The Conflict Between Individualism And Socialism.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 235, 6 October 1886, Page 3

The Conflict Between Individualism And Socialism.

Now, if this bo the doctrine of Christianity as to human life, it is perfectly clear that in the conflict between individualism and socialism it can take no side absolutely ; it must recognise both and sympathise with both ; it must seek to bring a harmony, not an exterminating victory of either; it may for this purpose throw its weight, though never unreservedly, into the scale which for tho moment seems likely to kick tbe beam ; but, even so, its alliance with docs not identify itself with the side which, for the time, it aids. I know, of course, that Christianity has been hastily claimed as Socialistic in principle, and our Lord Himself hailed as a Communist in advance of Hia age. But I cannot think that anyone who really studies the Christianity of the New Testament as a wholo, in its breadth and comprehensiveness, seriously believes that it can be narrowed to identity with Socialism—on tho strength of an isolated command of our Lord to the ricli young ruler to sell hia wealth nnd give to the poor, or tho temporary and local community of goods in the early church at Jeiusalem, or eventhovoluntary detacherent of Himself and Hiß apostlos from the property and ties of ordinary life for tho sake of their groat mission work. Not to say that all the sacrifices of Individualism wore absolutely of free will and by no constraining forco of Socialistic order, it is clear that they presont but superficial resemblances, and thoso of a distinctly exceptional character, to the modern gospels of Socialism. Timo was when this might require to be seriously and fully argued ; but, for adherents and foes of Christianity alike, that timo has, I think, passed by. I havo spoken of a conflict of Individual.'sm and Socialism ; for a strugglo under Icsral and constitutional forms is going on already, and somo ominous symptoms of a revolutionary conflict aro manifoßting thomsolvos in all civilised society. For many generations tho stream of tendoncy has set unceasingly in the direction of Individualism—socially, from slavery, sorfdom, feudal vassa'ago, commercial and domestic dopendoncs thoro has beon a change to an absolute froedom of contract betwoon man and man, invading evon regions onco hold sacred under a timohonourod authority ; politically, from tho old aristocratic systems which dovelopod thomsolves out of tho orginal patriarchal government wo have passed through a monarchy, gradually becoming moro and moro constitutional, far on tho way to what is actually or virtually a elomocracy, under which evory mon, whatever his station, , has equal political rights and opportunities of eminence and can make himself felt in somo nv-asure of influence over tho government of his country. Arli- ' ficial difference of privilego and powor have been gradually removed by equality of rights boforo the law ; restrictions on tho froo play of individuality havo almost entirely vanished, especially in tho Englishspeaking communities. Tho result lias boen an enormous advance in tho wholo wealth, both material and spiritual, of society—by bolder drafts upon the treasury of nature ; by increased diffusion through commerco of what has beon thus won ; by the discovery of all kinds of machinory through individual invention and their introduction by individual enterprise ; by the colonisation, largely through tho English raco, of the wholo world, and this not generally by corporato action of State, but by the pioneering bolduoss of individual settlers by tho open competition between individuals and races which, so far as it is an honourable rivalry and not a solfi.li antagonism, is natural and helpful *, by the growth, only possiblo under freedom, of intellectual and moral activity in all classes and nations manifesting itsolf in a marvellous fertility in science, art, literature, education, in countless pchomes of philanthrophic enterprise Individualism lias vindicated its claim to be, in humanity as in tho wholo realm of organic lifo, a wonderful forco ot evolution and impulse of progress.

Effect of Individual Freedom and Energy.

