It will be disputed by few who are in touch with modern thought that the present is emphatically a transitional period in social conditions. We stand at the parting of the ways, and across the ever widening chasm conservatism and radicalism are measuring forces and gathering strength for the impending conflict. Rumors of change are flying thru the air and a decided ferment of thought is perceptible in the minds of men. Cranks of every sort are more in evidence than in any preceding epoch, and each herald of a new dispensation gathers to his cave of Adullam an army of malcontents. A long listslist of Messiahs and inspired leaders, each with a considerable following, might readily be cited. These will pass away and their creeds will die with them, but as manifestations of the thought movement of the day, their advent is of a striking significance.

Scarcely less numerous are the schools of social and economic thought. Nothing is any more taken for granted, and the anathemas against the removal of ancient landmarks fall on deaf ears. Institutions are being sternly re-examined. The plea of prescription is no longer considered as valid in the domain of ideas. The relativity of standards is everywhere boldly proclaimed. It is the era of man, and he demands that customs cease to assert an a priori prerogative, and become moulded to his needs. Only that is to survive which can abide the sharpest criticism and prove its adaptability to the varying and increasing wants of human beings. We are passing from an old world to a new; and nothing, however long held sacred, is exempt from the threat of change.

Amid the apparent chaos of conflicting views it may be worth while to note certain streams of tendency, as constituting factors of no small importance in the movement toward social change. Without pronouncing on the merits of the ceaseless conflict between conservatism and radicalism, we can hardly deny that the latter presents the most varied and interesting study. There are many ways of moving, but there is only one way of keeping still. Conservatism should be used as a rudder, not as an anchor; while radicalism is the engine, which often performs a great deal of superfluous puffing, but, after all, is needed to keep the boat in motion.

The desire for ideal social conditions has always been the favorite dream of humanity. In its religious aspect it is the kingdom of God on earth. In speculative philosophy it has given birth to Plato’s Republic, and later to Utopia and the New Atlantis. It has created the political visions of Jacobinism, Fourierism, and St. Simonism. Descending to our own day it has become the mainspring of a host of reform and more or less revolutionary movements. Despite its frequent vagaries, it is a healthy symptom of the human mind, betokening that divine discontent which makes the present ever a stepping stone to a larger future. It demands sympathetic study, not hasty and wholesale condemnation.

The Populist movement, earnest and conscientious, despite its incoherence, has been greatly misunderstood. Such a tremendous and wide-spread wave of thought does not take place without an adequate cause. No chance word of a popular leader could awaken so tremendous a response, if the conditions were not ripe for the new doctrine. Populism was unscientific and emotional, hence only transitory in its influence; yet it, as well as the New Democracy of Bryan, bespoke a far-reaching desire for a radical change in social conditions. It was a cry for relief. The increasing concentration of wealth was felt to be a menace which must be resisted. Immediate help was sought, with only a small regard for remoter consequences. It was the effort of the farmer and the small business man to form a breakwater against the rising tide of large commercial combinations. Its remedies were of a specific nature; but its cohesive force was small. To engraft its proposed legislation on the body of existing conditions would, in the minds of many, both radicals and conservatives, be an attempt to harmonize the incongruous which could only produce confusion worse confounded. Nevertheless its main proposition, slightly toned down, forms the basis of the Bryan Democracy. Thru the free coinage of silver, it is hoped to increase the volume of the currency and to relieve the congestion of the money market. Government ownership of the means of transportation and other public utilities is expected to break the power of the trusts. Direct legislation and simplified forms of election are relied on to place the government more fully in the hands of the great body of the people. These and other measures are ardently championed by the reform element as the means of preserving the fundamental characteristics of primitive democracy, as adapted to the more complex conditions of today.

Meanwhile, the labor organizations are busy on other lines. They have interests distinctly their own which they seek to protect. It seems to them that, as civilization is founded on labor, those who do the work of the world should receive greater consideration than is ordinarily meted out to them. They seek a higher relative position, with better opportunities for culture and intellectual development. They insist that no civilization can thrive where labor is not duly honored. Their persistent contests for higher wages, shorter hours and recognition of their unions, are not mere wilful attempts to stir up trouble, but deliberate steps toward the attainment of an end by which they blieve the entire level of society will be raised. While occupying a distinct sphere, the work of trades unions is frequently found to coalesce with that of the various schools of reform, and the issues of the day can never be properly understood by any who have not made close and sympathetic study of the present state of the labor movement.

