THE AMERICAN SPIRIT AND SOCIALISM. I. Imported and American Socialism 46 90 119 129 154 SOCIALISM AND THE AMERICAN SPIRIT. CHAPTER I. INDIVIDUALISM AND SOCIALISM. TWENTY years ago a leading matter of debate among thoughtful people in the English-speaking world was "the reconciliation of Science and Religion." Peace between these forces has been practically attained, after much discussion, through the recognition of the simple fact that each holds a rightful place in human nature. Neither can be accepted as representing the entire compass of our being, nor should either be denounced by the other. Religion and Science are still vigorous and intact after the long and eager debate. The one power seriously injured was the dogmatic spirit, exemplified equally in theologians destitute of scientific training or method, and in natural scientists ignorant of philosophy and theology. Now that the dust of this controversy is settled, it should be plain to all that neither Science nor Religion can suffer real harm from the other. It is as plain that no "reconciliation" is needed, if each power will put away dogmatism, and be content to rule supreme over its part of that human nature which includes both, and much more than both, in its largeness and complexity. The adjustment of knowledge and faith in the creed and the practice of generations and individuals must be left, where it belongs, with each generation, with each individual, as life gives enlightenment. At the present day, another pair of supposed combatants concentrate upon themselves the attention of civilized mankind in a large degree. The "social problem" which deeply occupies the mind and heart of our time is essentially the issue between Individualism and Socialism. Are the two reconcilable, or must one be preferred to the other by progressive races? Voices are not wanting to tell us that there is no half-way house between State Socialism and Anarchy, - between an enormous extension of the functions of the State on one hand, and a virtual abolition of State control on the other. The ears of them that will listen are filled with the cries of extremists who unite only in denouncing the actual order, employing a rhetoric and a logic which pay little heed to reason, and a sentimentality that has small concern for the laws of economics or the fundamental realities of human nature. When they occasionally give attention to each other, the Socialist has little difficulty in showing that the Anarchist is a sentimentalist of the future, who dreams of an impossible race of men needing no constraint, since they have arrived at perfect virtue and entire reasonableness: the Anarchist has no more difficulty in demonstrating that the Socialist is a sentimentalist of the present, far astray in supposing that the majority of men can safely be trusted with extreme power over the minority. Meantime, the man of scientific temper cannot rec ognize in the ideal picture drawn by the Socialist or by the Anarchist a natural development from existing society. He is altogether unable to perceive why the human race should be given up to exclusive control by the principle of Authority or by the principle of Liberty. These two principles have blended, in various degrees, throughout human history; and if to-day, as ever before, "only law can give us freedom," freedom only can give us law. The meliorist and the optimist must reject with decision the irrational denunciation by Socialist and Anarchist of the present order of things, which they declare incapable of improvement except by revolution. One may easily discover the fundamental pessimism underlying the superficial trust in human nature (in the future) professed by these two classes of extremists, those who would free mankind from all control by government, and those who would give the majority unlimited power over the minority. If human society is now so evil as to need complete transformation, after thousands of years of life on this planet, where is the just foundation for hope that all will be well under any scheme, since this is to be administered, of necessity, by the same human nature? The scientific spirit, on the other hand, joins with practical philanthropy in declaring a deep faith in the ability of mankind to improve its lot upon earth through the method of evolution. The development may now be conscious to a great degree; reason can accelerate that "unreasoning progress of the world" of which Wordsworth speaks; but, in all probability, the forward movement will be on lines already found to be practicable, toward an ideal the equal of which no theorist has yet conceived. |