Semitic Lanrnsses

Social Service THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 482

Socialism

In about 200 cities in the United States there

are charity organizations or similar private socie­

ties, the fundamental principles of which are the

relief of the poor in their homes, registration of

cases, cooperation with other charitable societies,

careful investigation of applications for relief, or

other aid. In some cities, notably New York, no

public outdoor relief is given by the city; the pri­

vate charitable societies alone caring for the poor

in their homes. In most cities the charitable or­

ganizations and the public poor officials work more

or less in harmony in the administration of poor­

relief. In general, institutions for special classes

of the dependent and physically or mentally de­

fective are under state or other governmental man­

agement. Almost every state has a public super­

visory body, generally appointed by the governor

to inspect and advise, and, in some states, to

administer state charitable institutions. Generali­

zing, it may be said that poor relief in the nineteenth

century saw three general stages of development.

The first, the development of institutions for the

care of the various classes of the poor; secondly, the

development of the system of the care of the poor

in their homes in which the relief of the individual

family was the goal. The third stage developed

from about 1895, and is marked by increasing

efforts to prevent pauperism.

The doctrine of prevention has become practically

a gospel in charitable work. The most prominent

movements to day in preventive charity are tene­

ment house reform, warfare against tuberculosis,

against child labor, the movement for parks and

playgrounds, the movement for the reduction of con­

gestion of population, for prison reform, for better

health, and many other like movements. The prob­

lem of poor relief in the United States is becoming a

national problem of the reduction of poverty. The

public press, periodicals, magazines, etc., are lay­

ing special emphasis upon charitable and correc­

tional problems. Charity workers are emphasi­

zing the prominence of heredity and environment

as causes of poverty, and take the standpoint that

with the reduction or removal of preventable con­

ditions, due to heredity and environment, poverty

will be reduced. O. F. LEwls.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the history the standard work is G.

Uhlhorn, Die christliche Liebesthdtigkeit, 3 vols., Stuttgart,

1882 90, Eng transl. of vol. i., Christian Charity in the

Ancient Church, New York, 1883. Consult further on the

history E. L. Chastel, Etudes historiques sur l'influence

de la chariM durant les pr6miers sidles, Paris, 1853; A.

Emminghaus, Doe Armenweaen and die Ar»asnge8etzge­

bung der europdischen Staaten, Berlin, 1870; A. Thijm, De

Gestichten van Liefdadighead in Belgie van Karel d. Gr. tot

aan de zvi. eeuw, in M6moirs couronnis of the Royal Acad­

emy, Vol. xlv., Brussels, 1883; idem, Les Hospitauz en

Belgique en moyen dge, LSwen, 1883; B. Riggenbach, Dos

Armenwesen der Reformation, Basel, 1883; G. Ratzin­

ger, Geschichte der kirchlichen Armenplege, Freiburg, 1884;

C. J. R. Turner Hist. of Vagrants and Vagrancy, London,

1887; D. Tourbie, Ddnisches Armenrecht, Berlin, 1888; F.

H. Wines, Report on the Defective, Dependent, and Delin­

quent Classes, U. S. census, Washington, 1888; H. G.

Willink, Dutch Home Labour Colonies, London, 1889; R.

P. Lamond, The Scottish Poor Laws, Glasgow, 1892; L. A.

Rubbrecht, RemMes contre is pauper:ame, Brussels, 1892;

B. H. Dahlberg, Bidrag tell Svenska Fattiglagstiftningens

Histarra, Upsala, 1893: E. Chevallier, La Loi des pauvres

et la soeUM anglaise, Paris, 1895; J. Cummings, Poor Laws

of Massachusetts and New York, Baltimore, 1895; W. G.

