IO

THE  SOCIALISM  OF  TO-DAY.

many  had  no  share  in  them.”  From  that  moment  he  took  the
resolution  to  fathom  this  problem,  and  it  left  him  no  more
peace.
First  he  studied  the  condition  of  the  different  classes  in  the
civilized  countries,  and  everywhere  he  found  poverty,  embarrassment, ­
  unrest  ;  suffering  among  employers  as  well  as
employed,  in  the  large  towns,  where  dwelt  luxury  and  opulence,
as  well  as  in  the  peasant’s  cabin  ;  in  the  fertile  plains  of  Belgium ­
  and  Lombardy,  no  less  than  on  the  mountainous  regions
of  Sweden  and  Bohemia.  Seeking  afterwards  for  the  causes  of
this  wretched  state  of  things,  he  convinced  himself  that  it
resulted  not  from  nature  and  her  laws,  but  from  the  laws  and
institutions  of  man.  He  therefore  came  to  the  conclusion
that  the  only  way  to  remedy  the  evils  from  which  society  suffers,
is  to  reform  and  improve  social  organization.  His  researches
convinced  him  that  industrial  improvements,  however  great
they  might  be,  could  never  result  in  making  comfort  general.
The  ulterior  progress  of  civilization  depended,  therefore,  upon
the  advance  of  Political  Economy,  and  accordingly  he  considered
this  science  as  the  most  important  of  our  day.  Nothing  can
be  more  true  ;  the  economic  question  is  at  the  bottom  of  all
our  discussions.  It  is  the  claims  of  “those  who  have  not”
which  alarm  “  those  who  have  ”  and  imperil  liberty.  Plato  said
that  in  every  city  there  were,  face  to  face,  two  hostile  nations,
the  rich  and  the  poor,  and  modern  democracies  are  disclosing
a  similar  situation.  The  Communists  of  Paris  detested  “  the
Versaillists  ”  far  more  than  the  Prussians;  and  in  1870  the
German  Socialists  expressed  wishes  in  favour  of  the  triumph
of  the  French  Republic,  and  against  the  success  of  their  own
country.
How  comes  it  that  in  modern  communities,  with  all  their
opulence,  there  should  be  so  much  want  and  wretchedness?
How  is  it  that  England,  who  weaves  cloth  enough  to  put  a
girdle  round  the  globe,  should  have  so  many  poor  in  need  of
clothes  ?  Science  subdues  the  forces  of  nature,  the  power  of
machinery  is  unbounded  ;  how  is  it,  then,  that  so  many  families
lack  the  very  necessaries  of  life  ?  Is  it  because  labour  does
not  produce  enough,  or  because  the  products  are  badly  dis-