to save, but for society. The best interests of society require 
 that a taste for comforts and enjoyments should be widely 
 diffused and, if possible, interwoven with national habits and 
 prejudices, as McCuUoch remarks. 
 
 From this it will appear that the co-operative common- 
 wealth will have an immense advantage over all. modern 
 States in the matter of taxation. Not alone that assessors 
 and tax-gatherers will be dispensed with ; that there will be 
 no possibility of evading one's contribution to the collective 
 expenses ; that they will be distributed in the most equi- 
 table manner, and cannot be burdensome to anybody; 
 but the commonwealth will at all times have the whole 
 wealth of the nation at its command. Suppose the rate 
 of percentage for the ensuing fiscal year, as estimated, be 
 found to be too low, or any sudden emergency to arise. 
 There are the warehouses. No need any more of issuing 
 bonds to be bought for half their face Value by greedy 
 capitalists. 
 
 Next, we can affirm that money — by which we under- 
 stand gold and silver coin and their representatives — will 
 become entirely useless in the coming commonwealth. I 
 do not say that society may not go on for an indefinite 
 period using it for various reasons of convenience, but that 
 not a trace of the necessity which makes money play such 
 an important role in our present system will remain. 
 
 Money is now the quintessence of capital, or " capital 
 par excellence," as Lassalle called it. The manufacturer or 
 the merchant cannot make a move without money. They 
 may have their warehouses filled with merchandise, but they 
 cannot pay their drafts with them. Yet many, even men of 
 the acutest intellect, do not sufficiently appreciate the im- 
 portant function which money performs in our present social 
 system. 
 
SOCIAL ECONOMY 1 45 
 
 Thus John Ruskin compares people with partiality for 
 money to children who would tear furniture to pieces, and 
 fight each other for brass-headed nails. 
 
 And an economist and logician like John Stuart Mill 
 speaks of money as " only a contrivance for saving time 
 and labor." 
 
 Very naive, indeed ! as if that were not enough ! He 
 might just as well dispose of railroads by remarking : " Bah ! 
 they are only contrivances for saving time and labor." 
 
 Money is precisely so precious, because, under the indus- 
 trial system which we have now, it is the greatest of all 
 labor-saving instruments. People are separated by their 
 interests, by a multiplicity of interests. Money brings them 
 together; is, as it is termed, a medium of exchange be- 
 tween them. That is the vital function of money. That 
 medium of exchange is the best which brings people 
 together in the easiest and quickest way ; and that is just 
 what money does better than any other commodity. Just 
 as a railroad is a more efficient contrivance than a stage- 
 coach, and this again than a lumber-wagon, so gold and sil- 
 ver are better media of exchange than wheat or tobacco or 
 oxen, or any other commodity that has been tried. Money 
 was invented, as any other labor-saving instrument has been 
 invented, to save time and labor, to escape the deadlock 
 of barter. 
 
 But what is it that makes a railroad at all useful ? The 
 fact that men are separated in space. Imagine, however, 
 that distance were annihilated, then there would certainly be 
 no earthly use for a railroad. 
 
 In the same manner, whenever men's interests cease to 
 be adverse, whenever these interests become identical, as 
 they will become under our commonwealth by perfect asso- 
 ciation, then, evidently, the business of money will be gone. 
 
146 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 Gold and silver will then become absolutely worthless as 
 money, as far as the internal affairs of society are concerned ; 
 they will have, of course, to be used as money in all 
 intercourse with other nations who have not yet embraced 
 socialism. Then John Ruskin may assert that they are not 
 worth much more than brass-headed nails ; but not till 
 then. 
 
 How will exchange then be carried on? By account, 
 facilitated by some such contrivance as labor checks. The 
 current of development is running in that direction ; first 
 we have barter, then money, and even now account is more 
 and more supplanting the latter, the more and more closely 
 we are becoming associated. When in the co-operative 
 commonwealth money has been superannuated, we shall 
 have nothing but checks, notes, tickets, — whatever you will 
 call them, — issued by authority. 
 
 "Ah ! So you socialists are half-greenbackers." 
 
 You are mistaken, sir ! It would be more correct to say 
 that greenbackers are half-socialists ; and, because they are 
 only that "half," I maintain they are wholly wrong, even 
 on the money question. We have already seen that on the 
 broader question of social development they are absolute 
 reactionists ; that they have no fault to find with individual 
 ownership of the instruments of labor, but war against its 
 inevitable natural development. 
 
 By the way, there is really something curious about this 
 greenback movement in the United States. How shall we 
 account for the fact that it plays such a role in America, 
 while no other civilized country could in our day possibly 
 be smitten with it? May not the reason for this abnormal 
 phenomenon be sought in that other fact, that the "al- 
 mighty dollar " is peculiarly the American fetish? 
 
 But to return to the distinction between socialists and the 
 
SOCIAL ECONOMY 147 
 
 consistent greenbackers, the fiat men. The latter propose 
 that the State shall issue its notes, tender them to its cred- 
 itors, and give them to the people, saying : " Take this. 
 With this dollar note you can go anywhere within my juris- 
 diction and buy one dollar's worth of goods with it." 
 
 The great trouble, however, is that the State of these fiat 
 men is the present State. They want to abolish money — that 
 is, the precious metals as money — and yet to retain the pres- 
 ent system" of production, which is just as irrational as a 
 scheme would be to abolish the pope and still to preserve 
 the catholic church. For what does an assertion like the 
 above by the present State amount to? It is a promise, 
 without any possible performance, for the simple reason that 
 this State has absolutely no title to the goods which it 
 thus disposes of. These belong, by its own sanction and 
 concession, to individual citizens. 
 
 Now, note how much more logical the socialist position 
 is. I claim that the State shall first take possession of and 
 own the warehouses and the wares, and thereafter issue 
 its notes. Then, and not till then, the State will be so con- 
 ditioned that it can perform what it promises. For then it 
 can say, " Go into any of my warehouses, and I will sell 
 you a dollar's worth of my goods for this dollar note of 
 mine." 
 
 The distinction on the money question, then, is not alone 
 that greenbackers are but half-'Socialists, but that it is the 
 latter part of the socialist programme which they have 
 appropriated ; they have put the cart before the horse. 
 
 It will further be seen from this that I differ from the 
 greenbackers, and agree with poUtical economists in hold- 
 ing that " money is the tool we use for effecting exchange 
 by the help of two half exchanges of commodity for com- 
 modity ; " that money, therefore, is a commodity, and 
 
148 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 could not be money if it were not a commodity, and that 
 this commodity, like all other wares, derives its value partly 
 from its scarcity, but mainly from the labor crystallized in it ; 
 and that our present paper money is, like checks, drafts, 
 but a representative of money/ 
 
 But I agree with the greenbackers in holding that 
 money is destined to be " superannuated," if I may use 
 the term, as payment in kind has long since been. 
 
 I shall here make a digression to state definitely my posi- 
 tion in regard to compensation to the dispossessed owners 
 of property, which I left somewhat unsettled in the last 
 chapter. 
 
 I suggested there that if the final change were accom- 
 plished by force, the State would possibly take this property 
 from our men of wealth without any compensation whatever. 
 Their existing rights are such which the law gives, and what 
 the law gives the law can take away. That would be done 
 without any compunction of conscience, seeing that much 
 of that wealth is obtained by questionable methods, and 
 very much of it by the trickery of buying and selling, which 
 never can create value, and, indeed, ought not to furnish 
 the manipulator mere subsistence. But as a matter of pol- 
 icy the State may see fit to give the proprietors a fair com- 
 pensation for that property which society takes under its 
 control, i.e., for its real and not its speculative value. But 
 there are two important " buts " to note. 
 
 They will not receive any interest on the sums allowed 
 them. When all interest has ceased to be legitimate 
 throughout society, society itself will hardly charge itself 
 with that burden. 
 
 1 I may here remark, that I also, with politiciil economists, consider our frac- 
 tional currency not money at all, but mere counters, tokens; just what our 
 labor checks will be- 
 
SOCIAL ECONOMY 149 
 
 They will not be paid in money, but in goods, in articles 
 of enjoyment, furni^ed in annuities to those whose claim is 
 sufficiently large. 
 
 Suppose we owe Vanderbilt a sum equal to two hundred 
 millions of dollars. We pay him two millions a year for a 
 hundred years and cancel the debt. Vanderbilt could then 
 take his two millions in labor checks, or whatever products 
 he chose, and the balance in non-interest bearing United 
 States certificates of indebtedness, and use them in Europe 
 or elsewhere just as he pleased. I should say that this 
 would be acting very generously with him, when I remem- 
 ber — to which it will not do any harm once more to call 
 attention — that society never yet has acted in a like spirit 
 of social justice towards the working classes, whenever they 
 suffered injury, and grievous injury, by new machinery and 
 new inventions. 
 
 Socialists of old used to insist upon the abolition of the 
 right of inheritance and bequest. Now we can see that 
 there absolutely will be no need for that. And it is well. 
 For if that which I gain by my own labor is rightfully my 
 property, — and the co-operative commonwealth will, as we 
 have seen, exactly sanction that claim, — it will be decidedly 
 inexpedient in that commonwealth to destroy any of the es- 
 sential qualities of propertyship ; and I can hardly call that 
 my property which I may not give to whom I please after 
 my death. Further, to deny me that right is undeniably to 
 lessen by so much my incentives to effort. 
 
 There will be no need to do away with that right ; for, 
 when property can no longer increase from interest and 
 fleecings, when it no more confers power on its possessor, 
 then private wealth will become harmless. 
 
 Take even a Rothschild. Suppose he were compensated 
 in full for all he is " worth." (How abominable this phrase 
 
ISO THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 is, so very significant of our age, to call a man whose body 
 and soul may not be worth a cent to society "worth" 
 millions of dollars ! Well, he will be paid in bread and 
 meat and luxuries and wine and theatre tickets. Let 
 him enjoy these things. Let him fill himself to repletion ! 
 Let him give away and squander the rest ! Do not be 
 afraid that the State will be burdened for many generations 
 with these charges ; his very next heirs will see to it that it 
 will not. These immense accumulations will not last so very 
 long when they cease to be prolific. 
 
 But our present laws Of inheritance may very likely ex- 
 perience great modifications. It certainly is absurd that a 
 second cousin of mine, who does not know himself related 
 to me until there is something to be gained by it, should 
 have any claim to ray property after my death. But that 
 is a matter foreign to our purpose. 
 
 " But, to return to the money question, how will you dis- 
 pense with the other function which money now performs, 
 that of measuring values? " 
 
 This function of money as a measurer of values is really 
 but an incidental one, while that of acting as a medium of 
 exchange is its principal and true function. There are abun- 
 dant reasons why the precious metals should be the media 
 of exchange as long as we need any, but absolutely no rea- 
 son can be given for either gold or silver being a better 
 measurer of values than any other commodity. They have, 
 in fact, always performed that function poorly; gold and 
 silver have fluctuated nearly as much as most of the wares 
 whose values they had to measure. 
 
 We saw in the first chapter that it is really the amount 
 of labor, crystallized in an article, which determines its 
 value ; that it is labor which determines the " level " value 
 of even gold and silver ; that is, the value round which their 
 
SOCIAL ECONOMY 15 I 
 
 market price vibrates. Why, then, would not a definite 
 amount of labor be a far more appropriate, constant, and 
 convenient measure? The change would have the great 
 advantage of enabling the worker to know for certain what 
 returns he receives for his work. He does not know it now, 
 for money obscures the transactions of all buying and sell- 
 ing; it serves as a mask, which this change will tear off- 
 Instead of saying that a coat is worth so many "dollars," 
 we shall in the new commonwealth discard all mystery and 
 call it worth so much work. We therefore apprehend that, 
 just as a bank note promises to pay " a dollar " on demand, 
 these labor checks which I mentioned will promise to pay 
 on demand anything of the value of, say, one day's labor or 
 fractional part thereof. 
 
 " Well, but a day's labor by one person and a day's la- 
 bor by another are certainly very different things. To talk 
 of a day's labor as a measure is about as definite as the 
 boy's comparison, "long as a string," is it not?" 
 
 Yes ; but it would make some difference if the boy said 
 " long as this string," and showed it to you, without allow- 
 ing you to measure it exactly. The unit — " a day's work" 
 — will mean the simplest work of average efficiency of a 
 normal working-day. I would here recall to our readers 
 what was said on value in the first chapter. It was there 
 stated, among other things, that all skilled and professional 
 work is nothing but multiplied common, or unskilled, work. 
 I once more cite the words of Ricardo : " The estimation 
 of different qualities of labor comes soon to be adjusted in 
 the market with sufficient precision for all practical pur- 
 poses." While therefore we grant that "a day's labor," as 
 a unit of value, has not the scientific precision of a foot-rule 
 as a unit of length, I claim that it is well fitted to supplant 
 the pound unit, or dollar unit, or franc unit. Wl>en five 
 
152 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 days' labor are demanded for a coat, it will not be at all dif- 
 ficult for the buyer to compare that with the amount of com- 
 mon work contained in his own day's labor. 
 
 The distinguishing economic traits of the new order con- 
 sidered so far in this chapter were of a negative character ; 
 they consisted in the elimination of features that we now 
 everywhere meet with ; yet this change alone ■\frould make 
 it a different world from ours. In passing over to the posi- 
 tive characteristics of the ■ co-operative commonwealth, we 
 should keep in mind that it is not an imaginary picture 
 drawn on a blank tablet, but that it will bear the same rela- 
 tion to the established order that the full-blown flower bears 
 to the green bud. This relationship, indeed, will make us 
 feel quite at home, if we in imagination take a bird's-eye 
 view of its economic workings, though we should find our- 
 selves irretrievably lost in its labyrinths if we attempted to 
 wend our way through its details. For its grand industrial 
 processes will be carried on pretty much as they now are 
 or might be conducted in some of our best managed man- 
 ufacturing or retail selling establishments. Or it might per- 
 haps suit our purpose better if we take the present State 
 management of our postal affairs as an illustration, and 
 compare that with socialist management of all our industries. 
 The Post Office department of the United States was self- 
 sustaining before the two-cent rate was introduced, and will 
 beyond doubt be so again in a short time. That is to 
 say, its expenditures in salaries for all in its service, and 
 in paying for transportation of the mails and printing of 
 stamps, equalled at the end of the fiscal year its receipts. 
 That is the summit of success ; for to have a surplus, to 
 make any " profit," is contrary to the end for which it was 
 instituted. 
 
 Let us now see how this most important matter will stand 
 
SOCIAL ECONOMY 153 
 
 in our commonwealth. Its receipts — not the "revenues" 
 of which we spoke a few pages back, but its gross re- 
 ceipts, the national income — will consist of the total results 
 of the productive labor performed in a given year. By 
 " productive labor " is of course not meant merely agricul- 
 tural and manufacturing labor, but also the labor of trans- 
 porting and handKng the goods, of writing books ; every 
 kind of labor, in short, that creates values in exchange. Its 
 expenditures — outgoings — will consist of these very re- 
 ceipts, less all buildings and machinery constructed during 
 the year, and all that is reserved as addition to its capital. 
 As the products were received, or as services were rendered, 
 labor checks will have been issued (or perhaps such money 
 as we use now, which then, however, will have no other 
 function than the checks, — that of being tickets, tokens), 
 each check will represent so many normal days of com- 
 mon labor, and there will, during each fiscal year, have 
 been exactly as many checks issued as will correspond to 
 the days of labor, productive or unproductive, actually per- 
 formed. 
 
 The outgoings will be distributed at the various depots . 
 or bazaars of the commonwealth to the holders of these 
 checks; "sold" there, in other words. These check-holders 
 may be those to whom they were originally issued, or 
 strangers visiting the country, or citizens who have parted 
 with something valuable for them. These bazaars will be 
 one-price establishments. The wares will have their value, 
 — real, "natural" value, as Ricardo termed it, which is, as 
 we saw in chapter I., the amount of human labor embodied 
 in them ; that determines their value now, has always done 
 it, and will determine it under the new order. The wares 
 will be sold for a price equal to that value, with possibly a 
 percentage added. 
 
154 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 For it will be noted that the checks issued represent and 
 call for more days' labor than are contained in the products 
 destined for distribution. There are, first, the checks 
 issued to those citizens who have performed unproductive 
 labor, — physicians, judges, teachers, clerks, domestic helpers, 
 etc. ; and, next, checks for the labor contained in what is set 
 aside as capital. There are thus a good many legitimate 
 claims which must be extraordinarily provided for. The 
 commonwealth has already a fund on which it can draw con- 
 siderably for these purposes, — its rent-fund. In all proba- 
 bility, however, an impost will have to be laid on the sales 
 in addition; that is, goods representing twenty days of 
 labor will be sold for checks representing, say, twenty-one 
 days of labor. This, though really plain, may seem intricate 
 to many ; but if the social transactions of to-day were simi- 
 larly analyzed, they would appear far more complex. 
 
 But it is of the highest importance that the commonwealth 
 shall dispose of all the products it thus offers for distribu- 
 tion, or else there will be labor checks outstanding which it 
 has no means of satisfying. Somebody might bring forward 
 some such objection as this : — 
 
 " I understood you to say that the prices will be rigidly 
 fixed. But what if demand and supply should play you 
 tricks? Suppose a fabric goes out of fashion, so that your 
 citizens will not buy it at all, or at all events refuse to pay 
 the price that is put upon it. Is your commonwealth going 
 to force it down the throats of consumers ? You socialists 
 do not propose to abolish a law of nature, do you? " 
 
 This is our answer : I admit that demand and supply is a 
 natural law ; that is, that if consumption and production do 
 not fit together throughout the entire extent of both, mis- 
 chief will be the consequence at all times, and socialists are 
 not such fools as to suppose that they can decree away any 
 
SOCIAL ECONOMY 155 
 
 natural law or force. I do, however, suppose that we may 
 in time become as much master of the force implied in de- 
 mand and supply, as we already are of other natural forces. 
 We have not decreed away the laws of steam, and yet we 
 now make the steam propel our ships across the ocean and 
 carry our burdens across the continent. We can change or 
 remove entirely the conditions under which those natural 
 forces act, and thus, without abolishing any law whatever, 
 compel them to act in a more beneficent manner, or to 
 become latent ; that is, to suspend their effects altogether. 
 Indeed, we see almost every day how powerful private in- 
 dividuals under our present system do control supply for 
 their own sinister purposes. The combinations of railroad 
 companies between each other, or among themselves and 
 oil companies, of which we spoke in chapter II., are such 
 interferences with a natural force which, if it only were per- 
 mitted to act spontaneously, would work most beneficently ; 
 and as to demand, it may be worth while to note that the 
 freaks of fashion originate usually in the cupidity of manufact- 
 urers and even in that of insignificant tailors and milliners. 
 
 The commonwealth will use its vast power over the con- 
 ditions of demand and supply to establish and preserve 
 economic equilibrium. It undoubtedly can by proper 
 foresight and abundant statistics accurately adjust the sup- 
 ply of all products to the demand for them ; make supply 
 and demand balance each other. This function of statisti- 
 cian will be one of the most important within its sphere, 
 and the principal way in which it will control the workers 
 in their industrial pursuits. I think the commonwealth will 
 thereby be quite successful in keeping prices steady, and in 
 making the chance for demand and supply to play any 
 tricks extremely small. I think so, because I see with 
 what accuracy the manager of a large hotel hits upon the 
 
156 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 proper quantities of the innumerable articles of food re- 
 quired by his guests. 
 
 But demand and supply will, as a matter of course, 
 whenever it gets the chance, make the prices vibrate above 
 and below the real value. Thus, should the supply any- 
 where be excessive, either from miscalculation or from 
 the whim of fashion, — which, by the way, we may rest as. 
 sured will be pretty effectually curbed by pubhc opinion in 
 a society like the co-operative commonwealth, — then the 
 goods may have to be sacrificed, and the prices correspond- 
 ingly lowered. The commonwealth may have to stand the 
 loss, as the universal insurer, which it will be abundantly 
 able to do. Should, on the other hand, the supply be defi- 
 cient, as must always be the case with a limited number of 
 products (particular kinds of wine, for instance), in such 
 case the commonwealth will raise the price to correspond 
 to the demand, and be to that extent a gainer. Very likely 
 this gain and loss will generally balance each other. 
 
 Of course all exports and imports will be under collective 
 control. That is to say, a part of its receipts (so much 
 . as it judges will not be needed for home consumption) 
 the commonwealth will exchange for such foreign products 
 as there will be a home demand for, and which it cannot 
 itself produce so profitably or successfully, whether it be 
 on account of climate or other causes. The lines of our 
 commerce will therefore very likely come to run from north 
 to south rather than from east to west. 
 
 That is a consummation that will change the discord 
 which now obtains in nearly all countries in regard to a tariff 
 into complete harmony. I cannot agree with Henry George 
 when he cannot see anything but " fallacies " and " absurdi- 
 ties " in the protection theory. But the trouble is that our 
 " protective " tariffs do not protect those who need protec- 
 
SOCIAL ECONOMY 1 57 
 
 tion, but simply protect the profit rate of employers ; the 
 fact is, it is shameless hypocrisy when American manufact- 
 urers and politicians pretend that the working classes are 
 benefited by a tariff policy which does not exclude foreign 
 laborers. On the other hand, they who here agitate so 
 violently for a free-trade policy evidently do it because it 
 would put money into their pockets. As long as- one set 
 of individuals see profit in one policy and another set in 
 another, the tariff can but be a shuttlecock, tossed back and 
 forth by conflicting interests. To frame a tariff law that will 
 pacify all interests is about as ingenious an idea as to pray to 
 God for a mild winter without prejudice to the coal dealers. 
 
 Now we come to one of the most important differences 
 between the condition of the workers under the new order 
 and their condition under a system of private enterprise. 
 Now the wages of the workers are determined, as we have 
 seen, in the last place by what it costs to live and raise a 
 family ; in the commonwealth, as our definition shows, the 
 workers will be rewarded according to results, whether they 
 are mechanics, or chiefs of industry, or transporters, or sales- 
 men. The productive workers will each receive for every 
 day's common labor a check entitling him to one day's 
 common labor in return, less his share of the impost (his 
 premium, it may be called, which he pays to the national 
 insurance company, and his part of the public chsrges). 
 Those engaged in unproductive vocations wil Ireceive simi- 
 lar salaries out of the rent or impost fund. They all will 
 thus receive the full value of their labors, and whenever 
 they buy anything, they will simply pay wages and salaries, 
 and no profits. 
 
 "Yes, it is easy to say that every one, whether he be 
 teacher, or physician, or chief of industry, or artisan, or hod- 
 carrier, will receive a day's labor for a day's labor, by which 
 
158 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 I understand you to mean a day of common labor for a day 
 of common labor. But how is such a comparison of com- 
 mon labor (of a day of the hod-carrier's labor, for instance) 
 to be made with skilled labor or professional labor, with per- 
 fect justice to all ? And who are the persons who are to be 
 intrusted with such a delicate and dictatorial function ? You 
 socialists seem to treat this important matter with too great 
 flippancy. Such a gradation of labor is, in fact, entirely 
 visionary, and that is enough to relegate your co-operative 
 commonwealth into the realm of Utopia." 
 
 Hold on, sir ! The new order will by no means hinge 
 upon this matter. It will be realized because the Will of 
 the Universe (as I term it, or " nature," as you may prefer 
 to call it) ordains it, because, at a certain point in time, 
 society will have to realize it. 
 
 And when we shall have arrived at that crisis, we hope 
 that the leaders of the great change will not- be such vision- 
 aries as to commence by trying to do perfect justice to any- 
 body. They will know better than to assume to themselves 
 the attributes of gods. They will, we hope, be practical 
 men, who simply try to be as just as they can be, consist- 
 ently with the best interests of the whole. And I think 
 that they cannot better show their practical common sense 
 than by adopting the gradation already made ; that is, by 
 retaining for an unlimited period the ratio of wages which, 
 at the time of the change, will obtain in the various branches 
 of manual work and for the different qualities of workmen. 
 This ratio will furnish them a sufficiently accurate " gradation 
 of labor." " 
 
 1 Here I wish to call attention to the second decidedly nnsocialistic idea 
 which Bellamy introduces in "Looking Backward," — equal wages; t'.e., 
 that every person, whatever his work, his industry, or his needs, is to start 
 on every New Year's day with the same income. Socialism must not be 
 saddled with this proportion, which is both impracticable and unjust. 
 
SOCIAL ECONOMY 159 
 
 To go a little into details : suppose they go to work and 
 establish, first of all, a normal day, say of eight hours, and 
 pay the workers twice the wages which each one has been 
 receiving, on an average, for the ten years immediately pre- 
 ceding. I have no doubt that the wages can be raised and 
 the working day shortened that much with perfect safety, 
 considering the enormous advantages of co-operative indus- 
 try, which we dwelt upon in the preceding chapter. Any- 
 way, a year's experience will teach them whether they have 
 raised the wages too much, or not high enough. And please 
 bear in mind that the members of each branch of industry 
 and every calling will settle that matter of remuneration for 
 themselves. They will be entitled as a body to the pro- 
 ceeds of all the labor they have embodied in the product 
 they create, and that they distribute among themselves just 
 as they please — subject to appeal to the commonwealth as 
 arbitrator. Dr. Green, the president of the Western Union 
 Telegraph Company, is reported to have remarked, in his 
 evidence before a senate committee : " I shall never agree 
 that the operators should have, or believe they had, the 
 power of fixing their own salaries." They -nevertheless 
 will have that power some time, as sure as the world 
 moves. 
 
 But, in regard to the work of the chiefs of industry and 
 professionals, they, undoubtedly, will institute a new "gra- 
 dation of labor." There will be no more ^50,000 or ^25,- 
 000 or even $10,000 salaries paid. These fancy salaries 
 are now possible, and now considered proper, only because 
 large fortunes can at present be made in what is known as 
 "business." When "business" is done away with, then 
 their services will be compared with manual work, as they 
 ought to be, and be paid for accordingly. 
 
 That constitutes one of the points in which our postal 
 
l6o THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 system is not yet " socialistic." In the co-operative com- 
 monwealth the Postmaster-General will not receive ^10,000 
 while letter-carriers must be satisfied with ^800. 
 
 Of course, in instituting the new " gradation " in the 
 labors of the teacher, the doctor, they will make allow- 
 ance for the many years of study these men have needed 
 to properly qualify themselves. But just in the same way 
 the watchmaker's labor will be, and is, rated above that of 
 the hod-carrier, because his years of apprenticeship must 
 be compensated for. It means, simply, that both profes- 
 sional and skilled labor is multiplied common labor. 
 
 Do not here object that if the rewards of captains of 
 industries and of the professions are thus reduced to a level 
 with manual labor, men of genius and of natural gifts will 
 then part with the management of affairs and with the pro- 
 fessions. 
 
 They will not, unless you can show that they also will 
 leave the world on that account. 
 
 They will find their ulterior reward in the zest of intel- 
 lectual activity, the joys of creative genius, the honor of 
 directing affairs, and the social distinction they will enjoy. 
 
 Do not object, either, that such a compensation runs 
 counter to the socialist principle that every one is entitled to 
 the full proceeds of his own labor; that, therefore, a man- 
 ager who by his skill causes a factory to earn ^100,000 
 may claim that amount as his reward. 
 
 A man is entitled to the full proceeds of his labor — 
 against any other individual, but not against society. 
 Society is not bound to reward a man either in propor- 
 tion to his services, nor yet to his wants, but according 
 to expediency ; according to the behest of her own welfare. 
 
 Man's work is not a quid fro quo, but a trust. The other 
 construction would lead to the absurdity that no existing 
 
SOCIAL ECONOMY l6l 
 
 fortunes could give any idea of the monstrous accumulation 
 of riches of the heirs of a Kepler or a Newton, or still more 
 of a Robert Fulton, a Watt, or a Morse, if these men could 
 have claimed all results of their inventions. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the labors of those invested with 
 the "delicate " function of apportioning the rewards — who 
 these persons are likely to be we shall consider in the 
 eighth chapter — will not be so very herculean, for the first 
 generation, at least ; nor need these persons be at all " dic- 
 tatorial." We do not call a congress "dictatorial" when 
 it fixes the salaries of the president or of judges. 
 
 This will be the glorious achievement of the co-operative 
 commonwealth : that the whole proceeds of labor will be 
 distributed exclusively among those who do the labor. 
 But what needs to be impressed upon socialist workmen 
 especially is that common prudence should make them 
 turn the cold shoulder to the idea of ideally just wages, 
 and, on the other hand, make them satisfied with the 
 present ratio of wages — at all events till a more perfect, 
 and at the same time expedient, gradation of labor has 
 been perfected. 
 
 When the co-operative commonwealth has worked for a 
 couple of generations ; when the student and the watch- 
 maker are supported by the State during their years of study 
 and apprenticeship and furnished all appliances requisite to 
 their training, then another rule may obtain. Then, per- 
 haps, as some socialists now contend, one hour of the 
 teacher's work and one hour of the hod-carrier's work will 
 be paid for alike, — though it must be observed that, in 
 difficulty, the teacher's work does not at all resemble the 
 work of the hod-carrier, — but to speculate upon that in 
 our generation can properly be termed "Utopian." 
 
 It is worth while for workingmen to study the case of the 
 
1 62 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 tailor association founded by Louis Blanc at Clichy, in 
 1848, which had to give up equal pay. 
 
 We now, lastly, come to the greatest economic achieve- 
 ment of the coming commonwealth. My definition said 
 that its citizens would be consciously and avowedly public 
 functionaries. That alone is an object worth striving for, 
 worth dying for. 
 
 When reformers call our workingmen " white slaves " and 
 speak of their condition as " slavery," many well-meaning 
 persons deem these terms extravagant and attribute them -to 
 demagogism. Now, in all soberness, are they extravagant? 
 
 I shall entirely omit any reference to extreme cases of 
 oppression on the part of employers towards their em- 
 ployes, and confine myself to what all wage-workers must 
 submit to, whether they be mechanics, clerks, or tele- 
 graph operators. And let me remark that here, as wherever 
 else in this work I have spoken of " wage-workers," I have 
 excluded and do exclude domestic servants of every sort. 
 We have already seen that the characteristic mark of a 
 wage-worker is that he is obliged to go into the general 
 market with his labor, which is his ware, and there sell it 
 for a price, vibrating now a little above, now a little below, 
 what is necessary to his subsistence. 
 
 Now, what does this " selling his labor " amount to. 
 
 There is a phrase that our employers are particularly 
 fond of using towards their employes, and that is, " Your 
 time is mine." 
 
 What does this phrase imply? "Your time is mine" 
 means " your body is mine, your actions are mine for so 
 many hours of the twenty-four. You must do nothing, say 
 nothing, go nowhere as you please, but as I please. I want 
 you to do this thing now, or," of course it is understood, 
 " I discharge you." It means that the employes are 
 
SOCIAL ECONOMY 163 
 
 subject to the individual, irresponsible will of the employer, 
 that their preferences are not considered at all. 
 
 What in the name of reason is that but slavery ? Was 
 not " your time is mine " the very essence, the definition of 
 negro slavery ? True, a master could sell his slave ; but 
 there certainly were many masters who did not dream of 
 ever selling their negroes. Were these therefore less slaves ? 
 True, a master could whip his slave ; but our employer can 
 discharge his employes whenever it takes his fancy, which 
 often has worse consequences for the latter than a whipping 
 would have. The fact is, these were -mere accessories. 
 Slavery is not yet abolished. The very principle, subjec- 
 tion, which ruled under ancient slavery, under serfage 
 and negro slavery, rules yet under the wage-system. That 
 makes the system essentially immoral ; it demoralizes the 
 employer as well as the employ^. 
 
 And this relation becomes absolutely unbearable if, as 
 very often is the case, the employ^ has more knowledge, 
 more brains, a fuller head, in short, than his employer ; for 
 it has rightly been said that all that is necessary to success 
 in business is " great concentration, continuous application, 
 and an absurdly exaggerated idea of one's own impor- 
 tance." It is unbearable when the employ^ feels that in a 
 social system where position depended upon merit he would 
 be the one in authority. 
 
