The Psychology of Socialism
Book I: The Socialistic Theories and Their Disciples:
Chapter 2: The Origin of Socialism and the Causes of its Present Development
Gustave Le Bon
Table of Contents | Next | Previous
I. The antiquity of Socialism:-The social struggles engendered by the inequality of conditions go back to the earliest historical ages -- Collectivist doctrines among the Greeks-How Socialism caused the destruction of the Greek Independence-Socialism among the Romans and the Jews-Primitive Christianity represents a period of triumph for Socialism-How it was quickly obliged to renounce the Socialistic doctrines-The Socialistic illusions of fifty years ago. 2. The causes of the present development of Socialism :-The modern exaggeration of sensibility-The upheavals and instability due to the progress of industry-Needs have developed more quickly than the means of satisfying them-The appetites of modern youth-University ideas. The part played by financiers--The pessimism of thinkers--The present state of societies compared to their state in the Past. 3. The percentage method in the appreciation of social phenomena :-Necessity of establishing an exact relation between the useful and hurtful elements entering into the composition of a society-Insufficiency of the method of averages-Social phenomena are governed by percentages, not by averages.
I. THE ANTIQUITY OF SOCIALISM.
SOCIALISM has not made its first appearance in the world to-day. To use an expression dear to ancient historians, we may say that its origins are lost in the night of time; for its prime cause is the inequality of conditions, and this inequality was the law of the ancient world, as it is that of the modern. Unless some all-powerful deity takes it upon himself to re-fashion the
(9) nature of man, this inequality is undoubtedly destined to subsist until the final sterilisation of our planet. It would seem that the struggle between rich and poor must be eternal.
Without harking back to primitive Communism, a form of inferior development from which all societies have sprung, we may say that antiquity has experimented with all the forms of Socialism that are proposed to us to-day. Greece, notably, put them all into practice, and ended by dying her dangerous experiments - The Collectivist doctrines were exposed long ago in the Republic of Plato. Aristotle contests them, and as M. Guirand remarks, reviewing their writings in his book on Landed Property among the Greeks : " All the contemporary doctrines are represented here, from Christian Socialism to the most advanced Collectivism."
These doctrines were many times put into practice. All the political revolutions in Greece were at the same time social revolutions, or revolutions with the object of changing the inequalities of conditions by despoiling the rich and oppressing the aristocracy. They often succeeded, but their triumph was -always ephemeral. The final result was the Hellenic decadence, and the loss of national independence. The Socialists of those days agreed no better than the Socialists of these, or, at least, agreed only to destroy : until Rome put an end to their perpetual dissensions by reducing Greece to servitude.The Romans themselves did not escape from the attempts of the Socialists. They suffered the experimental agrarian Socialism of the Gracchi, which limited the territorial property of each citizen, distributed the surplus among the poor, and obliged the State to nourish necessituos citizens. Thence resulted the stuggles which gave rise to Marius, Sylla, the civil wars, and finally to the ruin of the Republic and the domination of the Emperors.
10)
The Jews also were familiar with the demands of the Socialists. The imprecations of their prophets, the true anarchists of their times, were above all imprecations against riches. Jesus, the most illustrious of them, asserted the right of the poor before everything. His maledictions and menaces are addressed only to the rich-; the Kingdom of God is reserved for the poor alone. " It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
During the first two or three centuries of our era the Christian religion was the Socialism of the poor, the disinherited, and the discontented ; and, like modern Socialism, it was in perpetual conflict with the established institutions. Nevertheless, Christian Socialism ended by triumphing; it was the first time that the Socialistic ideas obtained a lasting success.
