Individualism

From The Libertarian Labyrinth
Jump to: navigation, search
This page contains raw, unedited text or incomplete listings.
The Libertarian Labyrinth is going through a series of upgrades and changes.
Until then, please pardon our dust.

from The New Encyclopedia of Social Reform

INDIVIDUALISM: The term individualism, as used in social science, has been defined as "the theory of government which favors the non-interference of the State in the affairs of individuals. (" Century Dictionary"). It is, however, more commonly, and much more correctly, used for the tendency to oppose State interference in the affairs of the individual rather than for any cut- and-dried theory of the function or lack of function of the State. When a man says he is an individualist, he usually means not that he holds any exact a priori theory as to what the State should or should not do, but that he Definition 'ncnnes. to oppose State interference, ' unless it be very clearly proved that it is necessary. The presumption with him is against interference. He inclines to resist socialistic legislation, even in small matters, ' est they lead to a general State socialism. He believes that we must finally decide from experience and history what in each particular o-ise is wise. Individualism must not be confounded with anarchism (q. г1.), nor with the positive program laid down by particular individualists, however prominent. (See SINGLE TAX; SPENCER; VOLUNTARYISM.) We find individualism somewhat developed among the Greek Sophists and in all Greek thought. Greek political philosophy conceived, it is true, of the individual as living for the State rather .than for himself; but with this went a high conception of the complete man, the sound mind in a sound body, and this developed a practical, ethical, if not a political individualism. Aristotle, with his tendency to exalt the concrete over Platonic abstractions, may be said to be the first great thinker of individualism, tho even he held the high Greek conception of the State. The Cyrenaic and the Epicurean schools both developed a type of ethical individualism. Still more did Stoicism lend itself consistently to individualism . Some of the profoundest thoughts of ethical individualism have come down from the Greek Stoics, while some of its noblest and most classic utterances must be sought in the pages of the Roman Stoics. The Roman Empire, it is true, developed into a strong imperialism; nevertheless, in Roman thought, and above all in Roman jurisprudence, the individual is in a large sense supreme over the State, since we have here the first clear development of the theory of contract between free individuals. Meanwhile, the life and teachings of Christ were developing, many hold, an individualism flowering into fraternal charity rather than the primitive Christian communism, of which so much is said to-day. (For a discussion of this, see CHRIST AND SOCIAL REFORM; CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL REFORM.) Be this as it may, the Middle Ages, inheriting the traditions of Roman power, together with the religious teachings of Christ, developed an ecclesiastical paternalism removed alike from a primitive communism or an ethical individualism. Nevertheless, in some of the schoolmen we trace an individual- Hodern In- *st thought based in part upon the dividualisni teachings °f Aristotle, while some of the ascetics practised what may be called a selfish individualistic spirituality. The characteristic ages of individualism, however, are those between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries. Revolting alike from the despotism of the Church and the tyranny of the warrior, we find the individual asserting himself everywhere, in religion and in philosophy, in political science and in practice. In religion, Luther, by the doctrine of salvation by faith, lifts the individual into the right of private judgment; while Calvin, with his doctrine of the divine decrees, by making man obedient to God alone, lifts him above obedience to any human power. From the position of Luther or Calvin it was but a step toward the practical realization of their theories by an assertion of the right of private judgment in morals and of civil liberty in matters where unity of action was not a social necessity. Kant, Bentham, John Stuart Mill, all helped people to take this step more and more fearlessly. The line of thought advanced by these men finds its legitimate development in the writings of John Morley and its exaggeration in those of W . K . Clifford . Says Mr. Morley ("On Compromise," pp. 278- 281): We may best estimate the worth and the significance of the doctrine of liberty by considering the line of thought and observation which led to it. To begin with, it is in Mr. Mill's hands something quite different from the same doctrine as preached by the French revolutionary school; indeed, one might even call it reactionary, in respect of the French theory of a hundred years back. It reposes on no principle of abstract right, but, like the rest of its author's opinions, on principles of utility and experience. . . . Mr. Carlyle and one or two rhetorical imitators poured malediction on the many- headed populace, and with rather a pitiful impatience insisted that the only hope for men lay in their finding and obeying a strong man — a king, a hero, a dictator. How he was to be found, neither the master nor his still angrier and more impatient mimics could ever tell us. Now Mr. Mill's doctrine laid down the main condition of finding your hero — viz., that all ways should be left open to him, because no man, nor majority of men, could possibly tell by which of these ways their deliverers were from time to time destined to present themselves. Wits have caricatured all this by asking us whether by encouraging the tares to grow, you give the wheat a better chance. This is as misleading as such metaphors usually are. The doctrine of liberty rests on a faith drawn from the observation of human progress, that tho we know wheat to be serviceable and tares to be worthless, yet there are in the great seed-plot of human nature a thousand rudimentary germs, not wheat and not tares, of whose properties we have not had a fair opportunity of assuring ourselves. If you are too eager to pluck up the tares, you are very likely to pluck up with them these untried possibilities of human excellence, and you are, moreover, very likely to injure the growing wheat as well. The demonstration of this lies in the recorded experience of mankind. Près. Hadley thus sums up this philosophy of individualism ("Economics/ p. 14): Constitutional liberty in politics, rational altruism in morals, and modern business methods in production and distribution of wealth have been the outcome of the great individualistic movement of the nineteenth century. "The individualist has taught people not to confound public morality with a state church, public security with police activity, or public wealth with government property. He has taucht men that, as society develops, the interests of its members become more and more harmonious; in other words, that rational egoism and rational altruism lend to coincide. But the characteristic modern development of individualism is economic. With many forerunners, and perhaps particularly Hume, Adam Smith is here the great name, the father of the school of natural liberty, which we do not dwell upon here only because it is treated in full elsewhere. (See POLITICAL ECONOMY.) Yet perhaps even here the school of natural liberty and Adam Smith are a result rather than a cause. It was necessary to break the old economic restraints. New discoveries, new inventions, new processes refused to be fettered by old laws. In France, the Revolution: in England, Adam Smith; in Germany, the Stein Hardenberg legislation; in America, the bills of rights incorporated into the national and state constitutions, all witness to and develop the same tendency to free and to protect the individual from restraint. In every country it has produced reaction — in France, the empire; in Germany, state and democratic socialism; in England, factory laws and more recently munic- ipaïism; in the United States, federalism, republicanism, and protection. Through all the first half of the nineteenth century, however, individualism was in all directions dominant. Its results are well known. The individual, free from legislative restraint, seeks gain. The producer who can produce the most, the best, or the cheapest gains the market. Out of competition to do this has sprung the modern mastery of the — .^ methods of production, division of labor, improved machinery, gigantic plants, the factory system, industry on the large scale ; if it has produced the capitalist and the millionaire, it has also both lowered prices and raised wages for the million. In its search for new markets and commercial gain it has girded the world with the telegraph, continents with railroads, ané whitened the sea with sails. It has developed more progress in 100 vears than all the other centuries put together. If its characteristic results have been material, it has made education common. It is true that large producers and the development of colossal transportation corporations have created difficulties for the small producer, made the workman largely dependent upon the capitalist, and developed the means of production beyond the present ability to consume, causing the phenomena of the unemployed and the tramp. But it must be remembered, in the first place, that these evils are due to the very success of individualism, so that we should think twice before we attempt to cure them by destroying the system which has created this success ; secondly, it is to be doubted if there are more unemployed than before, while certainly real wages, measured by prices, are materially advanced; thirdly, individualists believe that the cure lies not in forsaking the principle which has been the very life of modern progress, but in lifting up every individual to a level of more effective competition till every man receive the means of life because every man is able to contribute something to the social need. What is needed, according to this view, is not less but more individualism. Modern practical individualism does not urge that at present we should do away with all industrial legislation or all interference of the State with the affairs of individuals; it believes that till men grow wiser they need some legislative checks, but it holds that in general it is wiser to let the individual act as he will and seek to overcome the ills resulting from his mistakes by educating wiser and better individuals. THE ARGUMENT FOR INDIVIDUALISM The arguments for individualism may be conveniently divided into four heads: (i) The ethical argument; (a) the biological; (3) the inductive positive argument; (4) the inductive negative argument from the follies and evils of State interference. The ethical argument probably affects the common consciousness far more than any other. Brof. S. N^ Patten, in the Introduction to his "Theory of Social Forces," considers individualism to rest largely on eighteenth-century philosophy, and says: I question whether the hold which this social philosophy has on the popular mind can be shaken by an appeal to inductive evidence. This hold depends upon certain concepts and ideals which have received classical statements at the hands of our ablest thinkers, and which cannot be displaced by unorganized facts. The basis of popular individualism undoubtedly lies deep down in the fundamental facts of the universe, in the power, the worth, the consciousness of responsibility in the individual soul. It takes ordinarily a form either religious or one of so-called natural ethics. One' of the fundamental principles of Christianity is the worth of the individual soul. Protestantism, with its right of private judgment, its doctrine of salvation by faith, is particularly in accord with the individualistic tendency. Dr. Lyman Abbott, in his "Evolution of Christianity,' says: It has been said that Jesus Christ was the first Socialist. This is certainly an inexact, if not an absolutely erroneous, statement. It would be more nearly correct to say that He was the first individualist. The Socialist assumes that the prolific cause of misery in the world is bad social organization. Christ assumed that the prolific cause of misery in the world is individual wrong-doing. Says Mr. N. P. Oilman ("Socialism and the American Spirit," pp. 324-327): The Ethical Argument A higher individualism is possible, and has long been actual, with at least a few of each generation of mankind. It respects every person as haying something of infinite worth in him, and would begin to improve the world by elevating the single spirit, counting no advance permanent that is not based on reformed and cultivated individuals. This method fully deserves the epithet "Christian," derived from "the only soul in history who has appreciated the worth of a man." The teaching of Jesus was profoundly individualistic in its imperative address to the private conscience. Such a spiritual doctrine does not find its natural alliance with a mechanical socialism. This, with most of its expounders, is materialistic to the core. The Christian spirit is in full harmony with a rationalized individualism in social life. So inspired, individualism includes voluntary cooperation, the method of modem civilization; and the ideal towhichit tends is fraternal - ism. not paternalism. The inquiry is extremely pertinent: " Have we yet even discovered the resources of an individualism which is not synonymous with selfishness, but welcomes and fosters public spirit?" Few wise persons will answer this in the affirmative. This higher individualism, perhaps, quite as often to-day takes the form of so-called "natural ethics." Mr. M. D. O'Brien, in the Introduction to his "Socialism Tested by Facts," says: Weak and little, low and corrupt as he is, yet nature has endowed man with such a spirit that he can never permanently become the slave of men. This spirit is individualism, the deepest and mightiest fact in existence, which brings

man closest to nature herself, to his central silent home, and plants the root of his life in a substance that cannot perish. Through this spirit works the infinite, and while the heavens bend above, it can never break or fail. . . . This spirit of individualism, of non-conformity, of social, political, and religious heresy is the sword which Nature forges while despots sleep; and just when they dream themselves insured in an eternity of comfortable stagnation it suddenly flashes before them, scattering their plans, circumventing their cunning, and breaking all their pet idols in pieces. This spirit opens the enslaving shell of custom, throws it aside, and allows the inner life to grow. Low slavish natures hate and fear it above everything, and no means are too bad for them to use against it; but it has always managed in the long run to undo them, and it will yet live and flourish when they and all their works are lost in the slavery of the past. " Individualism," says Draper ("Conflict Between Religion and Science," chap, ii., p. 295), " rests on the principle that a man shall be his own master."

It is in such thoughts, of the worth of the individual, either because of its individual union with God, if the theory take a religious form, or because of the conviction that simple character, self-rule, self-reliance, self-poise, is the one thing of worth in the universe, that most men base their argument for individualism. They argue that for the State to interfere with the action of the individual weakens character. It is far better, says the individualist, for men to carve their own way, to live their own lives, to learn by experience their own lessons, even if they make continual blunders, than for the State to be interfering, even if, so far as the immediate step be concerned, it interfere wisely, because the latter course will weaken the individual will and lessen individual ability. Few individualists think that any government is wise enough to interfere wisely, but even if it were, individualists would still oppose it because of its undermining influences upon character. A wise government, they would argue, may be even worse than a foolish government. A foolish government would probably call out resistance and activity. A wise paternalism might lull to eternal sleep the power of self-choice and self-will. The second argument for individualism is a biological one. (For a compléter statement of it, see BIOLOGY; EVOLUTION.) We shall also notice it again in considering the objection to socialism. It may be said in a word to be that there can be no progress save by competition, no progress save by natural selection and the survival of the fittest, so that the struggle for life between individuals is of the very essence of progressive life, while just so far as the State interferes with this struggle between individuals, and either forces or leads cooP,erati°n; it must The Biological Argument induce a low and lowering social level and the gradual degeneration of the individual. This is one of the arguments for individualism most prevalent today. We do not dwell upon it here simply because it is considered elsewhere. (See BIOLOGY; EVOLUTION.) The third argument, or the induction from positive experiences of individualism, may be . deemed but a form of the biological argument. It is, however, such an important The Ar form as to make it worthy of treat- mentfrom ment by itsClf- II argues that the Expérience h'ßhest civilization, materially and in character, has as a matter of fact * been developed when there has been the most individualism. We have seen something of this in considering the history of individualism. Beginning largely with Adam Smith and the so- called school of national liberty (see POLITICAL ECONOMY), we have had less interference of the State with the individual than ever before in the history of civilized man. What has been the result? There have been evils; no man claims perfection for the nineteenth century; but there has been more progress in most directions than in all the other centuries of civilization put together. In science, in the means of livelihood, in popular education, in the art of preserving life, in acquainting men with the facts of the universe, in the means of communication, man has advanced as never before in all his history. Generally speaking, perhaps, the country where individualism has been carried to the farthest degree is the United States, with Great Britain next. With what result? These two countries are to-day the wealthiest, the strongest, the most vital countries of the world. The language and the commerce of these two nations are dominating the world. Particularly has the U. S. stood for individualism. Says Mr. N. P. Gilman ("Socialism and the American Spirit," p. 90) : In more senses than one America may be called the paradise of the individual. No other country has held out sucb great prizes to private talent for the last century, or offered it a freer field to work in. A manly, capable, and! self-reliant people, Americans have had an opportunity the like of which is unknown to history. Least of all peoples have they had reason to put their faith in governmental machinery, even that of their own devising, in preference to individual initiative and voluntary cooperation. Especially in the building up of great manufacturing industries and the development of immense transportation systems has the practical genius of the people asserted itself, with the results in the gigantic operations and colossal fortunes which we see to-day in all directions. The American is always ready to receive help from the State in starting a railway or a steamship line (the old flag and an appropriation), but he is not at all inclined to consider the government a proper agent for the management or ownership of either. Mr. Gilman quotes Alfred Fouillée as saying ("Education from a National Standpoint," Am. ed., p. 6): "Scarcely an American can be found who has not in his mind, in a more or less nebulous form, this idea of illimitable individualism and indefinite expansion." Now, what has been the result? America's material wealth, her popular education, and her progress in almost all ways, are the marvel of the world. Nowhere do the common people begin to be so well off. In wages, in home comforts, in liberty, in popular education, the working people native to the U. S. are far ahead of any working classes of the world, unless it be in New Zealand and in Australia. Particularly has business in America been free from governmental restrictions, with the result that nowhere else does business begin to be carried on in so effective or colossal a way, and nowhere else are the masses of the people so well off. This last thought leads to the reflection that the very fact of the prosperity of the people is the cause of the present social unrest. Says Herbert Spencer, in the Introduction to "A Plea for Liberty": Of the many ways in which common-sense inferences about social affairs are flatly contradicted by events . . . one of the most curious is the way in which the more things improve, the louder become the exclamations about their badness. In the days when the people were without any political power, their subjection was rarely complained of; but after free institutions had so far advanced in England that our political arrangements were envied by continental peoples, the denunciations of aristocratic rule grew gradually stronger, until there came a great widening of the franchise, soon followed by complaints that things were going wrong for want of still further widening. ... A century ago, when scarcely a man could be found who was not occasionally intoxicated, and when inability to take one or two bottles of wine brought contempt, no agitation arose against Progrès« the vice of drunkenness; but now that, in the under Indi- course °f fifty years, the voluntary efforts of temperance societies, joined with more general TÍ dual ism causes, have produced comparative sobriety, there are vociferous demands for laws to prevent the ruinous effects of the liquor traffic. . . . And so it is, too, with the general state of the population in respect of food, clothing, shelter, and the appliances of life. Leaving out of the comparison early barbaric states, there has been a conspicuous progress from the time when most rustics lived on barley bread, rye bread, and oatmeal, down to our own time, when the consumption of white wheaten bread is universal; from the days when coarse jackets, reaching to the knees, left the legs bare, down to the present day, when laboring people, like their employers, have the whole body covered by two or more layers of clothing; from the old era of single-roomed huts without chimneys, or from the fifteenth century, when even an ordinary gentleman's house was commonly without wainscot or plaster on its walls, down to the present century, when every cottage has more rooms than one, and the houses of artizans usually have several, while all have fireplaces, chimneys, and glazed windows, accompanied mostly by paper-hangings and painted doors, there has been, I say. a conspicuous progress in the condition of the people. And this progress has been still more marked within our own time. Any one who can look back sixty years, when the amount of pauperism was far greater than now, and beggars abundant, is struck by the comparative size and finish of the new houses of operatives; by the better dress of workmen, who wear broadcloth on Sundays, and that of servant girls, who vie with their mistresses; by the higher standard of living, which leads to a great demand for the best qualities of food by working people. . . . Not that the evils to be remedied are small. Let no one suppose that by emphasizing the above paradox I wish to make light of the sufferings which most men have to bear. The fates of the great majority have ever been, and doubtless still are, so sad that it is painful to think of them. Unquestionably the existing type of social organization is one which none who care for their kind can contemplate with satisfaction, and unquestionably men's activities accompanying this type are far from being admirable. . . . But it is not a question of absolute evils; it is a question of relative evils — whether the evils at present suffered are or are not less than the evils which would be suffered under another system; whether efforts for mitigation along the lines thus followed are not more likely to succeed than efforts along different lines. . . . The present social state is transitional, as past social states have been transitional. There will, I hope and believe, come a future social state, differing as much from the present as the present differs from the past, with its mailed barons and defenseless serfs. . , . My opposition to socialism results from the belief that it would stop the progress to such a higher state, and bring back a lower state. Nothing but the slow modification of human nature by the discipline of social life can produce permanently advantageous changes. An even stronger argument for individualism is drawn from the follies and miscarriages of the wisest and best-intentioned State legislation and control. As is well known, Herbert Spencer calls the notion that evils can be readily righted by TJmfti&tían legislation the great modern political ® superstition. He says: "The great political superstition of the past was the divine right of kings. The great political superstition of the present is the divine right of parliaments*' ("Essay on the Great Political Superstition"). He is never weary of illustrating the sins of legislators. He argues that legislators never know where the effect of their legislation will end. He says ("The Coming Slavery"): The legislator contemplates intently the things his act will achieve, but thinks little of the remoter issues of the movement his act sets up, and still less its collateral issues. When, in wartime, "food for powder" was to be provided by encouraging population — when Mr. Pitt said, "Let us make relief in cases where there are a number of children a matter of right and honor, instead of a ground for opprobrium and contempt," it was not expected that the poor-rates would be quadrupled in fifty years; that women with many bastards would be preferred as wives to modest women, because of their incomes from the parish, and that hosts of ratepayers would be pulled down into the ranks of pauperism. . . . Even less, as I say, does the politician who plumes himself on the practicalness of his aims conceive the indirect results which will follow the direct results of hie measures. Thus, to take a case connected The Fob with one named above, it was not intended through the svs- tem of " payment by results " to do anything more than give teachers an efficient stimulus; it was not supposed that in numerous cases their health would give way under the stimulus; it was not expected that they would be led to adopt a cramming system and to put undue pressure on dull and weak children, often to their great injury; it was not foreseen that in many cases a bodily enfeeblement would be caused which no amount of grammar and geography can compensate for. The licensing of public-houses was simply for Maintaining public order; those who devised it never imagined that there would result an organized interest powerfully influencing elections in an unwholesome way. Nor did it occur to the "practical" politicians who provided a compulsory load-line for merchant vessels, that the pressure of ship-owners' interests would habitually cause the putting of the load-line at the very highest limit, and that from precedent to precedent, tending ever in the same direction, the load-line would gradually rise in the better class of ships as from good authority I learn that it has already done. Legislators who, some forty years ago, by act of Parliament compelled railway companies to supply cheap locomotion, would nave rid'culed the belief, had it been exprest. that eventually their act would punish the companies which improved the supply; and yet this was the result to companies which began to carry third- class passengers by fast trains; since a penalty to the amount of the passenger duty was inflicted on them for every third- class passenger so carried. . . . " We must educate our masters," is the well-known saying of a Liberal who opposed the last extension of the franchise. Yes, if the education were worthy to he so called, and were relevant to the political enlightenment needed, much might be hoped from it. But knowing rules of syntax, being able to add up correctly, having geographical information and a memory stocked with the dates of kings' accessions and generals' victories, no more implies fitness to form political conclusions than acquirement of skill in drawing implies expertness in telegraphing or than ability to play cricket implies proficiency on the violin. "Surely," rejoins some one, "facility in reading opens the way to political knowledge." Doubtless; but will the way be followed? Table-talk proves that nine out of ten people read what amuses them or interests them rather than what instructs them: and that the last thing they read is something which tells them disagreeable truths or dispels groundless hopes. That popular education results in an extensive reading of publications which foster pleasant illusions rather than of those which insist on hard realities is beyond question. In other writings, Mr. Spencer gives still more detailed instances of the ways in which State legislation works unexpected ills. He says ("Social Statics," ed. of 1851, p. 384): An architect and surveyor describes it (the Building Act) as having worked after the following manner: In those districts of London consisting of inferior houses built in that unsubstantial fashion which the New Building Act was to mend there obtains an average rent, sufficiently remunerative to landlords whose houses were run up economically before the New Building Act passed. This existing average rent fixes the rent that must be charged in these districts for new houses of the same accommodation — that is, the same number of rooms — for the people they are built for do not appreciate the extra safety of living within walls strengthened with hoop- iron bond. Now it turns out upon trial that houses built in accordance with the present regulations, and let at this established rate, bring in nothing like a reasonable return. Builders have consequently confined themselves to erecting houses in better distncts (where the possibility of a profitable competition with preexisting houses shows that those preexisting houses were tolerably substantial), and have ceased to erect dwellings for the masses, except in the suburbs where no pressing sanitary evils exist. Meanwhile, in the inferior districts above described, has resulted an increase of overcrowding — half a dozen families in a house, a score of lodgers to a room. Nay, more than this has resulted. That state of miserable dilapidation into which these abodes of the poor are allowed to fall is due to the absence of competition from new houses. Landlords do not find their tenants tempted away by the offer of better accommodation. Repairs, being unnecessary for securing the largest amount of profit, are not made. ... In fact, for a large percentage of the very horrors which our sanitary agitators are trying to cure by law, we have to thank previous agitators of the same school! Later, in "The Sins of Legislators," Mr. Spencer says of the building laws : See then what legislation has done. By ill-imposed taxes, raising the prices 01 bricks and timber, it added to the costs of houses and prompted, for economy's sake, the use of bad materials in scanty quantities. To check the consequent production of wretched dwellings, it established regulations which, in medieval fashion, dictated the quality of the commodity produced; there being no perception that by insisting on a higher quality and therefore higher price, it would limit the demand and eventually diminish the supply. By additional local burdens, legislation has of late still further hindered the building of small houses. Finally, having, by successive measures, produced nrst bad houses and then a deficiency of better ones, it has at length provided for the artificially increased overflow of poor people by diminishing the house capacity which already could not contain them! Where then lies the blame for the miseries of the East End? Against whom should be raised "the bitter cry of outcast London"? . . .