 There is no halting-place between subjection and inter- 
 dependence. Independence cannot be had for all; one 
 man cannot be independent without making others depend- 
 ent on him. The wage-system involves subjection in a 
 milder form, perhaps, than that of old, - — another instance of 
 the chronic hypocrisy of our age. That is shown very well 
 by the constant talk about the relation of the wage-workers 
 to their master being one of contract. Well, that is a very 
 
1 64 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 one-sided " contract " where the employ^ has but to say 
 " Amen ! " Look at the poor, persistent telegraph opera- 
 tors of the United States, who, after their late unsuccessful 
 strike, had to sign a " contract," agreeing never in the 
 future to enter a lodge of the Knights of Labor, before 
 being reinstated. No, by selling his labor, the wage- 
 worker virtually sells himself. 
 
 The co-operative commonwealth will abolish slavery by 
 the roots by raising all private employment to the dignity 
 of public functions. This change, while it will not essen- 
 tially alter the existing mode of exercising them, will yet 
 alone transform their general spirit, for it will forever, first, 
 do away with dependence of one individual upon another ; 
 next, take away from those in authority the irresponsible 
 power of discharge ; and, lastly, relieve the worker from 
 the necessity of going into the market and selling himself 
 as a ware. 
 
 Do not, however, suppose that there will be no subordi- 
 nation under the new order of things. Subordination is an 
 absolute essential of co-operation ; indeed, co-operation is 
 discipline. 
 
 Do not suppose, either, that demand and supply will 
 cease altogether to have an influence on labor. Being a 
 natural force, it will exert itself whenever it gets a chance ; 
 but the coming commonwealth will see to it that, whenever 
 it does act, it acts beneficently. We shall see here in what 
 manner. 
 
 It is, as I have stated, for the commonwealth to deter- 
 mine, in its character of statistician, how much of a given 
 product shall be produced the coming year or season. 
 That is pre-eminently its sphere, however much the workers 
 of the different branches will otherwise be left to manage 
 their own affairs. Suppose in a given industry production 
 
SOCIAL ECONOMY 165 
 
 will have to be narrowed down to one-half the usual quan- 
 tum. It follows that, in such case, the workmen can only 
 work half the usual time, and that there will only be one- 
 half the usual proceeds to be distributed among them. 
 
 What must be the result? Evidently the men's remun- 
 eration will have to be reduced one-half, or a corresponding 
 number of workers \vill have to pass over to some other 
 employment — for the consequences of such a disorder, 
 which may be permanent and is not the result of either 
 miscalculation or misfortune, will, certainly, not be borne 
 by society at large ; and the commonwealth, while it guar- 
 antees suitable employment, can certainly not guarantee a 
 particular employment to everybody. 
 
 A change of occupation, however, will in that common- 
 wealth be tolerably easy for the worker, on account of the 
 high grade of general education, and because all will have 
 passed through a thorough apprenticeship in general 
 mechanics. Certain critics of socialism object that no per- 
 son under it will have any effective choice in regard to em- 
 ployment. The above shows how little foundation there is 
 for such a criticism. But we should like to know how much 
 " effective choice " the vast majority of men now have in 
 regard to employment or wages, or place of abode, or any- 
 thing else. 
 
 Another critic once remarked to the writer in regard to 
 the commonwealth absorbing all social activities, " What a 
 tyranny, to forbid a Meissonier to paint a little bit of canvas 
 and sell it for ^100,000, if any one would buy it ! " Why, 
 it would be tyranny to forbid it. And we have no reason to 
 think it will be forbidden. I therefore also said that there 
 might be citizens who would acquire labor checks by part- 
 ing with something valuable to other citizens. But, really, 
 we do not suppose there will be any citizen in the co-oper- 
 
1 66 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 ative commonwealth, when some time has elapsed, who has 
 got ^100,000 to squander on a bit of canvas; and none 
 should deplore it, for, if that fact would deprive the com- 
 monwealth of Meissoniers, it surely will not rob it of 
 Raphaels or Michael Angelos. It is just one of the curses 
 of this age that it has out of artists made lackeys of the 
 rich. Phidias, Raphael, Michael Angelo ministered to the 
 people. 
 
 I now shall consider how it is possible to have due 
 subordination in a State where all dependence of one indi- 
 vidual upon another is destroyed. The political expression 
 of interdependence is — democracy. 
 
niLMVVKAVy- VS: FARXr CrUVERJVMEJVT 167 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 DEMOCRACY VERSUS PARTY GOVERNMENT 
 
 Behold ! now I, too, have my twenty-thousandth part of a talker in our 
 national palaver.' — What a notion of liberty ! " — Carlyle. 
 
 " Nay, must we not rather confess that that unlovely creature, the habit- 
 ual office-seeker, is as natural a product of our political and social condi- 
 tions as the scrub-oak is of the soil when it has been laid waste by the 
 removal of the primeval forest ? " — Richard Grant White. 
 
 " I believe that party, instead of being a machinery necessary to the exist- 
 ence of free government, is its most dangerous foe, and that, in order to 
 get anything which really deserves the name of republican government, we 
 must destroy party altogether." — "^ True Republic" by Albert Stickn'ey. 
 
 AT this stage, certainly, — and probably as soon as the 
 idea of collective control of all the affairs of the 
 nation was broached, — many an inquirer exclaims with 
 supreme disgust : — 
 
 " So you actually propose to increase the spoils of office 
 a hundred, yea, a thousand fold ! What a bedlam you 
 would make of the United States at election times ! And 
 then nothing short of a revolution would ever suffice to 
 dislodge the party in possession of the government, how- 
 ever much it may have mismanaged public affairs. Why, 
 this is enough to prove the Utopian nature of your 
 scheme ! " 
 
 Wait a moment, friends. I have so far only shown you 
 the front view of our commonwealth — its economic side. 
 Your objection would be unanswerable, and your disgust in 
 order, if the social regime implied the retention of our 
 present political machinery. 
 
 I insist on a political change hand in hand with the 
 
1 68 THE CO-OPERATIVE CuMMONWEALTH 
 
 economic change. I insist on new machinery for the new 
 motive power ; on new bottles for the new wine. Our 
 political programme is just as vital a part of our prospective 
 commonwealth as our economic programme is. The po- 
 litical machinery of our country would be most clumsy and 
 unsuitable to the workings of the new order. It would of 
 necessity have to be discarded for something more suitable, 
 just as the young man has to discard the clothes of his 
 boyhood which he has outgrown. 
 
 The frank avowal will undoubtedly hurt more prejudices 
 than even our economic ideas did. 
 
 "What, do you socialists dare to think of laying your 
 impious hands on our glorious American constitution? 
 What a sacrilege ! " 
 
 Softly ; listen to the following : — 
 
 " The idea that some men now hold that this constitu- 
 tion is the one perfect piece of political machinery that the 
 world has ever seen, is a weak growth of later years. The 
 men of 1787 knew better. No one of them thought it 
 the best form of government that could be devised. It was 
 the only form on which they could then agree. They 
 began an experiment — we have its results. Is it possible 
 that from those results we can learn nothing? And are we 
 forever to use the machinery of a past age, throwing away 
 all the teachings of later years? " 
 
 He who wrote these sentences is no socialist. He is an 
 American to the manor born, and a matter-of-fact lawyer. 
 His name is Albert Stickney, author of " A True Republic," 
 published by the Harpers. His fourth and sixth chapters 
 ought to be read by every inquirer as an introduction to the 
 political ideas of socialists. The fact of Stickney being a 
 lawyer makes him exceedingly keen in exposing the defects 
 in our poHtical machinery, while his practical common-sense. 
 
DEMOCRACY VS. PARTY GOVERNMENT 1 69 
 
 in which he shows himself a typical American, renders him 
 one of the best advocates we could have. As Ricardo 
 prepared the way for our analysis of our present economic 
 relations, and Spencer for socialism, so Stii'kney performs 
 that service for us with our countrymen in regard to the 
 political changes which we contemplate. 
 
 In the two chapters to which I have called attention 
 he discusses first, with a wealth of illustration, the evils and 
 abuses of party rule as we know it. If that were all, he 
 would not have done anything extraordinary. Most people 
 admit these evils. But most men also think them mere 
 accidents of the time, and that they are far outweighed 
 by the good results which party brings. Stickney's merit 
 consists in showing that parties — by which term must al- 
 ways be understood permanent parties — have no good 
 results at all, and that it is the frame of government which 
 is responsible for those evils. 
 
 He says very pointedly : — 
 
 "When we said (as we did in effect in our constitution) 
 all public servants shall depend for keeping their offices, 
 not on whether they do their work well or ill, but on carry- 
 ing the next election, then, instead of giving them each a 
 separate interest to do his own work well, we gave them 
 all one common interest to carry the next election. We 
 made it certain that they would combine and form parties 
 for the purpose of carrying elections. 
 
 " But there is another point. The knowledge which all 
 men had that at the end of a fixed time there would be a 
 large number of vacancies, made it certain that other men 
 who were not in office would combine for the purpose of 
 getting out the men who were in office, and getting in 
 themselves. The term-system was certain then to create 
 two great parties for the purpose of carrying elections. 
 
I/O THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 The men who were in formed a party to keep office. The 
 men who were out formed a party to get office. 
 
 " Whether or not they wished it, our public servants were 
 driven by this point in our system of government to make 
 this work of carrying elections their regular profession. In 
 that profession they gained great skill. In that work they 
 were sure to have more skill than the ordinary citizens who 
 gave their time and thought to other things. The profes- 
 sional must always beat the amateur. . . . The natural 
 and certain result was that party leaders, for party purposes, 
 controlled the election of public servants, and the action of 
 public servants after they were elected." 
 
 But enough of quotation. Stickney comes to the con- 
 clusion that the term-system will have to be abolished ; but 
 the term-system is the very corner-stone of our " constitu- 
 tion." 
 
 That is certainly a very vigorous way of questioning that 
 instrument, especially for an American lawyer. 
 
 I shall have to be broader in my criticism than Stickney 
 (though I can hardly be said to be more radical), for the 
 objective points at which he and I aim are rather different. 
 He wants a machinery which shall ensure good work in the 
 affairs with which government is now charged. I want a 
 machinery fit to transact all the affairs of the nation. 
 
 I say, then, that the new order cannot use a machinery 
 which allows the reigning party to be master of the situa- 
 tion. 
 
 The successful party now appoints the people's rulers, and 
 all public affairs are now conducted with a view to party 
 interests. 
 
 For, as Stickney remarks : — 
 
 " The people on the day of election have at most the 
 choice between two men, or sets of men; and with the 
 
DEMOCRACY VS. PARTY GOVERNMENT 171 
 
 point who these two sets of men are to be the people at 
 large have little or nothing to do. It may be said that the 
 people can have something to do with the selection of the 
 candidates. However that may be, it is the fact that they 
 do not, and we are here considering the way our system 
 really works." 
 
 No one will deny that all elective officers in the States 
 from head to foot are elected, not by the people, but by 
 the caucus of the party which happens to be successful. 
 And the caucus or convention is simply an irresponsible 
 gathering of men whom selfish interests draw and bind to- 
 gether. 
 
 Next, official action has, ever since Thomas Jefferson 
 founded the first opposition party, been directed to the ser- 
 vice of party interests instead of the people's interests. 
 The officials are and must be pliant men ; if not, they are 
 driven from public life ; these are matters of notoriety. 
 Even such an honest man as Lincoln had ■':o make scandal- 
 ous appointments. His secretary of the interior declared 
 that, if he dared, he could run his department with half his 
 force of clerks and for half its cost. Such another would- 
 be honest president as Hayes had to pay for electoral votes 
 with the people's offices. 
 
 The political institutions of the Union, instead of sub- 
 serving public interests, are political fortresses. "Think 
 what is at stake this fall — a total of two hundred and 
 thirty places in the county of Oneida ! " exclaimed a Utica 
 paper during a late election. And yet people who super- 
 ciliously called socialism a Utopia imagine that an act of 
 congress can give us civil service reform ! Do they really 
 believe that figs will grow on thistles ? 
 
 No, attend for once to the essentials : destroy these par- 
 ties which at present are the people's masters ; which, as 
 
1/2 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 Stickney so abundantly proves, in a normal State are un- 
 mitigated evils, and these trifles are certain to right them- 
 selves. But please distinguish between combinations of 
 men for the purpose of carrying measures — which always 
 will exist — and our permanent parties, — standing parties as 
 they may be called. In our party contests men do not 
 battle for measures, they fight for candidates. " Our par- 
 ties do not elect men to put into action certain principles ; 
 they use principles as battle-cries to elect certain men." 
 Take a glance through the so-called " political records " of 
 the magazines. We find from first to last nothing, abso- 
 lutely nothing, but the names of men and the offices for 
 which they respectively have been nominated or elected. 
 "Politics," then, from being the science of government, has 
 become — co-operative office-seeking. 
 
 It was wise to form a party as a necessary organ of resist- 
 ance to negro slavery. But when that object was gained, 
 then the need of party was gone ; from that moment the 
 republican party became nothing but a faction, stuffed full 
 with dollars. 
 
 Next, I say, the new order cannot use a machinery 
 which renders legislators the people's masters and allows 
 them to conduct public affairs with a view to private and 
 class interests. 
 
 The history of the Union furnishes some signal instances 
 in point. The people have quite frequently demanded the 
 resignation of their representatives ; State legislatures have 
 demanded it of their senators, — instances, therefore, where 
 there could be no doubt of the identity of the constituency, 
 — and what has been the answer ? 
 
 " You have no business at all to demand my resignatioii. 
 It is absolute presumption ia you to do so." 
 
 A perfectly correct answer according to our constitution. 
 
DEMOCRACY VS. PARTY GOVERNMENT 173 
 
 They might with perfect propriety, constitutionally speak- 
 ing, have added : " You call yourselves sovereigns, and verily 
 think yourselves such. Deluded nobodies that you are ! 
 You were sovereigns the moment you elected me ; but in 
 doing so, you abdicated in favor of me. Please wait till 
 my term is out. Till then I am the sovereign. Then you 
 can once more call yourselves ' sovereigns ' for a moment in 
 order to elect some other master over you." 
 
 Is not that literally true ? And yet the government of 
 the United States is called a democracy ! 
 
 With Stickney I propose to put an end to this term- 
 system, but go further and say that the whole system o£ 
 representation is unfit for a higher civilization. 
 
 Was not Carlyle perfectly right when he sneered at that kind 
 of " liberty " which consists in having, as a voter has in our 
 country, a forty- thousandth part of a talker in our " national 
 palaver"? And even that talker, though he be called my 
 representative, may not, to that infinitesimal fraction, repre- 
 sent me. That is a nice sort of " representative," against 
 whose election I voted and perhaps worked. No matter ! 
 by voting at all I express my willingness to submit to a pos- 
 sible or probable majority against me. But I should have 
 had to submit if I had not voted at all ; so, whether or not 
 I vote against him, that man is still my " representative." 
 
 Very many schemes for doing away with this monstrous 
 feature have been propounded, pre-eminently that of the 
 Englishman Hare, which is almost perfect in its way, but 
 which is absolutely impracticable, as long as we have stand- 
 ing parties. 
 
 All these schemes, moreover, are in themselves failures, 
 because they aim at giving theoretical improvement to 
 that which is fallacious in itself, for that is what repr*?- 
 sentation is. 
 
174 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 How can I say that what my representative may will 
 to-morrow that I also shall will ? 
 
 " Nice sovereigns," Rousseau said, " whose only function 
 in government is to obey." 
 
 The simple and plain fact is that the boast of " self- 
 government " is mere cant ; the " representative " or " parlia- 
 mentary" government was not intended to represent the 
 people, but is a rude device for securing power to our 
 leading classes; that is why we find so many lawyers — 
 the retainers of our plutocracy — in the legislative seats. 
 Hence it is an essentially temporary expedient. 
 
 I say, further, the new order will have no use for presi- 
 dents and governors, who for their term of office are masters 
 of the situation. 
 
 The president is, even when he rebels against his party, 
 exceedingly powerful — for mischief, at all events. But 
 when loyal to his party he is a veritable king, a dress-coat 
 king, 'tis true, but more powerful than any crowned 
 king. 
 
 He cannot declare war, but he can create one. He can- 
 not make treaties, but he can force them on the nation. He 
 can nullify the laws by his pardon. His will and temper 
 are the only rule for his veto power. He acts : congress 
 talks. He has a thousand means at his command to show 
 favors to congressmen. Ho is every year for many months 
 the uncontrolled monarch of the country. In war he is 
 almost absolute. And yet our country \z called a republic ! 
 But then it must be admitted that it was only an accident 
 that made us a republic, for who can doubt that if at the 
 time of the Revolution the Americans had had within their 
 borders a British prince who sympathized with the colonies 
 in their struggle, they would have done exactly what the 
 Brazilians did, — made him king? 
 
DEMOCRACY VS. PARTY GOVERNMENT 175 
 
 The new order will know nothing of such an office. 
 
 It will know nothing of it, because, as Goldwin Smith 
 said in an excellent article in the Atlantic Monthly for Janu- 
 ary, 1879, entitled "Is Universal Suffrage a Failure? " — 
 
 " It (the presidency) is at once the grand prize and the 
 most powerful stimulant of faction." 
 
 The presidency is truly " the grand prize " that fosters an 
 ambition which no citizen in a republic ought to entertain, 
 and which has ruined the usefulness of so many of the best 
 men of the States. 
 
 The presidency is the chief " spoil " and source of other 
 spoils. We all remember the frankness of a member of a 
 late national convention : " What are we here for, if not 
 the spoils?" When the co-operative commonwealth abol- 
 ishes this chief spoil with all other spoils, and thus stops 
 their pay, standing parties will dissolve for want of cohesion, 
 as standing armies do when their pay stops. 
 
 But what does this discarding of these prominent features 
 of our government mean? It means that the only politi- 
 cal machinery fit for the co-operative commonwealth is 
 democracy. 
 
 For, however hazy the meaning of that word is, nobody 
 can fairly object if I, temporarily, define " democracy " as 
 that form of administration where no one of the public 
 officers is at any time the master of the situation ; where, 
 consequently, none of the public affairs can at any time be 
 conducted with a view to private or class interest. 
 
 The new order will further discard the system of ap- 
 pointments from above, which is simply the principal means 
 by which our ruling classes exercise their power. 
 
 It will reject the doctrine of the three " co-ordinate " 
 powers ; that is, the doctrine that the functions of govern- 
 ment should be distributed among three departments — 
 
176 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 the legislative, executive, and judicial — wholly indepen- 
 dent of, and yet checking, each other. 
 
 This doctrine amounts to this, that laws should be 
 enacted in one spirit, interpreted in another, and executed 
 in a third spirit, which is preposterous. The theory of 
 checks and balances is one born of passions, engendered 
 by struggle against arbitrary power ; not one born of philo- 
 sophical observations. This fact was entirely misconceived 
 by Montesquieu, — that embodied empiricism, — and 
 strangely enough also overlooked by our practical forefathers, 
 as noticed by Prof. Goldwin Smith in the article above 
 mentioned. 
 
 The new order will throw overboard the doctrine of 
 State sovereignty, which, though decrepit, is not yet dead. 
 The doctrine is a relic of the infancy of the United States 
 when they were small, undeveloped, scattered communities 
 such as all civilized nations have started with. It is worthy 
 of observation that dual sovereignty has been the historical 
 development of Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, Italy, 
 Spain, and France, as well as the United States 
 
 The co-operative commonwealth will only know of a 
 Nation with a big, very big N. The present State lines of 
 the Union only work mischief, and, as we know, in all re- 
 spects, except political, are practically obliterated. Parts 
 of New Jersey and Delaware belong as much to Philadel- 
 phia as any part of Pennsylvania does ; and New Jersey, 
 Rhode Island, and Connecticut are far more intimately 
 connected with New York city than is western New 
 York. 
 
 " And when you thus have succeeded in doing away with 
 the term system, the representative system, the presidency, 
 the three co-ordinate powers, State sovereignty, and appoint- 
 ments from above, — in short, with our whole constitution — 
 
DEMOCRACY VS. PARTY GOVERNMENT 177 
 
 be good enough to tell us what other constitution it will 
 please your co-operative commonwealth to give us? " 
 
 An inquirer will very naturally, at this stage, ask some 
 such question. It would remind us that we have not yet 
 made our fundamental position in regard to political changes 
 clear. 
 
 Constitutions are not at all things to be given or taken 
 away at pleasure. 
 
 What is a constitution ? 
 
 When we speak of the constitution of the solar system, 
 we mean by that term the attraction of the sun which so 
 regulates the movements of the planets that this movement 
 cannot be otherwise than what it is. When we in the 
 same sense — the proper sense — speak of the constitution 
 of a country, we do not mean that piece of paper which is 
 called a " constitution," but the organic power that makes 
 necessary the institutions which we find. It is therefore a 
 fundamental mistake to think that the United States, with 
 its written " constitution," occupies a peculiar position. 
 
 Every country has, and always has had, a constitution. A 
 king with an army at his back is a large part of a constitu- 
 tion. The motto of Louis XIV. — " Hetatc'est moi," " I 
 am the state" — was as fully the constitution of France as 
 any constitution she or any country ever had. The pecu- 
 liarity of modern times consists simply in a .piece of paper, 
 simply in the giving written expression to the organic 
 power. But if such a written " constitution " does not cor- 
 rectly respond to this organic power — as the " constitution " 
 of France during the Revolution did not, and as the " consti- 
 tution " of the present German empire does not — it is not 
 worth the paper on which it is written. If it, on the other 
 hand, does so respond, it is like a swiftly flying buzz-saw, — 
 dangerous to touch. 
 
178 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 The short history of the United States, even, bears us out 
 in this view. The present "constitution " is a very different 
 one from what it was in 1850. The point of change was 
 the period when people prated about " upholding the consti- 
 tution." Whenever a " constitution " needs being " upheld," 
 it is going, or gone. During that period was promulgated 
 the " Dred Scott " decision, which undoubtedly was a 
 correct " constitutional " decision. Yet it was but an 
 idle breath, or, if it had any effect, it was to make the 
 people (so approvingly styled "a law-abiding people") 
 subvert the very " constitution " that was the sanction of 
 the decision. 
 
 What was the matter? 
 
 The organic power in the nation was simply changing. 
 Mark ! it was the abolition of slavery which amended the 
 " constitution," emphatically not the amendments to the 
 " constitution " which abolished slavery. 
 
 Is this socialist view of the organic law of a country not 
 far more philosophic than the vulgar one held by " states- 
 men," or even by such an eminent authority as Judge Story, 
 who reduces the whole science of government to a eulogy 
 of the " constitution " ? 
 
 It remains true, reader. No army of lawyers nor of 
 soldiers can uphold a " constitution " when the centre of 
 gravity of society has changed its position. 
 
 Socialists, then, have no thought whatever of "laying 
 impious hands " on this glorious paper " constitution " 
 of the United States, nor of "giving" to, or imposing 
 upon, the Union a new frame of government of our own ; 
 just as little as we fancy that we can change its economic 
 conditions. 
 
 It is the logic of events that will accomplish both these 
 changes. 
 
DEMOCRACY VS. PARTY GOVERNMENT 179 
 
 But mark the radical difference between the economic 
 and the political revolution. 
 
 The economic relations of the co-operative common- 
 wealth will evolve out of our present industrial conditions, 
 as we attempted to show in the preceding chapters. But 
 the form of administration of that commonwealth will not 
 be an outgrowth of the present form of government. 
 
 For forms of government are nothing but forms. They 
 are not the substance of society. They are only coats, 
 that may or may not fit the backs. But they are not the 
 backs ; economic conditions are the backs. Or, to use the 
 other appropriate figure, forms of government are nothing 
 but machinery; but economic conditions are the steam, 
 without which the machinery is useless. 
 
 It will be seen from this that those are egregiously mis- 
 taken who charge socialists with having a " faith in the 
 sovereign power of political machinery." We believe, on 
 the contrary, that forms of government, in themselves, 
 amount to nothing ; that civil liberty, by itself, is hardly 
 worth the trouble of agitation ; that political freedom won, 
 nothing may yet be won — but emptiness. 
 
 We believe that economic and industrial relations are 
 everything ; wherefore also we devoted the first six chapters 
 to them. Just as the steam-loom took the place of the 
 hand-loom, and the steam-thrasher of the flail, when steam 
 became the motive-power instead of human muscles ; or as 
 the man must discard his boy's jacket, — so we say the co- 
 operative commonwealth will have gradually to relegate 
 the whole machinery with which we are now familiar — presi- 
 dent and representatives and co-ordinate powers and State 
 lines — to the lumber-room of the past. 
 
 That is what this capitalist regime did as soon as it had 
 grown up to manhood. It dispensed as fast as it could 
 
l8o THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 with every feature of the feudal system, and substituted for 
 it the system which allowed it to work to the best advan- 
 tage ; to wit, the representative system. 
 
 If, therefore, we want to form any conception of the 
 political or judicial administration of the co-operative com- 
 monwealth, we must imagine this present " constitution " of 
 the United States discarded, first of all. Our inquirer and 
 those opponents of socialism who call attention to the in- 
 compatibility between it and the present frame of govern- 
 ment are therefore perfectly right : the United States would, 
 in truth, become a bedlam at election times. 
 
 We hail it as a good sign that an American lawyer like 
 Stickney, and with him the whole new generation, is getting 
 into the habit of questioning even " the wisdom of our 
 forefathers." 
 
 Well, they were wise in their generation. They con- 
 formed to the organic power of their day. Let us and 
 those who will come immediately after us be as wise in our 
 and their generations ! At any rate, we cannot help our- 
 selves. Democracy is what the United States, like all other 
 progressive societies, is inevitably tending to ; which will 
 crush the republican and democratic parties as easily as 
 if they were egg-shells. 
 
 And do not have any fear that it will then or ever be 
 without a constitution. No, not for one moment. The 
 new constitution will form itself as naturally as the ice 
 forms upon the water when the freezing-point is reached. 
 
 But we must now know, not alone what " democracy " is 
 not, but what it is ; and not so much what the word means, 
 but what the thing really is which we have in mind when we 
 pronounce the word. 
 
 The word comes from the Greek word " demos," which 
 means " the people." That gives us, however, just as poor 
 
DEMOCRACY VS. PARTY GOVERNMENT l8l 
 
 an idea of what " democracy " is, as the information that 
 " evolution " is derived from a word that means " to roll 
 out " enables us to know what evolution is. That it is 
 which has given us the definition found in dictionaries, — 
 that " democracy " is " government by majorities ; " govern- 
 ment by "counting of heads," as Carlyle has it. But 
 government by majorities may be just as " undemocratic " 
 as the rule by any other class. 
 
 No ; let us turn to the " back " which the " coat " is 
 to fit. 
 
 We saw that the co-operative commonwealth will incor- 
 porate the whole population into society. It will destroy 
 classes entirely. And with classes will go all "rule." 
 
 The "whole people " does not want, or need, any " gov- 
 ernment " at all. It simply wants administration — good 
 administration. 
 
 That will be had by putting every one in the position for 
 which he is best fitted, and making every one aware of the 
 fact. 
 
 That is what democracy means ; it meansy administration 
 by the competent. 
 
1 82 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 A DEMOCRATIC COMMONWEALTH 
 
 " Our self-government is amateur administration, government by ama- 
 teurs." — Greg. 
 
 " The feeling of equality is growing fast. It makes men chafe more and 
 more under the personal power of individuals, on a political level with 
 themselves. But they will submit willingly to power that comes from above 
 and is impersonal." — Dr. Woolsey, " Communism and Socialism" 
 
 " In your trade-societies you have acquired the instinct of trusting your 
 leaders, of acting with decision, concentration, and responsibility, . . . 
 the mass supplying breadth and energy of principle ; your agents giving it 
 concentration and unity. Let your watchword be : ' Confidence in tried 
 leaders ! Loyal co-operation each with all ! ' " — Frederic Harrison, " Order 
 and Progress^ 
 
 WE have now two definitions of democracy — one 
 negative, the other affirmative — which together 
 complete our conception of a socialist administration ; that 
 of competent and qualified functionaries, whose interest is 
 entirely coincident with their duty. 
 
 But right here I shall be challenged. It may be said 
 that this may be a good conception of a good administra- 
 tion, but that it is not " democracy." Some will quote 
 Frederic Harrison to the effect that " democracy exists 
 when each man holds himself as wise a ruler as his fellow ; 
 where government is a scramble open to every glib talker." 
 Others think with Carlyle, that in a democracy the people 
 solve every problem by saying " Let us take a vote," and 
 counting the heads. Others, again, will point to the article 
 by Rev. Jesse H. Jones on "The Labor Question," which I 
 in a former chapter mentioned with approval, and remind 
 
A DEMOCRATIC COMMONWEALTH 183 
 
 me that Mr. Jones there takes for granted that our future 
 economic system will conform to our primitive political 
 system ; that is, assumes that all affairs will be conducted on 
 the "town- meeting" plan. " What is that," they will ask, 
 " but the abomination of Frederic Harrison and Carlyle? " 
 
 This is a perfectly fair objection, to which I shall give an 
 answer that cannot possibly be misunderstood. If the "town- 
 meeting plan," if that which Frederic Harrison, Carlyle, 
 and Jesse H. Jones agree in calling " democracy " is properly 
 named by them, then we must find another name for the 
 administration of public affairs under the new social order. 
 The object of chapter VII. was not so much to show that 
 the present form of government, the written "constitution," 
 of the United States is undemocratic, as to point out that it 
 is utterly unfit to furnish a good administration of the 
 people's affairs. The object of this chapter, in the first 
 place, is to suggest the machinery that we have reason to 
 assume will be adopted to carry on all the affairs of the com- 
 ing commonwealth. This is the important matter for con- 
 sideration', which we shall not allow to degenerate into a 
 dispute about words. Yet we shall also claim that the ad- 
 ministration of the future has an eminent, perhaps an 
 exclusive, right to the name of " democracy ;" but that is a 
 subordinate matter. 
 
 The " town-meeting " plan, the plan of " counting heads,'' 
 will evidently be wholly unsuitable in the co-operative 
 commonwealth. If our public affairs now have altogether 
 outgrown that primitive plan, how much more when " public 
 affairs" will mean all affairs, with industrial affairs in the 
 foreground? No argument should really be needed to 
 convince anybody that a nation that conducted all its affairs 
 as Mr. Jones would have them conducted, would very soon 
 become bankrupt. 
 
1 84 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 But this, that such an administration as we have indicated 
 in our definition will be the very one needed, is not all ; 
 it will be the very one which the future real constitution of 
 society will in the nature of things evolve. 
 
 I have already emphasized as much as I could that the 
 great achievement of the coming cornmonwealth will be to 
 incorporate the whole population into society, to shift the 
 centre of gravity of society, to make the working classes the 
 organic power of society. The great body of our people 
 are manifestly dictated to as much as any other people. 
 Though legally — that is, theoretically — the people here 
 are governors, practically they have no more power over 
 legislation than they have over crises, over production, or 
 commerce. And the reason is, simply, that the working 
 classes have not yet got the real social power ; for what- 
 ever is the strongest power in society is the governing 
 authority. 
 
 Well, all the evidence we now possess tends to prove that 
 the working classes, when they once become the organic 
 force in the State, will favor such an administration as we 
 have defined. 
 
 Study the trades-unions of England and learn from them 
 how workingmen go about their own affairs. Have the 
 members of these unions ever shown any anarchic spirit ? 
 Amongst the many things that have been said of and against 
 them, have they ever been charged with evincing any in- 
 stinctive thirst for each man having his own way? which 
 is the spirit of anarchy. Is it not, contrariwise, true that 
 they have been willing always to acknowledge that some 
 were wiser than themselves, and that, when they thought 
 they had hit upon the right leaders, they have been willing 
 to thrust their whole collective power into their hands ? In 
 short, is it not true, what Frederic Harrison says of them. 
 
A DEMOCRATIC COMMONWEALTH 185 
 
 that " they trust their leaders and act with decision, concen- 
 tration, and responsibiUty " ? 
 
 These working classes, who represent, so to speak, the 
 whole social body, of which the other classes only are spe- 
 cial organs, will decide what the administration of the future 
 is to be. 
 
 I purposely avoid saying that they will have the po- 
 litical power; for " political " power, "politics," "politi- 
 cians," will be unknown terms under the new order. 
 