Lumley, Union Assessment Acts and the Poor Rate Ad, London, 1895; A. Loth, La Charith catholique en France avant Is r6volution, Tours, 1898; Sir G. Nicholls, A Hist. of the English Poor Law, 2 vols., London, 1898; E. Mischler, Die Armempflege and Woh1thdtigkeit in Oester­reich, Vienna, 1899; E. M. Leonard. Early Hist. of Eng­lish Poor Relief, Cambridge, 1900; O. B. P. G. de C16ron, Assistance publique et bienfaisance privge, Paris, 1901; W. H. Diemeday, Hadden'a Overseers' Handbook, London, 1901; J. B. Little, The Poor Law Statutes, 3 vols., London, 1901; P. F. Asehrott, The English Poor Law System, Lon­don, 1902; H. S. Brown, American Philanthropy in the 19th Century, 2 vols., New York, 1902; A. Hoffmann and H. Simon, Wohlfahrtspfege in Rheinland and Westfalen, Diisseldorf, 1902• L. Lallemand, Hist. de la charitk, 4 vo1s., Paris, 1902 10; J. J. Esser, De pauperum cura apud Ro­manes. Campia (?), 1902; C. A. Ellwood, Public Relief and Private Charity in England, Columbia, Mo.,1903; B. Kuske, Doe Schuldenwesen der deutwhen Stddte im Mittelalter, Tii­bingen, 1904; E. Marescont du Thilleul, L'Aasistance pub­lique d Paris, 2 vols., Paris, 1904; E. Sellers, The Danish Poor Relief System, London, 1904; K. Singer, Socials Filer sorpe, Munich, 1904; B. K. Gray, Mist. of English Phi­lanthropy, London, 1905 (important); E. W. Capen, His­torical Development of the Poor Law of Connecticut, New York, 1905; J. E. Graham, The Law Relating to the Poor, Edinburgh, 1905 (deals with Scotland); E. von Mailer, Die Elendenbrilderschaften. Bin Beitrag zur Geschichte der Fremdenfllraorge im Mittelalter, Leipsie, 1908; F. Apple­ton, Church Philanthropy in New York, New York, 1907; M. Fluegel, The Humanity, Benevolence and Charity Legis­lation of the Pentateuch and the Talmud; in Parallel with the Laws of Hammurabi, the Doctrine of Egypt, the Roman Twelve Tables, and modern Codes, Baltimore, 1908; M. Godbey, The Bible and the Problem of Poverty. New York, 1908; E. C. Rayner, Story of the Christian Community, 1686 1909. A notable Record of Christian Labour in Lon­don Workhouses and Lodging Houses, London, 1909; J. J. Walsh, The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries, New York, 1909; R. M. Berry, Germany of the Germans, ib. 1910 (deals with poor laws); Schaff, Christian Church, vol. v., part 2, § 79; the Proceedings of the national, state, and municipal Conferences on Charities and Corrections and the Annual Reports of the boards of charities, etc., of the vari­ous states and cities.

On the theory and practise in various countries consult: A. Baron, Le Pauperisme, Paris, 1882; J. Platt, Poverty, London, 1884; C. V. Bohmert, Das Armenwesen in 77 deutschen Stddten, 3 parts, Dresden, 1880 88; W. Booth, In Darkest England and the Way out, London, 1890; E. G. Balch, Public Assistance of the Poor in France, London, 1893; H. G. Borgesius, Het Vraagstuk der Armerzorging, Amsterdam, 1895; J. A. Hobson, The Problem of the Un­employed. London, 1898; B. Gewin, Arbeidsbeurzen, Utrecht, 1898; W. C. and R. C. Glen, General Orders of the Poor Law Commissioners and the Local Government Board Relating to the Poor Law, London, 1898; E. T. Devine, Practice of Charity, New York, 1901; idem, Essen­tials of a Relief Policy, New York, 1903; idem, Princi­ples of Relief, ib. 1904; ideas, Misery and its Causes, ib. 1909; C. R. Henderson, Introduction to the Study of the Dependent and Defective Classes and of their Treatment, 2d ed., Boston, 1901; idem, Modern Methods of Charity: the Syeterps of Relief . . in the principal Countries hav­ing modern Methods, New York, 1904; T. Mackay, Public Relief of the Poor, London, 1901; H. Albrecht, Handbuch der sozialenWohlfahrtspflege in Deutschland, 2 parts, Ber­lin, 1902; Beitrdge zur Armenstatistik, Jena, 1902; P. C. J. A. Boeles, Armengoederen en Armenbesturen in Fries­land, Leeuwarden, 1902; T. B. Chilcott, Law Relating to the Administration of Charities, London, 1902  J. A. Riis, The Battle with the Slum, New York, 1902; J. Sutter, Brit­ain's Next Campaign, London, 1903; R. Hunter, Poverty, New York, 1904; M. Higgs, How to Deal with the Unem­ployed, London, 1904; J. Ladoff, American Pauperism and the Abolition of Poverty, Chicago, 1904; C. S. Loch, Methods of Social Advance, London, 1904; E. U. Pasini, La Difeaa del Povero, Perugia, 1904; C. F. Rogers, Char­itable Relief, London 1904; P. Alden, The Unemployed, London, 1905; Y. E. de Froment, L'Assistance Mgale et la lutte contre Is pauperisme en Angleterre, Paris, 1905; A. Niceforo, Les Classes pauvres, Paris, 1905; W. Reason, Our Industrial Outcasts, London, 1905; A. G. Warner, American Charities, revised ed., Boston, 1908; H. M

