Socialism

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

SOCIALISM

1. Definition , etc.—‘The watch-word of the Socialist is Co-operation  ; the watch-word of the anti-Socialist is Competition . Any one who recognizes the principle of Co-operation as a stronger and truer principle than that of Competition, has a right to the honour or the disgrace of being called a Socialist.’ This definition was written by Frederic Denison Maurice in the first of a series of Tracts on Christian Socialism, which was published in 1849. Maurice, Kingsley, and T. Hughes deliberately adopted the word ‘Socialist’ for the movement which they founded, and incurred, as Hughes has testified, much ‘anger and bitterness’ as a result; but, since then, the Socialist idea has had a secure place in the speculations and activities of modern Christianity. It is evident, however, that Socialism so defined is a much broader thing than the State Socialism of economic theory, or than that of the Social Democratic parties of contemporary politics. Fifty years ago, indeed, many men did regard competition as a stronger and truer principle than co-operation; and Socialism (in Maurice’s sense) has had an easy victory over the laissez-faire Individualism which was dominant in the political economy of his day; in this sense the famous saying is true that ‘We are all Socialists now.’ But a man may be against Individualism or Anarchism, and to that extent a Socialist, and yet may be opposed to the current conceptions both of economic and political Socialism; he may possibly regard the growth of municipal undertakings with alarm, and he may even look, as Thomas Carlyle did, to the ‘strong man,’ and not to the democracy, for deliverance from the evils of insufficiently restricted competition.

Yet general principles are of more importance than economic theories which must necessarily shift with changing conditions of life; and Socialism, defined as the principle of fellowship, may safely claim to be an integral part of Christianity, working itself out in one age through feudalism and canon law, in another through representative government and factory legislation, and tending, through the improvement of individual character, to the ideal state. That ideal state might prove to be either socialist or anarchist, or to be (as society now is) somewhere between these two extremes; for, indeed, if men were perfect, the machinery of society would be a matter of indifference. It is because men are imperfect that the economic and political machinery is a matter of urgent importance. Here ‘Socialism,’ as an active Christian principle, comes in; for though Christians must always claim the supreme importance of personal regeneration, as against those who think that society can be made perfect by the mere operation of the State, it must also be admitted that a religion which attempts to deal only with the individual, and leaves society to its own devices and the laws of supply and demand, is untrue to itself, and is doomed to failure. Individual character cannot be regenerated while it is being destroyed by bad housing, or by intemperance, or by commercial selfishness and dishonesty, or while multitudes are ‘submerged’ and ‘sweated.’ Such things as these are therefore the immediate concern of the Christian; and far more so the great causes—economic, political, ethical—which lie behind them. Now it is undeniable that, for a considerable period before Maurice wrote, the ‘religious world’ as a whole had ignored this truth, and had neglected its social duty to the weak and oppressed,—a neglect of which the results are still painfully evident to-day. There had indeed always existed a better tradition: the Quakers* [Note: A good example of 18th cent. Quakerism is John Woolman. See the Bibliography in the Fabian Society’s edition of his tract, A Word of Remembrance and Caution to the Rich.] had been a powerful leaven of commercial morality; Wilberforce and his friends had, after a protracted battle of 20 years, conquered Individualism in the interests of the black slaves; Shaftesbury (a Conservative in politics) had already won a signal victory over the even more horrible ‘white slavery’ that went on in English factories. Both these men were devoted religious leaders: but they were not the ‘religious world’; hence the protest of the Christian Socialists,—a protest which has really changed the face of British Christendom.

The Maurician definition of Socialism is thus a very real one, and is practical as well as fundamental. The Christian men who opposed Shaftesbury were Individualists; they left society to the laws of supply and demand—in other words, to competition; they regarded the aim of Christianity as the salvation of individuals—or perhaps of a small minority of the elect, for Calvinism was in truth the theological parent of this Individualism. If Socialism be regarded broadly as the antithesis of Individualism, as a theory of life and not only of economics, then it is true that the Christian Socialists won the day and now hold the field. It will clear the ground if we give here a definition of Bishop Westcott in which Maurice’s words are repeated and expanded:

‘The term Socialism has been discredited by its connexion with many extravagant and revolutionary schemes, but it is a term which needs to be claimed for nobler uses. It has no necessary affinity with any forms of violence, or confiscation, or class selfishness, or financial arrangement. I shall therefore venture to employ it apart from its historical associations as describing a theory of life, and not only a theory of economics. In this sense Socialism Is the opposite of Individualism, and it is by contrast with Individualism that the true character of Socialism can best be discerned. Individualism and Socialism correspond with opposite views of humanity. Individualism regards humanity as made up of disconnected or warring atoms; Socialism regards it as an organic whole, a vital unity formed by the combination of contributory members mutually interdependent.

It follows that Socialism differs from Individualism both in method and in aim. The method of Socialism is co-operation, the method of Individualism is competition. The one regards man as working with man for a common end, the other regards man as working against man for private gain. The aim of Socialism is the fulfilment of service, the aim of Individualism is the attainment of some personal advantage-riches, or place, or fame. Socialism seeks such an organization of life as shall secure for every one the most complete development of his powers; Individualism seeks primarily the satisfaction of the particular wants of each one, in the hope that the pursuit of private interest will in the end secure public welfare’ (Westcott, Socialism , pp. 3, 4).