But although it possessed one immense advantage that of promising happiness only for a future life, and therefore of certainty that it could never see its promises disproved-Christian Socialism could maintain itself only by renouncing its principles after victory. It was obliged to lean on the rich and powerful, and so to become the defender of the fortune and property it had formerly cursed. Like all triumphant revolutionaries, it became conservative in its turn, and the social ideal of Catholic Rome was not very far removed from that of Imperial Rome. Once more had the poor to content themselves with resignation, labour, and obedience ; with a prospect of heaven if they were quiet, and a threat of hell and the devil if they harassed their masters. What a marvellous story is this of this two thousand years' dream ! When our descendants, freed from the heritages that oppress our thoughts, are able to consider it from a purely philosophical point of view, they will never tire of admiring the formidable might of this gigantic Minerva
(11) by which our civilisations are still propped up. How thin do the most brilliant systems of philosophy show before the genesis and growth of this belief, so puerile from a rational point of view, and yet so powerful 1 Its enduring empire shows us well to what extent it is the unreal that governs the world, and not the real. The founders of religion have created nothing but hopes ; yet they are their works that have lasted the longest. What Socialist outlook can ever equal the paradises of Jesus and Mahomet? How miserable in comparison are the perspectives of earthly happiness that the apostle of Socialism promises us to-day !
They seem very ancient, all these historical events which take us back to the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews; but in reality they are always young, for always they betray the laws of human nature, -that human nature that as yet the course of ages has not changed. Humanity has aged much since then, but she always pursues the same dreams and suffers the same experiences without learning anything from them. Let any one read the declarations, full of hope and enthusiasm, issued by our Socialists of fifty years ago, at the moment of the revolution Of 1848, of which they were the most valiant partisans. The new age was born, and, thanks to them, the face of the world was about to be changed. Thanks to them, their country sank into a despotism ; and, a few years later, into a formidable war and invasion. Scarcely half a century has passed since this phase of Socialism, and already forgetful of this latest lesson we are preparing ourselves to repeat the same round.
2. THE CAUSES OF THE PRESENT DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM.
To-day, then, we are merely repeating once more the plaint that our fathers have uttered so often, and if our
(12) cry is louder, it is because the progress of civilisation has rendered our sensibility keener. Our conditions of existence are far better than of old ; yet we are less and less satisfied. Despoiled of beliefs, and having no perspective other than that of austere duty and dismal solidarity, disquieted by the upheavals and instability caused by the transformations of industry, seeing all social institutions crumble one by one, seeing family and property menaced with extinction, the modern man attaches himself eagerly to the present, the only reality he can seize. Interested only in himself, he wishes at all costs to rejoice in the present hour, of whose brevity he is so sensible. In default of his lost illusions he must enjoy well-being, and consequently riches. Wealth is all the more necessary to him in that the progress of industry and the sciences have created a host of luxuries which were formerly unknown, but have to-day become necessaries. The thirst for riches becomes more and more general, while at the same time the number of those amongst whom wealth is to be divided increases.
The needs of the modern man, therefore, have become very great, and have increased far more rapidly than the means of satisfying them. Statisticians prove that comfort and convenience have never been! so highly developed as to-day, but they show also that requirements have never been so imperious. Now the equality of the two terms in an equation only subsists when these two terms progress equally. The ratio of requirements and the means of satisfying them represents the equation of happiness. When these two terms are equal, however small they may be, the man is satisfied. He is also satisfied when, the two terms being unequal by reason of the insufficiency of the means of satisfaction, he is able to re-establish equality by the reduction of his requirements. Such a solution was discovered long ago
(13) by the Orientals, and this is why we see them always contented with their lot. In modern Europe, on the other hand, requirements have increased enormously, while the means of satisfying them have not kept up with that increase. In consequence, the two terms of the equation have become very unequal, and the greater number of civilised men to-day are accustomed to curse their lot. From top to bottom the discontent is the same, because from top to bottom the requirements and means of satisfying them are out of proportion. Every one is drawn into the same tumultuous chase after Fortune, and dreams of breaking through all the obstacles that separate him from her. Individual egoism has increased without a check on a basis of pessimistic indifference for all doctrines and general interests. Wealth has become the end that each desires, and this goal has obscured all others.
Such tendencies are certainly not new to history, but it would appear that of old they presented themselves in a less general and less exclusive form. "The men of the eighteenth century," says Tocqueville, "scarcely knew this passion for well-being, which is, as it were, the mother of servitude. In the higher classes men were concerned far more to embellish their lives than to render them comfortable, to become illustrious rather than wealthy."
