THREE BOOKS ON SOCIALISM.*
A PERUSAL of the three works named below reminds us of the rapid and often fundamental changes which take place in the theory of Socialism as it is presented to us by its authori- tative exponents. Taken together, these volumes enable us to follow the recent course of the controversy. The New Socialism may be conveniently dated from a discussion raised by Edward Bernstein in the Hanover Socialist Congress of 1899. His views, embodied in an essay on " Evolutionary Socialism," have been recently issued in an English translation. Bernstein is a leader of the so-called Revisionist Party,—a party which has more or less con- sciously abandoned the "class war" policy of Marx, and which permits alliance with other political parties. The essential feature of the doctrine of Marx is the class war and the necessity for the destruction of capitalism by the pro- letariat. His argument rested on his definition of value, and his deduction therefrom of the doctrine of surplus value. Surplus value, in his view, was an unfair advantage which fell to the capitalist in every exchange in which he paid wages for labour. Our purpose to-day is exposition, not refutation, so we merely pass on to observe that Marx, for his part, was willing to watch the capitalist system go forward to its own inevitable destruction, which he prophesied could not long be deferred. The heresy of Bernstein in the eyes of the orthodox Marxists is that he has pointed out the error of Marx's anticipations. Things have not gone from bad to worse, and undoubtedly the position of the labouring class is much better than it was at the time when Marx wrote. These admissions, as the orthodox Marxists see, are serious. If the catastrophe predicted by Marx, as the result of the inequity of the exchange of labour for wages, is far more remote than it was in his day, bolder critics, even within the Socialist ranks, may go on to question whether wagedom and the system based thereon really are inequitable or conducive to the degradation of the proletariat ; and with this further admission in view, the whole argument for Socialism and the need for a revolutionary change crumbles away. No Socialist Party is prepared to accept this conclusion, though, as we have stated, the Revisionist Party are held by their orthodox comrades to have made concessions which involve this result. The controversy at this point takes a new departure. The Revisionists, without ceasing to call them. selves Socialists, have practically abandoned the doctrine of the class war and the need of revolutionary change. Labour under capitalism, it is admitted, has secured, and pre• sums bly can continue to secure, terms which permit its rise in the social scale. Capitalism need not be abolished, but rather it must be permeated by Socialist ideals. Mr. and • (1) Socialism and the Social Movement. By Werner Sombart. Translated by M. Epstein. London: J. M. Dent and Sous. [Ss. 6d. net.]—(2) 2744 limo Socialism : an Impartial Enquiry. By Jane T. Stoddart. London i Hodder and Stoughton. [5s. not.]—(3) Socialism and Government. By J. Mummy Macdonald, M.P. 2 vols. London: The Independent Labour Party. Las.
Mrs. Sidney Webb, for instance, and the Fabian Socialists of Belgium, have sought to identify Co-operation with Socialism. Much illogical violence is done thereby to the facts and theory of the ease, for obviously the ownership of co-operative capital, however much it may be glorified or misrepresented by Socialist enthusiasm, is fundamentally an incident of capitalism,—as, indeed, the more thoroughgoing revolutionaries are never tired of pointing out. The extension of municipal trading also gives satisfaction to the Revisionist type of Socialist.
Before passing to consider the protest made against this conception of Socialism by the orthodox Marxists and those who, under the title of Syndicalists, revert to a more extreme type of Marxism, we should notice an earlier expres- sion of dissent,—viz., that of the Anarchical group of Socialists. A typical exposition of this point of view, easily accessible to English readers, is to be found in Prince Kropotkin's recently published Conquest of Bread, reviewed some time ago in these pages. He very pertinently points out that this Collectivist ideal by no means leads to a destruction of capitalism. To replace the capitalist by the political " boss " of the hour and his nominees is by no means a solution. Capitalism is inherently bad, and can only be rooted out by a revolution in our industrial system. For ourselves, we confess that, just as in the case of the Syndicalists to be presently noticed, we cannot follow Prince Kropotkin's idea as to what is to replace the capitalist system, organised either as now through the private adventurer, or, as proposed by the Collectivist, through an official bureaucracy. All that Prince Kropotkin makes clear to us is, Delenda est Carthago,--capitalism must go and Anarchism take its place. The revolutionary party must, argues this ingenious Prince, be ready to feed the people during the inevitably ensuing turmoil. Hence his title, The Conquest of Bread. The revolutionary leaders must capture the bread-shops and be prepared for the, first days of the revolution to feed the people, till they settle down happily under Anarchy to the practice of intensive horticulture and the cultivation of vegetables under glass.