 Political power is, fundamentally, nothing but the organ- 
 ized power of classes, or men, or sets of men, to " govern " 
 others ; that is, to dictate to them what they shall do and 
 what they must not do. In our commonwealth, where 
 there will be no " classes " at all, there will be no set of 
 men who can by " sovereign authority " dictate to the rest 
 of the nation, but every citizen will actually perform his 
 appropriate share of the administration. 
 
 Again, the terms "State" and "society" are now apart 
 in speech, because they are in fact apart. But under 
 the new social system they will, as we have seen, come 
 to cover each other, become synonymous. Between the 
 economic and social organization and the "poUtical" or- 
 ganization of the future State, there will not be a particle 
 of distinction. 
 
 Before I proceed to outline the administration of the 
 Cuture, I wish to repeat the warning that I gave when 
 Jhe economic features of the new order were under discus- 
 sion, — socialists lay no claim to be " architects," hence do 
 iiCt insist upon details from us ; speculations here in details 
 ^Tould be hable to be far more Utopian than those in eco- 
 r.oniic matters, since, as we have seen, the administrative 
 features of a given society are but the ulterior results of its 
 economic relations. I can, however, pretty safely pre- 
 
1 86 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 diet that the following features will take the place of those 
 I have discarded. 
 
 Appointments will be made from below. This is the sec- 
 ond respect in which our post office department is not a 
 socialist institution; the other respect, as will be remem- 
 bered, was the discrepancy in salaries. At present the post- 
 master-general or the president appoints the postmasters, and 
 they again their subordinates and the letter-carriers. Un- 
 der socialism it will certainly be the reverse. There the 
 letter-carriers will elect their immediate superiors ; these, 
 we will say, the postmasters ; and these, in their turn, the 
 postmaster-general. Why should it not be so ? 
 
 Are not the letter-carriers just as competent to elect their 
 superintendents as the chief in Washington is to appoint 
 the postmaster of Boston ? The qualifications of an elector 
 are evidently these : a knowledge of the capacity of the 
 candidate for a given office, and a knowledge of what the 
 duties of that office are (quite a different thing from a 
 knowledge of how to perform those duties). Who pos- 
 sesses these qualifications in a greater degree than those 
 who are to be his immediate subordinates, and who, perhaps, 
 have worked with the candidate throughout a series of 
 years ? 
 
 Understand, by appointment from below I do not mean 
 that the whole people of a city shall elect their postmaster. 
 Such a principle is altogether too much in vogue now. I 
 maintain exactly the reverse of it ; that a man is not quali- 
 fied to vote for a candidate of whose qualifications he is ig- ■ 
 norant, for an office with the duties of which he is not 
 acquainted. It will be admitted that it is quite a different 
 proposition, that the workers in a factory should elect their 
 foreman, teachers their superintendent, etc. This is the 
 only method by which harmonious loyal co-operation of 
 
A DEMOCRATIC COMMONWEALTH 187 
 
 subordinates with superiors can be secured. No one ought 
 to be superior who has not the good will of those he has 
 to direct. 
 
 Understand, also, that appointment from below does not 
 necessarily imply removal from below. 
 
 Think but a moment over it, and notice the important 
 and beneficent results that will flow from such a system. 
 
 I said that every citizen would be actually a part of the 
 administration. This, that he will have a voice in the elec- 
 tion of his immediate superior, will be one way, and per- 
 haps the most important way, of being such part. That 
 kind of suffrage will be worth something. We have now 
 cut what we call " political power" into such little bits, that 
 a single man's share of it is hardly thought worth having at 
 all, But his vote will count for something in a shop when a 
 foreman is to be elected — will, indeed, confer such a dig- 
 nity on him that he will be a different man from the servile 
 " hand '* of our present irresponsible autocrats. 
 
 Again, this system will furnish one of the securities for 
 good administration. It is not likely that under it there 
 will be any " government by amateurs." Then the greatest 
 ability will, in every sphere of activity in all likelihood gravi- 
 tate towards all positions of influence (just as we find it to 
 be the case in the EngUsh trades societies, according to the 
 most competent authority), and the subordinates will be 
 aware of the fact. 
 
 Instead of any term of office, long or short, we shall have 
 a tenure during good behavior. 
 
 The directors of affairs will hold their offices as long as 
 the people's interests are best served by having them hold 
 them, but not one moment beyond. They all, from fore- 
 man up to the chiefs, will have to do good work, and will 
 not stay in their office one week — nay, not one day — if 
 
1 88 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 they fail in their duties — ay, if they fail to give satisfac- 
 tion. Every such officer will be held responsible, not for 
 good intentions, but for accomplished results. Of all 
 causes for removal, the best of all will be one, unrecognized 
 now, — the misdemeanor of failure. "Good behavior" will 
 mean, first of all, efficiency. And as a very important part 
 of the work of every officer will consist in overseeing others, 
 he will be held responsible if the work done by those under 
 him is not done well. He will be driven to enforce the 
 utmost efficiency from every one of his subordinates. His 
 holding his place will depend on what they do, as much as 
 on what he himself does. 
 
 This personal responsibility and instant dismissal for 
 failure will permeate the whole service from top to bottom. 
 This is what the co-operative commonwealth will need, for, 
 as Stickney well remarks, " if his future advancement (and, 
 we add, the tenure of a functionary) depends on a king, he 
 will serve the king ; if on party, he will serve party ; if only 
 on doing his work well, he will do his work well. It is no 
 miracle. It is nothing but a law of human nature." Which 
 remark I commend to our Utopian civil service reform- 
 ers who wish, and no doubt sincerely, to reform the service 
 in the same direction as socialists do, but want to retain 
 party government. 
 
 But, on the other hand, when a good man has got into 
 the proper place and performs his work well, he will go 
 on and do it as long as he has a mind to stay. We have 
 tried that plan to some extent, and we have had some good 
 results from it. Everybody will admit that the judicial 
 tenure of office has had a great deal to do with the fact 
 that the judiciary of the Union has been so pure and un- 
 corrupted as has been the case. The principal objection 
 I have to the judicial tenure in the United States is that 
 
A DEMOCRATIC COMMONWEALTH 189 
 
 "good behavior " means nothing but " remaining respecta- 
 ble." In a socialist administration, a judge would not remain 
 in office one day when he was notoriously unfit to perform 
 his duties, as was for years the case with members of the 
 national Supreme Court. Again, whatever opinion is en- 
 tertained of the expediency of West Point and the Army, 
 socialists will cheerfully admit the high moral tone of the 
 army service — until lately, at any rate — compared with 
 the civil service, which is directly traceable to the secure 
 tenure of office of the former. 
 
 The directors of affairs, furthermore, will be trusted with 
 all the power necessary to perform their work well. They 
 will not be hampered by any petty technicalities. The 
 people will abstain from meddling with details, as long as 
 the results are satisfactory. That is the sensible practical 
 method which workingmen always adopt whenever they 
 associate to accomplish anything, as also is exemplified in 
 the English trades- unions. Workingmen know that the 
 direction of affairs ought to be a function of the compe- 
 tent, as much as the planning of a suspension bridge is, and 
 not a play for numbers. They always, as Frederic Harri- 
 son puts it, " put confidence in tried leaders." 
 
 Some one may here object that when in that way, under 
 socialism, all the high talent of the country is concentrated 
 in the administration, it will be exactly the " bureaucracy " 
 found in Prussia, Russia, and China. 
 
 It would indeed be a bureaucracy, if it were proposed 
 that the civil officers under the present system should have 
 a life tenure of. their places. But it will be quite a different 
 thing, when, as in the co-operative commonwealth, every 
 citizen has a life tenure somewhere, and when "good be- 
 havior " means something else than not to commit an in- 
 famous crime. Is a physician a bureaucrat? When a 
 
I90 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 patient has found a good physician, he keeps him and fol- 
 lows his directions ; and yet we should say that that 
 patient's power over this physician is not nugatory, though 
 he does not direct what medicines shall be administered. 
 
 Such a tenure during " good behavior," as I have de- 
 fined it, will be another security for good administration. 
 Whenever the directors of affairs have such power as is 
 their due, when they are secure in their positions and per- 
 mitted to do the best they know how, we can be sure to find 
 merit in the commanding positions, for it will ever remain 
 true that the direction of affairs has wonderful charms for 
 all men who have any gifts fitting them for it. 
 
 Instead of representation, we shall have what is techni- 
 cally called the referendum. 
 
 By the "referendum " is meant the submitting all bills of 
 a general nature to the people they are intended to affect, 
 before they have the validity of laws, as already exemplified 
 for some years past by Switzerland to some extent, both in 
 national and cantonal affairs. ■ 
 
 I claim that this feature represents exactly the function 
 which the people are fitted to perform, and which it is 
 every way expedient they should perform. 
 
 They are peculiarly fitted to perform this function of 
 ratifying, or rather of vetoing, measures (with which the 
 president and governors are at present and — as I con- 
 tended in the previous chapter — improperly intrusted), 
 while they are peculiarly unfitted for the function with which 
 they are now constitutionally invested, — that of selecting 
 men, of whose quaUfications they can know nothing, for 
 offices of the duties of which they are ignorant. 
 
 The people should leave the framing of laws to the wisest 
 and most competent. But because I should not attempt to 
 make my own shoes, since I am no shoemaker, that is no 
 
A DEMOCRATIC COMMONWEALTH 191 
 
 reason why I should not decline to buy a certain pair of 
 shoes which the shoemaker has made. I need not be a 
 shoemaker to know whether or not the shoes pinch me. 
 Exactly so with laws and institutions. The people are 
 amply quaUfied to say that they do not want certain laws. 
 
 John Stuart Mill says, in regard to representative bodies, 
 that their proper office is " not to make laws, but to see them 
 made by the right persons, and to give or withhold ratifica- 
 tion of them." That sentiment we apply to the people. 
 " Good sense " and "good intentions," the only requisites 
 for that function, we must assume in the body of citizens, 
 or we must indeed despair of the nation. 
 
 By the way, it was Robespierre — for whom, however, 
 neither the writer of this nor socialists generally have any 
 great admiration — who first proposed the referendum, by 
 advising the king to say, " My people, here are the laws I 
 have made for you ; will you accept them? " 
 
 The referendum is expedient because the stability and 
 goodness of all laws and institutions depend on their suita- 
 bleness. I have compared political institutions to coats 
 that may or may not fit the backs. The referendum will 
 insure that " the coat will fit the back ; " in other words, that 
 the measures adopted are commensurate with the develop- 
 ment of the people. If the coat does not fit, if a given 
 measure does not suit them, they will simply reject it. 
 
 It is expedient, because it, and it alone, will arouse and 
 keep alive in the people the interest in public affairs. 
 
 It is a notorious fact that the voters in the United States, 
 and in all countries, are absolutely indifferent to — that 
 many look with a sort of contempt on — the electoral fran- 
 chise j and the humbug of representation to which we ad- 
 verted in the preceding chapter is a sufficiently good 
 reason. Voters will naturally remain indifferent as long as 
 
192 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 a political campaign means but a strife for candidates. 
 Whenever they do vote, they will continue to do so from the 
 same reasons which solely influence them now ; to wit, 
 habit, or the desire tb advance a friend or a " hero," or the 
 chance of getting a drink. 
 
 But when the voters have measures before them — not 
 merely general, and therefore vague, constitutional pro- 
 visions, but direct special measures — to discuss, and then 
 to ratify or reject, it may fairly be expected that they will 
 take a considerable and increasing interest in public affairs. 
 Then, also, they will very likely come more and more to 
 appreciate the fact that suffrage is not a right at all, — if it 
 were, votes would indeed be things to be sold or given 
 away at pleasure, — but a public trust. 
 
 The referendum is expedient, because bills will then be 
 intelligently discussed before they become laws. We shall 
 then no more witness the indecency that important laws, 
 the provisions of which even often are unknown to the legis- 
 lators, are enacted in the hurry of the last night of a session, 
 under the spur of the party whip. Then we shall no longer 
 see huge volumes of trash issuing yearly from legislative 
 halls, but shall have few, and none but necessary laws. 
 
 " But this is all nonsense to propose to get along without 
 representatives. The people of a large country like that of 
 the United States cannot possibly pass upon all laws." 
 
 Yes, we know that once upon a time somebody made a 
 remark of that kind, and that it has been echoed and re- 
 echoed ever since. Humanity does really resemble a flock 
 of sheep, which are known to be so conscientious that, if 
 you hold a stick before the wether so that he is forced to 
 vault in his passage, the whole flock will do the like when 
 the stick is withdrawn. 
 
 Why cannot the people, even of so populous and exten- 
 
A DEMOCRATIC COMMONWEALTH 193 
 
 sive a country as the Union, vote upon all laws ? Do not, 
 as a matter of fact, the people vote to reject or accept the 
 constitutions of their several States? Do they not practi- 
 cally vote for the president? What reason in the world is 
 there why they cannot just as well vote upon a law as upon 
 a constitution or upon men ? 
 
 And what reason is there for the people to have " repre- 
 sentatives " at all? True, they needs must have men to 
 direct affairs and to do certain work for them. These men 
 are their agents for certain purposes, but in no sense their 
 representatives. It is this fiqtitious " representative " char- 
 acter that is father of all parliamentary nonsense, blundering 
 work, and corruption of " practical politics." 
 
 Under the socialist regime the administrators will form a 
 working body and not a talking body. The people in their 
 organic capacity will watch, stimulate, and control them, 
 but not meddle with details. Their agents will have been 
 put into the positions they occupy, because they know better 
 than anybody else how to contrive the means and execute 
 the measures demanded. They will administer the nation's 
 affair as a pilot directs and handles a ship ; but the direction 
 of the ship of state will be indicated by public opinion. 
 
 But the pertinacious curiosity of critics will, undoubtedly, 
 not be satisfied before they have a sketch of such a socialist 
 administration before them for examination. 
 
 Well, anybody can construct such an administration in 
 his imagination as well as we can, if he only will keep 
 steadily before him these three requirements : first, that 
 all appointments be made from below; 'next, that the 
 
 1 The third idea in " Looking Backward," for which Bellamy alone must be 
 -personally responsible, is that of electing the officers of government by the retired 
 ■^nctionaries. It seem to me that Professor Walker's criticism is unanswerable. 
 Socialism distinctly demands appointments from below, buj has hitherto said 
 dothing about removals. 
 
194 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 directors stay in office as long as they give satisfaction 
 and not one moment beyond ; and, lastly, that all laws and 
 regulations of a general nature must first be ratified by those 
 immediately interested. We have no better means of 
 guessing how those who came after us will construct their 
 administrative machinery in detail than anybody else ; and 
 modern socialists are not fond of laying down rules for the 
 guidance of coming generations. 
 
 In order, however, to show that an administration with- 
 out president, without national or local" debating societies " 
 of any kind, is really possible, I shall draw such a one in 
 outline ; but please bear in mind that sociaUsm must not 
 be made responsible for this fancy sketch of mine. I do 
 this the more willingly, because, as my thoughtful readers 
 must have observed, there is one highly important provision 
 that I for good reasons have left entirely unnoticed. 
 
 Suppose, then, every distinct branch of industry, of agri- 
 culture, and also teachers, physicians, etc., to form, each 
 trade and profession by itself, a distinct body, a trades union 
 (I simply use the term because it is convenient), a guild, 
 a corporation managing its internal affairs itself, but subject 
 to collective control. 
 
 Suppose, further, that the "heelers "among the operatives 
 in a shoe factory in a given place come together and elect 
 their foreman, and that-*he "tappers," the "solers," the 
 " finishers," and whatever else the various operators may be 
 called, do likewise. Suppose that these foremen assemble 
 and elect a superintendent of the factory, and that the su- 
 perintendents of all the shoe factories in that district in their 
 turn elect a — let us call him — district superintendent. 
 Again, we shall suppose these district superintendents of the 
 whole boot and shoe industry to assemble themselves some- 
 where from all parts of the country and elect a bureau chief. 
 
A DEMOCRATIC COMMONWEALTH 195 
 
 and he with other bureau chiefs of related industries — sayj 
 the tanning industry — to elect a chief of department. 
 
 In the same manner I shall suppose that we have got a 
 chief for every group of related mechanical and agricultural 
 and mining pursuits, a chief for the teachers, another for the 
 physicians, another for the judges (see next chapter) ; 
 further, one or more chiefs for transportation, one or more 
 for commerce ; in fact, suppose that there is not a social 
 function whatever that does not converge in some way in 
 such chief of department. 
 
 However, we do not want too many of those chiefs, for 
 we mean to make a working body, not a talking body, out 
 of them. I mean that these chiefs of department shall 
 form the national board of administrations, whose function 
 it shall be to supervise the whole social activity of the coun- 
 try. Each chief will supervise the internal affairs of his own 
 department, and the whole board control all those matters 
 in which the general pubUc is interested. 
 
 But just as all inferior officers, this national board will be 
 nothing but a body of administrators ; they will be merely 
 trusted agents to do a particular work ; they will be in no 
 sense " governors " or " rulers ; " or, if anybody should 
 choose to call their supervision and control " government," 
 it will, at all events, rather be a government over things than 
 over men. For they will decree no laws. 
 
 If a general law is thought expedient, one that will affect 
 the people at large or those of any one department, then 
 ' we suppose this national board simply to agree on the gen- 
 eral features of the measure, and thereupon intrust the 
 drafting-of the proper bill either to the chief whose depart- 
 ment it principally concerns, or what might be the usual 
 course, to the chief of the judges. When this draft has 
 been discussed and adopted, the board will submit it to the 
 
196 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 people either of the whole country or of the department, a 
 may be, for their ratification. The national board is thus 
 no lawmaker, therefore no "government," but an executive 
 body strictly. 
 
 But how shall we exact that responsibility on which we 
 laid so much stress ; which we considered the very keystone 
 of democracy? That important question we have hitherto 
 not touched upon at all, for the simple reason that there is 
 absolutely nothing in the tendency of things that can guide 
 us to any solution. The constantly reiterated demands of 
 the working classes and their mode of procedure in their 
 own affairs teach us what course they will pursue as to ap- 
 pointments, tenure of office, and the passage of laws, but 
 nothing definite about removals. And yet this point is 
 second to none in importance ; how shall we prevent these 
 foremen, superintendents, and especially the chiefs of de- 
 partments, from being at any time the masters of the 
 situation ? 
 
 Well, the writer of this can say how it may be accom- 
 plished, but does not at all pretend to say how it will be 
 done. 
 
 Experience has shown that responsibility to many is, in 
 ordinary cases, no responsibility at all. I therefore hold 
 that, if these directing functionaries are to be made respon- 
 sible for their work, they must be made responsible to some 
 one person. But who is the proper one person? 
 
 We noticed that every directing officer should be respon- 
 sible not alone for the work he himself does, but also for 
 the work of his subordinates. He must see to it that they 
 do their work well. Is not this a sufficiently good reason 
 why every directing official should be given the right in- 
 stantly to dismiss any one of his subordinates for cause as- 
 signed? inefficiency being, as already stated, the very best 
 
A DEMOCRATIC COMMONWEALTH 197 
 
 of causes. When, then, a foreman was inefficient, he would 
 be removed instantly, without trial, by his superintendent ; 
 he, again, might be removed by his bureau chief — perhaps 
 for abuse of power in removing the foreman ; this bureau 
 chief, again, by his department chief. 
 
 But the latter official, to whom shall he be responsible ? 
 Some would say, to the whole body of administrators. And 
 yet the very obvious objection might be raised to such an 
 arrangement, that it would really be no responsibility ; for 
 are not these administrators all equals, and interested in 
 upholding each other in power? 
 
 Suppose we make every department chief liable to re- 
 moval by the whole body of his subordinates. That is to 
 say, suppose that, whenever the workers of a given depart- 
 ment, inclusive of foremen, superintendents, and other of- 
 ficials, become dissatisfied with their chief, they all meet 
 in their different localities and vote on the dismissal of that 
 chief, and that he be considered removed from office the 
 moment the collective judgment of the whole department 
 is known, if that judgment be adverse to him. Then the 
 bureau chiefs immediately proceed to elect another chief of 
 department who can be removed in like manner, if he should 
 not suit the workers. 
 
 That feature, then, of the plan I have sketched which 
 must be charged to the personal bias of the writers of this 
 is, that while the subordinates elect, the superiors dismiss. 
 This feature, I hold, will divide power between skill an^ 
 numbers in the proper proportion. I deem it a pretty 
 good application of the famous proposition of Harrington 
 in his " Oceana," who wanted power divided on the princi- 
 ple which governs two children in fairly dividing a cake : 
 that the one halves the cake, while the other chooses its 
 portion. This feature will create perfect harmony between 
 
ig8 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 responsibility on one hand and subordination on the other. 
 The foremen elect their superintendent, but the moment he 
 is elected, he is independent of them ; how else could he 
 be responsible for himself and for them to his superior? 
 But by making the chief of all in each department respon- 
 sible to all his subordinates, we have vindicated the ulti- 
 mate rale of that impersonal power, public opinion. 
 
 One point yet remains unnoticed. Can the foreman also 
 dismiss any of his workers for inefficiency or other cause ? 
 It will easily be seen that this is a quite different matter from 
 the dismissal of a directing official. When the latter is re- 
 moved, he is simply put back among the rank and file, until 
 elevated by a new election. He has no right to his office. 
 But whereto could a worker be removed ? He must be em- 
 ployed somewhere. Of course, there must be some kind of 
 remedy by which society could protect itself against any 
 rebellious or negligent worker. For such cases a trial by 
 his comrades might be provided, the issue of which might 
 be removal to a lower grade, or some sort of compulsion. 
 
 Now, is this not democracy ? 
 
 It is certainly administration by the people. Every citi- 
 zen will actually help in administering affairs by having 
 something considerable to say about who is to be his im- 
 mediate superior. This feature is really the greatest of all, 
 by far ; it provides a kind of a primary election which is 
 not child's play. And that it will work well in practice, the 
 Catholic church may teach us : cardinals elect the pope ; 
 priests nominate their bishops, and monks their abbots. 
 That church, by the way, — the most ingenious of human 
 contrivances, — can teach us many a lesson, and we are 
 fools if we do not profit by them. 
 
 Such a system as that we have sketched insures equaHty. 
 It will not make all equally wise in all matters, but it will 
 
A DEMOCRATIC COMMONWEALTH 1 99 
 
 destroy all irresponsible power, abolish every trace of de- 
 pendence on individuals. All authority will be a public 
 trust ; whenever there is subordination on the one hand, 
 there is on the other responsibility. Instead of a slavish 
 subjection to anybody's autocratic will, there will be loyal 
 submission by all to the common impersonal superior. 
 This by no means implies negation of all impulse, all initia- 
 tive from those who are the wiser, for equality is not like- 
 ness ; it rather is synonymous with variety, just as the same 
 soil in freedom produces all kinds of trees. 
 
 Such a system, finally, establishes the best security for 
 the best administration ; it will furnish us those " real rulers " 
 for whom Carlyle yearned. Here, again, we can appeal to 
 the experience of the Catholic church, which knows how so 
 to possess herself of her priests that they are as wise, acute, 
 and pushing for her as the most consummate man of the 
 world is for his own interests. 
 
 But public opinion, — the organic opinion of the people, 
 not what they separately think, — the public conscience, 
 will rule these " real rulers." 
 
 In three ways this impersonal power will assert itself : by 
 the referendum ; by giving or refusing those highest in au- 
 thority a vote of confidence ; and last, though not least, by 
 and through the public journals. 
 
 Our journals have really a far more representative char- 
 acter than congress or parliament, and, further, they are 
 " representatives " in constant session. True, they do not 
 represent the people, for they represent in no sense the 
 working classes — these are as yet to all intents and purposes 
 perfectly dumb ; but they represent very well our comforta- 
 ble classes, our autocrats, the " Messrs. Six-per-cent." This 
 will all be changed in the co-operative commonwealth. 
 
 Some will here remark : " If newspapers are, also, to be 
 
200 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 collective property, as we suppose they are, and published 
 only by public authority, we do not see much chance for 
 any opinion, aside from ' official ' opinion, to assert itself." 
 
 Let us observe that our present journals have three func- 
 tions : — 
 
 First, they are newspapers. To gather and give the 
 news is their principal object. And that is the main reason 
 why they represent the well-to-do classes exclusively, for it 
 takes lots of money to get the news. 
 
 Next, they are public criers. They devote, in fact, most 
 of their columns to pushing and puffing all sorts of private 
 enterprises. 
 
 Lastly, there is a little space left for " editorials," in which 
 garrulous writers, in the pay of the " Messrs. Six-per-cent.," 
 do the thinking for their employers ; since they represent 
 mediocrity, it goes without saying that it is very ordinary 
 thoughts they furnish, none very exciting — narcotic, 
 rather. 
 
 In the coming commonwealth the first two functions will 
 be separated from the one last mentioned. 
 
 There will probably in every community be published an 
 official journal which will contain all announcements of a 
 public nature and all the news, gathered in the most 
 efficient manner by the aid of the national telegraph ser- 
 vice, but no comments. 
 
 But we are assured that besides these there will also 
 be published many private journals, true champions of 
 principles and measures. True, the printing-press will be a 
 collective institution ; but it will be open to every one. 
 
 Any one — whatever unpopular opinions he may enter- 
 tain, however hostile to the administrators he may be — will 
 be entitled to have anything decent printed, provided he is 
 ready to pay for the work done, or to guarantee by himseli 
 
A DEMOCRATIC COMMOmVEALTH 20I 
 
 or friends that the cost will be defrayed. Of course, a line 
 must be drawn somewhere, as has at all times and in all coun- 
 tries been done. Public opinion has always insisted that 
 there is something it will not tolerate ; and so it probably 
 will always be, and so it ought to be. 
 
 Some one has happily characterized Carlyle as the man 
 who " brought us out of the Eygpt of shams into the desert 
 and — left us there." Carlyle did a splendid work in 
 bringing us out of the shams of representative parliamenta- 
 rism, but he was sadly mistaken when he wanted us to 
 go back to the forms of the middle ages. The " eternal 
 silences" have decreed democracy, which in the fulness of 
 time will transform the party-ridden American people into 
 self-assertive people ; transform the goose into an eagle. 
 
202 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 ADMDSnSTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE CO-OPERATIVE 
 COMMO^rWEALTH , 
 
 " Our judicial system : a technical one, invented for the creation of costs." 
 
 — Romilly. 
 
 " Distinguished pleaders defeat justice while establishing points of law." 
 
 — Fraser's Magazine, Nov., '79. 
 
 " There never was such an infernal caldron as that chancery on the face 
 of the earth ! Nothing but a mine below it on a busy day in term time, 
 with all its records, rules, and precedents collected in it, and every function- 
 ary belonging to it also, high and low, upward and downward, from its son 
 the accountant-general to its father the devil, and the whole blown to 
 atoms with ten thousand hundredweight of gunpowder, would reform it in 
 the least ! " — Charles Dickens. 
 
 IT is evident that in the co-operative commonwealth there 
 will be far less litigation than now. Every one familiar 
 with the business of our courts knows that cases arising 
 from contract contribute by far the largest part of that busi- 
 ness. If these were extirpated, if our courts had to deal 
 only with cases of torts and criminal cases, the great ma- 
 jority of our high-priced lawyers, now crowded with " busi- 
 ness," would have to seek pastures new. Now, such cases 
 necessarily will be, immensely reduced, at all events, if not 
 entirely done away with, in the new commonwealth, on ac- 
 count of its taking all enterprises of any social account into 
 its own hands. As to criminal cases, we may be pretty sure 
 that they will diminish materially. 
 
 Probably nearly all the cases brought before the National 
 courts for detern^ination will be those arising between the 
 trades-unions, guilds, corporations, or whatever they will be 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 203 
 
 called, and their members, or between the guilds themselves, 
 or, finally, between them and the departments. 
 
 Further, when discussing the referendum, I remarked 
 that its introduction would naturally tend to reduce consid- 
 erably the bulk of our statute law and to prevent frequent 
 changes in the same. The immense reduction in the sub- 
 ject matter of legislation mentioned in the preceding para- 
 graph, and, more than all, the wiping out of our State 
 jurisdictions, will contribute materially to the same end. We 
 are now in matters of legislation very much in the condi- 
 tion of P'rance before her great Revolution. Her laws, 
 it was said, were changed as often as were her post-horses ; 
 they may be said to change laws as often as we do railroad 
 cars. 
 
 Under the future social order we may hope to have a 
 handy, compact, and yet accurate and comprehensive code 
 of lasting statutes, so that the requirements of law will not 
 needs be a mystery to anybody forever after. 
 
 And yet, though such a change in itself will be of far- 
 reaching importance, it will constitute but a small fraction 
 of that revolution which the two principles of collective 
 control and democracy will bring about in our judicial sys- 
 tem. For that which gives value to all laws is the method 
 of administering them ; and that method will itself be revo- 
 lutionized. * 
 
 In the first place, the present method of administering 
 justice is that of warfare. The method makes of the pro- 
 fession of law the art of gaining a victory ; of a court of 
 justice a battleground ; it uses witnesses as soldiers, and 
 rules, precedents, and technicalities as weapons and engines 
 of war. Without perceiving this you cannot possibly rec- 
 oncile the professional code of the lawyer with personal 
 morality. 
 
204 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMOmVEALTH 
 
 Examine into this code : — 
 
 If a lawyer wins a case by superior vigilance, he has done 
 just what his duty requires of him, even if he knows he is 
 on the wrong side. 
 
 It is a proper move for a lawyer adroitly to lead his ad- 
 versary away from unassailable legal positions, or manoeuvre 
 him out of superiority of evidence. 
 
 A lawyer must steer around, must dodge the law against 
 him. 
 
 A lawyer should see to it if he may not surprise his ad- 
 versary, or even the judge, into some action which will ren- 
 der a new trial probable should the verdict be against him; 
 for instance, make the judge overrule an objection by stating 
 a flimsy ground, while he conceals the true one. Indeed, our 
 shining lights of the bar daily act on the comprehensive 
 rule that they may do anything to gain the victory, except 
 suborning witnesses and forging precedents. 
 
 This code of the profession becomes perfectly compre- 
 hensible in the light of the theory that a lawsuit is a 
 campaign of war. In fact, it cannot be defended on any 
 other ground than the one which allows perfidy and deceit 
 in war. A general must vanquish the enemy by all means, 
 and in the same way it is made the duty of the most con- 
 scientious counsel, after he is retained, to have this thought 
 steadily in his mind : " How shall I bring the judge and 
 the jury to decide for my client ? How can I cripple and 
 obstruct my opponent? How can I make my case appear 
 to have the law on its side?" without for a moment in- 
 quiring into the justice of his case. To this miserable 
 theory, that the profession of law is the art of warfare, 
 of strategy, and manoeuvring, is due, exclusively, the spolia- 
 tion, the evasion, the failure of justice, — almost synony- 
 mous with law. 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 205 
 
 Thus it explains why the profession so persistently sticks 
 to the cumbrous jury system and to the unanimity of twelve 
 jurors. 
 
 By the way, do you know why there always must be 
 exactly twelve ? Lord Coke, the apostle of the Anglo-Saxon 
 lawyer, enlightens you : because there were twelve apostles, 
 and twelve tribes of Israel ! 
 
 Whenever you find a lawyer with a poor case, you can be 
 sure that nothing will make him waive his grand constitu- 
 tional right to a jury. He has been taught that the lawyer 
 must use as allies even the erroneous prejudices, even the 
 ignorance, of mankind. Then there is the delicious uncer- 
 tainty about the verdict of a petit jury, which exactly chimes 
 in with the warfare idea. There is a chance for the verdict 
 in his favor, for a disagreement, and, lastly, for a new trial. 
 Hence such rhetorical laudations as this : " No better tri- 
 bunal has yet been devised than a jury of twelve intelligent, 
 honest, and fair-minded men." Any suggestion that three 
 such men, with a majority to decide, would do as well, is 
 frowned down by the profession. For — that would very 
 much diminish the chances.^ 
 
 Again, to this theory that it is the duty of the profession 
 to fight battles and win victories is due the fact that the 
 decision of a case very seldom hinges on a statute law and 
 general maxims of equity, but almost always on some prec- 
 edent; that is, some similar case, preserved in one or 
 other of the thousand American or English " Reports." 
 • The citizen who supposes that the " law "he is governed 
 by is the statute' law of his State is very much in error. The 
 statute law is the most insignificant fraction of the laws. 
 