This universal pursuit of wealth has had as its inevitable corollary a general lowering of morality, and all the ensuing consequences of this abatement. The most clearly visible result has been an enormous decrease of the prestige enjoyed by the middle classes in the eyes of their social inferiors. Bourgeois society has aged as much in a century as the aristocracy in a thousand years. It becomes exhausted in less than three generations, and only renews itself by constant recruiting from
(14) the classes below it. It may endow its sons with wealth, but how can it endow them with the accidental qualities that only centuries can implant ? Great fortunes are substituted for great hereditary qualities, but these great fortunes fall too often into lamentable hands.
Modern youth has shaken off all precedent, all prejudices. To it the ideas of duty, patriotism, and honour seem too often ridiculous fetters, mere vain prejudices. Educated exclusively in the cult of success, it exhibits the most furious appetites and covetousness. When speculation, intrigue, rich marriages, or inheritances put fortunes into its hands, it consecrates them only to the most vulgar delights.
The youth of our universities does not present a more consoling spectacle. It is the melancholy product of our classical education. Completely steeped in Latin rationalism, possessed of an education entirely theoretical and bookish, it is incapable of understanding anything of the realities of life, of the necessities which uphold the fabric of society. The idea of the fatherland, without which no nation can exist, seems to it, as an eminent critic, M. Jules Lemaitre, wrote but recently, the conception "of imbecile jingoes completely devoid of philosophy." He continues :
"What are we to say to them? They are great reasoners, and expert in dialectic. Besides, it is not so imperative to convince them by reasoning as to induce in them a sentiment which they have always ignored.
"Some (I have heard them) declare that it is a matter of indifference to them whether our political capital be at Berlin or Paris, and that they would accept the just administration of a German prefect with perfectly equal minds. And I do not see what I can reply to them, except that our hearts, our brains, are not fashioned alike."Others are patriots in a feeble way; they detest war
(15) on humanitarian principles, as one used to say fifty years ago, and also because they dream of international Socialism." [1] (La France extéruere, May 1, 1898.)
This demoralisation of all the strata of the bourgeoisie, the too often dubious means they employ to obtain wealth, and the scandals they provoke every day, are the factors that have perhaps chiefly contributed to sow hatred in the middle and lower classes of society. This demoralisation has given a serious justification to the diatribes of the modern Socialists against the unequal partition of wealth. It has been only too easy for the latter to show that the great fortunes of the present day are too often based upon a gigantic rapine levied on the modest resources of thousands of unhappy creatures. How else are we to qualify such financial operations as the foreign loans launched by great banking houses
(16) perfectly informed of the affairs of the borrowers, perfectly sure that their too confident subscribers will be ruined, but ruining them without hesitation in order to touch commissions which sometimes, as in the case of the Honduras loan, amount to more than So per cent. of the total sum ? Is not the poor devil who, goaded by hunger, steals your watch in the corner of the park, infinitely less culpable in reality than these pirates of finance ? Again, what are we to say of the " rings " of great capitalists, who band themselves together to buy up all over the world the whole products of some particular branch of commerce-copper, for example, or petroleum-the result of which operation is to double or treble the price of an indispensable article, and to throw thousands of workmen into idleness and misery ? What shall we say of speculations like that of the young American millionaire who, at the time of the Spanish-American war, bought at one stroke all the corn obtainable in almost all the markets of the world, to re-sell it only when the commencement of the scarcity he had provoked had greatly increased the price ? The affair should have brought him in four million pounds ; but it provoked a crisis in Europe, famine and riots in Spain and Italy, and plenty of poor devils died of hunger. Are Socialists really in the wrong when they compare the authors of such speculations to common pirates, and declare that they deserve the hangman's rope ?
The demoralisation of the upper strata of society, the unequal and often very inequitable partition of wealth, the increasing irritation of the masses, requirements always greater than enjoyment, the waning of old hierarchies and old faiths-there are in all these circumstances plenty of reasons for discontent which go to justify the rapid extension of Socialism.
