THE ACTION OF POSITIVISM UPON THE WORKING CLASSES
[Positivism will not for the
present recommend itself to
the governing classes, so
much as to the People]
Positivism, whether looked at as a philosophical system or as an
instrument of social renovation, cannot count upon much support
from any of the classes, whether in Church or State, by whom the
government of mankind has hitherto been conducted. There will be
isolated exceptions of great value, and these will soon become more
numerous: but the prejudices and passions of these classes will present
serious obstacles to the work of moral and mental reorganization which
constitutes the second phase of the great Western revolution. Their
faulty education and their repugnance to system prejudice them against
a philosophy which subordinates specialities to general principles.
Their aristocratic instincts make it very difficult for them to
recognize the supremacy of Social Feeling; that doctrine which lies
at the root of social regeneration, as conceived by Positivism. That
no support can be expected from the classes who were in the ascendant
before the Revolution, is of course obvious; and we shall probably meet
with opposition, quite as real though more carefully concealed, from
the middle classes, to whom that revolution transferred the authority
and social influence which they had long been coveting. Their thoughts
are entirely engrossed with the acquisition of power; and they concern
themselves but little with the mode in which it is used, or the objects
to which it is directed. They were quite convinced that the Revolution
had found a satisfactory issue in the parliamentary system instituted
during the recent period of political oscillation. They will long
continue to regret that stationary period, because it was peculiarly
favourable to their restless ambition. A movement tending to the
complete regeneration of society is almost as much dreaded now by the
middle classes as it was formerly by the higher. And both would at all
events agree in prolonging the system of theological hypocrisy, as far
as republican institutions admitted of it. That policy is now the only
means by which retrogression is still possible. Ignoble as it is, there
are two motives for adopting it; it secures respect and submission on
the part of the masses, and it imposes no unpleasant duties on their
governors. All their critical and metaphysical prejudices indispose
them to terminate the state of spiritual anarchy which is the greatest
obstacle to social regeneration: while at the same time their ambition
dreads the establishment of a new moral authority, the restrictive
influence of which would of course press most heavily upon themselves.
In the eighteenth century, men of rank, and even kings, accepted the
purely negative philosophy that was then in vogue; it removed many
obstacles, it was an easy path to reputation, and it imposed no great
sacrifice. But we can hardly hope from this precedent that the wealthy
and literary classes of our own time will be equally willing to accept
Positive philosophy; the avowed purpose of which is to discipline our
intellectual powers, in order to reorganize our modes of life.
The avowal of such a purpose is quite sufficient to prevent Positivism
from gaining the sympathies of any one of the governing classes. The
classes to which it must appeal are those who have been left untrained
in the present worthless methods of instruction by words and entities,
who are animated with strong social instincts, and who consequently
have the largest stock of good sense and good feeling. In a word it is
among the Working Classes that the new philosophers will find their
most energetic allies. They are the two extreme terms in the social
series as finally constituted; and it is only through their combined
action that social regeneration can become a practical possibility.
Notwithstanding their difference of position, a difference which
indeed is more apparent than real, there are strong affinities between
them, both morally and intellectually. Both have the same sense of the
real, the same preference for the useful, and the same tendency to
subordinate special points to general principles. Morally they resemble
each other in generosity of feeling, in wise unconcern for material
prospects, and in indifference to worldly grandeur. This at least will
be the case as soon as philosophers in the true sense of that word
have mixed sufficiently with the nobler members of the working classes
to raise their own character to its proper level. When the sympathies
which unite them upon these essential points have had time to show
themselves, it will be felt that the philosopher is, under certain
aspects, a member of the working class fully trained; while the working
man is in many respects a philosopher without the training. Both too
will look with similar feelings upon the intermediate or capitalist
class. As that class is necessarily the possessor of material power,
the pecuniary existence of both will as a rule be independent upon it.
[The working man who accepts
his position is favourably
situated for the reception
of comprehensive principles
and generous sympathies]
These affinities follow as a natural result from their respective
position and functions. The reason of their not having been recognized
more distinctly is, that at present we have nothing that can be called
a philosophic class, or at least it is only represented by a few
isolated types. Workmen worthy of their position are happily far less
rare; but hitherto it is only in France, or rather in Paris, that
they have shown themselves in their true light, as men emancipated
from chimerical beliefs, and careless of the empty prestige of social
position. It is, then, only in Paris that the truth of the preceding
remarks can be fully verified.
The occupations of working men are evidently far more conducive to
philosophical views than those of the middle classes; since they are
not so absorbing, as to prevent continuous thought, even during the
hours of labour. And besides having more time for thinking, they have
a moral advantage in the absence of any responsibility when their work
is over. The workman is preserved by his position from the schemes of
aggrandisement, which are constantly harassing the capitalist. Their
difference in this respect causes a corresponding difference in their
modes of thought; the one cares more for general principles, the other
more for details. To a sensible workman, the system of dispersive
speciality now so much in vogue shows itself in its true light. He sees
it, that is, to be brutalizing, because it would condemn his intellect
to the most paltry mode of culture, so much so that it will never
be accepted in France, in spite of the irrational endeavours of our
Anglo-maniac economists. To the capitalist, on the contrary, and even
to the man of science, that system, however rigidly and consistently
carried out, will seem far less degrading; or rather it will be looked
upon as most desirable, unless his education has been such as to
counteract these tendencies, and to give him the desire and the ability
for abstract and general thought.
Morally, the contrast between the position of the workman and the
capitalist is even more striking. Proud as most men are of worldly
success, the degree of moral or mental excellence implied in the
acquisition of wealth or power, even when the means used have been
strictly legitimate, is hardly such as to justify that pride. Looking
at intrinsic qualities rather than at visible results, it is obvious
that practical success, whether in industry or in war, depends far
more on character than on intellect or affection. The principal
condition for it is the combination of a certain amount of energy
with great caution, and a fair share of perseverance. When a man has
these qualities, mediocrity of intellect and moral deficiency will
not prevent his taking advantage of favourable chances; chance being
usually a very important element in worldly success. Indeed it would
hardly be an exaggeration to say that poverty of thought and feeling
has often something to do with forming and maintaining the disposition
requisite for the purpose. Vigorous exertion of the active powers
is more frequently induced by the personal propensities of avarice,
ambition, or vanity, than by the higher instincts. Superiority of
position, when legitimately obtained, deserves respect; but the
philosopher, like the religionist, and with still better grounds,
refuses to regard it as a proof of moral superiority, a conclusion
which would be wholly at variance with the true theory of human nature.
