aciples took a secondary place in the evolution of ideas, and so far as he took them up he jumped ut erratically from one thing to another without lly understanding any. It was his disciples, and parlarly William Thompson, who first developed the nomic side of Socialism and perceived that the crux the problem lay in the ownership of capital. He was real founder of Socialism as it is understood to-day, no doubt the conception quoted above from the 'Corative Magazine' was derived from his book on the istribution of Wealth,' published in 1824. Prof. ton Menger writes of Thompson in his book on the ight to the Whole Produce of Labour':

Marx is completely under the influence of the earlier glish Socialists and more particularly of William Thompson. ving out of account the mathematical formula, by which rx rather obscures than elucidates his argument, the whole ory of surplus value, its conception, its name, and the imates of its amount are borrowed in all essentials from ompson's writings. Only Marx, in accordance with the a of his work, pays special attention to one form of earned income (interest on capital), and fails to give either at jural criticism of private property in instruments of oduction and useful commodities which is the necessary pplement of the theory of surplus value or a rigorous position of the right to the whole produce of labour. In these respects Marx is far inferior to Thompson, so that work of the latter may be regarded as the foundationme of Socialism' (p. 101).

With regard to this passage it must be observed that ompson himself got a great deal from Sismondi, inading the idea of surplus value, as Prof. Menger admits; d Marx got many other leading ideas from the same arce, as I have already shown, so that Sismondi ought be regarded as the founder of Socialism, if he had en a Socialist. But he was not, and therein lies a

son.

However, enough has been said about the origin of e movement in England, signalised by the appearance the word 'Socialist,' and about the meaning given to We will now return to the word 'Socialism,' which kes us back to France, where it was coined. Its author s Pierre Leroux, a moderate Socialist of the school of Vol. 242.-No. 480.

B

Saint-Simon. At least he claimed the authorship, a there is no reason to doubt his claim, which was disputed at the time. The date was about 1830. Writ in 1850, he says, in a note attached to the collec edition of his works:

'When I invented the term "Socialism,” in contradist tion to the term "Individualism," I did not expect twenty years later it would be used to designate in a gen way the religious democracy. I intended it to signify doctrine or the several doctrines which, under one pretex another, would sacrifice the individual to society, and in name of fraternity or under the pretext of equality w destroy liberty.'

I have quoted this highly instructive passage ma to fix the authorship of the word and the time; by little explanation seems to be necessary. He is cle protesting against the application of the word, which had invented twenty years before (i.e. in 1830), to orthodox Saint-Simonian school to which he belon He intended it to describe an extreme form of doctrine, and one of which he disapproved.

Pierre Leroux (1789-1871) was an interesting charac He began life as an artisan, became a compositor, founded with a friend Le Globe,' a daily paper, wh passed through his instrumentality into the hands of Saint-Simonians in November 1830, and became th official mouthpiece until April 1832, when it ceased p lication. He later started the Revue Encyclopédiq and in 1834 published in it an essay entitled 'De 1 dividualisme et du Socialisme.' But the word occ earlier in 'Le Globe.' In the issue for Feb. 13, 1832, following passage occurs: 'Nous ne voulons pas sacri la personnalité au socialisme, pas plus que ce dernier & personnalité.'

I found the passage, which occurs in a review Victor Hugo's poems Les Feuilles d'Automne,' sig X. Joncières when pursuing the researches mention above, and I quoted it in this Review. I do not know Joncières was a nom de plume or not, but the quotati

That is, the disciples of the Saint-Simonian 'religion,' as they ca the cult inaugurated by Saint-Simon in the posthumous New Christian which he left as a legacy.

20

resses Leroux's own point of view, as repeatedly lained by him. He says that he invented the word cialism' as the antithesis of Individualism,' a term ich had come into use about 1820. That is to say, he ployed it as an abstract term and gave it a very le e meaning. To him Socialism was an 'exaggerated ression of the idea of association or of society'-an reme assertion of the social principle, as Individualism

an extreme assertion of the individual principle. condemned both extremes, because he saw that both nciples were necessary and that the real problem was reconcile them, without making either dominant.

...

