away from political life the corrupting influence of "big business" on legislation and the letting out of contracts; by removing the chief economic motives which now induce the political bosses to enter politics and by developing such industrial technic and encouraging such psychic forces in the community as may normally lead to an honest and socially efficient industrial régime. BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL Bureaucracy. Socialism, it is furthermore charged, would lead to the creation of a tyrannical bureaucracy. An analysis of this objection, however, generally indicates a confusion in the mind of the objector between bureaucratic state socialism and the democratic socialism advocated by the organized socialists throughout the world. Socialists are as much opposed to bureaucratic control as they are to private ownership of industry, and it is their firm belief that democratic management and other safeguards proposed by them and enumerated in the chapter on "the Socialist State," together with the changed psychology of the masses of the people will eliminate the possibility of the governmental bureaucrat. Socialists further contend that a coöperative system of industry provides the only remedy for the bureaucratic control now so prevalent in private industry and rapidly evolving in governmental departments. As a result of the many evils of private ownership, scores of government investigating and regulating bodies are now being created for the purpose of prying into the private and business affairs of the citizens of the nation. This governmental bureaucracy is bound to increase as long as private ownership lasts and will cease to function only when its cause individual control of industry becomes a thing of the past, only when industry becomes socialized. ANARCHISM Introductory.- Socialism is often opposed on the ground that it is identical with anarchism. The fallacy of this contention is patent to all students of social problems. The history of the first International of the workers (1864-72), was largely a history of the struggle between the socialist school of thought, led by Marx, and the anarchist group, headed by Bakounin. Struggles of a similar nature have taken place between the followers of these two philosophies in practically every country where an organized working class movement exists. It is also of significance to note that, as a general rule, in countries where the anarchist movement is strong, the socialist movement is weak, and vice versa. Anarchists Discard Political Action.- Followers of both philosophies have, it is true, certain points in common. Both condemn the evils of the present order of society, and both look forward to a society where exploitation will have ceased, and the class state will be a thing of the past. The anarchist movement differs, however, from the socialist movement as a whole in that it has discarded political action as a means to progress, advocating either purely economic action, "direct action," or "propaganda of the deed." A minority of non-resistant philosophical anarchists, followers of Tolstoi, on the other hand, depend on education, backed by neither organized force nor violence, to bring about their ideal.44 44" Propaganda of the deed" may or may not imply terroristic methods. Such methods were advocated by many of the followers of Bakounin, and by small anarchistic groups in Russia, Italy and elsewhere. The vast majority of modern anarchists, however, are neither of the bomb-throwing variety nor are they disciples of Tolstoi, but are advocates of such "direct action" as the general strike, as well as of educational propaganda. The organized socialist movement throughout the world has, on the other hand, advocated political as well as economic and educational activity, and has condemned individual or collective violence in the waging of the class Anarchism and Forcible Government. But the chief difference between the two groups lies in the character of the contemplated anarchist and socialist orders of society. Under anarchism, all laws and every kind of forcible government would be eliminated. There would "still be acts of the community, but these are to spring from universal consent, not from any enforced submission of even the smallest minority." 46 For law, anarchists contend, even when favored by a majority, is essentially tyrannical, and is incompatible with the liberty of the individual — the anarchist goal. Communist-Anarchism. As far as industry is concerned, anarchists have failed to formulate any very definite program. A minority are individualistic anarchists these are closely akin to the advocates of laissez faire — and contemplate no change in the ownership of industry. Pointing out that anarchists regard the class confiict as a war, and that many anarchists take the same view of the legitimacy of violence in war as do the majority of mankind, Bertrand Russell adds: "For every bomb manufactured by an anarchist, many millions are manufactured by governments, and for every man killed by anarchist violence, many millions are killed by the violence of states. We may, therefore, dismiss from our minds the whole question of violence, which plays so large a part in the popular imagination, since it is neither essential or peculiar to those who adopt the anarchist position." (Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, pp. 32-3.) 45 An exception to this was found in the case of the extremists among the Social Revolutionists of Russia of which Mme. Breshkovskaya was a prominent figure, prior to the European War. 46 Russell, op. cit., p. 51. A majority are communist-anarchists and vaguely look forward to a community in which industry will be operated by a large number of so-called free unions of workers on a voluntary coöperative basis. Many, with Kropotkin, contemplate a system under which there will be no obligation to work, all things being shared in equal proportions among the whole population. Means of Enforcing Decrees Essential. The mere mention of the foregoing anarchist goal is sufficient to indicate the wide gulf separating the socialist from the anarchist order of society. As has been before stated, socialists demand the elimination of the class state. They believe that, under socialism, when the system of exploitation will have been abolished, the need for organized compulsion will have been greatly reduced, and that, with the development of human personality under socialism, forcible government will gradually lose its raison d'être. Many socialists also believe that the state should possess power of coercion only in relation to a limited number of activities. They nevertheless feel that, at least for generations, organized society must have at its disposal some means of enforcing its decrees, democratically arrived at, against an anti-social or non-social minority-decrees against violence, against thefts, laws for the protection of the health, the safety, the education and the industrial development of the community. Nor do socialists agree with anarchists that enforcement of decrees necessarily limits community freedom. Such laws are often the means of protecting the weak against the strong and of adding to, not subtracting from, the sum total of human liberty. As for the difference between the socialist and the anarchist industrial organization, a comparison between the socialist concept as heretofore given (see Chapter V), and the ideal of voluntary communism here outlined will be immediately revealing. SOCIALISM AND OVERPOPULATION The Malthusian Theory. Since the days of Malthus, the argument has been urged that socialism would give rise to the evil of overpopulation. Followers of Malthus at first contended that the masses of the people had little reason to hope for permanent improvement under the system of capitalist production. Any temporary betterment in the condition of the workers would result in an increase in the size of their families, and such increase would press seriously upon the means of subsistence and in turn lower the standard of living. Overpopulation would be avoided only by the extensive application of prudence and foresight, but such a check on the population was not to be expected. Malthusian Doctrine and Present-Day Tendencies.— Time has demonstrated that, so far as the present order of society is concerned, the pessimism of Malthus has not been justified. Prudential considerations have been more potent in checking increase in population than the followers of Malthus anticipated. Population has failed to increase in proportion to the ability of parents to provide a minimum sustenance for their children. Higher standards of living have resulted in greater foresight and prudence and an increased desire to provide education and other advantages to a moderate sized family, rather than to supply mere physical necessities to a large number of children. Large families have not been found among those groups in society who could best afford to provide for them, so much as among the poor. |