If the social principle, the principle of brotherhood, had been forgotten, it certainly came to its own again in the 19th cent., though it may be at present rather overwhelmed by the problems which had grown up during its abeyance. Its rapid revival in the Churches was due to the fact that the men who proclaimed it were able to point to half-forgotten Scripture ideas—as with other objects men had gone back to the teaching of Scripture at the Reformation. It was easy for the pioneers of the social revival to show that the Gospels and Epistles were full of social teaching, and gave no support to the doctrine of ‘the devil take the hindmost,’ or (in more subdued language) of noninterference. The following extract from a pronouncement of the entire episcopate of the Anglican Churches throughout the world (Lambeth Conference, 1887) shows, on the one hand, how completely the principle was accepted within 40 years of the first Christian Socialistic movement, and, on the other, how entirely its justification was felt to lie in the NT. Such utterances seem commonplace now, only because the Christian Churches have changed. They are not to be found in the official documents of the preceding era:

‘The Christian Church is bound, following the teaching of her Master, to aid every wise endeavour which has for its object the material and the moral welfare of the poor. Her Master taught her that all men are brethren, not because they share the same blood, but because they have a common heavenly Father. He further taught her that if any members of this spiritual family were greater, richer, or better than the rest, they were bound to use their special means or ability in the service of the whole.… It will contribute no little to draw together the various classes of society, if the clergy endeavour in sermons and lectures to set forth the true principle of society, showing how Property is a trust to be administered for the good of Humanity, and how much of what is good and true in Socialism is to be found in the precepts of Christ.’* [Note: This extract is given because it emanated at a comparatively early date from a body which had for long been specially associated with conservative opinions. Its sentiments can be paralleled from the statements of the Lambeth Conference of ten years later, and from the official utterances of most other religious bodies in recent years. The Church of England, the Church of Scotland, and some other Churches have now large ‘Christian Social’ societies. Nor must it be supposed that the movement which it illustrates is confined to Great Britain. It is equally strong both among Protestants and Roman Catholics on the Continent of Europe and in America; indeed, it is numerically far stronger on the Continent than in Great Britain. The subject may be studied in Professor Nitti’s Catholic Socialism, Laveleye’s Socialism of To-Day, the Preface to Ensor’s Modern Socialism, and other works mentioned at the end of this article. The most recent English work on the subject is Woodworth’s Christian Socialism in England.]

2. The Gospels. —The Gospels are certainly full of those ideas which inspire the Christian Socialist. The Incarnation itself proclaims as the root principle of religion the unity and solidarity of the human race (this is worked out in Westcott, The Incarnation, a Revelation of Human Duties (S.P.C.K.)); and the manner of Christ’s coming—His lowly birth, His humble companions, His hard life, His death at the hands of the Law—can well be claimed as democratic. He declared, indeed, at the outset, according to St. Luke ( Luke 4:18), that He had come to preach good tidings to the poor; to His mother His coming meant the exaltation of them of low degree ( Luke 1:52); to His forerunner also it meant a certain levelling of existing conditions ( Luke 3:5), and indeed John the Baptist himself advocated that voluntary communism which is an undisputed characteristic of all early Christian teaching (‘He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none,’ etc.,  Luke 3:11). There is in all this a definite proclamation of brotherhood . When we turn to the teaching of our Lord, we find quite clearly that He concerned Himself with secular things, and did not give any justification for that ‘other-worldliness’ which would ignore physical evils. His miracles were in the main works of mercy, designed to reduce the misery, or, as at Cana, to increase the happiness, of everyday life. His parables teach social principles of the most far-reaching importance. The parables, e.g. , of the Kingdom explain the nature of the Christian fellowship, its inclusiveness ( e.g.  Matthew 13:24-30), its ultimate world-wide extension ( e.g.  Matthew 13:31-33). The condemnation of riches could hardly be more strongly expressed than in the parables of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16), and of the Rich Fool (ch. 12), and in the warning about the needle’s eye ( Mark 10:25). The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) gives a new meaning to the word ‘neighbour,’ and teaches the obligation of what nowadays is called social service; and this lesson is even more strongly expressed in the most important parable of all—that of the Judgment ( Matthew 25:31-46)—where we are told that salvation will depend on whether we have succoured the poor and outcast, with whom Christ identifies Himself.

The Sermon on the Mount in this aspect may be called a simple manual of social teaching. It is sufficient to allude to the Beatitudes, and to point out how much of the teaching in the rest of the Sermon is still regarded as Utopian, as that about love of enemies ( Luke 6:27), oaths, non-resistance, litigation and property, free giving ( Matthew 5:33-48), lending without interest ( Luke 6:34-35, money-making ( Matthew 6:19), worrying about the future ( Matthew 6:24-34). The Christian Socialist may agree with the ‘Socialist of the Chair’ that Collectivism would make these principles less difficult of application than they are to-day; but he would add the warning that the secular regeneration of the world can only be accomplished by spiritual means. One sentence of the Sermon sums up the whole truth, when, after picturing in a vivid image material well-being ( Matthew 6:26-29), our Lord says, ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you’ ( Matthew 6:33).