The life of the workman, on the other hand, is far more favourable to
the development of the nobler instincts. In practical qualities he is
usually not wanting, except in caution, a deficiency which makes his
energy and perseverance less useful to himself, though fully available
for society. But it is in the exercise of the higher feelings that
the moral superiority of the working class is most observable. When
our habits and opinions have been brought under the influence of
systematic principles, the true character of this class, which forms
the basis of modern society, will become more distinct; and we shall
see that home affections are naturally stronger with them than with
the middle classes, who are too much engrossed with personal interests
for the full enjoyment of domestic ties. Still more evident is their
superiority in social feelings strictly so called, for these with them
are called into daily exercise from earliest childhood. Here it is that
we find the highest and most genuine types of friendship, and this
even amongst those who are placed in a dependent position, aggravated
often by the aristocratic prejudices of those above them, and whom we
might imagine on that account condemned to a lower moral standard. We
find sincere and simple respect for superiors, untainted by servility,
not vitiated by the pride of learning, not disturbed by the jealousies
of competition. Their personal experience of the miseries of life is
a constant stimulus to the nobler sympathies. In no class is there
so strong an incentive to social feeling, at least to the feeling of
Solidarity between contemporaries; for all are conscious of the support
that they derive from union, support which is not at all incompatible
with strong individuality of character. The sense of Continuity with
the past has not, it is true, been sufficiently developed; but this
is a want which can only be supplied by systematic culture. It will
hardly be disputed that there are more remarkable instances of prompt
and unostentatious self-sacrifice at the call of a great public
necessity in this class than in any other. Note, too, that in the
utter absence of any systematic education, all these moral excellences
must be looked upon as inherent in the class. It is impossible to
attribute them to theological influence, now that they have so entirely
shaken off the old faith. The type I have described would be generally
considered imaginary; and at present it is only in Paris that it can
be fully realized. But the fact of its existence in the centre of
Western Europe is enough for all rational observers. A type so fully
in accordance with what we know of human nature cannot fail ultimately
to spread everywhere, especially when these spontaneous tendencies are
placed under the systematic guidance of Positivism.
[This the Convention felt;
but they encouraged the
People to seek political
supremacy, for which they
are not fit]
These remarks will prepare us to appreciate the wise and generous
instincts of the Convention in looking to the Proletariate as the
mainspring of its policy; and this is not merely on account of the
incidental danger of foreign invasion, but in dealing with the larger
question of social regeneration, which it pursued so ardently, though
in such ignorance of its true principles. Owing, however, to the want
of a satisfactory system, and the disorder produced by the metaphysical
theories of the time, the spirit in which this alliance with the
people was framed was incompatible with the real object in view. It
was considered that government ought as a rule to be in the hands of
the people. Now under the special circumstances of the time popular
government was undoubtedly very useful. The existence of the republic
depended almost entirely upon the proletariate, the only class that
stood unshaken and true to its principles. But in the absolute spirit
of the received political theories, this state of things was regarded
as normal, a view which is incompatible with the most important
conditions of modern society. It is of course always right for the
people to assist government in carrying out the law, even to the extent
of physical force, should the case require it. Interference of this
subordinate kind, whether in foreign or internal questions, so far from
leading to anarchy, is obviously a guarantee for order which ought to
exist in every properly constituted society. Indeed in this respect our
habits in France are still very defective; men are too often content to
remain mere lookers on, while the police to whom they owe their daily
protection is doing its duty. But for the people to take a direct part
in government, and to have the final decision of political measures,
is a state of things which in modern society is only adapted to times
of revolution. To recognize it as final would lead at once to anarchy,
were it not so utterly impossible to realize.
[It is only in exceptional
cases that the People can be
really ‘sovereign’]
Positivism rejects the metaphysical doctrine of the Sovereignty of the
people. But it appropriates all that is really sound in the doctrine,
and this with reference not merely to exceptional cases but to the
normal state; while at the same time it guards against the danger
involved in its application as an absolute truth. In the hands of the
revolutionary party the doctrine is generally used to justify the right
of insurrection. Now in Positive Polity, this right is looked upon
as an ultimate resource, with which no society should allow itself
to dispense. Absolute submission, which is too strongly inculcated
by modern Catholicism, would expose us to the danger of tyranny.
Insurrection may be regarded, scientifically, as a sort of reparative
crisis, of which societies stand in more need than individuals in
accordance with the well-known biological law, that the higher and
the more complicated the organism, the more frequent and also the
more dangerous is the pathological state. Therefore, the fear that
Positivism, when generally accepted, will encourage passive obedience,
is perfectly groundless; although it is certainly not favourable to the
pure revolutionary spirit, which would fain take the disease for the
normal type of health. Its whole character is so essentially relative,
that it finds no difficulty in accepting subordination as the rule,
and yet allowing for exceptional cases of revolt; a course by which
good taste and human dignity are alike satisfied. Positivism looks upon
insurrection as a dangerous remedy that should be reserved for extreme
cases; but it would never scruple to sanction and even to encourage
it when it is really indispensable. This is quite compatible with
refusing, as a rule, to submit the decision of political questions and
the choice of rulers to judges who are obviously incompetent; and who,
under the influence of Positivism, will of their own free will abdicate
rights which are subversive of order.
[The truth involved in the
expression is that the
well-being of the people
should be the one great
object of government]
The metaphysical doctrine of the Sovereignty of the people, contains,
however, a truth of permanent value, though in a very confused form.
This truth Positivism separates very distinctly from its dangerous
alloy, yet without weakening, on the contrary, with the effect of
enforcing, its social import. There are two distinct conceptions in
this doctrine, which have hitherto been confounded; a political
conception applicable to certain special cases; a moral conception
applicable to all.
In the first place the name of the whole body politic ought to be
invoked in the announcement of any special measure, of which the
motives are sufficiently intelligible, and which directly concern
the practical interests of the whole community. Under this head
would be included decisions of law courts, declarations of war,
etc. When society has reached the Positive state, and the sense of
universal solidarity is more generally diffused, there will be even
more significance and dignity in such expressions than there is now,
because the name invoked will no longer be that of a special nation,
but that of Humanity as a whole. It would be absurd, however, to extend
this practice to those still more numerous cases where the people is
incompetent to express any opinion, and has merely to adopt the opinion
of superior officers who have obtained its confidence. This may be
owing either to the difficulty of the question or to the fact of its
application being indirect or limited. Such, for instance, would be
enactments, very often of great importance, which deal with scientific
principles; or again most questions relating to special professions
or branches of industry. In all these cases popular good sense would,
under Positivist influence, easily be kept clear from political
illusions. It is only under the stimulus of metaphysical pride that
such illusions become dangerous; and the untaught masses have but
little experience of this feeling.
There is, however, another truth implied in the expression,
Sovereignity of the people. It implies that it is the first of duties
to concentrate all the efforts of society upon the common good. And in
this there is a more direct reference to the working class than to any
other; first, on account of their immense numerical superiority, and,
secondly, because the difficulties by which their life is surrounded
require special interference to a degree which for other classes would
be unnecessary. From this point of view it is a principle which all
true republicans may accept. It is, in fact, identical with what we
have laid down as the universal basis of morality, the direct and
permanent preponderance of social feeling over all personal interests.
Not merely, then, is it incorporated by Positivism, but, as was shown
in the first chapter, it forms the primary principle of the system,
even under the intellectual aspect. Since the decline of Catholicism
the metaphysical spirit has been provisionally the guardian of this
great social precept. Positivism now finally appropriates it, and
purifies it for the future from all taint of anarchy. Revolutionists,
as we should expect from their characteristic dislike to the separation
of the two powers, had treated the question politically. Positivism
avoids all danger by shifting it to the region of morality. I shall
show presently that this very salutary change, so far from weakening
the force of the principle, increases its permanent value, and at the
same time removes the deceptive and subversive tendencies which are
always involved in the metaphysical mode of regarding it.