We are to-day,' he wrote in 1834, 'the prey of these two Ask clusive systems of Individualism and Socialism. the partisans of Individualism what they think of the uality of men; they will take care not to repudiate it, but is for them a chimera of no importance; they have no plan realising it. On the contrary, their system cannot but lt in the most infamous inequality. . . . Ask of the rtisans of absolute Socialism how they reconcile liberty th authority, and what would become, for instance, of erty to think and write; they will reply that Society is great organism and nothing must stand in the way of its nctioning. So So we are between Charybdis and Scylla, tween the hypothesis of a government concentrating in elf all enlightenment and all morality and that of a vernment destitute of both by its own decree; between infallible Pope on the one hand and a common gendarme the other. The one set call their Individualism liberty d would fain give it the name of fraternity, the other set ll their despotism a family. Preserve us from a fraternity little charitable and from a family so interfering!... day, when one speaks of equality and points to the misery d absurdity of the existing economic order (mercantilisme tuel), when one denounces a society in which men in disBociation are not only strangers to one another, but rivals id enemies, at once all who at heart cherish the love of ankind, the love of the people, all who are the sons of hristianity, of Philosophy, and of the Revolution, warmly prove. But when the partisans of absolute Socialism come ad display their tyrannical theories, talk of organising us scientific and industrial regiments, and go so far as to clare that freedom of thought is a bad thing, at once you el repulsed, your enthusiasm cools, your sentiments of

individuality and liberty rise in revolt, and you sadly re: yourself to the present state of things from fear of this n: crushing, all-absorbing papacy, which would transform n kind into a machine and reduce the real living beings, individuals, to nothing but useful matter, instead of b themselves arbiters of their own destiny' ('Revue Ency pédique,' 1834).

Feal

the

No clearer or more philosophical statement of problem has been penned by any writer, Socialist anti-Socialist. The 'partisans of absolute Socialism he calls them, were the Left Wing, so to speak, of Saint-Simonian school, led by Enfantin, who develo the idea of Saint-Simon, left by him in a perfectly va form, into a rigid system, the counterpart of the l State-collectivist brand of Socialism. The applicabi of Leroux's criticism to the latter is obvious; it is ind the standing objection of State Socialism now fami to everybody. To find it so clearly enunciated at t early period is one more proof that all the leading id bearing on Socialism were entertained and expressed the first stage of the movement. And in this connex I may here mention in passing that it was Leroux his colleague Jean Reynaud who in 1832 pointed out division of society into two classes-the 'bourgeois and 'proletariate '-and so gave Marx the formula his class-war interpretation of history, though they not preach the class-war as he did. But that is anoth story, into which I cannot enter here. To compl this inquiry into the meaning of the word 'Socialis in France, something should be added about the cli racter of the movement signalised by the appeara of the term. It was, as in England, broadly a reacti against existing conditions and the theory of free ente prise associated with them-the Individualism ju mentioned. But it was less definitely economic, 1er precise, more abstract, and mixed up with other thin There is a curious contrast between the ideas of tr founders or inspirers of these two earliest schools Socialism. Owen aimed at creating a new moral wor through the abnegation of all religion and its repla ment by an improved material environment, which thought would of itself make men good and abolish ( evil-a visionary aim to be attained by material meanti

أيضة

ith

word

the

rosa

en

d in th

nt-Simon's aim was the most speedy possible helioration of the lot of the most numerous and rest class' by means of the renovation of Christianity a religious reorganisation of society-a material to be attained by quasi-spiritual means.

Their disciples in both cases threw themselves on the ans and lost sight of the ends. In England, as we re seen, the Owenites grasped the economic side of The problem which dealt with the material environment led found the solution in the public ownership of sopital. The Saint-Simonians-or at least the most tive and influential group-addressed themselves chiefly the religious reorganisation of society and hammered er the authoritarian system against which Leroux

tested. It was devised not on a political or State bri reaucratic basis, but on a theocratic or hierarchical one, ith a combination of scientists, artists, and industrials its head. On the economic side they laid great stress th the distinction between the industrious and the idle disses, which they proposed to remove by abolishing heritance and by organising the production and disibution of wealth on the principle From each cording to his capacity, to each according to his work,' hich they took for their motto.

832

the

the

the

To return to the meaning of Socialism and summarise e conclusions reached so far, we have found that, cording to the evidence of contemporary literature, he word 'Socialist' originated in England and the word Socialism' in France, and this, I think, is quite in keepg with the national mentality, which in England is rone to take cognisance first of the persons holding an pinion or advocating a cause and to arrive later at the bstract idea, whereas in France it is the other way bout. However this may be, we get with these words wo distinct conceptions which are certainly charactertic. That derived from the English school is concrete, recise, and practical; it presents Socialism as essentially n economic movement and is identical with the prealent and orthodox conception of to-day. The French lefinition is broad, abstract, and philosophical; it covers ider ground, gives a deeper meaning to the movement, nd places it in relation to fundamental attributes of man nature. Socialism is truly an extreme assertion

the

Der