"Collectivism" June 8, 1895.

*THE WORKER*

BRISBANE, JUNE 8, 1895.

Trades Hall Lecture.

Rev. A. C. Hoggins on “Collectivism.”

The Rev. Hoggins, of St. Barnabas' Church, Ithaca, delivered his fifth lecture in the Trades Hall on Saturday evening last. Mr. Andrew Dawson, M.L.A., occupied the chair. Mr. Hoggins' address is of such character that the WORKER has made a special effort to reproduce it verbatum. The first half is given hereunder, and the second will appear in next week's issue:

In describing the progress of science in political economy we found the various theories culminating in the new political economy, which is in some sense a combination of all these various lines, and which, because it builds itself upon a consideration of all the ideas and theories of the past, is frequently called the historical school, which is really the survival of all the various teachings of the past, the weaker and less valuable having been crushed out while these remain.

So there is a new Socialism.

I described various forms of this doctrine in last lecture – State Socialism, ancient and modern; Communism of various kinds, scientific Anarchism, the scientific Socialism of Germany, Social Democracy, Christian Socialism of various kinds, co-operation and the like.

The New Socialism has drawn from all these which still exist a series of ideas which are gradually combining into a definite scheme which is known as “Collectivism.”

This may be defined as “the collective ownership of land and capital as the means of production,

together with a distribution of products amongst all workers, productive or unproductive, according to the work done,” this work done being measured, according to the strictest views, by the hours of labour bestowed upon it, and it is generally added that skilled or specially disagreeable labour is to be rated as a multiple of common labour.

No fully worked-out statement of this scheme has yet appeared – it may perhaps be best considered in the works of those who write against it.

The best compendium and defence of it is perhaps the small boo – Schaffle's Quintessence of Socialism.

But before considering the nature and practicality of Collectivism, it will be convenient briefly to state the present position of Socialism in the chief countries of the world.

It will be seen that while the numerical strength of Socialists has grown vastly, revolutionary Socialism seems very generally to have passed away, and a spirit of inquiry and practical watching of events and opportunities to have taken its place.

The present seems thus to be a period of resting while the movements of the future are carefully considered and prepared.

But one result of the present policy has been a great division of forces.

Nearly all the great leaders have seen that a policy of activity is necessary to bind men together and that has tended, as in the case of Lassalle, to make many of them revolutionary when otherwise they would not have thought of being so.

However, amidst all divisions, we shall see a very definite policy gradually emerging, especially in Germany, and being steadily and often successfully pursued.

In the inquiry, we naturally turn first to Germany as being the seat of the earliest and most vigorous developments of Socialism.

Here the bulk of Socialists are gathered into what is called the Socialistic Labour Party.

The form of Socialism adopted by them is generally called Social Democracy – that is Collectivism in which all government and authority comes from the people themselves.

It is necessary to mention this because large numbers of more thoughtful Socialists of Germany – many of the professors of the universities, &c., “Socialists of the Chair” as they are called – advocate a form of Collectivism in which the executive shall still rest with the Imperial and other existing authorities.

Roscher (late) was the greatest of these; Schaffle, to some extent, would, I think, advocate this view, and Lassalle himself, in late years, advocated national Socialism to be built on the existing conditions of each country.

The Christian Socialists, too, are numerous, founded by Bishop Ketteler of Mayence, and organised by Canon Moufang of the same place.

Bishop Martensen, also a great theological writer, is a strong advocate of Socialism, and among Lutherans, Todt and Stocker.

But the Social-Democrats are the body which is chiefly connected with the movement and by which the Parliamentary agitation is carried on.

Their programme was drawn up at the Gotha congress in 1876, after the union of the followers of Marx and Lassalle, and as it is the accepted creed of Social-Democrats throughout the world with very little change to the present day, it will he well to quote it in full. It is as follows:

(1) labour is the source of all wealth and civilisation, and since productive labour as a whole is made possible only in this society the entire produce of labour belongs to society, that is, it belongs by an equal right to all its members, each according to his reasonable needs, upon condition of a universal obligation to labour.

In existing society the instruments of labour are the monopoly of the capitalist class; the dependence of the labouring class which results there from is the cause of misery and servitude in all its forms.

The emancipation of Labour requires the conversion of the instruments of labour into the common property of society, and the management of labour by association, and the application of the product with a view to the general good and an equitable distribution. The emancipation of Labour must be the work of the labouring class, in relation to which all other classes are only a reactionary mass.(2) Starting from these principles, the Socialistic Labour Party of Germany seeks, by all lawful means, to establish a free State and a Socialistic society, to break asunder the iron law of wages by the abolition of the system of wage-labour, the suppression of every form of exploitation, and the correction of all political and social inequality.

The Socialistic Labour Party of Germany, although at first working within national limits, is sensible of the international character of the Labour movement, and resolved to fulfil all the duties thereby laid on working men in order to realise the brotherhood of all men.

The Socialistic Labour Party of Germany demands, in order to pave the way for the solution of the social question, the establishment, by State help of Socialistic productive associations under the Democratic control of the people.

Productive associations for industry and agriculture should be created to such an extent that the Socialistic organisation of all labour may arise out of them.