If we turn to another central part of Christ’s teaching, the Lord’s Prayer, we find again the social side interwoven with the spiritual. It was given as a private prayer ( Matthew 6:6), yet it begins, ‘Our Father,’ and is throughout a prayer for the human brotherhood. It asks for the hallowing of God’s name, the coming of His Kingdom, and the doing of His will upon earth,—in other words, it teaches the Christian to pray for Utopia, and it makes incumbent upon him the duty of considering all social and political schemes with a view to the perfecting of society in this world. The prayer for daily bread asks that all may have the necessities of material life, and this again involves far-reaching social considerations. The prayer for forgiveness is accompanied by a special clause guarding it against an individualist interpretation. As for the prayer against temptation, the temperance movement alone shows that British Christianity has appreciated the social significance of that clause; and in other matters it is clear that, if the worship of Mammon be the antithesis of the worship of God, a society based upon commercial competition is constantly leading its members into the gravest temptation of all.

Christ then teaches that man has a double duty—to love God and love his neighbour. He must love his neighbour not less than himself, and must do to others as he would have them do to him. Christ condemns the rich and blesses the poor; He teaches brotherhood, social service, and the abnegation of private possessions; He teaches that men are to strive to bring about a Divine Kingdom of justice on the earth, and that they will finally be judged by their works of mercy to those whom the world despises. And, binding it all together is the gospel of Love which St. John has preserved most fully—‘This is my commandment, that ye love one another’ ( John 15:12).

3. The Apostles. —The rest of the NT contains abundant evidence that this social gospel was understood. Indeed, in the first flush of their enthusiasm the Christians of Jerusalem established a voluntary communism, and ‘had all things common’ ( Acts 4:32-35). It was voluntary, and did not deny the right of a man to possess his own property, as St. Peter said to Ananias ( Acts 5:4), but it shows that almsgiving had a very thorough meaning to the first Christians. The doctrine of equality and brotherhood was also strongly felt. St. Paul more than once had to remind slaves that though in the sight of God there was no respect of persons ( Colossians 3:25, cf.  James 2:9), yet slaves must not turn against their masters: this balance between the brotherhood of master and slave on the one hand, and the duty of slave to master on the other, are very beautifully expressed in Philemon (cf.  1 Corinthians 7:20-24,  Ephesians 6:5-9). This is characteristic of the early Fathers also (see below, ‘Patristic Teaching’); the conditions of society were to be accepted, and men were to do their duty in them, although the Christian fellowship was working out towards a higher ideal ( e.g.  1 Timothy 6:1-2, cf.  1 Peter 2:13-17). But St. James (whose Epistle contains passages which are often quoted on democratic platforms at the present day) is very definite as to the levelling power of the gospel, e.g. ‘But let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate: and the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away’ ( James 1:9-10; cf.  James 2:5-10). St. Paul is as strong as St. James as to the danger of riches ( e.g.  1 Timothy 6:10), and the evil of covetousness ( e.g.  Colossians 3:5), and the duty of mutual service ( e.g.  Philippians 2:4), and of mutual love (1 Corinthians 13). But his most valuable contribution to the social aspect of Christianity is his teaching about the solidarity of mankind; the social principle in its very essence is in the declaration that ‘There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female: for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus’ ( Galatians 3:28; cf.  Colossians 3:11,  1 Corinthians 12:13); nor could it be better taught than by the illustration of the body and its members in 1 Corinthians 12, and the great description of the unity of the Christian body in Ephesians 4. The fundamental doctrine of brotherhood and love is the theme of the First Ep. of St. John, in which it is definitely stated that without loving his brother whom he hath seen, a man cannot love God ( 1 John 4:20); that the children of God are distinguished from the children of the devil by their righteousness and love of their brethren ( 1 John 3:10); that to dwell in love is to dwell in God ( 1 John 4:16), and that ‘every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God,’ while ‘he that loveth not, knoweth not God’ ( 1 John 4:7-8). This is indeed the evidence of salvation—‘We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren’ ( 1 John 3:14). It is clear, then, that from the beginning it was taught that Christianity had an intensely strong and real practical side in secular matters, that this side—the duty to the neighbour—was equally incumbent on the believer with the duty to God, and that it is bound up with the ‘social’ ideas of brotherhood, solidarity, unity, mutual love, co-operation, voluntary equalization of condition by giving up of possessions—in some cases, as in that of the Rich Young Man ( Mark 10:21). of all possessions; while there is throughout strong condemnation of riches, of luxury, pride, and the clinging to class distinctions.