 I An article, " Is the Jury System a Failure?" in the Century ^ of 18S2, by 
 Albert Stickney, to whom reference is made in a former chapter, is worth 
 perusal. 
 
2o6 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 The " law " is something no lawyer can learn in a lifetime, 
 both on account of the bulk of the reports (to which in 
 America alone a hundred volumes are added yearly), and 
 because he never can be absolutely certain what is good and 
 what bad law. 
 
 But, even if a judge should be told all the decisions on a 
 given point that are valid, he has no guide in them at all. 
 There stand the decisions in two rows : on the one hand, 
 those in which a question has been decided one way ; on 
 the other, those where the decision has been the contrary 
 way, — length of rows as nearly equal as the heart could 
 wish. He takes his choice, and either way he bows to the 
 name of some " learned " judge, some " authority." 
 
 The fatal conclusion thus is that our administration of 
 justice depends upon caprice. The profession divines rather 
 than ascertains the law ; and all our legislation, in spite of 
 all codes and all " reforms," is, by the address of lawyers, 
 made to rest on precedents. 
 
 Why? 
 
 Because the theory of warfare requires snares rather than 
 guides ; it requires as much uncertainty, connected with as 
 much precision as possible. To say that lawyers have no 
 interest in the uncertainty of the law is to say that glaziers 
 have no interest in the breaking of windows. Because prec- 
 edents are their engines of warfare, our lawyers tenaciously 
 cling to them, and have a horror of broad principles. They 
 unwittingly consider that a virtue which furthers the peculiar 
 sinister interests of their class. 
 
 The same theory, also, requires the innumerable techni- 
 calities, rules, and forms that have as Uttle to do with justice 
 as with English wigs and gowns. Our State constitutions 
 really perpetrate a witticism when they guarantee " complete 
 justice, conformably to the laws ; " for these laws silently 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF lUSTICE 20/ 
 
 assume these slippery rules and subtleties. To guarantee 
 complete justice conformably to rules that thwart justice, is 
 like guaranteeing liberty inside locks and keys and shackles. 
 
 From this warfare theory follows another great evil — an 
 outrage upon every idea of justice. A war demands money, 
 much money. No man, therefore, can commence or de- 
 fend a lawsuit without a replete pocketbook. It is one of 
 the most expensive speculations he can venture into, and 
 the longest purse is pretty sure to win. 
 
 Our paper State-constitutions pompously guarantee " jus- 
 tice freely and without purchase, completely and without 
 denial, promptly and without delay." Instead of that, this 
 warfare theory gives us the triple-headed monster of ex- 
 pense, vexation, and delay. 
 
 And, lastly, this warfare theory has a demoralizing effect 
 on the lawyer. It gives far more credit to him who wins a 
 bad case than to him who wins a good one. It compels 
 our legal men to be partisans, to be what Jeremy Bentham 
 sneeringly called them, " Messrs. Eitherside." There is 
 no radical difference between that " representative of the 
 bar," who for a fancy fee is the partisan of one party to-day, 
 against him perhaps to-morrow, — an advocate of one theory 
 one moment, its opponent the next moment, — and the 
 common pettifogger. The latter is simply an irregular 
 guerilla. What do we say of the soldier who is to-day in 
 one camp, in another to-morrow? The rules which this 
 theory make obligatory on the lawyer, the arts he must 
 practise, if practised in any other position would be deemed 
 dishonorable. 
 
 And the study and practice of the law under this method 
 cripples the lawyer intellectually. Take him who has 
 raised himself to the summit of learning by wooing that 
 "jealous mistress," the law, with "twenty years' lucubra- 
 
208 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 tions," the condition fixed by authorities. In what has he 
 become "learned"? In the conceit of centuries and the 
 debris of society. Buckle is right : " learning " serves ig- 
 norance as much as it does progress. 
 
 Take, next, the successful practitioner. What does he 
 gain by " establishing points of law " ? — some of which are 
 as unprofitable as the mediaeval puzzle : " How many souls 
 can dance on the point of a needle?" He becomes alert 
 — smart, undoubtedly. But the practice of law has the 
 same effect as the action of the grindstone, — it narrows the 
 mind as well as sharpens it. Especially is that the case 
 with practitioners who devote themselves to special branches 
 of the law. They get to have a positive aversion to en- 
 larged views, and care no more for the interests of mankind 
 beyond the narrow limit of their pursuit than the man who 
 spends his life in putting on the heads of pins. 
 
 And yet the indifference of legal men to the public wel- 
 fare — as long as there are cases to try — by no means 
 keeps them away from public affairs. On the contrary, a 
 lawyer takes as naturally to politics as a duck to water, 
 simply because politicians and lawyers are equally intriguers. 
 The consequence is that their vicious maxims, antiquated 
 systems, and contracted views are carried over into the 
 broad field of governmental affairs, taking the place of 
 enlarged views suitable to the situation and height of the 
 times. Lawyers as a rule make the laws, although a super- 
 stition prevails that this is the work of the people ; but it is 
 an absurdity beyond measure that no executive officer in 
 purely administrative matters can take a step without con- 
 sulting a cramped — in such affairs essentially ignorant — 
 law-officer, placed at his elbow. 
 
 In the second place, it is a part of the method that the 
 judges make law for the people. 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 209 
 
 What are those precedents I mentioned, which make 
 up by far the greater part of the law the people are 
 governed by, and which, in America alone, are manufactured 
 at the rate of a hundred volumes yearly ? They are nothing 
 but "judge-made law," "counterfeit law," in the words of 
 Bentham. Of such " law " I give here one example only. 
 
 Our national constitution provides that no State shall 
 pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. Chief 
 Justice Marshall, by lawyers surnamed " the Great," took 
 upon himself to say — in the celebrated Dartmouth college 
 case — that this provision should be so construed as to 
 prohibit the people from altering charters and withdrawing 
 privileges, granted by themselves to corporations. And 
 such is the law since that " great " decision was pro- 
 mulgated. 
 
 No ; one more instance, for it is too interesting to omit. 
 Do you know why Christianity is a part of the common law 
 of our country? Because an English judge. Lord Mans- 
 field, mistranslating two words of a dictum of somebody in 
 the fifteenth century, called " ancien scripture" (Norman 
 French, meaning, ancient writing) " holy scripture " ! 
 
 And this extraordinary power of judges means that they 
 can provide a law for cases after they arise. As Bentham 
 said : " They proceed with men as men proceed with dogs. 
 When your dog does something you want to break him of, 
 you wait till he does it, and then you thrash him for it. That 
 is what judges do to suitors whom they make reluctant heroes 
 of a leading case." They thus exercise a power which is 
 expressly forbidden to the legislators. 
 
 But that is not all. 
 
 The people's " representatives " pass a certain law. The 
 people obey it and act under it. Afterwards a judge de- 
 livers himself of this piece of wisdom to some poor wretch 
 
210 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 whom he has got within his jurisdiction: "I declare that 
 law to be no law at all. You were presumed to know that 
 all the time. When you acted under this so-called law, you 
 did so at your peril." Is not that to make the minister of 
 the law superior to the law itself? Certainly it is. Hear 
 Horatio Seymour, in an article in the North American Re- 
 view : " The great distinguishing feature of our government, 
 where we stand alone among the peoples of the earth, is 
 placing the judiciary above the executive and the law- 
 making power." 
 
 Yes, and above the people in their organic capacity 
 The fate of the constitution which the people of Californi t 
 lately adopted may lead us to doubt if it is possible for the 
 people in their primary capacity to frame an organic la\ 
 that will not be so misconstrued by judges as to defeat the 
 very purposes they sought to accomplish. 
 
 Against lawyers and judges, then, the people are a cipher. 
 Let the people signify their will in a way they think cannot 
 be misconstrued, the judges come with their dignified 
 countenances, saying : " You, people, do not at all know 
 what you will, for you will quite the contrary of what you 
 have said." Some people talk of priestcraft and ascribe all 
 sorts of horrors to it ! The priesthood that is dangerous 
 may not be the one that preaches on Sundays, but the 
 " learned " ones to whom on week-days law and reason, 
 justice and the pubUc welfare, are merely subjects of play 
 or caprice. 
 
 Now we can say for certain that under the co-operative 
 commonwealth this method will be radically changed — 
 our two sociaUst principles will not permit its continuance. 
 We may be certain, — 
 
 First, that judges will not be allowed to make counterfeit 
 laws. 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 2 1 1 
 
 That will be a necessary consequence from the demo- 
 cratic principle, that what the people have not sanctioned 
 is not law. Every case will be decided on its merits — 
 according to the law as the people have sanctioned it, 
 without regard to any precedents whatsoever. 
 
 Precedents, then, the dry worthless historical knowledge 
 on which legal men have constructed their sham science, 
 called "jurisprudence," will thus be swept away under their 
 feet, as was done in France by the Revolution and the Code 
 of Napoleon. That this code has been covered up with new 
 precedents, twenty times as voluminous as itself, by the 
 lawyers having commenced their refinements over again, 
 thus clogging the wheels of justice as much as before, is 
 due to the suppression of the principle of democracy. 
 
 Second, it will follow, even more necessarily, that judges 
 will iio longer be permitted to nullify laws, since in the co- 
 op'.rative commonwealth what the people have sanctioned 
 is law. 
 
 This monstrous guardianship of the judiciary over the 
 people, dictating to them and their representatives, as last 
 resort, what is law and what law-breaking, which also Jeffer- 
 son denounced as undemocratic, and of which the British 
 constitution, that we otherwise have tried so faithfully to, 
 copy, knows nothing, will cease to " distinguish us among 
 the peoples of the earth." 
 
 We may be assured. 
 
 Third, that the whole tribe of lawyers will be abolished, 
 and with them the whole warfare theory and all its quibble 
 will be swept away. 
 
 The new order, with its practical economic organization 
 of all public affairs, will have no use whatever for our 
 " Messrs. Eitherside." Abolish the warfare, and the pro- 
 fession of the lawyer is next to useless. 
 
212 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 Lawyers are now necessary evils — necessary on account 
 of our method of administering justice, just as the old 
 Roman lawyers were necessary because in Rome a suit was 
 a religious rite, requiring ceremonies that only could be per- 
 formed by the initiated. So because, and only because, a 
 lawsuit is now a warfare, and because technicalities and 
 precedents are mysteries to the uninitiated, finally, because 
 of the innumerable conflicting personal interests, we un- 
 doubtedly could not at present very well dispense with 
 lawyers. 
 
 But when this multiplicity of interests is done away 
 with and the present method of administering justice torn 
 up by the roots, then their occupation will be gone. And 
 the coming commonwealth is not likely to squander the 
 public treasures on useless functionaries. 
 
 Fourth, to sue for justice will be absolutely costless. 
 
 That will be easily done, as soon as lawyers are abolished. 
 
 " But if justice be free, all will avail themselves of it, and 
 there will be no end to litigation." 
 
 Is then an appeal to law worse than a trespass? The 
 new order will not so consider it ; it will consider the least 
 injury to any of its citizens an injury to itself. Give me a 
 license to do any person at pleasure the minutest wrong 
 conceivable ; allow me to pour a drop of water upon his 
 head against his will, — that person is my slave. Our com- 
 monwealth will know what a groundless suit means ; it will 
 know of ho such thing as a frivolous one. Besides, it is 
 the modern sparing justice that feeds iniquity. Be assured 
 that swift and unbending justice, with the fining of mali- 
 cious or litigious complainants, will check litigation. 
 
 But it is natural that inquiries should not yet be satis- 
 fied. They will ask : " What kind of procedure, then, 
 will the co-operative commonwealth introduce? So far 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 213 
 
 you have only been tearing down the present system, except 
 that you have promised us one positive achievement; to 
 wit, a handy, inteUigible volume of laws. What system, 
 now, will take the place of the incubus you have relieved 
 us of?" 
 
 I remark here, as I did when the economic administra- 
 tion under socialism was discussed, that socialists have no 
 ready-made plan to lay down for the guidance of those who 
 will be called upon to organize the coming commonwealth, 
 least of all a detailed plan. They must be guided by their 
 own judgment, the then condition of affairs, and the tem- 
 per of the people. But I grant that I ought to show, if 
 but in the merest outlines, how the new social order may 
 get along without lawyers tolerably well. Only bear in 
 mind that socialism is not responsible for the system I shall 
 suggest. 
 
 It will be observed that of our present machinery, almost 
 everything has been thrown overboard except statutes and 
 judges. 
 
 I assume that the new commonwealth could not dispense 
 with judges ; I do not mean our present lawyer-judges (their 
 " services " will certainly be dispensed with), but men es- 
 pecially trained to judicial functions, as others are trained 
 to theirs. The notion, which many within the socialist ranks 
 entertain, that justice can and ought to be dispensed by the 
 " people," is one they would be radically cured of if they 
 could have some years' experience in the trial of cases. 
 Justice by the " people " would be mob justice ; it would 
 be what " lynch " justice is now. 
 
 I can give good reasons for such belief. True, in our 
 commonwealth there will be, as we have seen, no difficulty 
 in ascertaining the law; further, there will be little or no 
 difficulty in interpreting the law ; but it requires, and will 
 
214 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 likewise in that commonwealth require, some judgment to 
 apply the law, and, what is the most important considera- 
 tion of all, it requires a good deal of education and train- 
 ing to ascertain the truth where the facts are in dispute, as 
 they are nearly in every case. It is impossible to ascertain 
 the truth without knowing how to estimate the force of 
 evidence, and that knowledge cannot be acquired without 
 having a science of evidence and having studied it as much 
 as any other science needs to be studied, and having learned 
 the art how properly to apply it. 
 
 Men trained in that science, and trained to be exact lo- 
 gicians, will undoubtedly be needed, and they will occupy 
 very distinguished positions. 
 
 I apprehend that in the future commonwealth our 
 sham " science " of jurisprudence, which in its essence is 
 nothing but a "science" of precedents, will be supplanted 
 with a true science of evidence, something else than that 
 confused collection of arbitrary rules, called " rules of 
 evidence," which Jeremy Bentham many years ago so 
 sharply and caustically criticised. 
 
 Assuming, then, that we in our commonwealth will have 
 a body of trained judges, I shall also assume that they will 
 form themselves into a department like other functionaries, 
 with their chief among the board of administrators, whose 
 peculiar function it possibly may be to draft all proposed 
 laws. 
 
 But I pass over to the particular task I have set myself: 
 the procedure in case of a lawsuit. 
 
 Just as little Switzerland will furnish us a model of really 
 popular democratic administration in the " referendum," 
 so it is possible that little Denmark will furnish us a model 
 of popular administration of justice in her so-called " courts 
 of conciUation," which have been in existence in that country 
 
ADMINISTRATION' OF lUSTICE 2 1 5 
 
 .since 1828^ and during that period have given immense sat- 
 isfaction, so much so, indeed, that similar courts have to a 
 certain extent been adopted by other countries in Europe. 
 The distinguishing feature of those courts is that no lawyers 
 are allowed there. All suits whatsoever, without regard to 
 the amounts involved, must, in the first place, be brought 
 before these courts. The judge takes down the oral com- 
 plaint of the plaintiff and the oral defence of the defendant, 
 and renders judgment accordingly. If, however, either of 
 the parties is dissatisfied with the judgment, the judge refers 
 the case to the regular courts, in which courts, however, no 
 other evidence is allowed to be introduced but that which was 
 laid before the judge sitting in the court of conciliation. 
 
 A vast amount of litigation is settled yearly by these 
 courts, because it is the duty of the judge to explain the 
 laws governing the particular case to the parties, and also, 
 undoubtedly, because lawyers are excluded. 
 
 Our commonwealth would do very well in following this 
 Danish model, and only improve on it in making the judg- 
 ment of such a court conclusive on the parties. This would 
 fulfil the most important requirement, namely, render 
 lawyers superfluous ; and taking down the verbal statements 
 of the parties would dispense with the useless lying " plead- 
 ings " of our present system. 
 
 But the coming commonwealth might in another way 
 utilize that model, by ingrafting some of its features on 
 another mode of determining suits at law which is undoubt- 
 edly becoming more and more popular. I refer to arbi- 
 tration, which at present would be far more used than is 
 the case, if the tendency to resort to it were not constantly 
 obstructed by our lawyers, who naturally enough consider it 
 an inferior commodity — something like neck-beef. 
 
 Suppose the plaintiff in a given suit were required to 
 
2l6 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 select one of the commonwealth's judges, who would take 
 down his own statements and those of his witnesses and 
 then notify the defendant of the commencement of such a 
 suit. He on his part would select another of the judges, 
 who would proceed in a like manner. These two judges 
 would then confer together, giving each other the benefit of 
 their views of the law on the basis of the statements taketi 
 down, which would be legal evidence, subject to cross-exam- 
 ination, however, in case of discrepancy. If the two could 
 not agree on a decision, they would then select a third judge, 
 and the decision of the majority would be the judgment. 
 The same proceedings might very well obtain in criminal 
 cases, the judge representing the State being selected by the 
 judges of the district from among themselves. 
 
 If it be objected that trials then would lose their publicity, 
 I answer, first, that arbitrations now are mostly private, 
 and, next, that publicity is often more subversive of justice 
 than otherwise. Wrongs to women are by publicity often 
 aggravated rather than remedied ; and administration of 
 justice is by it not infrequently turned into a mighty abettor 
 of the blackmailer. 
 
 I said that our commonwealth might improve upon the 
 Danish model by making the judgment of the trial judge 
 conclusive on the parties. I mean that. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the expense and intermina- 
 ble delay of our lawsuits are mainly due to the many ap- 
 peals. This expense and delay are, also, the reason why in 
 most of our States we find so many appellate courts con- 
 stantly being established at the instance of lawyers, of 
 course, and never once an appellate court abrogated ; for 
 do not lawyers _ want expense and delay? 
 
 Why not dispense entirely with appeals under the system 
 of arbitration suggested? 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 21/ 
 
 What is the philosophy of appeals ? 
 
 By no means that the appellate judge is better fitted to 
 render a righteous judgment, for, not being face to face 
 with the parties and their witnesses, he evidently is not. 
 
 No ; the first reason of appeals is that the trial judge may 
 have somebody to stand in awe of, so to speak. But the 
 judges of the future commonwealth being freely selected by 
 the parties, certainly will need no one to stand in awe of. 
 
 A second reason of appeals to higher courts is that the 
 interpretation of the laws may be uniform. 
 
 That, however, might be accomplished just as effectually, 
 and much more conveniently, by a provision that the judges 
 shall inform their chief of all cases and their particulars, 
 where a disagreement has taken place ; next, of the cases 
 where they have deviated from the strict law in favor of 
 equity and of all points arising not yet provided for by law. 
 
 I say " deviated from the strict law," for the judges 
 should have discretion. No law should be inflexible. It 
 would be well to readopt the old maxim of the Roman 
 law: " summum JUS, summa injuria" ("the strict law is 
 often the height of injustice "). 
 
 The chief would then approve or disapprove of the judg- 
 ment rendered, or of the deviation from the law, resorted 
 to, — a sort of reprimand or otherwise, — and introduce 
 amendments to the existing laws, if thought proper. But 
 the judgment below would stand as rendered, and neither 
 the judgments nor disapprovals should ever become prece- 
 dents, or we should soon again be in the meshes of the lawyers. 
 Nothing would be law that has not been submitted to the 
 people and obtained their sanction. 
 
 Under such a procedure there would not be the least 
 excuse for the infamous bail system. Infamous, because 
 there is hardly a crime so great but that under that system 
 
2l8 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH ^ 
 
 a rich man can get out on bail and have the inestimable 
 privilege of being out on liberty to collect evidence in his 
 favor and otherwise prepare for his defence ; and because 
 there is, on the other hand, hardly a misdemeanor so trivial 
 but that a poor man cannot get out without bail. In- 
 famous, because poor innocent witnesses are under that 
 system doomed to spend weeks and months in jail. There 
 will be no excuse for it under our procedure, for all cases 
 can under it be decided quickly. 
 
 Just as the United States is the most party-ridden of all 
 countries, so it certainly is the most lawyer-ridden. And 
 the lawyer class are the most mischievous of all classes, 
 the one that most clogs the wheels of progress. When the 
 supreme powers issue their decree that the established 
 order is at an end, then with the Messrs. Six-per-cent. must 
 go their retainers, the Messrs. Eitherside and lawyer- 
 judges. It is even more important to insist upon their 
 taking back seats here, where they claim to be the people's 
 guardians, than in England,, where they have never ventured 
 to deny the nation the right to change its institutions at its 
 pleasure. 
 
 On the other hand, the very principle of democracy 
 demands competent and quahfied judges, the more so as 
 the very highest of the social activities is to see justice 
 done. We may also rest assured that the guilds and de- 
 partments of the new commonwealth will insist on trained 
 functionaries to whom to submit their differences for arbi- 
 tration. When legal training is freed from legal cobwebs, 
 then we shall have natural procedure instead of technical 
 procedure. 
 
IVOMAJV IN THE COMMONWEALTH 219 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 WOMAN »r THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 " The only school of genuine moral sentiment is society between equals." 
 — yohn Stuart Mill. 
 
 " Work is withheld from woman in theory, only to be more harshly and 
 clumsily inflicted in practice." — " Value of Life" 
 
 " Why is she constituted a woman at all ? — Merely that she may become 
 a sort of second-rate man ? " — " Biology and Woman's Rights" " Quarterly 
 Journal of Science" Nov., 1878. 
 
 THE position of woman -^- of that half of humanity out 
 of whose womb the coming generations issue — has 
 generally been taken as the measure of a people's advance- 
 ment. 
 
 Yet woman has hitherto always been a step-child, is even 
 so now, — and in the United States, in spite of our boasted 
 " chivalry." If the man of toil is to be pitied, much more, 
 indeed, is the toiling woman ; if the husband suffers from 
 an unhappy marriage, much more the wife j and the dis- 
 tance between the greatest man and the lowest slave has 
 always been far less than between the high-placed lady and 
 the woman of the street. If the co-operative commonwealth 
 would not be likely to effect a vast improvement in the lot 
 of woman, it would not be worth hoping for. 
 
 We have good grounds for expecting that she will under 
 the new order of things be raised as far above her present 
 position as the woman of the middle ages was elevated 
 above her sister of ancient Greece or of Rome. 
 
 Yet bear in mind that socialism in its essence has to do 
 with economic relations. There is no socialist marriage nor 
 
220 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 family life. I may add, there is no socialist education or 
 morals ; but neither is there any socialist politics or justice. 
 Nevertheless, socialism will, as we saw, revolutionize the 
 administration of affairs and of justice. This will be done 
 by a direct effort : by discarding the present machinery 
 and contriving other instruments, suitable to collective con- 
 trol of all national affairs. But socialism will also have 
 many indirect efforts of vast consequence. Production 
 and distribution of wealth being the roots of society, 
 they determine the soundness of its trunk, and the quality 
 of its flowers and fruit. Hence it comes that socialism, by 
 refashioning economic relations, will regenerate society 
 throughout all its activities, and, more particularly, will have 
 a most marked effect on woman, on education, and on 
 morals. 
 
 While, however, the influence of social co-operation in 
 the other two respects will be a manifold one, as we shall 
 afterwards see, woman will be affected in a peculiarly simple, 
 though not the less effective manner. The coming com- 
 monwealth will place her on an equal footing with man, — 
 economically, that is all. 
 
 But here it is even more important than elsewhere to 
 settle what we are to understand by " economic equality." 
 I cannot do this better than by comparing the socialist 
 view with the demands of that persistent class of persoiL 
 known as "women's rights" champions, of whom John 
 Stuart Mill was a representative. 
 
 They demand that the avenues to all employments be 
 opened as freely to women as they are to men ; in other 
 words, they agitate for free competition between the sexes. 
 
 Well, I should say that the door to most industrial em- 
 ployment has for a long time been open to women of the 
 working classes. According to the United States census of 
 
WOMAN IN THE COMMONWEALTH 221 
 
 1880, there were 632,000 women engaged in manufactur- 
 ing, mechanical, and mining industries — one sixth of the 
 whole working force. In sopie industries the proportion is 
 far greater — notably in the cotton mills, where there are 
 considerably more women than men employed. 
 
 Have these women's rights agitators ever contemplated 
 the result? — which, under our present industrial system, 
 simply is that competition is rendered yet more savage ; 
 that wages sink to a lower and lower level ; that a whole 
 family, on an avenge, comes to earn no more than the head 
 of a family used to earn by himself. 
 
 Of these 632,000 females many thousands were married 
 women and mothers of children. What kind of family 
 life do they lead ? What kind of training do those children 
 get? Ought we to hanker after more competition? 
 
 I say that the worst that can befall both sexes is for 
 woman to compete with man in man's work. I contend, 
 with Mill, for equality ; but, against Mill, that woman should 
 not become a second-rate man. That is to say, I again 
 urge the vital distinction, which is constantly overlooked, 
 between being equal and being alike. 
 
 Woman is different from man in intellect, different from 
 him in temperament, different from him in muscles. There 
 is a peculiarity of construction in the bones of the pelvis 
 and the chest, which forbids her to be as much on her feet as 
 man. I may further suggest certain notorious physiolo- 
 gical facts that demand, in contrast to man, that woman shall 
 have a periodic rest of, say, three days every four weeks. 
 
 In other words, instead of free competition between the 
 sexes, I contend for special vocations for the sexes. 
 
 That, of course, is not to be thought of under the pres- 
 ent system. The proportion of women to men in shops, 
 mines, and factories will undoubtedly continue to increase. 
 
222 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 In disregard of physiological facts, manufacturers will go on 
 requiring their female employes to be on their feet from 
 morning till night, and retail-dealers will stick to the rule 
 against sitting down. As a matter of sentiment they may 
 think Plato's proposition to mix the sexes in all things pre- 
 posterous, but the system demands it. It is just the same 
 thing in regard to wages. Sentimental people deplore the 
 fact that women are paid less than men for the same work. 
 There is no help for it under our system : the wage-system 
 demands it. 
 
 Quite otherwise in the co-operative commonwealth. 
 There woman will become a functionary, she will have 
 suitable employment given her, and be rewarded according 
 to results, just the same as man. 
 
 Suitable employment, mark you ! Woman will there not 
 take the place of man. The sexes will there keep pace 
 with each other, but — in accordance with the teaching of 
 physiology — walk in different pathways. That will simply 
 mean that the principle which is the basis of our civiliza- 
 tion — to wit, division of labor — will be extended so as to 
 embrace both sexes. If that principle is good for man, 
 why not for man and woman? Indeed, we shall find that 
 this extension of division of laboj will furnish the desidera- 
 tum of the coming commonwealth, — competent workers in 
 every field of labor. Women will surely not be dragging 
 behind, for we must remember that whatever of greatness 
 woman hitherto has accomplished she has achieved in vio- 
 lation of the conventional code ; but nature with equal laws 
 always tends to diversity. 
 
 " Will there be work enough for all women who choose 
 to engage in public activities? " may be asked. 
 
 Why, even now, in this crude civilization of ours, there 
 is an abundance of work which woman only ought to do. 
 
WOMAIV IN THE COMMONWEALTH 223 
 
 Why should not our women insist on having female physi- 
 cians (I do not mean surgeons) to attend them? Is that 
 calling more unwomanly than nursing? Our women's hos- 
 pitals, whose medical staffs and students are women, are 
 most excellent institutions, and mark the coming change. 
 
 And imagine once the innumerable humane institutions 
 of the co-operative commonwealth ! They will afford 
 woman a thousand opportunities for the exercise of her 
 peculiar natural gifts — I need only instance the kinder- 
 gartens, spread over the whole country, of which I shall 
 have more to say in the next chapter. 
 
 How will this affect woman? Just as it will man. 
 
 As his becoming a pubUc functionary will destroy the 
 accursed dependence on the irresponsible will of some in- 
 dividual for a living which now obtains ; as it will make 
 ' him a free man, so it will make her a free woman. Woman 
 now is dependent on some man for a Uving, — on father, or 
 brother, or husband, or employer ; that is why men arro- 
 gate to themselves to say what is woman's sphere. Destroy 
 that dependence, — I do not say make her independent, 
 for " independence " is not a socialist word at all; all will 
 be dependent on the commonwealth and interdependent, — 
 give her the power of earning her own living at pleasure, 
 and the economic equality of woman is achieved. 
 
 But, undoubtedly, the idea that all women, even " ladies," 
 might come to earn their own living will shock many a 
 " chivalrous " gentleman in these hypocritic times. What 
 would life be to them without " delicate and spiritual " 
 women to whom to pay homage ? 
 
 Well, the consideration that the equality which I advo- 
 cate will hardly give us many female sailors or blacksmiths 
 ought to console them somewhat. But I admit that they 
 have some reason to be horrified. 
 
224- THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 For these same persons generally fancy that it is their 
 appreciation that gives value to woman — a view not so 
 very different from the Mohammedan view. In the com- 
 ing commonwealth woman will certainly not, as now, 
 form her character with the express aim of pleasing the 
 man fool. But she will have fuller opportunities than 
 she ever yet has had of developing her specific gifts of 
 womanhood. Then esteem will be substituted for vapid 
 compliments. 
 
 However, this power of earning her living does not mean 
 that in the new social order all women, or even a majority 
 of them, will be in the service of the public. Nothing 
 will prevent the daughters from remaining at home, assist- 
 ing their mothers or caring for their fathers, and nothing 
 will compel married women to neglect their domestic affairs. 
 It simply means that every woman will be enabled to earn 
 her own living honorably and pleasantly whenever she 
 chooses so to do. And this power is essential to the dig- 
 nity of woman, whether married or single. 
 
 After what I have said on suffrage in other chapters, I 
 need not dwell on that other, the principal demand of our 
 "women's rights" champions, that women now should vote 
 as much as men. 
 
 I suppose, of course, that in the coming commonwealth 
 woman will be intrusted with the suffrage to exactly the 
 same extent as man ; I say, advisedly, " intrust," for, all 
 these champions to the contrary, suffrage is not a " right," 
 nor is it a privilege, but a trust. 
 
 But what would the mere power to cast a ballot help 
 woman now, supposing it were given to her? Suffrage is 
 one of those things which are so very valuable when you 
 have not got it, and so little valuable when you have. The 
 ballot has proven anything but a magic wand to the toiling 
 
WOMAN- IN THE COMMONWEALTH 225 
 
 workingmen, and it would still be more impotent in the 
 hands of toiling women. 
 
 The ballot would not bring strength to the lightless eye or 
 the thin hand of the needle-woman of this age of competi- 
 tion ; it would not remove the causes which now make 
 woman prefer almost any marriage to working for a living. 
 It might enable her to say a word about laws of divorce, 
 but would not enable her to support herself when divorced. 
 
 The ballot in her hand might suppress lewd houses, but 
 would not prevent men from leading victims to the altar of 
 their passions, like sheep to the slaughter- bench. 
 
 Neither are we blind to the consideration that if woman 
 could exercise the suffrage to-morrow with the State as at 
 present constituted, the result would in all likelihood be 
 detrimental to progress ; for it is undeniable that they, taken 
 as a whole, are far more conservative, even reactionary, — 
 no fault of theirs, though, — than men. In the words of 
 Admiral Maxse : " Those who think unorthodox — that 
 is, unusual — thoughts, they {i.e., women of the present 
 time) believe to be wicked. They turn instinctively from 
 all initiative movements. Even superior women rarely 
 have sympathy with the struggles which determine the life 
 of a nation. They are only interested in public affairs 
 within the limits of the parish." But in the coming' com- 
 monwealth all these objections will disappear, for they can 
 all be shown to be due to their one-sided education. 
 
 Let us, however, give credit to these persistent " women's 
 rights " agitators for one thing. We are told that in some 
 settlements on the African coast free negroes are taunted 
 by the slaves with having no white man to look after them. 
 That so many of our women have got beyond the stand- 
 point of those slaves is in a great degree due to those 
 agitators. 
 
226 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 But for woman to expect that her emancipation will be 
 worked out before that of man is altogether illusive. And 
 this is a sufficient reason why all agitators for women's rights 
 ought with enthusiasm to embrace socialism, which will 
 enable woman to right, herself, all her other wrongs. 
 