[The People’s function is to
assist the spiritual power
in modifying the action of
government]
What then, it will be asked, is the part assigned to the Proletariate
in the final constitution of society? This similarity of position which
I pointed out between themselves and the philosophic class suggests the
answer. They will be of the most essential service to the spiritual
power in each of its three social functions, judgment, counsel, and
even education. All the intellectual and moral qualities that we have
just indicated in this class concur in fitting them for this service.
If we except the philosophic body, which is the recognized organ of
general principles, there is no class which is so habitually inclined
to take comprehensive views of any subject. Their superiority in Social
Feeling is still more obvious. In this even the best philosophers are
rarely their equals; and it would be a most beneficial corrective of
their tendency to over-abstraction to come into daily contact with the
noble and spontaneous instincts of the people. The working class, then,
is better qualified than any other for understanding, and still more
for sympathizing with the highest truths of morality, though it may
not be able to give them a systematic form. And, as we have seen, it
is in social morality, the most important and the highest of the three
branches of Ethics, that their superiority is most observable. Besides,
independently of their intrinsic merits, whether intellectual or moral,
the necessities of their daily life serve to impress them with respect
for the great rules of morality, which in most cases were framed for
their own protection. To secure the application of these rules in daily
life is a function of the spiritual power in the performance of which
they will meet with but slight assistance from the middle classes. It
is with them that temporal power naturally resides, and it is their
misuse of power that has to be controlled and set right. The working
classes are the chief sufferers from the selfishness and domineering
of men of wealth and power. For this reason they are the likeliest to
come forward in defence of public morality. And they will be all the
more disposed to give it their hearty support if they have nothing to
do directly with political administration. Habitual participation in
temporal power, to say nothing of its unsettling influence, would
lead them away from the best remedy for their sufferings of which the
constitution of society admits. Popular sagacity will soon detect the
utter hollowness of the off-hand solutions that are now being obtruded
upon us. The people will rapidly become convinced that the surest
method of satisfying all legitimate claims lies in the moral agencies
which Positivism offers, though it appears to them at the same time to
abdicate political power which either yields them nothing or results in
anarchy.
So natural is this tendency of the people to rally round the spiritual
power in defence of morality, that we find it to have been the
case even in mediaeval times. Indeed this it is which explains the
sympathies which Catholicism still retains, notwithstanding its
general decline, in the countries where Protestantism has failed to
establish itself. Superficial observers often mistake these sympathies
for evidence of sincere attachment to the old creeds, though in point
of fact they are more thoroughly undermined in those countries than
anywhere else. It is an historical error which will, however, soon be
corrected by the reception which these nations, so wrongly imagined
to be in a backward stage of political development, will give to
Positivism. For they will soon see its superiority to Catholicism in
satisfying the primary necessity with which their social instincts are
so justly preoccupied.
In the Middle Ages, however, the relations between the working classes
and the priesthood were hampered by the institution of serfage, which
was not wholly abolished until Catholicism had begun to decline. In
fact a careful study of history will show that one of the principal
causes of its decline was the want of popular support. The mediaeval
church was a noble, but premature attempt. Disbelief in its doctrines,
and also retrograde tendencies in its directors, had virtually
destroyed it, before the Proletariate had attained sufficient social
importance to support it successfully, supposing it could have deserved
their support. But we are now sufficiently advanced for the perfect
realization of the Catholic ideal in Positivism. And the principal
means of realizing it will be the formation of an alliance between
philosophers and the working classes, for which both are alike prepared
by the negative and positive progress of the last five centuries.
[Their combined efforts
result in the formation of
Public Opinion]
The direct object of their combined action will be to set in motion the
force of Public Opinion. All views of the future condition of society,
the views of practical men as well as of philosophic thinkers, agree
in the belief that the principal feature of the state to which we
are tending, will be the increased influence which Public Opinion is
destined to exercise.
It is in this beneficial influence that we shall find the surest
guarantee for morality; for domestic and even for personal morality,
as well as for social. For as the whole tendency of Positivism is to
induce every one to live as far as possible without concealment, the
public will be intrusted with a strong check upon the life of the
individual. Now that all theological illusions have become so entirely
obsolete, the need of such a check is greater than it was before. It
compensates for the insufficiency of natural goodness which we find in
most men, however wisely their education has been conducted. Except
the noblest of joys, that which springs from social sympathy when
called into constant exercise, there is no reward for doing right
so satisfactory as the approval of our fellow-beings. Even under
theological systems it has been one of our strongest aspirations to
live esteemed in the memory of others. And still more prominence will
be given to this noble form of ambition under Positivism, because
it is the only way left us of satisfying the desire which all men
feel of prolonging their life into the Future. And the increased
force of Public Opinion will correspond to the increased necessity
for it. The peculiar reality of Positive doctrine and its constant
conformity with facts facilitate the recognition of its principles,
and remove all obscurity in their application. They are not to be
evaded by subterfuges like those to which metaphysical and theological
principles, from their vague and absolute character, have been always
liable. Again, the primary principle of Positivism, which is to judge
every question by the standard of social interests, is in itself a
direct appeal to Public Opinion; since the public is naturally the
judge of the good or bad effect of action upon the common welfare.
Under theological and metaphysical systems no appeal of this sort was
recognized; because the objects upheld as the highest aims of life were
purely personal.
In political questions the application of our principle is still more
obvious. For political morality Public Opinion is almost our only
guarantee. We feel its force even now in spite of the intellectual
anarchy in which we live. Neutralized as it is in most cases by the
wide divergences of men’s convictions, yet it shows itself on the
occasion of any great public excitement. Indeed, we feel it to our cost
sometimes when the popular mind has taken a wrong direction; government
in such cases being very seldom able to offer adequate resistance.
These cases may convince us how irresistible this power will prove when
used legitimately, and when it is formed by systematic accordance in
general principles instead of by a precarious and momentary coincidence
of feeling. And here we see more clearly than ever how impossible
it is to effect any permanent reconstruction of the institutions of
society, without a previous reorganization of opinion and of life. The
spiritual basis is necessary not merely to determine the character
of the temporal reconstruction, but to supply the principal motive
force by which the work is to be carried out. Intellectual and moral
harmony will gradually be restored, and under its influence the new
political system will by degrees arise. Social improvements of the
highest importance may therefore be realized long before the work of
spiritual reorganization is completed. We find in mediaeval history
that Catholicism exercised a powerful influence on society during its
emergence from barbarism, before its own internal constitution had
advanced far. And this will be the case to a still greater degree with
the regeneration which is now in progress.
[Public opinion involves,
(1) principles of social
conduct, (2) their
acceptance by society at
large, (3) an organ through
which to enunciate them]
Having defined the sphere within which Public Opinion should operate,
we shall find little difficulty in determining the conditions requisite
for its proper organization. These are, first, the establishment of
fixed principles of social action; secondly, their adoption by the
public, and its consent to their application in special cases; and,
lastly, a recognized organ to lay down the principles, and to apply
them to the conduct of daily life. Obvious as these three conditions
appear, they are still so little understood, that it will be well to
explain each of them somewhat more fully.