4. Patristic Teaching. —There is not space to do more than allude to the teaching of the Christian Fathers. Authorities on the subject are given at the end of this article: some of their more salient sayings will be found in Nitti’s Catholic Socialism , where their socialist character is exaggerated, and in Carlyle’s Mediaeval Political Economy , vol. i., where this side is perhaps underestimated. The Patristic writings are, indeed, extremely difficult to estimate, because of the distinction between what was ideally right as belonging to God’s plan ( Jus naturale ) and what was right under present conditions ( Jus gentium )—a distinction which is characteristic of Cicero and Seneca as well as of the Christian writers of a later date. Thus the Fathers held that all men were naturally equal, but at the same time they accepted slavery, though indeed the manumission of slaves was a recognized Christian virtue. It was the same with private property. Extracts can be gathered from the Fathers which are as strong as anything in the writings of modern socialists; for instance, Proudhon’s famous saying, ‘La propriété, c’est le vol,’ is almost exactly paralleled by St. Ambrose’s ‘Natura igitur jus commune generavit, usurpatio jus fecit privatum’ ( de Off . i. 28). But St. Ambrose does not mean that property is unlawful, only that it is not a ‘natural’ institution—it belongs to the jus gentium . In the same way he does not advocate land-nationalization when he says, ‘Deus noster terram hanc possessionem ominum hominum voluerit esse communem, et fructus omnibus ministrare: sed avaritia possessionum jure distribuit’ ( In  Psalms 118:8  ;  Psalms 118:22); but goes on to say that for this reason the poor have a just claim on the rich to give them a share of what was meant for all. This may be taken as typical also of the earlier Chriatian writers. They assume the existence of private property as an institution, and that it is not evil if rightly used; but they do not consider it as belonging to the state of innocence—like slavery it is due to the fall into sin; ‘their whole thought,’ Mr. Carlyle says, ‘is dominated by the sense of the claims of the brotherhood,’ and the Christian man is bound to use his property to relieve the wants of his fellow-man. This is almsgiving, but, unlike modern almsgiving, it is based on a definite principle of justice. An early example of this is in the Didache (iv. 8), ‘Thou shalt not turn away from him that hath need, but shalt share all things with thy brother, and shalt not say that aught is thine own  : for if ye are partners in the immortal, how much more are ye partners in the perishable?’ Here the reference to the community of goods in  Acts 4:32 is obvious. Compare with it the ‘All is common with us, except women,’ of Tertullian ( Apol. xxxix.), or St. Justin’s declaration, ‘We bring all we possess into a common stock, and share everything with the poor’ ( Apol. i. 14). There are many passages in other Fathers, such as Chrysostom and Basil, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great, which have a strong socialist character, and they all used language about the selfishness of the rich which would cause some offence if uttered from the pulpits of the present day. The fact that Clement of Alexandria took a different view in his Quis Dives salvetur considerably increases the significance of the rest of the Patristic literature: he explains the command to the Rich Young Man in  Mark 10:21 in a purely allegorical sense, and protests that there is no advantage in poverty except when it is incurred for a special object, and that riches are serviceable if rightly used, and are not to be thrown away. That he should stand almost alone even in this much qualified defence of property is a remarkable fact.

If we turn from theory to practice, there is no doubt that the Church produced a profound social change in the Roman Empire, and was recognized from the first as based upon the principle of fraternity. In this connexion it is noteworthy that Lucian was struck as much by the social as by the theological aspect of the new religion—‘Their original lawgiver,’ he remarks, ‘had taught them that they were all brethren one of another.’ Membership in the Church meant the admission into a fellowship in which the rich man became poorer and the poor man richer; in which the stranger, the outcast, and the slave were welcomed and loved as brothers. Harnack, in his Expansion of Christianity (i. bk. ii. c. iii.), describes this change, pointing out, amongst other things, that the principle of Labour was consistently put into practice. Following St. Paul’s maxim ( 2 Thessalonians 3:10), the Church insisted, (1) that it was the duty of every Christian man to work, (2) that it was the duty of the Christian Society to see that there was work for all its members, and (3) that it was the duty of Christians to make provision for those who were not able to work. This fails to be pure State Socialism only because the Church was not yet coterminous with the State.

5. Later Developments. —It is impossible here even to sketch the developments of Christian social theory and practice in subsequent history. The subject can be conveniently studied in Ashley’s Economic History and Theory . But it is necessary to point out two main facts: first, that the principle of voluntary communism was preserved as a living fact by the Monastic orders, and was pressed further by St. Francis and the early Friars; and, secondly, that the Church taught certain social doctrines which were accepted and practised by the whole community. The two leading doctrines were that concerning the justum pretium , and that concerning usury: these were enforced not only in the pulpit but also in the ecclesiastical courts. The first doctrine was aimed against free competition: a man was not to ask what he could get for an article, but the ‘just price,’ what it was worth, that is, what would enable him to earn by his work a decent living according to a definite standard. The second doctrine was aimed against usury (because of  Luke 6:34-35), and usury meant all receiving of interest on capital. In other words, the system upon which modern manufacture and commerce and indeed the whole of modern society is based, was forbidden by the Church up till the Renaissance and Reformation; and not only this, but the prohibition was accepted and carried out in ordinary business affairs. Here again the modern social-democrat touches hands with Christian principles that were practiced throughout the Middle Ages and summed up by St. Thomas Aquinas; just as the modern trade unionist finds that the great Christian trade gilds were carrying out his principles of fellowship even among the peasantry before the modern era began. The gilds were destroyed in the sixteenth century, and the whole mediaeval system crumbled away to make room for a new order. Of that system Professor Ashley says: ‘No such sustained and far-reaching attempt is being now made, either from the side of theology, or from that of ethics, to impress upon the public mind principles immediately applicable to practical life’ ( Econ. Hist . i. 388). The modern era has brought many reforms, notably in connexion with liberty and the democratic idea; but as the humanitarianism of its later phase has begun to work in the realms of sociology and economics, it has but joined hands with the great tradition of Christian fraternity,—a tradition that has always been at work in society since the foundations of brotherly love were laid by our Lord and His Apostles. The success of the Christian principle has always been partial and its application incomplete, because its perfect realization is dependent on the regeneration of mankind. Whether we call it Socialism will depend upon our conception of what Socialism is; but those to whom Socialism is an ethical ideal will not cease to find their inspiration in Christianity; and those who take Christ in thoroughness and simplicity as their Guide In secular affairs will increasingly remember that He who said ‘One is your Master,’ said also ‘and all ye are brethren.’ From St. John to St. Francis of Assisi, from Latimer to Maurice, what is now called Christian Socialism has had many prophets. At the present day it is a great and growing force in all Christian countries.