 Take marriage. 
 
 The new order will necessarily, by the mere working of 
 its economic principles, considerably modify that relation. 
 And is that relation such an ideal one now that it would be 
 a sacrilege to touch it ? 
 
 Is marriage not now, at bottom, an establishment for the 
 support of the woman ? Is not maintenance the price which 
 the husband pays for the appendage to himself? And 
 because the supply generally exceeds the demand — that is, 
 the effective demand — has woman not often to accept the 
 offer of the first man who seems able to perform this 
 pecuniary obligation of his? 
 
 This is rather a commercial view to take of this "holy" 
 relation ; but is not marriage, as a matter of fact, regarded 
 by altogether too many as a commercial institution? Do 
 . not the total of young women form a matrimonial market 
 regulaj:ed by demand and supply? Nothing is more natural 
 than that it should be so now. It is most human that in 
 our present social order parents as well as young women 
 should look upon marriage, without prospects of subsistence, 
 with horror. 
 
 The co-operative commonwealth will dissipate that horror. 
 It will enable every healthy adult man and woman to marry 
 whenever they feel so inclined, without present or prospective 
 misgivings in regard to their support or the proper education 
 of children. Socialists are charged, ignorantly or insidiously, 
 with attempting to destroy, the family. Why, we want to 
 enable every man and woman to form a happy family. 
 
WOMAN IN THE COMMONWEALTH 227 
 
 Somebody may here interject that it is very inexpedient 
 for people to marry young, since they must necessarily be 
 wanting in judgment. To that I reply, that by "young 
 people" I mean developed, adult young people — children 
 will in a proper social system remain in the care of their 
 teachers till they have grown to maturity ; further, that noth- 
 ing contributes so much to the chastity of a nation as the 
 marriage of its young men as soon as possible after reaching 
 the adult state ; and lastly, that experience does not teach us 
 that judgment in love affairs increases with growth in years. 
 The fear of overpopulation consequent on early and uni- 
 versal marriages I have already shown to be baseless. 
 
 Next, the coming commonwealth will destroy the matri- 
 monial market. 
 
 When wealth ceases to be a means of living by the labor 
 of other people, and especially when an honorable and easy 
 living is within her reach, we may suppose that a woman 
 will rarely consent to marry for anything but love, will no 
 longer consent to be bought to be a piece of furniture of 
 any western Turk. Here, again, it is the power of earning 
 that will confer true dignity on womanhood. 
 
 Again, this economical equality of woman will greatly affect 
 for the better her position as wife. 
 
 Our marriage laws are the code of the stronger, made by 
 lords for dependents. True, in many States of our Union 
 some modifications in regard to property have been effected 
 in favor of the wife. But even in that regard the enormity 
 everywhere prevails that the wife as survivor of her husband 
 has only a life interest in the third part of their common 
 estate, though she may have — and if she has been a farmer's 
 wife certainly has — contributed fully as much to its acqui- 
 sition as he. The husband, if he be the survivor, on the 
 other hand, takes all her property. So that other injustice 
 
228 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 is everywhere law, — that the wife, if the husband obtains a 
 divorce from her, is driven homeless and penniless into the 
 cold world j while, if the husband be the sinner, she never 
 will get more than a third of the common estate. 
 
 But the essence of the wrong is that in law the wife is 
 nothing but the husband's property. Witness our scandalous 
 actions for seduction, in which the husband sues for " dam- 
 ages " for enticing away that which is his. Now the hus- 
 band can say to his wife, " Your will is mine, and my will 
 is my own." Now the wife must content herself with what 
 her husband pleases to give her. In fact, our system gives 
 support to the fallacy that a husband "gives" his wife 
 money, as much as to that other fallacy that the employer 
 "gives" work to his employes. 
 
 "That is the reason," as John Stuart Mill says, " why the 
 family, which should be a school of sympathy, tenderness, 
 and loving forgetfulness of self, is still oftener, as respects 
 its chief, a school of wilfulness and overbearingness and 
 unbounded self-indulgence ; the care of the wife and chil- 
 dren being only care for them as part of the man's own 
 interests and belongings." And all that because he is the 
 " chief" ! 
 
 The new order will make husband and wife equals, and 
 it will do it simply by giving the wife power of earning her 
 living by fitting employment. 
 
 Not that socialists, as I before remarked, expect a 
 majority, or even a goodly number, of married women to 
 earn their own living in fact. It is just because a great 
 many of them are now compelled thus to work, that I can 
 justly charge this capitalistic era with destroying family life. 
 I emphatically hold that it is the husband's province to 
 provide for the necessities of his family (much more so in 
 the coming commonwealth, where it will be so much more 
 
IVOMAN- IN THE COMMONWEALTH 225 
 
 easy to do it), and that the wife has done her full share 
 of the common labor when she manages her household 
 properly. 
 
 I simply want to see the wife invested with the poten- 
 tiality of economic independence of her husband, to be 
 realized any time she sees fit. 
 
 " But when the wills and wishes of these ' equals ' clash, 
 who is to decide between them? " 
 
 It is only a delusion to suppose constant/Collisions be- 
 tween husband and wife when they are made the equals of 
 each other. It is far more likely that equality will create 
 mutual deference for each other's wishes and mutual conces- 
 sions. That is the way equaUty works among men. Even 
 now, honorable men — gentlemen — fear trespassing against 
 each other, not the being trespassed against. " The only 
 school of genuine moral sentiment is society between equals," 
 as Mill says. Indeed, whenever husband and wife are now 
 really happy together, it is by ignoring and despising, not 
 by asserting, the subordination of woman to man which they 
 hold in t eory. 
 
 Need we fear any lack of mutual concessions between 
 two equal persons of opposite sexes who love each other ? Is 
 it not exactly the function of love to make of two such persons 
 one : the true social unit ? — to create that most remarka- 
 ble oneness where each merges his and her personality in 
 the other ; where each gratifies himself or herself the more 
 they sacrifice themselves for each other? And if, unfortu- 
 nately, love does not make them one, isn't it absolute pre- 
 sumption for any outside power to declare that they shall 
 be one, and that one — the husband ? 
 
 And that leads me to consider that the coming common- 
 wealth will enable the divorced wife, also, to support herself 
 by fitting employment. 
 
230 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 As the effect of this, undoubtedly, will be to tempt wives 
 to seek divorce whenever they are unhappily mated, I shall 
 here have to confront the questions : — 
 
 " Does socialism favor divorce ? And are socialists free- 
 lovers, as they are charged with being? " 
 
 I answer, socialism as an economic system must only be 
 charged with the consequences which may logically be drawn 
 from its economic principles. Because socialism will facil- 
 itate divorces, it follows not at all that it favors them. 
 
 Again, socialists are not free-lovers, in the popular accep- 
 tation of that term. 
 
 The doctrine that husband and wife should be at liberty 
 to leave each other, and form other connections as caprice 
 or inclination may dictate, I hold to be a dangerous doc- 
 trine, and one especially dreadful to women, so long as 
 nearly every man has got a sultan in his body. Marriage 
 is a most needed test of man's love for woman, and when 
 she stakes all her plans of life on his promise, he has con- 
 tracted a series of weighty obligations that the common- 
 wealth should hold him to perform. 
 
 Quite another thing is it that socialists generally hold, 
 that there are many cases where a divorce is far preferable 
 to the further cohabiting together of the parties. But we 
 need not be socialists to hold that view. 
 
 Thus John Stuart Mill said : "Things never come" (with 
 a married couple) " to an issue of downright power on one 
 side and obedience on the other, except where the connec- 
 tion altogether is a mistake and it would be a blessing to 
 both to be relieved from it." And Mill was not a free-lover 
 nor a socialist. 
 
 Jeremy Bentham said : " The interpretation which the 
 law now enforces of the contract of marriage is, We shall 
 not be at liberty to separate though hereafter we come to 
 
WOMAN IN THE COMMONWEALTH 23 I 
 
 hate each other as now/ we love each other ! This is shock- 
 ing." He, on the otl^er hand, considered it very sensible 
 for the woman, in entering into the contract, to say to the 
 man, " If I give /fnyself up to you, you shall not be at 
 liberty to leave^fne without my consent," and right for the 
 State to enforce such a contract. Bentham, therefore, 
 would^ant a divorce whenever the wife should be a plain- 
 tiff; and Bentham was no free-lover nor a socialist. 
 
 Fichte, the great German philosopher, held that man 
 always entered into the marriage relation avowedly prompted 
 by sexual passion. The chaste woman in submitting to 
 her husband's embraces was really prompted by the like 
 passion, but without acknowledging it even to herself; 
 without, in fact, being aware of it. Her apparent motive 
 in giving herself over to him is her love for him, her confi- 
 dence in him. Fichte considered this veiling of woman's 
 real by her apparent motive to be the essence and rationale 
 of chastity, explaining why mankind requires that virtue — 
 imperatively — in a good woman, but not absolutely in a good 
 man. He, therefore, would have divorces granted in all 
 cases where the wife for any cause desired it, and to the 
 husband in case of adultery by her ; for in either case it 
 was evident that the wife's love for her husband had fled, 
 and without love on her part she would degrade herself by 
 connection with him, and render the relation eo ipso im- 
 moral. 
 
 It must be remarked that Fichte by no means claimed 
 that love in a man is a fiction ; but he maintained that his 
 love is a growth during marriage, sown and nourished in 
 him by his wife's love for and trust in him. 
 
 Now Fichte has not generally been considered a free- 
 lover, and, though he may be looked upon as the forerunner 
 of German socialism, he cannot well be called .a socialist. 
 
232 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 We are thus in pretty good company when we say that 
 where there is dislike between husband and wife, their 
 union is an unmitigated evil to both, and not least to their 
 children, if they have any ; that the welfare of children de- 
 mands the highest order of wedlock ; and that marriage 
 without mutual love breeds pestilence to all, however per- 
 sistently our present social order styles it " sacred." 
 
 But so it is. This hypocritical age combines in regard to 
 all sexual relations the sternest total prohibition in theory 
 with the vilest laxity in practice, and stops aghast at the 
 whispers of any mediary or modifying suggestions. 
 
 The other day I noticed a dainty lady, the wife of a 
 wealthy person, whom she hardly could have married for 
 love, sweeping by a fallen sister as if fearing that the hem 
 of her garment might be touched and defiled. 
 
 The former had, under our supposition, — and it is no- 
 toriously true in very many instances, — sold her person for 
 money under cover of marriage. The latter does the same 
 thing outside of marriage. Now, no hypocrisy, please ! In 
 all candor, what is the difference between the two ? 
 
 And it is not fair to look upon the latter as she is. Look 
 on her as she commenced to be what she is. 
 
 Perhaps she was seduced, and then left to shift for herself. 
 Society now persecutes these victims of man's lust, as if it in- 
 tended to force them to kill themselves or their children. 
 
 In very many cases she is pushed towards the pit by pov- 
 erty, by the small pay she receives for her toil under this 
 wage-system. Poor girls are every whit as virtuous as 
 boarding-school misses. Yet, think of it, how much harder, 
 how very much harder it is for the former to be pure than 
 for the latter ! Is it remarkable, is it anything but human 
 for them to give way to temptation, to accept the bribes of 
 the beast in man? 
 
WOMAN IN THE COMMONWEALTH 233 
 
 Let us admit that many fall because they like fineries 
 and adornmeiits too well. This, however, is no bad quality 
 in itself; it is merely an uncultured manifestation of a truly 
 feminine characteristic, — pride of appearance. 
 
 But that of which this fallen woman stands the represen- 
 tative is a horrible evil. It is called " the social evil," and 
 called so very properly by people who skim along the sur- 
 face of things. It is a most loathsome ulcer on the social 
 body ; but the evil which causes this ulcer to break out is in 
 the constitution of society. It is our economic system that 
 here also is at fault. And the fact that this system serves as 
 a hot-house for such plants has the most damning effect. 
 
 The " evil " is said to be incurable. Indeed, so it is 
 under our established order, since it is the cause of it. The 
 only " remedy " this order has for it is policemen, prisons, 
 and asylums with prison rules. But that it is not in itself 
 incurable has been proved by the Mormons. It is unknown 
 among them, because they have no unmarried elements for 
 lust to prey upon. I admit, of course, that their mode 
 of bringing this about is as bad as the disease. 
 
 The coming commonwealth will cure it in the only 
 proper way. 
 
 It will protect and hold sacred every pregnant woman, 
 whoever she may be ; for she will enrich it with one mem- 
 ber, at all events innocent. 
 
 It will see to it that there are no giddy young girls run- 
 ning round on the streets by themselves at night. 
 
 But the economic changes I already have considered will 
 be the most efficient cure by far. 
 
 They will, as we saw, enable all young people to marry 
 who want to do so. The great majority of women, undoubt- 
 edly, will choose marriage ; and properly so, for we believe 
 experience teaches that married women exercise a far greater 
 
234 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH' 
 
 influence everywhere, also in public affairs, than the un- 
 -narried. 
 
 But there will be always some women whose special vo- 
 cation will be some of the manifold functions of the public 
 service ; these will be cheerfully enrolled among the public 
 functionaries, for there will be use and even need for every 
 one of them. 
 
 Woman will then have full opportunity of developing all 
 the possibilities of her womanhood, as man those of his 
 manhood — and that is equality. 
 
 I may add that the coming commonwealth will relieve 
 woman of all drudgery in housekeeping. Our progress in 
 that respect has evidently not at all kept pace with our 
 progress in other respects. Some feeble attempts have 
 been made in that direction by individual enterprise, but 
 they have nearly all been limited to the well-to-do classes. 
 Hardly anything of that kind has been or will be done 
 under the present order for the immense mass of toihng 
 women who most need it. 
 
 The new order will, we may be assured, do away with 
 much worry in private houses in the way of washing and 
 cookery, without sacrificing one jot of privacy or real home 
 life. 
 
 Thus we shall have, for all, women as well as men, that 
 true luxury of which now the great multitude, rich as well 
 as poor, know nothing, — leisure : the prerequisite for all 
 development, all education. 
 
EDUCATION' IN THE COMMONWEALTH 235 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 EDUCATION IN THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 " The education of children is a trust whose principal eifects are to be 
 felt after the death of the parents and teachers." — " The Value of Life. " 
 
 "All these were years ago litde red-colored pulpy infants, capable of being 
 kneaded, baked into any social form you choose." — Carlyle. 
 
 " The power of education is almost boundless ; there is not one natural 
 inclination which is not strong enough to coerce and, if needful, destroy by- 
 disuse." — yohn Stuart Mill. 
 
 AN Episcopal clergyman of great influence in his de- 
 nomination once expressed himself to the writer 
 hereof almost exactly as follows : — 
 
 " The dispensation of Divine Providence determines the 
 social grade of children on their reaching adult age, just as 
 their pecuniary condition is settled. If a father is a vaga- 
 bond, why, his children must suffer from the iniquity of the 
 father; that is God's law. It is absurd to claim that a 
 child has a ' right ' to a liberal education, or to such an 
 education as is at present given in our public schools. To 
 take the property of a citizen in order to give the children 
 of his poorer neighbors such an education is as unjust as 
 to compel him to furnish food and clothing to those same 
 children. In short, to demand a liberal education for all 
 children is not less monstrous than to demand roast beef 
 and plum pudding for them. I can assure you that this 
 doctrine is held by a very great number of the most 
 thoughtfiil Christian people, protestants not less than cath- 
 olics, and I am convinced that however unpopular this 
 
236 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 doctrine seems now, the country will in fifty years adopt it 
 in sheer self-defence." 
 
 " I am well aware," he continued, " of that well-worn 
 argument, that ignorance in a people is too great a danger 
 in a State, and especially in a republic ; but there is evi- 
 dently no more danger in ignorance than in physical desti- 
 tution. And then," he added, " we are very willing that 
 the children of poor people should be given, as a Christian 
 charity, a minimum education ; that they should be taught 
 to read and write, so that they can read their Bibles and 
 their ballots. But this is something very different from the 
 education now furnished by our public and high schools. 
 Again, you must not understand me to say that the State 
 should furnish that ' minimum ' education ; I think this is 
 not the State's business at all, for it is not a charitable insti- 
 tution." 
 
 I could not help smihng at this idea of a " minimum 
 education." It reminded me of the mistress who was quite 
 willing her maid should learn to write, but not to write like 
 a " lady." 
 
 Well, this is a pretty frank declaration of a representative 
 of our luxurious " classes." He is confirmed by the follow- 
 ing sentiments taken from a Presbyterian periodical : " It is 
 God's decree that children shall inherit the culture and 
 position of their parents and that which they provide for 
 their children. Knowledge, culture, and virtue are not to 
 be extended beyond the fortunate youths for whom their 
 parents secure them. The said law holds good that igno- 
 rance and its consequences must needs be hereditary." 
 
 There is here a remarkable sympathy between the 
 thoughtful Presbyterian and the thoughtful Episcopalian. 
 
 Now these gentlemen who uttered these sentiments are 
 certainly frank. They are not bad men : quite the reverse. 
 
EDUCATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH 237 
 
 They are intelligent above the average. What if they are 
 right? I mean, what if their sentiments are sound, from 
 the stand-point of the established order, of course ? 
 
 Is it not true that the destitution of the masses is just as 
 dangerous to a republic as ignorance is ? 
 
 Would it really be more " monstrous " to demand roast 
 beef and plum pudding than to ask for a liberal education? 
 
 And is it anything but robbery under the euphonious 
 name of taxation when the State, which recognizes the 
 fleecings of its enterprising citizens as " sacred " property, 
 puts its hands into their pockets and devotes what it ex- 
 tracts to purposes that are objectionable or indifferent to 
 those citizens? 
 
 And, pray, if the present social order is the best possible 
 system, and ought to continue forever, what business have 
 these working masses (these necessary evils) anyway with a 
 liberal ■ education ? Their virtues consist in being humble 
 frugal, temperate, industrious, and contented with the sta- 
 tion "to which it has pleased God to call them." It is 
 notorious that education, contrariwise, makes them self-asser- 
 tive, gives them expensive habits, makes them hanker after 
 comforts and luxuries, causes them to fret under toil ; in 
 short, makes of them rebels against their " superiors," and, 
 the more " liberal " the education, the' more unmanageable 
 rebels. By all means, then, if they must be educated at 
 all, let it be so much " minimum " that it will not endanger 
 their " virtues." 
 
 Our " liberal " friends have only one line of defence left, — 
 that it is cheaper to build schools than jails, that education 
 diminishes crime. But neither of these propositions is 
 true. Our schools cost more than our jails. 
 
 Neither reason nor facts sustain the assumption that 
 ignorance has any particular relation to crime. Mere 
 
238 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 intellectual training does not make good citizens, but will 
 undoubtedly make out of clumsy law-breakers refined 
 rascals. 
 
 The most reprehensible crimes are by no means com- 
 mitted by ignorant persons. Bank burglars are often as in- 
 telligent as bank presidents ; forgers, as a rule, as educated as 
 railroad directors. In France, where a geiieration ago two 
 thirds of the inhabitants could neither read nor write, there 
 occurred in a given period fourteen times less crime than in 
 Prussia where compulsory education prevailed. Already De 
 Tocqueville remarked that in the United States crimes in- 
 creased with instruction, and the census of 1 880 has informed 
 us that the people of the northern States, with their costly 
 school-houses and still more palatial jails, are more criminal 
 than the uneducated south. Suppose we take all the States 
 east of the Mississippi, and compare those north of the 
 Ohio with those south of the same river, we find that the 
 criminals detained in penal institutions of every kind on 
 the I St of June, 1880, amounted in the former to i in 827 
 of the population, but in the latter only to i in 932. 
 
 Thus the spokesman of the " thoughtful Christians " — 
 the cream of our employers, capitalists, comfortable classes 
 — seems to have all logic and all facts on his side. Will 
 then in, say, fifty years our public schools, high schools, and 
 State universities really be closed? 
 
 Ah ! there is one thing to which he is bUnd. 
 
 He sees very clearly that we are fast approaching the 
 economic conditions of older countries, that the gulf is 
 daily widening between Dives, the few, and Lazarus, the 
 teeming multitude. He is also keen enough to see that for 
 the class-state to maintain free education for the poor 
 would be to commit suicide. If all are to be well edu- 
 cated, who will do the menial, servile work of the ruling 
 
EDUCATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH 239 
 
 class? How can there be masters if none will consent to 
 be subjects? It is clearly to the interest of the govern- 
 ing class that education be limited to the elect few and that 
 the masses be kept in ignorance. 
 
 But he leaves entirely out of account — as who does 
 not ? — the present tendency of the social organism in the 
 direction of socialism, of interdependence. O, if I could 
 with propriety emphasize that central fact on every page of 
 this book 1 For I have not written these pages in order to 
 show that the socialist system is a good system. They have 
 been written in vain, if it will not have been brought home 
 to my readers that the fact that society is moving irresistibly 
 towards socialism is the one important fact; that we are 
 going to have the socialist State whether it is good or bad, 
 and that every active individual in our country is, con- 
 sciously or unconsciously, working to that end, in some 
 way. This, therefore, in the central fact of society and the 
 red thread running through these pages as well. I, never- 
 theless, also insist upon this, but only in the second line, 
 that the goal itself, the socialist State, will prove an im- 
 mense good even to those who now deem it an abomination. 
 
 Now, this very fact that all progressive countries are com- 
 mitted to the common school system is, as already noticed 
 in a farmer chapter, both an indication whither the stream 
 flows and one of the chief impeUing forces. Our " liber- 
 als " are perfectly right when they feel that they must 
 uphold and extend universal education and that to give it 
 up would be to turn back to barbarism, but they have none 
 but fallacious reasons to give for the faith ~that in them is. 
 
 The fundamental and all-sufficient reason for giving all as 
 good an education as possible is that the socialist State is 
 upon us. It is not a matter to be fought out between 
 " liberals " on one hand, and " thoughtful Christians " on 
 
240 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 the other; it is simply one phase of the contest between 
 the estabUshed order and the new order. The ancients 
 told a story how their old god Saturn was wont to devour 
 his children as soon as they were born, but that one of 
 them, Jupiter, managed to evade his father until he grew 
 strong enough to overpower and dethrone him. This fable 
 will get a new significance in the approaching undoubted 
 victory of the social system which is soon vigorously to • 
 assert itself over the present system, which would strangle 
 its offspring if it could. 
 
 This throws quite a new light — a kind of electric light 
 — on this matter. 
 
 Society hitherto has been burdened with a vast number 
 of unassimilated members, and in consequence has clung to 
 a large part of its crudeness. But the interdependent com- 
 monwealth cannot get along in that way at all. Just as it 
 assimilates the masses, it must elevate them ; it is the una- 
 voidable condition for its own welfare — its very existence. 
 
 Why, many of my readers already will have observed 
 that such a commonwealth as I sketched in my fifth and 
 eighth chapters presupposes universal education. 
 
 And that the finished socialist commonwealth in fact 
 does ; wherefore also I called education the true starting- 
 point of the new order. But many will go on and say that 
 the first thing, then, to which I should have called attention 
 ought to have been this matter of education and not the 
 economic condition of the people. No, not so, as I shall 
 presently make clear. 
 
 A book called "Dynamic Sociology," by Lester F. Ward, 
 was published a few years ago by Messrs. D. Appleton & 
 Company. It would be a most instructive book if it were 
 not so voluminous, and so terribly learned ; and yet I cannot 
 agree to its two principal propositions. These are : Happi- 
 
EDUCATION lAT THE COMMONWEALTH 241 
 
 noss is the end of human life (which seems at least doubtful 
 to me), and education is the initial means to that end. Let 
 the State only give a scientifically perfect education to all, 
 and the whole problem is solved, according to Ward. Edu- 
 cation is, so to speak, a crank which, when properly applied, 
 will, with comparatively little effort, turn the otherwise so 
 unwieldy social machine. 
 
 So it will. Education, indeed, can accomplish wonders ; 
 no thick volumes and pretence of much learning are neces- 
 sary to prove that. But how shall we get the State to take 
 the initiative? Who shall decide what is the scientifically 
 perfect education? How shall we get the parents to co- 
 operate with the State ? And what is the use, anyway, to 
 try to educate children who are poorly fed, poorly clad, and 
 poorly housed ? 
 
 All these first steps are taken when we get the co-opera- 
 tive commonwealth. 
 
 We have seen that social co-operation demands first, and 
 iast, and at all time, competence. In order to get the 
 greatest ability in every branch of affairs and in every post 
 of duty, in order to sift out the most competent for the 
 direction of affairs, and in order to make the citizens pass 
 with ease from one employment to another, when required, 
 all citizens will have to be trained all-sidedly and to the 
 highest point. Monotonous toil now crushes out millions 
 of potential luminaries of society ; if the true merits of 
 mankind are to be brought out, it must be done by equaliz- 
 ing the opportunities for all. 
 
 And " minimum " education will not do at all. Simply 
 to teach children to read and write is the same as to teach 
 them the use of knife and fork without giving them a par- 
 ticle of meat ; or as to furnish them the key to a larder 
 containing poisons as well as victuals, without telling them 
 
242 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 ■which is food and which is poison. In fact, children are 
 more Ukely to choose the poison than the food; witness 
 their voracious consumption of trashy novels and other 
 vicious literature. The highest grade of education will be 
 the best possible investment for the future commonwealth. 
 
 Again, the interdependent commonwealth will take care 
 that all children do get roast beef and plum pudding, and 
 that they, besides, have warm clothes to their backs, clean 
 linen to their bodies, and comfortable shoes to their feet, 
 and warmth and light at home ; and these goodies will be 
 provided before their education is thought of. 
 
 Again, the interdependent commonwealth will relieve 
 children from the task of being bread-winners. The 182,- 
 000 children who, according to the census of 1880, were 
 employed in manufactures in the States were not thus 
 robbed of the bright days of childhood solely because em- 
 ployers can coin money out of them. The horrible fact is 
 that their parents cannot make both ends meet without the 
 labor of their children, and that in Massachusetts, where a 
 few weeks' schooling yearly is required by law, of children 
 between ten and fifteen years old, many parents feel them- 
 selves tempted to evade that law by false swearing in regard 
 to the age of their children. It is an infamous system that 
 bears such fruits. And yet there are political economists 
 whose hearts are so seared and whose understanding is so 
 obscured by being trained in that system that they glory in 
 the fact that children can be utilized in augmenting the 
 wealth of the country ! These hundred thousands of chil- 
 dren, as well as the urchins who gain their own precarious 
 existence and even that of their parents, as newsboys, boot- 
 blacks, cash boys, will have the most important period of 
 their lives — that in which character is formed — saved to 
 them, as soon as their parents are secured a decent living. 
 
EDUCATION IN- THE COMMONWEALTH 243 
 
 But that is by no means all. This, that not only the 
 children, but that the parents also, will have roast beef and 
 plum pudding, is of vast importance to the cause of educa- 
 tion. For it will relieve the fathers and mothers of the 
 body-and-soul-devouring care which is the special curse of 
 our age ; it will give these fathers and mothers, to whom 
 now even reflection is forbidden, leisure, and thus make 
 them effective allies of the commonwealth, because leisure' 
 is the incentive to all progress. 
 
 The bread and butter question is, therefore, the funda- 
 mental question. We see here again how socialism, by 
 revolutionizing the economic relation of society, will revolu- 
 tionize all other relations. 
 
 Education, then, will be the second important branch of 
 the activity of the new commonwealth. Let us> now con- 
 sider what organ is likely to be intrusted with the function 
 of education. 
 
 In the discourse above referred to, our Episcopal mentor 
 also laid it down : — 
 
 " God has instituted three co-ordinate authorities : the 
 family, the church, and the State. The family is impe- 
 rium in imperio — a dominion within the dominion ; the 
 parent is exclusive master within that dominion." 
 
 Well, I can pretty safely assert to the <;ontrary, that the 
 coming commonwealth will not acknowledge the church aS 
 a co-ordinate " authority." 
 
 There was a time when the two were co-ordinate authori- 
 ties. At that time it was still doubtful which of them was 
 destined to be the embodiment of the social organism. Out 
 of that struggle the State has already virtually issued as the 
 victor; the church is, in all civilized countries, already 
 virtually nothing but a voluntary association. " God " thus 
 has already decided against the pretensions of the church ; 
 
244 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 and this, as I already noticed in the fifth chapter, is the 
 most important step, perhaps, in the movement of the State 
 towards socialism. 
 
 And we can also be assured that the church will not be 
 made the organ of the State for education purposes. 
 
 There is one all-sufficient reason : the church is not 
 competent. 
 
 Circumstances for centuries gave education into the 
 hands of the church, and she then perhaps performed that 
 function as well as could be done. Let us grant that much. 
 But we are not living in the middle ages. So far from 
 being, in our age, an institution of enlightenment, the 
 church is now looked upon by all well-informed people as 
 an institution to darken men's minds. 1 simply state facts. 
 The men of science assume the falsity of theological dog- 
 mas. The church is incompetent, because she knows noth- 
 ing worth knowing — I am again simply stating facts. The 
 church has still some influence, partly on account of our 
 hypocrisy — and hypocrisy is prevailing as it is, just because 
 this is a transition age ; but the coming democracy will 
 want to know, and will wage an unrelenting war against all 
 shams. 
 
 I furthermore maintain that neither will the family be 
 acknowledged a co-ordinate authority. 
 
 This, however, is a much more important assertion than 
 the former, and is not quite as evident, though on reflection 
 it will be found just as true. But I cannot fail, in passing, 
 to remark that it is amusing to see the solicitude the church 
 has for the authority of the family now, when her own 
 importance is on the wane. When she had supreme power, 
 she certainly did not consider the family co-ordinate with 
 herself. 
 
 The first evidence I shall adduce to show that the coming 
 
EDUCATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH 245 
 
 commonwealth will assert supremacy as against the family 
 is that which I everywhere throughout this book place 
 at the head, the logic of events. Just in the same proportion 
 the State has aggrandized itself, the family has dwindled 
 in importance. The State commenced to repudiate the 
 " dominion " of the family the moment it forbade parents 
 to destroy their children ; it absolutely rejected that " do- 
 minion " the moment it, the State, fixed the age of 
 majority, when the child is entirely emancipated from 
 parental control. 
 
 Why, the system where authority is vested in the family, as 
 distinguished from the State, is that patriarchal, barbaric, sys- 
 tem from which we are more and more retreating. Proudhon 
 is decidedly right when he says : " It is on the model of the 
 family that all feudal and antique societies have organized 
 themselves, and it is precisely against this old patriarchal 
 constitution that modern democracy revolts and protests." 
 It is yet sometimes said that " blood is thicker than water ; " 
 but that is not often the case now ; and this fact that the 
 individual has become almost independent of the family is 
 merely the preparatory step to the supremacy of the State. 
 
 Next, in the very nature of things, family supremacy will be 
 absolutely incompatible with an interdependent, a solidaric 
 commonwealth j for in such a State the first object of edu- 
 cation must be to establish in the minds of the children an 
 indissoluble association between their individual happiness 
 and the good of all. To that end family exclusiveness 
 must be broken down first of all. A social spirit — i.e., tfie 
 spirit of all being members of one social organism — must 
 be substituted for family spirit. Now please do not misun- 
 derstand the socialist position in this respect ! I do not 
 make war on the family; on the contrary, my aim is to 
 enable every healthy man and woman to form a family. 
 
246 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 But I do make war on family exclusiveness, — perhaps a 
 better word than " selfishness," — on family prejudices and 
 family narrowness ; and I am glad to be able to say that 
 our common schools are doing very much to break down 
 that spirit. 
 
 To hear some fathers talk of what is commonly called 
 " compulsory " education, one should suppose that a man's 
 children were literally a part of himself. When they are 
 not allowed to be masters over their offspring, to choose 
 what is wrong for their children, — and I know that as to 
 education the greater the need the greater is the dislike, — . 
 they call that an infringement of their " liberty ; " the fact 
 is, they do not value liberty, but irresponsible power. 
 
 Children do not belong to their parents ; they belong to 
 society. The observation of Franklin, that if we go back 
 but a few generations we necessarily come to common 
 ancestors, expresses the truth that we are more the children 
 of society than of our several families. Again, the educa- 
 tion of children is of far more importance to the State than 
 to parents, since the effect of it will be felt by society, and 
 principally after these parents are dead and gone. It is 
 because through it society accomplishes the end of its being 
 that all education is a public trust. 
 
