The nature of the present study does not allow of my dwelling at length on the doctrines and tendencies of the associations and congresses of the German Evangelical socialists.1 Politically speaking, they are as a rule conservatives, and affect great scorn for the Parliamentary system. According to them, Parliamentary parties are simply coalitions of various interests, groups that represent the egotism of the middle-classes, and exploit the action of the State in their own behalf. The king alone, as representative of the permanent interests of the nation, may boldly take up the defence of the poor and oppressed, for he alone derives no advantage from the subjection of the masses. Now, in the struggle with the wealthy bourgeoisie, who have the preponderancy in modern Parliaments, and oppress the poor, the sovereign ought to be the champion of the labouring classes.

Besides, these anti-parliamentary tendencies are very common in Germany, where the monarchy follows the traditions of Frederick II., and even at the present day considers itself the natural protector of the people's interests.

Is the social question to be that neutral ground on which Catholics and Evangelical Protestants will possibly come to an agreement? Many Catholic priests took part in the Evangelical congresses recently held in Germany. Protestants are admitted as members into almost all the Catholic associations, and, as will be seen further on, not a few Catholics form part of Protestant societies. But a true understanding, a real

1 Whoever wishes to form an exact idea of this movement should read Roscher, Die Betheiligung der evangelischen Geistlichen an der socialen Bewegung unserer Zeit, p. 73, Berlin, Puttkammer, 1878; Adolph Wach, Die Christliche-Sociale Arbeiterpartei, p. 47, Leipzig, Tauchnitz, 1878; the social Evangelical paper, Die deutsche Volkswacht; Laveleye, Le Socialisme Contemporain, chap. vii.; J. Rae, Contemporary Socialism (2nd ed.), chap. vii. The Liberal press derides the Social Evangelical party with the most cutting irony, declaring that it prefers the violence of the Social Democrats to the hypocritical Socialism (Mucker-Socialismus) of the Protestant clergy; see Rae, work already quoted. Cremer calls Herr Stöcker "the Boulanger of Christian Socialism". See Claude Jannet, Le Socialisme d'État, etc., p. 170, note 2, and F. Kaufmann, Christian Socialism, chap. vii., London, 1888.

accord, is not only difficult, but impossible. If much sympathy of feeling exists between Catholic and Evangelical socialists, the aims towards which the two Churches tend, like the principles from which they start, render any real and lasting harmony most unlikely.1

Certainly, among Protestant socialists, especially in England and America, there are men of much worth and daring, who accept the theories of Marx and George with enthusiasm, and are convinced collectivists. But Socialism, which in every respect tends to narrow the sphere of individual liberty, finds more favour among the Catholic than among the Protestant clergy. The Lutheran Reformation was of a distinctly individualist character, and the early traditions of the Reformed Church are at once individualist and conservative. 2 Catholics, on the other hand, have for ages been accustomed to restrictions on their individual liberty, and more easily become resigned to conservative Socialism.

Although the extreme "left" of Evangelical Socialism counts men like Stewart D. Headlam among its members, the Protestant Churches are wanting in organic unity, and, consequently, even their boldest attempts remain but as isolated facts of very limited importance. As their clergy have no real ecclesiastical hierarchy, they generally act upon their own impulse and on their own account. The Protestant Churches are many in number, and but little united among one another. They vary according to each country, and are frequently, as in the United States, of many denominations in the same State.

Now, for all large initiative a broad basis of action is necessary. The social question and Socialism are interna

1 Frederick Necker said, in writing to me: "I believe that it will not be easy to come to an understanding, except as to the means to be employed to attain power, were that possible". And Charles Gide writes: "This reciprocal sympathy will never reach a mutual understanding".

2 See the "Chronique," by Charles Gide, in the Revue d'Économie Politique, May-June, 1890, pp. 316 and 317.

tional questions, which do not interest one state alone, but all civilised nations.