The Socialistic Labour Party of Germany demands, as the basis of the State:

1. Universal, equal, and direct suffrage, together with secret and obligatory voting for all citizens over 20 years of age, in all elections in State and Commune. The election day must be a Sunday or holiday.
2. Direct legislation by the people; decision on peace or war by the people.
3. Universal liability to military service; militia instead of standing army.
4. Abolition of all exceptional laws, especially laws interfering with liberty of the press, of association, and of meeting; in general, all laws restricting free expression of opinion, free thought and free inquiry.
5. Administration of justice by the people. Gratuitous justice.
6. Universal, compulsory, gratuitous and equal education of the people by the State. Religion to be declared a private affair. The Socialistic Labour party of Germany demands, within the conditions of existing society:

1. The utmost possible extension of political rights and liberties in the sense of the above demands.
2. The replacement of all existing taxes, and especially of indirect taxes which peculiarly burden the people, by a single progressive income tax for State and Commune.
3. Unrestricted right of combination.
4. A normal working day, corresponding to the needs of society; prohibition of Sunday labour.
5. Prohibition of the labour of children and of all labour for women that is injurious to health and morality.
6. Laws for the protection of the life and health of workmen. Sanitary control workmen's dwelling's. Inspection of mines, factories, workshops, and home industry by officers chosen by working men. An effective Employers' liability Act.
7. Regulation of prison labour.
8. Entire freedom of management for all funds for the assistance and support of working men.

The words “by all lawful means' were expunged in 1880 at Wyden Congress after the promulgation of the anti-Socialist laws, but those laws being now either repealed or inoperative, the general feeling is that the words should be restored.

With this exception the Gotha programme is still the platform of Social Democrats throughout Europe, though some of its clauses would certainly not now meet with general acceptance, and some are crude and vague, and it will be seen that they conflict in several points with the Collectivist's ideal. Nevertheless, spite of the opposition of extreme men and of the private opinion of some of the leaders, as Bebel, work is being vigorously carried on on these lines.

The leaders are Liebknecht, Bebel, Volkmar and Singer, and last year in elections for the Imperial Diet they returned 44 members by 1,706,738 votes, an increase of 349,440 since '90, and one-fourth of the total votes polled. They posses 22 daily and 48 weekly newspapers circulation about 300,000. There is also an Anarchist division under Most and Hasselman, expelled from the party in 1880.

In France it was said in 69' by Molinari that of the more intelligent workmen nine out of ten were Socialists. But work is hindered by disunion.

There are some five divisions which have tried, but never succeeded, in being able to work together.

The largest is the “Workman's Party” founded by Guesde; they are followers of Marx; they have 450 branches, 300,000 members, and 20 members in the Chamber of Deputies.

The possibilities are a strong division founded by Brousse and Alleman, but organised only in Paris, and lately divided into two portions, the Proletariat group and the Parti Ouvrier.

There is also the Socialist Republican Party with its organ, the Petite Republique.

And the revolutionary followers of Blanqui, who declare themselves to be “atheist, materialist, transformist, republican, revolutionist, communist, and finally internationist.” Their organ is the Parti sociale; they call themselves Communists, and number 10,000.

Here let me express my surprise that any one should have been led by the similarity of name to confound the Commune and Communists of Paris at the close of the Franco-German war with Communism in its Socialistic meaning.

Some of the leaders (7 out of 70, I believe) of that movement were Socialist's and later on their followers adopted a Socialistic programme, but the name simply refers to the Independent Republican Government they desired to establish – commune in French being nearly equivalent to parish with us, and the movement was the outcome of the restless, unquiet spirit which felt that things were generally wrong and the best thing they could do was to overturn all existing institutions, trusting to chance to supply something better in its place. There are still many revolutionary Anarchist associations in France anxious to work or destroy on the same lines.

In November, '94, five deputies in Parliament broke away from the main party and formed an Anarchist party there called the “Revolutionary Socialist Labour Party.”

There are also in France two schools of Christian Socialists, one under the Franciscan Father le Basse and two Jesuit priests with the Count Albert de Munn and the Marquia de la Tour de Pin Chambly had 450 clubs or branches in 1880.

Christian Socialists are strong also in Switzerland and Belgium as well as in England.

It may be mentioned here that a congress of these Socialists (third of its kind) was held in 1890 in Liege, when 1500 delegates from Germany, Poland, Austria, Spain, France, and England attended, of whom eight to ten were Bishops and many statesmen and peers.

In Belgium 29 deputies to Parliament were returned in October, 1894, chiefly among Walloons.

In Austria there are two distinct parties. And here a congress was held last March at which 150 deputies attended.

In Denmark there is a Social-Democratic Federation, and a small revolutionary section.

In Norway there are 56 unions with about 6000 members.

In Sweden there is one Socialist member of parliament, Dr. Brunkhorst.

In Italy there is greater division than elsewhere. There is an Italian Democratic Society, and a Lombardy labour Federation – but the bulk of the agitation is among the revolutionary school, the so-called Anarchists.

The same may be said to a large extent of Spain, and in Russia, where the spread of some form of Socialism is very wide, it mostly belongs to the school of Anarchism known as Nihilism.

In the United States there are many organisations. I have already spoken of the Communistic Societies; their history is very interesting and very suggestive. Noyes has given account of 47 failures and Nordhoff of 72 successes among them. The failures are all due to the difficulty of getting men to give their best work without either a selfish or religious motive. The possession of capital has had nothing to do with it. The successful ones have mostly started without it. The 72 successful communities mostly belong to the Shakers, who count for 57 of them, and the Rappiats, who possess strong though very peculiar principles and are celibates. But even they find that a hired man commonly does twice the work of one of their own members. Total members, only 5000. There is one, but only one, Russian commune in California.

(To be continued.)