Socialism and Individualism in Evolution

Abstract

IN the rise, decline and fall, or radical modification, of systems of thought we no longer find anything astonishing. In a world of change thought naturally evolves along with everything else. But, while general statements of this sort command universal concurrence, few are in truth prepared for certain concrete exemplifications of the doctrine expressed in them. The average person cannot readily believe, for instance, that the Socialism of today is a very different thing from the Socialism of 1890, or 1900, or even 1910. He is apt to assume that Socialism is a fixed, stereotyped body of ideas and propositions, and that it cannot undergo any material change without ceasing to be Socialism. Similarly, the average person thinks Individualism is what it was in the days of Bright, Cobden, Manchesterism, or, at any rate, of Herbert Spencer and the British Liberty and Property Defence League. Assure him that Socialism and Individualism have both marched, evolved, taken on protective coloring and adapted themselves to the requirements of the new era, and he will either venture to doubt the affirmation or elseconclude inwardly that the alleged changes are apparent rather than real, shadowy and negligible rather than substantial. Even the serious reader and student occasionally pauses to wonder at the nature and quality of the differences that he finds between the Socialism or the Individualism of today and the same schools or bodies of doctrine as he knew them a quarter of a century ago. The Socialism of Edward Bellamy, of Laurence Gronlund, of Hyndman, of Bebel and other followers of Marx and Engels was distinctly rigid, mechanical, artificial. When a William Morris insisted on a certain elasticity in the arrangements of the Socialistic order, he was dubbed a dreamer and Utopian. The radical who could not swallow