 Just as little as parents will the many denominational and 
 private schools and colleges which we now have do. The 
 new order cannot get along with such one-sided, awry, 
 cramped men and women as necessarily must issue from 
 such one-sided schools. 
 
 Lastly, the same objection applies to the family as to the 
 church ; it is incompetent to teach. That is the main 
 objection against Herbert Spencer's justly popular book on 
 " Education." He assumes throughout his treatise (which 
 might better have been called "Home Training") that 
 
EDUCATION /TV THE COMMONWEALTH 247 
 
 parents are competent to teach their children. Why, the 
 fact is that even now most children of the age of twelve 
 are more fit to teach their parents in all more important 
 branches than the reverse. If any man might be supposed 
 qualified to teach his.son, it was James Mill, and yet we know 
 from the pen of John Stuart-Mill that he would have been 
 of greater service to the world if he had been trained in a 
 public school. Now it is true that, in the new common- 
 wealth, mothers will be far better qualified to assist in the 
 development of their infants than now ; yet their general 
 incompetency will still remain, on account of the higher 
 grade of education which will obtain. At all events, a suffi- 
 cient objection is and will remain that seeming paradox, 
 that parents know none so poorly as their own children ; 
 they prate of qualities which no impartial person can dis- 
 cover. 
 
 The coming ccmmonwealth must radically do away with 
 all and any form of quackery and amateurship, in educa- 
 tional matters especially. Education is essentially scientific 
 labor. A competent and quaUfied body of educators must 
 therefore be raised up to whom the whole function of edu- 
 cation can be intrusted. 
 
 Teaching is now a " business," and a temporary one at 
 that. To teach in order to get pocket money, or wait for a 
 chance to get into some other "business," or for a chance 
 to marry, if the teacher be a woman, as generally is the 
 case, does not qualify for the grand art. The time teachers 
 in the States practise their profession is simply their own 
 training period. We cannot have that genuine education 
 which the new commonwealth will demand, before we have 
 teachers who have themselves been genuinely educated, next 
 thoroughly trained as teachers, and who then will devote 
 themselves with their whole soiil to their profession. 
 
248 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 Here again, and more clearly than at any other point, we 
 see how all-important, how indispensable the economic side 
 of the new order is to all other progress. For these teach- 
 ers will not be raised up, before we have given them a 
 dignified position economically. Teaching is now a tempo- 
 rary "business," because it is one of the most unprofitable 
 positions, and because the teacher occupies a very low 
 round in the social ladder. In the new social order he 
 will be rewarded proportionately to his important function 
 and need take no thought for his advancing age. Further- 
 more, he will be a member of a corporation of the highest 
 dignity in the State ; a corporation embracing the teachers 
 in the elementary schools, as well as the professors in the 
 various universities, — genuine universities for untrammelled 
 scientific investigation in all departments, — and whose 
 directors, superiors, and representatives in the national 
 board of administration we shall suppose elected and dis- 
 missed exactly as they will be in the other departments. 
 
 This corps of educators will have in their exclusive 
 charge the whole education from top to bottom and all 
 scientific investigations. They will be perfectly untram- 
 melled, for such a system will enable them to say to all 
 charlatans in their department, as the bakers, artisans, and 
 agriculturists can say in theirs, " Mind your own business, 
 sir ! You are not competent to say aught in this matter." 
 
 There is not the smallest reason to fear that this will 
 result in any spiritual tyranny, for the influence of this theo- 
 retic body of men is sure to be counteracted by the public 
 opinion of the practical majority, which we saw will be of 
 extraordinary force in the coming commonwealth. We 
 ought rather to hail such a strong and independent organ- 
 ization of a class, devoted to the cultivation of knowledge, 
 as a healthy counterpoise to that public opinion. I may 
 
EDUCATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH 249 
 
 also suggest that the present tendency of founding universi- 
 ties in every section and almost every State of the Union 
 (though so far it has generally only resulted in founding 
 university buildings) may be the sowing of germs of many 
 different centres of science under the new order, and thus 
 contribute, as it has in Germany, to intellectual freedom 
 and all-sidedness. 
 
 Then, and not till then, we can begin to have anything 
 that deserves the name of education. Then, as I have 
 noticed several times, we shall have arrived at the true 
 starting-point of the co-operative commonwealth. It will 
 thus be seen that, even if all the conditions were ripe 
 to-morrow for the inauguration of the new order, we could 
 not hope to do anything more in the generation then living, 
 than lay the foundation, deeply and firmly, for its upbuild- 
 ing; among other things by training capable persons 
 belonging to the second generation to be the educators of 
 the third — to have charge of this third generation from its 
 earliest infancy till it reaches the adult age. 
 
 Consider how many, many children are now sent into the 
 world at an age when those of wealthy parents are still in 
 the nursery ; consider that the average time children attend 
 school in the cities is but five years, and outside the cities 
 but three years ; consider that such an " enlightened" State 
 as Massachusetts requires only a yearly school attendance 
 of twenty weeks of her children under fifteen years ; con- 
 sider that in spite of this law 25,000 of her children never 
 have seen the inside of a school-room ; consider that 10,000 
 children under ten years are working in the factories of that 
 same enlightened State ; ^ consider that all over our coun- 
 try, with all our children, schooling stops when the thinking 
 
 iFor these facts, see an article on " Children's Labor '* in Atlantic Monthly ^ 
 December, :88o. 
 
250 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 process really first commences, and is it any wonder that 
 our educational results are wretched ? 
 
 Why, the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth years 
 constitute the most critical periods of a boy's life, and, left 
 to himself, he is, during those years and until he become 
 restrained by experience, really one of the most dangerous 
 members of society. That these boys turn out to be as 
 noble men as many of them do is a sufficient proof of the 
 inherent goodness of human nature. But when the new 
 order has arrived, we shall be unanimous in acknowledging 
 that restraint is just needed as a sort of astringent, to give 
 maximum of power. We shall have learned that a young 
 man who is kept under close and continued discipline till 
 twenty-one is sure to have a more vigorous and original 
 character than one left to his own devices at an age when 
 mind is yet unformed. And as far as our girls are con 
 cerned we shall yet sooner have learned a similar lesson. 
 
 You will very likely doubt that such a radical change 
 will take place here in America, where, pre-eminently, it is 
 the practice to leave the young men and women to shift for 
 themselves. In the same way many doubts might have 
 been raised as to the success of the common school system, 
 judging from the opposition to it from so many quarters at 
 its introduction. Yet nearly all parents now avail them- 
 selves of it, driven by an unconscious impulse. And so, 
 when the great change occurs, novelties will soon become 
 familiar. 
 
 But the greatest novelty will be the new ideal of education. 
 
 That is the only matter left me to consider. I have 
 nothing to do with what will be taught, or how to teach it. 
 That I for my part s'hall leave to the competent ; already 
 too many amateurs have had their say on that subject. But 
 even those now most qualified would be incompetent to frame 
 
EDUCATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH 251 
 
 a curriculum for our future schools ; for the ideal of educa- 
 tion now will by no means be the ideal of the coming 
 commonwealth. 
 
 The ideal, the end of education now sought to be attained, 
 is to enable the individual to achieve success in life, to 
 get the better of his fellow-men in the struggle for the 
 good things of this world. That is the meaning of indi- 
 vidualism. No matter that in the nature of things but 
 few can achieve that success, and that those who do 
 succeed, generally at the end of their career consider their 
 success not worth the trouble ; that that teacher is con- 
 sidered the best who knows how to qualify his pupils for 
 the battle of life. That is why teachers stimulate the 
 "ambition" of their scholars with prizes, marks, relative 
 places in the school-room, and so forth. That is also why 
 they cram their pupils with facts and commonplaces of 
 received opinions, and persist in teaching them Latin and 
 Greek so that they may afterwards quote classical extracts 
 for the sake of effect. 
 
 The end to be attained by education in the coming 
 commonwealth will be a very diiferent one. It likewise 
 will be to qualify the pupils for the' battle of life, but 
 against nature and in accord with their fellows. That is 
 the meaning of social co-operation. 
 
 In that commonwealth prizes will not be used, because 
 they only excite a few, while leaving the mass phlegmatic : 
 they will be condemned as anti-social. Perhaps in their 
 place the educators will have recourse to Bentham's sug- 
 gestion of a scholar-jury, scholar- suffrage, leaving it to the 
 scholars themselves to determine by their votes the relative 
 position of each other in the school-room. That will be a 
 proper extension of the suffrage, and will bring home to 
 the minds of the pupils that all suffrage is a trust. 
 
2S2 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 Conformably to that new ideal the scholars will be im- 
 pressed with gratitude for the blessings which all past 
 generations have conferred upon them, and it will be urged 
 upon them that they owe all to society. 
 
 They will be taught how to utilize all the sources of 
 happiness which nature and the commonwealth supply, for 
 the new order will want them to have many tastes and 
 needs. 
 
 But especially will they be taught to perform well their 
 functions in society. 
 
 It will by that time be fully known that a man trained for 
 one subject only, never becomes a good judge in that one 
 even ; whereas enlightenment and enlargement of his circle 
 give him increased power and knowledge in a rapidly in- 
 creasing ratio. Therefore a harmonious and balanced culti- 
 vation of all the faculties will be the first object. The 
 pupils will be taught all that is known, and, though that field 
 seems immense, they will easily master it, for they will be 
 led to the bottom of things and learn the fundamental laws 
 and the connection of phenomena. They will be profound 
 and complete human beings, all of them. We are tending 
 more and more in that direction ; that is why such incom- 
 petent men and women, as Puritans and Quakers, have 
 hardly any of their old-time influence left. 
 
 Again, a great deal will be done in order to find out the 
 peculiar fitness of every child. Now next to nothing is 
 done to discover the natural aptitude of children, or to sub- 
 stitute choice for chance in the allotment of the various 
 social functions. And so it may be said that the mistake 
 which all teachers make is to teach the same lesson in the 
 same way to all. 
 
 But Goethe suggests in the second volume of his " Wil- 
 helm Meister " that every human being is born into the 
 
EDUCATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH 253 
 
 world with a particular talent of some kind or other. In 
 his opinion, it is only requisite to recognize that particu- 
 lar talent in the child, and foster it, in order to develop all 
 its other faculties, and that, if that talent be not found out 
 and developed, it is the fault of the educator. He grounds 
 this suggestion of his on the well-known pedagogic expe- 
 rience that a teacher can succeed with even the dullest 
 child, as soon as he manages to win its interest for some 
 object, whatever it may be ; in other words, as soon as he 
 succeeds in discovering the drift of that inborn talent in the 
 child. As soon, then, as a scholar is incited to voluntary 
 activity and finds out that he is able to accomplish some- 
 thing in some one direction, it would be comparatively easy 
 to awaken his self-confidence, so that he will succeed in 
 other respects. This special talent thus insures the possi- 
 bility that every healthy child, male and female, may have 
 all its human faculties harmoniously developed. 
 
 Now, I do not say that it is remarkable that educators 
 have hitherto been entirely deaf to this important hint; 
 for it is not, considering the present ideal of education ; but 
 I cannot help here to notice that an obscure teacher in 
 Hoboken, N.J., Dr. Adolph Douai, has been the first and 
 only professional educator who has publicly called attention 
 to this suggestion. We may be sure that the coming com- 
 monwealth, which can only furnish the necessary favorable 
 conditions for the verification of this thought, will not be 
 slow to utilize it. The institutions that have already shown 
 themselves specially adapted to the discovery and unfolding 
 of these latent talents in children are the kindergartens. 
 Though as yet but comparatively few of them exist here or 
 elsewhere, they who teach in them have been able to dis- 
 cern in many children geometrical talent and aptitude for 
 the study of natural sciences, in whom otherwise probably 
 
2 54 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 nobody would ever have suspected them. These kinder- 
 gartens the co-operative commonwealth will in all proba- 
 bility establish in all the nooks and corners of the country, 
 not to say in every family, as the first and most important 
 link in the chain of its educational institutions. 
 
 Mr. Bain, in his treatise on education, makes an impor- 
 tant observation which is pertinent here : " If from the 
 beginning one can interpolate five shades of discrimination 
 of color where another can feel but one transition, the 
 careers of the two can be foreshadowed as widely apart. To 
 observe this native inequality is important in predestining 
 'he child to this or that line of special training." 
 
 This observation and predestination will be made in the 
 kindergartens, where also a taste for manual work will be 
 imbibed at a very early age. Thereafter I suppose general 
 education and special training will accompany each other, 
 under the eye of the teacher, till the child reaches adult 
 age. I judge so, not merely from considering the natural 
 requirements of the commonwealth, but from observing the 
 various attempts that now are being made to find a substi- 
 tute for that slavish and wasteful apprentice system, which 
 happily is a thing of the past, by founding industrial schools, 
 so-called " developing schools," and trying to make them a 
 part of our common school system. 
 
 I do not know whether or not this hypothesis of Goethe, 
 that all normal men are capable of being educated up to 
 the same level of intelligence and knowledge, be true. I 
 know of no fact that militates against it, but think there 
 are many facts that confirm it. At all events, only the inter- 
 dependent commonwealth can furnish the necessary condi- 
 tions for its verification. Should it be found true, it is easy 
 to see that it will prove of transcendent significance, as it 
 will lay the foundation for that perfect, absolute equality 
 
EDUCATIOJV lAT THE COMMON-WEALTH 255 
 
 which is the ideal of sociaHsm ; and yet, mark what an un- 
 Ukeness, what a variety there will be ! 
 
 As the boys will be really educated, so the girls will be. 
 In the new commonwealth they will no longer be trained to 
 please the man-fool, or acquire only accomplishments which 
 give fullest scope to vanity, luxury, and passion. No ; they 
 will be equally fitted for their appropriate functions as mem- 
 bers of society, as wives and mothers, in institutions adapted 
 for them. The latter qualification is important, for the 
 motto which is the prominent characteristic of the modern 
 American school-system, that " boys' and girls' schools 
 should be one, and that one, the boys'," will surely be re- 
 jected by the coming commonwealth, as one against which 
 physiology protests. But the future woman will, by methods 
 and regimen adapted to her sex, reach the same plane of 
 knowledge and intelligence as man, and in that way become 
 his equal and true companion. We shall then surely have 
 complete men and women. 
 
 But how can the State, when once it has taken charge of 
 education, draw a line where education ends and moral in- 
 difference begins? 
 
 The great need of the age is to organize, diffuse, and as- 
 similate that which is known. Humanity, indeed, does not 
 now so much need more isolated facts, as to understand 
 how all these facts are related to each other ; and, most of 
 all, it needs to have that deeper, real knowledge made 
 common property. Then first we can enjoy all the fruits ot 
 the tree of knowledge. Then, more particularly, we shall 
 again reach a substantial agreement of opinion as to this 
 universe in which we live, what it means, and what, therefore, 
 is the part we ought to play in it. The anarchy of opinion 
 of this transitory age is an enormous evil. Unity of belief is 
 the normal condition of the human intellect ; it is just as 
 
256 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 natural for healthy men to think and believe alike, as it is for 
 healthy men to see alike. 
 
 When one harmonious sentiment thrills through the whole 
 of society, we may expect a revival of the aesthetic sense of 
 ancient Greece. This gilded age, with its so-called " pro- 
 moters of the arts," creates prostitutes of art, who exercise 
 it, not for love of it, but to " make " money of it. Imagine 
 if you can, a Raphael painting a Madonna, or Phidias 
 sculpturing an Aphrodite for profit ! Art always is prosti- 
 tuted when it only serves the vanity of the rich. In the 
 present age poets do not sing for the masses, artists do not 
 fashion their masterpieces for the masses as during the 
 Christian middle ages, or in classical Greece and Rome. 
 
 In Athens the whole people in the amphitheatre witnessed 
 the spectacles ; here, how different ! We have expensive 
 theatres where our comfortable classes can idle away their 
 time, but, as Beecher says, they are not for the poor. The 
 theatre to which the poor have entrance is perhaps the most 
 vitiating of all social institutions. If there is anything that 
 needs the helping, the reforming hand of the common- 
 wealth, I should say it is the stage. It can be made the 
 mightiest educational instrument. In particular, manners 
 and address can be learned to perfection in the theatre, and 
 only there. 
 
 Matthew Arnold says, pointedly : " A handful of Athe- 
 nians of two thousand years ago are more interesting than 
 millions of our contemporary nations, because they pre- 
 sent us the spectacle of a cultured people. It was the many 
 in the highest development of their humanity ; the many 
 who relished these arts and were satisfied with nothing less 
 than those monuments." 
 
 So in the co-operative commonwealth, where care is for- 
 ever banished, art will once more belong in the midst of the 
 
EDUCATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH 257 
 
 people, because of its eminently educational importance. 
 ■He who has learned to appreciate the beautiful will never 
 after have a taste for the low. Art will re-enter into the 
 open arena of life. 
 
 But the greatest effect of ttris common education and 
 common opinion will be the feeling of a common duty. 
 
2S8 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 MORALS IN THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 " Ethics are the finest fruits of humanity, but not its roots.'' — Matlock's 
 " New Republic" 
 
 " Man has it in his power by his voluntary actions to aid the intentions of 
 Providence ; but to learn those intentions he must consider what tends to 
 promote the general good." — yohn Stuart Mill. 
 
 *' Mankind, without any common bond, any unity of aim, bent upon hap- 
 piness, has sought each and all to tread their own paths, little heeding if 
 they trampled upon the bodies of their 'brothers ' in name, enemies in fact. 
 This is the state of things we have reached to-day." — Mazzini. 
 
 I HAVE said that socialism, considered as simply an 
 economic system, will have a great influence, also, on 
 morals ; that is to say, it will greatly affect our relations to 
 what is " right " and " wrong," " good " and " bad," " moral " 
 and " immoral," and, though there is really no such thing as 
 socialist morals, may even affect our conceptions of what is 
 " right " and " wrong." 
 
 I have hitherto avoided, and pretty successfully, I think, 
 all commonplaces, all words involved in mist. The above 
 ethical terms are, however, such commonplaces. In order 
 to begin, right at the start, to clear away the mist, I cannot 
 do better than quote George Eliot : — 
 
 " Let a contractor enrich himself by making pasteboard 
 soles pass as leather for the feet of unhappy soldiers ; let a 
 speculator retire to private life on ten thousand a year after 
 cheating widows and hard-working fathers of all their savings ; 
 you often hear charming women pity such men when they 
 come to grief, and exclaim : ' He is a thoroughly moral 
 
MORALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 259 
 
 man,' meaning thereby that he is not a drunkard nor a de- 
 bauchee. ... Is not this misuse of the word ' morals ' 
 a reason why the ablest intellects are supposed to look on 
 morals as a sort of twaddle for bibs and tuckers, as a mere 
 incident of human stupidity? " 
 
 Now, to be sure, the economic changes which we have 
 considered will contribute vastly to the establishment of what 
 we call the decencies. 
 
 Drunkenness, i.e., the habit of excessive drinking, which 
 social reformers pronounce the cause of almost all evil, is to 
 the philosophic mind nothing but an effect, especially an 
 effect of care. When care is banished, we may be sure that 
 much drunkenness will be banished also. A happy young 
 man is not likely of his own accord to go and get drunk 
 more than once. Bear also in mind that when the new 
 commonwealth takes charge of the liquor traffic, the dis- 
 pensers of beer and liquor will no longer have an interest 
 in the quantities sold, and no impure products will be 
 sold. 
 
 As to sexual irregularities, I can say that they will hardly 
 be heard of as soon as woman is put in a position to spurn 
 the bribes of man, and as soon as every young pair can 
 marry without any fear of consequences. 
 
 But it is far from me to limit " morals " to this shrunken 
 meaning. To explain what I mean then by the words 
 "right " and "wrong " let me illustrate : — 
 
 Men for thousands of years used the words " up " and 
 "down " with reference to themselves, and the consequence 
 was confusion ; what was " up " to one in one place was 
 " down " to him in another place. It is only a few hundred 
 years back that we commenced to comprehend the real, the 
 scientific meaning of these terms ; that " down " means 
 towards the centre of the earth, " up " away from that cen- 
 
26o THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 tre, and that to one suspended in space there is absolutely 
 no "up " and no " down." 
 
 In the same way theologians presumed to tell mankind 
 that "good "and "bad" actions were to be judged from 
 their effects upon the destiny of the actor. " Sins " that 
 were scarlet could, therefore, under certain circumstances be 
 made white like snow. 
 
 Science, and with it socialism which bases itself on the 
 verities of things, teaches that there would be no morality 
 at all if man did not need his fellow-man ; that " right " and 
 " wrong " have reference, primarily, not to the individual 
 actor, but to that greater organism called society. 
 
 Gambling is wrong, is immoral, not because it tends to 
 the ruin of the gambler, but because he cannot win unless 
 somebody loses ; because gambling, thus, sears the sympa- 
 thies, and therefore is essentially anti-social. 
 
 "Right" is every conduct which tends to the true wel- 
 fare of society ; " wrong " what obstructs that welfare. Bad 
 actions are no longer " sins," but " crimes," and crimes can 
 never be white as snow. 
 
 Now, since society is an organism in the process of devel- 
 opment, it will be seen that there is no such thing as abso- 
 lute, unchangeable morality. The different stages in the 
 progress of society evidently require different standards ; 
 what was right at one period may be eminently wrong at a 
 later period. Thus if slavery was, indeed, the first neces- 
 sary step of our civilization, the first lesson in co-operation, 
 we must pronounce slavery to have been right then ; and 
 the fact that the best men of antiquity — Socrates, Jesus, 
 Aristotle — acquiesced in it tends to prove it so, however 
 wrong it appears in the light of a higher morality. It, also, 
 \vill be seen that ethics is truly a science, a very subtle 
 science, as it involves a correct philosophy of society, its 
 
MORALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 26 1 
 
 tendencies and destiny. Is it any wonder that morals have 
 hitherto been a tissue of rhetorical and emotional common- 
 places? Before anybody can say what is " right " conduct, 
 and whether or not he be a truly " moral " man, he must 
 know whither society is tending. 
 
 And since, in fact, we are here for the sake of one 
 another, since we are all of us the units of a great organ- 
 ism which is destined to become more and more perfect, it 
 is easily seen that integrity and sympathy are equally the 
 essentials of morals. Integrity may be called the basis, 
 and sympathy the crown. 
 
 But to know what is " right " is only one side of the great 
 subject, rather the reverse than its front side. 
 
 I once listened to a very interesting lecture by Col. C. D. 
 Wright, the head of the Labor Bureau of Massachusetts, on 
 " Our Factory System," the leading thought of which was 
 that our industrial system would be unobjectionable if both 
 parties, employers and employes, would only go down to 
 the foundation and be led by morality and religion. 
 
 Therein lurks a fundamental mistake. Colonel Wright. 
 
 Morals are not the foundation, still less is religion. They 
 are the top of our system. Interest — self-interest — is the 
 foundation, the prime motor, the mainspring of our actions; 
 so it is, has been always, and will be always. 
 
 "Why should I do this thing?" "Why should I not 
 gamble?" has always been the great practical question, and 
 not, "Is gambling wrong? " It is easy enough to gain intel- 
 lectual assent.to a moral precept ; but the trouble is that a 
 man is never tempted by things in the abstract, but when he 
 does something wrong he does it for the sake of some par- 
 ticular, concrete thing. Nothing is, not even the most self- 
 sacrificing acts are, done without a motive. That which 
 moves must be primary. Now, Colonel Wright, it is not 
 
262 THE CU-UFERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 our morality, nor want of morality, which makes our eco- 
 nomic relations what they are, but our economic system that 
 makes our morality what it is. 
 
 That is the hinge on which this chapter turns. 
 
 In former chapters I have analyzed our economic rela- 
 tions. Let us now see how it stands with our integrity, and 
 note the relation there is between it and our economic 
 system. 
 
 First in order come the so-called crimes against property. 
 Robbery, burglary, larceny, embezzlement, common swin- 
 dling, murder, and arson, when committed in pursuit of 
 wealth (and it is only in that connection I here have to 
 consider them), are all acknowledged offences against 
 society. And probably no one doubts that there are more 
 such crimes committed now than in any former age. To 
 take one instance as illustration : for a merchant to become 
 bankrupt was formerly a life-long disgrace ; now bankrupt- 
 cies are so frequent that they are considered mere incidents 
 of "business," and are facilitated bylaw. It maybe said 
 that there are more opportunities for committing such 
 crimes ; but what I here want to make clear is the simple 
 fact that these crimes are more frequent now, in proportion 
 to the population, than during the middle ages — no matter 
 how it comes. 
 
 But now I arrive at the first point that I wish to make. 
 Such practices as those above mentioned are the only ones 
 which we of this age stigmatize as crimes ; we call by that 
 name only acts that may bring their perpetrators into 
 the penitentiary. Ought not, in view of the philosophic 
 definition of " right " and " wrong " conduct, all dishonesty 
 be so called? To be sure, in that case most of the leaders 
 of our self-styled " society " may come to be reckoned as 
 criminals. 
 
MORALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 263 
 
 The late Henry Ward Beecher once told his congrega- 
 tion of merchants, bankers, politicians, and speculators : 
 " The laws against larceny have no relations to me. I am 
 on too high a plane to be affected by any temptation to 
 steal." In other words: "Thank God that I and you, 
 dear brethren and sisters, are not on a plane with that 
 rabble that take what does not belong to them ! " 
 
 Were they on a higher plane ? 
 
 Herbert Spencer has shown that trade in England is 
 essentially corrupt, and that success in business has be- 
 come incompatible with strict integrity; it is certainly 
 not better here. 
 
 Are the tricks of trade not offences against society? Is 
 "commercial cannibalism," as Spencer calls it, not a crime? 
 
 Adulteration of provisions has everywhere become a 
 social institution. Is that not a crime? 
 
 Are not the traps ingeniously devised by speculators for 
 the punishment of ignorance in people of small means, are 
 not the corners gotten up in money, stock, wheat, and 
 pork, crimes? 
 
 The income-tax law of the United States was repealed 
 for the avowed reason that it could not be collected, 
 because the ric-h men were far more ready to swear falsely 
 than to hand over a small percentage of their vast incomes. 
 
 Were not these rich men criminals ? 
 
 It is a fact that directors of gigantic corporations so 
 manipulate things that the pubhc is taxed heavily to pay 
 dividends on " watered " stocks. Are these men less 
 guilty, because powerful? 
 
 It is notorious that our politicians are corrupt from top 
 to bottom. Even if too "high-toned" to debauch voters, 
 in person, they are ready enough to raise corruption funds, 
 and never squeamish as to profiting by the bribery. Are 
 
264 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 these " eminent citizens "on " too high a plane " even 
 according to the ethical code of to-day ? 
 
 But we shall have to go a good deal farther ; we cannot 
 afford to compromise. Every one who pockets gains with- 
 out rendering an equivalent to society, takes what does not 
 belong to him. 
 
 Every millionaire, every one who amasses a hundred 
 thousand dollars, has stolen. 
 
 Every president of a company with nominal duties, if his 
 salary be but a thousand dollars, steals. 
 
 Every one who loans his neighbor a hundred dollars, and 
 exacts a hundred and five in return, robs. 
 
 Again, it is a fact that the mere transfer of products is a 
 very low order of labor, requiring only the most ordinary 
 and inferior kind of mental quahties, which, if it received 
 simply an equivalent in return, would be allowed but the 
 very lowest compensation. Yet it is that very mercantile 
 class which absorbs all the wealth by every available form 
 of deception and strategy, while a thoroughly skilled artisan 
 cannot possibly amass a large competence by the diligent 
 prosecution of his trade. This whole mercantile class is a 
 criminal class in regard to by far the largest part of their 
 income ; one of our really dangerous classes — and the 
 same applies to their cousins, the financial class. 
 
 It is hypocrisy in these mgre dealers in products and 
 financiers when they pretend to any extraordinary " execu- 
 tive ability; " they know in their hearts they have but very 
 little ability, very little skill. 
 
 It is hypocrisy when the poor mechanic, who by superior 
 skill produces all the wealth of the world, is taught to look 
 up to those who only handle his products. 
 
 The whole integrity of our rulers can be summed up in 
 one word, — cash-payment. 
 
MORALS IN- THE COMMONWEALTH 265 
 
 Our mechanics and artisans cannot be filled with too 
 much righteous hate against such shams. 
 
 And what about integrity in work ? Well, it is bad at the 
 start that the duty of doing one's proper work well is entirely 
 left out of " morals " in popular speech. And yet it is by 
 work that man takes his place among the creative forces of 
 the universe. As has been well said : " Thoroughness of 
 workmanship, care in the execution of every task under- 
 taken, as if it were the acceptance of a trust which it would 
 be a breach of faith not to discharge well, is a form of duty 
 so momentous that, if it were to die out from the feeling 
 and practice of a people, national prosperity and happiness 
 would be gone." 
 
 The absence of such integrity is a most conspicuous 
 feature in the operations of modern industry, and is the 
 most lamentable fact of all. It was not so during the 
 despised middle ages. Then every artisan felt a pride in 
 his skill and in turning out good work. Now shoddy work 
 is abounding. It has come out in the investigations of the 
 trades-unions in England, that the men are required by 
 their masters to "scamp" their work, — that is, turn out 
 inferior work ; and that this is just the reason why the mas- 
 ters are so determined to introduce piece-work instead of 
 day-work. 
 
 Such is our integrity, the basis of our morals. This 
 was the first point which it was necessary to establish, — that 
 our " best people " are dishonest. If they themselves do 
 not know it, it is simply because their understanding is 
 being clouded by their interests and the opportunities of 
 the system. 
 
 If this hypocritical age should frankly enunciate its moral 
 code, 'it would say : — 
 
 Thou and thine may keep whatever thou canst get. 
 
266 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 Carlyle has illustrated this in a drastic manner. He 
 makes one pig ask another : — 
 
 "What is justice?" 
 
 " Your own share of the general swine's trough ; not any 
 portion of my share." 
 
 " But what is ' my ' share ? " 
 
 " Ah ! there is the rub upon which pigism can settle 
 absolutely nothing. My share ? Humph ! My share is, 
 on the whole, whatever I can contrive to get, without 
 getting hanged or sent to the hulks." 
 
 Now I come to my second point : how is it that we 
 have so far attained to this low level of integrity ? Why do 
 people steal, and rob, and embezzle, and in other ways 
 take more than their share out of the common stock ? 
 
 I claimed in the pireceding chapter that ignorance is not 
 the cause of such crimes. We saw there that these crimes 
 are abounding in the most educated sections of our own 
 country. Indeed, the most reprehensible of these crimes 
 cannot be committed by ignorant persons. True, among 
 the lowest criminal class you find much ignorance, but so 
 do you find much uncleanliness, dirty shirts, and frequently 
 no shirts at all. You might, therefore, just as well, perhaps 
 with more propriety, attribute crime to want of a shirt, or 
 of soap, as to want of education. 
 
 More superficial yet is it to attribute the crimes I am 
 now discussing to drunkenness, simply because we find the 
 lowest criminals so often associated with poor beer and 
 whiskey. Drunkenness has very little to do with these 
 crimes, most of which, in fact, cannot be committed but by 
 sober persons. 
 
 Herbert Spencer finds a sufficient reason for the per- 
 sistence and growth of dishonesty in the fact that the code 
 of supernatural ethics which our forefathers had is losing its 
 
MORALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 267 
 
 authority, and the moral injunctions given by it, therefore, 
 more and more losing their sanctions, coupled with that 
 other fact, that while the regulative system of our forefathers 
 is thus decaying, we have not yet got any other regulative 
 system to take its place. 
 
 There is no doubt that as long as people had a vivid 
 dread of purgatory and hell-fire, that was a powerful spur 
 to good behavior. Yet deliberate dishonesty and careless- 
 ness, so peculiar to human work alone, is so unnatural, that 
 there must be a weightier reason for this decline of in- 
 tegrity. And then I verily believe, and have reason to 
 believe, that every man is naturally honest, and that the 
 most inveterate thief would have remained honest if there 
 had not been some positive temptation to lead him astray. 
 The decay of religion can never be more than a negative 
 reason. 
 