The first condition, that of laying down fixed principles, is, in fact,
the extension to social questions of that separation between theory
and practice, which in subjects of less importance is universally
recognized. This is the aspect in which the superiority of the new
spiritual system to the old is most perceptible. The principles of
moral and political conduct that were accepted in the Middle Ages
were little better than empirical, and owed their stability entirely
to the sanction of religion. In this respect, indeed, the superiority
of Catholicism to the systems which preceded it, consisted merely in
the fact of separating its precepts from the special application of
them. By making its precepts the distinct object of preliminary study,
it secured them against the bias of human passions. Yet important as
this separation was, the system was so defective intellectually, that
the successful application of its principles depended simply on the
good sense of the teachers; for the principles in themselves were as
vague and as absolute as the creeds from which they were derived. The
influence exercised by Catholicism was due to its indirect action upon
social feeling in the only mode then possible. But the claims with
which Positivism presents itself are far more satisfactory. It is based
on a complete synthesis; one which embraces, not the outer world only,
but the inner world of human nature. This, while in no way detracting
from the practical value of social principles, give them the imposing
weight of theoretical truth; and ensures their stability and coherence,
by connecting them with the whole series of laws on which the life of
man and of society depend. For these laws will corroborate even those
which are not immediately deduced from them. By connecting all our
rules of action with the fundamental conception of social duty, we
render their interpretation in each special case clear and consistent,
and we secure it against the sophisms of passion. Principles such as
these, based on reason, and rendering our conduct independent of the
impulses of the moment, are the only means of sustaining the vigour
of Social Feeling, and at the same time of saving us from the errors
to which its unguided suggestions so often lead. Direct and constant
culture of Social Feeling in public as well as in private life is no
doubt the first condition of morality. But the natural strength of
Self-love is such that something besides this is required to control
it. The course of conduct must be traced beforehand in all important
cases by the aid of demonstrable principles, adopted at first upon
trust, and afterwards from conviction.
There is no art whatever in which, however ardent and sincere our
desire to succeed, we can dispense with knowledge of the nature and
conditions of the object aimed at. Moral and political conduct is
assuredly not exempt from such an obligation, although we are more
influenced in this case by the direct promptings of feeling than in
any other of the arts of life. It has been shown only too clearly by
many striking instances how far Social Feeling may lead us astray
when it is not directed by right principles. It was for want of fixed
convictions that the noble sympathies entertained by the French
nation for the rest of Europe at the outset of the Revolution so soon
degenerated into forcible oppression, when her retrograde leader began
his seductive appeal to selfish passions. Inverse cases are still more
common; and they illustrate the connexion of feeling and opinion as
clearly as the others. A false social doctrine has often favoured the
natural ascendency of Self-love by giving a perverted conception of
public well-being. This has been too plainly exemplified in our own
time by the deplorable influence which Malthus’s sophistical theory
of population obtained in England. This mischievous error met with
very little acceptance in the rest of Europe, and it has been already
refuted by the nobler thinkers of his own country; but it still gives
the show of scientific sanction to the criminal antipathy of the
governing classes in Great Britain to all effectual measures of reform.
Next to a system of principles, the most important condition for
the exercise of Public Opinion is the existence of a strong body of
supporters sufficient to make the weight of these principles felt. Now
it was here that Catholicism proved so weak; and therefore, even had
its doctrine been less perishable, its decline was unavoidable. But
the defect is amply supplied in the new spiritual order, which, as I
have before shown, will receive the influential support of the working
classes. And the need of such assistance is as certain as the readiness
with which it will be yielded. For though the intrinsic efficacy of
Positive teaching is far greater than that of any doctrine which is not
susceptible of demonstration, yet the convictions it inspires cannot
be expected to dispense with the aid of vigorous popular support.
Human nature is imperfectly organized; and the influence which Reason
exercises over it is not by any means so great as this supposition
would imply. Even Social Feeling, though its influence is far greater
than that of Reason, would not in general be sufficient for the right
guidance of practical life, if Public Opinion were not constantly at
hand to support the good inclinations of individuals. The arduous
struggle of Social Feeling against Self-love requires the constant
assertion of true principles to remove uncertainty as to the proper
course of action in each case. But it requires also something more.
The strong reaction of All upon Each is needed, whether to control
selfishness or to stimulate sympathy. The tendency of our poor and weak
nature to give way to the lower propensities is so great that, but
for this universal co-operation, Feeling and Reason would be almost
inadequate to their task. In the working class we find the requisite
conditions. They will, as we have seen, form the principal source of
opinion, not merely from their numerical superiority, but also from
their intellectual and moral qualities, as well as from the influence
directly due to their social position. Thus it is that Positivism views
the great problem of human life, and shows us for the first time that
the bases of a solution already exist in the very structure of the
social organism.
[Working men’s clubs]
Working men, whether as individuals or, what is still more important,
collectively, are now at liberty to criticize all the details, and
even the general principles, of the social system under which they
live; affecting, as it necessarily does, themselves more nearly than
any other class. The remarkable eagerness lately shown by our people
to form clubs, though there was no special motive for it, and no very
marked enthusiasm, was a proof that the checks which had previously
prevented this tendency from showing itself were quite unsuited to our
times. Nor is this tendency likely to pass away; on the contrary, it
will take deeper root and extend more widely, because it is thoroughly
in keeping with the habits, feelings, and wants of working men, who
form the majority in these meetings. A consistent system of social
truth will largely increase their influence, by giving them a more
settled character and a more important aim. So far from being in any
way destructive, they form a natural though imperfect model of the
mode of life which will ultimately be adopted in the regenerate
condition of Humanity. In these unions social sympathies are kept in
constant action by a stimulus of a most beneficial kind. They offer the
speediest and most effectual means of elaborating Public Opinion: this
at least is the case when there has been a fair measure of individual
training. No one at present has any idea of the extent of the
advantages which will one day spring from these spontaneous meetings,
when there is an adequate system of general principles to direct
them. Spiritual reorganization will find them its principal basis
of support, for they secure its acceptance by the people; and this
will have the greater weight, because it will always be given without
compulsion or violence. The objection that meetings of this kind may
lead to dangerous political agitation, rests upon a misinterpretation
of the events of the Revolution. So far from their stimulating a desire
for what are called political rights, or encouraging their exercise
in those who possess them, their tendency is quite in the opposite
direction. They will soon divert working men entirely from all useless
attempts to interfere with existing political institutions, and bring
them to their true social function, that of assisting and carrying out
the operations of the new spiritual power. It is a noble prospect which
is thus held out to them by Positivism, a prospect far more inviting
than any of the metaphysical illusions of the day. The real intention
of the Club is to form a provisional substitute for the Church of old
times, or rather to prepare the way for the religious building of
the new form of worship, the worship of Humanity; which, as I shall
explain in a subsequent chapter, will be gradually introduced under
the regenerating influence of Positive doctrine. Under our present
republican government all progressive tendencies are allowed free
scope, and therefore it will not be long before our people accept
this new vent for social sympathies, which in former times could find
expression only in Catholicism.
In this theory of Public Opinion one condition yet remains to
be described. A philosophic organ is necessary to interpret the
doctrine; the influence of which would otherwise in most cases be
very inadequate. This third condition has been much disputed; but it
is certainly even more indispensable than the second. And in fact it
has never been really wanting, for every doctrine must have had some
founder, and usually has a permanent body of teachers. It would be
difficult to conceive that a system of moral and political principles
should be possessed of great social influence, and yet at the same time
that the men who originate or inculcate the system should exercise no
spiritual authority. It is true that this inconsistency did for a time
exist under the negative and destructive influence of Protestantism and
Deism, because men’s thoughts were for the time entirely taken up with
the struggle to escape from the retrograde tendencies of Catholicism.
