Vfl
:
m
i
i
m
.!
!
I v.
The Commoner,
Mr. Bryan on Individualism vs. Socialism
(Writlon by W. J. Bryan and published in tho
April, 1000, numbor of tho Century Magazine.
Copyrighted and reproduced by permission of tho
Contury. Republished by request.)
noforo entering upon a study of tho old world
and itn ways, I accepted tho invitation of tho
Century to submit a brief comment upon
socialism as compared with individua Ism. Iho
wordn individualism and socialism dollno ten
dencies rather than concreto systoms, for as
oxtromo individualism is not to bo found under
any form of government, so there Is no cxamplo
of socialism in full operation. All government
being more or lofcs socialistic, tho contention so
far as thin subject Is concerned is between thoso
who regard individualism as ideal, to bo ap
proached as nearly as circumstances will permit
and thoso who regard a socialistic state as ideal,
to bo established as far and as fast as public
opinion will allow.
Tho individualist bolioves that competition Is
not only a helpful but a necessary forco in
society, to bo guarded and protected; tho so
cialist regards competition as a hurtful forco,
to bo entirely oxtorminated. It is not neces
sary to consider thoso who consciously talco
either side for reasons purely selfish; it is suffi
cient to know that on both sides there are those
who with great earnestness and sincerity pre
sent thoir theories, convinced of their correct
ness and sure of tho nocessity for their appli
cation to human society.
As socialism is the nowor doctrine tho socialist
is often greotod with epithet and denunciation
rathor than with argument, but as usual It does
not dctor him. Martyrdom nover kills a cause,
an all history political, a3 well as religious,
demonstrates.
No one can read socialistic literaturo without
recognizing tho "moral passion" that pervades
it. Tho Ituskin club, Oakland, Cal., quotes with
approval an editorial comment which asserts
that tho socialistic creed inspires a religious
zeal and makes its followers enthusiasts in its
propagation. It also quotes Prof. Nitto, of tho
University of Naples, as asserting that "tho
morality that socialism teaches is by far su
perior to that of its adversaries," and quotes
Thomas Kirkup as declaring, in tho Encyclo
paedia Brlttanica, that "tho ethics of socialism
aro Identical with Christianity."
It will bo seen, therefore, that tho socialists
not only claim superiority in ethics but attempt
to appropriate Christ's teachings as a founda
tion for their creed. As tho maintenance of
-olther position would insuro them ultimate vic
tory, It is cloar that tho first battle between
tho individualist and tho socialist must be in
tho field of ethics. No ono who has faith (and
who can contend with vigor without such a
faith?) in tho triumph of tho right can doulit
that that which is ethically beBt will finally
prevail in ovory department of human activity.
Assuming that tho highest aim of society is
tho harmonious development of tho human race,
physically, mentally and morally, tho first ques
tion to decide Is whether individualism or social
ism furnishes tho best meais of securing that
harmonious development. For tho purpose of
this discussion Individualism will bo definod as
tho private ownership of tho means of produc
tion and distribution whore competition is pos
sible, leaving to public ownership those moans
of production and distribution in which compe
tition is practically impossible, and socialism
will bo defined as tho collective ownership
through tho state, of all tho means of produc
tion and distribution.
Ono advocate of socialism defines it as "com
mon ownership of natural resources and public
utilities and tho common operation of all in
dustries for the public good." It will bo seen
that tho definitions of socialism commonly in
uso include somo things which can not fairly
bo described as socialistic, and somo of the
definitions (llko tho last one, for instance) bee
tho question by assuming that the public opera
tion of all industries will necessarily bo for tho
general good. As tho socialists agreo in hos
tility to competition as a controlling force, and
as individualists agreo that competition is neces
sary for the well being of society, the fairest
and most accurate lino between the two schools
can be drawn at the point where competition
begins to ho possible, hoth schools favoring nub
ile ownership whore competition is lmnolUihin
but differing as to the wisdom of pubHc owneS
chip whero competition nun hv .. ",". er
Much of the strength developed by socialism
, .,... n, fnnf that socialists advocate cer-
"in reforms which individualists also advocate.
Tle or illustration, the public ownersh p of
:nvo0rks. It is safe to say gat a large
tn-iioritv of tho people living in cities ol any
conslerablo size favor their publ o ownership,
n iduaiists because it is practica Uj Mmpossib e
to have more than one water system in a city
and socialists on the general ground that tho
government should own all the means o pro
duction and distribution. The sentiment In
favor of municipal lighting plants is not yet
so strong, and tho sentiment in favor of public
telephones and public street car lines is still
less pronounced, but the same general prin
ciples apply to them and individualists, with
out accepting the creed of socialists, can advo
cate the extension of municipal ownership to
these utilities.
Then,' too, some of tho strength of socialism
is due to its condemnation or auuses wmu,
while existing under individualism, are not at
all necessary to individualism abuses which
tho individualists are as anxious as the social
ists to remedy. It is not only consistent with
individualism, but is a necessary implication of
it, that the competing parties should be placed
upon substantially equal footing, for competition
is not worthy of that name if one party is able
to arbitrarily fix the terms of the agreement,
leaving tho other with no choice but to submit
to the terms prescribed. Individualists, for
instance, can consistently advocate usury laws
which fix tho rato of interest to be charged,
these laws being justified on the ground that
tho borrower and the lender do not stand upon
an equal footing. When the money lender Is
left free to take advantage of the necessities of
tho borrower the so-called freedom of contract
is really freedom to extort. Upon tho same
ground society can justify legislation against
child labor and legislation limiting the hours of
adult labor. One can believe in competition and
still favor such limitations and restrictions as
will make the competition real and effective.