483 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA social service

socialism

Conyngton, How to Help. A Manual of Practical Charity,

London, 1910; W. Cunningham, Christianity and Social

Questions, New York, 1910; C. S. Loch, Charity and Social

Life. A short Study of Religious and Social Thought in

Relation to Charitable Methods and Indautions, London

and New York, 1910; H. F. Ward, Social Ministry; a»

Introduction to the Study and Practice of Social Service,

New York, 1910; J. W. Harper, The Church and Social Betterment, Glasgow, 1910; W. J. Tucker, The Function of the Church in Modern Society, Boston, 1911.

SOCIALISM.

I. Definition.

II. Communism. III. Ancient and Medieval Socialism. IV. Modem Socialism.

1. The Preparntion.

2. The First Period.

I. Definition: The term Socialism, derived from the Latin, socialis, from socius, " a companion," came into general use in 1835. It has passed through many changes of definition. It implies administra­tion in the interests of society as a whole, so as to afford equal individual opportunity. This may be accomplished by the voluntary association of some of the individuals in a community, or of all the per­sons within a definite region. When extended over a national territory, it has been termed national­ism. As most frequently employed, the term, so­cialism, denotes control by organized society of land and capital, of industrial production, and of the distribution of the income therefrom. Political socialists ordinarily demand State ownership of land and of the instruments of production. Under the fire of criticism there has been a tendency to abandon this extreme position. The abler social­istic writers show themselves ready to accept ex­perimentation, advancing toward the theoretic goal only so far as may be proved practicable. The plat­forms of political parties, however, which alone can be accepted as authoritative utterances, have in no respect relinquished the full nationalist program.

II. Communism: The extreme form of social­ism is termed Communism (q.v.), which, in strict application, is the ownership in common of all pos­sessions, public control and rearing of children, and the abolition of the marriage tie. In consequence of the universal odium felt toward the communists of Paris because of the atrocities of 1871, the word is now rarely used by socialistic writers. As a working system, communism, even when the right of separate families is respected, has not exhibited elements of permanence. Ancient and modern in­stances have been short lived, showing greatest persistence when cemented by a common religious conviction. The monastic establishments of the Middle Ages, purely communistic in organization, separated the sexes; and similar to these were the Brethren of the Common Life (see CommoN LIFE, BRETHREN of THE). The Libertines (q.v., 3) and the Familists (q.v.) were well known communists of the Reformation period. John Ball, the Wy­cliffite priest, who instigated the Wat Tyler rebel­lion, was a medieval socialist, claiming that the peo­ple had been robbed of their proprietorship in the common land.

III. Ancient and Medieval Socialism: Socialistic features were found in the constitutions of Athens and Sparta, combined with slavery. Of the theol~

3. The Second Period.

In Germany (1 1).

In France, Italy, England, and Russia (§ 2).

In the United States U 3).