During this long period of insurrection, each individual became a
sort of priest; each, that is, followed his own interpretation of a
doctrine which needed no special teachers, because its function was
not to construct but to criticize. All the constitutions that have
been recently established on metaphysical principles give a direct
sanction to this state of things, in the preambles with which they
commence. They apparently regard each citizen as competent to form a
sound opinion on all social questions, thus exempting him from the
necessity of applying to any special interpreters. This extension
to the normal state of things of a phase of mind only suited to the
period of revolutionary transition, is an error which I have already
sufficiently refuted.
In the minor arts of life, it is obvious that general principles cannot
be laid down without some theoretical study; and that the application
of these rules to special cases is not to be entirely left to the
untaught instinct of the artisan. And can it be otherwise with the
art of Social Life, so far harder and more important than any other,
and in which, from its principles being less simple and less precise,
a special explanation of them in each case is even more necessary?
However perfect the demonstration of social principles may become,
it must not be supposed that knowledge of Positive doctrine, even
when it has been taught in the most efficient way, will dispense with
the necessity of frequently appealing to the philosopher for advice
in questions of practical life, whether private or public. And this
necessity of an interpreter to intervene occasionally between the
principle and its application, is even more evident from the moral
than it is from the intellectual aspect. Certain as it is that no one
will be so well acquainted with the true character of the doctrine as
the philosopher who teaches it, it is even more certain that none is
so likely as himself to possess the moral qualifications of purity,
of exalted aims, and of freedom from party spirit, without which his
counsels could have but little weight in reforming individual or social
conduct. It is principally through his agency that we may hope in most
cases to bring about that reaction of All upon Each, which, as we
have seen, is of such indispensable importance to practical morality.
Philosophers are not indeed the principal source of Public Opinion,
as intellectual pride so often leads them to believe. Public Opinion
proceeds essentially from the free voice and spontaneous co-operation
of the people. But in order that the full weight of their unanimous
judgment may be felt, it must be announced by some recognized organ.
There are, no doubt, rare cases where the direct expression of popular
feeling is enough, but these are quite exceptional. Thus working men
and philosophers are mutually necessary, not merely in the creation
of Public Opinion, but also in most cases in the manifestation of it.
Without the first, the doctrine, however well established, would not
have sufficient force. Without the second, it would usually be too
incoherent to overcome those obstacles in the constitution of man and
of society, which make it so difficult to bring practical life under
the influence of fixed principles.
In fact this necessity for some systematic organ to direct and give
effect to Public Opinion, has always been felt, even amidst the
spiritual anarchy which at present surrounds us, on every occasion in
which such opinion has played any important part. For its effect on
these occasions would have been null and void but for some individual
to take the initiative and personal responsibility. This is frequently
verified in private life by cases in which we see the opposite state
of things; we see principles which no one would think of contesting,
practically inadequate, for want of some recognized authority to apply
them. It is a serious deficiency, which is, however, compensated,
though imperfectly, by the greater facility of arriving at the truth in
such cases, and by the greater strength of the sympathies which they
call forth. But in public life, with its more difficult conditions and
more important claims, such entire absence of systematic intervention
could never be tolerated. In all public transactions even now we
may perceive the participation of a spiritual authority of one kind
or other; the organs of which, though constantly varying, are in
most cases metaphysicians or literary men writing for the press.
Thus even in the present anarchy of feelings and convictions, Public
Opinion cannot dispense with guides and interpreters. Only it has to
be content with men who at the best can only offer the guarantee of
personal responsibility, without any reliable security either for
the stability of their convictions or the purity of their feelings.
But now that the problem of organizing Public Opinion has once been
proposed by Positivism, it cannot remain long without a solution. It
plainly reduces itself to the principle of separating the two social
powers; just as we have seen that the necessity of an established
doctrine rested on the analogous principle of separating theory from
practice. It is clear, on the one hand, that sound interpretation of
moral and political rules, as in the case of any other art, can only
be furnished by philosophers engaged in the study of the natural laws
on which they rest. On the other hand these philosophers, in order to
preserve that breadth and generality of view which is their principal
intellectual characteristic, must abstain scrupulously from all regular
participation in practical affairs, and especially from political life:
on the ground that its specializing influence would soon impair their
speculative capacity. And such a course is equally necessary on moral
grounds. It helps to preserve purity of feeling and impartiality of
character; qualities essential to their influence upon public as well
as upon private life.
Such, in outline, is the Positive theory of Public Opinion. In each
of its three constituent elements, the Doctrine, the Power, and the
Organ, it is intimately connected with the whole question of spiritual
reorganization; or rather, it forms the simplest mode of viewing that
great subject. All the essential parts of it are closely related to
each other. Positive principles, on the one hand, cannot count on much
material support, except from the working classes; these in their turn
will for the future regard Positivism as the only doctrine with which
they can sympathize. So, again, with the philosophic organs of opinion;
without the People, their necessary independence cannot be established
or sustained. To our literary classes the separation of the two powers
is instinctively repugnant, because it would lay down systematic
limits to the unwise ambition which we now see in them. And it will
be disliked as strongly by the rich classes, who will look with fear
upon a new moral authority destined to impose an irresistible check
upon their selfishness. At present it will be generally understood
and welcomed only by the proletary class, who have more aptitude for
general views and for social sympathy. In France especially they are
less under the delusion of metaphysical sophisms and of aristocratic
prestige than any other class; and the Positivist view of this primary
condition of social regeneration will find a ready entrance into their
minds and hearts.
[All three conditions of
Public Opinion exist, but
have not yet been combined]
Our theory of Public Opinion shows us at once how far we have already
gone in organizing this great regulator of modern society; how far we
still fall short of what is wanted. The Doctrine has at last arisen:
there is no doubt of the existence of the Power; and even the Organ is
not wanting. But they do not as yet stand in their right relation to
each other. The effective impulse towards social regeneration depends,
then, on one ultimate condition; the formation of a firm alliance
between philosophers and proletaries.
Of this powerful coalition I have already spoken. I have now to
explain the advantages which it offers to the people in the way of
obtaining sufficient recognition of all legitimate claims.
Of these advantages, the principal, and that by which the rest will
speedily be developed and secured, is the important social function
which is hereby conferred upon them. They become auxiliaries of the
new spiritual power; auxiliaries indispensable to its action. This
vast proletary class, which ever since its rise in the Middle Ages has
been shut out from the political system, will now assume the position
for which by nature it is best adapted, and which is most conducive
to the general well-being of society. Its members, independently of
their special vocation, will at last take a regular and most important
part in public life, a part which will compensate for the hardships
inseparable from their social position. Their combined action, far
from disturbing the established order of things, will be its most
solid guarantee, from the fact of being moral, not political. And here
we see definitely the alteration which Positivism introduces in the
revolutionary conception of the action of the working classes upon
society. For stormy discussions about rights, it substitutes peaceable
definition of duties. It supersedes useless disputes for the possession
of power, by inquiring into the rules that should regulate its wise
employment.
[Spontaneous tendencies
in the people of a right
direction. Their Communism]
A superficial observer of the present state of things might imagine our
working classes to be as yet very far from this frame of mind. But he
who looks deeper into the question will see that the very experiment
which they are now trying, of extending their political rights, will
soon have the effect of showing them the hollowness of a remedy which
has so slight a bearing upon the objects really important to them.