Literature.—The mass of Literature on Christian Socialism in general is very large. A list of 140 books and pamphlets bearing specially on the movement in England was compiled by the present writer in 1897, and may be mentioned because it can be obtained for a penny (Appendix to Socialism and the Teaching of Christ , by [J. Clifford, Fabian Society, Clement’s Inn, W.C.). A better and more recent bibliography is in A. V. Woodworth, Christian Socialism in England . Tracts containing statements of the position can be obtained from the Hon. Sec., Christian Social Union, Pusey House, Oxford. This Union has also produced several volumes of Sermons, Lombard Street in Lent, The Church and New Century Problems, Preachers from the Pew (lay sermons on social questions), etc. For the social teaching of the Fathers, see A. J. Carlyle, History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West , vol. i. (1903), with its bibliography; F. S. Nitti, Catholic Socialism (1895); Laveleye, Le Socialisme Contemporain (Soeialism of To-day) (1890); Feugueray, Essais sur les doctrines politiques de Saint Thomas d’Aquin (1857) (ch. on ‘Démocratie des Pères de I’église’); F. Villegardelle, Histoire des Idées Sociales (1846); L. Brentano, Die Arbeiterversicherung gemäss der heutigen Wirthschaftsordnung (1879). The mediaeval history of the subject can be studied in W. J. Ashley’s Economic History , where a list of authorities is given at the head of each chapter. Kirkup’s History of Socialism is an admirable summary. An excellent short history is H. de B. Gibbins’ Industrial History of England . Perhaps also it may be worth while to allude to the various Lives of the Saints, and to the literature of St. Francis, e.g. the Fioretti  ; to T. Carlyle’s Past and Present , W. Morris’ Dream of John Ball , Thorold Rogers’ Six Centuries of Work and Wages , Hyndman’s The Hist. Basis of Socialism in England  ; to Ruskin’s works in general, and especially Unto this Last  ; and to such classics of English literature as Piers Plowman , Latimer’s Sermons , and More’s Utopia . For the history of modern Christian Socialism, see L. Brentano, Die Christliche Sociale Bewegung in England (1883), and cf. B. Webb, The Co-operative Movement , and S. and B. Webb, History of Trades Unionism . See also Kingsley’s Letters and Life (1877); Ensor, Modern Socialism  ; M. Kaufmann, Christian Socialism (1888) and Charles Kingsley (1892); E. de Laveleye, The Socialism of To-day  ; F. Maurice, Life of F. D. Maurice (1884); F. S. Nitti, Catholic Socialism (1895); J. Rae, Contemporary Socialism (1901); G. von Schulze-Gavernitz, Zum Socialen Frieden —translation ‘Social Peace’ (1893). See also the flies of The Christian Socialist, Journal of Association, Politics for the People, The Church Reformer, The Economic Review, The Commonwealth , the last two being still in existence. See also the writings of T. Hughes, Charles Kingsley, F. D. Maurice, E. V. Neale among the early Christian Socialists, and the following among the later, J. G. Adderley, Prof. R. T. Ely, Bishop C. Gore, T. Hancock, Stewart D. Headlam, H. Scott Holland, Bishop C. W. Stubbs, and Bishop B. F. Westcott. Among these may be specially mentioned Kingsley, Sermons, Alton Locke , and Yeast  ; Maurice, The Kingdom of God  ; Ely, Social Aspects of Christianity  ; Gore, The Social Doctrine of the Sermon on the Mount  ; Hancock, Christ and the People  ; Headlam, The Laws of Eternal Life  ; Holland, Sermons  ; Stubbs, Christ and Economies , and A Creed for Christian Socialists  ; Westcott, The Incarnation, a Revelation of Human Duties , and especially Social Aspects of Christianity . The name of Tolstoi should also be mentioned, since, though his writings cannot be classed with the above, they have a far-reaching influence over European and American thought.

Percy Dearmer.

Webster's Dictionary

(n.) A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

a general term applied to several schemes of social arrangement which advocate community of property, and abandon or modify individual industry, the rights of marriage, and of the family. In discussing the subject of Socialism, two elements are to be considered: (1) the judgment of socialism on existing institutions and practices and on their results; (2) the various plans which it has proposed for doing better. Socialism affirms that the evils it complains of are irremediable in the present constitution of society. In the opinion of Socialists, the existing arrangements of society in respect to property and the production and distribution of wealth are, as a, means to the general good, a total failure. First among existing evils may be mentioned that of poverty. The institution of property is upheld and commended principally as being the means by which labor and frugality are insured their reward and mankind enabled to emerge from indigence. But Socialism urges that an immense proportion of the industrious classes are, at some period or other of their lives, dependent on legal or voluntary charity; that many are outstripped by others who are possessed of superior energy or prudence; that the reward, instead of being proportioned to the labor and abstinence of the individual, is almost in the inverse ratio to it that the great majority are what they are born to be — some to be rich without work, others to become rich by work, but the great majority are born to hard work and poverty through life; that competition is, for the people, a system of extermination, resulting from the continual fall of labor. "Cheapness," they say, "is advantageous to the consumer, at the cost of introducing the seeds of ruinous anarchy among the producers." The Fourierists (M. Considerant, Destinee Sociale 1, 35-37) enumerate the evils of existing civilization in the following order: 1. It employs an enormous quantity of labor and of human power unproductively, or in the work of destruction, e.g. in sustaining armies, courts, magistrates, etc.; in allowing ‘ good society,' people who pass their lives in doing nothing, also in allowing philosophers, metaphysicians, political men, who produce nothing but disturbance and sterile discussions.

