[1]The detailed Life of Bakunin, promised by Cafiero and Elisée Reclus in the preface toGod and the State, has apparently not yet been published. Hence the above meagre account of life.
[1]
The detailed Life of Bakunin, promised by Cafiero and Elisée Reclus in the preface toGod and the State, has apparently not yet been published. Hence the above meagre account of life.
[2]Procés des Anarchistes, p. 97.
[2]
Procés des Anarchistes, p. 97.
[3]Le Procés des Anarchistes, Lyons, 1883.
[3]
Le Procés des Anarchistes, Lyons, 1883.
[4]For the revolutionary movement in Russia under Alexander II. see Alphons Thun’sGeschichte der revolutionären Bewegungen in Russland. See also Stepniak’sUnderground Russia, andRussia under the Tzars.
[4]
For the revolutionary movement in Russia under Alexander II. see Alphons Thun’sGeschichte der revolutionären Bewegungen in Russland. See also Stepniak’sUnderground Russia, andRussia under the Tzars.
[5]Stepniak,Underground Russia, p. 264.
[5]
Stepniak,Underground Russia, p. 264.
We have, in the preceding chapters, sketched the rise and the principles of the leading schools of historic socialism. The history we have reviewed is a most protean one, and very prolific in theories which are more or less akin.
It is easy to trace certain general features of resemblance in the development of socialism. In the experiments conducted by the followers of Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen, we see a desire forthwith to create a ready-made and complete socialism, which almost always ended in failure. Louis Blanc and Lassalle agreed in demanding the organisation of society on democratic principles, and the establishment of productive associations by a State thus constituted. The resemblance in type between the community of Owen, thephalangeof Fourier, and the free commune of Bakunin is obvious; and it is not going too far to say that all of them have interesting points of analogy with the village community, which has its survival in the Russian mir.
Throughout the history of socialism we naturally alsoobserve the contrast between the tendency which more or less emphasises State authority and the need of centralisation, and that other tendency which regards the local body as cardinal and decisive. As we have seen, that contrast was perfectly clear in the earliest French socialism, in the schools of Saint-Simon and Fourier. While calling on the State to furnish credit for productive associations, both L. Blanc and Lassalle strongly insisted that these associations should be self-governing and self-developing. The centralising tendency was very marked in Rodbertus. Though it cannot be maintained that the Marx school insist excessively on the claims of authority, yet in the conduct of the International they had a severe struggle with the anarchist following of Bakunin. It is simply the old question of authority and order in relation to individual and local freedom, which always reappears under the newest conditions, and which cannot be solved on absolute principles.
Notwithstanding those general features of resemblance, it would be a serious mistake to identify socialism with any of its forms, past or present. They are only passing phases of a movement which will endure. If socialism has given proof of a persistent vitality, it has also undergone many transformations, and will in all probability undergo many more. Our task now is to inquire into the significance, tendency, and value of the general movement.
The problem before us is one of historical interpretation in the widest sense of the word. It is not anacademic question which can be settled by the scholarly comparison of texts and systems.
If the socialistic movement were complete and finished, it would be merely a subject of sympathetic analysis and generalisation by the historian. But the socialistic movement is not complete; it is in process of making—probably only in its early stage. It is a question, therefore, which must be treated not only in the light of history and human nature, but with special reference to the now prevailing forces—industrial, political, social, and ethical. For on these will depend the future course of the movement and its prospects of success. While socialism has a past, it has also a profound significance for the present and the future. The great task for the student is to find out the rational meaning and purport of socialism, its probable significance for the present time and the time coming.
For the rational interpretation of socialism we cannot too often emphasise the fact that it is not an abstract system, but a thing in movement. It is not wedded to any stereotyped set of formulas, whether of Marx or any other, but must be rooted in reality, and, while moulding facts, it must adapt itself to them. Above all, we must ever remember that it claims to represent the aspirations after a better life of the toiling and suffering millions of the human race.
Even a cursory review of the historic socialism is enough to show that, while it has been prolific of new thought in economics, it has been disfigured by every kind of extravagance. In general, it has been far tooartificial, arbitrary, and absolute in its treatment of social questions. As we have seen, the early theorists especially were profoundly ignorant of the laws governing the evolution of society. Many later socialists of great influence have laid excessive stress on revolution as the lever of social progress. Few of them have really appreciated the bearings of the population question on the great problems of society. Most of them have been far too absolute in their condemnation of competition. In fact, their general position consists far too much in a sweeping condemnation of the present society, forgetful the while that it is only out of the present that the future, in which they place their hopes, can proceed.
The current socialism, too, has very prematurely shown a tendency to degenerate into a stiff and barren orthodoxy, which seeks to apply narrow and half-digested theories, without adapting or even reasonably understanding them, to circumstances for which they are not suited. This is particularly apparent in the attempts to introduce into England and America formulas and modes of action which have grown up in the very different atmosphere of the European continent. It has not sufficiently recognised the fluent and many-sided variety of modern life, which cannot be embodied in any formula, however comprehensive and elastic.
Finally, socialistic speculation has in many cases tended, not to reform and humanise, but to subvert the family, on the soundness of which social health above all things depends. It has not understood the solidityand value of the hereditary principle in the development of society. Socialists have, in short, been far too ready to attack great institutions, which it must be the aim of all rational progress, not to subvert, but to reform and purify.
In the socialistic treatment of other questions, such as capital, rent and interest, the same defects of arbitrariness and absoluteness are apparent. But the extravagances of the historic socialism are so obvious that they confute themselves, and we shall not dwell on this aspect of our subject. We must remember that most historic systems have had to run themselves clear of the turbid elements with which they were originally mixed. Socialism, considered both as a movement and as a system of economic thought, is still in process of development. Its theories must undergo the rough-hewing of continual controversy, discussion, and criticism. The whole movement must pass through the test, the tear and wear of experience, under the conditions prescribed by history and the fundamental laws of human nature, before its ideals can hope to be wedded to fact. We might add that it will receive the purification of experience; only, we have to lament that it is the fate of our ideals to submit also to the degradation of experience.
