SOCIALISM has been advocated by most of its champions chiefly as a means of increasing the welfare of the wage earning classes, and more particularly their material welfare.It has seemed accordingly, to some men whose aims are not material, as if it has nothing to offer toward the general advancement of civilization in the way of art and thought.Some of its advocates, moreover--and among these Marx must be included--have written, no doubt not deliberately, as if with the Socialist revolution the millennium would have arrived, and there would be no need of further progress for the human race.I do not know whether our age is more restless than that which preceded it, or whether it has merely become more impregnated with the idea of evolution, but, for whatever reason, we have grown incapable of believing in a state of static perfection, and we demand, of any social system, which is to have our approval, that it shall contain within itself a stimulus and opportunity for progress toward something still better.The doubts thus raised by Socialist writers make itnecessary to inquire whether Socialism would in fact be hostile to art and science, and whether it would be likely to produce a stereotyped society in which progress would become difficult and slow.
It is not enough that men and women should be made comfortable in a material sense.Many members of the well-to-do classes at present, in spite of opportunity, contribute nothing of value to the life of the world, and do not even succeed in securing for themselves any personal happiness worthy to be so called.The multiplication of such individuals would be an achievement of the very minutest value; and if Socialism were merely to bestow upon all the kind of life and outlook which is now enjoyed by the more apathetic among the well-to-do, it would offer little that could inspire enthusiasm in any generous spirit.
``The true role of collective existence,'' says M.Naquet,[57]''...is to learn, to discover, to know.Eating, drinking, sleeping, living, in a word, is a mere accessory.In this respect, we are not distinguished from the brute.Knowledge is the goal.If I were condemned to choose between a humanity materially happy, glutted after the manner of a flock of sheep in a field, and a humanity existing in misery, but from which emanated, here and there, some eternal truth, it is on the latter that my choice would fall.''
[57] ``L'Anarchie et le Collectivisme,'' p.114.
This statement puts the alternative in a very extreme form in which it is somewhat unreal.It may be said in reply that for those who have had the leisure and the opportunity to enjoy ``eternal truths'' it is easy to exalt their importance at the expense of sufferings which fall on others.This is true; but, if it is taken as disposing of the question, it leaves out of account the importance of thought for progress.Viewing the life of mankind as a whole, in the future as well as in the present, there can be no question that a society in which some men pursue knowledge while others endure great poverty offers more hope of ultimate good than a society in which all are sunk in slothful comfort.It is true that poverty is a great evil, but it is not true that material prosperity is in itself a great good.If it is to have any real value to society, it must be made a means to the advancement of those higher goods that belong to the life of the mind.But the life of the mind does not consist of thought and knowledge alone, nor can it be completelyhealthy unless it has some instinctive contact, however deeply buried, with the general life of the community.Divorced from the social instinct, thought, like art, tends to become finicky and precious.It is the position of such art and thought as is imbued with the instinctive sense of service to mankind that we wish to consider, for it is this alone that makes up the life of the mind in the sense in which it is a vital part of the life of the community.Will the life of the mind in this sense be helped or hindered by Socialism? And will there still be a sufficient spur to progress to prevent a condition of Byzantine immobility?
In considering this question we are, in a certain sense, passing outside the atmosphere of democracy.The general good of the community is realized only in individuals, but it is realized much more fully in some individuals than in others.Some men have a comprehensive and penetrating intellect, enabling them to appreciate and remember what has been thought and known by their predecessors, and to discover new regions in which they enjoy all the high delights of the mental explorer.Others have the power of creating beauty, giving bodily form to impalpable visions out of which joy comes to many.Such men are more fortunate than the mass, and also more important for the collective life.A larger share of the general sum of good is concentrated in them than in the ordinary man and woman; but also their contribution to the general good is greater.They stand out among men and cannot be wholly fitted into the framework of democratic equality.A social system which would render them unproductive would stand condemned, whatever other merits it might have.