Ever since the third century the Catholic Church has had a decidedly universal character, and is, in consequence, much better prepared to face the social question than are the Protestant Churches. Besides, she forms a compact organism, possessing a severe and disciplined ecclesiastical hierarchy. In questions of such weighty importance as the social question and Socialism, no priest acts on his own account without the direct control of the Church. Naturally, every attempt made by the Catholic clergy, which meets with the approval of the Vatican, at once assumes great importance, for it points out a new tendency in the Church. It consequently becomes evident beyond all doubt, that the Sovereign Pontiff would never have permitted socialistic schools to form and spread within the bosom of the Church, had he believed them to be contrary to the Gospel and the traditions of the faith.

100

CHAPTER V.

MONSIGNOR VON KETTELER AND CATHOLIC SOCIALISM IN GERMANY.

Socialism in Germany-German Socialism and French Socialism—Distrust in Liberty Progress of Socialism in Germany-Traditions of Conservative Socialism-The Preussisches allgemeine Landrecht-German Social Policy-Historic Traditions of Germany and State Socialism-The Catholic Church in Germany and the Social Question-Döllinger's Invitation-Kolping's Gesellenvereine-Monsignor Von Ketteler-His Doctrines-"The Labour Question is a Stomach Question "-Archbishop Von Ketteler and the Modern Industrial System-Criticism of Self-help-The Liberal School and Socialism-Consequences of Liberalism-Lassalle's Productive Associations compared with those founded by Monsignor Ketteler-State Intervention and Church Intervention-Monsignor Von Ketteler's Deceptions.

OCIALISM, as a political party, was very late in pene

had but a national and unionist character. The solid economic constitution of the country, the time-honoured privileges of the nobility, the state of subjection of the peasantry, and the almost total exclusion of the working classes from any participation in politics, added to many other "historic causes," formed, up to 1860, a constant and serious obstacle to the rapid spread of Socialism. Indeed, the writers and economists who were the real pioneers of modern Socialism, such as Fichte, Rodbertus Jagetzow, Marlo, etc., only began to be known and studied after Lassalle and Marx had entered upon their daring propaganda.

Before Socialism had yet found its way into Germany, it was already beginning to decline in France. A noted French writer, Louis Reybaud, exclaimed in a transport of blind optimism, "Socialism is dead!" But what a poor thing

1 See the article, "Socialisme et les Socialistes," in the Dictionnaire de l'Économie Politique, Paris, 1853.

UNIV. OF

French Socialism then was, rambling aimlessly from SaintSimon's new religion to Fourier's phalansteries, Cabet's Icarian Utopias, Leroux's romantic fancies, and the strange and violent theories of Proudon, whose "Philosophy of Misery" has been so justly defined by Marx as the "Misery of Philosophy".

The causes from which Socialism arose in Germany were very different from those which developed it in France.

French Socialism sprang from excessive faith in the benefits of liberty. The leaders of the Revolution had long considered liberty as all-sufficient, and as being in itself so great a boon as to render all social evils less painful and intolerable. When, however, through excess of political liberty the action of Government became wavering and uncertain, and the antagonism existing between the different classes of society, and the subjection of the workman to capital, came to be attributed to economic liberty, Socialism arose as the natural reaction against the Liberal school.

It is impossible not to experience some surprise in considering how much ground has been lost of late by the cause of liberty. It is not very long since the word was always written with a capital letter, as was formerly the word "king". Liberty reigned an uncontested and incontestable sovereign. And even after the first deceptions had come, De Tocqueville wrote: "Do not ask of me to analyse this sublime sentiment; to know it you must feel it. It enters of itself into those noble hearts that God has prepared to receive it, filling and inflaming them. We must renounce the attempt of making it understood by those small souls that have never felt it."1

Now, on the contrary, in philosophy the so-called free will, by which man claimed to be his own arbiter, received its deathblow from determinism; in politics, that liberty once so ardently invoked, has been the cause of much delusion and discouragement; finally, it is to economic liberty that we attribute, though in most cases unjustly, a great part of the evils that afflict our present industrial system.

1 See De Haussonville, "Socialisme d'État et Socialisme Chrétien,' in the Revue des Deux Mondes, pp. 840-841, 15th July, 1890.