VI. Socialism Untried.

VII. Advantages Claimed.

VIII. The Claims Considered.

IX. Criticism.

X. Improvements Needed.

V. The Demands of Organised So  XI. The Relation of the Church.

cialists.

retie systems the more noted were Plato's " Repub­lic," Mores Utopia (Louvain, 1516), Campanella's " City of the Sun " (Frankfort, 1623), and James Harrington's Common Wealth of Oceans (London, 1656), which last advocated a limited monarchy, having its revenue from public lands.

IV. Modern Socialism: The Socialism of today springs from three national sources: France con­tributed the doctrine of personal liberty and equal­ity, England demonstrated the value of coopera­tion, Germany presented the ideal of the socialistic state.

1. The Preparation: The preparation for mod­ern socialism came from the French philosophic literature of the eighteenth century. The chief writers were Voltaire, Rousseau (qq.v.), De Mably, Morelly, De Warville, Boiasel, and Mabeuf. These writers gave direction to the popular unrest of France, and laid the theoretic foundation for a so­cialistic state marked by liberty, equality, and mediocrity, in which the inefficient, the indolent, and the unfortunate would find provision, and the refinements of civilization would take their chances. It was Jean Pierre Brissot de Warville who wrote La propriktA exclusive eat un vol, which trenchant sentence supplied to Proudhon his famous La pro­pridtk c'est le vol, " proprietorship is robbery." These men aimed at the subversion of the existing system in France, some of them taking part in the Revolution of 1789. Their writings prepared for the work of their successors in the following century. In England during this period Adam Smith pub­lished The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Contempo­raneous with this literary movement was the de­velopment of the factory system, the adoption of steam power, and of the machinery at that time invented. The resultant evils called forth the first Peel factory legislation in 1802; and with Robert Owen's report to the parliamentary committee on the poor laws in 1817 began the English contribu­tion to modern socialism. In that report Owen recommended segregating workers in communities of 1,200, where they should live in one building, and work and its products should be in common. Ex­periments attempted in England and America met with only temporary success.

Modern Socialism may be treated in two periods: the first extending from 1817 to the middle of the century, the second from that time to the present.

8. The First Period: When the Reform Bill of 1832 extended the franchise to the middle classes

socialism THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 484

in England, the wage earners regarded themselves as betrayed, and there resulted a movement known as Chartism, which demanded universal manhood suffrage. In 1848 the excitement became acute, and the cause was espoused by certain philanthro­pists, terming themselves Christian Socialists, among whom Frederick Denison Maurice, Charles Kings­ley (qq.v.), and Ludlow were the leaders. They en­couraged the wage earners to form cooperative as­sociations, the value of which approved itself widely; and the movement, merging with that of coopera­tion, disappeared from public view (see CmusmAN SOCIALIsM). The pioneer in France was Saint Simon (q.v.), whose writings founded socialism on the teachings of Christ, stripped of traditional ad­ditions. His noble aim was defeated by the sensual mysticism of his followers. Fourier advocated com­munities of 1,800 persons, living in a great building a community life with free affinity instead of mar­riage. Experiments in France and America failed. Louis Blanc favored workshops under State rules, with superintendents elected by the operatives, and equal wages for all. The experiments by the pro­visional government of 1848, though failures, were not determinative of the value of the scheme. Proudhon opposed the immorality of the earlier socialists and advocated equality of wages and the confiscation of private property. His famous say­ing derived from De Warville, " Proprietorship is robbery," underlies the present socialist demand for the confiscation of all property employed in pro­duction. He expected a high moral development in society, under which government should become unnecessary because of human excellence. The stern repression of the socialists by the government in June, 1848, and the apparent prosperity of the second empire put an end to socialistic agitation until the rise of the present republic. German so­cialism begins with Johann Karl Rodbertus (1805­1875), whom many regard as the founder of so­called scientific socialism. He based his doctrine on the assertion that labor is the source and measure of all value and demanded nationalization of land and capital for the purpose of abolishing the commer­cial crises which deprive men of work. He attacked the individualistic system as productive of such crises, and called for a gradual change without revolution.