A like charge of abstractness may justly be brought against the two great German economists, Adolf Wagner and Schäffle, whose writings have so largely promoted a better comprehension of socialism. Their economic works are monuments of learning and lucidity, buttheir exposition and interpretation of the subject are marked by that excessive love of system which is usually characteristic of German specialists. They have brought to the discussion of the historic socialism the same systematising spirit with which German economists have treated Adam Smith. The economists of the Fatherland have reduced the teaching of Adam Smith to a set of abstract propositions, and so have transformed it beyond recognition. In like manner Adolf Wagner laboriously sums up socialism in abstract language, whereas it is above all things a concrete movement, instinct with change and with human passion. In hisBau und Leben des sozialen KörpersSchäffle’s construction of socialism is an elaborate attempt to conceive society as transformed and dominated by a single principle.
Such a point of view can never accord with the actual development of historic forces. In the past the great economic eras have been remarkable for the endless variety of forms which they have assumed. Feudalism was not a stereotyped system, but took a special form in each European country, and in each country it changed from age to age. The competitive system has never entirely and exclusively dominated any society, and has been endlessly modified by custom and the traditions of the past, by national and social interests, and by moral considerations. Adam Smith, the great expounder of natural liberty, did not put it forth as an abstract and exclusive principle, but set it in the light of historic fact, and reserved a large sphere where private enterpriseneeded to be supplemented by the action of the State. We can only say of the competitive system that it has been normal or prevalent over the most advanced countries of the world for a considerable time. We must conceive socialism in the same way as claiming, when certain historical conditions have been realised, to be the normal or prevalent type of economic and social organisation.
In fact, they have had too exclusively in view the theories of Marx and Rodbertus. In his conception of socialism Wagner has been chiefly influenced by Rodbertus. Schäffle, in hisQuintessenz des Socialismus, appears as the interpreter of the Marx socialism. Even the less absolute presentation of the socialistic theories by Lassalle should have been sufficient to bring out the contrast between socialism in movement and socialism in the abstract.
This is very nearly equivalent to saying that both economists have been too much influenced by the Prussian type of government and theory of the State. With regard to the two socialists, Rodbertus and Marx, we are not surprised that the former should be Prussian throughout in his way of thinking, but it is a notable instance of the irony of circumstances that Marx should be so largely controlled by habits of speculation which he had learned in Germany in his youth. He was to a great degree Prussian and Hegelian in his political and philosophical habit of mind till the end of his life. It is natural enough that the conception of socialism formed by Wagner and Schäffle should be of a similarcharacter. For them socialism is a system of centralisation, of management from above (von oben herab) under a bureaucracy. Such a view may suit people that are used to a centralising autocracy and bureaucracy associated with militarism, but it is entirely opposed to English ideas. An industrial and economic system which would remind us at every step of the Prussian army, the Prussian police and Prussian officialism, is not attractive to those who have breathed a freer air.
Prussia has had a great mission to perform in modern history. From its geographical position and the circumstances attendant on its rise and progress, we can see that it required a powerful army, a strongly centralised government, and an industrial system entirely different fromlaissez-faire. We must respect the great vocations of the different historic peoples, among which Prussia has been one of the first. But that is no reason for expressing socialism in terms suggested by the Prussian form of government, or for supposing that the claim of socialism to control the economic organisation of the future will depend on its conforming to the Prussian type of State. It is to be devoutly hoped that the type of government rendered necessary by the struggle for existence among the nations on the European continent will not become universal.
But we must now consider a question which is vastly more important than any of the criticisms now offered. What may be regarded as the solid andpermanent contribution to human progress made by socialism?
There should be no doubt that socialism has largely contributed to the following results:—
First, It has greatly helped to give prevalence to the historical conception of Political Economy. The very conception of socialism has been based on the idea of social-economic change. Their subject has naturally led socialists to study the rise, growth, decline, and fall of economic institutions. And, as we shall see later on, the influence of Hegel and Darwin has taught them to merge the idea of historical economics in the wider and more fundamental conception of evolution. In England socialists are now the chief promoters of the advance in economic study from the ordinary standpoint to the historical, and from the historical to the evolutionary point of view.
Secondly, Socialism has greatly deepened and widened the ethical conception of Political Economy. It has, in season and out of season, taught that the entire technical and economic mechanism of society should be made subordinate to human well-being, and that moral principle should be supreme over the whole field of industrial and commercial activity. The charge sometimes brought against socialism, that it appeals only to the lower appetites and instincts of humanity, is most unjust. It would be a more reasonable criticism to say that it inculcates an unselfishness unattainable by any probable development of human nature.
Thirdly, Socialism has brought the cause of thepoor most powerfully before the civilised world. It is one of the enduring results of socialistic agitation and discussion that the interests of the suffering members of the human race, so long ignored and so fearfully neglected, have become a question of the first magnitude, the foremost question in all progressive countries. It is this question which gives a substantial basis and a real meaning to the great democratic movement, which it would be the gravest of all errors to regard as a merely political struggle. The cause of the poor is likely to be the burning question for generations, lending to political questions their interest, seriousness, and unspeakable importance.
Fourthly, Socialism has given us a searching criticism of the existing social-economic system. It may be said to have laid its diagnosing finger on all the sores of society. The only objection that can be rationally taken is that the diagnosis has been an exaggerated one. All fair-minded judges will, however, admit that the socialistic criticism of the existing competitive system is largely, if not substantially, justified on the following points:—
1. The position of the working people, who are the overwhelming majority in every society, is not in harmony with ethical ideas. It has often and largely been a position of degradation, demoralisation, and misery. Normally, it is not consistent with what must be striven after as a desirable condition for the mass of humanity, for it is insecure, dependent and to a large degree servile. The workmen have no reasonable controlof their dearest interests; have no guarantee of a settled home, of daily bread, and of provision for old age. It is a delusive freedom that has no solid economic basis.
2. The prevailing competitive system is to a large degree anarchy, and this is not an accident, but a necessity of its nature. This anarchy has two great and baneful modes of expression: strikes, which are a form of industrial war, carrying misery and insecurity over large sections of population, and sometimes menacing the industrial and social life of a whole nation; and the great crises, which at times have even a more disastrous influence, spreading like a storm over the entire civilised world, overthrowing honourable houses of business, and exposing to hopeless ruin and starvation millions of honest people who are in no wise responsible for their fate. And the times of crash are succeeded by protracted periods of stagnation, which for all concerned are scarcely better than the crises which caused it.
3. The phenomena of waste, which are always more or less a feature of the competitive system, are particularly manifest during the great industrial and commercial crises. Not only are the products of industry intended for consumption wasted in vast masses, but the productive forces themselves, such as machinery and shipping, are sacrificed enormously, whilst great numbers of people are idle and starving.