So, too, with State supervision. Guaranteeing of quality by inspection has been shown, in the hall-marking of silver, to be superfluous, while the silver trade has been decreased by it; and in other cases it has lowered the quality by establishing a standard which it is useless to exceed: instance the case of the Cork butter market, where the higher kinds are dis- advantaged in not adequately profiting by their better repute; or instance the case of herring-branding (now optional), the effect of which is to put the many inferior curers, who just reach the level of official approval, on a par with the few better ones who rise above it, and so to discourage these. But such lessons pass unlearned. Even where the failure of inspection is most glaring, no notice is taken of it; as instance the terrible catastrophe by which a train full of people was destroyed along the Tay Bridge. Countless denunciations, loud and unsparing, were vented against engineer and contractor: but little, if anything, was said about the government officer from whom the bridge received State approval. So. too, with prevention of disease. It matters not that under the management or dictation of State agents some of the worst evils occur; as when the lives of eighty-seven wives and children of soldiers are sacrificed in the ship Accrington; or as when typhoid fever and diphtheria are diffused by a State-ordered drainage system, as in Edinburgh; or as when officially enforced sanitary appliances, ever getting out of order, increase the evils they were to decrease. These instances of the failure of legislation, quoted by Spencer, are now somewhat classical and out of date, but they can be easily replaced by modern ones. Mr. Charles Fairfield, in his chapter on "State Socialism in the Antipodes" contained in "A Plea for Liberty," instances many failures of legislation in Australia, supposed to be in the vanguard of socialistic progress. He shows how the early-closing law in Melbourne in 1885, whereby shops could not keep open after 7 P.M., proved utterly impracticable, robbing all the small suburban stores, which did their main business in the evening, of all chance of success and creating such an opposition that the law was repealed in a few days. He argues that the conduct of the Australian State railroads has been at a heavy loss, only concealed by government bookkeeping. In England herself instances of the failure of State operations can be multiplied almost indefinitely. Says Mr. L. J. Jennings, M.P. (Fortnightly Review, August, 1888, p. 185): Look, for instance, at the Admiralty and the War Office. These two departments alone cost the country ^563,324 a year. The waste of labor that goes on daily is incredible. At the Admiralty the officials, sitting under the same roof, write long letters to one another on the most trivial subjects. Just as if they were 500 miles apart. An immense heap of correspondence may be accumulated about a stick of sealing- wax or a bit of string. The accountant-general's department, crammed with extravagantly paid officials, involves charges for the working staff of £63,557 a year, and a pension list of £ 33,324. . . . The Secretary of the Admiralty.Mr. Forwood, has admitted (" First Report of Sir Matthew White Ridley's Commission." Q. 9751) that if the salaries were placed on a " commercial basis" the expense of the accountant-general's office would be brought down to £35,000 or ¿40.000 a year. Why is it not placedon a commercial basis? It cannot be because the authorities have not had a free hand in the " game of reorganization." There have been at least five heroic operations of this kind since 1869. at tremendous cost to the country. . . . What sort of commentary is it on the great reorganization of 1878-80, which cost the country ¿ 20,000 a year in pensions and £52,199 in bonuses that the department is now found to be filled, as the heads of it allege, with extravagantly paid or incompetent officials. . . . The War Office clerk goes leisurely to his duties at ten or eleven, and remains till four or five, his prescribed hours being six each day. And what is the nature of his work? A good deal of it is utterly thrown away. Accounts are audited and re- audited in a purely arbitrary and farcical manner. . . . Correspondence rolls on in huge volumes about trifles light as air; a charge for the use of a cab, a bill of 35. 6d. for candles, a rent in a soldier's jacket, the loss of a nosebag (actual instance« of these cases will be found in the evidence taken before the Army Estimates Committee, 1887 and 1888) may form the theme of an almost intermitía! number of letters. The cut in the soldier's jacket was " inquired into " by colonels, lieutenant-colonels, deputy adjutant-general, assistant deputies. and all sorts of high officials. The documents were entered into books, signed, stamped, and passed on from one to the other for nearly four weeks. In the United States illustrations of the costliness and inefficiency of State operations are notorious. All municipal operations are full of jobs. The building of the County The Court House in New York Citv is United Statei ОП'У an extreme instance of what goes on in all government undertakings. When designed in 1868 its cost was estimated at $250,000. Before the end of 1871 it had cost a sum variously estimated at from $8,000,000 to $13,000,000, and it was still far from finished. Among the items of the cost for fitting it up were $404,347 for safes and $7,500 for thermometers. It is from such facts as these of the repeated failures of government activities to-day that individualists drew their negative argument against socialism. From such instances they very naturally draw the inference that if government cannot efficiently conduct the comparatively small activities it now attempts, it must still further fail in the almost infinitely more difficult functions that would be given to it under a complete socialistic régime. They further argue that even if government, surrounded and supported by individualistic methods, and with wealth created by individualism for it to tax, can, perhaps, altho clumsily and expensively, carry on the few activities of which Socialists make so much to-day, were *ne £ovemment to attempt all, it would be quite another thing. Yet if tf!e State cannot do a11- the accustoming of people to depend upon the State weakens the power of individuals and teaches them to lean on a reed that finally will break. To argue that government ever can conduct the complete industrial life of the people is to almost all economists and to absolutely all individualists the height of absurdity. Mr. E. S. Robertson, in his essay on "The Impracticability of Socialism " (chap. i. in "A Plea for Liberty"), argues that, passing by the facts that Socialists very rarely go into practical details; that it is scarcely possible to see how socialism could provide the clothing for a community except by putting it into a strict uniform as in an army, since, if fashion were allowed, no national committee could foretell what would be needed — passing by the enormous problem of how to manage domestic labor under socialism, except by destroying the home, saying nothing of the still greater difficulties of just distribution between labor of different degrees of value and laborers of different degrees of ability — passing by all these and a hundred other similar difficulties, socialism utterly breaks down before the population question. He says: "The situation may be summed up in a sentence: Socialism without restraints on the increase of population would be utterly inefficient. With such restraints it would be slavery. In a word, socialism — the scheme of collective capital and collective production and distribution — breaks down the moment it is subjected to any practical test" How would the community decide, he asks, of the children born in any year — how many boys should be tailors and how many girls dressmakers? "Socialism, disguise it as we may, is the negation of freedom." Similarly argue all individualists. But probably the chief arguments raised to-day to show the impracticability of socialism and the necessity of individualism, are, as above stated, biologic. Mr. Kidd argues in his "Social Evolution, p. 209, that socialism has not and probably cannot make any serious attempt to deal with even the initial difficulties of the continued success of a society where the struggle for existence is eliminated. He says: "Underneath all Socialist ideals yawns the problem of population." Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his latest work, says: " People who in their corporate capacity abolish the natural relation between merits and benefits will presently be abolished themselves. Either they will have to go through the miseries of slow decay consequent on the increase of those unfit for the business of life, or they will be overrun by some people who have not pursued the foolish policy of fostering the worst at the expense of the better." Mr. Lecky says ("Democracy and Liberty," chap, viii.): "The Socialist remedies would only bring evils far greater than any they could possibly prevent. The desire of each man to improve his circumstances, to reap the full reward of superior talent, or energy, or thrift, is the very mainspring of the production of the world. Take these motives away; persuade men • n .•— that by superior work they will ob- " tain no superior reward; cut off all the hopes that stimulate among or- dinary men ambition, enterprise, invention, and self-sacrifice, and the whole level of production will rapidly and inevitably sink. . . . The essential difference of men in aptitudes, capacities, and character, are things that can never be changed, and all schemes and policies that ignore them are doomed to ultimate failure." Says Mr. Kidd ("Social Evolution"): It will not help us, even if there are to be no competing societies, and if in the contemplated era of socialism the whole human family, without distinction of race or color, is to be included in a federation within which the competitive forces are to be suspended. We may draw such a draft on our imagination, but our common sense, which has to deal with materials as they exist, refuses to honor it. We are concerned not with an imaginary being, but with man as he exists, a creature standing with countless eons of this competition behind him, every quality of his mind and body . . . the product of this rivalry, with its meaning, and allotted place therein, and capable of finding its fullest and fittest employment only in its natural conditions. Individualism, then, bases its argument on the fact that government can scarcely efficiently conduct even now the comparatively limited functions that it does attempt, and would utterly break down before the attempt to control the complete complex interests of all social life; that individualism, on the other hand, so far as tried during this century, while not by any means doing away with all evils, has produced more material and educational progress than in all the other centuries put together, and especially in those countries and in that country where individualism has been tried the most; that even if socialism were practicable, it would inevitably lead to the biological degeneration of the individual and .of the race and finally that even the beginnings of socialism tend to undermine that self-reliance, self- rule, free self-sacrifice, which, tho men consider it born of individual communion with God or of natural ethics alone, all men are agreed to be the noblest and the only enduring and eternal quality of man. Individualism may not produce all progress in a day ; individualists are not blind to the evils of the present, but they do know that an infinite progress has been made ; that that progress is now going on ; that it has been and is now almost solely due to individual struggle and competition in life, and that therefore it is but simple duty to resist even the beginnings of a socialism which for an impossible mirage threatens to attack all progress and to undermine man's noblest possession, individual character and Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...


THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM he could gain by working for himself. This situation is exprest in economic terms by saying that then wages would tend to a maximum, and when it exists, the distribution of wealth is so affected that the larger share of the product goes to labor and the smaller to capital. But when labor is enslaved, the laborers are forced, under pain of starvation, to compete with one another in offering their labor to those who possess land and capital; and then their wages fall to what is strictly necessary for existence and reproduction; while if the hoíders of wealth do not need labor, the unemployed laborers must disappear. Wages, then, tend to a minimum, and the distribution of wealth takes place in such a way that the greater part goes to the landowners and capitalists, and the smaller to the laborers. When labor is free, every man's wealth increases in proportion to the toil he has expended; but when labor is enslaved, his wealth grows in proportion to the capital he has accumulated. From these two opposite modes of distribution flow, ac- cordine to Colins, the two following consequences, each of which has reference to one or other of the two systems of holding land above described : When land is owned by individuals, the wealth of one class of the community and the poverty of the other increase in parallel lines, and in proportion to the growth of intellectual power; but when land is collectively appropriated, the wealth of all increases in proportion to the activity of each, and to the advance of civilization. Colins has developed also some original views on the history of communities, which have been reproduced by M. L. de Pottre in his "Dictionnaire Rationnel." COLLECTIVISM: A term sometimes used in the United States and in Great Britain, but frequently in France, to denote socialism as distinguished from anarchism or communism, both of which are sometimes, tho wrongfully, included under socialism. Collectivism is also used sometimes to indicate the general sociological scheme of socialism, as distinct from any particular form of or plan for carrying out its ideas. COLLECTTVIST SOCIETY: Organized in New York City, 1902. Its principles are set forth as follows : We believe that the true principle of production and distribution is exprest in the dictum: " From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs." This principle requires that all should have the opportunity of useful work, and that all should engage in useful work under the penalty ot public disgrace: that all should receive comfortable incomes except those who will not work, and that none should receive excessively high incomes, as the latter are morally injurious both to the recipient and to the community. The ultimate operation of this principle will be toward the ideal of practical equality of incomes. We believe that this principle can be made effective only by the people acting as a whole through governments truly democratic. We believe that this is no far-off ideal, but is in all civilized countries an attainable rule to be embodied, step by step, into law, custom, and habit. We believe that the establishment of this principle will require the transfer of the means of production and distribution / into the hands of the community; and that every transfer of this nature should be accompanied by full provision for those expropriated on the basis of their needs. We believe thatour governments, national, state. and local, are worthy of hearty allegiance, as in the main good institutions, far more free and beneficent than governments in past times. We believe, however, that they can be made vastly more beneficent through changes for which the present time is ripe. We believe that in those cases where the powers of government are now used for private gain to the detriment of the people at large, it is because the energetic demands of private -^ interests are not met by an enlightened and united opposition. We believe that this evil — the exploitation of the powers of government for private gain — should be abolished and our government made fully responsive to the people's will, through the establishment of direct legislation, proportional representation, and the power of recall. We believe that the measures, other than the last named, which at present promise best results are; Legislation to secure work to the unemployed; to establish a maximum day and a minimum wage for all workers; and to provide pensions fo» the aged. The taxation of franchises at their full value, and the graduated taxation of land values, incomes, and inheritances. The assumption by city and state governments of enlarged and new activities for the common benefit, including the ownership of public utilities. The assumption by the national Government of the telegraphs, railroads, and mines. The organization works mainly by publishing and circulating tracts carefully prepared on evolutionary, scientific, and Christian socialism, and by holding meetings and conferences in New York. Secretary, Miss M. R. Holbrook, P. O. Box 1663, New York City. COLORADO COOPERATIVE COMPANY, THE: Organized and incorporated in Colorado in 1904, to reclaim by irrigation desert land on Tabe- guache Park, whereon to found independent homes for its stockholders. This tract oí land in Montrose County, southwestern Colorado, consists of 30,000 acres, two thirds of which is arable and fertile. It is specially adapted to fruit growing and general farming. Timber, coal, and building stone are in close proximity, as well as large deposits of the more precious metals. To reclaim the land an irrigation canal, more than twenty miles in length had to be built, costing at least $300,000. To accomplish this work, stock subscriptions were taken in shares of $100 each, payable in cash, labor, or products of practical use to the company. The source of supply is the San Miguel River, a never-failing stream. None but stockholders are employed, each of whom receives thirty cents per hour, payable in stock and food supplies from the company's store. There are about 400 stockholders, holding varying numbers of shares. The land holdings range from a town lot to a quarter section, ttio a forty- acre tract is the usual claim of each stockholder. Each share of stock entitles its owner to draw a prorata share of water flowing in the canal, and on full completion it is estimated that a share will properly irrigate four acres. The unclaimed land may be still homesteaded or otherwise entered at $1.25 per acre. There is as yet no railroad, but surveys are being made, and the prospects for one are fair. Under the title of The Nucía Town Improvement Company the colonists have incorporated a town company. The stock is divided into shares of $10 each, and each share entitles the holder to a lease of one business lot, or two residence lots, for ninety-nine years, with privilege of renewal. A block of four acres is the maximum holding of any shareholder. The organization is based on the Henry George single tax idea. (See FAIRHOPE.) Nucía town site- already embraces 400 acres, nearly all of which is under least-, and more land is expected to be soon ready for platting into lots and blocks. Those appreciative of magnificent scenery, a mild and healthful climate, and an intelligent and progressive community, will find it at Nucía. F. B. LOGA*. COLWELL, STEPHEN: American merchant and economist: born in Virginia, 1800; admitted to the bar in his native state, but gave up the profession of law to become an iron merchant in Philadelphia. He studied and wrote much on political economy, being a protectionist; and he was ^ frequent contributor to the periodicals of his time. His best-known work is "The Ways and Means of Commercial Payment" (1858), in which he attempts to give a full analysis of the credit system, and contends that error has always been made in not distinguishing between Commerce THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM money of gold andCognetti de Martiis Colwell

