Sir Thomas More's Utopia, Campanella's Civitas Solis, Jean Bodin's République, Harrington's Oceana, Morelly's Code de la Nature, Tower's Illustrations of Prophecy, etc., were, in more recent times, but late imitations of Plato adapted to the philosophical systems of their day, and to the sphere of thought and society in which their authors moved.1

To insist on wanting to discern the origin of modern socialistic tendencies among the doctrines of the "Utopists," simply implies ignorance of the aims of contemporary Socialism, and of the causes from which it sprang.

The men who preceded and prepared the French Revolution were the true pioneers of Socialism, the real origins of which we must trace back no farther than the latter half of the eighteenth century.

If the effects produced by the Revolution have been unfavourable to the socialistic system; if the economic liberty it claimed and secured, in freeing property from every social obligation, has but rendered it more unjust and inhuman as an institution; if in removing the time-honoured barriers that made it difficult to amass large fortunes, and placed an obstacle in the way of all excessive accumulation of capital, it arrived at results almost diametrically opposed to its original tendencies, yet we must not forget that the writers and philosophers who prepared it were almost all animated by noble and generous socialistic ideals.2

Whoever will but carefully study the theories of the precursors of the French Revolution cannot fail to perceive that not a few of them professed views closely resembling those held by contemporary socialists.3

According to the Abbé Mably, whose works, though soon forgotten, exercised a very great influence on the philosophy

1Compare Louis Reybaud, Études sur les Réformateurs ou Socialistes Modernes, vol. ii., pp. 71-150, 2me edition.

2 See Paul Janet, Les Origines du Socialisme Contemporain, p. 122. Paris: Germer Baillière, 1883.

'Beyond Jacobinism Taine sees schemes on property "that still float in a distant haze, though their common object already appears in full light" (La Révolution, vol. iii., p. 105).

of the eighteenth century, the evils of society almost entirely arose from the unequal distribution of property, which was contrary to natural law.1 Equality is the mother of all good, for it produces harmony among men; inequality, on the contrary, is the source of all evil, since from it arise the struggle between riches and poverty, all civil discord, and the thirst for wealth. The natural inequalities in strength and intelligence are not, according to this writer, sufficient argument to prove the necessity of the economic inequalities existing in human society. 2

Necker writes that hereditary property is "a law made by man, a privilege"; in society it is always the strong who oppress the weak; "now, in society the strong man is the proprietor, the weak man is denuded of all, he has no property". The oppression exercised by the rich consists in their not being obliged to give their labour on the lowest possible terms. "In this combat between the strong and the weak, between property and labour, the State ought to intervene in favour of the oppressed. How is this?" he exclaims, "the sovereign has power to compel the people to expose their lives in defence of the State, yet is not bound to watch over their welfare! is not bound to moderate the abuses committed by capital against the poor!"3 The Benedictine Deschamps considers that the principles of sound Christian morality ought necessarily to aim at community of goods. We are living in a state of anarchy, consequent on the power given to the strong to oppress the weak. "And," cries the sturdy Benedictine, "we cherish a hope, less chimerical than many suppose, of some day arising from this state to pass to a condition of higher morality, or equality, or true natural law, which beyond all doubt is preferable to a savage state.”4

1 Mably, De la Législation ou des Principes des Lois, chap. ii. Amsterdam, 1776.

2 Mably, ibid.

See Necker, Sur la Législation et le Commerce des Grains, vol. xv. in Principaux Économistes, part i., chaps. xxiv., xxv., xxvi.

• See, concerning Deschamps and his views, Beaussire, Antécédents de l'Hégélianisme en France, p. 124. Paris, 1865. On the socialistic ten

Marat chose as motto for the paper he conducted, Ut redeat miseris abeat fortuna superbis.1 Condorcet says: "Real equality is the ultimate scope of social science". 2 Saint Just holds opulence as an infamy, and according to Robespierre, no one ought to possess more than 300 livres income. 3

Necker very justly observes that political power has always been centred in the moneyed classes, and he asks: “Whence comes this misery of the people, through all times and in all countries; what can be its eternal cause? Its cause lies in the power granted to proprietors to give in exchange for labour whatever they judge fit; in other words, the lowest salary possible, which represents only the strictest necessaries of life. Now, this power that is in the hands of proprietors is founded upon their very limited number, as compared with the number of those who possess no property, on the great competition existing among the latter class, and above all, on the monstrous inequality that exists between men who are forced to sell their labour to get a living, and those who buy labour merely in order to add to their own comfort and luxury. One class is urged on by the necessity of the moment, the other is not; one class will ever continue making the laws, the other be ever forced to obey them. To these widely different relations must be attributed that empire which proprietors exercise over men who possess nothing."4

Montesquieu formulated the true ideal of Socialism when he declared that the State "is bound to afford each citizen

dencies of the philosophers and writers of the eighteenth century, consult likewise the two works by Paul Janet, Les Origines du Socialisme Contemporain, pp. 119-132; Histoire de la Science Politique dans ses Rapports avec la Morale, vol. ii., pp. 635-670. Paris: Alcan, 3me édit., 1883.