4. The prevailing system also leads to the large development of an idle class of the most motleydescription. Those conversant with the history of revolutions know how influential an overgrown idle class has often been in forcing them on.
5. The existing competitive system also necessarily leads to a vast amount of inferior, inartistic production in all departments. Cheapness is too conspicuous a feature of every branch of industry.
6. Our moral standards in every department of the national life have been lowered and corrupted by the excessive prevalence of a commercial and mercenary spirit. No rank, profession, or calling has escaped its influence.
7. Thus we are led to the general result, that inequalities of condition, and the too prevalent anarchy and insecurity as well as the unworthy status of the workers under the competitive system, are a permanent source of trouble and even danger to society. The circumstances of the workmen have improved; but it is doubtful whether the improvement has kept pace with their advancing enlightenment and the growing sense of their rights and needs. Here again we must emphasise the fact that the progress of democracy is not merely a political matter. It means still more the continual development of intelligence and of higher and finer needs in the mass of the people, a fuller consciousness of the claims of labour, a greater capacity for organisation, a wider moral and intellectual horizon. In the contrast between their moral and intellectual growth on the one hand, and their insecure and inferior position as precarious wage-labourers onthe other, we may at one and the same time discover a great danger to our present social order and a splendid guarantee of further progress. Now, as ever, progress must be, attained through struggle, and perfection through suffering.
Scarcely any reasonable man therefore will deny that socialism has done excellent service to mankind in so strongly emphasising the necessity for further progress. While it has largely helped to rouse the working classes out of their apathy, it has also done much to dispel the comfortable optimism of those who had succeeded in the competitive struggle for existence.
This criticism of society is valuable, but its effect is mainly negative. We may go on to claim, however, that socialism, when purified from materialism, from the too revolutionary, absolute, and abstract elements with which it has been associated in history, can render a positive and substantial service to human improvement that would be vastly more valuable than any criticism. It may be maintained that in its main aim and tendency socialism is perfectly sound and right. For amidst much error and exaggeration it has brought out the type of social economic organisation which in the future should and will prevail.
In previous chapters it has been made abundantly clear that the characteristic feature of the present economic order lies in the fact that industry is carried on by private competing capitalists served by wage-labour.According to socialism the industry of the future should be carried on by free associated workers rationally utilising a united capital with a view to an equitable system of distribution. As we have already had occasion to say, no formal statement can rightly give expression to the meaning of a great historical movement. But in such language we believe the contrast between the old order and the new can be most simply and at the same time with due adequacy expressed.
The same type of industrial organisation has been well set forth by J. S. Mill in these words: “The form of association, however, which, if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief and workpeople without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.”[1]Mill’s view of the subject, it may be remarked in passing, was derived from the study of French and English socialists. His good sense saved him from the utopian extravagance of these writers, and as he had little sympathy with the peculiarly German ways of thought, he shows no tendency to the abstractness of the specialists of the Fatherland. The result is a conception of socialism which is at once intrinsically more reasonable, more adapted to the English mind and to universality, thanany other offered by prominent economists. And in this connection we need hardly add that by the English mind we mean the mind of the English-speaking people; also, notwithstanding all that may be said to the contrary, that the English type of society has the best claim to universality, because it has best succeeded in reconciling and realising the fundamental requirements of order and freedom.
The simple expression of the socialistic theory will, no doubt, in the course of propaganda and discussion, long continue to be overlaid and obscured by a mass of detail, sometimes utopian, sometimes all too abstract and systematic. It will be well, therefore, to keep the simplicity of the type in view, but a few explanations may be necessary more fully to elucidate it.
The true meaning of socialism, when rationally understood, is given in the dominating tendencies of social evolution. On the one hand, the effect of the industrial revolution has been to concentrate the means both of production and distribution in immense masses. Capital can now be moved and controlled only on a large scale. The day for the small capital, and the successful control of it by individuals, has passed away. It may continue under exceptional circumstances, but it can no longer expect to be the normal or prevalent form of industry. On the other hand, the body of the people, represented by the modern democracy, can legitimately claim that they shall no longer be excluded from the control of their own economic and social interests. It is a rational and equitable demandthat the prevalent divorce of the workers from land and capital should cease. This divorce can be terminated, and the mass of the people can be restored to a participation in the ownership and control of land and capital, only through the principle of association. This is the basis of socialism as given in the normal and dominant forces of the social evolution of our time. As we said in the introduction, socialism is the child of two great revolutions—the industrial revolution, and the vast social and political change embodied in the modern democracy.
Socialism, rationally interpreted, is therefore simply a movement for uniting labour and capital through the principle of association. It seeks to combine labour and capital in the same industrial and social groups. In such a group the present distinction between labourers and capitalists would cease, and the workers become producers, equitably disposing of the entire produce.
Such an industrial association would be self-governing. Socialism is an attempt to establish a free self-governing type of industry, and would therefore seek to realise in the social-economic sphere the principles already recognised in the political. It is a free self-governing form of industry, corresponding in the economic sphere to the democratic system in politics; industry of the people, by the people, for the people. But while a rational socialism seeks to establish industrial freedom, it aims also at promoting and securing industrial peace by terminating the struggle betweenlabour and capital, for, as we have seen, its aim is to unite them in the same group.
Under such a system the workers will have full control of their economic interests. They will have the sobering and steadying discipline of responsibility. They will no doubt make mistakes, as all bodies of men have done since the beginning of the world; but as they will suffer by them, so they will have the power of correcting them. It will be a self-reforming and self-developing system of industry.
And it is hardly necessary to state that these associations will subsist in organic relation to one another. The State is, in idea or principle, such an association on the wide scale, just as the municipality or commune is the local form of association; and their relations to each other may in various degrees and forms represent the principle of federalism or centralisation.
In the history and condition of the working people it is a pathetic fact that their sons, who have been gifted with exceptional capacity, generally go over to the richer classes. Their services are thus lost to the class from which they sprang. It must be the aim of the socialist movement also to terminate this incessant divorce between labour and intelligence, by providing within the groups of associated workers due scope for the best talent.