But tho efi'oct of this increaso of mdi vidual freedom and energy - this frootrado in all tho relations of life—has been, ns ineleed it must have booD, to bring out nnd accumulate under equality of opportunity, tho effects of the infinite natural inequality of actual powers between man and man. No two men (we know) aro absolutely equal in physical strength, in mochnnical skill, in intellectual power nnd enterprise, in forco of character and will, in moral -trength and purity, in tlio wondorful spell of ascendancy over their fellows, which givos them leadership in tho world. Theso diflorencos must tell on their work and its fruits. It is so ob pious as to have becomo a commonplaco that if wo could divido all proporty equally, and mako mon equal in opportunity of woik and influence to day, and then leave them alone, without continual interference, inequality would begin tomorrow and in croaso j day by day with an irresistible growth. Nor ia it lees clear that if we recognise tho closer tio of tho family by natrral inhe itanco and leavo liberty of testation, thon theso inequalities will perpetuato and deepen themsolvcs, under any political institution, from generation to generation. To Bpeak only of material wealth, though I believe the same law extends in various degrees beyond it, accumulation of wealth must take placo, and once begun it has an inevitable tendency (especially when used, as what wo call "capital," for the augmentation of the collective wealth of Bociety) to increase with a progressive rapidity, and even to concentrate itself in relatively fewer hands. It is plain that material progress really depends on three combined factors—the labour, unskilled or partially .killed, of tho many ; the use of capital, as a treasure-house of machinery and a reservoir of convertible force ; and tbe directive skill, originative invention, and bold enterprise of the fow. Experience seems to prove that, if all U left without restriction these last two elements will certainly gain predominant force and probably usurp more than their right eharo of the fruits of work. The result we see everywhere in Europeau society, and, though in a modified and less extreme form, in tho newer communities, aB of Amorica and Australia, It is the result of an inequality of individuals and classes, fairly appalling—contrasts, which bewilder the mind and wring tho heart, between fabulous wealth, culture, luxury ou tho one side, and poverty, degradation, hardship on tho other ; and this painful result, as we should expect, comes out most strikingly in the nations which have tho great share of individual freedom and tho moat democratic Constitutions. That this condition of society can last few will beliove ; that it ought to last—what true man, what true Christian will dare to assert?

Socialising Forces.

Naturally, therefore, and rightly, by reaction against these results of an excessive individualism there is an inclination in all thoughtful men to develop what we may call, broadly, socialising forces which aim at checking its excess and subordinating it to the public good. These forces are, I think, mainly three—law, free co-operation, public spirit. The law has always claimed and exercised tho power of limiting individual liberty and individual property a _ a kind of price (so to speakj for tho protection of both by tbe collective force of the community. Tbe olaim is obviously just in principle ; tho question of its exercise is a question of degree, and the tendency of modern legislation is to enlarge that degree. Obviously, it should allow noither individual freedom of action nor use of property to Bin openly against the public good, as by overt crimes of violence or fraud, by tho falsehood, adulteration, dishonesty, which are the temptations of excessive competition in business; by tho creation of trades or manufactures which aro noxious to public health or morality ; by the erection of buildings or the adoption of habits of life which equally militate against it; by the indulgence of a spirit of reck leesness and disorder which is not the less a public nuisance because it stops short of actual crime. That function of manifest_rights needs to be resolutely, even slernly, " discharged by authority and supported by a law-abiding temper in public opinion Not less clear ia tho right of tho law to tax private individuals on whatever syetem is resolved by legislative authority—direct or indirect, uniform or by graduated scale—both for the maintenance of public service and the defence of the nation, and for tho relief of the poor and destitute. The law, again, can enter into the domain of the family to regulate and protect marriage against individual lawlessness, to enforce parental duty in the nurture and education of children, to tax tho free exercise of the power of bequeathing property, and even to forbid dispositions of it which are dangerous to the public weal. It m_y go further still by obliging a man to sell his property, however reluctantly, if it is needed for public use ; in extreme cases of necessity, as in war or famine or pestilence, it may suspend individual liberty and seize individual property, only with such compensation as may be found possible. It may go on, still further, to interfere "in free contract—ineisting on tenant rights as