To advocate individualism it is no more neces
sary to excuse the abuses to which competition
may lead than it is to defend tho burning of a
city because fire Is essential to human comfort,
or to praise a tempest because air is necessary
to human life.
In comparing individualism with socialism it
is only fair to consider individualism when
mado as good as human wisdom can make it and
then measure it with socialism at its best. It
is a common fault of the advocate to present
his system, idealized, in contrast with his op
ponent's system at its worst, and it must be
confessed that neither individualist nor socialist
has been entirely free from this fault. In deal
ing with any subject we must consider man
a3 he is, or as he may reasonably be expected
to become under the operation of the system
proposed, and it is much safer to consider him
as he is than to expect a radical change in his
nature. Taking man as we find him, he needs,
as individualists believe, tho spur of competi
tion. Even the socialists admit the advantage
of rivalry within certain limits, but they would
substitute altruistic for selfish motives. Just
here the individualist and the socialist find
themselves in antagonism. The former believes
that altruism is a spiritual quality which defies
governmental definition while the socialists be
lieves that altruism will take the place of selfish
ness under an enforced collectivism.
Ituskin's statement that "government and co
operation aro in all things and eternally the
laws of life; anarchy and competition eternally
and in all things, the laws of death," is often
quoted by socialists, but, like generalizations
aro apt to be, it is more comprehensive than
clear. There is a marked distinction between
voluntary co-operation, upon terms mutually
satisfactory, and compulsory co-operation upon
terms agreeable to a majority. Many of the
attempts to establish voluntary co-operation
,llvi0,tf!ed becausG of disagreement as to tho
distribution of the common property or income,
and those which have succeeded best have
usually rested upon a religious rather than upon
an economic basis. L
In any attempt to apply the teachings of Christ
to an economic state it must be remembered
tat .His religion begins with a regeneration of
the human heart and with an ideal of life which
makes service the measure of greatness. Tolstoy
who repudiates socialism as a substantial reform
contends that the bringing ot individual into
harmony with God is tho all Important tMng
VOLUME 12, NUMBER
and that this accomplished all injustice win
disappear.
It is much easier to conceive of a voluntary
association between persons desiring to work
together according to tho Christian ideal, than
to conceive of the successful operation of a
system, enforced by law, wherein altruism ia
the controlling principle. The attempt to unite
church and state has never been helpful to
either government or religion and it is not at
all certain that human nature can yet be trusted
to use the instrumentalities of government to
enforce religious ideas. Tho persecutions which
have made civilization blush have been attempts
to compel conformity to religious beliefs sin
cerely held and zealously promulgated.
The government, whether it leans toward
individualism or toward socialism, must be ad
ministered by human beings and its administra
tion will reflect tho weaknesses and imperfec
tions of those who control it. Bancroft declares
that the expression of the universal conscience
in history is the nearest approach to the voice
of God and he is right in paying this tribute to
the wisdom of the masses, and yet we can not
overlook the fact that this universal conscience
must find governmental expression through frail
human beings who yield to the temptation to
serve their own interests at the expense of their
fellows. Will socialism purge the individual of
selfishess or bring a nearer approach to justice?
Justice requires that each individual shall
receive from society a reward proportionate to
his contribution to society; can the states, act
ing through officials, make this apportionment
better than it can be made by competition? At
present, official favors are not distributed
strictly according to merit either in republic
or in monarchies; it is certain that socialism
would insure a fairer division of rewards? If
the government operates all the factories, all
tho farms and all the stores, there must be
superintendents as well as workmen; there must
be different kinds of employment, some more
pleasant, some less pleasant is it likely that
any set of men can distribute the work or fix
the compensation to the satisfaction of all, or
even to the satisfaction of a majority of tho
people? When the government employs com
paratively few of the people it must make the
terms and conditions inviting enough to draw
the persons needed from private employment
and if those employed in the public service be
come dissatisfied they can return to outside
occupations; but what will be the result if there
is no private employment? What outlet will
there be for discontent if the government owns
and operates all the means of production and
distribution?
Under individualism a man's reward is de
termined in the open market and where compe
tition is free he can hope to sell his services
for what they are worth; will his chance for
reward be as good when he must do the work
prescribed for him on the terms fixed by thoso
who are in control of the government? '
As there is no example of such socialistic
state as is now advocated, all reasoning upon
the subject must be confined to the theory and
theory needs to be corrected by experience. As
in mathematics no one can oalculate the direc
tion of the resultant without a knowledge of
all the forces that act upon the mo- ing body,
so in estimating the effect of a proposed system
one must take into consideration all the in
fluences that operate upon the human mind and
heart, and who is wise enoueh to nredict with
certainty the result of any system before it has
been thoroughly tried? Individualism has been
tested by centuries of experience. Undor it there
have been progress and development. That it has
not been free from evil is not a sufficient con
demnation. The same rain that furnishes tho
necessary moisturo for the growing crop some
times floods the land and destroys the harvest;
the same sun that coaxes the tiny shoot from
mother earth, sometimes scorches the blade and
blasts tho maturing stalk. Tho good things
given us by our Heavenly Father often, if not
always, have an admixture of evil, to the lessen
ing of which the intelligence of man must be
constantly directed. Just now thero are signs
of an ethical awakening which is likely to result
in reforming some of tho evils which have
sprung from individualism, but which can be
corrected without any impairment of the prin-
ihe ,ndl,vWualist; while contending that the
largest and broadest development of the indi
vidual, and hence the entire population is best
secured by full aild free competition, made fair
ELl!' 4?elioves in a spiritual force which acts
5 nd l10 sPhere of the state, After the gov
SnSHl MhaB'BGCured t0 tho individual, through
competition, a reward proportionate tohis effort.
JtmH rf tji'j