This, however, is an older departure, and those who attach importance to such speculations profess that they can distin- guish the policy here foreshadowed from the policy repre- sented by the General Strike as advocated by the new school of Syndicalists, whose singular attitude we must now attempt to describe. A somewhat unsympathetic account of this is given in Socialism and the Social Movement by Professor Sombart, and also by Miss Stoddart in The New Socialism, but the apologetics of the General Strike are best studied in X. George Sorel's Bejlexions sur la Violence. M. Sorel and his friends detect in the attitude even of the orthodox Marxists, and still more of the Revisionists, an abandonment of the class war and a disposition to compromise with capitalism, the accursed thing. He denounces in bitter terms the action of the " intellectuals " who take part in the bourgeois political life. Nothing, in his view, but a General Strike will bring capitalism to an end. Marx was obviously mistaken in supposing that this would come of itself. Acts of violence are needed. Belief in the efficacy of a General Strike, is, he contends, a "myth,"—a religion about which it is impossible to argue. It involves on the part of its votaries acts of heroism and self-sacrifice. There is no provision made in his teaching for the "conquest of bread." It is very difficult, given the premisses, to resist the trenchant logic of M. Sorel's exposition. If, as he assumes, still basing his ideas on the elsewhere repudiated economics of Marx, it is undesirable to allow society to develop itself on liberty, private property in capital, and freedom of exchange—in other words, on capitalism—some revolutionary procedure is undoubtedly necessary. We cannot take kindly to this proposal for a leap in the dark, the onIY form of tactics which he is in a position to proclaim, but -we are thoroughly with him in seeing that Parliamentary Socialism brings us no nearer the destruction of capitalism. The so-called Municipal Socialism, the co-operative ownership of industrial capital, and the general conception of the Colleetivist State involve the expro- priation of the present race of capitalists ; but these are at once to be replaced by a capitalism which is managed by the intellectuals of the party, by the political " bosses" and their nominees. • In what way,. M. Sorel indignantly asks, is the proletariat bettered by such manoeuvres ? M. Sorel writes with a bitterness and contempt which are hardly deserved
of Mr. and Mrs. Webb, and of the stupidity of those who% try to pass off the undigested masses of irrelevant facts which their industry has compiled as a. valuable contribution to Socialist controversy. Such persons do not, he says, under- stand a word of Socialism. We are not concerned to compose these bitter dissensions. Our comment on the situation, Lorne out in part by the Socialists themselves, is that the Socialism advocated by the Revisionists and Fabians is not Socialism at all, but capitalism with its organisers chosen on a different principle,—a principle, as M. Sorel would probably say, infinitely more sordid and more liable to corruption. The Socialism of the Anarchist and of the Syndicalist typo demands from ns belief in a " myth " (the word is M. Sorel's own), an afflatus of reckless enthusiasm which even Socialists themselves cannot entertain. We who are apologists for our present inevitable basis of social life may be excused if we regard the Anarchist ideal as unnecessary, and indeed unthinkable.
The so-called orthodox Marxist we have omitted to notice, and there is logical excuse for this. According to M. Sorel, the Marxist who will not advocate the violence of the General Strike has fallen back into the ranks of the Revisionists. This view is practically confirmed by Professor Sombart's chapter on the tendency to uniformity—summed up on p. 225—where he says : "All that has been written and spoken in Germany against ' Revisionism' has no influence whatever on the practical policy of the party." The party, save and except the Anarchists and the Syndicalists, is one and indivisible, and is Parliamentary and Revisionist in its methods.
Professor Sombart's book has a European reputation. He is an orthodox Marxist with Revisionist tendencies, and a recognised authority on the subject. Miss Stoddart's volume is also extremely valuable, and a work of considerable research and erudition. She professes to be impartial, but, writing from the point of view of the Shorter Catechism, she is distressed by the irreligious character of doctrines which otherwise seem to her benevolent and plausible. As regards Mr. Macdonald's Socialism and Government, we will only remark that his position as a leader in Parliament of the Socialist Party gives an official stamp to the somewhat dreary sentimentalism which in England passes for Socialism.
Previous page