Without making any formal abdication of rights, which might seem
inconsistent with their social dignity, there is little doubt that
their instinctive sagacity will lead them to the still more efficacious
plan of indifference. Positivism will readily convince them that
whereas spiritual power, in order to do its work, must ramify in every
direction, it is essential to public order that political power should
be as a rule concentrated. And this conviction will grow upon them, as
they see more clearly that the primary social problems which are very
properly absorbing their attention are essentially moral rather than
political.
One step in this direction they have already taken of their own accord,
though its importance has not been duly appreciated. The well-known
scheme of Communism, which has found such rapid acceptance with them,
serves, in the absence of sounder doctrine, to express the way in which
they are now looking at the great social problem. The experience of
the first part of the Revolution has not yet wholly disabused them of
political illusions, but it has at least brought them to feel that
Property is of more importance than Power in the ordinary sense of the
word. So far Communism has given a wider meaning to the great social
problem, and has thereby rendered an essential service, which is not
neutralized by the temporary dangers involved in the metaphysical forms
in which it comes before us. Communism should therefore be carefully
distinguished from the numerous extravagant schemes brought forward in
this time of spiritual anarchy; a time which stimulates incompetent
and ill-trained minds to the most difficult subjects of thought. The
foolish schemes referred to have so few definite features, that we have
to distinguish them by the names of their authors. But Communism bears
the name of no single author, and is something more than an accidental
product of anomalous circumstances. We should look upon it as the
natural progress in the right direction of the revolutionary spirit;
progress of a moral rather than intellectual kind. It is a proof that
revolutionary tendencies are now concentrating themselves upon moral
questions, leaving all purely political questions in the background.
It is quite true that the solution of the problem which Communists are
now putting forward, is still as essentially political as that of their
predecessors; since the only mode by which they propose to regulate the
employment of property, is by a change in the mode of its tenure. Still
it is owing to them that the question of property is at last brought
forward for discussion: and it is a question which so evidently needs
a moral solution, the solution of it by political means is at once
so inadequate and so destructive, that it cannot long continue to be
debated, without leading to the more satisfactory result offered by
Positivism. Men will see that it forms a part of the final regeneration
of opinion and of life, which Positivism is now inaugurating.
To do justice to Communism, we must look at the generous sympathies
by which it is inspired, not at the shallow theories in which those
sympathies find expression provisionally, until circumstances enable
them to take some other shape. Our working classes, caring but very
little for metaphysical principles, do not attach nearly the same
importance to these theories as is done by men of literary education.
As soon as they see a better way of bringing forward the points on
which they have such legitimate claims, they will very soon adopt the
clear and practical conceptions of Positivism, which can be carried
out peaceably and permanently, in preference to these vague and
confused chimeras, which, as they will instinctively feel, lead only
to anarchy. Till then they will naturally abide by Communism, as the
only method of bringing forward the most fundamental of social problems
in a way which there shall be no evading. The very alarm which their
present solution of the problem arouses helps to stir public attention,
and fix it on this great subject. But for this constant appeal to their
fears, the metaphysical delusions and aristocratic self-seeking of the
governing classes would shelve the question altogether, or pass it by
with indifference. The errors of Communism must be rectified; but there
is no necessity for giving up the name, which is a simple assertion of
the paramount importance of Social Feeling. However, now that we have
happily passed from monarchy to republicanism, the name of _Communist_
is no longer indispensable; the word _Republican_ expresses the meaning
as well, and without the same danger. Positivism, then, has nothing to
fear from Communism; on the contrary, it will probably be accepted by
most Communists among the working classes, especially in France where
abstractions have but little influence on minds thoroughly emancipated
from theology. The people will gradually find that the solution of
the great social problem which Positivism offers is better than the
Communistic solution.
[Its new title of Socialism]
A tendency in this direction has already shown itself since the first
edition of this work was published. The working classes have now
adopted a new expression, _Socialism_, thus indicating that they accept
the problem of the Communists while rejecting their solution. Indeed
that solution would seem to be finally disposed of by the voluntary
exile of their leader. Yet, if the Socialists at present keep clear
of Communism, it is only because their position is one of criticism
or inaction. If they were to succeed to power, with principles so far
below the level of their sympathies, they would inevitably fall into
the same errors and extravagances which they now instinctively feel to
be wrong. Consequently the rapid spread of Socialism very naturally
alarms the upper classes; and their resistance, blind though it be,
is at present the only legal guarantee for material order. In fact,
the problem brought forward by the Communists admits of no solution
but their own, so long as the revolutionary confusion of temporal
and spiritual power continues. Therefore the universal blame that is
lavished on these utopian schemes cannot fail to inspire respect for
Positivism, as the only doctrine which can preserve Western Europe
from some serious attempt to bring Communism into practical operation.
Positivists stand forward now as the party of construction, with a
definite basis for political action; namely, systematic prosecution
of the wise attempt of mediaeval statesmen to separate the two social
powers. On this basis they are enabled to satisfy the Poor, and at
the same time to restore the confidence of the Rich. It is a final
solution of our difficulties which will make the titles of which we
have been speaking unnecessary. Stripping the old word _Republican_ of
any false meaning at present attached to it, we may retain it as the
best expression of the social sympathies on which the regeneration of
society depends. For the opinions, manners, and even institutions of
future society, _Positivist_ is the only word suitable.
[Property is in its nature
social, and needs control]
The peculiar reality of Positivism, and its invariable tendency to
concentrate our intellectual powers upon social questions, are
attributes, both of which involve its adoption of the essential
principle of Communism; that principle being, that Property is in its
nature social, and that it needs control.
Property has been erroneously represented by most modern jurists as
conferring an absolute right upon the possessor, irrespectively of
the good or bad use made of it. This view is instinctively felt by
the working classes to be unsound, and all true philosophers will
agree with them. It is an anti-social theory, due historically to
exaggerated reaction against previous legislation of a peculiarly
oppressive kind, but it has no real foundation either in justice or
in fact. Property can neither be created, nor even transmitted by the
sole agency of its possessor. The co-operation of the public is always
necessary, whether in the assertion of the general principle or in
the application of it to each special case. Therefore the tenure of
property is not to be regarded as a purely individual right. In every
age and in every country the state has intervened, to a greater or less
degree, making property subservient to social requirements. Taxation
evidently gives the public an interest in the private fortune of each
individual; an interest which, instead of diminishing with the progress
of civilization, has been always on the increase, especially in modern
times, now that the connexion of each member of society with the whole
is becoming more apparent. The practice of confiscation, which also is
in universal use, shows that in certain extreme cases the community
considers itself authorized to assume entire possession of private
property. Confiscation has, it is true, been abolished for a time in
France. But this isolated exception is due only to the abuses which
recently accompanied the exercise of what was in itself an undoubted
right; and it will hardly survive when the causes which led to it are
forgotten, and the power which introduced it has passed away. In their
abstract views of property, then, Communists are perfectly able to
maintain their ground against the jurists.
They are right, again, in dissenting as deeply as they do from
the Economists, who lay it down as an absolute principle that the
application of wealth should be entirely unrestricted by society. This
error, like the one just spoken of, is attributable to instances of
unjustifiable interference. But it is utterly opposed to all sound
philosophical teaching, although it has a certain appearance of truth,
in so far as it recognizes the subordination of social phenomena to
natural laws. But the Economists seem to have adopted this important
principle only to show how incapable they are of comprehending it.