1 Laveleye, Le Socialisme Contemporain, pp. xx.-xxii. Paris: Alcan, me édit., 1890.

2 Marquis de Condorcet, Esquisse d'un Tableau Historique de l'Esprit Humain, vol. ii., p. 59.

Laveleye, Le Socialisme Contemporain, as quoted above.

Necker, Sur la Législation, etc., as quoted above. For the social views held by Rousseau, Necker, Mercier, Linguet, Brissot, Mably, etc., see Villegardelle, Histoire des Idées Sociales avant la Révolution Française, pp. 116-159. Paris: Guarin, 1848.

proper sustenance, decent clothing, and a mode of living not prejudicial to health".1 Chapelier, in his report of the decree issued on the 14th June, 1791, writes that the nation is bound to supply work to all those who need it, and to assist the infirm.2 And the Convention fully sanctioned this principle when it decreed that "public relief is a sacred duty; society owes a living to its less fortunate members, either by procuring them employment or by assuring the means of sustenance to all those who are unfit for work". 3

Yet whatever may have been the economic and social results of the French Revolution, there can be no denying that the greater part of the men who prepared it and carried it out had already foreseen the problems of modern Socialism.

The doctrines of the Liberal school seem to be, and most certainly are, in open contradiction to those of Socialism, yet they have, notwithstanding this, exercised a great influence on the early development of socialistic ideas.

The socialist deputy, Bebel, thus apostrophised the Liberals in one of the sittings of the Reichstag: "We are your disciples, and have but popularised your doctrines, the natural conclusions of which we have taught the people to draw for themselves "4 The Utilitarianism of Ricardo, Senior, Stuart Mill, Bastiat, Rossi, Dunoyer, etc., carried to its ultimate consequences, has produced Socialism, for when utility alone was given as the basis of all economic morality, the masses spontaneously drew certain conclusions, the exaggeration of which has led to Socialism.5

The utilitarian theories of Bentham and Stuart Mill, when

1 Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, book xxiii., chap. xxix.

2 See Claude Jannet, Le Socialisme d'État et la Réforme Sociale, p. 4. Paris: Plon, 2me edit.

3 Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme, art. xxi.

4 See Abbé Winterer, Discours Prononcé au Congrès Social de Liége, le 6 Septembre, 1887, p. 4. Rixheim: A. Sutter, 1887.

• Concerning the influence of Liberal writers on Socialism, see Hervé Bazin, Les Trois Écoles en Économie Politique, p. 32. Paris: Balitout, 1880. Also C. Perrin, "Coup-d'œil sur les Doctrines Economiques Depuis un Siècle," in the Revue Catholique of Louvain, p. 361, 1870.

applied with strict logic, lead either to Absolutism on the one hand, or to the most rabid Communism on the other, and although they both aim at establishing freedom of conscience as well as political liberty, it is nevertheless undeniable that the ultimate consequences of their theories have the same tendency even in religious matters.

If English Protestants were at one time convinced of the utility of suppressing the Irish Catholics, were they not perfectly logical from the utilitarian point of view, since they started from the principle that spiritual or heavenly utility is far superior to earthly utility? And again, by means of the same system, Hobbes arrived at the conclusion that the sovereign had full right to decide even in matters of religion.

It you simply divest the theories of Stuart Mill of certain considerations that frequently clash with his utilitarian principles, you will at once perceive that utilitarian and communistic morality are after all one and the same thing. For as right is but "a power that society is interested in granting to individuals," there can be no valid reason why the State should not act as arbitrator in all questions of right of property.

In his Programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association, Stuart Mill goes so far as to admit that if the State ought to leave the revenue of labour and capital intact, it has both the right and the obligation to limit the means of natural monopoly, that is to say, the revenue derived from the soil properly so called, by means of a tax on all landed property. Such a tax would restore to society that share in individual property to which it has a legitimate claim.

When Stuart Mill seeks to justify the right of property, he is forced to adduce reasons of a juridical and moral nature which have nothing in common with his utilitarian views.

Now, what wonder if English socialists have profited by doctrines which the Liberal utilitarian school refused to follow up to their ultimate logical conclusions?

Whoever carefully studies their writings, perceives at once that they but repeat theories which the Liberal school very often professed and still professes.