S. The Second Period: As with Rodbertus, the activity of other distinguished socialists, overlap­ping the middle of the century, falls chiefly in the second period. Ferdinand Lassalle advocated a

new political party, devoted to the in­Germany. terest of the wage earner. He claimed that the wage earners received a com­pensation sufficient to provide merely a bare exist­ence, which statement has been called the " iron law of wages." He argued for productive coopera­tion by associations aided by State loans. Two names, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, are closely associated as the founders of the revolutionary school of so called scientific socialism, which may be dated from the manifesto of the communist party in 1848. This was a somewhat incoherent de­fense of the abolition of private property, closing with an appeal to the socialists of all nations to

unite. In 1867 the masterpiece of Marx, Da. Kapi­tal, set forth his economic theory of surplus value, which was virtually Lassalle's " iron law of wages," asserting that the wage earner in industry received a bare subsistence and that the surplus of his prod­uct went to the capitalist. He advocated govern­mental ownership and control of land, capital, and all productive and distributive industry, remunera­tion of workers by certificates representing hours of labor, and payment for all workers regardless of quantity and quality solely according to the num­ber of work hours. Organized in 1862, the off­spring of previous associations, the International Association of Working Men, better known as " The International," held world congresses until 1873. Beginning with the recommendation of cooperative societies, these bodies later demanded nationaliza­tion of the means of communication, mines, forests, and land, the abolition of rent, interest, profit, and all remuneration to capital. The International op­posed itself to war, but lauded the communists of Paris in 1871 as martyrs to the cause of the wage­earners. In the congress of 1872 the Russian an­archists aroused serious strife which resulted in the death of the organization in the following year. In 1889, however, and frequently since then, interna­tional congresses have been held, notably one in London in 1896, disturbed by anarchists, who were thereupon excluded. The socialist movement in Germany advanced in two parallel lines, the aim of the one being socialization through the state, and that of the other the establishment of a cooperative system independent of state interference and grad­ually absorbing all industry. By a fusing of exist­ing parties in 1875 was formed the present Social­istic Working Men's Party, which aims to convert " private property in the means of production into social property," and to conduct all production and distribution under social control.

For some time succeeding the fall of the Paris commune French socialism was under a shadow,

and suffered from differences which . In were reconciled and ended in 1905 by France, the formation of a united party, de 

Italy,

claring for the transformation " of the and Russia. capitalistic organization of society into

a collectivist or communal organiza­tion." In 1892 the socialists of Italy separated from anarchism, but have since suffered from dis­sension, and have shown their activity chiefly in municipal work, in strikes, and in copperation. After the wane of the Owen and the Christian so­cialist movements in England, though some Eng­lishmen took part in the International, socialism evidently lost influence among the people. In 1884 two organizations came into existence, the Social Democratic Federation in politics and the Fabian Society in educational activity. The strength of the trade unions and the native conservatism of the English workman have hindered the acceptance of socialistic principles. The great dock strike of 1888 aroused a new interest which issued in the organization of the Independent Labor Party. The socialistic vote in parliament presents a steadily in­creasing influence. In 1908 the conference of the labor party of Great Britain, formerly conserva 

485 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Sooiaiiam

tive, declared for State control of production. The Russian Socialists, generally known as Anarchists, except in methods differ little from those of other nations. Their chief aim is the abolition of the central despotism and the establishment of free federation of free associations, that is to say, the universal adoption of the Mir or Russian communal village government.

In the United States, after the early community experiments, organized socialism dates from 1868 with the founding of the German Labor Association

which became a section of the Inter­8. Ea the national. In 1874 was organized the

United body which became the Socialist Labor

states. Py of North America. In 1897 a rival socialislparty was organized, which, on re­ceiving large accessions from the older party in 1899, took as its title the Socialist Party. In 1908 the Socialist Party polled 420,464 votes.