Socialism claims to be the normal and prevalent type of organisation in the future. The methods of production, distribution, and exchange will be under social control. This being so, it may surely be regardedas a special instance of the arbitrariness and absoluteness of the current socialism, when it maintains that all capital must pass out of individual ownership. It may safely be maintained that such a condition of things is not possible, and that, if it were possible, it is entirely undesirable, because most likely to repress individual freedom, and affording indefinite scope for social tyranny. Under any conceivable system of society the free development of man is likely to be promoted by the possession of reasonable private means. The only objection that can be rationally alleged against private property is when it involves injustice to others—a possibility which, under socialism, is amply provided against by the prevalence of social control over economic processes.
The views just stated are not unwarranted by the historic socialism. Amidst much that is most extravagant, Fourier has the merit at least of offering the strongest safeguards for individual and local freedom. Fourier provided that every worker should have the opportunity of gaining and maintaining a capital of his own, but under such social regulation that it would no longer involve wrong to others; and further, he arranged that the owner should have perfect freedom to transfer his services and his capital from one association to another. These are features of Fourier’s system which have been too much neglected by scientific socialists so called; and in these respects he is much less utopian than his critics.
In no question is the arbitrariness of the historicsocialism more apparent than in the artificial attempts made to formulate a just method of distribution or remuneration. We have in previous chapters indicated the different methods proposed in the schools of Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Louis Blanc. Nothing has so much tended to give a utopian air to socialistic speculation. Our ideas of justice cannot well be expressed in a single formula, however comprehensive. It has been the endeavour more or less of all moralists and legislators since the origin of human society to elucidate it and reduce it to some kind of reasonable form, but with only very imperfect results; and socialists are not now likely to succeed in a task which is really impracticable. Progress in the realising of justice can be attained only through the collective enlightenment and moral experience of the race; and it will always fall short of our ideals, for our ideals rise as we approximate towards a realisation of them, and so ever leave us behind in the race after perfection.
We need not say, however, that it is an obvious implicate in every equitable theory of distribution that remuneration must generally depend on work or desert. The normal income of the future must be based on service rendered to society by all able members. Regard will be had to the needs of the disabled.
It should be emphasised, moreover, that socialism must assert the supremacy of morality over all the economic processes—production and exchange as well as distribution. Production should be rational and systematic. Above all, distribution should be equitable.In these respects socialism is fundamentally opposed to the one-sided conception of competition which has been so prevalent. It seeks to supersede the existing competitive system of industry by a new order, in which reason and equity shall prevail.
It should also be clear that socialism supplies the much-needed complement and corrective of the principle of natural liberty advocated by Adam Smith. The principle of natural liberty had a great historical value, and when rightly understood must always be regarded as a prime factor in every theory of social progress. But it can be applied only under obvious limits, prescribed by reason and morality. The natural liberty of struggling individuals would, if unchecked, land us in social chaos. The true freedom of human beings is a rational and ethical freedom. Such principles ought to prevail in the commercial relations of nations with each other, as well as in every other department of our industrial and social life.
Socialism, then, simply means that the normal social organisation of the future will and should be an associated or co-operative one. It means that industry should be carried on by free associated workers. The development of socialism will follow the development of the large industry; and it will rationally, scientifically, and systematically use the mechanical appliances evolved during the industrial revolution for the promotion of a higher life among the masses of the people.
It is a new type of industry and economic organisation the practicability of which must be decided by thetest of experience. It cannot be introduced mechanically. We cannot force or improvise such a change in the constitution of society. No revolutionary violence can avail to carry through a transformation which runs counter to the fundamental laws of human nature or the great prevailing tendencies of social evolution. This will be especially manifest when we consider that its realisation will above all things depend on the ethical advance of the mass of the people. Character cannot be improved by magic; it can be substantially ameliorated only by an organic change, external circumstances co-operating with an inward moral spirit. The present competitive system must therefore be regarded as holding the field until socialism has given adequate proof of the practicability of the theory which it offers.
[1]Mill’sPolitical Economy, People’s Edition, p. 465.
[1]
Mill’sPolitical Economy, People’s Edition, p. 465.
The idea of evolution has had a great influence in the history of socialistic speculation. Beginning with Saint-Simon most socialists have recognised three stages in the economic development of mankind—slavery, serfdom, and wage-labour—which last they believe will be displaced by an era of associated labour with a collective capital. The idea of development may indeed be regarded as essential to socialism, inasmuch as it must contemplate a succession of social-economic changes in history.
Marx and Lassalle were both trained in the school of Hegel, and naturally applied to the problems of society the Hegelian theory of development. The principle that economic categories are historical categories, so much emphasised by Lassalle, was by him, as it was by his fellow-labourers, merged in the wider and more fundamental conception of evolution, historical economics thus becoming evolutionary economics.
Some of the later socialists see in the theory of evolution associated with the name of Darwin a suitable expression of their ideas of development. Followersof Marx have found special points of attraction in Darwinism. Darwin himself was, of course, not a materialist; but many speculators have not unreasonably recognised in his teachings an affinity with materialism, which obviously accorded well with the materialistic conception of history held by Marx. The struggle of classes, which Marx regards as the key to history, is, we need not say, also an allied feature.
But the Darwinian conception of development has to many students suggested the strongest reasons for doubt and hostility with reference to socialism. How does the theory of the struggle for existence consist with the harmony of interests contemplated by socialism? Is it not utopian of the Marx school to believe that the struggle of classes, which has hitherto characterised the course of history, can be brought to a close by a great revolutionary act?
Competition, thatbête noireof the socialists, is simply the social-economic form of the struggle for existence. Is not competition, therefore, the prime condition of social progress? And is not socialism, therefore, inconsistent with progress?
Thus we are confronted with the twofold problem, whether socialism does not deny the cardinal principles of evolution, and thereby also deny the prime condition of social progress?
These questions are of considerable complexity. And their import will be better understood it we consider them in relation to another question with which they are intimately connected, and which is even morefundamental—the population question. The Darwinian theory of evolution rests on the Malthusian theory of population, and can be fully appreciated only by reference to it.
In this place we need not discuss the theory of population as a whole, but merely in so far as it bears on our present inquiry. The theory of Malthus is so remarkable for its simplicity that no worthy excuse can be offered for the misconceptions regarding it which have been prevalent. The seeds of life, so runs the theory of Malthus, have been scattered throughout the world with a profuse and liberal hand. All living things tend to multiply indefinitely. Animals—even the least prolific—would, if their increase were not checked, fill the entire world. But as the means of subsistence are limited, the struggle for existence inevitably ensues, which is obviously all the more intense because so many animals are themselves the means of subsistence to others.