The most distinguished spirits suffer from a malady not
(17) less pronounced, although of a different nature. This malady does not always transform them into partisans of the new doctrines, but it prevents them from greatly interesting themselves in the defence of the present social State. The successive disintegration of all religious beliefs, and of the institutions founded upon them ; the total failure of science to throw any light on the mysteries which surround us, and which only deepen when we seek to sound them ; the only too evident proof that all our systems of philosophy represent merely an empty and useless farrago ; the universal triumph of brute force, and the discouragement provoked by that triumph, have ended by throwing even the elect into a gloomy pessimism.
The pessimistic tendencies of modern minds are incontestable ; it would be easy to compose a volume of the phrases in which our writers express them. The following extracts will suffice to illustrate this general disorder of the mind :-
"As for the picture of the sufferings of humanity," says one of our most distinguished con temporary philosophers, M. Renouvier, "without speaking of the ills that appertain to the general laws of the animal kingdom, it is enough to make Schopenhauer pass as mild to-day, rather than excessively gloomy, if we think of the social phenomena which characterise our epoch, the war of nations, the war of classes, the universal extension of militarism, the increase of extreme misery parallel with the development of great wealth and the refinements of the life of pleasure, the forward march of criminality, often hereditary as much as professional, the increase of suicide, the relaxation of family ties and the abandonment of supramundane beliefs which are being gradually replaced by the sterile materialistic cult of the dead. All these signs of a visible retrogression of civilisation towards barbarism, which the contact of Americans and Europeans with the stationary
(18) or decadent populations of the old world cannot fail to augment-all these signs had not yet made their appearance at the time when Schopenhauer gave the signal for the return of the mind to pessimistic judgment of tile world's merits."
"The strongest trample on the rights of the weakest without shame," writes another philosopher, M. Boilley; " the Americans exterminate the Redskins, the English oppress the Hindoos. Under the pretext of civilisation the European nations are dividing Africa amongst themselves, but in reality are only concerning themselves to open new markets. The jealousy between Power and Power has assumed unheard-of proportions. The Triple Alliance threatens us by fear and by covetousness. Russia comes to us through interest."
The abuse of the right of the strongest is incontestable, as are also the iniquities of society. To these iniquities we must add all the social lies to which we are forced to submit, and which are well reviewed by M. de Vogué in the following lines :-"Lies of faces, lies of hearts; lies of thoughts, lies of words; lies of false glory, false talent, false money, false names, false opinions, false loves ; lies in all things, and even ill the best ; in art, ill thought, ill sentiment, in the public welfare, because to-day these things no longer have their end in themselves ' because they are nothing but the means of obtaining fame and lucre."
Without question our civilisations are founded upon lies enough, but if we wish to extirpate these lies we must at the same blow destroy all the elements they support, and notably religion, diplomacy, commerce, and love. What would become of the relations between individuals and between peoples if the lies of faces and did not dissemble the real sentiments of our hearts? He who hates falsehood must live solitary and ignored. As
19) for the young man who wishes to make his way in the world, as we understand the matter to-day, the most important advice one can give him is that he should studiously cultivate the art of lying skilfully.
Hatred and envy ill the lower classes, intense egoism and the exclusive cult of wealth ill the directing classes, pessimism among thinkers : such are the general modern tendencies. A society must be very solidly established to resist such causes of dissolution. It is doubtful if it can resist them long. Some philosophers console themselves for this state of general discontent by arguing that it constitutes a factor of progress, and that peoples too well satisfied with their lot, such as the Orientals, progress no further.
Easy as it may be to raise up these hopes and demands against the actual state of things, must be conceded that all these social iniquities seem inevitable, since they have always existed. They seem to be the inevitable results of human nature, and no experience gives us leave to think that by changing our institutions and substituting one kind for another, we should be able to abolish, or even lessen, the iniquities of which we complain so greatly The army of virtuous men has always numbered but few soldiers, and far fewer officers, and we have scarcely discovered the means of augmenting the number. We must therefore rank social iniquities with those natural iniquities, such as age and death, to whose yoke we must submit, and against which all recriminations are vain.