V. Demands of Organized Socialists: Socialistic parties are agreed on the principle of collective ownership and administration of the factors of pro­duction, the means of transportation and commu­nication, and the method of distribution. In re­gard to the application of the details socialists are widely at variance. Whether all land, all machin­ery, all wage paying shall be controlled by govern­ment are matters on which are held diverse views, though the political programs generally demand complete nationalization. While desiring to abol­ish rent paid to landowners, socialists expect rent to be paid to the State. Interest on loans and divi­dends on stock are regarded as unearned income which should be abolished. As the State cares for the individual, socialists demand that inheritance be denied, the savings of all passing to the State on their death. The immediate demands of the Euro­pean socialistic parties call for little more than the freedom and protection enjoyed by the American citizen. The Russian desires the abolition of the central government; the German, of the paternal State; the French desire the State to assume the entire industrial direction. The control of industry by restriction, direction, and publicity, exercised by the state and federal governments as it is ad­ministered in this land, inasmuch as it is exercised collectively, is socialism as far as it extends. In the multitudinous duties of the factory inspector, in protective labor laws, in the limitation of the labor of women and children, and in the control of corporations by commission, the American state employs a direction of industry which is socialistic.

VI. Socialism Untried: The socialistic state or cooperative commonwealth of thorough going so­cialism has never proved itself by experiment. What has been tried, has been the socialistic com­munity within the competitive state. A few such communities, founded on strong religious senti­ment, have survived a century. The majority, ex­hibiting a purely economic socialism, have been short lived. Whether, therefore, an economic or­ganization, possessing the materials and conducting the production of all economic goods, could be made successful, is a question purely theoretical. Cooperative societies for production and distribu­tion have maintained themselves successfully in

the presence of competition, especially in Belgium and England; but these enjoy the stimulus of com­petition. The claims made by socialistic writers are, therefore, based merely on conjecture, a con­dition to be remembered in estimating the advan­tages claimed for the system.

VII. Advantages Claimed: The chief claims of advantage over the competitive system may be thus stated: (1) The saving of the capital wasted in duplicating productive agencies, as parallel rail­ways and light, telephone and telegraph systems on the same territory, etc. (2) The saving of com­petitive advertising, trade solicitation, and the like. (3) Scientific adjustment of production to consumption, thus avoiding economic crises. (4) The guaranty of a comfortable living to all men. (5) The abolition of the middle man in disposal of goods. (6) The development of unselfishness throughout society. (7) The abolition of litigation concerning property. (8) The termination of trade disputes and strikes.

VIII. The Claims Considered: An examination of these claims reveals their weakness. It is evi­dent that State socialism involves a radical over­turning of the economic basis of society. To ap­prove itself to calm judgment, it must be shown not only that State socialism must be more effect­ive than the present system, but also that it would be better than any possible modification of the pres­ent system. Over against the above claims, con­sidered in order, may be stated the following: (1) Duplication is not necessarily waste. Parallel railways often prove their value by developing new regions for increased market supply. The opera­tion of the economic law of combination tends to the elimination of unnecessary duplication, while by government regulation unwise duplication may be checked. (2) Under socialism a large amount of advertising would still be necessary to inform the public of the usefulness of State products. Combination and agreement have the tendency to reduce wasteful competitive advertising. All the necessary saving might be had apart from socialism. (3) It has always been to the interest of producers to make a scientific adjustment of production to consumption. Thus far there is no known method sufficient for the task. It remains to be proved that human foresight can prevent economic crises. The socialist claim is sheer assumption. It must be shown in what way and by what wisdom this adjust­ment can be made, and also that it would be im­possible under the individualist system. (4) By discouragement of the captains of industry, de­moralization of the most thrifty and skilful work­ers, and denial of adequate rewards to stimulate in­vention, socialism would disastrously impair the

productivity of society. All would be approximate­ly on the same level, which would be a condition of general poverty. (5) The present middle men would be largely replaced by officials required to manage the distribution of the products. Even under competition there is a tendency to eliminate the middle men. The claim remains to be proved.

(6) Far from developing a spirit of unselfishness, socialism, by its denial of just reward to skill and diligence, would produce a spirit of discontent on