So with man. If his natural powers of increase were exercised without check, it is only a question of time when the globe itself would be too small for the numbers of human beings, even though equipped with the most effective means of cultivation. In point of fact, population has almost always pressed on the available means of subsistence. The only important exceptions are found in new countries, when opened up to colonists who have brought with them the superior methods of exploitation developed in more advanced civilisations.
Thus the history of the human race is largely the record of a struggle for the means of subsistence caused by the pressure of population. Not that the population is necessarily dense. Some of the most thinly scattered peoples have had the greatest difficulty in making a living, simply because the available means of subsistence were exceptionally scanty, as the North American Indians, and above all in the continent of Australia before its settlement by Europeans. The study of human history shows that if the population was small, it was not owing to any defect in the natural powers of increase of human beings.
It will be seen that the Malthusian theory rests on two great facts: (1) on the physiological fact, viz. that all human beings are capable of indefinite increase; and (2) on a natural economic fact, that the means of subsistence are not capable of a corresponding indefinite increase, the ultimate reason of this being nothing else than the limited size of the planet on which we live. The inevitable result is the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory of the struggle for existence has the widest application to human society and human history.
This struggle has gone on through a great variety of stages. In the earliest phases of human history it generally resulted in the extermination of the vanquished, and was often associated with cannibalism. As society advanced from the hunting and pastoral into the agricultural state, the victors saw that it would be their interest to spare the vanquished that they might enjoy thebenefit of their labour as slaves. In this way began the institution of slavery, on which ancient civilisation rested. The warlike tribes that overturned the Roman Empire found that they could more easily and conveniently utilise the labour of the vanquished under the various forms of serfdom. In modern times free workers, destitute of capital, are ready under a system of competition to perform the labour of society for a wage that renders them the customary subsistence.
In the earliest stages the struggle was one for bare existence, not far removed above the lower animals; but as time went on, it began, as we have seen, to take a higher form. The main motive power, however, has always been the self-regarding principle in which the struggle originated. On the whole it was only a more rational and enlightened self-interest which dictated the change from extermination to slavery, from slavery to serfdom, and from serfdom to the system of competitive free labour. Idealism, the longing for a better life, has always had a considerable power in human affairs, and we hope that its influence will never cease to grow and prevail. Yet it could not be seriously maintained that the peoples who instituted slavery, serfdom, or the competitive system, were in the main actuated by ideal or high ethical motives. It is our duty to recognise with thankfulness that the inevitable progress of society has brought with it a higher life, even though it be merely due to a more enlightened self-interest.
Thus, while in its early stages it was a struggle formere existence, in later times it has become more and more a struggle for a privileged or superior existence. The victors in most historic struggles have reserved to themselves the loftier functions of government, war and the chase, and the vanquished have been constrained to provide a subsistence both for their masters and themselves by means of labour. Life still is a struggle for the best places in society. And it is a particular object of struggle not to belong to the class of manual labour.
The competitive system is the latest form of the struggle for existence. It is not an accident, but the outcome of the prevalent historic forces. The time had come when free labour was found to be more efficient than servile labour. The feudal system, of which serfdom was a part, went down before the strongly centralised State. The competitive system is the form assumed by the struggle for existence in societies which were controlled by powerful central governments; it is industrial freedom under conditions of legality enforced by strongly constituted governments. In earlier and less settled states of society the struggle for existence used to be decided by more direct and forcible methods. In other days men slew their rivals; at the present time they undersell them.
And we need not say that the competitive system has been a process of selection, bringing to the front, as leaders of industry and also as heads of society, the fittest men.
The struggle for existence, therefore, has continuedthrough human history, and does still continue. And we may feel assured that under the pressure of an ever-increasing population it will continue. The only question is regarding the form it is likely to take in the historic conditions which now tend to prevail all over the world.
For no conclusive solution of the population question is possible under any system. It has been a fundamental difficulty since the beginning of human society, and more than anything else may be regarded as the key to history. The migrations, wars, and conquests recorded in history have for the most part had their origin in want caused by the pressure of population on the extant means of subsistence. No doubt, ambition, vanity, suspicion, and restlessness have played a very considerable part of their own in the military annals of the race, but not nearly so large a part as is generally supposed. Historians have not given anything like adequate attention to the economic factors which have often so decisively operated in human affairs.
In its most comprehensive form, indeed, the population question does not concern the immediate future, for the world is not nearly replenished with human beings. In all the countries dominated by European civilisation, wealth has, owing to the vast mechanical development of the last hundred years, increased much more rapidly than population. But the question is one which does already practically concern the more populous centres over large areas of the world. In many of the old seats of population, both in Europeand the East, the struggle for existence is intense, and if not strongly counteracted, must tend to the increase of egotism, unscrupulousness, and general demoralisation. This is most observable in cases where a large population has to face the prospect of a declining prosperity. If the prosperity of this country were menaced by a great war, or a great shock to the national credit, or by both together, or simply by the slow decline of its industrial and commercial supremacy, the struggle for existence in our large towns would be unspeakable.
It is obvious, therefore, that we are not yet done with the problem of population. It is always a serious matter in the great centres; it may, under very conceivable circumstances, be a fearful dilemma at no very distant date; and as the world becomes more thickly peopled it will more and more present itself as a pressing question. We cannot here, however, enter into a detailed discussion of the problem. It will probably always be a difficulty, and will call forth a variety of answers. But, as we have already said, no satisfactory and conclusive solution can be offered or expected by any one who understands the conditions of the problem. The solution must wait on the moral and social development of mankind. There is certainly no prospect of the question being materially affected by any physiological modification of the human constitution. We can only hope that the present progress of civilised countries in morality, intelligence, and in a reasonable standard of living, will continue; thatthe improvement in material and economic conditions will go hand in hand with ethical advancement; that the happiness of mankind will not be wrecked by the irrational and unrestrained gratification of a single passion. If the mass of the people remain as they are, ready to sacrifice their own happiness and that of posterity to animal instinct, the population question cannot be solved, and the best hopes of human progress must be unfulfilled.
