Communism 2. The other case relates to what is known as the Communal principle-the theory that a retrogres ownership of property should be common, sion. or the title vested in the state. This is variously represented by the Socialists of Germany, the Nihilists of Russia, the Communists of France, and a nondescript class of reformers in our own country. Whatever merits may be alleged of the system as a whole, it is very certain that the general adoption of the communal principle would be a return toward primitive barbarism. Not a return to it, but a step in that direction. For communism pure and simple was the original condition. The time was when there was no such thing as personal ownership of land. And territory was probably laimed by tribes, or by individual leaders. for tribes, before ownership of the soil was recognized as an individual right. This primitive state of things is still retained in a measure in some European countries. Russia and In parts of Russia, according to a recent French Communal Writer on "Primitive Property," the vilproperty in lage or commune owns the land. Το Switzerland. each adult is allotted a portion on which he may work and get his living, paying a certain percentage into the public treasury, though he can never possess the land in fee simple. He cannot sell it, and there may be from time to time a redivision. In certain cantons of Switzerland, the commune possesses the land, and is responsible for roads, schools, and police. Each head of a family is entitled to garden-ground enough for vegetables, fruit, and flax or hemp for household use. He is also entitled to the pasturage of two cows in the mountain meadows, and wood from the common forest. And for these privileges he pays a definite sum into the public treasury. And while to many people this seems at a distance, quite an Arcadia, the effect may be seen in the small accumulations of wealth in those cantons and the almost entire lack of individual enterprise. The truth is, the moment we take from the individual the right of ownership in the Conclusion. soil, that moment we take from him the chief incentive to productive industry. And taking from him the personal advantage of his own skilled labor, is taking away the incentive to do the best work. The idea of a state of society in which all men shall be equal in point of ownership, whether a man is industrious or indolent whether he is skilled or unskilled, is purely visionary and practicably impossible. There may be grave inequalities and serious faults in society as it exists at present. Merit may not always be adequately rewarded, and impracticable genius may often find itself distanced by persistent mediocrity; but the disorder is not to be remedied by a defiance of the very first principles of justice or a disregard of the rules that govern all intelligent competition. And the best state of society to which we can hope to attain is that in which every man may profit by his own industry, his own intelligence, and his own enterprise as well. |