253 Loading... Loading...


THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM 252 served on three royal commissions: (i) to inquire into the Marine Board, 1896; (2) to inquire into the cause of the decline of the birth-rate, 1903 ; and (3) to subdivide the State of New South Wales into electorates, 1904. He was president of the Conference of Austin, and is president of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science. Among his works may be mentioned: "Wealth and Progress of New South Wales"; "The Seven Colonies of Australasia"; " Childbirth"; "Notes on the Financial Aspect of the Australian Federation"; and, jointly with T. T. Ewing, M.P., "Progress of Australia during the Nineteenth Century. Address: Office of the Agent-General, London, England. COGNE TTI DE MARTIIS, SALVATORE: Italian sociologist and economist ; born at Bari, Italy, 1844. In 1868 he became professor in the Institute of Technology of that place ; the next year he accepted a similar position in Mantua, and in 1876 he was called to take the chair of political economy in the University of Turin. Professor Cognetti, according to Cossa, may be classed with the Italian sociological school. He has especially studied the economic functions of animal and savage life, and by investigations in philology, etc., has thrown much light on the origins of socialism in antiquity. He has, however, studied modern economic conditions, and particularly those, of the United States. He is the author of: "Delle Attinenze tra l'Economia Sociale e la Storia" (Florence, 1866); "Le Forme primitive neu' Evoluzione Económica" (Turin, 1881); "II Socialismo negli State Uniti d'America" (Turin, 1887); and " Socialismo Antico " (1889). COHN, GUSTAV: German economist; born at Marienwerder, West Prussia, 1840; studied in Berlin and Jena; Fellow of the Royal Statistical Seminary of Berlin, 1867-68, afterward at Heidelberg and the Polytechnic at Riga. In 1873 he visited England, and as a result of his studies published his ' ' Untersuchungen über die englische Eisenbahnpolitik." In 1875 he was called to the Polytechnic at Zurich, and in 1884 as regular professor to the University of Göttingen. One of the foremost economists in Germany, his writings have been numerous. Perhaps his best-known works are his "System der Nationalökonomie" (1886), in which his chapters on cooperation, the normal labor day, and freedom of industry are of special value; and his " Finanzwissenschaft " (1889). He has written on the woman question (1897) , besides various historical studies. Address: Göttingen, Germany. COIT, STANTON: American ethical lecturer; born in Columbus, Ohio, 1857; was graduated at Amherst, 1879, and took the degree of Ph.D. at Berlin, 1885. Studying social conditions, and living himself in a tenement among the poor, he founded the Neighborhood Guild in the tenth ward in New York City in 1887, and became one of the founders, and for two vcars head worker of the University Settlement in that city. He was for several years lecturer with Professor ADLER of the New York Society for Ethical Culture. In 1888 he succeeded Mr. Moncure D. Conway, in London, as lecturer of the South Place Ethical Society, and instituted a Neighborhood Guild in London, and later founded and became head of the West London Ethical Society. He was one of the founders of the International Journal of Ethics. His main works are ' ' Neighborhood Guilds " ; " The Ethical Movement in Religion." issued in Germany, and several lectures in one volume, translated into French and published as "La Religion basée sur la Morale." Address: 30 Hyde Park Gate, S.W., London, England. COLBERT, JEAN BAPTISTE: French statesman; born at Rheims, 1619. He rose from office to office, till he became one of the greatest ministers France has ever had. In 1661 he became controller-general. His first reform was to reduce the taille — a direct property tax — and to establish a departmental office. He was especially noted for his love of system and regularity in industry and commerce. Frequently his regulations were strict even to severity. His economic method was to organize industry, sustain it by custom-house regulations and protection, and to create model manufactures by grants of money or privilege. All financial dishonesties he strove with laudable severity to check. His mind was not sufficiently profound to establish a complete system; he dealt with immediate difficulties, and overcame them by his energy and good sense. He interested himself in the shipping trade and in the arts and sciences, encouraging the arts by liberal presents and pensions. In 1663 he founded the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres, and in 1668 the Academy of the Sciences. He died in Paris, 1683. COLINS, JEAN GUILLAUME CESAR ALEX- ANDRE HIPPOLYTE, BARON DE: French soldier and sociologist; born at Brussels, 1783. He entered the French army at an early age, and won many honors. In 1833 he settled down to a quiet life, and pursued at Paris his scientific and social studies. In 1835 he issued his first work, entitled "Le Pact Social." In it he advocated collectivism, and declared that "immovable property belongs to all." Numerous other works on social questions followed, and he continued to write until his death in 1859. Colins and his disciples called their system Rational Socialism. They believed in spiritualism and atheism, denying the existence of a God, while at the same time affirming the immortality of the human soul. Morality, they say, is sufficiently based upon personal immortality. All men are equal, free, moral, and therefore responsible beings. M. de Laveleye, in his "Socialism of To-day," gives the following concise account of their economic doctrines : Originally there existed only man and the earth on which he lived: on the one hand, labor; and on the other, the soil or raw material, without which all labor would be impossible. But from the joint action of these two elements of production there soon came into being wealth of a peculiar kind, in which labor was, as it were, accumulated, which was movable and separate from the soil. This was capital. Labor is free when the raw material, the soil, belongs to it; otherwise it is enslaved. Man therefore can, in fact, only exercise his energy with the permission of the owners of the raw material; and he who requires the authority of another before he can act is clearly not free. In order, then, that all the members of the community should become permanent proprietors of the national soil, the soil must be collectively appropriated. The collective appropriation of the soil implies, in the first place, that it should be at the disposal of all who wish to utilize it; and secondly, that t he rent, paid by the tenants to the community, should be expended for the common benefit of all. The above relates to the production of wealth. Let us now consider the way in which rational socialism regulates its distribution. When labor is free — as is necessarily the case when the land is accessible to all — every one can live without being obliged to accept wages from anybody. In that case, a man would work for ot hers only if they off ere d him, as wages, more th an Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...


THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM 252 served on three royal commissions: (i) to inquire into the Marine Board, 1896; (2) to inquire into the cause of the decline of the birth-rate, 1903 ; and (3) to subdivide the State of New South Wales into electorates, 1904. He was president of the Conference of Austin, and is president of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science. Among his works may be mentioned: "Wealth and Progress of New South Wales"; "The Seven Colonies of Australasia"; " Childbirth"; "Notes on the Financial Aspect of the Australian Federation"; and, jointly with T. T. Ewing, M.P., "Progress of Australia during the Nineteenth Century. Address: Office of the Agent-General, London, England. COGNE TTI DE MARTIIS, SALVATORE: Italian sociologist and economist ; born at Bari, Italy, 1844. In 1868 he became professor in the Institute of Technology of that place ; the next year he accepted a similar position in Mantua, and in 1876 he was called to take the chair of political economy in the University of Turin. Professor Cognetti, according to Cossa, may be classed with the Italian sociological school. He has especially studied the economic functions of animal and savage life, and by investigations in philology, etc., has thrown much light on the origins of socialism in antiquity. He has, however, studied modern economic conditions, and particularly those, of the United States. He is the author of: "Delle Attinenze tra l'Economia Sociale e la Storia" (Florence, 1866); "Le Forme primitive neu' Evoluzione Económica" (Turin, 1881); "II Socialismo negli State Uniti d'America" (Turin, 1887); and " Socialismo Antico " (1889). COHN, GUSTAV: German economist; born at Marienwerder, West Prussia, 1840; studied in Berlin and Jena; Fellow of the Royal Statistical Seminary of Berlin, 1867-68, afterward at Heidelberg and the Polytechnic at Riga. In 1873 he visited England, and as a result of his studies published his ' ' Untersuchungen über die englische Eisenbahnpolitik." In 1875 he was called to the Polytechnic at Zurich, and in 1884 as regular professor to the University of Göttingen. One of the foremost economists in Germany, his writings have been numerous. Perhaps his best-known works are his "System der Nationalökonomie" (1886), in which his chapters on cooperation, the normal labor day, and freedom of industry are of special value; and his " Finanzwissenschaft " (1889). He has written on the woman question (1897) , besides various historical studies. Address: Göttingen, Germany. COIT, STANTON: American ethical lecturer; born in Columbus, Ohio, 1857; was graduated at Amherst, 1879, and took the degree of Ph.D. at Berlin, 1885. Studying social conditions, and living himself in a tenement among the poor, he founded the Neighborhood Guild in the tenth ward in New York City in 1887, and became one of the founders, and for two vcars head worker of the University Settlement in that city. He was for several years lecturer with Professor ADLER of the New York Society for Ethical Culture. In 1888 he succeeded Mr. Moncure D. Conway, in London, as lecturer of the South Place Ethical Society, and instituted a Neighborhood Guild in London, and later founded and became head of the West London Ethical Society. He was one of the founders of the International Journal of Ethics. His main works are ' ' Neighborhood Guilds " ; " The Ethical Movement in Religion." issued in Germany, and several lectures in one volume, translated into French and published as "La Religion basée sur la Morale." Address: 30 Hyde Park Gate, S.W., London, England. COLBERT, JEAN BAPTISTE: French statesman; born at Rheims, 1619. He rose from office to office, till he became one of the greatest ministers France has ever had. In 1661 he became controller-general. His first reform was to reduce the taille — a direct property tax — and to establish a departmental office. He was especially noted for his love of system and regularity in industry and commerce. Frequently his regulations were strict even to severity. His economic method was to organize industry, sustain it by custom-house regulations and protection, and to create model manufactures by grants of money or privilege. All financial dishonesties he strove with laudable severity to check. His mind was not sufficiently profound to establish a complete system; he dealt with immediate difficulties, and overcame them by his energy and good sense. He interested himself in the shipping trade and in the arts and sciences, encouraging the arts by liberal presents and pensions. In 1663 he founded the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres, and in 1668 the Academy of the Sciences. He died in Paris, 1683. COLINS, JEAN GUILLAUME CESAR ALEX- ANDRE HIPPOLYTE, BARON DE: French soldier and sociologist; born at Brussels, 1783. He entered the French army at an early age, and won many honors. In 1833 he settled down to a quiet life, and pursued at Paris his scientific and social studies. In 1835 he issued his first work, entitled "Le Pact Social." In it he advocated collectivism, and declared that "immovable property belongs to all." Numerous other works on social questions followed, and he continued to write until his death in 1859. Colins and his disciples called their system Rational Socialism. They believed in spiritualism and atheism, denying the existence of a God, while at the same time affirming the immortality of the human soul. Morality, they say, is sufficiently based upon personal immortality. All men are equal, free, moral, and therefore responsible beings. M. de Laveleye, in his "Socialism of To-day," gives the following concise account of their economic doctrines : Originally there existed only man and the earth on which he lived: on the one hand, labor; and on the other, the soil or raw material, without which all labor would be impossible. But from the joint action of these two elements of production there soon came into being wealth of a peculiar kind, in which labor was, as it were, accumulated, which was movable and separate from the soil. This was capital. Labor is free when the raw material, the soil, belongs to it; otherwise it is enslaved. Man therefore can, in fact, only exercise his energy with the permission of the owners of the raw material; and he who requires the authority of another before he can act is clearly not free. In order, then, that all the members of the community should become permanent proprietors of the national soil, the soil must be collectively appropriated. The collective appropriation of the soil implies, in the first place, that it should be at the disposal of all who wish to utilize it; and secondly, that t he rent, paid by the tenants to the community, should be expended for the common benefit of all. The above relates to the production of wealth. Let us now consider the way in which rational socialism regulates its distribution. When labor is free — as is necessarily the case when the land is accessible to all — every one can live without being obliged to accept wages from anybody. In that case, a man would work for ot hers only if they off ere d him, as wages, more th an Loading... Loading...


THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM he could gain by working for himself. This situation is exprest in economic terms by saying that then wages would tend to a maximum, and when it exists, the distribution of wealth is so affected that the larger share of the product goes to labor and the smaller to capital. But when labor is enslaved, the laborers are forced, under pain of starvation, to compete with one another in offering their labor to those who possess land and capital; and then their wages fall to what is strictly necessary for existence and reproduction; while if the hoíders of wealth do not need labor, the unemployed laborers must disappear. Wages, then, tend to a minimum, and the distribution of wealth takes place in such a way that the greater part goes to the landowners and capitalists, and the smaller to the laborers. When labor is free, every man's wealth increases in proportion to the toil he has expended; but when labor is enslaved, his wealth grows in proportion to the capital he has accumulated. From these two opposite modes of distribution flow, ac- cordine to Colins, the two following consequences, each of which has reference to one or other of the two systems of holding land above described : When land is owned by individuals, the wealth of one class of the community and the poverty of the other increase in parallel lines, and in proportion to the growth of intellectual power; but when land is collectively appropriated, the wealth of all increases in proportion to the activity of each, and to the advance of civilization. Colins has developed also some original views on the history of communities, which have been reproduced by M. L. de Pottre in his "Dictionnaire Rationnel." COLLECTIVISM: A term sometimes used in the United States and in Great Britain, but frequently in France, to denote socialism as distinguished from anarchism or communism, both of which are sometimes, tho wrongfully, included under socialism. Collectivism is also used sometimes to indicate the general sociological scheme of socialism, as distinct from any particular form of or plan for carrying out its ideas. COLLECTTVIST SOCIETY: Organized in New York City, 1902. Its principles are set forth as follows : We believe that the true principle of production and distribution is exprest in the dictum: " From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs." This principle requires that all should have the opportunity of useful work, and that all should engage in useful work under the penalty ot public disgrace: that all should receive comfortable incomes except those who will not work, and that none should receive excessively high incomes, as the latter are morally injurious both to the recipient and to the community. The ultimate operation of this principle will be toward the ideal of practical equality of incomes. We believe that this principle can be made effective only by the people acting as a whole through governments truly democratic. We believe that this is no far-off ideal, but is in all civilized countries an attainable rule to be embodied, step by step, into law, custom, and habit. We believe that the establishment of this principle will require the transfer of the means of production and distribution / into the hands of the community; and that every transfer of this nature should be accompanied by full provision for those expropriated on the basis of their needs. We believe thatour governments, national, state. and local, are worthy of hearty allegiance, as in the main good institutions, far more free and beneficent than governments in past times. We believe, however, that they can be made vastly more beneficent through changes for which the present time is ripe. We believe that in those cases where the powers of government are now used for private gain to the detriment of the people at large, it is because the energetic demands of private -^ interests are not met by an enlightened and united opposition. We believe that this evil — the exploitation of the powers of government for private gain — should be abolished and our government made fully responsive to the people's will, through the establishment of direct legislation, proportional representation, and the power of recall. We believe that the measures, other than the last named, which at present promise best results are; Legislation to secure work to the unemployed; to establish a maximum day and a minimum wage for all workers; and to provide pensions fo» the aged. The taxation of franchises at their full value, and the graduated taxation of land values, incomes, and inheritances. The assumption by city and state governments of enlarged and new activities for the common benefit, including the ownership of public utilities. The assumption by the national Government of the telegraphs, railroads, and mines. The organization works mainly by publishing and circulating tracts carefully prepared on evolutionary, scientific, and Christian socialism, and by holding meetings and conferences in New York. Secretary, Miss M. R. Holbrook, P. O. Box 1663, New York City. COLORADO COOPERATIVE COMPANY, THE: Organized and incorporated in Colorado in 1904, to reclaim by irrigation desert land on Tabe- guache Park, whereon to found independent homes for its stockholders. This tract oí land in Montrose County, southwestern Colorado, consists of 30,000 acres, two thirds of which is arable and fertile. It is specially adapted to fruit growing and general farming. Timber, coal, and building stone are in close proximity, as well as large deposits of the more precious metals. To reclaim the land an irrigation canal, more than twenty miles in length had to be built, costing at least $300,000. To accomplish this work, stock subscriptions were taken in shares of $100 each, payable in cash, labor, or products of practical use to the company. The source of supply is the San Miguel River, a never-failing stream. None but stockholders are employed, each of whom receives thirty cents per hour, payable in stock and food supplies from the company's store. There are about 400 stockholders, holding varying numbers of shares. The land holdings range from a town lot to a quarter section, ttio a forty- acre tract is the usual claim of each stockholder. Each share of stock entitles its owner to draw a prorata share of water flowing in the canal, and on full completion it is estimated that a share will properly irrigate four acres. The unclaimed land may be still homesteaded or otherwise entered at $1.25 per acre. There is as yet no railroad, but surveys are being made, and the prospects for one are fair. Under the title of The Nucía Town Improvement Company the colonists have incorporated a town company. The stock is divided into shares of $10 each, and each share entitles the holder to a lease of one business lot, or two residence lots, for ninety-nine years, with privilege of renewal. A block of four acres is the maximum holding of any shareholder. The organization is based on the Henry George single tax idea. (See FAIRHOPE.) Nucía town site- already embraces 400 acres, nearly all of which is under least-, and more land is expected to be soon ready for platting into lots and blocks. Those appreciative of magnificent scenery, a mild and healthful climate, and an intelligent and progressive community, will find it at Nucía. F. B. LOGA*. COLWELL, STEPHEN: American merchant and economist: born in Virginia, 1800; admitted to the bar in his native state, but gave up the profession of law to become an iron merchant in Philadelphia. He studied and wrote much on political economy, being a protectionist; and he was ^ frequent contributor to the periodicals of his time. His best-known work is "The Ways and Means of Commercial Payment" (1858), in which he attempts to give a full analysis of the credit system, and contends that error has always been made in not distinguishing between Commerce THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM money of gold andCognetti de Martiis Colwell

253 Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...