For socialism, as we have explained it, it may be claimed that it gives the strongest guarantees that the difficulty will receive the best and most rational treatment. As socialism generally means the supremacy of reason and morals over the natural forces, so with reference to the population question it means that natural appetite should be controlled by nobler and more rational feelings and principles. Under a socialistic system every member of the community will be interested in this as in every other serious question. The general enlightenment and the social conscience will most powerfully co-operate with the light and the conscience of the individual to effect a reasonable and a beneficent solution, as far as possible.
But we must now return to the questions with which we started—the relation of socialism to the struggle for existence, and to social progress as dependent on the struggle for existence. As we have seen, the Darwinian theory of the struggle for existence has the widest application to human society and human history.But the struggle for existence is not the sole principle of social progress. Social progress proceeds from the interaction, the balance and harmony, of many principles. The general question of social development, in which that of progress is involved, must be regarded in the light of the following considerations. Only we must premise that they are not a contradiction of the Darwinian theory; they are to be taken as a complement of it, and a correction of the narrow and one-sided conception of the theory.
1. The political, social, and ethical development of mankind is largely a record of the endeavour to place the struggle for existence under regulation. Progress chiefly and supremely consists in the growing control of ethical principle over all the forms of selfishness, egotism, unscrupulousness, and cruelty called forth by such struggle. In other words, progress mainly consists in the growing supremacy of law, order, and morality over the excess of the self-regarding principle in which the individual struggle has its root. We do not say that this exhausts the meaning of the ethical development of man, but it is a most important aspect of it.
Thus the ethical factor is the decisive one in human progress, but it has advancedpari passuwith the general social and political progress. We see it in the crudest and most elementary forms when man emerged from the darkness of pre-historic times, and it has gradually developed into a noble complex of ideals, informed by a growing knowledge and by widening sympathies. In short, human progress has been acontinual effort towards the realisation of the true, the beautiful, and the good, in such measure as was attainable by each succeeding generation of the race.
Not that the struggle for existence is hereby abolished. The struggle, and the regulation of it too, are carried forward into a further stage of progress, to be continued on a higher social and ethical plane. The human struggle generally is on a higher plane than the animal one which Darwin describes. It is a struggle on the plane of an intelligence which never ceases to develop, amongst beings who pursue social and ethical aims with growing clearness and energy. If the results still fall so far below our aims, it is because our intelligence and means of performance, though enlarging, are still very imperfect.
What we call natural selection in the animal world is in human history transformed, elevated, and idealised; it becomes social selection. We may call it natural, if we please; only, we must remember the greatly altered character of the agents concerned in it. While at every stage we see moral and intellectual growth, we must particularly remember that the new society for which socialists strive will consist of associated free beings acting under the regulation and stimulus of high ethical and artistic ends and ideals.
Nothing, therefore, can be more narrow and one-sided than to consider the struggle for existence as the sole lever of human progress. Such one-sided insistence on the idea of struggle is to deny the whole ethical development of the world.
Socialism professes to continue and promote the ethical and social development which we have described; on a higher plane of progress than has hitherto been reached to place the natural economic powers operating in human destiny under the regulation of reason, moral principle, and ideals of beauty; to render technical and mechanical appliances, and all the material and economic factors underlying human life, subservient to the well-being of man in a way hitherto unattained; and so to achieve the ethical freedom of man and his rational supremacy over the world. The competitive system is the latest phase in the struggle for existence, and socialism is the latest theory for the regulation of it along the well-approved lines of human progress.
By such tests, none lower or narrower, must a rational socialism be tried.
2. There is, however, one side of this ethical progress which deserves to be more particularly considered. The ethical progress of man is largely a development of the principle of sociality, community, or association. This principle has its centre in the family, with all that is implied therein; in the association of man and woman, in the sacrifices made by both and especially by the mother for the children. Historically, it has developed from the tribe into ever wider and more complex forms—the city, nation, and race—until it more and more embraces the whole human family. That is, it finally tends to become international, so that the whole human family may be included in common ethical and socialbonds—a state of things which is still far from being realised, but it is in process.
In the evolution of living things two factors have been decisive, the development of brain power and the development of the social principle. We need scarcely add that the two are intimately connected, and further that the brain power of man is closely co-ordinated with his physical development. The supremacy of man is due to his brain power and to his readiness to associate for common ends, far more than to his strength or hardihood, in which he is greatly excelled by other animals. The entire history of civilisation bears witness to the potency of the two factors; for it is a truism to say that the communities and races that have excelled in brain power and in the family and social moralities have prevailed. A rational socialism might be defined as the mastery of associated human intelligence over the resources of nature for the general good. In this respect, also, the success of socialism would simply mark the continuous development of man along the tested and approved lines of progress.
It is no doubt one of the many exaggerations of Lassalle, due partly to his function of agitator, that he laid excessive emphasis on the principle of community as the lever of progress, compared with the individual principle. Progress has always depended on the action and interaction of both principles. It is rather an idle question, which of the two is the more important; like that other question, whether the great man makes theage, or the age makes the great man. The man and the age make each other.
We know the great influence often exerted in history by exceptional brain power or character, and both are often associated with a prominent individual. But high individual capacity is usually, if not always, found in an age and community with a high average of talent. Well-organised and well-endowed societies are most likely to produce the strongest and finest individuals, and it is only in such societies that the greatest individuals are likely to find adequate scope for their powers. We cannot form a just estimate of our subject unless we give due weight to both principles, but obviously the danger to society lies in the excessive development of the individual principle. History has too often witnessed the abnormal development of private selfishness, so overgrown as to weaken and finally dissolve the society in which it acted, thus accomplishing its own destruction. This is indeed the open secret of the ruin of most communities that have existed. We should seek in vain for an instance of a community ruined by excessive regard for the public good. A happy and wholesome individual development can be secured only by healthy relation and due subordination to society and the common weal.
It will be seen, then, that the principle of sociality or of association plays a specially important part in human development. Yet in close connection with it we again observe the wide operation of the struggle for existence. The struggle for existence is not only a struggle ofindividuals against each other. It has also been a struggle of tribe against tribe, of city against city, of nation against nation, and race against race. In the existing society it is, moreover, a struggle of classes against each other. Considered in this aspect, which is too obvious to require illustration, the struggle for existence has assumed the most complicated forms, and has had the greatest influence in the history of the world. And the intensity of the struggle has called forth some of the highest human qualities—inventiveness, capacity for organisation, submission to discipline, enthusiasm, heroism, and self-sacrifice. The struggle, hateful though it be in many respects, has been one of the great training schools of the human race.