2. That even the industry and powers which, in the present system, are devoted to production do not produce more than a small portion of what they might produce if better directed and employed," e.g. "the wastefulness in the existing arrangements for distributing the produce of the country among the various producers." Socialism seeks to put an end to the vices and suffering of men, not by individual regeneration and reformation, but by a new social organization. It is the employment of political and economic measures for a moral purpose. Proceeding upon the supposition that the individual is wholly or largely the creature of circumstances, it seeks to make the latter as favorable as possible. Thus it makes a religion of social regeneration, and proposes to renovate the world by a new arrangement of property and industrial interests. Although in some measure anticipated by movements in the ancient world, socialism may be considered a product of the French Revolution, which was an anarchic attack on the social system that had its roots in the feudalism of the Middle Ages. The first to revive or bring socialistic ideas into general notice was Francois Noel Babeuf (1764-97), in his paper Le Tribun du Peuple. The idea from which he started was that of equality, and he insisted that there should be no other differences than those of age and sex; that men differed little in their faculties and needs, and consequently should receive the same education and food. After his death his system, Babouvism, was for some time entirely forgotten, until, in 1834, Buonarotti again attempted its propagation in the Moniteur Republicain and Homme Libre. The three most noted developments of Socialism are Communism, Fourierism, and Saint-Simonism or Humanitarianism. The Nihilists of Russia at this time attract considerable attention because of the efforts made by the government towards their extinction. They believe that, in order to human progress, it is not only possible, but absolutely necessary, to begin at once with the present complicated social phenomena in the way of a sudden and complete social reform, or with a revolution. In April, 1879, an attempt was made by one of their number to assassinate the emperor. This has led to the arrest of hundreds, many of whom have been sent to Siberia. A number of Socialistic communities have been established in the United States, some of which have already been noticed. (See Harmonists); (See Separatists); (See Shakers). Others will be treated in this article.

I. The Amana Society . — This society takes its name from the Bible ( Song of Solomon 4:8), and has its location in Iowa, in the town of Amana. The members call themselves the "True Inspiration Congregations" ( Wahre Inspirations Gemeinden ) , and are Germans. They came from Germany in 1842, and settled near Buffalo, N.Y.; but in 1855 they removed to their present location. The "work of inspiration" began far back in the 18th century, an account of the journeys, etc., of "Brother John Frederick Rock" in 1719 being given in the Thirty-sixth Collection of the Inspiration Record. Finally, in 1816, Michael Krausert became what they call an "instrument," and to him were added several others, among them Christian Metz, who was for many years, and until his death (1867), the spiritual head of the society. Another prominent "instrument" was Barbara Heynemann, whose husband, George Landman, became spiritual head of the society. The removal to this country was inaugurated by Metz, who professed to have a revelation so directing.

1. Social Economy . — The society was not communistic in Germany, and even after removal to this country the community intended to live simply as a Christian congregation. Being obliged to look after the temporal interests of each other, they built workshops, etc., out of a common fund, and thus drifted into their present practice. They have now seven villages, and carry on farming, woollen, saw, and grist mills. Each family has a house for itself; but the members eat in common, in cooking or eating houses, of which there are fifteen. Each business has its foreman; and these leaders, in each village, meet every evening to consult and arrange for the following day. The civil or temporal government is vested in thirteen trustees, chosen annually by the male members, the trustees choosing the president of the society. The elders are men of presumably deep piety, appointed by inspiration, and preside at religious assemblies. The members are supplied with clothing and other articles, excepting food, by an annual allowance to each individual. Usually a neophyte enters on probation for two years, and, if a suitable person, is admitted to full membership; although some are received at once into full membership by "inspiration." They forbid the use of musical instruments (except a flute), and exclude photographs and other pictures, as tending to idol worship. Although not forbidding marriage, celibacy is looked upon as meritorious; and young men are not allowed to marry until twenty-four years of age. The society is financially prosperous, has no debt, has money at interest, and owned in 1874 about 25,000 acres of land, 3000 sheep, 1500 head of cattle, 200 horses, and 2500 hogs, with a population of about 1500.

2. Religion And Literature . — The society is pietistic, and believes in inspiration as a result of entire consecration to God. It accepts both the Old and the New Testament, but not to the exclusion of present inspiration. It does not practice baptism, but celebrates the Lord's supper whenever led by "inspiration." Inspiration is sometimes private, at other times public; and the warnings, reproofs, etc., thus received are written down in yearly volumes, entitled Year-books of the True Inspiration Congregations. When a member offends against the rules of society, he is admonished by the elders; and if he do not amend, expulsion follows. These rules are twenty- one in number, and encourage sobriety, reverence, honesty, and abstinence. They hold religious services on Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday mornings, and every evening. They keep New year's as a holiday, and Christmas, Easter, and Holy Week are their great religious festivals. At least once a year there is an "Untersuchung," or inquisition of the whole community, including children — an examination of its spiritual condition, in which each member is expected to make confession of sins. Their hymnology is found in The Voice from Zion (Ebenezer, 1851, pp. 958), and another hymn book in regular use, Psalms after the Manner of David, etc. (Amana, Ia., 1871). Among their books is Innocent Amusement (Unschuldiger Zeitvertreib), a mass of pious doggerel; Jesus' A, B, C for his Scholars, also in rhyme; Rhymes on the Sufferings, Death, Burial, and Ascension of Christ.