 No, the only rational way is to consider every such crime 
 as an act, preceded by a motive which, if it be but im- 
 perious enough, it is not in human nature to withstand j in 
 other words, to look upon crime as essentially human. 
 
 And when you do that, can you wonder that our jails are 
 full, when honest men are starving? Can you expect dis- 
 charged convicts to be honest when they are utilized in 
 prison by contractors to paste leather and pasteboard to- 
 gether to make a thick sole impose upon the public, as, it 
 is charged, is not infrequently the case with us? Is it 
 strange that men, in many of whom vagrancy has become a 
 second nature, ^— often originally from no fault of their own, 
 — prefer larceny or burglary or swindling, to toiling ten 
 hours or more daily for a weekly pittance of five dollars ? 
 Is it anything but human to use any means to obtain wealth, 
 when society has made wealth the sovereign power j when 
 one reads in novels and witnesses in plays how the hero 
 
268 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMON'WEALTH 
 
 and heroine are always rewarded by marrying wealth; 
 when one everywhere hears a man, in every way no better 
 than himself, as "worth" so many thousands of dollars and 
 sees him the admitted suoerior of the most worthy of poor 
 men? 
 
 The fact is, our low taste of integrity is simply the fruit 
 of our struggle for life against each other, and a river can 
 rise no higher than its source. 
 
 The economic system under which we are living creates 
 all these frauds, dishonesties, and this hypocrisy. Men find 
 it to their advantage to adulterate goods and to manufacture 
 shoddy articles ; indeed, our established order compels men 
 to seek their success in over-reaching others, makes it a merit 
 in them to be unscrupulous, simply because everybody's in- 
 terests have been made antagonistic to the interests of 
 every other body. By this capitahstic system of ours 
 society has been made the hunting-ground for the sharpest 
 individuals. 
 
 ' It is evident that the longer this system lasts, the more 
 will these evils grow, for the struggle for life and success 
 will become more and more intense ; wealth will come 
 more and more to mean power, and the chase after wealth, 
 therefore, will become fiercer and more savage.fj Sermon- 
 izing, or lectures on moral philosophy, have never affected 
 and will never affect any state of mind. Prize essays against 
 embezzlement will not diminish the frequency of this crime. 
 No ; we just see here exemplified what I stated in another 
 place. Avhen our social order is to be changed into another 
 social order (the case now, and in that other sceptical 
 period before the introduction of Christianity), the change 
 commences from above ; disorganization commences at the 
 top, with religion ; then it goes down to morals, and down 
 to the foundation, until the base has changed its position •. 
 
MORALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 269 
 
 then, on the new foundation, on the new economic system, 
 morals and religion will be rebuilt anew. Then the changed 
 economic relations will furnish new motives for an enduring 
 morality./ 
 
 Just as- self-interest now is eating away the edges of 
 morals, so self-interest must build up morals,- and that the 
 new commonwealth will make it do. It will make it men's 
 interest to be honest ; will make them find their advantage 
 in being men of integrity, simply because its very essence 
 is making the interests of everybody identical with the in- 
 terests of society and of everybody else 
 
 The following reflections from an interesting work from 
 which I have quoted before, "The Value of Life," written, it 
 is understood, by an eminent physician of New York, are 
 here very pertinent : — 
 
 " It is no sentimentalism, but the simple expression of 
 fact, that the individual occupations of the members of so- 
 ciety cannot be adequately regulated as long as they are 
 regarded merely as the means for each of these persons to 
 get his or her living. By a crowd of official acts, from the 
 inspection of markets to taking the census, society, even as 
 it is, expresses its recognition of the fact that this vast mass 
 of activities, constituting the ' business ' of the community, 
 represents the sum of its own vegetative functions, by which 
 all its life, from the lowest to the highest plane of it, is sus- 
 tained. In the discharge of these functions the money or 
 'living,' earned by each individual, is really the least im- 
 portant consideration. Thus it is of much less importance 
 that a butcher grow rich than that the thirty or forty fami- 
 lies he supplies with meat receive good meat at fair prices. 
 Whatever value ^attaches to the individual life of the butcher 
 is multiplied forty times by the sum of those of his custom- 
 ers ; it is, therefore, their welfare, not his profit, which must 
 
2/0 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 be the first consideration. In other words, the essentia! 
 thing is, not that the butcher shall have a living, still less be 
 rich, but that meat shall be supplied. The how and where 
 are secondary details, to be regulated not by the convenience 
 of the producer, but by that of the consumer. 
 
 " This indisputable line of reasoning overturns the theory 
 that work is performed for the sake of the producer (whose 
 advantage, indeed, is quite subsidiary), and shows that it is 
 primarily for the benefit of society or some group of persons 
 in it. Of course, the worker, by entering into another group 
 where he is the consumer, finds his welfare correlatively taken 
 into account. The daily business is thus removed from the 
 ignominy and pettiness of isolated individualism and elevated 
 into an honorable function, while he who performs it be- 
 comes invested with the dignity of a public functionary. 
 That the worker receives remuneration is incidental — that 
 the work be thoroughly done is so essential, that it is insep- 
 arable from any typical conception of achievement." 
 
 That is it. In the new commonwealth the butcher will be 
 conscious and satisfied that " the essential thing is, not that 
 he shall have a living, but that meat shall be supplied." 
 The work of the citizen will be the glad performance of 
 social office, not, as now, the mere tribute to physical neces- 
 sity. He will be a moral worker, whose best efforts, best 
 ardor, and highest aims will be drawn out by the joy which 
 he takes in his work — in all but the lowest work, such 
 routine, manual labor as machinery should remove altogether 
 from human hands. He will soon be habituated to regard 
 his wages, not as a quid pro quo, but as a moral claim, as 
 the provision made by society to enable him to carry on his 
 labor. The question, "Why should I do honest work?" 
 will then seem just as irrational as it is now to ask, " Why 
 should I eat? " 
 
MORALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 27 1 
 
 Most of the offences to which I 'have called attention 
 will disappear, simply because the opportunities for commit- 
 ting them will be gone. 
 
 And when in the coming commonwealth a few hours of 
 daily agreeable efforts will secure to everybody all neces- 
 saries, decencies, and comforts of life, why then should ra- 
 tional beings want to steal, or cheat, or rob ? And why should 
 anybody want to make a Uving by crime, when it will be far 
 easier to make it by honest work ? And why should anybody 
 care to procure wealth dishonestly, when wealth no longer 
 will mean power over men ; when wealth will not be able 
 to coax the meanest of men to be your footman and wear 
 your livery ; when wealth simply will mean more to eat, 
 more to drink, and more luxuries? 
 
 In short, the economic system of the new commonwealth 
 win have two most important effects on integrity. First, it 
 will institute a higher moral code by giving us a truer con- 
 ception of integrity. It will thus make us feel that the man 
 who charges six per cent, or even one per cent, for the use 
 of his money is just as much a criminal, in principle, as the 
 highway robber ; that is, it will once more make us call all 
 interest charge usury. 
 
 Secondly, it will absolutely reverse motives. Instead of 
 the present society saying, " Help thyself, or go to jail ! " 
 the future society will help everybody by removing all temp- 
 tations to do what is wrong. 
 
 Here we hear some well-fed, well-clad personage exclaim, 
 " So we are to have only negative virtues in your common- 
 wealth ! " 
 
 Only negative virtues ? Let us recall what Mr. Beecher 
 said of himself: " I am on too high a plane to be affected 
 by any temptation to steal.'^ Of course he was. With a 
 yearly salary of ^20,000, there was for him every temptation 
 
2/2 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 to refrain from stealing. Was his, then, anything but a 
 " negative " virtue ? He should not, like the pharisee of old, 
 have spoken so superciliously of his " lofty plane," until he 
 was in want of the necessaries and decencies of life, with 
 no honest way open to him to procure them. We have in 
 the foregoing seen what the " lofty plane " of his congrega- 
 tion amounts to ; their principal virtue perhaps consisting 
 in hating so heartily the offences of other people not in 
 their set. 
 
 The difference between our so-called "virtuous" and 
 " vicious " classes is far more a difference of temptation than 
 of virtue. The virtuous person can pride himself on very 
 little else than negative virtues ; he is virtuous because 
 everything tempts him to be virtuous. Even so we want 
 everybody, even the meanest of men, to be tempted, and 
 the coming commonwealth will so tempt all. 
 
 Now I pass over to sympathy, the crown of morals. 
 
 I have frequently throughout this work had occasion to 
 quote from Herbert Spencer. The reason is that in some 
 of his works he is truly the most profound of recent English 
 philosophers, that his influence on all liberal minds in our 
 country has been very great, and that I cannot conceive 
 of any better way of propagating socialist ideas than to 
 show them to be the logical outcome of the best modern 
 thoughts. And much of Spencer's later philosophy is really 
 socialistic. The best socialist lessons can be drawn from his 
 latest work, " Data of Ethics," and especially from the 
 chapter on sympathy. 
 
 Sympathy is "feeling with another." To sympathize is 
 to make the pleasure and pain of our fellows our own ; the 
 former we do willingly, the latter unwilUngly. We naturally 
 sympathize with pleasant, joyful people ; we with difficulty 
 sympathize with sorrowful and miserable persons. Any one 
 
MORALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 273 
 
 can easily convince himself of the tnith of this, by one day 
 attending a funeral and the next day a wedding. 
 
 It is therefore but natural that sympathy grows, if those 
 around us habitually manifest pleasure and but rarely pain ; 
 while it decreases, if we ordinarily witness little pleasure 
 and much pain. It is also natural that sympathy at present 
 grows but little, since the life usually led under our present 
 conditions is such that suffering is daily inflicted or daily 
 displayed by associates. 
 
 And please observe that sympathy and pity are two 
 greatly different things. Sympathy requires equality; pity 
 regards the object not only as suffering, but as weak, hence 
 as inferior; therefore the distresses of those beneath us 
 excite only the same sentiment as that with which we regard 
 the suffering of an overworked cart-horse. It is just be- 
 cause the occasional so-called " charities " of the wealthy 
 have their motive in pity and not in sympathy, that they 
 lack all moral value, though the following remarks of Prof. 
 Adler are also true : " Of what avail would it be if one of 
 the members of the great monopoly which I have recently 
 described were to found an orphan asylum, or to build a 
 hospital? Should we really be willing to clap hands, as 
 many are supposed to do, and cry, ' Oh ! how charitable the 
 man is ! ' Why, he has not begun to give back to society 
 what he has taken from it in the first instance, much less 
 that he should' claim credit to himself for his charitable- 
 ness." In such cases, " charity " is nothing but hush 
 money. 
 
 And, for the very reason that there can be no sympathy 
 without equality, I in a former chapter denounced the sub- 
 jection of employ^ to employer as demoralizing. I now 
 wish to refer to a relation than which nothing in the present 
 constitution of society is more essentially vicious and morally 
 
274 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 injurious, — the relation of domestic servants to their 
 "masters" and "mistresses." I called the wage-workers' 
 condition substantial slavery ; that of servants is servitude 
 in substance and form. 
 
 - American society has wofuUy retrograded in this respect. 
 In the beginning of this century Americans spoke of their 
 "help ;" now it is everywhere "servants " ! This is not a 
 mere difference of words, but involves a degradation in 
 position. The servant drops her surname, a veritable 
 degradation, for it marks her as a person henceforth of no 
 social account ; she is spoken to only to receive orders ; she 
 abandons family life, an ordeal not required by outdoor 
 workers; she is day and night subject to the bidding of 
 master and mistress, and may be calied to account for every 
 hour out of the twenty-four. 1 tliink it very much to the 
 credit of American women that they refuse thus to degrade 
 themselves. They are in pleasing contrast to the so-called 
 " men," who consent to perform menial services for others 
 for money, or who even with apparent satisfaction act as 
 the liveried flunkeys of our money-bags. Our wage-workers 
 at least keep alive the spirit of discontent, but whoever 
 imagined that our flunkeys could be rebels ? 
 
 Our "love of lording it " is the greatest obstacle to the 
 growth of sympathy. 
 
 It is, moreover, evident that the insolent individualism, 
 which is the moving power of our present industrial system, 
 necessarily stifles all sympathetic sentiments. It incites men 
 to pursue their individual happiness in complete indifference 
 to their fellows. When Herbert Spencer was here he told 
 us that he had observed that Americans do not resent small 
 trespasses. Why, he got the cart before the horse ; if an 
 American passer-by would resent liaving to force his tortu- 
 ous way on sidewalks crowded with boxes, or having his 
 
MORALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 275 
 
 face and clothes covered with the sweepings from our stores, 
 he would make himself ridiculous ! The trouble is our 
 accursed individualism makes us all too ready to inflict 
 small trespasses on the public. 
 
 Sympathy, however, in spite of all, has proven itself a far 
 stronger force than individualism. The views we now hold 
 on the subject of slavery, compared with those held by the 
 good and wise of old, prove the growth of sympathy during 
 the whole historic period of man. And please note that 
 even during this individualistic, sceptical age, in which in- 
 tegrity has so wofully deteriorated, sympathy has been con- 
 stantly on the increase. The evidences thereof are on every 
 side. Look at all the humane institutions in every nook and 
 corner of our land — asylums and hospitals for every sort 
 of misfortune and malady. Consider how ready men were 
 to inflict bodily tortures a couple of centuries back, and 
 how anxious we now are to avoid doing so. Think of the 
 penal code of mediaeval England, and contrast therewith 
 our treatment of criminals. Observe, finally, the relative 
 frequency of the crimes themselves ; while crimes against 
 property have notoriously increased, those of brutality and 
 passion have just as evidently grown less as well in number 
 as in atrocity. 
 
 Just as we did not have to go very far to look for the 
 reason of the backward state of integrity, so the reasons for 
 the growth of sympathy are easy to find. Pain has been 
 constantly on the decrease, and pleasure as constantly on the 
 increase ; that is to say, we are much better clad, sheltered, 
 and fed than our ancestors were ; many plagues which 
 decimated our forefathers during the middle ages have been 
 entirely extirpated ; many others of their di ceases have been 
 considerably alleviated. Thus, again, we find our principal 
 proposition substantiated, that it is material prosperity that 
 
276 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 is the basis for all improvement, that economic relations are 
 the foundation of even the highest form of morals. 
 
 And in this conquest of sympathy over individualism we 
 have another evidence, of the most convincing force, that 
 we are irresistibly drifting towards socialism. Why, even 
 Spencer foresees " an advanced social state where the mani- 
 festations of pleasure predominate, and where sympathy, 
 therefore, will reach a height that we cannot now imagine." 
 
 And what kind of " advanced social state " has Spencer 
 here in his mind ? Hear him : — 
 
 " The citizens of a large nation, industrially organized, 
 have reached their possible ideal of happiness when the 
 producing, distributing, and other activities are such that 
 each citizen finds in them a place for all his energies and 
 aptitudes, while he obtains the means of satisfying all his 
 desires. 
 
 " And we can imagine the eventual existence of a com- 
 munity where, in. addition, the members are characterized 
 by eminent aesthetic activities." 
 
 In these words Spencer, on whom the word " socialism " 
 has the same effect that a red cloth has on any healthy bull, 
 has drawn an admirable picture of a socialistic state, — our 
 co-operative commonwealth. 
 
 For in the commonwealth that I have sketched in the 
 preceding pages, everybody will certainly find " a place for 
 all his energies and aptitudes," and obtain "means of satis- 
 fying all his desires." 
 
 In that commonwealth ignorance and uncleanliness will 
 disappear. Even so bodily pains ; for we may be sure that 
 medical science, and especially a developed public hygiene, 
 will very soon have reduced physical suffering to a 
 minimum. 
 
 In that commonwealth will be found that necessary con- 
 
MORALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 277 
 
 dition of sympathy which Spencer ignores : substantial, 
 perhaps absolute, equality. The relation then, correspond- 
 ing to our " domestic service," will at all events be a moral, 
 a sympathetic relation ; that is, domestics will be incor- 
 porated in the family as members of it. No one then, 
 surely, will be so slavish as . to accept the position on less 
 honorable terms. 
 
 " The man is crazy ! " some will here exclaim. " No one 
 to black our boots, brush our clothes, sweep our rooms, 
 attend us at meals, nurse our children ! No one to look after 
 our comfort ! No one to answer when we call ' Pat,' 'John,' 
 and ' Bridget ' ! That will be a nice sort of life, indeed ! " 
 
 I really think you will have to " look after your comfort " 
 yourself; most of your fellow-men, many of them far more 
 worthy than you, now have to do that. At the public places, 
 of course, you can have all your wants supplied and your- 
 self attended to, but by persons as much public function- 
 aries as you yourself will be, and conscious of being so, and 
 whom you cannot familiarly call "Ben " or "John," except 
 on an equal footing. But at home you will have to be 
 " served " by members of your family and such people as 
 your personal qualities will attach to your person. 
 
 That commonwealth, I insist, will be Spencer's " advanced 
 social £,tate," where sympathy will attain such a growth that 
 we can now scarcely conceive of it ; for we firmly believe 
 vith John Stuart Mill that " the present wretched social 
 '.rrangements are the only hindrances to the attainment by 
 almost all of an existence made up of a few and transitory 
 pains and many and various pleasures." 
 
 I have already considered the higher integrity which thus 
 will be the natural outcome of better economic conditions. 
 It may now be added that not only crimes against property, 
 but all forms of crimes, will probably be practically unknown. 
 
2/8 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 Crime in all its forms is an evidence of the neglected 
 responsibilities of society, exactly as the plagues of the mid- 
 dle ages were the proofs that the laws of health were disre- 
 garded. Now we have a daily birth of so many infants, so 
 imbedded in criminality that you might lay your hands on 
 each, and say that if not rescued by something akin to a 
 miracle, this child is inevitably destined to a criminal 
 career. It is a sad reflection that infanticide would in their 
 cases be absolute mercy. Yet the State stands by with 
 folded arms, cares not a straw for them, permitting them to 
 be trained to crime, furnishing them even temptations, until 
 it catches them with its implacable arms and strangles 
 them. For children and young persons, and old persons, 
 too, for that matter, are led into criminal careers from pre- 
 cisely the same reasons that keep proper people from such 
 careers, — temptation, example, and love of approbation. 
 
 The new order will do away with crimes against prop- 
 erty by tempting all the right way. It will do away with 
 crimes of brutality and passion by its thorough education 
 and exalted sympathy. For this class of crimes does cer- 
 tainly depend upon the "plane" up to which one has been 
 educated. As to such crimes Mr. Beecher might with pro- 
 priety have said of himself that he was on too high a plane 
 to be tempted to commit them. In other words, criminals 
 will be found to be, what all so-called " nuisances " at 
 bottom are, useful matter in wrong places. 
 
 Of course, for the first few generations the new order 
 will still have some criminals on its hands. In order to 
 show that socialists are not influenced by any peculiar senti- 
 mentality in favor of criminals, let me state that I perfectly 
 agree with Herbert Spencer, who would give convicts the 
 barest of boards to rest on, and nothing but cold water to 
 support themselves on, until they force themselves — by an 
 
MORALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 279 
 
 internal coercion which they can carry with them out of 
 prison — to work for their necessaries of life and whatever 
 comforts they desire, without subjecting them to any unnec- 
 essary pain and degradation as now they are subjected to. 
 But that, also, can only be properly accomplished in that 
 new commonwealth where convict labor will become an in- 
 tegral part of the co-operative labor of society. 
 
 But the most glorious fruit of the higher morality, the one 
 that ought to be most highly prized, will be this : that a 
 complete accord, a perfect conciliation, will at last be 
 effected between two hitherto irreconcilable sentiments, — 
 self-love on the one hand, and regard for our fellow-citizens 
 and the public on the other. 
 
 I have several times impressed upon my readers the fact 
 that socialists take human nature as it is, and I have 
 claimed that to be one of their greatest merits. It will also 
 have been noticed that our commonwealth is built on self- 
 love in robust vigor as on its corner-stone. Every man is 
 necessarily his own centre, I hold, and can, as has been 
 said, no more displace himself from self-interest than he 
 can leap off his own shadow. 
 
 Now we already have, as Spencer has observed, instances 
 of complete accord between self-love and love for others. 
 We find it in the relation of a mother to her child, and of 
 the loving husband to his wife. 
 
 Is the mother who is watching day and night over her 
 sick child, and thereby imperilling her own health, devoid of 
 self-love ? Is it not the fact that she is exactly gratifying 
 herself in acting as she does ? 
 
 Go to the bottom and you will find that her sacrifice is 
 made from a direct desire to make it, is made to satisfy an 
 egoistic sentiment or craving, and the strength of that 
 egoistic sentiment is shown in a peculiarly strong light by 
 the adoption of children by the childless. 
 
28o THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 In the same manner the husband is truly egoistic when 
 he makes sacrifices for his beloved wife. 
 
 Now, in the co-operative commonwealth, where perfect 
 harmony will obtain between the interests of each citizen 
 and those of the citizens at large, just as it now obtains 
 between the members of a well-ordered family, there the 
 final development of sympathy will in time merge self-love 
 and regard for our fellow-citizens into a concord, kindred 
 to that between husband and wife, parent and children. A 
 kindred concord, I say ; not exactly a like concord. 
 
 We shall gain pleasure by giving pleasure, but we shall 
 not be thinking of the sympathetic pleasure gained, but 
 only of that given. We even shall, in the new common- 
 wealth, willingly and with supreme satisfaction do acts of 
 true self-sacrifice. The explanation of that seeming con- 
 tradiction is, that cases involving self-sacrifice will in that 
 commonwealth become so rare, and therefore so highly 
 prized, that they will be unhesitatingly preferred and not 
 at all felt as self-sacrificing acts ; just as we even now 
 sometimes hear it said of somebody, " Let him take the 
 trouble ; it pleases him to do so." 
 
 It will from all this be seen that I by no means want to 
 " reform " men. I do not claim that under socialism men 
 or women will be any better than they now are or ever 
 have been. I want to reform their surroundings, the con- 
 stitution of society, the mould in which their lives, thoughts, 
 and feelings are cast. 
 
 Socialists want to make it the interest of all to be honest, 
 to make it to the advantage of all to furnish their best 
 work, to make it natural for men to love their neighbors as 
 themselves. 
 
 Socialists want all to be able to take a delight in life for 
 its own sake and in everything tliat ministers to it, and that 
 is the end of morals. 
 
MORALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 281 
 
 " Yes, it is well enough to enable people to take delight in 
 this lifCi But it is related of Samuel Johnson that he once 
 exclaimed, on being shown over a magnificent estate, ' Ay, 
 sir ! these are the things that make death bitter.' It is 
 vain to bid men exclude the thought of immortality from 
 their minds, and think only of making the best of this life, 
 and that is what we understand socialists mean them to do. 
 I understand that socialists mean to drive religion entirely 
 out of the world." 
 
 You misunderstand us, friend ! We do not propose to 
 drive religion out of human life. But what is religion ? 
 
 It is with " religion " as with " democracy." To revert 
 to the foreign words from which they are derived helps 
 very little to get at the essence of what I mean when I 
 use these terms. According to its derivation, " religion " 
 means the restoration of a broken bond — it is understood 
 — between earth and heaven Now, that there is a broken 
 bond to restore, was a fact to our forefathers ; at present it 
 is to all but simple-minded people a fheologic fiction. If, 
 however, by "religion" you mean this dogmatic theology, 
 socialists do propose to help drive it out. Socialism is the 
 inveterate foe of theology, — a fact of which our ecclesi- 
 astical authorities are well aware ; wherefore they are per- 
 fectly right in damning it, — because socialism is abreast 
 with the highest intelligence of the time, and the highest 
 Intelligence of all progressive countries is at issue with what, 
 only by a stretch of courtesy, may be called the popular 
 religion. This, I hold, is a most mischievous state of 
 affairs, fatal to sincerity, and creating, on the one hand, in 
 the masses of the people a chilling, conceited scepticism in 
 regard to everything that cannot be touched or handled, or 
 giving rise, on the other hand, to sickly spiritual hallucina- 
 tions. The best means of driving this theology entirely out 
 
282 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 of human life is to raise our people to a higher plane of 
 thought, and then they leave theology behind without know- 
 ing it. 
 
 That which is now meant by "religion" is the view I 
 hold of our relation to the great mystery which is all around 
 us, in time as well as in space, and the awe naturally felt 
 when we think of it. We do not propose to drive religion 
 in that sense out of the world, because it cannot be done, 
 even if we wanted to. Comte tried it, and only succeeded 
 in doing what children do who are afraid of the darkness : 
 they pull the bedclothes over their heads and pretend there 
 is no darkness beyond. Nor are socialists, like the men of 
 the French Revolution, going to commit such puerile follies 
 as either to decree a Deity out of existence or decree him 
 back again. 
 
 But there is not the least doubt that just, as the new 
 economic system will greatly modify the family relation, 
 education, and morals, so it will mightily affect religion, as 
 I have now defined it. For this important fact, that as 
 morals and education are the fruits of our economic relations, 
 so religion is the fruit of our morals and education. The 
 latter are primary ; our gods are but the reflections of our 
 moral and intellectual state. The religion of a nation is 
 the outcome of its highest intelligence in its most solemn 
 moments. 
 
 We can be pretty sure that our race will again be prac- 
 tically unanimous on some religion, as they will be on all 
 important matters. They probably will never know whether 
 or not they have found the objective truth ; but that is not 
 of first importance, for observe that religion is subjective, 
 is the human view of the mystery and our relation to it. 
 But some theory of life is needed to give harmony, purpose, 
 and vigor to active life, and they will certainly agree on such 
 
MORALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 283 
 
 a theory as will explain the mystery to them and satisfy their 
 highest intelligence. 
 
 It cannot be denied that the idea of immortality has hith- 
 erto been an integral element of everything that deserves 
 the name of religion, that our whole race has, and has had, 
 a deep and secret longing for life beyond the grave. It is 
 just possible that this longing is due to the fact that this 
 world is to the masses a veritable " vale of tears ; " it has at 
 all events been fostered by our theologic systems, whose 
 main strength consists in offering a consolation to people 
 who feel miserably here. It is, furthermore, just possible 
 that when men all live to a good old age, and get out of this 
 life all the delights which nature permits, this longing itself 
 will disappear. But this longing does exist in the breast 
 of mankind at present, and is nowhere stronger than in the 
 Anglo-Saxon race. 
 
 Now, whether this longing for and belief in immortality 
 is to be a part of the religion of the future it is impossible 
 to foresee. I can only say with Prof. Goldwin Smith : — 
 
 " Suspense of judgment, and refusal to accept the unknown 
 as known, is the natural frame of mind for any one who has 
 followed the debate with an unprejudiced understanding, 
 and who is resolved to be absolutely loyal to truth. To such 
 a one existence is an unfathomable and overwhelming mys- 
 tery. But let not this suspense of judgment intimate a 
 negative decision. For a negative decision the hour has 
 certainly not yet arrived, especially as the world has hardly 
 yet had time to draw breath after the bewildering rush of 
 physical discovery." 
 
 It may also be added that science knows as yet next to , 
 nothing about the mind ; there are, however, great promises 
 in that direction in the near future. It is by studying the 
 disturbances of nature that science has succeeded in pene- 
 
284 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 trating some of her inmost mysteries, and even so it is by 
 watching the disturbances of the mind that science already 
 has given us glimpses of hitherto unknown powers of the 
 mind. Thus, by the study of cataleptic patients, it has 
 been already demonstrated that the mind has extraordinary 
 capacities, independent of the orderly agency of its bodily 
 machinery, and that its perceptions in that condition are as 
 much realities as those of its ordinary condition. It is im- 
 possible to say what light may be thrown on the question of 
 personal immortality, when once this rich mine has been 
 worked out by science ; then " the hour may have come for 
 a decision," one way or the other. 
 
 However, the thought of living a thousand years hence 
 somewhere and somehow is so inspiring, and life seems so 
 hollow and empty when bounded only by the cradle and the 
 grave, that I am inclined to believe that mankind will cling 
 to the belief in immortality, and perhaps satisfy their intel- 
 ligence by making a sharp distinction. between personal 
 identity and the memory of the transitory circumstances of 
 our physical life (the craving after which is manifestly noth- 
 ing but a passing weakness of the flesh), holding that the 
 former persists, with alternate consciousness and uncon- 
 sciousness as in this life, while the latter vanishes. 
 
 The religion of the future will, we can be almost sure, 
 inculcate a belief in a Will of the Universe. Our own 
 nature suggests it ; the doctrine of evolution points directly 
 to it ; all existing systems of thought find therein a point 
 of contact. That Supreme will is providence for humanity, 
 though not for the individual ; it enters into vital relations 
 with the individual only through humanity as the mediator ; 
 it commands the interdependence of mankind, and our 
 duty is to obey, for there is no other thing that we can do. 
 
 Religion will thus be elevated from being a narrow per- 
 
MORALS IN THE COMMONWEALTH 285 
 
 sonal concern between the individual and his maker into a 
 social concern between humanity and its destiny. 
 
 Socialists are, at all events, practically religious in the 
 highest sense of the word. Thus our creed can be 
 expressed in these words of the preacher of "Village 
 PoUtics : " 
 
 "The modern Christ would be a politician. His aim 
 would be to raise the whole platform of modern society. 
 He would not try to make the poor contented with a lot in 
 which they cannot be much better than savages or brutes. 
 He would work at the destruction of caste, which is the vice 
 at the root of all our creeds and institutions. He would 
 not content himself with denouncing sin as merely spiritual 
 evil ; he would go into its economic causes, and destroy the 
 flower by cutting at the roots, — poverty and ignorance. 
 He would accept the truths of science, and he would teach 
 that a man saves his soul best by helping his neighbor." 
 
286 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 THE COMING REVOLUTION 
 
 " Be careful, sirs, how you judge God's revolutions as the products of 
 man's invention ! " — Oliver Cromwell, 
 
 " The Revolution is a work of the Unknown. Call it good or bad, as you 
 yearn towards the Future or the Past." — Victor Hugo. 
 
 " 'Twas but the ruin of the bad, 
 
 The wasting of the wrong and ill. 
 Whate'er of good the old time had 
 Was living still." — Whittier. 
 
 I COMMENCED this book by quoting these words from 
 a dialogue in The Nineteenth Century : — 
 
 " We see that political systems in all progressive societies 
 tend towards socialistic democracy. We see everywhere that 
 it must come to that. We all of us feel this conviction, — 
 or all of us, I suppose, who have reflected on the matter. 
 We feel, too, that nothing we can do can avert, or possibly 
 long delay, the consummation. Then we must believe that 
 the movement is being guided, or is guiding itself, to happy 
 issues." 
 
 I now add the response immediately following, from the 
 same dialogue : — 
 
 " Hope that the inevitable may prove the ultimately 
 iesirable, but act towards it in public affairs as you do in 
 private ; i.e., ignore it altogether ! " 
 
 They are, of course, two of " our best people " who thus 
 discourse. The one who warns his friend that the political 
 
THE COMING REVOLUTION 28'7 
 
 systems of all progressive countries are drifting towards 
 " socialistic " democracy, is uncommonly far-seeing and can- 
 did. He is undoubtedly right ; the simple fact that house- 
 hold suffrage was introduced in his own country under Tory 
 auspices proves it. But he is not profound enough. Politi- 
 cal phenomena are merely the straws on the surface that show 
 the direction of the current. That all the tendencies are — 
 and especially that the undercurrent is — towards social- 
 ism, towards social co-operation, is the principal proposi- 
 tion of these pages. 
 
 Of the surface tendencies there are, moreover, several of 
 more significance than the political symptoms. Such as the 
 success of our common school system, and of the efforts in 
 other " progressive societies " by the State for the educa- 
 tion of the masses ; the fact that, though " individualism " 
 is practically rampant enough as a doctrine, it is declining 
 in the protestant countries that gave it birth, and that the 
 sects that were its apostles have now next to no influence ; 
 and, most significant of all, the remarkable growth of fellow 
 feeling among the masses, due to the concentration of the 
 workers in our cities ; for there man meets man, and spirit 
 quickens spirit, and intercourse breeds sympathy, and sym- 
 pathy combination and enthusiasm ; while the agriculturists 
 remain comparatively unsympathetic and weak, on account 
 of their isolated situation. 
 