Modern European history is an impressive example of the importance of this struggle for existence. The progress of Europe is greatly owing to the fact that in this continent we have a group of communities which are closely related, yet independent, and rivals. In every department of activity they learn from each other, and spur one another on by continual emulation. Each must follow its rivals in the adoption of every new improvement, under penalty of decline and even ruin. Communities like China and India in the old world, and the native States of Mexico and Peru in the new world, were isolated, and therefore stationary.
Under the existing conditions, a social organisation favourable to the development of the intelligence, energy, and enthusiasm of the mass of the people ismore and more necessary to success in the keen and arduous struggle waged by the European communities. The future both of democracy and of socialism will largely depend on how far they can supply these advantages of organisation. For it is a struggle also between forms of social organisation. Any better form of organisation, when adopted by one of the communities, must also be adopted by its rivals. As soon as it was recognised that universal education and universal liability to military duty gave Prussia an exceptional advantage in the European struggle, other nations have been eager to follow.
Thus, through the development of the principle of sociality in the history of civilisation, the struggle for existence is not abolished. It is continued under more complex conditions, on a wider scale, over larger areas, by greater masses of organised men, with mightier weapons and vaster resources.
3. It is one of the most interesting aspects of history, that we regard it as the education of the human race. Social progress is the result of a long process of discipline, and the training has often been most severe. It would appear as if mankind needed to be goaded and driven forward on the path of improvement.
The theory of the struggle for existence throws new light on the education of humanity. The nations of the world have been schoolmasters to each other; and the competitive system, too, has been a process of discipline for all who have been concerned in it. Socialism,rightly understood, may be regarded as a new phase of the discipline of humanity. For the transition into socialism, if attainable at all, will be more difficult than many suppose. It must be gradual, preparing the minds and morals, the habits and institutions, of the mass of the people for a higher form of social-economic life. As isolated individuals, the working class have no prospect of success. They can make progress only by practising the virtues of combination, foresight, self-control, self-denial, discernment in choosing their leaders, loyalty, unwearying perseverance in well-doing. These qualities have been already cultivated in them by means of their trade-unions and co-operative societies. The process of socialistic evolution will carry on the process of social-economic education.
Socialism must therefore be regarded as providing an economic and social discipline for all men who have the requisite insight, and particularly for the working class, who are its special representatives and promoters. It will offer fresh scope and opportunity to the working class as a whole. But it will also be a process of social selection; for, while inviting all, it will attract the fittest and most worthy, and lead them on to higher things.
During recent years the organised socialism has made notable progress in nearly all parts of Europe. The German working men still continue to form the vanguard of the proletariat of the world. At the general election of 1893 the Social Democrats polled 1,786,000 votes, which was an increase of nearly 360,000 on the large figures of 1890. At the general election of 1898 the Social Democratic vote rose to about 2,100,000. Their seats in the Reichstag increased from 48 to 56, out of a total of 397.
There is no change to record in the principles of this powerful party. Its tactics, while remaining essentially the same, naturally vary to some degree according to circumstances. It adheres to the Erfurt programme. Its single-minded aim is the advocacy and promotion of the interests and ideals of the working class of Germany without compromise and without alliance with other parties, though it is ready to co-operate with them in particular questions. The party consistently refuses to vote for the imperial budgets, not only because they are designed for thesupport of militarism, but because they are so largely made up of indirect taxes that throw an unfair burden on the poorer classes. To the high tariff, which, after long discussion, came into operation in 1906, they offered the most strenuous resistance. The Social Democrats are also in general opposed to the colonial policy of the empire. They are the champions of the democratic rights of the people, of free speech, of a free press, and especially of the right of combination, which was lately threatened by the Emperor. In all matters relating to factory legislation and the better protection of the working class in its daily life and vocation they are forward both to make suggestions themselves and to assist any legislation which is really fitted to contribute towards these important ends. They claim, in fact, to be the representatives and advocates in the widest sense of the working class of Germany, and are opposed to all measures which tend to strengthen the class State to which they are so entirely opposed. While expressing a preference for peaceful methods, they still regard as probable a great crisis or catastrophe by which they will gain political power and so realise their collectivist ideal. Such a crisis will, they say, be brought on not by them but by the ruling classes, of which the class State is the representative.
At the Annual Congress at Stuttgart in 1898 the busts of Marx and Lassalle appeared on the platform amidst laurels and palms. The busts of Lassalle, Karl Marx, and Engels were grouped amidst ferns and flowers round an allegorical figure of Liberty on the platform atthe Hanover Congress of 1899. It is only right to add that, with the development of Social Democracy in Germany and throughout the world, the stage on which these men appear seems to widen and their stature to grow. Their writings, whether learned or popular, are read and pondered in all lands of the civilised world, sometimes leading to organisation and action, often to latent thought and conviction ready to bear fruit in due time. Lassalle and Karl Marx promise to be, if they are not already, historical figures of the first magnitude.
It is also clear that, if the Social Democracy means to be worthy to guide the destinies of the working class of Germany, it must not stiffen and degenerate into a sect. Its principles and tactics founded on the views of Marx must be subject to continual discussion and to revision. The party is disposed to take Marx too literally, more literally than Marx took himself. They have been disposed out of season to emphasise the ultra-revolutionary side of Marx. We have already seen that this ultra-revolutionary side of Marx was the product of a time and of circumstances which no longer prevail in Germany or elsewhere, or prevail at least in a much milder degree. But there was another side to Marx. It would not be fair to call it his opportunist side. On this side Marx had regard to his environment, as every man must have. Even in the communistic manifesto Marx recommended co-operation with other advanced parties for the attainment of democratic ends. He recognised the possibilities of progress contained in a peaceful evolution. Factorylegislation and the co-operative movement in England were not only good results, they were the victories of new principles. As we have seen, he believed that in America, England, and Holland the workmen might attain their goal by peaceful means. In a milder time it would only be consistent that this milder side of Marx should be more emphasised by his followers.