II. Perfectionists Of Oneida And Wallingford . — This society is of American origin, having for its founder the present head, John Humphrey Noyes, born in Brattleborough, Vt., in 1811. He was educated at Dartmouth, Andover, and Yale. While in the latter institution he entered upon a new experience and new views of the way of salvation, which took the name of Perfectionism. In 1834 he went to Poultney, Vt., and slowly gathered about him a small company of believers, and in 1847 had forty persons in his own congregation, besides small gatherings in other states who recognized him as leader. Not a Communist at first, Mr. Noyes, in 1845, made known his peculiar views, and began cautiously to practice them in 1846. The community were mobbed and driven from the place, and in 1848 settled in Oneida, Madison Co., N.Y. Other communities were established, but all were eventually merged in those of Oneida, N.Y., and Wallingford, Conn. After various reverses, they began to accumulate property, engaged in manufacture and the preserving of fruits, etc., and in 1874 had 640 acres of land near Oneida, with 240 at Wallingford. In ten years (1857-66) they had netted $180,580, and were worth over $500,000. The two communities must be counted as one, and the members are interchangeable at will. In February, 1874, they numbered 283 persons, 131 males and 152 females. The members are mostly Americans, largely recruited from New England.

1. Daily Life, etc. — The members live in one large building, the older people occupying separate chambers, the younger sleeping two together. There is no regulation style of dress, although plainness is expected of all. They have twenty-one standing committees on finance, amusements, arbitration, etc.; and, besides this, the duties of administration are divided among forty-eight departments, as publication, education, agriculture, manufacture, etc. Every Sunday morning a meeting is held of the "Business Board," composed of the heads of all the departments, and any members of the community who choose to attend. The children are left to the care of their mothers until weaned, when they are placed in the general nursery, under "caretakers," who are both men and women. They have no sermon or public prayers, and address one another as Mr. or Miss, except when the women were married before they entered the society. An annual allowance of thirty-three dollars is made to each woman, the men ordering clothes when in need. In the school the Bible is the prominent textbook, but a liberal education is encouraged. They receive members with great care, but exact no probation.

2. Religious Belief — The Perfectionists hold to the Bible as the "textbook of the spirit of truth," to Jesus Christ as "the eternal Son of God," and to "the apostles and Primitive Church as the exponents of the everlasting Gospel." They believe that the second advent of Christ took place at the period of the destruction of Jerusalem; that the final kingdom of God then began in the heavens; that the manifestation of the kingdom in the visible world is now approaching; that its approach is ushering in the second and final resurrection and judgment; that a Church on earth is now rising to meet the approaching kingdom in the heavens, and to become its duplicate and representative; that inspiration, or open communication with God and the heavens, involving perfect holiness, is the element of connection between the Church on earth and the Church in the heavens, and the power by which the kingdom of God is to be established and to reign in the world. They also teach that "the Gospel provides for complete salvation from sin," which, they say, "is the foundation needed by all other reformers." Community of goods and of persons they believe to have been taught by Jesus, and hold that communism is "the social state of the resurrection." In their system, "complex marriage takes the place of simple," they affirming that there is no intrinsic difference between property in person and property in things; and that the same spirit which abolished exclusiveness in regard to money would abolish, if circumstances allowed full scope for it, exclusiveness in regard to women and children. "Complex marriage" means that, within the limits of their community, any man and woman may freely cohabit, having gained each other's consent through a third party. They are firm believers in the efficacy of the "faith cure," and quote instances in which invalids have been instantly restored to perfect health in answer to prayer.

This community has lately taken an important step towards reorganization by formally abandoning the system of complex marriage that father John Humphrey Noyes has consistently advocated for so many years. Considerable opposition having been experienced because of the promiscuous commerce of the sexes asserted to exist, father Noyes has decided to abandon his scheme called stirpiculture in practice, while retaining it in theory. He accordingly wrote (Aug. 20, 1879) a message to the community, containing modifications in their platform, of which the following is a summary:

I. To give up the practice of complex marriage, not as renouncing belief in the principles and prospective finality of that institution, but in deference to the public sentiment evidently rising against it.

II. To place themselves as a community, not on the platform of the Shakers, on the one hand, nor on that of the world, on the other, but on Paul's platform, which, while allowing marriage as a concession to human weakness, prefers celibacy as the holier and more perfect state.

III. To continue to hold their business and property in common; to continue to live together, and to eat at the same table; to retain the common department for infants and juveniles, and to maintain the practice of regular evening meetings for mutual criticism.

The platform contained in the communication was adopted by a formal vote on the evening of Tuesday, Aug. 26, abolishing the offensive abomination of complex marriage at a stroke. The society will hereafter, therefore, consist of two classes of members — celibates, and married persons living together as husband and wife under the laws of marriage as generally understood. The family idea is left, it is true; but with permanent families within the community family it is shorn of its main significance, and takes the form of a common work, a common interest in commercial ventures, and a common property. Among the literary productions of this community are, Paul not Carnal; The Perfectionist; The Way of Holiness; Berean Witness; Spiritual Magazine; Free Church Circular; Bible Communism; History of American Socialism; and Essay on Scientific Propagation (the latter two by J.H. Noyes).