Individua li sm THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM man closest to nature herself, to his central silent home, and plants the root of his life in a substance that cannot perish. Through this spirit works the infinite, and while the heavens bend above, it can never break or fail. . . . This spirit of individualism, of non-conformity, of social, political, and religious heresy is the sword which Nature forges while despots sleep; and just when they dream themselves insured in an eternity of comfortable stagnation it suddenly flashes before them, scattering their plans, circumventing their cunning, and breaking all their pet idols in pieces. This spirit opens the enslaving shell of custom, throws it aside, and allows the inner life to grow. Low slavish natures hate and fear it above everything, and no means are too bad for them to use against it; but it has always managed in the long run to undo them, and it will yet live and flourish when they and all their works are lost in the slavery of the past. " Individualism," says Draper ("Conflict Between Religion and Science," chap, ii., p. 295), " rests on the principle that a man shall be his own master." It is in such thoughts, of the worth of the individual, cither because of its individual union with God, if the theory take a religious form, or because of the conviction that simple character, self-rule, self-reliance, self-poise, is the one thing of worth in the universe, that most men base their argument for individualism. They argue that for the State to interfere with the action of the individual weakens character. It is far better, says the individualist, for men to carve their own way, to live their own lives, to learn by experience their own lessons, even if they make continual blunders, than for the State to be interfering, even if, so far as the immediate step be concerned, it interfere wisely, because the latter course will weaken the individual will and lessen individual ability. Few individualists think that any government is wise enough to interfere wisely, but even if it were, individualists would still oppose it because of its undermining influences upon character. A wise government, they would argue, may be even worse than a foolish government. A foolish government would probably call out resistance and activity. A wise paternalism might lull to eternal sleep the power of self-choice and self-will. The second argument for individualism is a biological one. (For a compléter statement of it, see BIOLOGY; EVOLUTION.) We shall also notice it again in considering the objection to socialism. It may be said in a word to be that there can be no progress save by competition, no progress save by natural selection and the survival of the fittest, so that the struggle for life between individuals is of the very essence of progressive life, while just so far as the State interferes with this struggle between individuals, and either forces or leads cooP,erati°n; it must The Biological Argument induce a low and lowering social level and the gradual degeneration of the individual. This is one of the arguments for individualism most prevalent today. We do not dwell upon it here simply because it is considered elsewhere. (See BIOLOGY; EVOLUTION.) The third argument, or the induction from positive experiences of individualism, may be . deemed but a form of the biological argument. It is, however, such an important The Ar form as to make it worthy of treat- mentfrom ment by itsClf- II argues that the Expérience h'ßhest civilization, materially and in character, has as a matter of fact * been developed when there has been the most individualism. We have seen something of this in considering the history of individualism. Beginning largely with Adam Smith and the so- called school of national liberty (see POLITICAL ECONOMY), we have had less interference of the State with the individual than ever before in the history of civilized man. What has been the result? There have been evils; no man claims perfection for the nineteenth century; but there has been more progress in most directions than in all the other centuries of civilization put together. In science, in the means of livelihood, in popular education, in the art of preserving life, in acquainting men with the facts of the universe, in the means of communication, man has advanced as never before in all his history. Generally speaking, perhaps, the country where individualism has been carried to the farthest degree is the United States, with Great Britain next. With what result? These two countries are to-day the wealthiest, the strongest, the most vital countries of the world. The language and the commerce of these two nations are dominating the world. Particularly has the U. S. stood for individualism. Says Mr. N. P. Gilman ("Socialism and the American Spirit," p. 90) : In more senses than one America may be called the paradise of the individual. No other country has held out sucb great prizes to private talent for the last century, or offered it a freer field to work in. A manly, capable, and! self-reliant people, Americans have had an opportunity the like of which is unknown to history. Least of all peoples have they had reason to put their faith in governmental machinery, even that of their own devising, in preference to individual initiative and voluntary cooperation. Especially in the building up of great manufacturing industries and the development of immense transportation systems has the practical genius of the people asserted itself, with the results in the gigantic operations and colossal fortunes which we see to-day in all directions. The American is always ready to receive help from the State in starting a railway or a steamship line (the old flag and an appropriation), but he is not at all inclined to consider the government a proper agent for the management or ownership of either. Mr. Gilman quotes Alfred Fouillée as saying ("Education from a National Standpoint," Am. ed., p. 6): "Scarcely an American can be found who has not in his mind, in a more or less nebulous form, this idea of illimitable individualism and indefinite expansion." Now, what has been the result? America's material wealth, her popular education, and her progress in almost all ways, are the marvel of the world. Nowhere do the common people begin to be so well off. In wages, in home comforts, in liberty, in popular education, the working people native to the U. S. are far ahead of any working classes of the world, unless it be in New Zealand and in Australia. Particularly has business in America been free from governmental restrictions, with the result that nowhere else does business begin to be carried on in so effective or colossal a way, and nowhere else are the masses of the people so well off. This last thought leads to the reflection that the very fact of the prosperity of the people is the cause of the present social unrest. Says Herbert Spencer, in the Introduction to "A Plea for Liberty": Of the many ways in which common-sense inferences about social affairs are flatly contradicted by events . . . one of the most curious is the way in which the more things improve, the louder become the exclamations about their badness. In the days when the people were without any political power, their subjection was rarely complained of; but after free institutions had so far advanced in England that our political arrangements were envied by continental peoples, the denunciations of aristocratic rule grew gradually stronger, until there came a great widening of the franchise, soon followed by complaints that things were going wrong for want of still Loading... Loading...


THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OP SOCIAL REFORM Individualism with government property. He has taucht men that, as society develops, the interests of its members become more and more harmonious; in other words, that rational egoism and rational altruism lend to coincide. But the characteristic modern development of individualism is economic. With many forerunners, and perhaps particularly Hume, Adam Smith is here the great name, the father of the school of natural liberty, which we do not dwell upon here only because it is treated in full elsewhere. (See POLITICAL ECONOMY.) Yet perhaps even here the school of natural liberty and Adam Smith are a result rather than a cause. It was necessary to break the old economic restraints. New discoveries, new inventions, new processes refused to be fettered by old laws. In France, the Revolution: in England, Adam Smith; in Germany, the Stein Hardenberg legislation; in America, the bills of rights incorporated into the national and state constitutions, all witness to and develop the same tendency to free and to protect the individual from restraint. In every country it has produced reaction — in France, the empire; in Germany, state and democratic socialism; in England, factory laws and more recently munic- ipaïism; in the United States, federalism, republicanism, and protection. Through all the first half of the nineteenth century, however, individualism was in all directions dominant. Its results are well known. The individual, free from legislative restraint, seeks gain. The producer who can produce the most, the best, or the cheapest gains the market. Out of competition to do this has sprung the modern mastery of the — .^ methods of production, division of labor, improved machinery, gigantic plants, the factory system, industry on the large scale ; if it has produced the capitalist and the millionaire, it has also both lowered prices and raised wages for the million. In its search for new markets and commercial gain it has girded the world with the telegraph, continents with railroads, ané whitened the sea with sails. It has developed more progress in 100 vears than all the other centuries put together. If its characteristic results have been material, it has made education common. It is true that large producers and the development of colossal transportation corporations have created difficulties for the small producer, made the workman largely dependent upon the capitalist, and developed the means of production beyond the present ability to consume, causing the phenomena of the unemployed and the tramp. But it must be remembered, in the first place, that these evils are due to the very success of individualism, so that we should think twice before we attempt to cure them by destroying the system which has created this success ; secondly, it is to be doubted if there are more unemployed than before, while certainly real wages, measured by prices, are materially advanced; thirdly, individualists believe that the cure lies not in forsaking the principle which has been the very life of modern progress, but in lifting up every individual to a level of more effective competition till every man receive the means of life because every man is able to contribute something to the social need. What is needed, according to this view, is not less but more individualism. Modern practical individualism does not urge that at present we should do away with all industrial legislation or all interference of the State with the affairs of individuals; it believes that till men grow wiser they need some legislative checks, but it holds that in general it is wiser to let the individual act as he will and seek to overcome the ills resulting from his mistakes by educating wiser and better individuals. THE ARGUMENT FOR INDIVIDUALISM The arguments for individualism may be conveniently divided into four heads: (i) The ethical argument; (a) the biological; (3) the inductive positive argument; (4) the inductive negative argument from the follies and evils of State interference. The ethical argument probably affects the common consciousness far more than any other. Brof. S. N^ Patten, in the Introduction to his "Theory of Social Forces," considers individualism to rest largely on eighteenth-century philosophy, and says: I question whether the hold which this social philosophy has on the popular mind can be shaken by an appeal to inductive evidence. This hold depends upon certain concepts and ideals which have received classical statements at the hands of our ablest thinkers, and which cannot be displaced by unorganized facts. The basis of popular individualism undoubtedly lies deep down in the fundamental facts of the universe, in the power, the worth, the consciousness of responsibility in the individual soul. It takes ordinarily a form either religious or one of so-called natural ethics. One' of the fundamental principles of Christianity is the worth of the individual soul. Protestantism, with its right of private judgment, its doctrine of salvation by faith, is particularly in accord with the individualistic tendency. Dr. Lyman Abbott, in his "Evolution of Christianity,' says: It has been said that Jesus Christ was the first Socialist. This is certainly an inexact, if not an absolutely erroneous, statement. It would be more nearly correct to say that He was the first individualist. The Socialist assumes that the prolific cause of misery in the world is bad social organization. Christ assumed that the prolific cause of misery in the world is individual wrong-doing. Says Mr. N. P. Oilman ("Socialism and the American Spirit," pp. 324-327): The Ethical Argument A higher individualism is possible, and has long been actual, with at least a few of each generation of mankind. It respects every person as haying something of infinite worth in him, and would begin to improve the world by elevating the single spirit, counting no advance permanent that is not based on reformed and cultivated individuals. This method fully deserves the epithet "Christian," derived from "the only soul in history who has appreciated the worth of a man." The teaching of Jesus was profoundly individualistic in its imperative address to the private conscience. Such a spiritual doctrine does not find its natural alliance with a mechanical socialism. This, with most of its expounders, is materialistic to the core. The Christian spirit is in full harmony with a rationalized individualism in social life. So inspired, individualism includes voluntary cooperation, the method of modem civilization; and the ideal towhichit tends is fraternal - ism. not paternalism. The inquiry is extremely pertinent: " Have we yet even discovered the resources of an individualism which is not synonymous with selfishness, but welcomes and fosters public spirit?" Few wise persons will answer this in the affirmative. This higher individualism, perhaps, quite as often to-day takes the form of so-called "natural ethics." Mr. M. D. O'Brien, in the Introduction to his "Socialism Tested by Facts," says: Weak and little, low and corrupt as he is, yet nature has endowed man with such a spirit that he can never permanently become the slave of men. This spirit is individualism, the deepest and mightiest fact in existence, which brings Individua li sm THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM man closest

609 Loading... Loading...


Individualism THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OP SOCIAL REFORM cause. Ruinous marriage and funeral expenses are another. Caste prevents one class from feeling for another. Hindus call India "The Land of Charity." foreigners add " of beggars" The laws of Manu make it the Brahman s duty to beg. There is no poor law. Charity is all private. The government, in time of famine, supplies relief works. In all the principal cities and mission stations Europeans have established friend-in- need societies or charity boards. There are forty-eight houses for opium refugees. The Lady Dufferin Association (1885) had 133 hospitals and dispensaries, 74 lady doctors, 52 assistants and 257 medical students. There are probably 500.000 lepers in India; and there are now 47 leper asylums. The largest has 545 inmates. There are о asylums and schools for the blind and deaf-mutes, and 23 for the insane; us orphanages and 7 juvenile reformatories. The government is developing great schemes of irrigation, commerce, and industry. It is introducing agricultural banks and postal savings-banks. BIBLIOC.RAPHV: Statistical Abstract for British India, Annual, London; Statistical Abstract ¡or the Colonies, Annual. London; India in the Nineteenth CeMttry, by D. C. Houlger, London, 1001; New Initia, by Sir H^J. S. Cotton. London, 1904; India in the Victorian Age, by R. C. Dutt. London, 1904; India, Its Administration and Progress, by Sir John Strachcy. London, 1903; The Poverty oí India, by Dadabhai Naoraji, London, 1901. INDIVIDUALISM: The term individualism, as used in social science, has been defined as "the theory of government which favors the non-interference of the State in the affairs of individuals. (" Century Dictionary"). It is, however, more commonly, and much more correctly, used for the tendency to oppose State interference in the affairs of the individual rather than for any cut- and-dried theory of the function or lack of function of the State. When a man says he is an individualist, he usually means not that he holds any exact a priori theory as to what the State should or should not do, but that he Definition 'ncnnes. to oppose State interference, ' unless it be very clearly proved that it is necessary. The presumption with him is against interference. He inclines to resist socialistic legislation, even in small matters, ' est they lead to a general State socialism. He believes that we must finally decide from experience and history what in each particular o-ise is wise. Individualism must not be confounded with anarchism (q. г1.), nor with the positive program laid down by particular individualists, however prominent. (See SINGLE TAX; SPENCER; VOLUNTARYISM.) We find individualism somewhat developed among the Greek Sophists and in all Greek thought. Greek political philosophy conceived, it is true, of the individual as living for the State rather .than for himself; but with this went a high conception of the complete man, the sound mind in a sound body, and this developed a practical, ethical, if not a political individualism. Aristotle, with his tendency to exalt the concrete over Platonic abstractions, may be said to be the first great thinker of individualism, tho even he held the high Greek conception of the State. The Cyrenaic and the Epicurean schools both developed a type of ethical individualism. Still more did Stoicism lend itself consistently to individualism . Some of the profoundest thoughts of ethical individualism have come down from the Greek Stoics, while some of its noblest and most classic utterances must be sought in the pages of the Roman Stoics. The Roman Empire, it is true, developed into a strong imperialism; nevertheless, in Roman thought, and above all in Roman jurisprudence, the individual is in a large sense supreme over the State, since we have here the first clear development of the theory of contract between free individuals. Meanwhile, the life and teachings of Christ were developing, many hold, an individualism flowering into fraternal charity rather than the primitive Christian communism, of which so much is said to-day. (For a discussion of this, see CHRIST AND SOCIAL REFORM; CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL REFORM.) Be this as it may, the Middle Ages, inheriting the traditions of Roman power, together with the religious teachings of Christ, developed an ecclesiastical paternalism removed alike from a primitive communism or an ethical individualism. Nevertheless, in some of the schoolmen we trace an individual- Hodern In- *st thought based in part upon the dividualisni teachings °f Aristotle, while some of the ascetics practised what may be called a selfish individualistic spirituality. The characteristic ages of individualism, however, are those between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries. Revolting alike from the despotism of the Church and the tyranny of the warrior, we find the individual asserting himself everywhere, in religion and in philosophy, in political science and in practice. In religion, Luther, by the doctrine of salvation by faith, lifts the individual into the right of private judgment; while Calvin, with his doctrine of the divine decrees, by making man obedient to God alone, lifts him above obedience to any human power. From the position of Luther or Calvin it was but a step toward the practical realization of their theories by an assertion of the right of private judgment in morals and of civil liberty in matters where unity of action was not a social necessity. Kant, Bentham, John Stuart Mill, all helped people to take this step more and more fearlessly. The line of thought advanced by these men finds its legitimate development in the writings of John Morley and its exaggeration in those of W . K . Clifford . Says Mr. Morley ("On Compromise," pp. 278- 281): We may best estimate the worth and the significance of the doctrine of liberty by considering the line of thought and observation which led to it. To begin with, it is in Mr. Mill's hands something quite different from the same doctrine as preached by the French revolutionary school; indeed, one might even call it reactionary, in respect of the French theory of a hundred years back. It reposes on no principle of abstract right, but, like the rest of its author's opinions, on principles of utility and experience. . . . Mr. Carlyle and one or two rhetorical imitators poured malediction on the many- headed populace, and with rather a pitiful impatience insisted that the only hope for men lay in their finding and obeying a strong man — a king, a hero, a dictator. How he was to be found, neither the master nor his still angrier and more impatient mimics could ever tell us. Now Mr. Mill's doctrine laid down the main condition of finding your hero — viz., that all ways should be left open to him, because no man, nor majority of men, could possibly tell by which of these ways their deliverers were from time to time destined to present themselves. Wits have caricatured all this by asking us whether by encouraging the tares to grow, you give the wheat a better chance. This is as misleading as such metaphors usually are. The doctrine of liberty rests on a faith drawn from the observation of human progress, that tho we know wheat to be serviceable and tares to be worthless, yet there are in the great seed-plot of human nature a thousand rudimentary germs, not wheat and not tares, of whose properties we have not had a fair opportunity of assuring ourselves. If you are too eager to pluck up the tares, you are very likely to pluck up with them these untried possibilities of human excellence, and you are, moreover, very likely to injure the growing wheat as well. The demonstration of this lies in the recorded experience of mankind. Près. Hadley thus sums up this philosophy of individualism ("Economics/ p. 14): Constitutional liberty in politics, rational altruism in morals, and modern business methods in production and distribution of wealth have been the outcome of the great individualistic movement of the nineteenth century. "The individualist has taught people not to confound public morality with a state church, public security with police activity, or public wealth Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...


Individua li sm THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM man closest to nature herself, to his central silent home, and plants the root of his life in a substance that cannot perish. Through this spirit works the infinite, and while the heavens bend above, it can never break or fail. . . . This spirit of individualism, of non-conformity, of social, political, and religious heresy is the sword which Nature forges while despots sleep; and just when they dream themselves insured in an eternity of comfortable stagnation it suddenly flashes before them, scattering their plans, circumventing their cunning, and breaking all their pet idols in pieces. This spirit opens the enslaving shell of custom, throws it aside, and allows the inner life to grow. Low slavish natures hate and fear it above everything, and no means are too bad for them to use against it; but it has always managed in the long run to undo them, and it will yet live and flourish when they and all their works are lost in the slavery of the past. " Individualism," says Draper ("Conflict Between Religion and Science," chap, ii., p. 295), " rests on the principle that a man shall be his own master." It is in such thoughts, of the worth of the individual, cither because of its individual union with God, if the theory take a religious form, or because of the conviction that simple character, self-rule, self-reliance, self-poise, is the one thing of worth in the universe, that most men base their argument for individualism. They argue that for the State to interfere with the action of the individual weakens character. It is far better, says the individualist, for men to carve their own way, to live their own lives, to learn by experience their own lessons, even if they make continual blunders, than for the State to be interfering, even if, so far as the immediate step be concerned, it interfere wisely, because the latter course will weaken the individual will and lessen individual ability. Few individualists think that any government is wise enough to interfere wisely, but even if it were, individualists would still oppose it because of its undermining influences upon character. A wise government, they would argue, may be even worse than a foolish government. A foolish government would probably call out resistance and activity. A wise paternalism might lull to eternal sleep the power of self-choice and self-will. The second argument for individualism is a biological one. (For a compléter statement of it, see BIOLOGY; EVOLUTION.) We shall also notice it again in considering the objection to socialism. It may be said in a word to be that there can be no progress save by competition, no progress save by natural selection and the survival of the fittest, so that the struggle for life between individuals is of the very essence of progressive life, while just so far as the State interferes with this struggle between individuals, and either forces or leads cooP,erati°n; it must The Biological Argument induce a low and lowering social level and the gradual degeneration of the individual. This is one of the arguments for individualism most prevalent today. We do not dwell upon it here simply because it is considered elsewhere. (See BIOLOGY; EVOLUTION.) The third argument, or the induction from positive experiences of individualism, may be . deemed but a form of the biological argument. It is, however, such an important The Ar form as to make it worthy of treat- mentfrom ment by itsClf- II argues that the Expérience h'ßhest civilization, materially and in character, has as a matter of fact * been developed when there has been the most individualism. We have seen something of this in considering the history of individualism. Beginning largely with Adam Smith and the so- called school of national liberty (see POLITICAL ECONOMY), we have had less interference of the State with the individual than ever before in the history of civilized man. What has been the result? There have been evils; no man claims perfection for the nineteenth century; but there has been more progress in most directions than in all the other centuries of civilization put together. In science, in the means of livelihood, in popular education, in the art of preserving life, in acquainting men with the facts of the universe, in the means of communication, man has advanced as never before in all his history. Generally speaking, perhaps, the country where individualism has been carried to the farthest degree is the United States, with Great Britain next. With what result? These two countries are to-day the wealthiest, the strongest, the most vital countries of the world. The language and the commerce of these two nations are dominating the world. Particularly has the U. S. stood for individualism. Says Mr. N. P. Gilman ("Socialism and the American Spirit," p. 90) : In more senses than one America may be called the paradise of the individual. No other country has held out sucb great prizes to private talent for the last century, or offered it a freer field to work in. A manly, capable, and! self-reliant people, Americans have had an opportunity the like of which is unknown to history. Least of all peoples have they had reason to put their faith in governmental machinery, even that of their own devising, in preference to individual initiative and voluntary cooperation. Especially in the building up of great manufacturing industries and the development of immense transportation systems has the practical genius of the people asserted itself, with the results in the gigantic operations and colossal fortunes which we see to-day in all directions. The American is always ready to receive help from the State in starting a railway or a steamship line (the old flag and an appropriation), but he is not at all inclined to consider the government a proper agent for the management or ownership of either. Mr. Gilman quotes Alfred Fouillée as saying ("Education from a National Standpoint," Am. ed., p. 6): "Scarcely an American can be found who has not in his mind, in a more or less nebulous form, this idea of illimitable individualism and indefinite expansion." Now, what has been the result? America's material wealth, her popular education, and her progress in almost all ways, are the marvel of the world. Nowhere do the common people begin to be so well off. In wages, in home comforts, in liberty, in popular education, the working people native to the U. S. are far ahead of any working classes of the world, unless it be in New Zealand and in Australia. Particularly has business in America been free from governmental restrictions, with the result that nowhere else does business begin to be carried on in so effective or colossal a way, and nowhere else are the masses of the people so well off. This last thought leads to the reflection that the very fact of the prosperity of the people is the cause of the present social unrest. Says Herbert Spencer, in the Introduction to "A Plea for Liberty": Of the many ways in which common-sense inferences about social affairs are flatly contradicted by events . . . one of the most curious is the way in which the more things improve, the louder become the exclamations about their badness. In the days when the people were without any political power, their subjection was rarely complained of; but after free institutions had so far advanced in England that our political arrangements were envied by continental peoples, the denunciations of aristocratic rule grew gradually stronger, until there came a great widening of the franchise, soon followed by complaints that things were going wrong for want of still Loading... Loading...


THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM Individualism girls dressmakers? "Socialism, disguise it as we may, is the negation of freedom." Similarly argue all individualists. But probably the chief arguments raised to-day to show the impracticability of socialism and the necessity of individualism, are, as above stated, biologic. Mr. Kidd argues in his "Social Evolution, p. 209, that socialism has not and probably cannot make any serious attempt to deal with even the initial difficulties of the continued success of a society where the struggle for existence is eliminated. He says: "Underneath all Socialist ideals yawns the problem of population." Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his latest work, says: " People who in their corporate capacity abolish the natural relation between merits andi benefits will presently be abolished themselves. Either they will have to go through the miseries of slow decay consequent on the increase of those unfit for the business of life, or they will be overrun by some people who have not pursued the foolish policy of fostering the worst at the expense of the better." Mr. Lecky says ("Democracy and Liberty," chap, viii.): "The Socialist remedies would only bring evils far greater than any they could possibly prevent. The desire of each man to improve his circumstances, to reap the full reward of superior talent, or energy, or thrift, is the very mainspring of the production of the world. Take these motives away; persuade men • n .•— that by superior work they will ob- " tain no superior reward; cut off all the hopes that stimulate among or- dinary men ambition, enterprise, invention, and self-sacrifice, and the whole level of production will rapidly and inevitably sink. . . . The essential difference of men in aptitudes, capacities, and character, are things that can never be changed, and all schemes and policies that ignore them are doomed to ultimate failure." Says Mr. Kidd ("Social Evolution"): It will not help us, even if there are to be no competing societies, and if in the contemplated era of socialism the whole human family, without distinction of race or color, is to be included in a federation within which the competitive forces are to be suspended. We may draw such a draft on our imagination, but our common sense, which has to deal with materials as they exist, refuses to honor it. We are concerned not with an imaginary being, but with man as he exists, a creature standing with countless eons of this competition behind him, every quality of his mind and body . . . the product of this rivalry, with its meaning, and allotted place therein, and capable of finding its fullest and fittest employment only in its natural conditions. Individualism, then, bases its argument on the fact that government can scarcely efficiently conduct even now the comparatively limited functions that it does attempt, and would utterly break down before the attempt to control the complete complex interests of all social life; that individualism, on the other hand, so far as tried during this century, while not by any means doing away with all evils, has produced more material and educational progress than in all the other centuries put together, and especially in those countries and in that country where individualism has been tried the most; that even if socialism were practicable, it would inevitably lead to the biological degeneration of the individual and .of the race and finally that even the beginnings of socialism tend to undermine that self-reliance, self- rule, free self-sacrifice, which, tho men consider it born of individual communion with God or of natural ethics alone, all men are agreed to be the noblest and the only enduring and eternal quality of man. Individualism may not produce all progress in a day ; individualists are not blind to the evils of the present, but they do know that an infinite progress has been made ; that that progress is now going on ; that it has been and is now almost solely due to individual struggle and competition in life, and that therefore it is but simple duty to resist even the beginnings of a socialism which for an impossible mirage threatens to attack all progress and to undermine man's noblest possession, individual character and individual aspiration. It is better to let a man struggle and work his own way even slowly toward character than to lift him, were it possible, into an Utopia of physical comfort, at the cost of weakened will and increased tendency to rely on a paternal or even a fraternal organization. THE INDIVIDUALIST PROGRAM As asserted above, individualists are neither doctrinaires nor visionaries. Says Mr. Wordsworth Donisthorpe in "The Limits of Liberty," a chapter in " A Plea for Liberty" : It is not fair to assert or even to insinuate that individualism as a practical working doctrine in this country (England) and in the United States is based on reasoning from abstractions. ... No one with the smallest claim to attention has been known to affirm that this or any other nation is yet rife for the abolition of the State. ... I suppose no one acquainted with his political writings will accuse Victor Yairos of backwardness or even of opportunism. Yet says he. "The abolition of the external State must be preceded by the decay of the nations which breathe life and vigor into that clumsy monster; in other words, it is only when the people learn to value liberty and to understand the truths of the anarchistic philosophy that the question of practically abolishing the State looms up and acquires significance." Mr. N. P. Oilman says of American individualists (" Socialism and the American Spirit"): The practical effort of those who here accept the name of individualist is to maintain the actual status against the strong tendency toward socialism which characterizes the time. If this can be successfully resisted they trust*to gradual enlightenment to weaken gradually the power of the State. The anarchist ideal, into which extreme individualism blends, is not to be reached by crying and striving. The individualist trusts in natural and in the unforced evolution of society ; he exerts himself with more or less energy simply to resist efforts contrary to this law which tend to produce an artificial development. . . , The present tendency toward socialism he would explain as a reaction toward primitive ideas which have long since, for the wiser minority, been fully exploded by experience. He stands stubbornly on the defensive against this tendency, feeling sure that, unchecked, it can only result in great evil. Contrasting individualism with Schaffle's definition of socialism (q. v.), Mr. Oilman says concerning individualism in its practical application: Economic individualism would then be the system of production by means of private capital (held by single persons, firms, corporations, or cooperative associations); this method of production demands a free-labor contract, open competition, and distribution to individuals. The alpha and omega of individualism is, accordingly, private and competing capitals, with a large measure of individual freedom from State control (p. it). ... It we attend chiefly to the facts of the existing situation in the United States, we should then consider individualism and socialism as two opposite tendencies, moved by either of which an American citizen may advocate or attack a definite and particular measure of legislation. The Utopia of the individualist, if Mr. Herbert Spencer may speak for him. is an approach to anarchy: the Utopia of the Socialist melts into communism, but neither scheme is proposed for immediate adoption here by sensible advocates. . . . The individualist ... in all his desrees tends to unfavorable criticism, not to high admiration. 01 the manner and the results of governmental activity at present. He concedes that a nation may well tolerate a certain degree of inefficiency on the part of its officials in executing their present tasks, this being, on the whole, more endurable than the evils which would result from putting the same duties upon private persons. He opposes, however, any considerable further extension of the sphere of the State, and looks THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM 614 to education of the

613 Loading... Loading...


THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OP SOCIAL REFORM Individualism with government property. He has taucht men that, as society develops, the interests of its members become more and more harmonious; in other words, that rational egoism and rational altruism lend to coincide. But the characteristic modern development of individualism is economic. With many forerunners, and perhaps particularly Hume, Adam Smith is here the great name, the father of the school of natural liberty, which we do not dwell upon here only because it is treated in full elsewhere. (See POLITICAL ECONOMY.) Yet perhaps even here the school of natural liberty and Adam Smith are a result rather than a cause. It was necessary to break the old economic restraints. New discoveries, new inventions, new processes refused to be fettered by old laws. In France, the Revolution: in England, Adam Smith; in Germany, the Stein Hardenberg legislation; in America, the bills of rights incorporated into the national and state constitutions, all witness to and develop the same tendency to free and to protect the individual from restraint. In every country it has produced reaction — in France, the empire; in Germany, state and democratic socialism; in England, factory laws and more recently munic- ipaïism; in the United States, federalism, republicanism, and protection. Through all the first half of the nineteenth century, however, individualism was in all directions dominant. Its results are well known. The individual, free from legislative restraint, seeks gain. The producer who can produce the most, the best, or the cheapest gains the market. Out of competition to do this has sprung the modern mastery of the — .^ methods of production, division of labor, improved machinery, gigantic plants, the factory system, industry on the large scale ; if it has produced the capitalist and the millionaire, it has also both lowered prices and raised wages for the million. In its search for new markets and commercial gain it has girded the world with the telegraph, continents with railroads, ané whitened the sea with sails. It has developed more progress in 100 vears than all the other centuries put together. If its characteristic results have been material, it has made education common. It is true that large producers and the development of colossal transportation corporations have created difficulties for the small producer, made the workman largely dependent upon the capitalist, and developed the means of production beyond the present ability to consume, causing the phenomena of the unemployed and the tramp. But it must be remembered, in the first place, that these evils are due to the very success of individualism, so that we should think twice before we attempt to cure them by destroying the system which has created this success ; secondly, it is to be doubted if there are more unemployed than before, while certainly real wages, measured by prices, are materially advanced; thirdly, individualists believe that the cure lies not in forsaking the principle which has been the very life of modern progress, but in lifting up every individual to a level of more effective competition till every man receive the means of life because every man is able to contribute something to the social need. What is needed, according to this view, is not less but more individualism. Modern practical individualism does not urge that at present we should do away with all industrial legislation or all interference of the State with the affairs of individuals; it believes that till men grow wiser they need some legislative checks, but it holds that in general it is wiser to let the individual act as he will and seek to overcome the ills resulting from his mistakes by educating wiser and better individuals. THE ARGUMENT FOR INDIVIDUALISM The arguments for individualism may be conveniently divided into four heads: (i) The ethical argument; (a) the biological; (3) the inductive positive argument; (4) the inductive negative argument from the follies and evils of State interference. The ethical argument probably affects the common consciousness far more than any other. Brof. S. N^ Patten, in the Introduction to his "Theory of Social Forces," considers individualism to rest largely on eighteenth-century philosophy, and says: I question whether the hold which this social philosophy has on the popular mind can be shaken by an appeal to inductive evidence. This hold depends upon certain concepts and ideals which have received classical statements at the hands of our ablest thinkers, and which cannot be displaced by unorganized facts. The basis of popular individualism undoubtedly lies deep down in the fundamental facts of the universe, in the power, the worth, the consciousness of responsibility in the individual soul. It takes ordinarily a form either religious or one of so-called natural ethics. One' of the fundamental principles of Christianity is the worth of the individual soul. Protestantism, with its right of private judgment, its doctrine of salvation by faith, is particularly in accord with the individualistic tendency. Dr. Lyman Abbott, in his "Evolution of Christianity,' says: It has been said that Jesus Christ was the first Socialist. This is certainly an inexact, if not an absolutely erroneous, statement. It would be more nearly correct to say that He was the first individualist. The Socialist assumes that the prolific cause of misery in the world is bad social organization. Christ assumed that the prolific cause of misery in the world is individual wrong-doing. Says Mr. N. P. Oilman ("Socialism and the American Spirit," pp. 324-327): The Ethical Argument A higher individualism is possible, and has long been actual, with at least a few of each generation of mankind. It respects every person as haying something of infinite worth in him, and would begin to improve the world by elevating the single spirit, counting no advance permanent that is not based on reformed and cultivated individuals. This method fully deserves the epithet "Christian," derived from "the only soul in history who has appreciated the worth of a man." The teaching of Jesus was profoundly individualistic in its imperative address to the private conscience. Such a spiritual doctrine does not find its natural alliance with a mechanical socialism. This, with most of its expounders, is materialistic to the core. The Christian spirit is in full harmony with a rationalized individualism in social life. So inspired, individualism includes voluntary cooperation, the method of modem civilization; and the ideal towhichit tends is fraternal - ism. not paternalism. The inquiry is extremely pertinent: " Have we yet even discovered the resources of an individualism which is not synonymous with selfishness, but welcomes and fosters public spirit?" Few wise persons will answer this in the affirmative. This higher individualism, perhaps, quite as often to-day takes the form of so-called "natural ethics." Mr. M. D. O'Brien, in the Introduction to his "Socialism Tested by Facts," says: Weak and little, low and corrupt as he is, yet nature has endowed man with such a spirit that he can never permanently become the slave of men. This spirit is individualism, the deepest and mightiest fact in existence, which brings Individua li sm THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM man closest

609 Loading... Loading...


Individualism THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM the demand and eventually diminish the supply. By additional local burdens, legislation has of late still further hindered the building of small houses. Finally, having, by successive measures, produced nrst bad houses and then a deficiency of better ones, it has at length provided for the artificially increased overflow of poor people by diminishing the house capacity which already could not contain them! Where then lies the blame for the miseries of the East End? Against whom should be raised "the bitter cry of outcast London"? . . . So, too, with State supervision. Guaranteeing of quality by inspection has been shown, in the hall-marking of silver, to be superfluous, while the silver trade has been decreased by it; and in other cases it has lowered the quality by establishing a standard which it is useless to exceed: instance the case of the Cork butter market, where the higher kinds are dis- advantaged in not adequately profiting by their better repute; or instance the case of herring-branding (now optional), the effect of which is to put the many inferior curers, who just reach the level of official approval, on a par with the few better ones who rise above it, and so to discourage these. But such lessons pass unlearned. Even where the failure of inspection is most glaring, no notice is taken of it; as instance the terrible catastrophe by which a train full of people was destroyed along the Tay Bridge. Countless denunciations, loud and unsparing, were vented against engineer and contractor: but little, if anything, was said about the government officer from whom the bridge received State approval. So. too, with prevention of disease. It matters not that under the management or dictation of State agents some of the worst evils occur; as when the lives of eighty-seven wives and children of soldiers are sacrificed in the ship Accrington; or as when typhoid fever and diphtheria are diffused by a State-ordered drainage system, as in Edinburgh; or as when officially enforced sanitary appliances, ever getting out of order, increase the evils they were to decrease. These instances of the failure of legislation, quoted by Spencer, are now somewhat classical and out of date, but they can be easily replaced by modern ones. Mr. Charles Fairfield, in his chapter on "State Socialism in the Antipodes" contained in "A Plea for Liberty," instances many failures of legislation in Australia, supposed to be in the vanguard of socialistic progress. He shows how the early-closing law in Melbourne in 1885, whereby shops could not keep open after 7 P.M., proved utterly impracticable, robbing all the small suburban stores, which did their main business in the evening, of all chance of success and creating such an opposition that the law was repealed in a few days. He argues that the conduct of the Australian State railroads has been at a heavy loss, only concealed by government bookkeeping. In England herself instances of the failure of State operations can be multiplied almost indefinitely. Says Mr. L. J. Jennings, M.P. (Fortnightly Review, August, 1888, p. 185): Look, for instance, at the Admiralty and the War Office. These two departments alone cost the country ^563,324 a year. The waste of labor that goes on daily is incredible. At the Admiralty the officials, sitting under the same roof, write long letters to one another on the most trivial subjects. Just as if they were 500 miles apart. An immense heap of correspondence may be accumulated about a stick of sealing- wax or a bit of string. The accountant-general's department, crammed with extravagantly paid officials, involves charges for the working staff of £63,557 a year, and a pension list of £ 33,324. . . . The Secretary of the Admiralty.Mr. Forwood, has admitted (" First Report of Sir Matthew White Ridley's Commission." Q. 9751) that if the salaries were placed on a " commercial basis" the expense of the accountant-general's office would be brought down to £35,000 or ¿40.000 a year. Why is it not placedon a commercial basis? It cannot be because the authorities have not had a free hand in the " game of reorganization." There have been at least five heroic operations of this kind since 1869. at tremendous cost to the country. . . . What sort of commentary is it on the great reorganization of 1878-80, which cost the country ¿ 20,000 a year in pensions and £52,199 in bonuses that the department is now found to be filled, as the heads of it allege, with extravagantly paid or incompetent officials. . . . The War Office clerk goes leisurely to his duties at ten or eleven, and remains till four or five, his prescribed hours being six each day. And what is the nature of his work? A good deal of it is utterly thrown away. Accounts are audited and re- audited in a purely arbitrary and farcical manner. . . . Correspondence rolls on in huge volumes about trifles light as air; a charge for the use of a cab, a bill of 35. 6d. for candles, a rent in a soldier's jacket, the loss of a nosebag (actual instance« of these cases will be found in the evidence taken before the Army Estimates Committee, 1887 and 1888) may form the theme of an almost intermitía! number of letters. The cut in the soldier's jacket was " inquired into " by colonels, lieutenant-colonels, deputy adjutant-general, assistant deputies. and all sorts of high officials. The documents were entered into books, signed, stamped, and passed on from one to the other for nearly four weeks. In the United States illustrations of the costliness and inefficiency of State operations are notorious. All municipal operations are full of jobs. The building of the County The Court House in New York Citv is United Statei ОП'У an extreme instance of what goes on in all government undertakings. When designed in 1868 its cost was estimated at $250,000. Before the end of 1871 it had cost a sum variously estimated at from $8,000,000 to $13,000,000, and it was still far from finished. Among the items of the cost for fitting it up were $404,347 for safes and $7,500 for thermometers. It is from such facts as these of the repeated failures of government activities to-day that individualists drew their negative argument against socialism. From such instances they very naturally draw the inference that if government cannot efficiently conduct the comparatively small activities it now attempts, it must still further fail in the almost infinitely more difficult functions that would be given to it under a complete socialistic régime. They further argue that even if government, surrounded and supported by individualistic methods, and with wealth created by individualism for it to tax, can, perhaps, altho clumsily and expensively, carry on the few activities of which Socialists make so much to-day, were *ne £ovemment to attempt all, it would be quite another thing. Yet if tf!e State cannot do a11- the accustoming of people to depend upon the State weakens the power of individuals and teaches them to lean on a reed that finally will break. To argue that government ever can conduct the complete industrial life of the people is to almost all economists and to absolutely all individualists the height of absurdity. Mr. E. S. Robertson, in his essay on "The Impracticability of Socialism " (chap. i. in "A Plea for Liberty"), argues that, passing by the facts that Socialists very rarely go into practical details; that it is scarcely possible to see how socialism could provide the clothing for a community except by putting it into a strict uniform as in an army, since, if fashion were allowed, no national committee could foretell what would be needed — passing by the enormous problem of how to manage domestic labor under socialism, except by destroying the home, saying nothing of the still greater difficulties of just distribution between labor of different degrees of value and laborers of different degrees of ability — passing by all these and a hundred other similar difficulties, socialism utterly breaks down before the population question. He says: "The situation may be summed up in a sentence: Socialism without restraints on the increase of population would be utterly inefficient. With such restraints it would be slavery. In a word, socialism — the scheme of collective capital and collective production and distribution — breaks down the moment it is subjected to any practical test" How would the community decide, he asks, of the children born in any year — how many boys should be tailors and how many Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...


THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM 614 to education of the individual mind and conscience and to general progress for relief from existing evils. The extreme individualist would not only resist the tendency to socialism, but would also retrace some steps already taken in that direction, as he would say, such as universal free education. There are very few, to be sure, in America who hold the creed with such vigor. So conceiving of practical individualism, it is evident that there can be no fixed universal individualist program. It must be different in different countries; it is differently conceived by different individuals. On all important points the general individualist propositions will be found in this cyclopedia under each respective subject. (See LAND; INTEREST; WAGES; COMPETITION; EDUCATION; RAILROADS; POST-OFFICE; BANKING; MUTUAL BANKING, etc.) We give here one illustration of how individualists would work put social problems. Of perhaps the most serious problem in modern life Mr. N. P. Gilman says ("Socialism and the American Spirit"): No evil in our cities appeals more forcibly to the kind- hearted than the crowded tenement houses. . . . Every one who has a particle of philanthropy in him cries out that these evils should be made to cease from off the earth. The end is clear, but what means shall we use ? The Socialist will dilate upon what Glasgow and. Liverpool have done, and urge that Boston and New York at once purchase whole squares, pull down the noisome houses of to-day, and erect, instead, clean and convenient tenements, to be let at low rates. This, however, would be too much like journeying from Chicago to Minneapolis, via Paris, the Suez Canal, and Japan. The Chicagoan would thus reach Minneapolis in time, indeed, if money and patience held out. But a more direct way would be first to discover what persons are responsible as owners or lessors of these fo-.il habitations, and then to bring home to them as individuals the distress and the crime which they occasion, while drawing profit from such inhuman conditions. Many of these persons sin as much through ignorance as through hardness of heart. . . . But if this should be of no effect, the men and women who are taught by the higher individualism that we are our brothers' keepers to a great degree can then follow the example of Mrs. Lincoln in Boston. Let them singly or in small associations buy or lease one or more city houses in the poorer districts and care for them in person or through kindly and capable agents. A large part of the tenement- House problem is manageable under this simple plan. . . . Where this plan is not expedient, the Peabody trustees in London, the Improved Dwelling-House Associations in Boston and New York, and such individuals as Mr. A. T. White in Brooklyn have demonstrated the eminent success of a more difficult method. Mr. J. A. Riis, a good authority, believes thoroughly in the compatibility of " philanthropy and 5 per cent " — the one as beginning, the other as the result. . . . The tenement-house problem in our American cities is thus fully within the control of a comparatively few persons. . . . Very few of the rich or the moderately rich in the United States would need to be converted to a higher individualism than they now practise to make the tenement-house problem a thing of the past so far as money can do it. Such is, we believe, a fair example of the individualist program. For the far more radical proposals of such extreme individualists as the philosophical anarchist — the Spencerians, the single- tax men, the voluntarians — we refer the reader to the respective articles which treat of them. Most individualists like Professor Huxley condemn alike the dogmatism of Herbert Spencer and the theories of the Socialists. They hold, with Professor Jevons, that in social reform "the first step is to throw aside all supposed absolute rights or inflexible principles"; they would not, at present at least, destroy the State; what is shown by experience that the State can do better than the individual, that they would have the State do; but they hold that, fundamentally and eternally, all experience teaches that primary reliance must be put on industrial action; that what limits individual initiation limits freedom; that what weakens individual responsibility weakens character, and that therefore, in the words of President Б, B, Andrews, of Brown University: "In all economic activity the presumption is in favor of individual liberty and free competition." REFERENCES: A Plea for Liberty (P. Mackay, Ed., 1891): Wordsworth Donisthorpe's Individualism: A Sysifm of Politics (1890); The Man versus the State (a collection of articles by Herbert Spencer, and published under that name, 1884); N. P. Oilman's Socialism and äu American Spirit (1893); W. G. Sumner's What Social Classes Ou* ta Each Other (1883); W. H. Mallock's Classes and Masses; or. Wealth. Wages, and Welfare in the United Kingdom (1896); Edward Atkinson's various articles; John Morley on Compromise; A. T. Hadley's Economics, an Account of the Relation Between Private Property and Public Welfare. See also ANARCHISM; SPENCER; SINGLE TAX: FREE TRADE; VOLUNTARYISM. For opposite views to those in this article and for objections to Individualism, see SOCIALISM. Revised by A. T. HADLEY. INDUSTRIAL BETTERMENT is a phrase used for the efforts undertaken by employers or firms for the benefit in any way of their employees. It varies from the model village erected for the benefit of a community to the simplest arrangement or device in the factory or store for the advantage of the employees. In this article only a few of the many forms of industrial betterment can be mentioned with a few of the firms most active in this regard. Those important instances which can be classified as model villages will be noticed under that head. (See also SOCIAL SECRETARY.) In the United States industrial betterment is probably more wide-spread than in any other country, tho it has not gone so far as in the case of a few English firms. The leading American firm in this line is undoubtedly the National Cash Register Company, of Dayton, Ohio, where Mr. Patterson and his coworkers have developed almost every kind of industrial betterment. They have not created a model village, United States та'шУ because it was little needed, but they have a settlement house under a social secretary, with club rooms and library. In the large dining-hall any of the 3,800 employees can get a goooTmeal for fifteen cents. The works are light and airy, amid shrubs and grass-plots, the walls almost all glazed. For twenty-five cents a week they give a warm lunch to the girls, and for slightly more to some hundreds of men. They have bath rooms, a recreation ground with gymnastic apparatus, and rest their girls by exercises in the works. There are special gardens for boys to cultivate, schools of various grades, kindergarten and industrial, and advantages in many other ways, such as giving educational trips to develop their employees. They issue a paper and endeavor to elicit the interest of their employees by calling on them for suggestions of improvements, and by frequent lectures and meetings. The Natural Food Company, of Niagara, the makers of Shredded Wheat, is also very progressive in this line. In a ten-acre lot they have built "a palace rather than a factory," surrounded by parks, gardens, and playgrounds. The walls seem all windows; there are roof -gardens, an elegant lecture-hall, also used for dances; fourteen bath rooms in Italian marble, free lunches for 350 girls in a spacious dining-hall, and other social features, i In H. J. Heinz & Co. 's pickle factory, in Pitts- burg, much is done for the 2,500 employees. On their works they have roof-gardens with plants and creepers; the rooms are made attractive with pictures and curios; there are admirable dining- rooms ; they have a carriage which each fine day carries put some girls for a picnic, cooking Loading... Loading...


Individualism THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OP SOCIAL REFORM cause. Ruinous marriage and funeral expenses are another. Caste prevents one class from feeling for another. Hindus call India "The Land of Charity." foreigners add " of beggars" The laws of Manu make it the Brahman s duty to beg. There is no poor law. Charity is all private. The government, in time of famine, supplies relief works. In all the principal cities and mission stations Europeans have established friend-in- need societies or charity boards. There are forty-eight houses for opium refugees. The Lady Dufferin Association (1885) had 133 hospitals and dispensaries, 74 lady doctors, 52 assistants and 257 medical students. There are probably 500.000 lepers in India; and there are now 47 leper asylums. The largest has 545 inmates. There are о asylums and schools for the blind and deaf-mutes, and 23 for the insane; us orphanages and 7 juvenile reformatories. The government is developing great schemes of irrigation, commerce, and industry. It is introducing agricultural banks and postal savings-banks. BIBLIOC.RAPHV: Statistical Abstract for British India, Annual, London; Statistical Abstract ¡or the Colonies, Annual. London; India in the Nineteenth CeMttry, by D. C. Houlger, London, 1001; New Initia, by Sir H^J. S. Cotton. London, 1904; India in the Victorian Age, by R. C. Dutt. London, 1904; India, Its Administration and Progress, by Sir John Strachcy. London, 1903; The Poverty oí India, by Dadabhai Naoraji, London, 1901. INDIVIDUALISM: The term individualism, as used in social science, has been defined as "the theory of government which favors the non-interference of the State in the affairs of individuals. (" Century Dictionary"). It is, however, more commonly, and much more correctly, used for the tendency to oppose State interference in the affairs of the individual rather than for any cut- and-dried theory of the function or lack of function of the State. When a man says he is an individualist, he usually means not that he holds any exact a priori theory as to what the State should or should not do, but that he Definition 'ncnnes. to oppose State interference, ' unless it be very clearly proved that it is necessary. The presumption with him is against interference. He inclines to resist socialistic legislation, even in small matters, ' est they lead to a general State socialism. He believes that we must finally decide from experience and history what in each particular o-ise is wise. Individualism must not be confounded with anarchism (q. г1.), nor with the positive program laid down by particular individualists, however prominent. (See SINGLE TAX; SPENCER; VOLUNTARYISM.) We find individualism somewhat developed among the Greek Sophists and in all Greek thought. Greek political philosophy conceived, it is true, of the individual as living for the State rather .than for himself; but with this went a high conception of the complete man, the sound mind in a sound body, and this developed a practical, ethical, if not a political individualism. Aristotle, with his tendency to exalt the concrete over Platonic abstractions, may be said to be the first great thinker of individualism, tho even he held the high Greek conception of the State. The Cyrenaic and the Epicurean schools both developed a type of ethical individualism. Still more did Stoicism lend itself consistently to individualism . Some of the profoundest thoughts of ethical individualism have come down from the Greek Stoics, while some of its noblest and most classic utterances must be sought in the pages of the Roman Stoics. The Roman Empire, it is true, developed into a strong imperialism; nevertheless, in Roman thought, and above all in Roman jurisprudence, the individual is in a large sense supreme over the State, since we have here the first clear development of the theory of contract between free individuals. Meanwhile, the life and teachings of Christ were developing, many hold, an individualism flowering into fraternal charity rather than the primitive Christian communism, of which so much is said to-day. (For a discussion of this, see CHRIST AND SOCIAL REFORM; CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL REFORM.) Be this as it may, the Middle Ages, inheriting the traditions of Roman power, together with the religious teachings of Christ, developed an ecclesiastical paternalism removed alike from a primitive communism or an ethical individualism. Nevertheless, in some of the schoolmen we trace an individual- Hodern In- *st thought based in part upon the dividualisni teachings °f Aristotle, while some of the ascetics practised what may be called a selfish individualistic spirituality. The characteristic ages of individualism, however, are those between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries. Revolting alike from the despotism of the Church and the tyranny of the warrior, we find the individual asserting himself everywhere, in religion and in philosophy, in political science and in practice. In religion, Luther, by the doctrine of salvation by faith, lifts the individual into the right of private judgment; while Calvin, with his doctrine of the divine decrees, by making man obedient to God alone, lifts him above obedience to any human power. From the position of Luther or Calvin it was but a step toward the practical realization of their theories by an assertion of the right of private judgment in morals and of civil liberty in matters where unity of action was not a social necessity. Kant, Bentham, John Stuart Mill, all helped people to take this step more and more fearlessly. The line of thought advanced by these men finds its legitimate development in the writings of John Morley and its exaggeration in those of W . K . Clifford . Says Mr. Morley ("On Compromise," pp. 278- 281): We may best estimate the worth and the significance of the doctrine of liberty by considering the line of thought and observation which led to it. To begin with, it is in Mr. Mill's hands something quite different from the same doctrine as preached by the French revolutionary school; indeed, one might even call it reactionary, in respect of the French theory of a hundred years back. It reposes on no principle of abstract right, but, like the rest of its author's opinions, on principles of utility and experience. . . . Mr. Carlyle and one or two rhetorical imitators poured malediction on the many- headed populace, and with rather a pitiful impatience insisted that the only hope for men lay in their finding and obeying a strong man — a king, a hero, a dictator. How he was to be found, neither the master nor his still angrier and more impatient mimics could ever tell us. Now Mr. Mill's doctrine laid down the main condition of finding your hero — viz., that all ways should be left open to him, because no man, nor majority of men, could possibly tell by which of these ways their deliverers were from time to time destined to present themselves. Wits have caricatured all this by asking us whether by encouraging the tares to grow, you give the wheat a better chance. This is as misleading as such metaphors usually are. The doctrine of liberty rests on a faith drawn from the observation of human progress, that tho we know wheat to be serviceable and tares to be worthless, yet there are in the great seed-plot of human nature a thousand rudimentary germs, not wheat and not tares, of whose properties we have not had a fair opportunity of assuring ourselves. If you are too eager to pluck up the tares, you are very likely to pluck up with them these untried possibilities of human excellence, and you are, moreover, very likely to injure the growing wheat as well. The demonstration of this lies in the recorded experience of mankind. Près. Hadley thus sums up this philosophy of individualism ("Economics/ p. 14): Constitutional liberty in politics, rational altruism in morals, and modern business methods in production and distribution of wealth have been the outcome of the great individualistic movement of the nineteenth century. "The individualist has taught people not to confound public morality with a state church, public security with police activity, or public wealth Loading... Loading...


THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OP SOCIAL REFORM Individualism further widening. ... A century ago, when scarcely a man could be found who was not occasionally intoxicated, and when inability to take one or two bottles of wine brought contempt, no agitation arose against Progrès« the vice of drunkenness; but now that, in the under Indi- course °f fifty years, the voluntary efforts of temperance societies, joined with more general TÍ dual ism causes, have produced comparative sobriety, there are vociferous demands for laws to prevent the ruinous effects of the liquor traffic. . . . And so it is, too, with the general state of the population in respect of food, clothing, shelter, and the appliances of life. Leaving out of the comparison early barbaric states, there has been a conspicuous progress from the time when most rustics lived on barley bread, rye bread, and oatmeal, down to our own time, when the consumption of white wheaten bread is universal; from the days when coarse jackets, reaching to the knees, left the legs bare, down to the present day, when laboring people, like their employers, have the whole body covered by two or more layers of clothing; from the old era of single-roomed huts without chimneys, or from the fifteenth century, when even an ordinary gentleman's house was commonly without wainscot or plaster on its walls, down to the present century, when every cottage has more rooms than one, and the houses of artizans usually have several, while all have fireplaces, chimneys, and glazed windows, accompanied mostly by paper-hangings and painted doors, there has been, I say. a conspicuous progress in the condition of the people. And this progress has been still more marked within our own time. Any one who can look back sixty years, when the amount of pauperism was far greater than now, and beggars abundant, is struck by the comparative size and finish of the new houses of operatives; by the better dress of workmen, who wear broadcloth on Sundays, and that of servant girls, who vie with their mistresses; by the higher standard of living, which leads to a great demand for the best qualities of food by working people. . . . Not that the evils to be remedied are small. Let no one suppose that by emphasizing the above paradox I wish to make light of the sufferings which most men have to bear. The fates of the great majority have ever been, and doubtless still are, so sad that it is painful to think of them. Unquestionably the existing type of social organization is one which none who care for their kind can contemplate with satisfaction, and unquestionably men's activities accompanying this type are far from being admirable. . . . But it is not a question of absolute evils; it is a question of relative evils — whether the evils at present suffered are or are not less than the evils which would be suffered under another system; whether efforts for mitigation along the lines thus followed are not more likely to succeed than efforts along different lines. . . . The present social state is transitional, as past social states have been transitional. There will, I hope and believe, come a future social state, differing as much from the present as the present differs from the past, with its mailed barons and defenseless serfs. . , . My opposition to socialism results from the belief that it would stop the progress to such a higher state, and bring back a lower state. Nothing but the slow modification of human nature by the discipline of social life can produce permanently advantageous changes. An even stronger argument for individualism is drawn from the follies and miscarriages of the wisest and best-intentioned State legislation and control. As is well known, Herbert Spencer calls the notion that evils can be readily righted by TJmfti&tían legislation the great modern political ® superstition. He says: "The great political superstition of the past was the divine right of kings. The great political superstition of the present is the divine right of parliaments*' ("Essay on the Great Political Superstition"). He is never weary of illustrating the sins of legislators. He argues that legislators never know where the effect of their legislation will end. He says ("The Coming Slavery"): The legislator contemplates intently the things his act will achieve, but thinks little of the remoter issues of the movement his act sets up, and still less its collateral issues. When, in wartime, "food for powder" was to be provided by encouraging population — when Mr. Pitt said, "Let us make relief in cases where there are a number of children a matter of right and honor, instead of a ground for opprobrium and contempt," it was not expected that the poor-rates would be quadrupled in fifty years; that women with many bastards would be preferred as wives to modest women, because of their incomes from the parish, and that hosts of ratepayers would be pulled down into the ranks of pauperism. . . . Even less, as I say, does the politician who plumes himself on the practicalness of his aims conceive the indirect results which will follow the direct results of hie measures. Thus, to take a case connected The Fob with one named above, it was not intended through the svs- tem of " payment by results " to do anything more than give teachers an efficient stimulus; it was not supposed that in numerous cases their health would give way under the stimulus; it was not expected that they would be led to adopt a cramming system and to put undue pressure on dull and weak children, often to their great injury; it was not foreseen that in many cases a bodily enfeeblement would be caused which no amount of grammar and geography can compensate for. The licensing of public-houses was simply for Maintaining public order; those who devised it never imagined that there would result an organized interest powerfully influencing elections in an unwholesome way. Nor did it occur to the "practical" politicians who provided a compulsory load-line for merchant vessels, that the pressure of ship-owners' interests would habitually cause the putting of the load-line at the very highest limit, and that from precedent to precedent, tending ever in the same direction, the load-line would gradually rise in the better class of ships as from good authority I learn that it has already done. Legislators who, some forty years ago, by act of Parliament compelled railway companies to supply cheap locomotion, would nave rid'culed the belief, had it been exprest. that eventually their act would punish the companies which improved the supply; and yet this was the result to companies which began to carry third- class passengers by fast trains; since a penalty to the amount of the passenger duty was inflicted on them for every third- class passenger so carried. . . . " We must educate our masters," is the well-known saying of a Liberal who opposed the last extension of the franchise. Yes, if the education were worthy to he so called, and were relevant to the political enlightenment needed, much might be hoped from it. But knowing rules of syntax, being able to add up correctly, having geographical information and a memory stocked with the dates of kings' accessions and generals' victories, no more implies fitness to form political conclusions than acquirement of skill in drawing implies expertness in telegraphing or than ability to play cricket implies proficiency on the violin. "Surely," rejoins some one, "facility in reading opens the way to political knowledge." Doubtless; but will the way be followed? Table-talk proves that nine out of ten people read what amuses them or interests them rather than what instructs them: and that the last thing they read is something which tells them disagreeable truths or dispels groundless hopes. That popular education results in an extensive reading of publications which foster pleasant illusions rather than of those which insist on hard realities is beyond question. In other writings, Mr. Spencer gives still more detailed instances of the ways in which State legislation works unexpected ills. He says ("Social Statics," ed. of 1851, p. 384): An architect and surveyor describes it (the Building Act) as having worked after the following manner: In those districts of London consisting of inferior houses built in that unsubstantial fashion which the New Building Act was to mend there obtains an average rent, sufficiently remunerative to landlords whose houses were run up economically before the New Building Act passed. This existing average rent fixes the rent that must be charged in these districts for new houses of the same accommodation — that is, the same number of rooms — for the people they are built for do not appreciate the extra safety of living within walls strengthened with hoop- iron bond. Now it turns out upon trial that houses built in accordance with the present regulations, and let at this established rate, bring in nothing like a reasonable return. Builders have consequently confined themselves to erecting houses in better distncts (where the possibility of a profitable competition with preexisting houses shows that those preexisting houses were tolerably substantial), and have ceased to erect dwellings for the masses, except in the suburbs where no pressing sanitary evils exist. Meanwhile, in the inferior districts above described, has resulted an increase of overcrowding — half a dozen families in a house, a score of lodgers to a room. Nay, more than this has resulted. That state of miserable dilapidation into which these abodes of the poor are allowed to fall is due to the absence of competition from new houses. Landlords do not find their tenants tempted away by the offer of better accommodation. Repairs, being unnecessary for securing the largest amount of profit, are not made. ... In fact, for a large percentage of the very horrors which our sanitary agitators are trying to cure by law, we have to thank previous agitators of the same school! Later, in "The Sins of Legislators," Mr. Spencer says of the building laws : See then what legislation has done. By ill-imposed taxes, raising the prices 01 bricks and timber, it added to the costs of houses and prompted, for economy's sake, the use of bad materials in scanty quantities. To check the consequent production of wretched dwellings, it established regulations which, in medieval fashion, dictated the quality of the commodity produced; there being no perception that by insisting on a higher quality and therefore higher price, it would limit Individualism THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM the demand and eventually

