CHRISTIANITY and Socialist-Radicalism are opposite things. Christianity destroyed slavery, Socialists aim at returning to slavery—the coming slavery, as Herbert Spencer calls Socialism. Socialism means the destruction of liberty. But, says M. Vinet, “liberty is the mother of every good thing. Truth, piety, virtue delight themselves in liberty; vice and crime in slavery.” Does, then, Socialism mean vice and crime P. At any rate, its root is envy, with its necessary companion, hatred; and Bacon calls envy “the special quality of the devil.”
Socialism, as a rule, goes along, as M. de Laveleye truly says, with godless Materialism. But, says M. Vinet, “Materialism leans with all its weight on tyranny.” Then Socialist-Radicalism leans all its weight on tyranny; and this, of course, is true. The blessed word “compulsion” is, as we all know, the Socialist-Radical's shibboleth.
Christianity is the religion of righteousness—that is, of duty. Therefore it is the religion of Individualism. There can be no duty if there is no personal responsibility, and there can be no personal responsibility if there is no individual liberty. Necessarily, then, Socialist-Radicalism is opposed to Christianity, if not to all religion. “Nulle religion,” says Vacherol, “est compatible avec l'idéal de la démocratie”—meaning, of course, the ultra-democracy of Socialist-Radicalism. The word “democracy,” by itself, has no definite meaning. Democracy, in some degree, reigns wherever there are communities of men. If the most absolute despot of a savage tribe is unsuccessful in war, the democracy—that is, what is called “the people”—cut his head off and set up another. Thus the democratic principle exists everywhere. The word itself, unqualified, defines nothing.
“Christianity,” says M. Vinet, “is the immortal seed of liberty here below. Jesus Christ has irrevocably established the reign of law and individual liberty...... all worthy Liberals and Conservatives desire liberty and order; and all bad men mortally hate both the one and the other.” Rough on the poor Socialist-Radical this!
“What,” asks M. Vinet, “is the principle of Socialism? It is to place the human species under tutelage; it is to rule despotically; it is to fashion for each individual his religion, his philosophy, and his conscience. The idea is a very ancient one. It is, in fact, the Pagan idea, whose funeral knell was sounded by Christianity.”
“A Socialist State,” again says M. Vinet, “accepts for its type a family where the children remain eternally minors.” The despotic tyranny of Socialist-Radicalism is far worse than the tyranny of a single despot. “The tyranny of a multitude,” said Burke, “is a multiplied tyranny.” Thus the reason why the Socialist-Radicals aim at this multiplied tyranny is, no doubt, because the tyranny of only a single despot is not tyranny enough for them.
“Despotism,” says Coventry Patmore, “whether of an irresponsible emperor or of a multitude, is the death of nationalities.” Now, the Socialist-Radicalism of the day, as it cannot be too often repeated, means despotism, with its necessary other side, slavery. I wonder whether we have gone too far in this direction for recovery
See also Over 300 PDF/Acrobat Books on Socialism, Communism and Economics and 300 Books on DVDrom for Libertarians, Objectivists and Voluntaryists For a list of all of my books on disks and other ebooks click here
“The frantic ambition,” said Coventry Patmore, after the General Election of 1892, “of one bad man, the cowardice of a few others, and the apathy of that large portion of the community which has been sane in judgment, but insane in sloth, have brought the final evil upon us sooner than it need have come. But come it must, inasmuch as the powers of evil have always in the history of nations proved too strong in the long run for those of good. Considering what men are, the wonder is not that all great nationalities should have come to a disgraceful end, but that their ordinary duration of life should have been a thousand years or so. How any of them should have lasted a hundred must seem a miracle to those who fail to take into account the agency of the two guardian angels of national life, religion and war—religion, which keeps alive submission to law and the spirit of self-sacrifice for corporate life; and war, which silences for a time the envy and hatred of the evil and the ignorant for all superiorities, and compels them to trust their leaders on pain of annihilation.”
History undoubtedly tells us that every nation goes down when its time comes. And what brings it down is the spirit of evil becoming stronger than the spirit of good; the spirit of evil meaning the Radical spirit of envy, hatred, destruction, and disintegration, as distinguished from the beneficent, preserving, and improving spirit of Conservatism and true Liberalism.
Now, about Great Britain. Have we got on the downward course?. At any rate, envy, hatred, and malice, with their inevitable children, lying and slander, seem more and more to rage over the land. What is poor old Mr. Gladstone's strongest political card?. It is the stirring up of envy, hatred, and malice between the “classes and the masses.” He has, I believe, described Nonconformity as the backbone of Radicalism in England. But what is the motive force that brings out this form of Radicalism?. It is class and sectarian envy, hatred, and jealousy, “the special qualities of the devil.” Take away social jealousy from Nonconformity, and its Radicalism would be nowhere. The Socialist-Radicalism of the day means at bottom war against ownership of property. Now, the Nonconformist loves his property as much as anybody; but at present his sectarian envy, jealousy, and hatred outweigh his love of property, and even his hatred of Roman Catholicism in Ireland. Hatred of what is near is stronger than hatred of what is far off. Surely we have much to fear as a nation from these dire forces that have of late increased so much. Communities of bees and ants consist of ranks and orders, classes and masses. What would happen if their masses were to set up a burning antagonism against the rest in their communities? Surely bees and ants would cease to exist.
By the way, talking of Roman Catholicism, I wonder, should the Nonconformists succeed in their schemes for disestablishing and robbing the Church, whether the contingency has ever occurred to them of the whole Church of England going over to Rome, and thus England becoming again a vast Roman Catholic community, with a few petty Nonconformist sects here and there. Educated Roman Catholicism is very different now from what it was when it burned people for believing the earth went round the sun, or for not believing in winking virgins. The truths of science are no longer denied by educated Roman Catholics —as, for instance, Mr. St. Mivart.