III. Aurora And Bethel Communes. — The founder and present ruler of these communities is Dr. Keil, a Prussian, born in 1811. At first a man- milliner, he became a mystic, and afterwards, at Pittsburgh, made open profession of his belief. He gathered a number of Germans about him, to whom he represented himself as a being to be worshipped, and later as one of the two witnesses in the Book of Revelation. He began to plan a communism somewhat resembling that of Rapp, but without the celibate principle. His followers, in 1844, removed to Bethel, Mo., and took up four sections of land, or 2560 acres, to which they added from time to time, until they possessed 4000 acres. In 1874 they numbered about 200 persons. In 1855 Dr. Keil, with about 80 persons, removed to Oregon, and the following year settled at Aurora. They numbered in 1874 nearly 400 people, and owned about 18,000 acres of land.

The government at Aurora is vested in Dr. Keil, who is both president and preacher, and has for his advisers four of the elder members, chosen by himself. The preacher and head of the Bethel Commune is Mr. Giese, with six trustees, chosen by the members. The people of both communes are plain, frugal, industrious Germans, with simple tastes, and seem contented and happy. They hold to principles which are chiefly remarkable for their simplicity.

1. That all government should be parental, to imitate the parental government of God.

2. That society should be formed upon the model of the family, having all interests and property absolutely in common.

3. That neither religion nor the harmony of nature teaches community in anything further than property and labor. Hence the family life is strictly maintained, and all sexual irregularities are absolutely rejected. Religious service is held twice a month, and after the Lutheran style.

IV. Icarians . — This community was the offspring of the dreams of Etienne Cabet, who was born in Dijon, France, in 1788. Cabet was educated for the bar, but became a politician and writer. He was a leader of the Carbonari, a member of the French Legislature, wrote a history of the French Revolution of July, was condemned to two years' imprisonment, but fled to London, where he wrote the Voyage to Icaria. In this book he described a communistic Utopia, and in 1848 set sail, with a number of persons, for Texas, where he started an actual Icaria. Sixty-nine persons formed the advance guard, which was attacked by yellow fever, and disorganized by the time Cabet arrived in the next year. They went to Nauvoo, Ill., and were established in that deserted Mormon town, May, 1850. They numbered here, at one time, not less than 1500 persons, and labored and planted with success; but Cabet developed a dictatorial spirit, which produced a split in the society. He and some of his followers went to St. Louis, where he died in 1856. Shortly after, the Illinois colony came to an end, and between fifty and sixty settled upon their Iowa estate, about four miles from Corning. They own at the present time 1936 acres of land; number 65 members and 11 families, most of whom are French. They live under the constitution prepared by Cabet, which lays down the equality and brotherhood of mankind and the duty of holding all things in common, abolishes servitude and servants, commands marriage under penalties, provides for education, and requires that the majority shall rule. In practice they elect a president once a year, who is the executive officer, but whose powers are strictly limited. They have also four directors, who carry on the necessary work and direct the other members. They have no religious observances. Sunday is a day of rest and amusement.

V. Bishop Hill Commune, now extinct, was formed by Swedish pietists, who settled in Henry County, Ill., October, 1846. Others followed, until, by the summer of 1848, they numbered 800 persons. At first they were very poor, living in holes in the ground and under sheds; but by industry and economy they prospered, so that, in 1859, they owned 10,000 acres of land and a town. Their religious life was very simple. Two services were held on Sunday and one each week night. They discouraged amusements as tending to worldliness, and after a while the young people became discontented with the dull community life. It was determined, in the spring of 1860, to divide the property, which was done. Dissensions still continuing, a further division was made, each family receiving its share, and the commune ceased to exist.

VI. Cedar Vale Community is a communistic society near Cedar Vale, Howard Co., Kansas, and was begun in January, 1871. Its members were recruited from among two essentially different classes of Socialists — the Russian Materialists and American Spiritualists. They numbered in 1874 four males, one female, one child; and on probation, two males, one female, and one child. They are organized under the name of the Progressive Community and hold to community of goods and to entire freedom of opinion.

VII. Social Freedom Community is a communistic society established early in 1874, in Chesterfield County, Va. It has two women, one man, and three boys as "full members," with four women and five men as "probationary members." They own a farm of 333 acres, and are attempting general farming, sawing, grinding, etc. The members are all Americans. They hold to "unity of interests, and political, religious, and social freedom; that every individual shall have absolute control of herself or himself." They have no constitution or by laws; ignore man's total depravity, and believe that all who are actuated by a love of truth and a desire of progress can be governed by love, and moral suasion.

See Holyoake, History of Co-operation (1875); Noyes, History of American Socialism (1870); Stein, Der Socialismus und Communismus des heutigen Frankreichs (1844), and Geschichte der socialen Bewegungen in Frankreich (1849-51). For information as to societies mentioned in this article we are largely indebted to Nordhoff, Communistic Societies of the United States (N.Y. 1875).

The Nuttall Encyclopedia

A social system which, in opposition to the competitive system that prevails at present, seeks to reorganise society on the basis, in the main, of a certain secularism in religion, of community of interest, and co-operation in labour for the common good, agreeably to the democratic spirit of the time and the changes required by the rise of individualism and the decay of feudalism.