611 Loading... Loading...


Individualism THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OP SOCIAL REFORM cause. Ruinous marriage and funeral expenses are another. Caste prevents one class from feeling for another. Hindus call India "The Land of Charity." foreigners add " of beggars" The laws of Manu make it the Brahman s duty to beg. There is no poor law. Charity is all private. The government, in time of famine, supplies relief works. In all the principal cities and mission stations Europeans have established friend-in- need societies or charity boards. There are forty-eight houses for opium refugees. The Lady Dufferin Association (1885) had 133 hospitals and dispensaries, 74 lady doctors, 52 assistants and 257 medical students. There are probably 500.000 lepers in India; and there are now 47 leper asylums. The largest has 545 inmates. There are о asylums and schools for the blind and deaf-mutes, and 23 for the insane; us orphanages and 7 juvenile reformatories. The government is developing great schemes of irrigation, commerce, and industry. It is introducing agricultural banks and postal savings-banks. BIBLIOC.RAPHV: Statistical Abstract for British India, Annual, London; Statistical Abstract ¡or the Colonies, Annual. London; India in the Nineteenth CeMttry, by D. C. Houlger, London, 1001; New Initia, by Sir H^J. S. Cotton. London, 1904; India in the Victorian Age, by R. C. Dutt. London, 1904; India, Its Administration and Progress, by Sir John Strachcy. London, 1903; The Poverty oí India, by Dadabhai Naoraji, London, 1901. INDIVIDUALISM: The term individualism, as used in social science, has been defined as "the theory of government which favors the non-interference of the State in the affairs of individuals. (" Century Dictionary"). It is, however, more commonly, and much more correctly, used for the tendency to oppose State interference in the affairs of the individual rather than for any cut- and-dried theory of the function or lack of function of the State. When a man says he is an individualist, he usually means not that he holds any exact a priori theory as to what the State should or should not do, but that he Definition 'ncnnes. to oppose State interference, ' unless it be very clearly proved that it is necessary. The presumption with him is against interference. He inclines to resist socialistic legislation, even in small matters, ' est they lead to a general State socialism. He believes that we must finally decide from experience and history what in each particular o-ise is wise. Individualism must not be confounded with anarchism (q. г1.), nor with the positive program laid down by particular individualists, however prominent. (See SINGLE TAX; SPENCER; VOLUNTARYISM.) We find individualism somewhat developed among the Greek Sophists and in all Greek thought. Greek political philosophy conceived, it is true, of the individual as living for the State rather .than for himself; but with this went a high conception of the complete man, the sound mind in a sound body, and this developed a practical, ethical, if not a political individualism. Aristotle, with his tendency to exalt the concrete over Platonic abstractions, may be said to be the first great thinker of individualism, tho even he held the high Greek conception of the State. The Cyrenaic and the Epicurean schools both developed a type of ethical individualism. Still more did Stoicism lend itself consistently to individualism . Some of the profoundest thoughts of ethical individualism have come down from the Greek Stoics, while some of its noblest and most classic utterances must be sought in the pages of the Roman Stoics. The Roman Empire, it is true, developed into a strong imperialism; nevertheless, in Roman thought, and above all in Roman jurisprudence, the individual is in a large sense supreme over the State, since we have here the first clear development of the theory of contract between free individuals. Meanwhile, the life and teachings of Christ were developing, many hold, an individualism flowering into fraternal charity rather than the primitive Christian communism, of which so much is said to-day. (For a discussion of this, see CHRIST AND SOCIAL REFORM; CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL REFORM.) Be this as it may, the Middle Ages, inheriting the traditions of Roman power, together with the religious teachings of Christ, developed an ecclesiastical paternalism removed alike from a primitive communism or an ethical individualism. Nevertheless, in some of the schoolmen we trace an individual- Hodern In- *st thought based in part upon the dividualisni teachings °f Aristotle, while some of the ascetics practised what may be called a selfish individualistic spirituality. The characteristic ages of individualism, however, are those between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries. Revolting alike from the despotism of the Church and the tyranny of the warrior, we find the individual asserting himself everywhere, in religion and in philosophy, in political science and in practice. In religion, Luther, by the doctrine of salvation by faith, lifts the individual into the right of private judgment; while Calvin, with his doctrine of the divine decrees, by making man obedient to God alone, lifts him above obedience to any human power. From the position of Luther or Calvin it was but a step toward the practical realization of their theories by an assertion of the right of private judgment in morals and of civil liberty in matters where unity of action was not a social necessity. Kant, Bentham, John Stuart Mill, all helped people to take this step more and more fearlessly. The line of thought advanced by these men finds its legitimate development in the writings of John Morley and its exaggeration in those of W . K . Clifford . Says Mr. Morley ("On Compromise," pp. 278- 281): We may best estimate the worth and the significance of the doctrine of liberty by considering the line of thought and observation which led to it. To begin with, it is in Mr. Mill's hands something quite different from the same doctrine as preached by the French revolutionary school; indeed, one might even call it reactionary, in respect of the French theory of a hundred years back. It reposes on no principle of abstract right, but, like the rest of its author's opinions, on principles of utility and experience. . . . Mr. Carlyle and one or two rhetorical imitators poured malediction on the many- headed populace, and with rather a pitiful impatience insisted that the only hope for men lay in their finding and obeying a strong man — a king, a hero, a dictator. How he was to be found, neither the master nor his still angrier and more impatient mimics could ever tell us. Now Mr. Mill's doctrine laid down the main condition of finding your hero — viz., that all ways should be left open to him, because no man, nor majority of men, could possibly tell by which of these ways their deliverers were from time to time destined to present themselves. Wits have caricatured all this by asking us whether by encouraging the tares to grow, you give the wheat a better chance. This is as misleading as such metaphors usually are. The doctrine of liberty rests on a faith drawn from the observation of human progress, that tho we know wheat to be serviceable and tares to be worthless, yet there are in the great seed-plot of human nature a thousand rudimentary germs, not wheat and not tares, of whose properties we have not had a fair opportunity of assuring ourselves. If you are too eager to pluck up the tares, you are very likely to pluck up with them these untried possibilities of human excellence, and you are, moreover, very likely to injure the growing wheat as well. The demonstration of this lies in the recorded experience of mankind. Près. Hadley thus sums up this philosophy of individualism ("Economics/ p. 14): Constitutional liberty in politics, rational altruism in morals, and modern business methods in production and distribution of wealth have been the outcome of the great individualistic movement of the nineteenth century. "The individualist has taught people not to confound public morality with a state church, public security with police activity, or public wealth Loading... Loading...


THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OP SOCIAL REFORM Individualism further widening. ... A century ago, when scarcely a man could be found who was not occasionally intoxicated, and when inability to take one or two bottles of wine brought contempt, no agitation arose against Progrès« the vice of drunkenness; but now that, in the under Indi- course °f fifty years, the voluntary efforts of temperance societies, joined with more general TÍ dual ism causes, have produced comparative sobriety, there are vociferous demands for laws to prevent the ruinous effects of the liquor traffic. . . . And so it is, too, with the general state of the population in respect of food, clothing, shelter, and the appliances of life. Leaving out of the comparison early barbaric states, there has been a conspicuous progress from the time when most rustics lived on barley bread, rye bread, and oatmeal, down to our own time, when the consumption of white wheaten bread is universal; from the days when coarse jackets, reaching to the knees, left the legs bare, down to the present day, when laboring people, like their employers, have the whole body covered by two or more layers of clothing; from the old era of single-roomed huts without chimneys, or from the fifteenth century, when even an ordinary gentleman's house was commonly without wainscot or plaster on its walls, down to the present century, when every cottage has more rooms than one, and the houses of artizans usually have several, while all have fireplaces, chimneys, and glazed windows, accompanied mostly by paper-hangings and painted doors, there has been, I say. a conspicuous progress in the condition of the people. And this progress has been still more marked within our own time. Any one who can look back sixty years, when the amount of pauperism was far greater than now, and beggars abundant, is struck by the comparative size and finish of the new houses of operatives; by the better dress of workmen, who wear broadcloth on Sundays, and that of servant girls, who vie with their mistresses; by the higher standard of living, which leads to a great demand for the best qualities of food by working people. . . . Not that the evils to be remedied are small. Let no one suppose that by emphasizing the above paradox I wish to make light of the sufferings which most men have to bear. The fates of the great majority have ever been, and doubtless still are, so sad that it is painful to think of them. Unquestionably the existing type of social organization is one which none who care for their kind can contemplate with satisfaction, and unquestionably men's activities accompanying this type are far from being admirable. . . . But it is not a question of absolute evils; it is a question of relative evils — whether the evils at present suffered are or are not less than the evils which would be suffered under another system; whether efforts for mitigation along the lines thus followed are not more likely to succeed than efforts along different lines. . . . The present social state is transitional, as past social states have been transitional. There will, I hope and believe, come a future social state, differing as much from the present as the present differs from the past, with its mailed barons and defenseless serfs. . , . My opposition to socialism results from the belief that it would stop the progress to such a higher state, and bring back a lower state. Nothing but the slow modification of human nature by the discipline of social life can produce permanently advantageous changes. An even stronger argument for individualism is drawn from the follies and miscarriages of the wisest and best-intentioned State legislation and control. As is well known, Herbert Spencer calls the notion that evils can be readily righted by TJmfti&tían legislation the great modern political ® superstition. He says: "The great political superstition of the past was the divine right of kings. The great political superstition of the present is the divine right of parliaments*' ("Essay on the Great Political Superstition"). He is never weary of illustrating the sins of legislators. He argues that legislators never know where the effect of their legislation will end. He says ("The Coming Slavery"): The legislator contemplates intently the things his act will achieve, but thinks little of the remoter issues of the movement his act sets up, and still less its collateral issues. When, in wartime, "food for powder" was to be provided by encouraging population — when Mr. Pitt said, "Let us make relief in cases where there are a number of children a matter of right and honor, instead of a ground for opprobrium and contempt," it was not expected that the poor-rates would be quadrupled in fifty years; that women with many bastards would be preferred as wives to modest women, because of their incomes from the parish, and that hosts of ratepayers would be pulled down into the ranks of pauperism. . . . Even less, as I say, does the politician who plumes himself on the practicalness of his aims conceive the indirect results which will follow the direct results of hie measures. Thus, to take a case connected The Fob with one named above, it was not intended through the svs- tem of " payment by results " to do anything more than give teachers an efficient stimulus; it was not supposed that in numerous cases their health would give way under the stimulus; it was not expected that they would be led to adopt a cramming system and to put undue pressure on dull and weak children, often to their great injury; it was not foreseen that in many cases a bodily enfeeblement would be caused which no amount of grammar and geography can compensate for. The licensing of public-houses was simply for Maintaining public order; those who devised it never imagined that there would result an organized interest powerfully influencing elections in an unwholesome way. Nor did it occur to the "practical" politicians who provided a compulsory load-line for merchant vessels, that the pressure of ship-owners' interests would habitually cause the putting of the load-line at the very highest limit, and that from precedent to precedent, tending ever in the same direction, the load-line would gradually rise in the better class of ships as from good authority I learn that it has already done. Legislators who, some forty years ago, by act of Parliament compelled railway companies to supply cheap locomotion, would nave rid'culed the belief, had it been exprest. that eventually their act would punish the companies which improved the supply; and yet this was the result to companies which began to carry third- class passengers by fast trains; since a penalty to the amount of the passenger duty was inflicted on them for every third- class passenger so carried. . . . " We must educate our masters," is the well-known saying of a Liberal who opposed the last extension of the franchise. Yes, if the education were worthy to he so called, and were relevant to the political enlightenment needed, much might be hoped from it. But knowing rules of syntax, being able to add up correctly, having geographical information and a memory stocked with the dates of kings' accessions and generals' victories, no more implies fitness to form political conclusions than acquirement of skill in drawing implies expertness in telegraphing or than ability to play cricket implies proficiency on the violin. "Surely," rejoins some one, "facility in reading opens the way to political knowledge." Doubtless; but will the way be followed? Table-talk proves that nine out of ten people read what amuses them or interests them rather than what instructs them: and that the last thing they read is something which tells them disagreeable truths or dispels groundless hopes. That popular education results in an extensive reading of publications which foster pleasant illusions rather than of those which insist on hard realities is beyond question. In other writings, Mr. Spencer gives still more detailed instances of the ways in which State legislation works unexpected ills. He says ("Social Statics," ed. of 1851, p. 384): An architect and surveyor describes it (the Building Act) as having worked after the following manner: In those districts of London consisting of inferior houses built in that unsubstantial fashion which the New Building Act was to mend there obtains an average rent, sufficiently remunerative to landlords whose houses were run up economically before the New Building Act passed. This existing average rent fixes the rent that must be charged in these districts for new houses of the same accommodation — that is, the same number of rooms — for the people they are built for do not appreciate the extra safety of living within walls strengthened with hoop- iron bond. Now it turns out upon trial that houses built in accordance with the present regulations, and let at this established rate, bring in nothing like a reasonable return. Builders have consequently confined themselves to erecting houses in better distncts (where the possibility of a profitable competition with preexisting houses shows that those preexisting houses were tolerably substantial), and have ceased to erect dwellings for the masses, except in the suburbs where no pressing sanitary evils exist. Meanwhile, in the inferior districts above described, has resulted an increase of overcrowding — half a dozen families in a house, a score of lodgers to a room. Nay, more than this has resulted. That state of miserable dilapidation into which these abodes of the poor are allowed to fall is due to the absence of competition from new houses. Landlords do not find their tenants tempted away by the offer of better accommodation. Repairs, being unnecessary for securing the largest amount of profit, are not made. ... In fact, for a large percentage of the very horrors which our sanitary agitators are trying to cure by law, we have to thank previous agitators of the same school! Later, in "The Sins of Legislators," Mr. Spencer says of the building laws : See then what legislation has done. By ill-imposed taxes, raising the prices 01 bricks and timber, it added to the costs of houses and prompted, for economy's sake, the use of bad materials in scanty quantities. To check the consequent production of wretched dwellings, it established regulations which, in medieval fashion, dictated the quality of the commodity produced; there being no perception that by insisting on a higher quality and therefore higher price, it would limit Individualism THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM the demand and eventually

611 Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...


THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM 614 to education of the individual mind and conscience and to general progress for relief from existing evils. The extreme individualist would not only resist the tendency to socialism, but would also retrace some steps already taken in that direction, as he would say, such as universal free education. There are very few, to be sure, in America who hold the creed with such vigor. So conceiving of practical individualism, it is evident that there can be no fixed universal individualist program. It must be different in different countries; it is differently conceived by different individuals. On all important points the general individualist propositions will be found in this cyclopedia under each respective subject. (See LAND; INTEREST; WAGES; COMPETITION; EDUCATION; RAILROADS; POST-OFFICE; BANKING; MUTUAL BANKING, etc.) We give here one illustration of how individualists would work put social problems. Of perhaps the most serious problem in modern life Mr. N. P. Gilman says ("Socialism and the American Spirit"): No evil in our cities appeals more forcibly to the kind- hearted than the crowded tenement houses. . . . Every one who has a particle of philanthropy in him cries out that these evils should be made to cease from off the earth. The end is clear, but what means shall we use ? The Socialist will dilate upon what Glasgow and. Liverpool have done, and urge that Boston and New York at once purchase whole squares, pull down the noisome houses of to-day, and erect, instead, clean and convenient tenements, to be let at low rates. This, however, would be too much like journeying from Chicago to Minneapolis, via Paris, the Suez Canal, and Japan. The Chicagoan would thus reach Minneapolis in time, indeed, if money and patience held out. But a more direct way would be first to discover what persons are responsible as owners or lessors of these fo-.il habitations, and then to bring home to them as individuals the distress and the crime which they occasion, while drawing profit from such inhuman conditions. Many of these persons sin as much through ignorance as through hardness of heart. . . . But if this should be of no effect, the men and women who are taught by the higher individualism that we are our brothers' keepers to a great degree can then follow the example of Mrs. Lincoln in Boston. Let them singly or in small associations buy or lease one or more city houses in the poorer districts and care for them in person or through kindly and capable agents. A large part of the tenement- House problem is manageable under this simple plan. . . . Where this plan is not expedient, the Peabody trustees in London, the Improved Dwelling-House Associations in Boston and New York, and such individuals as Mr. A. T. White in Brooklyn have demonstrated the eminent success of a more difficult method. Mr. J. A. Riis, a good authority, believes thoroughly in the compatibility of " philanthropy and 5 per cent " — the one as beginning, the other as the result. . . . The tenement-house problem in our American cities is thus fully within the control of a comparatively few persons. . . . Very few of the rich or the moderately rich in the United States would need to be converted to a higher individualism than they now practise to make the tenement-house problem a thing of the past so far as money can do it. Such is, we believe, a fair example of the individualist program. For the far more radical proposals of such extreme individualists as the philosophical anarchist — the Spencerians, the single- tax men, the voluntarians — we refer the reader to the respective articles which treat of them. Most individualists like Professor Huxley condemn alike the dogmatism of Herbert Spencer and the theories of the Socialists. They hold, with Professor Jevons, that in social reform "the first step is to throw aside all supposed absolute rights or inflexible principles"; they would not, at present at least, destroy the State; what is shown by experience that the State can do better than the individual, that they would have the State do; but they hold that, fundamentally and eternally, all experience teaches that primary reliance must be put on industrial action; that what limits individual initiation limits freedom; that what weakens individual responsibility weakens character, and that therefore, in the words of President Б, B, Andrews, of Brown University: "In all economic activity the presumption is in favor of individual liberty and free competition." REFERENCES: A Plea for Liberty (P. Mackay, Ed., 1891): Wordsworth Donisthorpe's Individualism: A Sysifm of Politics (1890); The Man versus the State (a collection of articles by Herbert Spencer, and published under that name, 1884); N. P. Oilman's Socialism and äu American Spirit (1893); W. G. Sumner's What Social Classes Ou* ta Each Other (1883); W. H. Mallock's Classes and Masses; or. Wealth. Wages, and Welfare in the United Kingdom (1896); Edward Atkinson's various articles; John Morley on Compromise; A. T. Hadley's Economics, an Account of the Relation Between Private Property and Public Welfare. See also ANARCHISM; SPENCER; SINGLE TAX: FREE TRADE; VOLUNTARYISM. For opposite views to those in this article and for objections to Individualism, see SOCIALISM. Revised by A. T. HADLEY. INDUSTRIAL BETTERMENT is a phrase used for the efforts undertaken by employers or firms for the benefit in any way of their employees. It varies from the model village erected for the benefit of a community to the simplest arrangement or device in the factory or store for the advantage of the employees. In this article only a few of the many forms of industrial betterment can be mentioned with a few of the firms most active in this regard. Those important instances which can be classified as model villages will be noticed under that head. (See also SOCIAL SECRETARY.) In the United States industrial betterment is probably more wide-spread than in any other country, tho it has not gone so far as in the case of a few English firms. The leading American firm in this line is undoubtedly the National Cash Register Company, of Dayton, Ohio, where Mr. Patterson and his coworkers have developed almost every kind of industrial betterment. They have not created a model village, United States та'шУ because it was little needed, but they have a settlement house under a social secretary, with club rooms and library. In the large dining-hall any of the 3,800 employees can get a goooTmeal for fifteen cents. The works are light and airy, amid shrubs and grass-plots, the walls almost all glazed. For twenty-five cents a week they give a warm lunch to the girls, and for slightly more to some hundreds of men. They have bath rooms, a recreation ground with gymnastic apparatus, and rest their girls by exercises in the works. There are special gardens for boys to cultivate, schools of various grades, kindergarten and industrial, and advantages in many other ways, such as giving educational trips to develop their employees. They issue a paper and endeavor to elicit the interest of their employees by calling on them for suggestions of improvements, and by frequent lectures and meetings. The Natural Food Company, of Niagara, the makers of Shredded Wheat, is also very progressive in this line. In a ten-acre lot they have built "a palace rather than a factory," surrounded by parks, gardens, and playgrounds. The walls seem all windows; there are roof -gardens, an elegant lecture-hall, also used for dances; fourteen bath rooms in Italian marble, free lunches for 350 girls in a spacious dining-hall, and other social features, i In H. J. Heinz & Co. 's pickle factory, in Pitts- burg, much is done for the 2,500 employees. On their works they have roof-gardens with plants and creepers; the rooms are made attractive with pictures and curios; there are admirable dining- rooms ; they have a carriage which each fine day carries put some girls for a picnic, cooking Loading... Loading...


THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OP SOCIAL REFORM Individualism further widening. ... A century ago, when scarcely a man could be found who was not occasionally intoxicated, and when inability to take one or two bottles of wine brought contempt, no agitation arose against Progrès« the vice of drunkenness; but now that, in the under Indi- course °f fifty years, the voluntary efforts of temperance societies, joined with more general TÍ dual ism causes, have produced comparative sobriety, there are vociferous demands for laws to prevent the ruinous effects of the liquor traffic. . . . And so it is, too, with the general state of the population in respect of food, clothing, shelter, and the appliances of life. Leaving out of the comparison early barbaric states, there has been a conspicuous progress from the time when most rustics lived on barley bread, rye bread, and oatmeal, down to our own time, when the consumption of white wheaten bread is universal; from the days when coarse jackets, reaching to the knees, left the legs bare, down to the present day, when laboring people, like their employers, have the whole body covered by two or more layers of clothing; from the old era of single-roomed huts without chimneys, or from the fifteenth century, when even an ordinary gentleman's house was commonly without wainscot or plaster on its walls, down to the present century, when every cottage has more rooms than one, and the houses of artizans usually have several, while all have fireplaces, chimneys, and glazed windows, accompanied mostly by paper-hangings and painted doors, there has been, I say. a conspicuous progress in the condition of the people. And this progress has been still more marked within our own time. Any one who can look back sixty years, when the amount of pauperism was far greater than now, and beggars abundant, is struck by the comparative size and finish of the new houses of operatives; by the better dress of workmen, who wear broadcloth on Sundays, and that of servant girls, who vie with their mistresses; by the higher standard of living, which leads to a great demand for the best qualities of food by working people. . . . Not that the evils to be remedied are small. Let no one suppose that by emphasizing the above paradox I wish to make light of the sufferings which most men have to bear. The fates of the great majority have ever been, and doubtless still are, so sad that it is painful to think of them. Unquestionably the existing type of social organization is one which none who care for their kind can contemplate with satisfaction, and unquestionably men's activities accompanying this type are far from being admirable. . . . But it is not a question of absolute evils; it is a question of relative evils — whether the evils at present suffered are or are not less than the evils which would be suffered under another system; whether efforts for mitigation along the lines thus followed are not more likely to succeed than efforts along different lines. . . . The present social state is transitional, as past social states have been transitional. There will, I hope and believe, come a future social state, differing as much from the present as the present differs from the past, with its mailed barons and defenseless serfs. . , . My opposition to socialism results from the belief that it would stop the progress to such a higher state, and bring back a lower state. Nothing but the slow modification of human nature by the discipline of social life can produce permanently advantageous changes. An even stronger argument for individualism is drawn from the follies and miscarriages of the wisest and best-intentioned State legislation and control. As is well known, Herbert Spencer calls the notion that evils can be readily righted by TJmfti&tían legislation the great modern political ® superstition. He says: "The great political superstition of the past was the divine right of kings. The great political superstition of the present is the divine right of parliaments*' ("Essay on the Great Political Superstition"). He is never weary of illustrating the sins of legislators. He argues that legislators never know where the effect of their legislation will end. He says ("The Coming Slavery"): The legislator contemplates intently the things his act will achieve, but thinks little of the remoter issues of the movement his act sets up, and still less its collateral issues. When, in wartime, "food for powder" was to be provided by encouraging population — when Mr. Pitt said, "Let us make relief in cases where there are a number of children a matter of right and honor, instead of a ground for opprobrium and contempt," it was not expected that the poor-rates would be quadrupled in fifty years; that women with many bastards would be preferred as wives to modest women, because of their incomes from the parish, and that hosts of ratepayers would be pulled down into the ranks of pauperism. . . . Even less, as I say, does the politician who plumes himself on the practicalness of his aims conceive the indirect results which will follow the direct results of hie measures. Thus, to take a case connected The Fob with one named above, it was not intended through the svs- tem of " payment by results " to do anything more than give teachers an efficient stimulus; it was not supposed that in numerous cases their health would give way under the stimulus; it was not expected that they would be led to adopt a cramming system and to put undue pressure on dull and weak children, often to their great injury; it was not foreseen that in many cases a bodily enfeeblement would be caused which no amount of grammar and geography can compensate for. The licensing of public-houses was simply for Maintaining public order; those who devised it never imagined that there would result an organized interest powerfully influencing elections in an unwholesome way. Nor did it occur to the "practical" politicians who provided a compulsory load-line for merchant vessels, that the pressure of ship-owners' interests would habitually cause the putting of the load-line at the very highest limit, and that from precedent to precedent, tending ever in the same direction, the load-line would gradually rise in the better class of ships as from good authority I learn that it has already done. Legislators who, some forty years ago, by act of Parliament compelled railway companies to supply cheap locomotion, would nave rid'culed the belief, had it been exprest. that eventually their act would punish the companies which improved the supply; and yet this was the result to companies which began to carry third- class passengers by fast trains; since a penalty to the amount of the passenger duty was inflicted on them for every third- class passenger so carried. . . . " We must educate our masters," is the well-known saying of a Liberal who opposed the last extension of the franchise. Yes, if the education were worthy to he so called, and were relevant to the political enlightenment needed, much might be hoped from it. But knowing rules of syntax, being able to add up correctly, having geographical information and a memory stocked with the dates of kings' accessions and generals' victories, no more implies fitness to form political conclusions than acquirement of skill in drawing implies expertness in telegraphing or than ability to play cricket implies proficiency on the violin. "Surely," rejoins some one, "facility in reading opens the way to political knowledge." Doubtless; but will the way be followed? Table-talk proves that nine out of ten people read what amuses them or interests them rather than what instructs them: and that the last thing they read is something which tells them disagreeable truths or dispels groundless hopes. That popular education results in an extensive reading of publications which foster pleasant illusions rather than of those which insist on hard realities is beyond question. In other writings, Mr. Spencer gives still more detailed instances of the ways in which State legislation works unexpected ills. He says ("Social Statics," ed. of 1851, p. 384): An architect and surveyor describes it (the Building Act) as having worked after the following manner: In those districts of London consisting of inferior houses built in that unsubstantial fashion which the New Building Act was to mend there obtains an average rent, sufficiently remunerative to landlords whose houses were run up economically before the New Building Act passed. This existing average rent fixes the rent that must be charged in these districts for new houses of the same accommodation — that is, the same number of rooms — for the people they are built for do not appreciate the extra safety of living within walls strengthened with hoop- iron bond. Now it turns out upon trial that houses built in accordance with the present regulations, and let at this established rate, bring in nothing like a reasonable return. Builders have consequently confined themselves to erecting houses in better distncts (where the possibility of a profitable competition with preexisting houses shows that those preexisting houses were tolerably substantial), and have ceased to erect dwellings for the masses, except in the suburbs where no pressing sanitary evils exist. Meanwhile, in the inferior districts above described, has resulted an increase of overcrowding — half a dozen families in a house, a score of lodgers to a room. Nay, more than this has resulted. That state of miserable dilapidation into which these abodes of the poor are allowed to fall is due to the absence of competition from new houses. Landlords do not find their tenants tempted away by the offer of better accommodation. Repairs, being unnecessary for securing the largest amount of profit, are not made. ... In fact, for a large percentage of the very horrors which our sanitary agitators are trying to cure by law, we have to thank previous agitators of the same school! Later, in "The Sins of Legislators," Mr. Spencer says of the building laws : See then what legislation has done. By ill-imposed taxes, raising the prices 01 bricks and timber, it added to the costs of houses and prompted, for economy's sake, the use of bad materials in scanty quantities. To check the consequent production of wretched dwellings, it established regulations which, in medieval fashion, dictated the quality of the commodity produced; there being no perception that by insisting on a higher quality and therefore higher price, it would limit Individualism THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM the demand and eventually

611 Loading... Loading...


THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM Individualism girls dressmakers? "Socialism, disguise it as we may, is the negation of freedom." Similarly argue all individualists. But probably the chief arguments raised to-day to show the impracticability of socialism and the necessity of individualism, are, as above stated, biologic. Mr. Kidd argues in his "Social Evolution, p. 209, that socialism has not and probably cannot make any serious attempt to deal with even the initial difficulties of the continued success of a society where the struggle for existence is eliminated. He says: "Underneath all Socialist ideals yawns the problem of population." Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his latest work, says: " People who in their corporate capacity abolish the natural relation between merits andi benefits will presently be abolished themselves. Either they will have to go through the miseries of slow decay consequent on the increase of those unfit for the business of life, or they will be overrun by some people who have not pursued the foolish policy of fostering the worst at the expense of the better." Mr. Lecky says ("Democracy and Liberty," chap, viii.): "The Socialist remedies would only bring evils far greater than any they could possibly prevent. The desire of each man to improve his circumstances, to reap the full reward of superior talent, or energy, or thrift, is the very mainspring of the production of the world. Take these motives away; persuade men • n .•— that by superior work they will ob- " tain no superior reward; cut off all the hopes that stimulate among or- dinary men ambition, enterprise, invention, and self-sacrifice, and the whole level of production will rapidly and inevitably sink. . . . The essential difference of men in aptitudes, capacities, and character, are things that can never be changed, and all schemes and policies that ignore them are doomed to ultimate failure." Says Mr. Kidd ("Social Evolution"): It will not help us, even if there are to be no competing societies, and if in the contemplated era of socialism the whole human family, without distinction of race or color, is to be included in a federation within which the competitive forces are to be suspended. We may draw such a draft on our imagination, but our common sense, which has to deal with materials as they exist, refuses to honor it. We are concerned not with an imaginary being, but with man as he exists, a creature standing with countless eons of this competition behind him, every quality of his mind and body . . . the product of this rivalry, with its meaning, and allotted place therein, and capable of finding its fullest and fittest employment only in its natural conditions. Individualism, then, bases its argument on the fact that government can scarcely efficiently conduct even now the comparatively limited functions that it does attempt, and would utterly break down before the attempt to control the complete complex interests of all social life; that individualism, on the other hand, so far as tried during this century, while not by any means doing away with all evils, has produced more material and educational progress than in all the other centuries put together, and especially in those countries and in that country where individualism has been tried the most; that even if socialism were practicable, it would inevitably lead to the biological degeneration of the individual and .of the race and finally that even the beginnings of socialism tend to undermine that self-reliance, self- rule, free self-sacrifice, which, tho men consider it born of individual communion with God or of natural ethics alone, all men are agreed to be the noblest and the only enduring and eternal quality of man. Individualism may not produce all progress in a day ; individualists are not blind to the evils of the present, but they do know that an infinite progress has been made ; that that progress is now going on ; that it has been and is now almost solely due to individual struggle and competition in life, and that therefore it is but simple duty to resist even the beginnings of a socialism which for an impossible mirage threatens to attack all progress and to undermine man's noblest possession, individual character and individual aspiration. It is better to let a man struggle and work his own way even slowly toward character than to lift him, were it possible, into an Utopia of physical comfort, at the cost of weakened will and increased tendency to rely on a paternal or even a fraternal organization. THE INDIVIDUALIST PROGRAM As asserted above, individualists are neither doctrinaires nor visionaries. Says Mr. Wordsworth Donisthorpe in "The Limits of Liberty," a chapter in " A Plea for Liberty" : It is not fair to assert or even to insinuate that individualism as a practical working doctrine in this country (England) and in the United States is based on reasoning from abstractions. ... No one with the smallest claim to attention has been known to affirm that this or any other nation is yet rife for the abolition of the State. ... I suppose no one acquainted with his political writings will accuse Victor Yarros of backwardness or even of opportunism. Yet says he. "The abolition of the external State must be preceded by the decay of the nations which breathe life and vigor into that clumsy monster; in other words, it is only when the people learn to value liberty and to understand the truths of the anarchistic philosophy that the question of practically abolishing the State looms up and acquires significance." Mr. N. P. Oilman says of American individualists ("Socialism and the American Spirit"): The practical effort of those who here accept the name of individualist is to maintain the actual status against the strong tendency toward socialism which characterizes the time. If this can be successfully resisted they trust*to gradual enlightenment to weaken gradually the power of the State. The anarchist ideal, into which extreme individualism blends, is not to be reached by crying and striving. The individualist trusts in natural and in the unforced evolution of society ; he exerts himself with more or less energy simply to resist efforts contrary to this law which tend to produce an artificial development. . . , The present tendency toward socialism he would explain as a reaction toward primitive ideas which have long since, for the wiser minority, been fully exploded by experience. He stands stubbornly on the defensive against this tendency, feeling sure that, unchecked, it can only result in great evil. Contrasting individualism with Schaffle's definition of socialism (q. v.), Mr. Oilman says concerning individualism in its practical application: Economic individualism would then be the system of production by means of private capital (held by single persons, firms, corporations, or cooperative associations); this method of production demands a free-labor contract, open competition, and distribution to individuals. The alpha and omega of individualism is, accordingly, private and competing capitals, with a large measure of individual freedom from State control (p. it). ... It we attend chiefly to the facts of the existing situation in the United States, we should then consider individualism and socialism as two opposite tendencies, moved by either of which an American citizen may advocate or attack a definite and particular measure of legislation. The Utopia of the individualist, if Mr. Herbert Spencer may speak for him. is an approach to anarchy: the Utopia of the Socialist melts into communism, but neither scheme is proposed for immediate adoption here by sensible advocates. . . . The individualist ... in all his desires tends to unfavorable criticism, not to high admiration. 01 the manner and the results of governmental activity at present. He concedes that a nation may well tolerate a certain degree of inefficiency on the part of its officials in executing their present tasks, this being, on the whole, more endurable than the evils which would result from putting the same duties upon private persons. He opposes, however, any considerable further extension of the sphere of the State, and looks to education of the individual mind and conscience and to general progress for relief from existing evils. The extreme individualist would not only resist the tendency to socialism, but would also retrace some steps already taken in that direction, as he would say, such as universal free education. There are very few, to be sure, in America who hold the creed with such vigor. So conceiving of practical individualism, it is evident that there can be no fixed universal individualist program. It must be different in different countries; it is differently conceived by different individuals. On all important points the general individualist propositions will be found in this cyclopedia under each respective subject. (See LAND; INTEREST; WAGES; COMPETITION; EDUCATION; RAILROADS; POST-OFFICE; BANKING; MUTUAL BANKING, etc.) We give here one illustration of how individualists would work put social problems. Of perhaps the most serious problem in modern life Mr. N. P. Gilman says ("Socialism and the American Spirit"):

No evil in our cities appeals more forcibly to the kind- hearted than the crowded tenement houses. . . . Every one who has a particle of philanthropy in him cries out that these evils should be made to cease from off the earth. The end is clear, but what means shall we use ? The Socialist will dilate upon what Glasgow and. Liverpool have done, and urge that Boston and New York at once purchase whole squares, pull down the noisome houses of to-day, and erect, instead, clean and convenient tenements, to be let at low rates. This, however, would be too much like journeying from Chicago to Minneapolis, via Paris, the Suez Canal, and Japan. The Chicagoan would thus reach Minneapolis in time, indeed, if money and patience held out. But a more direct way would be first to discover what persons are responsible as owners or lessors of these fo-.il habitations, and then to bring home to them as individuals the distress and the crime which they occasion, while drawing profit from such inhuman conditions. Many of these persons sin as much through ignorance as through hardness of heart. . . . But if this should be of no effect, the men and women who are taught by the higher individualism that we are our brothers' keepers to a great degree can then follow the example of Mrs. Lincoln in Boston. Let them singly or in small associations buy or lease one or more city houses in the poorer districts and care for them in person or through kindly and capable agents. A large part of the tenement- House problem is manageable under this simple plan. . . . Where this plan is not expedient, the Peabody trustees in London, the Improved Dwelling-House Associations in Boston and New York, and such individuals as Mr. A. T. White in Brooklyn have demonstrated the eminent success of a more difficult method. Mr. J. A. Riis, a good authority, believes thoroughly in the compatibility of " philanthropy and 5 per cent " — the one as beginning, the other as the result. . . . The tenement-house problem in our American cities is thus fully within the control of a comparatively few persons. . . . Very few of the rich or the moderately rich in the United States would need to be converted to a higher individualism than they now practise to make the tenement-house problem a thing of the past so far as money can do it. Such is, we believe, a fair example of the individualist program. For the far more radical proposals of such extreme individualists as the philosophical anarchist — the Spencerians, the single- tax men, the voluntarians — we refer the reader to the respective articles which treat of them. Most individualists like Professor Huxley condemn alike the dogmatism of Herbert Spencer and the theories of the Socialists. They hold, with Professor Jevons, that in social reform "the first step is to throw aside all supposed absolute rights or inflexible principles"; they would not, at present at least, destroy the State; what is shown by experience that the State can do better than the individual, that they would have the State do; but they hold that, fundamentally and eternally, all experience teaches that primary reliance must be put on industrial action; that what limits individual initiation limits freedom; that what weakens individual responsibility weakens character, and that therefore, in the words of President Б, B, Andrews, of Brown University: "In all economic activity the presumption is in favor of individual liberty and free competition."

REFERENCES: A Plea for Liberty (P. Mackay, Ed., 1891): Wordsworth Donisthorpe's Individualism: A System of Politics (1890); The Man versus the State (a collection of articles by Herbert Spencer, and published under that name, 1884); N. P. Oilman's Socialism and the American Spirit (1893); W. G. Sumner's What Social Classes Owe to Each Other (1883); W. H. Mallock's Classes and Masses; or. Wealth. Wages, and Welfare in the United Kingdom (1896); Edward Atkinson's various articles; John Morley on Compromise; A. T. Hadley's Economics, an Account of the Relation Between Private Property and Public Welfare. See also [[Anarchism}ANARCHISM]]; SPENCER; SINGLE TAX: FREE TRADE; VOLUNTARYISM. For opposite views to those in this article and for objections to Individualism, see SOCIALISM. Revised by A. T. HADLEY.