Socialism

... rejection of the doctrine of selfishness as a sufficient social force and the affirmation of altruism as a principle of social action. Socialism, in this broad sense of the word, means that society is not a mere aggregation of individuals, but a living, growing organism, the laws of which are something different from the laws of individual action. Aristotle was a socialist in this sense of the word, which, it may be remarked, is a true sense of the word; for he maintained that you never could arrive at the whole by a mere addition of the units comprising it, and consequently that the welfare of society could not be secured through exclusive attention to individual claims. The prosperity of the whole, however, he maintained, implied the prosperity of all the individuals which it includes. In other words, this sage of antiquity thought we must proceed in our treatment of social questions from the standpoint of society, and not from that of the individual.

Socialism is then not restricted necessarily to state activity, but it becomes equivalent to affectionate regard for others in society, and the systematic attempt to improve others. It is used as the opposite of individualism, which then means a selfish and inconsiderate exaltation of the individual. The use of the word socialism in the large sense just described is a legitimate one, for it serves to designate a class of thinkers, and to distinguish them from those who hold very different views. Socialism and individualism are two different philosophical systems. The only objection to the use of the word socialism to designate that social philosophy, which is contrasted with individualism in the broadest sense, is that socialism has a narrower meaning, to be described presently, which has become prevalent. Thus, if a writer declares, "I am a socialist!" he is more likely to be classed with Karl Marx than with Aristotle.

The word socialism has, however, other general uses which seem to be altogether wanting in any scientific precision of meaning, and which should therefore be rejected. It is employed to designate in such a vague manner a tendency or attitude of mind, that it lacks all metes and bounds. It has, for example, even been used to designate the thoughts and efforts of those who concern themselves with social affairs. Manifestly, in this sense, it would include a large amount of the individualistic as well as the socialistic philosophy. One writer has called socialism the economic philosophy of the suffering classes. Doubtless he himself would not claim for this statement the character of a scientific definition; for socialism is not the only economic philosophy which has been or may be embraced by those spoken of as the suffering classes. The radical improvement of the lot of the property less majority has been declared to be the material content of socialism. In addition to the objections already urged to the previous statement, it may be said that it is not necessary to view socialism as a class problem, although it must be admitted that it is so viewed by most social democrats in Germany.

Socialism may be advocated by an artist from the artistic standpoint, or by a theologian from a religious standpoint. The true aim of the best socialism, it seems to the writer, is that general social amelioration which proposes to sacrifice no class, but to improve and elevate all classes. It does not necessarily mean the abolition of classes, although under any system of socialism other class distinctions would prevail than those which now obtain.

Order Custom Essay on Socialism