Before they applied the conception of Law to the higher phenomena of
nature, they ought to have made themselves well acquainted with its
meaning, as applied to the lower and more simple phenomena. Not having
done so, they have been utterly blind to the fact that the Order of
nature becomes more and more modifiable as it grows more complicated.
This conception lies at the very root of our whole practical life;
therefore nothing can excuse the metaphysical school of Economists
for systematically resisting the intervention of human wisdom in the
various departments of social action. That the movement of society is
subject to natural laws is certain; but this truth, instead of inducing
us to abandon all efforts to modify society, should rather lead to
a wiser application of such efforts, since they are at once more
efficacious, and more necessary in social phenomena than in any other.
So far, therefore, the fundamental principle of Communism is one
which the Positivist school must obviously adopt. Positivism not
only confirms this principle, but widens its scope, by showing its
application to other departments of human life; by insisting that,
not wealth only, but that all our powers shall be devoted in the
true republican spirit to the continuous service of the community.
The long period of revolution which has elapsed since the Middle
Ages has encouraged individualism in the moral world, as in the
intellectual it has fostered the specializing tendency. But both are
equally inconsistent with the final order of modern society. In all
healthy conditions of Humanity, the citizen, whatever his position,
has been regarded as a public functionary, whose duties and claims
were determined more or less distinctly by his faculties. The case
of property is certainly no exception to this general principle.
Proprietorship is regarded by the Positivist as an important social
function; the function, namely, of creating and administering that
capital by means of which each generation lays the foundation for the
operations of its successor. This is the only tenable view of property;
and wisely interpreted, it is one which, while ennobling to its
possessor, does not exclude a due measure of freedom. It will in fact
place his position on a firmer basis than ever.
[But Positivism rejects the
Communist solution of the
problem. Property is to be
controlled by moral not
legal agencies]
But the agreement here pointed out the between sociological science
and the spontaneous inspirations of popular judgment, goes no farther.
Positivists accept, and indeed enlarge, the programme of Communism;
but we reject its practical solution on the ground that it is at
once inadequate and subversive. The chief difference between our
own solution and theirs is that we substitute moral agencies for
political. Thus we come again to our leading principle of separating
spiritual from temporal power; a principle which, disregarded as it
has hitherto been in the system of modern renovators, will be found in
every one of the important problems of our time to be the sole possible
issue. In the present case, while throwing such light on the fallacy
of Communism, it should lead us to excuse the fallacy, by reminding
us that politicians of every accredited school are equally guilty of
it. At a time when there are so very few, even of cultivated minds,
who have a clear conception of this the primary principle of modern
politics, it would be harsh to blame the people for still accepting a
result of revolutionary empiricism, which is so universally adopted by
other classes.
I need not enter here into any detailed criticism of the utopian
scheme of Plato. It was conclusively refuted twenty-two centuries ago,
by the great Aristotle, who thus exemplified the organic character,
by which, even in its earliest manifestations, the Positive spirit
is distinguished. In modern Communism, moreover, there is one fatal
inconsistency, which while it proves the utter weakness of the system,
testifies at the same time to the honourable character of the motives
from which it arose. Modern Communism differs from the ancient, as
expounded by Plato, in not making women and children common as well as
property; a result to which the principle itself obviously leads. Yet
this, the only consistent view of Communism, is adopted by none but
a very few literary men, whose affections, in themselves too feeble,
have been perverted by vicious intellectual training. Our untaught
proletaries, who are the only Communists worthy our consideration, are
nobly inconsistent in this respect. Indivisible as their erroneous
system is, they only adopt that side of it which touches on their
social requirements. The other side is repugnant to all their highest
instincts, and they utterly repudiate it.
Without discussing these chimerical schemes in detail, it will be well
to expose the errors inherent in the method of reasoning which leads to
them, because they are common to all the other progressive schools, the
Positivist school excepted. The mistake consists in the first place,
in disregarding or even denying the natural laws which regulate social
phenomena; and secondly, in resorting to political agencies where
moral agency is the real thing needed. The inadequacy and the danger
of the various utopian systems which are now setting up their rival
claims to bring about the regeneration of society, are all attributable
in reality to these two closely-connected errors. For the sake of
clearness, I shall continue to refer specially to Communism as the most
prominent of these systems. But it will be easy to extend the bearing
of my remarks to all the rest.
[Individualization of
functions as necessary as
co-operation]
The ignorance of the true laws of social life under which Communists
labour is evident in their dangerous tendency to suppress
individuality. Not only do they ignore the inherent preponderance in
our nature of the personal instincts; but they forget that, in the
collective Organism, the separation of functions is a feature no less
essential than the co-operation of functions. Suppose for a moment
that the connexion between men could be made such that they were
physically inseparable, as has been actually the case with twins in
certain cases of monstrosity; society would obviously be impossible.
Extravagant as this supposition is, it may illustrate the fact that in
social life individuality cannot be dispensed with. It is necessary
in order to admit of that variety of simultaneous efforts which
constitutes the immense superiority of the Social Organism over every
individual life. The great problem for man is to harmonize, as far as
possible, the freedom resulting from isolation, with the equally urgent
necessity for convergence. To dwell exclusively upon the necessity
of convergence would tend to undermine not merely our practical
energy, but our true dignity; since it would do away with the sense
of personal responsibility. In exceptional cases where life is spent
in forced subjection to domestic authority, the comforts of home are
often not enough to prevent existence from becoming an intolerable
burden, simply from the want of sufficient independence. What would
it be, then, if everybody stood in a similar position of dependence
towards a community that was indifferent to his happiness? Yet no less
a danger than this would be the result of adopting any of those utopian
schemes which sacrifice true liberty to uncontrolled equality, or even
to an exaggerated sense of fraternity. Wide as the divergence between
Positivism and the Economic schools is, Positivists adopt substantially
the strictures which they have passed upon Communism; especially those
of Dunoyer, their most advanced writer.
[Industry requires its
captains as well as War]
There is another point in which Communism is equally inconsistent with
the laws of Sociology. Acting under false views of the constitution
of our modern industrial system, it proposes to remove its directors,
who form so essential a part of it. An army can no more exist without
officers than without soldiers; and this elementary truth holds good of
Industry as well as of War. The organization of modern industry has not
been found practicable as yet; but the germ of such organization lies
unquestionably in the division which has arisen spontaneously between
Capitalist and Workman. No great works could be undertaken if each
worker were also to be a director, or if the management, instead of
being fixed, were entrusted to a passive and irresponsible body. It is
evident that under the present system of industry there is a tendency
to a constant enlargement of undertakings: each fresh step leads at
once to still further extension. Now this tendency, so far from being
opposed to the interests of the working classes, is a condition which
will most seriously facilitate the real organization of our material
existence, as soon as we have a moral authority competent to control
it. For it is only the larger employers that the spiritual power can
hope to penetrate with a strong and habitual sense of duty to their
subordinates. Without a sufficient concentration of material power,
the means of satisfying the claims of morality would be found wanting,
except at such exorbitant sacrifices as would be incompatible with all
industrial progress. This is the weak point of every plan of reform
which limits itself to the mode of acquiring power, whether public
power or private, instead of aiming at controlling its use in whosever
hands it may be placed. It leads to a waste of those forces which, when
rightly used, form our principal resource in dealing with grave social
difficulties.