The Single Taxers form a connecting link between the reformers and the revolutionists. They range all the way from moderates like Tom L. Johnson, to intense radicals like Bolton Hall and Ernest Crosby. One class of Single Taxers puts forth the confiscation of ground rent as a complete panacea for social evils; while the other supports it vigorously as the necessary first step in a peaceful but effective social revolution. Henry George’s Progress and Poverty is still the Bible of the propaganda, altho a considerable body of subsidiary Single Tax literature has been put forth. A tax on land values, as a substitute for all other taxes and made equal to the rental value of the land would, they claim, destroy rent, speculation in land values and all the evils of landlordism. It would break the vital monopoly from which all the other monopolies draw their sustenance. The enlargement of opportunities thus afforded would prevent excessive combination of capital, rob competition of its most destructive feature and afford a healthy stimulus to individual effort. These claims are vigorously sustained by an energetic press, and a corps of able writers and lecturers. Whether their doctrines be ultimately adopted or not, they have certainly contributed in no small measure to a clearer understanding of the relation of man to the land from which all his wealth is drawn.

The more radical idealists of the day are mainly Socialists or Anarchists. Both of these schools of thought deserve far better consideration than is given in the conventional caricatures of their teachings. In both are to be found as fine types of intellect and character as the human race has yet produced, including a large percentage of the greatest artists, scientists and men of letters of the present day. In certain respects, the two philosophies are closely allied; in others, they differ very widely.

The Socialism of today boasts of having advanced from utopianism to a strictly scientific standpoint. Bellamy’s Looking Backward and similar dreams of the future are not seriously considered by modern Socialists. A thoro study of the writings of the writings of Karl Marx is necessary in order to obtain a clear conception of the Socialist position. Its cardinal tenet is what is known as the materialist conception of history. Briefly stated, this asserts that man is led to act solely by the primary necessity of satisfying his material wants. From this mainspring of action have evolved his various characteristics, and all social and political institutions. Change the economic environments, and you change the man and all that pertains to him. This is claimed to be the inevitable corollary of the doctrine of evolution, when applied to history and sociology. From this conception follows that of the class struggle, which is looked upon as the sociological equivalent of the struggle for the existence of the biological formula. History appears to them as a struggle between classes, each great epoch being marked by the dominance of a particular class. This struggle can only cease with the triumph of the proletariat—the class on which all the others rest. Hence it is of paramount importance [3] to infuse a spirit of class consciousness into the wage workers of the world, until, standing together as one body, they possess themselves of political power thru the ballot, and transform the social organization into a cooperative commonwealth. This result is inevitable, from the certain working of economic law; and the only office of propaganda is to accelerate it, that the intermediate steps may be taken in a more orderly and intelligent manner, and with the minimum of chaos or suffering during the transitional period. The constantly increasing momentum of the tendency to large industrial combinations is cited as a proof that a nation must own the trusts, and that an industrial commonwealth must inevitably succeed the present political State. Their arguments merit careful attention, even tho they may not carry complete conviction. The Socialist propaganda is growing with great rapidity, and must be reckoned with as destined to be at least one of the prominent factors in shaping the social conditions of the future.

The Anarchist movement is still less understood by the average citizen. While it is eminently a gospel of peace and fraternity, and some of its prominent advocates go so far as to preach absolute non-resistance, it is still looked upon in many quarters as merely an incitement to plunder and carnage. The Anarchist is simply a disbeliever in the validity and efficacy of government. He holds that the history of mankind shows the worthlessness of restraint as a social force. Society is based on the individual. Its growth must be from within, according to the laws of organic life. In the words of Walt Whitman: Produce great persons; the rest follows. Man is naturally a social being. Our artificial social conditions choke out his spontaneity, and place him in an attitude of hostility and aggression toward his fellows. Given equality of opportunities and freedom of action, his normal faculties would speedily gain the ascendancy. Our mutual interdependence is such that self-interest must bind us together in fraternal cooperation, and teach each one the necessity of respecting the rights of others, in order to secure the respect to his own rights. Liberty and responsibility are the great school masters. Cooperative industry, or more probably complete Communism, is expected to be the natural outgrowth of perfect freedom. There would be peace and harmony, not because men would become perfect, but because they would have no possible motive for feud. The Anarchist abstains entirely from political action, believing the true remedy to lie in awakened intelligence. His propaganda is mainly educational, and passive resistance is his most potent weapon. The so-called Anarchist assassins are individuals who act on their own responsibility. Some Anarchists admire them, while others entirely disapprove of their acts. In any case, they have no connection with the propaganda, and the Anarchist philosophy is in no way at the bottom of their acts.

The foregoing synopsis of some of the factors in the process of social changes now going on is indeed wofully incomplete. Each of the schools of propaganda deserves long and careful study. The future of human society is a problem which concerns us all, and it is well worth our while to determine our own positions among the contending forces. Wherever we take our stand, we cannot afford to be ignorant of the real nature of the different factors involved; for it is out of these that the course of social evolution will be shaped.—James F. Morton, Jr., in the Pacific Monthly, July, 1901.