against the arbitrary claim of tho landowner to lay down whatever he can get men to accept ; limiting hours of labour, especially for women and children, and enforcing whatever regulations aro thought necessary for the health and well-being of tho great mass of workers. All these are actions of what I may call a socialising tendency, ruling individualism for the sake of the whole community ; at all times some of those have been takon, and there is (aa I havo said) an inclination now to enlarge this province of law to what, in my younger days, would havo been thought a dangerous extent. If the State, as some strongly urgo, should insist—with due regard in old countries to vested rights-to become the sole landowner, allowing to individuals only tenancy and claiming for the community that onormous increase of valuo which 'ia unearned by thought and labour (and which hero oven more than in England wo soe developing itself with startling rapidity), simply from the growing scarcity of land in the whole country or in parts of it —this is matter of policy unforbidden by any principe of right, If it should seek to become tho great employer of labour, the great capitalist, superseding without forcibly extinguishing private enterprise, this, again, must be regarded in the same light. It may be politic or impolitic ; it cannot be absolutely right or wrong. Some Btepa in thia direction havo beon taken, especially in new and democratic countries ; without broach of right thoy may either be retraced or pushed further on. Tho two great dangers aro-first, the checking of the individual enterprise which can dare and risk what iho responsibility of public action will not allow, and which is not only an element of national progresß but also an education of national character ; and, next, the vast increase of power in the central authority without socurity for tho corresponding increase in wisdom, uprightnoss, liberality, which alone can m_ko it safe, and which modern experionco of popular government fails to give. But all this is regulation, not destruction of individual property and liberty, and of the sacrednees of family tioa and duties; it is suppression or rivalry, not abolition of private enterprise; it is limitation, not denial or coercion, of natural inequality and its results. The Socialism which advances these untenable demands— and almost all theoretical Socialism, from Plato downwards, has, at loast, tended so to do—sins doubly against human nature. It destroys the balanco which maintains human society and ensures its progress ; it assigns tlio whole socialising work to tho coercive force of law, and leuves no for the free adhesion of tho spirit. Christianity, by the very principles on which wo have dwolt, is pledged to disallow this. It sympathises with the grand ideal of univorsal brother hood and of universal diffusion of the opportunity of outward happiness. But it seeks it in what it believes to bo tho natural way, which is tho way of God. Of tho wild, reckless violent methods of 'enforcing what, if it grows at all, must grow freely, it still says, 'ion tali aitxilis non tiefensoribus isti*.

Frco Combination nnd Co -Operation But, beyond law, there is anothor great socialising forco in the principle of free combiontlon and .co-operation. It has two chief developments. Thoro is the combination, na in trndo unions and tho like, of the grent body of workers and wageoarners. It is a great and increasing powor. It has rightly^grown up because it is absolutely necessary for tho protection of those who otherwise would bo helpless in tho strugglo of life. So far as it is really free, embodying a willing sacrifice by oach individual of his own liberty and interest for the sake of tho good of the whole class, it represents much cf the nobility of true brotherhood. Its danger lies in tho fact that combination in many, perhaps most, cases ceases to be free and is imposed on the individual whother he likes it or not, troating as enemies and assailing with violenco those who will not join it. So it becomes ns coercive in operation as the law itself, but without the safeguard; and responsibility of law; it is apt to narrow itself to tho support, under all circumstances, of its own members, its oWn class, without thought of tho wholo community, and accordingly, whilo it scos clearly and shrowdly within its range, not to sco quito far enough, Yot fow, I supposo, who care, as Christians must care, for the happiness and independence of tho great masa of the people, will not look upon it as a socialising power tending predominantly to good. Even at tho cost ot somo dolay and imperfection in tho full drawing outof therosourcosef theland.must not we sympathise with its resolution to claim for the wage-earners a larger share in the wealth produced, sufficient not only for the baro necessaries, but also for the comfotts of life, and so to restrict the hours of labour that men may not be mere drudges and may have at least opportunity for tho brightness and the culture of life ? Must not wo desire in reßpect of combination, not diminution of its power, but continual exaltation of its tone to higher wisdom, largor patriotism, greater rospect for freedom, greater deference to law ? But what if from this principle of combination, which implies the need of protection against the powor of capital as an unsympathetic or antagonistic power, there could be larger development of the principle^ froe-opor-ation, in which; capital and labour, iV not united, could be allied? It has its difficulties wo can easily see—not so much in apportionment of profits, but in a pro-, vision for diroction which can be equal in enterprise and originative boldness to the unrestricted freedom of the individual maeter. But it has already shown some proof of its beneficent power. Advanced Socialism, 1 know, decries it as an imperfect makeshift, standing in the way of something better than itself. But, if it be loss imposing than the State action which ono form of Socialism desires, there is in it at loast greater elasticity, greater security for freedom, greater sense of a diffused responsibility, greater probability, perhaps, of an energetic sense cf fellowship. It bears a stronger llkone-ss, ub I think, to tho Christian ideal of the work of life. Surely Christianity must wish it well ?