 But the undercurrent is the decisive factor. I mean the 
 force that is unfolding the material, the industrial relations of 
 life. Already Goethe remarked of animals that subordina- 
 tion and difference of parts are the measure of the height of 
 their organization ; we have learned that precisely the same 
 applies to the social organization. This undercurrent mani- 
 fests itself in the concentration of manufactures, of trans- 
 portation, of commerce, and in the rise of large farms ; in 
 
288 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 short, in the growth of monopolies. These, however, fur- 
 nish us no halting-place. For while these monopolies, 
 on the one hand, have immensely increased the produc- 
 tivity of labor, they have, on the other, been unable to fur- 
 nish the requisite effective demand. However paradoxical 
 it may seem, the result has been that our large accessions 
 of wealth and comfort have created an extended sense of 
 discontent. As a consequence, the undercurrent carries us 
 beyond individual monopolies and calls forth the popular 
 cry for collective control of material interests — first of all 
 of telegraphs and railways. 
 
 Now, right here this current meets another, a parallel cur- 
 rent : that which has been propelling the State, unwillingly, 
 in opposition to all received theories, to take charge of one 
 social activity after another ; a tendency that perhaps can 
 be made clear in no better manner than by stating that the 
 national expenses of England were in 1841 forty times as 
 great as ini685, while the population had only trebled ; and, 
 further, that in the thirteen years from 1867-8 to 1880-1 
 the annual local expenditures for the United Kingdom had 
 grown from ^180,000,000 to ^315,000,000, — of Great 
 Britain, where the doctrine of " let alone " has had undis- 
 puted authority ! 
 
 How the exercise of national authority has been extended 
 in the United States in the last generation, we have already 
 noted ; and we are convinced that this centralization, so 
 called, would have been just as irresistible, though perhaps 
 slower, if the democratic party had been in power : look 
 at the alacrity with which the democrats vote for appropria- 
 tions for internal improvements. But our civil war, of 
 course, was the giant step of our social evolution, and it is 
 very difficult to decide whether its main issue, the Union, or 
 its side issue, slavery, will prove of most importance. All 
 
THE COMING REVOLUTION 289 
 
 other progressive countries, however, have kept pace with 
 us. The struggles for nationality everywhere have mightily 
 advanced the evolution of the social organism. Even the 
 enormous standing armies of the European continent do 
 this, as does everything that drills the masses as a whole and 
 that teaches the people to work in concert. Why, it is 
 through the German standing-army that the German peas- 
 ant has become accessible to socialist ideas ! 
 
 Buckle lays it down that " the movements of nations are 
 perfectly natural ; like others, they are determined solely 
 by their antecedents." In passing, it may be remarked 
 that the fact that this view is now the generally adopted 
 one, the fact that the law of evolution has been discovered 
 and recognized as governing also societies, is itself an im- 
 portant step of the social evolution. In the light of that 
 philosophy it is easy to see that our whole civilization has 
 been a lesson in co-operation, that slavery was the first 
 lesson, that serfdom was the second, that our present wage- 
 system is but a modified form of the latter, and the social 
 co-operation. State co-operation, socialism, is to be the 
 system of the future ; for this idea is in harmony with all 
 antecedents and all our surroundings, and our whole age 
 co-operates with it. 
 
 However, there is something else of importance to be 
 noted. Herbert Spencer, as we have seen, is one with us 
 in holding that society will in the course of evolution arrive 
 at "an advanced social state." But he holds that this 
 evolution is a purely blind natural force. Virtually he 
 teaches : " Do not try to do anything at all ; it is simply 
 folly. In the first place, you cannot do anything; and, 
 next, any effort on your part is unnecessary ; if you only 
 let things alone, they will come out all right of themselves 
 some time in the far distant'future." It is no wonder that 
 
290 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 this indolent optimism does not attract the masses. How 
 can Spencer have any sympathy with his fellow-men? 
 What gospel has he, or have his disciples, for the poor, the 
 suffering and oppressed ? The greatest objection, however, 
 to this scientific fatalism is that it is unsound, fallacious. 
 
 The fact is that though society is truly an organism, the 
 evolution of society does not take place precisely like the 
 growth of plants or animals. The former is the result of 
 efforts consciously put forth : the progress of man requires 
 the co-operation of men. Therefore, while Buckle's view, 
 that the movements of nations depend upon their antece- 
 dents, is true, it is not the whole truth ; it must be supple- 
 mented by Carlyle's idea that " the history of what man 
 has accomplished is at bottom the history of the great men 
 who have worked here." Again, it is true that an idea to 
 be successful must be in harmony with surrounding condi- 
 tions j and yet that is not enough ; it must also be incar- 
 nated, as it were, made alive in men and women. There 
 must be a few people, at least, who care a great deal 
 about the idea and who feel a resistless impulse towards its 
 propagation. 
 
 Hence I add, that perhaps the most important part of 
 the evolution is the fact that there are socialists in the 
 world at the present time, that there are resolute men and 
 women, intelligent representatives of all classes, who are 
 determined to lead the world into T\e.w channels ! The 
 most precious product of the evolution, therefore, I say, 
 is that practical and energetic band, consisting less of 
 dreamers than any number of men hitherto concerned in 
 any great movement, and yet fired with an ideal that makes 
 people forget their national antipathies — what even Chris- 
 tianity has not been able to do ! The pledge of success, 
 precisely, are these men and women who act as if the for- 
 
THE COMING REVOLUTION 291 
 
 tunes of the world depended on their personal endeavorSj 
 proudly conscious that the fortunes of the world have de- 
 pended on the struggles of just such men as they ! 
 
 One such man — a man with a faith — is a social power, 
 equal to 999 who have only interests. 
 
 The distinguishing trait of socialists is that they boldly 
 aim at a revolution and care not a jot about reforms. 
 
 I know that good people nowadays shudder at the mere 
 whisper of the word " revolution." It was not always so. 
 There was a time when the eyes of patriots sparkled when- 
 ever "The American Revolution " was spoken of; there was 
 a time when the words "The English Revolution" sounded 
 tolerably well in polite ears. Now the term " revolution " 
 seems to suggest nothing but blood and destruction and vio- 
 lence. Yet it means nothing of the kind. It simply denotes 
 a complete change, the vigorous adaptation of all social ele- 
 ments to new conditions, most orderly, but effecting vast 
 and permanent alterations. This is what all philosophic 
 socialists mean by a "revolution." But "reforms" only 
 attack abuses, and in this are just as unscientific and stupid 
 as bleeding for a fever in olden times was — both being 
 simply crude methods of suppressing symptoms. How can 
 any one " reform " away abuses that are inherent in the sys- 
 tem? Reforms even often do immense mischief: they 
 open the safety-valves and thereby render evils tolerable for 
 the moment; but it is well to bear in mind that evil 
 " evolves " as well as good. 
 
 The coming revolution is the new social force, which wil'. 
 so act on the constitution of society that the old withered 
 husks are cast off, permitting the social butterfly to emerge 
 from its chrysalis state. 
 
 Again Spencer is wrong when he places his "advanced 
 social state " in the very distant future, and teaches that 
 
292 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 the progress of society is altogether accomplished by slow, 
 very slow, gradual stages. Historic experience does not 
 at all bear him out ; it tells us, on the other hand, that 
 when a social order has once been attained there is first a 
 period, quite a long period, of virtual stagnation ; then 
 society begins to move slowly (the stage on which Spencer 
 has wholly fixed his attention), followed by an advance, 
 constantly increasing in velocity, — the nineteenth century 
 is a good illustration of this stage ; for are we not moving 
 along in every department with railroad speed? — and last 
 of all, the decisive change to a new social system is accom- 
 plished almost before the living generation can recover its 
 breath. 
 
 Will this new social order be " a happy issue " ? 
 
 That is really a consideration of secondary importance, 
 and will perhaps be answered differently according to the 
 stand-point one occupies. To our money-bags, prominent 
 politicians, prominent lawyers, who now lord it over us ; to 
 " independent," overbearing, domineering " philistines," 
 buoyed up at the top, it will probably not seem a " happy 
 issue," looking at it through spectacles colored by their 
 class-interests, as they do. For the very gist of the coming 
 revolution will consist in unseating them, in abrogating 
 their vested rights, — the divine right- which they have 
 been taught they have to the fruits of the labor of other 
 people. It will abolish " freedom " as they practise it ; 
 that is, the right to do what they please and to make 
 others do as they (the " independent ") please. But to 
 the great multitude it will be, I should say, a happy issue ; 
 for it will put an end to their subjection and put interde- 
 pendence — genuine freedom — in its place. And con- 
 sidering the welfare of the social organism there can be no 
 doubt about the new system being a happy issue. Instead 
 
THE COMING REVOLUTIOJST 293 
 
 of the quackery, charlatanism, amateurship which now bear 
 sway in all activities of society, we shall have skill, compe- 
 tence, and qualifiedness at the head of affairs, and, in- 
 deed, from top to bottom. The main reason why the 
 workers will dismiss those who " rule " us now, is the very 
 fact that they have proved themselves incapable of " gov- 
 erning," — of administering affairs. The anarchy which now 
 causes the discontent of the masses, our crises, our bank- 
 ruptcies, are all so many proofs of their incapacity, imbecil- 
 ity, and ignorance. And most important of all, instead of 
 being a crowd not able to keep even our streets clean, we 
 shall have organization ; instead of gregariousness we shall 
 have association; instead of everybody pursuing his indi- 
 vidual petty interests, — absolutely indifferent, and often 
 hostile, to the interests of society, — everybody will instinc- 
 tively be conscious of himself as a being who, of course, 
 considers the social welfare in his every act. 
 
 We can be sure that the coming revolution will not 
 destroy an atom of what is really good now. We can be 
 sure that it will not mean destruction as much as upbuild- 
 ing. We can be sure that should anybody thereafter se- 
 riously propose to go back to the present social order, he 
 will be laughed at as a fool fit for a lunatic asylum. 
 
 But " ignore it altogether ! " 
 
 Those who are now at the head of affairs affecting — to 
 ignore ! That is a dangerous policy. Those who will not 
 seej become in time those who cannot see. Think of 
 " leaders "who wilfully shut their eyes, and advise to " Ig- 
 nore it altogether ! " of " statesmen " with the motto, 
 " After us the deluge ! " 
 
 So, however, it has been always. " Force has been the 
 midwife at the birth of every new order." But the respon- 
 sibility will be on our incapable "leaders." Meanwhile, the 
 
294 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 evolution of society marches forward in spite of all stumb- 
 ling-blocks ; one moment quietly in the brain of the thinker 
 the next moment unmercifully over corpses. But it does 
 not want blood. On the contrary, it sends warning in ad- 
 vance of every catastrophe. Woe to those who do not 
 heed that warning ! 
 
 As yet, and first of all, it is a contest of ideas. I aim 
 to put the socialist idea into the minds of the people, 
 knowing that if it be there, actions will follow fast enough. 
 However, as was intimated in the introduction, the writer 
 of this does not expect that the majority will in that way 
 be excited to action. 
 
 The majority are always ignorant, always indolent ; you 
 cannot expect them to be anything else with their present 
 social surroundings. They never have brought about con- 
 sciously and deliberately any great social change. They 
 Always have permitted an energetic minority to accomplish 
 that for them, and then they always have sanctioned the 
 accomplished fact. 
 
 That our people are no exception was proven by the abo- 
 lition of slavery. That was accomplished by the emancipa- 
 tion proclamation of Lincoln, who was egged on to issue it 
 by an energetic minority ; when it was accomplished, the 
 people sanctioned it by amending the constitution ; though 
 even now, as a matter of course, " prominent " lawyers can 
 be found who verily believe that said proclamation was not 
 worth the paper it was written on. 
 
 This, then, is our objective point ; a respectable minority : 
 One respectable as to numbers ; respectable as representing 
 the most advanced intelligence ; respectable as containing 
 sincere and energetic representatives from all classes, — the 
 minority to reach which these pages are written. Give 
 socialists such a minority, and the future of every civilized 
 country will be theirs ! 
 
THE COMING REVOLUTION 29S 
 
 Socialists are the only social philosophers who can be 
 called purposeful, the only ones in the whole wide world 
 who can dispense with commonplaces, and slippery words, 
 and phrases, and who present clear-cut, definite solutions. 
 It is, of course, to the discontented that they address them- 
 selves ; they have nothing to say to such as think that the 
 world is good enough as it is. Neither have they any busi- 
 ness with that very large class of poor men, clerks espe- 
 cially, who toil on from day to day, in the hope of being 
 some day, by some lucky accident, rich themselves, so that 
 they in their turn can lord it over others. It is that class 
 particularly that fill the ranks of our State militia, and who 
 with alacrity obey the command to shoot down such of their 
 fellows as have been goaded on to rebellion. It is a most 
 contemptible class of men ; the motive that leads them is a 
 contemptible one ; and yet it is such men who are patted on 
 the back by " our best people " and called " ambitious." 
 
 It is, of course, to the discontented wage-worker that 
 socialists can appeal with the greatest chance . of success. 
 To them they can say : — 
 
 " Look the future confidently in the face. The Golden 
 Age of which poets have sung has proved a cruel illusion — 
 cruel ; for, as long as it lasted, it served as the greatest 
 stumbling-block to your improvement. In exchange for 
 that will-o'-the-wisp, we give you another, a real Golden 
 Age, at whose threshold you stand. If you do not enter 
 into it, your children may." It is to the wage-class that the 
 rankest injustice is being done. To lay bare that injustice 
 is, first of all, the mission of socialism, and, as Carlyle says, 
 " hunger, nakedness, death even, may be borne sometimes 
 with cheerfulness; but injustice is insupportable to all 
 men." 
 
 To the thoughtful among our small middle-men it ought 
 
296 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 to be easy enough to prove the socialist state their sole 
 refuge from the cares and troubles that now beset them. 
 
 It will not .take many years before the eyes of farmers 
 will be opened to the fact that the vast majority of them 
 must necessarily become tenant-farmers, and their farms 
 gobbled up by the rich under a system of unrestricted com- 
 petition. Then we undoubtedly can convince some that 
 socialism is the only system that can secure a civilized life to 
 their descendants. 
 
 And even to many in the professions I can with propriety 
 appeal. Indeed, as I have already said, many, if not most 
 of our literary men, lawyers, physicians, journalists, and, 
 last though not least, teachers, are among the disinherited. 
 Only those at the top, most of whom are in one way or 
 another the retainers of our money-bags, have any motive to 
 side with the established order. Of course, all aspiring 
 young professional men start out with great expectations; 
 but what a grievous disappointment does life prove to the 
 great majority of them ! Before they reach middle age 
 they will have given up all their grand plans, and they will 
 consider it the summit of success if they can secure a de- 
 cent livelihood. Most of them will fail lamentably even in 
 that. To my personal knowledge, hundreds of talented 
 persons of that class now live a most precarious existence, 
 and are glad to sleep at night on the lounge in the office of 
 some more successful brother, and do not know for certain 
 whether or not they will have a meal the next day. Such a 
 man's refinement has become his curse. 
 
 To such men the coming revolution should be just as wel- 
 come as to any mechanic or common laborer. How their 
 talents would unfold themselves, and their energies be 
 roused, under that inspiring emulation which the new order 
 will inaugurate ! Talent, genius, and intellect will in our 
 
THE COMING REVOLUTION 297 
 
 commonwealth have their due influence — what they never 
 had before. 
 
 Neither ought it to be very difficult to convince such 
 women who take any interest in public affairs, and labor for 
 the elevation of their sex, that no lasting benefit will be 
 conferred either on society or their sisters by making 
 women into second-rate men, and very, very little benefit by 
 their obtaining the suffrage in the present state of things ; 
 while it is very much to be apprehended that when political 
 "rights" are minced twice as much again as they already 
 are, they will seem, and in fact become, absolutely worth- 
 less. Socialism is evidently far more capable of elevating 
 the female sex both by ennobling the men and by enabling 
 women themselves to agsert their dignity. 
 
 And everywhere, in all conditions of life, there are thought- 
 ful, generous youths who cannot help wondering at the 
 manifestly unjust arrangements of this world ; youths who 
 cannot help asking why so many whose work is only nominal 
 should live in splendor, while those whose daily toil produces 
 all that makes existence enjoyable and even possible have 
 such a hard struggle for life ; youths who then dream of 
 impossible "remedies," and, like Thomas More in his 
 "Utopia," construct castles in the air; youths who, by and 
 by, when they have been chilled by contact with the cold 
 realities of life under this established order, will come to 
 look back on these dreams as mere foolishness. 
 
 Ah, youths ! " when those phantoms fade, some portions 
 of your better nature will die within you, too ! " 
 
 Might we not expect the eyes of such youths — and even 
 of mature men who have had such dreams and not forgotten 
 them — to kindle with enthusiasm, and their hearts to beat 
 quicker upon learning that many of their fellows are bent 
 with all their energies on making glorious realities out of 
 
298 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 those dreams? As Novalis says: "My belief has gained 
 infinitely to me from the moment any other human being 
 has begun to beheve the same." Why then might we not 
 expect many of such men to throw themselves into this 
 movement of ours, as soon as they find out what it really 
 means ? 
 
 It is a slander to say that the American people cannot be 
 excited by an ideal, that they only care for the " almighty 
 dollar." Their war of the revolution was fought on a point 
 of honor. The rebellion was fought for ideas. But small 
 ends do not rouse anybody's enthusiasm. Civil service 
 "reforms" and other "Utopias" — and small Utopias at 
 that — are not likely to make one's blood throb the quicker. 
 To cut off each head of an ever-growing hydra as it appears 
 is a tiresome process, and will seem an idle, wasteful pro- 
 ceeding to any practical mind. But to help evolve a new 
 social order which is " struggling — convulsively, desper- 
 ately struggling — to be born" is an end grand enough to 
 fill the noblest soul with the most ardent zeal. 
 
 And because it is well known what repelling effects mere 
 words may have on the minds of men, and because "social- 
 ism " once had such an effect on the writer himself, I add : 
 Let not the consideration frighten you, that it is an " ism " ! 
 Why, even Christianity was for four hundred years an 
 " ism." Every ideal — that is, every " soul of the future " — 
 is an " ism " as long as it is waiting for its body. When 
 socialism becomes embodied, it leaves its " ism " behind 
 and is realized as the new social order — social co-operation. 
 
 It is for various reasons just such young men as those of 
 whom we have spoken, of all classes, that we should try to 
 enroll as members of our effective minority and for whom I 
 have written this book. Elderly people have already made 
 up their minds — indeed the man who has reached forty 
 
THE COMING REVOLUTION 299 
 
 and has not made up his mind may pretty safely be put 
 down as a poor specimen of a man. And then there is a 
 weightier reason. Though there is no man living wise 
 enough to say when the coming revolution will occur, I 
 can say that there is little probability that it will occur this 
 century. Now, you cannot ask an elderly man to prepare 
 for something which he probably will not live to witness. 
 You, on the other hand, can with the greatest show of suc- 
 cess appeal to the ardor and hope and sympathy of youth 
 or young men of, say, thirty years to prepare for an event 
 in which they may be principal actors when they reach ripe 
 manhood. And that is just what that effective minority 
 principally will have to do, — prepare j prepare themselves 
 and their people for the great change. Not, as I already 
 said in the introduction, to make any revolution, but to 
 make themselves, and the nation as much as possible, ready 
 for the coming revolution, to meet it when it comes, peace- 
 ably or "clad in iron sandals," and to carry it out. To 
 accomplish this, the first thing needed is organization, in 
 order that they may become perfectly acquainted with each 
 other, come to have confidence in each other, and study 
 together the great philosophy and the means of realizing it. 
 That minority ought, indeed, to come to a unanimous agree- 
 ment as to every principal step that must be taken to make 
 the co-operative commonwealth a success from the very 
 start and until it is in full working order. 
 
 And they should also, as we said, as much as possible 
 prepare their countrymen. They should continually keep, 
 not themselves, mark you ! but their cause before the 
 people. They can do this very effectually in two ways : 
 each one in his own neighborhood, in his immediate circle 
 of personal friends and acquaintances, by direct appeals to 
 their understanding, sympathies, and interests, and all, in 
 
300 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 mutual accord, through the newspapers. I have always 
 found that there are in every city of any consequence in 
 America some newspapers of established circulation ready 
 enough to publish notices and articles, if only they are 
 temperately and, especially, well written ; just such com- 
 ments and appeals as we may expect from the class of 
 persons we have in mind — -force and fire, and no froth. 
 But the important thing, always to be heeded about this 
 latter form of agitation, is that it be carried on systemati- 
 cally. 
 
 This will be work enough for anybody, however zealous ; 
 besides this, that minority can do nothing better than wait 
 with patience. 
 
 Wait for what? 
 
 For the natural culmination of the present system and 
 for whatever solution the power behind evolution has 
 planned for us. One thing is pretty sure, that the United 
 States will inaugurate socialism first of all. 
 
 The United States possesses the immense advantage that 
 it can safely make the first experiment without danger of 
 any foreign interference. We possess the advantage of 
 being an eminently practical as well as a thorough-going 
 people, when we are roused. We have within us the re- 
 flectiveness of the German as well as the momentum of 
 the Anglo-Saxon, who, if he wills to jump across a brook, 
 does not hesitate, but runs and clears it with a bound. We 
 furthermore possess for an indefinite period — to be deter- 
 mined by the fears and blind anger of our masters — the 
 privilege to agitate without restraint by pen and tongue, and 
 thus educate and organize the effective minority. 
 
 " Socialism is not suited to the genius of our people," we 
 have heard some say, as if we had patented a new order 
 of life. These trades unions, and trades assemblies, and 
 
THE COMING REVOLUTION- 30 1 
 
 Grangers, and Knights of Labor precisely prove that 
 socialism is suited to the genius of the Anglo-Saxon peo- 
 ples. The central spirit that rules these unions is that of 
 socialism, to wit, that the interests of all workers are the 
 same, that each must postpone his own advantage to the 
 common good, and each yield his individual prejudice and 
 crotchet to the collective judgment. 
 
 Those of the working classes who become enrolled in our 
 effective rainoritv can do no hetter work ^han strengthen 
 these unions in every possible way. Through them their 
 fellow workers are sure of getting sociaJisi hearts — the 
 socialist heads will come in due time. And bear in mind, 
 that it is these organized labor- battalions that are to form 
 the lever by means of which the new ideas are to move 
 society. 
 
 When the crisis occurs, then the socialist minority must 
 assume the leadership. Be confident that the people will 
 follow. In such times men become awake, shake off night- 
 mares ; the experience of years is crowded into hours. 
 Novelties which at first sight inspire dread become in a few 
 days familiar, then endurable, then attractive. 
 
 Here my mind is involuntarily directed to a remarkable 
 book, "The Coming Race," said to be by Bulwer. It rep- 
 resents a race, living underground in a great number of 
 small communities, as having attained to a perfect social 
 statg. It may be considered an ingenious satire on a social- 
 ist commonwealth — but no matter, it is highly interest- 
 ing. That which at this point led my thoughts upon it is a 
 wonderful natural force which those people are said to have 
 discovered, which they call Vril. It can be stored in a 
 small wand, which rests in the hollow of the palm, and, 
 when skilfully wielded, can rend rocks, remove any natural 
 obstacles, scatter the strongest fortress, and make the weak 
 
302 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH \ 
 
 a perfect match for any combination of number skill, and 
 discipline. No wonder that these people attribute theii 
 equality, their freedom, felicity, and advancement to this 
 discovery. 
 
 What if this " Vril " is but a poetic anticipation of the 
 civilizing power of that real, energetic substance which we 
 call dynamite ! ■^ 
 
 Such great changes, however, have no precedents. The 
 wisest of us may err as much as Ulrich Von Hutten did in 
 the days preceding the reformation. Ulrich was far in 
 advance of Luther when the latter took hold of his mission. 
 Then he wrote in a letter, still extant, to the effect that he 
 heard that a monk had become rebeUious. " It delights 
 me," he wrote in substance, " to hear of a rebellion in the 
 bosom of Holy Mother Church. How I wish the two parties 
 may tear each other to pieces ! " Yet it was just Luther, 
 and not the clear-sighted nobleman, whom the logic of 
 events selected as its organ. 
 
 Just as impossible it is to say when we may expect the 
 coming revolution. But it is worth reflecting on, that a 
 prudent man in 1853 would hardly have taken upon him- 
 self to foretell the abolition of slavery in 1863. 
 
 But the great change is coming. ^ 
 
 In the words of Carlyle : — 
 
 " Will not one French Revolution suffice, or must there 
 be two ? There will be two if needed ; there will, be 
 twenty if needed ; there will be just as many as needed." 
 
 When the co-operative commonwealth shall be achieved, 
 
 1 Rev. Washington Gladden, in his book, '* Applied Christianity," is here 
 most unjust to me. After quoting this passage he adds, " Coming as this does, 
 in the course of a conjectural discussion of the ways in which socialism maybe 
 realized, it is little better than fiendish." As if this book did not throughout its 
 length and breadth show that I am anything but a fiend. 
 
 2 See my new book, " Our Destiny," published by Messrs. Lee and Shepard. 
 
THE COMING REVOLUTION 303 
 
 there will be no room for any more revolutions. For revo- 
 lutions are caused by clashings of class interests, and all class 
 distinctions are forever abolished the moment the lowest 
 class is fully incorporated into society. 
 
 But there will be plenty of room for progress, for further 
 evolution. Even our commonwealth, though it may take a 
 long period to develop it, is but a step of the evolution. 
 One commonwealth after another may decay and disap- 
 pear, but they will contribute to the upbuilding of the 
 organism of humanity, with whose fate it may be found 
 that we are personally far more concerned than is now sup- 
 posed. The rehgion of the future will make holiness con- 
 sist in identifying ourselves with humanity — the redeemed 
 form of man — as the lover merges himself in the beloved. 
 Individualism, the deception that we have been bom into 
 this world each for the sake of himself, or family, friend or 
 kindred, selfness, will be acknowledged to be the satanic 
 element of our nature. Indeed, the vicious part of Chris- 
 tianity is this, that it nourishes a sneaking, private, per- 
 sonal hope on God's bounty ; under socialism we shall feel 
 ourselves social beings, incapable of any blessings which our 
 fellows do not legitimately share. 
 
 I therefore more than doubt, I deny, Ward's proposi- 
 tion that individual happiness is the end of human life. 
 If it be, the existences that were made miserable in order 
 that mankind might be trained up to social co-operation 
 were failures ; they are decidedly not failures, if, as I hold, 
 the end of the individual existence is to further the evolu- 
 tion of humanity, in whose fate it may be found, as I re- 
 peat, that we have a greater stake than is supposed. But 
 happiness is a fact ; as an incident of life and not an ob- 
 ject of pursuit, it is a blessed fact. It is to man what the 
 odor is to the rose. 
 
304 THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 That the new commonwealth will very much diTuse anc? 
 increase individual happiness there can be no doubt. Ii 
 will make possible the harmonious exercise and develop- 
 ment of all human faculties in everybody; that itself is 
 happiness. It will, by banishing care and giving leisure, 
 enable every one to become familiar with all that is known 
 about the universe, and to explore its perpetual wonders, and 
 pore over its numberless riddles for himself; and that is 
 more than happiness, it is rapture. Finally, it will be the 
 grandest vehicle for serving humanity and thereby generate 
 the purest happiness, — blessedness 
 
 But blessedness it is even now our privilege to obtain. 
 We have the choice to live as individualists, and on our death- 
 beds look back in despair on a dreary, hateful life of play- 
 acting ; or as socialists fill our existences with those serious 
 moods that make the grand tone of life, and in the hour of 
 death stand on the mountain-top, as it were, and see with 
 entranced eyes the rays of the sun that soon will illume the 
 dark valleys below. For my part, I deem it worth ten 
 crucifixions to win for my memory a fraction of the ador- 
 ing love which millions of the noblest men and women have 
 felt for a Jesus. 
 
 THE END. 
 
UNIFORM EDITION 
 
 OF 
 
 Laurence Gronlund's Books 
 
 THE 
 
 CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH 
 
 AN EXPOSITION OF SOCIALISM 
 
 Revised and Enlarged Edition 
 CLOTH, $1.00 PAPER COVER, 50 CENTS 
 
 CA IRA! 
 
 OR 
 
 DANTON IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 
 ^ STUDY 
 
 CLOTH, $1.00 PAPER, 50 CENTS 
 
 OUR DESTINY 
 
 THE INFLUENCE OF NATIONALISM ON MORALS AND 
 
 RELIGION 
 
 CLOTH, $1.00 PAPER, 50 CENTS 
 
 William H. Mallock, author of " Is Life Worth Living;?*' says in the October number OV 
 the London Fortnightly Review^ in an article on " Wealth and Working Classes**:^ 
 ** Laurence Oronlund is the fairest minded of all our Socialists,*' 
 
 Copies sent by ma:!^ postpaid, on receipt of price 
 
 BOSTON 
 LEE AND SHEPARD PUBLISHERS 
 
THE 
 
 POLITICAL ECONOMY OF HUMANISM 
 
 By HENRY WOOD 
 
 Cloth 318 pages $1.25- 
 
 I. General Principles 
 
 II. Supply and Demand 
 
 in. The Law of Competition 
 
 IV. The Law of Cooperation 
 
 V. Labor and Production 
 
 VI. Combinations of Capital 
 
 VII. Combinations of Labor 
 
 Vni. Employers and Profit Sharing , 
 
 IX. Employes: Their Obligations and 
 Privileges 
 
 X. Governmental Arbitration 
 
 XI. Economic Legislation and Its 
 Proper Limits 
 
 XII. Dependence and Poverty 
 
 XIII. Socialism as a Political System 
 
 XIV. 
 
 XVI. 
 XVII. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 XX. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 xxn. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 Can Capital and Labor be Har- 
 monized 
 Wealth and Its Unequal Distri- 
 bution 
 The Law of Centralization 
 Action and Reaction, or 
 
 " Booms " and Panics 
 Money and Coinage 
 Tariffs and Protection 
 The Modern Corporation 
 The Abuses of Corporate Man- 
 agement 
 The Evolution of the Railroad 
 Industrial Education 
 Natural Law and Idealism 
 
 Mr. Wood possesses the rare art of making an admittedly dry subject, not only 
 instructive, but positively entertaining, and this art is demonstrated in the present vol- 
 ume. — Boston Advertiser. 
 
 Mr. Wood's task has been accomplished in admirable style. The work is one 
 that breeds reflection. Its perusal broadens the horizon and lifts the thinker into 
 lofty altitudes — altitudes where mind is seen to bi the worker, and labor, land, capital, 
 and coin to be but the tools; where altruism is stimulated and the sweetness of charity if 
 realized, and the fact of racial unity is felt, and a glimpse is had, as from Pisgah's sum 
 mit, of the final fraternization of humanity. — Chicago Evening Post. 
 
 " The Political Economy of Natural Law" is written in a clear st^le, and is in aK 
 points an admirable, satisfactory, and original treatment of the subject. — San Fran- 
 cisco Call. - ■ 
 
 It were well for the nation if more works of like facility of comprehension and dealing 
 with such subjects were disseminated. — Philadelphia Item. 
 
 It would be difficult to imagine a clearer statement of premises and conclusions than 
 is therein contained, and there is no profession nor business to which its teachings do not 
 apply. — Boston Ideas. 
 
 It would be welt indeed for the future were this work adopted as a text-book. — 
 The Occident {Chicago). 
 
 His mental powers are both analytic and synthetic, and it is a genuine pleasure — a 
 mental recreation — to follow him through his reasoning processes. — Christian Leader 
 ( Cificinnati) . 
 
 The " Trade Journal " might fill ten of its columns with just such interesting quota- 
 tions, but it does not intend to. Every reader of this paper should lose no time in 
 possessing himself of a copy of the book. — Indianapolis Trade journal. 
 
 We wish it might be read by every thoughtful man — laborer and capitalist — in our 
 country. — Boston Home jourual. 
 
 It is a good book for teachers who want to be fairly intelligent on these vital ques* 
 tions. — Ohio Educational Monthly. 
 
 Sold by all Booksellers, or sent, postpaid, by the Publishers, 
 IiEE & SHEFAKD, Boston, on receipt of the price.