[Communism is deficient in
the historical spirit]
The motives, therefore, from which modern Communism has arisen,
however estimable, lead at present, in the want of proper scientific
teaching, to a very wrong view both of the nature of the disease and
of its remedy. A heavier reproach against it is, that in one point it
shows a manifest insufficiency of social instinct. Communists boast of
their spirit of social union; but they limit it to the union of the
present generation, stopping short of historical continuity, which yet
is the principal characteristic of Humanity. When they have matured
their moral growth, and have followed out in Time that connexion which
at present they only recognize in Space, they will at once see the
necessity of these general conditions which at present they would
reject. They will understand the importance of inheritance, as the
natural means by which each generation transmits to its successor
the result of its own labours and the means of improving them. The
necessity of inheritance, as far as the community is concerned, is
evident, and its extension to the individual is an obvious consequence.
But whatever reproaches Communists may deserve in this respect are
equally applicable to all the other progressive sects. They are all
pervaded by an anti-historic spirit, which leads them to conceive of
Society as though it had no ancestors; and this, although their own
ideas for the most part can have no bearing except upon posterity.
[In fact, as a system, it is
worthless, though prompted
by noble feelings]
Serious as these errors are, a philosophic mind will treat the
Communism of our day, so far as it is adopted in good faith, with
indulgence, whether he look at the motives from which it arose, or at
the practical results which will follow from it. It is hardly fair to
criticize the intrinsic merits of a doctrine, the whole meaning and
value of which are relative to the peculiar phase of society in which
it is proposed. Communism has in its own way discharged an important
function. It has brought prominently forward the greatest of social
problems; and, if we except the recent Positivist explanation, its
mode of stating it has never been surpassed. And let no one suppose
that it would have been enough simply to state the problem, without
hazarding any solution of it. Those who think so do not understand
the exigencies of man’s feeble intellect. In far easier subjects than
this, it is impossible to give prolonged attention to questions which
are simply asked, without any attempt to answer them. Suppose, for
instance, that Gall and Broussais had limited themselves to a simple
statement of their great problems without venturing on any solution;
their principles, however incontestable, would have been barren of
result, for want of that motive power of renovation which nothing can
give but a systematic solution of some kind or other, hazardous as the
attempt must be at first. Now it is hardly likely that we should be
able to evade this condition of our mental faculties in subjects which
are not only of the highest difficulty, but also more exposed than any
others to the influence of passion. Besides, when we compare the errors
of Communism with those of other social doctrines which have recently
received official sanction, we shall feel more disposed to palliate
them. Are they, for instance, more shallow and more really dangerous
than the absurd and chimerical notion which was accepted in France for
a whole generation, and is still upheld by so many political teachers;
the notion that the great Revolution has found its final issue in the
constitutional system of government, a system peculiar to England
during her stage of transition? Moreover, our so-called conservatives
only escape the errors of Communism by evading or ignoring its
problems, though they are becoming every day more urgent. Whenever
they are induced to deal with them, they render themselves liable to
exactly the same dangers, dangers common to all schools which reject
the division of the two powers, and which consequently are for ever
trying to make legislation do the work of morality. Accordingly we see
the governing classes nowadays upholding institutions of a thoroughly
Communist character, such as alms-houses, foundling hospitals, etc.;
while popular feeling strongly and rightly condemns such institutions,
as being incompatible with that healthy growth of home affection which
should be common to all ranks.
Were it not that Communism is provisionally useful in antagonizing
other doctrines equally erroneous, it would have, then, no real
importance, except that due to the motives which originated it; since
its practical solution is far too chimerical and subversive ever to
obtain acceptance. Yet, from the high morality of these motives, it
will probably maintain and increase its influence until our working
men find that their wants can be more effectually satisfied by gentler
and surer means. Our republican system seems at first sight favourable
to the scheme; but it cannot fail soon to have the reverse effect,
because, while adopting the social principle which constitutes the real
merit of Communism, it repudiates its mischievous illusions. In France,
at all events, where property is so easy to acquire and is consequently
so generally enjoyed, the doctrine cannot lead to much practical harm;
rather its reaction will be beneficial, because it will fix men’s
minds more seriously on the just claims of the People. The danger is
far greater in other parts of Western Europe; especially in England,
where aristocratic influence is less undermined, and where consequently
the working classes are less advanced and more oppressed. And even
in Catholic countries, where individualism and anarchy have been met
by a truer sense of fraternity, Communistic disturbances can only be
avoided finally by a more rapid dissemination of Positivism, which will
ultimately dispel all social delusions, by offering the true solution
of the questions that gave rise to them.
The nature of the evil shows us at once that the remedy we seek must
be almost entirely of a moral kind. This truth, based as it is on
real knowledge of human nature, the people will soon come to feel
instinctively. And here Communists are, without knowing it, preparing
the way for the ascendancy of Positivism. They are forcing upon men’s
notice in the strongest possible way a problem to which no peaceable
and satisfactory solution can be given, except by the new philosophy.
[Property is a public trust,
not to be interfered with
legally]
That philosophy, abandoning all useless and irritating discussion as
to the origin of wealth and the extent of its possession, proceeds at
once to the moral rules which should regulate it as a social function.
The distribution of power among men, of material power especially, lies
so far beyond our means of intervention, that to set it before us as
our main object to rectify the defects of the natural order in this
respect, would be to waste our short life in barren and interminable
disputes. The chief concern of the public is that power, in whosever
hands it may be placed, should be exercised for their benefit; and this
is a point to which we may direct our efforts with far greater effect.
Besides, by regulating the employment of wealth, we do, indirectly,
modify its tenure; for the mode in which wealth is held has some
secondary influence over the right use of it.
The regulations required should be moral, not political in their
source; general, not special, in their application. Those who accept
them will do so of their own free will, under the influence of their
education. Thus their obedience, while steadily maintained, will have,
as Aristotle long ago observed, the merit of voluntary action. By
converting private property into a public function, we would subject
it to no tyrannical interference; for this, by the destruction of
free impulse and responsibility, would prove most deeply degrading to
man’s character. Indeed, the comparison of proprietors with public
functionaries will frequently be applied in the inverse sense; with the
view, that is, of strengthening the latter rather than of weakening
the former. The true principle of republicanism is, that all forces
shall work together for the common good. With this view we have on
the one hand, to determine precisely what it is that the common good
requires; and on the other, to develop the temper of mind most likely
to satisfy the requirement. The conditions requisite for these two
objects are, a recognized Code of principles, an adequate Education,
and a healthy direction of Public Opinion. For such conditions we must
look principally to the philosophic body which Positivism proposes to
establish at the apex of modern society. Doubtless this purely moral
influence would not be sufficient of itself. Human frailty is such that
Government, in the ordinary sense of the word, will have as before
to repress by force the more palpable and more dangerous class of
delinquencies. But this additional control, though necessary, will not
fill so important a place as it did in the Middle Ages under the sway
of Catholicism. Spiritual rewards and punishments will preponderate
over temporal, in proportion as human development evokes a stronger
sense of the ties which unite each with all, by the threefold bond of
Feeling, Thought, and Action.
[Inheritance favourable to
its right employment]