CHAPTER II.

Forms of Society, founded on the Principles of Capitalism, Communism, and Christian Love compared.-General Laws of Development in the Formation of Society (Morphology).— Federal Forms of Society the Latest Development.-Liberality and Self-devotion in Patriarchal, Christian, and Humanitarian Socialism.-Natural Community of Goods in the Family.— Its relation to Capitalism and public Community of Interests. -"Female Rights."-Communistic or public Forms of Society, their peculiar Conditions and Limits.-Five Cases enumerated where these are Applicable.—They are not Applicable to the Processes of Commerce and Banking.—Lassalle's Public Credit Scheme refuted.-Historically Communistic Principles are chiefly adapted for Primitive States of Society, and gradually give way to others in the Process of Civilization.—Their Relation to Capitalism considered.-Aristotle.

As we have seen all along, there are three systems advocated by theorists for the salvation and perfection of society: (1) that of public forms of industry, carried on by the state and the commune, which has a retrogressive tendency; (2) that of a federative or co-operative improved capitalism, which has a progressive tendency; and (3) that of a Christian, humanitarian socialism, which in the free and devoted spirit of Christian love gives up all for the common weal. If applied exclusively, every one of these will prove false alike. But each one of them separately contains something of the truth, and so far corresponds to a remarkable degree with the actual facts of every-day experience. If applied within legitimate bounds, and in proportion to their respective expediency, all may be of service so long as they do not exclude the partial adaptation of the other systems where that seems required.

With

In order to show the truth of this statement, we must first make a few remarks on the various forms in which human beings are apt to combine for social purposes, and with a special view to the leading principles of political economy, i.e. the proper production, consumption, and distribution of wealth. These forms, with reference to the will of the various members of society, may be either compulsory (as in the community, the state, etc.); or voluntary (as joining a partnership, an association, or the like); or they may be binding after a contract freely entered upon (as matrimony). With regard to authority, they may be illiberal or the contrary. regard to the object they may aim at universality (state, community, family, etc.), or speciality (the interest of individuals only). With regard to their duration, they may be of a permanent or evanescent nature; with regard to extension, they may be local and particular, territorial, or cosmopolitan, and personally either wide or narrow. With regard to the motive for association, that may be speculating, dictated by self interest (in private undertakings), or communistic, sacrificing personal interest to the common weal; or these two motives may be mixed, as in the case of mutual assurance societies, coalitions, or other social associations by means of corporate bonds, whereby all are benefited. And finally with regard to the relation of various social forms of combination among themselves, they may either be simple and automatic, or combined and interdependent.

Now bearing in mind these distinctions, we shall now be able to see how, historically and logically, the different distinctive forms of society above mentioned are gradually developed in a natural morphology and evolution, as civilization advances. As a matter of fact these distinctive forms follow each other in due succession, or they may as

SOCIAL EVOLUTION.

223

often exist side by side with each other. This statement will appear more plain if we consider how, in the course of time and the softening influences of culture, community of goods is succeeded by a community of the moral products of the mind, how selfish isolation gave way to the humanizing influences of society; how compulsory subjection of needy savages was supplanted by the free and rational self-government of modern society.

Take an example: formerly the only means of providing against any stroke of sudden misfortune were to be found in the same family. From this narrow circle of association, extending presently to the guild, there arose the mutual assurance society, which being free, in contradistinction to those earlier rather despotic institutions, secures the same object on a far more extensive scale. Having at length become emancipated from the controlling power of the commune, the state, or the church, it spread its blessings over the whole civilized world.

And in this manner that social germ, the family, has spread its ramifications far and wide, and has resulted in higher combinations, which have grown up morphologically until they became what they now constitute, society. Compared with one another, compulsory combinations lead naturally to separation and centralization and stagnant uniformity; whereas voluntary and independent associations lead to mutual improvement and progressive

federalization.

Without entering deeper into the question of the gradual formation and organization of society, the two following laws may be laid down as economically true.

(1) The various forms of social combination do not grow up historically in uniform proportion; special forms appear in every period of development, which commu

nicate their own typical character to more ancient forms. But no developed form once called into existence disappears again entirely; it forms an integral part of the whole framework of society, erected during the course of

ages.

(2) The most primitive form of society is the most natural too, as e.g. the community of the family, the clan, and thence territorial divisions. These become gradually more refined and are trained for liberty, and give rise to co-existing alliances, friendships, and associations formed for different purposes. As in the family, so in the state gradually arising out of it, the early despotism and patriarchal authority yield at length, and after many transformations, to the supremacy of law which reduces the chaos of individual claims into a harmonious whole. Law itself becomes the collective will of all, and itself constitutes only the will of the majority.

Now the same laws of morphological change in the forms of society hold good in the case of social economy. And in our days, when socialism demands a new framework of society on the basis of its own principles, it is of importance to attend to this morphological change in social forms. It will guard us against the acceptation of any exclusive form and precipitate changes. And it is well to recollect that as in the animal and vegetable worlds embryology and morphology do not point to either monotony or lawlessness in the development of forms, so too in the economic morphology of human society we observe both order and variety. First we see the binding, constant, narrow, and authoritative combinations in the primitive and natural forms of society, and only gradually moral liberty and individual freedom assert themselves, and forms founded on these higher principles, and not brute force, gain a relative importance, not however to the exclusion

MICROCOSM AND MACROCOSM.

225

of those earlier and less perfected forms of social combination. Last of all appear those federal forms which are most comprehensive, free, and adapted to the present extension of capitalistic enterprise. They admit of a combined movement for uniting the productive powers of the whole universe with complete freedom and variety, and this on the most magnificent scale.

To apply now this general statement to the three forms of society mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. First, with regard to liberal socialism (fraternité). It is founded on brotherly love and humanity, and has always existed in society, and will remain to do so to the end of time. This liberality in bestowing gifts or services freely may be one-sided, or reciprocal, having for its motives either humane promptings or natural predilections. The latter is most conspicuous in the family, where a mutual exchange of services and commodities, free of cost, constantly takes place. Here we find the most primitive form of communism; and this simple mode of producing and consuming, within a small circle, the needs and requirements of a simple life may still be seen in some corner or remote district, shut out from the great economic vortex of our modern capitalistic life. There each small tradesman, or farmer, with his family forms a little economic world. But this form of society, performing all the necessary economic functions, is possible only so long as the family lives secluded by itself. It loses the exclusive right, and becomes insufficient for the purpose of carrying on the economic process, when the circle of social combination begins to widen beyond itself.

In the clan or village community which is the extension of the family, the patriarchal form still exists as in the family, but with it also public authority and power.

છુ