The necessity for a criticism of Marx as a condition of the further development of his teaching has recently been pointed out by Eduard Bernstein, formerly editor of theSozialdemokrat. This criticism he attempted in a memorial addressed to the Congress at Stuttgart, and more fully in 1899 in a bookDie Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemocratie. Bernstein’s criticism is applied more or less to all the leading positions of Marx, his materialistic conception of history, his dialectical method, his theory of surplus value, his revolutionary conception of social development which looks forward to a great catastrophe as the close of the capitalistic era. He maintains that statistics do not favour the theory that a social catastrophe is imminent as the result of a class war carried on by a continually increasing host of impoverished and degraded proletarians against a diminishing band of the colossal magnates of capitalism, and has greater faith in a peaceful evolution through the democratic transformation of the State, the extension of municipal socialism and of the co-operative movement. We need not say that we believe that these criticisms are in the right direction.
Bernstein’s book made a great stir in Germany, and received a limited support at the Hanover meeting. But a resolution, which was moved by Bebel in a long and able speech, and which affirmed the old positions of the party against Bernstein, was carried by an overwhelming majority.
The abstract collectivism of the German Social Democratic party is not fitted to ensure success among the peasantry. Yet at the election of 1898 they gained ground in many agricultural districts east of the Elbe. We may presume that these results were obtained chiefly among the purely labouring class as distinguished from the men who own their farms. But they do not despair of also winning over the peasant owners, many of whom are heavily burdened with mortgages. The peasant owner is often proprietor only in name, being really caretaker for the mortgagee, and therefore merely a dependent of the capitalist.
All previous successes of the German Social Democrats were eclipsed by the triumph at the general election of 1903, when they counted 3,010,000 votes, and returned 81 members. Of the entire poll they had 32 per cent, or nearly one-third. It was an increase of 900,000.
The number of their seats in the Reichstag never correspond to their votes at the elections. There has been no Redistribution Act since the founding of the Empire, and the strength of the party lies in the towns, which have grown enormously since 1871. Even under the most favourable circumstances they have littledirect influence on the legislation of Germany, and still less on the executive, which depends on the Emperor and his ministers. The rôle prescribed to them by their circumstances is vigilant scrutiny and outspoken criticism. They are an opposition party. In fact, they are more and more becoming the only effective opposition party in Germany.
At the Jena meeting of 1905 the bust of Liebknecht, who died in 1900, held a place of honour on the platform beside those of Marx and Lassalle. Changes of organisation aiming at greater energy and efficiency were introduced. This meeting elected a party direction (Parteivorstand) of two chairmen, four secretaries and a treasurer, with the two assessors chosen by the Board of Control. It thus consisted of nine members. The Board of Control, which acts as check on this executive, also numbers nine members. Among the subjects discussed were the dearness of meat and other necessaries of life caused by the German protective system, and the question of the general strike, introduced in a masterly speech by Bebel, who advocated it as a possible resource in case universal suffrage be withdrawn, or the right of combination be infringed by the Government. A resolution in this sense was in principle adopted by a very large majority. It was confirmed at the Mannheim meeting in 1906.
The German Social Democrats do not insist on universal suffrage in the hope of exercising any immediate influence on the Government or in the Reichstag. They regard it rather as an instrument of agitation andeducation. They seek to enlighten the masses of the people, to make them of one mind on the political and economic questions that concern them, to organise and discipline them for the great task of emancipation. Their main field of action is the people, not parliament. Their ‘main aim is to win the whole working class for socialism.’
In this aim their prospect of success depends on how far they can win over the Catholic working men and the rural population. With both they have so far gained ground. It is not impossible that they may in time prevail with both. In their principles and tactics there is nothing now that need give offence to the religious convictions of the Catholic electors. The rural population could be won over by a suitable agrarian programme. In these circumstances the Centre and the Conservatives would alike have the ground taken away from under their feet, and the German Government would find itself in an untenable position. For in such a case the army could hardly continue to be a trustworthy support. The following significant passage occurs in the speech of Bebel already referred to:—‘The struggle in Russia sends a chill into the marrow-bones of our rulers much more than you believe. They have a deadly fear that the fire may cross the border. They say to themselves, if that is possible in Russia where there is no organisation, and the proletariat is comparatively small, what then may happen in Germany where we have politically enlightened masses and an organised proletariat, where alreadythere are not only battalions but whole regiments in the army which consist of Social Democrats, and when the Reserve and the Landwehr are called out, whole brigades are formed of them?’[1]The raising of the tariff has been to the party a most helpful subject of agitation, which they have used to the uttermost. Molkenbuhr, one of their leaders, looks forward to the doubling of their adherents in a few years.
At the general election of 1907 the party had 3,260,000 votes, but owing to the more active combination against it of other parties it returned only 43 members. The congress at Nürnberg in 1908 was notable for the first serious opposition to the rigid discipline of the party. The claim of the South German members to vote for the budgets of their governments was maintained by a minority of 119 against 258.
It was not till 1894 that a Social Democratic party was founded in Holland. It is making progress: in the general election of 1897 it counted 13,000 votes, and returned 3 members out of 100. In 1901 it had 38,000 votes, and returned 7 members, and there was besides an independent socialist member. It had 65,000 votes and 7 members in 1905. An interesting feature of the Dutch movement is the sympathetic reception which socialism has met among the artist and intellectual class generally. It is curious that anarchism has had considerable influence, which, however, is declining.
In Denmark the social democratic movement beganin 1871, and it continues to have a strong and growing influence. At the general election of 1903 the party returned 16 members out of 114, polling 56,000 votes. In 1906 it polled 77,000 votes and returned 24 members to the popular chamber. For some time before 1902 half of the members of the municipal council of Copenhagen were socialists. The mayor also was one of the party. Denmark may still rightfully be regarded as the most progressive country in Europe. Even in Norway and Sweden the socialists are gaining ground. They claim to have wielded a considerable influence in securing the peaceful separation of the two countries.
No country in Europe has during recent years had a more interesting social history than Belgium. In hardly any country has the working class endured such misery. Ignorance, long hours of labour and low wages, the want of political rights and of organisation, have for generations tended to keep the workers in the lowest estate. All the more remarkable, therefore, is the awakening which has recently taken place. The Belgian socialist party can now muster at the polls a voting strength of about half a million, and in a chamber of 166 it returns about one-fifth. In 1900 it had 33, in 1902 it had 34, in 1904 only 28, in 1906 it had 30, and 34 in 1908. The organisation of the trade-unions is well developed. But the distinctive feature of the social movement of Belgium is its co-operative undertakings. These are affiliated to the socialist movement, and form an admirable training on its morepractical side. The Belgian socialist party is specially fortunate in such leaders as Anseele and Vandervelde.