In short, if we resent our misfortunes more keenly than of old, it would nevertheless seem that they have never been lighter. Without going back to the ages when man, taking refuge in the depths of caverns, painfully contested with the beasts for his meagre fare, and often served them as food, let us recall that our fathers knew slavery, invasion, famine, war of all kinds, murderous epidemics, the
(20) Inquisition, the Terror, and many another misery still. Do not let us forget that, thanks to the progress of science and industry, to higher rates of wage and increased cheapness of articles of luxury, the most humble individual lives to-day with more comfort than a feudal gentleman of old in his manor, always menaced as he was with pillage and destruction by his neighbours. Thanks to steam, electricity, and all the other modern discoveries, the poorest of peasants is possessed of a host of commodities that Louis Quatorze in all his pomp never knew.
3. THE PERCENTAGE METHOD IN THE APPRECIATION OF SOCIAL PHENOMENA.
To form just arid equitable judgments on a given social environment we must consider riot only those evils which touch ourselves, or those injustices which clash with our own sentiments. Every society contains a certain proportion of good and bad, a certain number of virtuous men arid of scoundrels, of men of genius and of mediocre or imbecile men. To compare, across the ages, one society with another, we must not only consider their component elements separately, but also their respective proportions one to another ; that is to say, the percentage of these elements. We must put aside the particular cases which strike us and deceive us, and the averages of the statisticians, which deceive us yet more. Social phenomena are determined by percentages, and not by particular cases or by averages.
The greater part of our errors of judgment, and the hasty generalisations resulting therefrom, spring from an insufficient knowledge of the percentage of the elements observed. The habitual tendency, a characteristic one in partially developed minds, is to generalise from particular cases without considering in what proportion they exist.
(21)We are like the traveller, who, being attacked by thieves while passing through a forest, affirmed that this forest was habitually infested with brigands, without ever dreaming of inquiring how many other travellers, arid in how many years, had previously been attacked.
A strict application of the method of percentages will teach us to avoid these hasty generalisations. The judgments we pronounce upon a people or a society are only of value when they deal with a number of individuals so large as to allow of our knowing in what proportions the qualities or faults in question exist. Only from such data are generalisations possible. For instance, if we state that a certain people is characterised by enterprise and energy, we do riot by any means say that there may riot be among this people individuals completely destitute of such qualities, but simply that the percentage of individuals so gifted is considerable. If it were possible to substitute figures for this clear, yet vague, "considerable," the value of our judgment would be greatly enhanced ; but in evaluations of this kind we must, in default of sufficiently sensible reagents, content ourselves with approximations. Sensible reagents are not altogether wanting, but they require very delicate handling.
This idea of percentages is important. It was after introducing this method into anthropology that I was able to show the profound cerebral differences that separate the various human races-differences which the method of averages could never have established. What until then did -we find in comparing the average cranial capacity of the divers races ? Differences which were really insignificant, and which tended to make one believe, - indeed tile majority of anatomists did believe, that the cranial volume of all races was almost identical. By means of certain curves, giving the exact percentage
(22) of different capacities, I was able, by taking data from a considerable number of skulls, to demonstrate unquestionably that, on the contrary, cranial capacity varies enormously according to race, and that the fact which clearly distinguishes the superior from the inferior races is that the former possess a certain number of large skulls and the latter do not. By reason of their small number these large skulls do not affect averages. This anatomical demonstration also confirms the psychological notion that the intellectual level of a nation is determined by the greater or less number of the eminent minds it contains.
The methods of investigation employed in the observation of sociological facts are as yet too imperfect to permit the application of such methods of exact evaluation as allow us to translate phenomena into geometric curves. Unable as -,,,,e are to see all the aspects of a question, we must none the less bear in mind that these facets are very diverse, and that there are many which we do not suspect or comprehend. But it is often the case that these less visible elements are precisely the more important. In order to form not too erroneous judgments upon complex problems-and all sociological problems are complex-we must revise our judgments unceasingly, by a series of verifications and successive approximations, while endeavouring absolutely to put aside our own interests and preferences. We must consider long before concluding, and more often than not we must confine ourselves to considering. These are riot the principles which have been applied heretofore by writers who have treated of Socialism, and this doubtless is the reason why the influence of their work has been equally feeble and ephemeral,