The Great Socialising Power That

Christianity Would Inspire

But, after all, tho great socialising power which Christianity would inspire and bless is not of law or associations : it is a spiritual foree —"a threefold cord not quickly brok- n," made up of the interwoven threads of intellectual conviction, moral resolution, glowing enthusiasm, and drawing every soul towards willing eelf-sacritice to the service of mon, not for its own sake, but as a part of the perfect service of God. Its idea, which it would stamp on human thought and h'stiry, is that all individual wealth, spiritual and materia', is simply a truet from God, a reservoir of power to be used for Him who gavo it in furthering His graco as dispensation of blessing to'all men. It may be rightly used in measure for our own neei, our own culture, our own happiness, for these are part of His will. It must be used for the support, protection, educat oi, 1 a ipin-iss of the home, which God has made the inmoat circle of human brotherhood ; for this is His special charge to every father, every brother, evory husband, every son, But, beyond this, it is a trust for our city, our nation, our race, our church which it will bo woo upon us if wo neglect. That sense of responsibility, we call it by various names —the public spirit which willingly pours out ita energies and resources iv unpaid service to the community ; the loyalty and patriotism which correspond in the nation to tbe self sacrifice of filial reverence and brotherly affection in the family ; the charity of philanthropy which embraces in widest sympathy all human souls, and haa its tenderest love for those who are weak, suffering, sinful; the missionary enthusiasm, both of God and of humanity, which inspires tho onward movement of the Church of Christ. Thisisthe vital force of the Christian socialism of such men as Frederick Maurice and Charles Kingsley ; with all its failures, it is the spirit which has done moro for humanity than all other socialism put together. The Church of Christ has preached it, perhaps too exclusively, in the form of what is commonly called charity, with its countless agencies drawing men together and teaching " tho strong to bear the burdens of the weak," and so to " fufil the law of Jesus Christ." Hero, certainly, it has not been brought to men generally with its right variety and depth of force. Had it been so, the ordinary socialiem, which in despair calls in impatiently the aid of legal coercion, would never have gained its actual power.

Failure of Christian Socialism.

How few, comparatively, of professing Christians have risen evon to the standard of sacrifice which the old Jewish tithe represented, for the service of God and man I How few possessors of great wealth justify it by eioing with it some great service which may make its mark on history ! How fow, even out of those few, try to do something in-their own lifetime by their own self sacrifice, instead of seeking the questionable glory of posthumous beneficenoe out of what they can keep no longer! Every man—and such men there are—who accumulates vast riche3 and doeß no good

with it whatever to the world—either spending it on himself in lavish luxury and splen dour or hoarding it for the sake of hoarding, or, perhaps, for the poor ambition of founding a family, ia himself a living plea against the institution of property, a living excuse for the wildest excesses of Socialism, and, if he calls himself a Christian, a living witness against the vitality of Christianity. I cannot wonder that thoee who think our present civilisation utterly out of joint after bo many centuries of Christian profession should turn in despair to some rougher, readier method of settling things, as they think, right at once But these revolutionary attempts, contradicting human nature always fail, either in the failure of impotence or in the worse failure of a fruitless destruction. The quieter and slower influence which has already destroyed slavery and serfdom, which haa created at least the idea of universal brotherhood and the only approach to his realisation true but imperfect, which tho world has seen, will yet, we trust, do its deep and enduring work. It will recognise and guide those lower socialising forces of the power of law and the power of association ; but it will teach the world to rely ultimately on the spiritual unity which makes men one in God, and (as I said at first) harmonises, under the supreme love'to Him, tbe self-love of Individualism and the love of all humanity, which is the life of all the various forms of tho truo remedy, human society ordained by Him. On us, therefore, as Christians, and on all thobranches of the ChurchofChristtherelies a clear and obvious duty—in respect of these many socialistic schemes which are in tho air, to recognise a witness to a supreme need, not met by our present Bocial syßtem —a witneaa which it is vain merely to denounce, as it would be rash blindly to accept ; a witness out of which by wise and righteous j qelgment we ah .aid refuse the evil and chooso the good, as in the ideal set before us, so much moro in tho means by which it is sought. Meanwhile, by Btriving and prayer, to make our own Christianity more true and vivid, moro unselfish and therefore moro Christ-like—in Ihe Buro and certain hope, baeed on faith, but strengthened by the experience of tho past, that it will bo at onco the life of a true Individualism, by cherishing in us the sacred freedom of the life, which is Christ in the soul, and the inspiring and expanding force of a true socialism, pervading the whole world by the unity which is "Christ in humenity himself."