Passing over the war upon banks and banking made by Louis Blanc and his fol lowers, and the equally bitter opposition by the German communists to the wonder fully successfully credit banks of that country, which were devised for the express benefit of the laboring classes, we come to the question of excessive population, which is almost always one great cause of famines and deep depression among the poor. The greater part of communist writers passionately deny this, and denounce with much vigor the idea promulgated by Malthus that population tends to increase faster than subsistence is capable of being increased. No one, however, has attempted to throw a doubt upon the main fact on which the Malthusian doctrine rests, that everywhere, except in very new countries with a large extent of unoccupied fertile land, checks on population are in active operation. Such checks must exist every where where population does not increase at its greatest possible speed. Under fav orable conditions population has sometimes doubled itself in 20 years. In the 38 years between 1767 and 1805 the population of Ireland doubled. At the rate of increase shown by the last census the population of England would double in 63 years, and that of France iu 265 years. In the United States for the ten years before 1860 the increase was very nearly 4 per cent. per year, which would double the pop ulation once in 25 years. The civil war in the decade after 1860 renders a compari son for that period worthless. In France and England, therefore, checks on popula tion arc, in a varying degree, in active operation; and the same may be said of all old countries. These checks may be divided into two classes, the first carrying with it nothing but misery and degradation, the second implying a high degree of self restraint, independence, and foresight. In the first class may be placed war, pestilence, famine. and all the diseases incident to insufficient food and overcrowding. In the second class may be placed prudential restraint on marriage and the number of births to each mar riage, and emigration. Every circumstance which weakens the efficiency of the checks on population comprised in the second class' necessarily adds to the force of the checks which we have placed in the first class. In other words, any circumstance which relaxes the force of the prudential checks on population tends to produce the misery of famine, scarcity, and starvation diseases. What would be the effect of communism on the pop ulation ? Would it strengthen or weaken the motives which promote a prudential limi tation of numbers? Nearly all communists, whether theoretical or practical, have faced in one way or another the population question. But the theoretical communists of our times have hardly found words strong enough to express their detestation of the principle'that any limitation is desirable to possible number of births. The writ.: ings of Malthus are spoken of as "an outrage on household life." Louis Blanc says it is blaspheming God to say that the prosperity of the poor would be promoted by a limi tation of the population. Why are you not logical ? he cries; if you were you would recommend that the children of the poor should be put to death. And in another place he speaks of "this political economy without bowels, of which Ricardo has so com placently fixed the premises, and from which Malthus has drawn in cold blood the most horrible conclusions. This political economy contained in itself a vice that was to make it fatal for England and for the world." But practical communists have met the ques tion of population in a different spirit. Several of the most successful realizations of communistic life have maintained the strictest celibacy among their numbers. The Essenes, who practiced community of goods before the Christian era, were a sect com posed entirely of men who lived in seclusion from the world, 'and were iii many import-.
ant respects the prototypes of Christian 'hermits or monks. Two of the most important communistic societies in the United States have also made celibacy an essential feature of their system. The Economists and the Shakers, dating back respectively to 1805 and 1792, are strictly celibate, their numbers being recruited from the outside world and to a slight extent by the adoption of pauper children and orphans. Among the _Moravian marriage is not permitted to take place without the consent of the heads of the society, who furnish the newly-married with a suitable marriage portion. The Separatists, another American community of German origin, established in 1817, favor celibacy although they do not enforce it. No marriage can take place without the consent of the trustees of the society; and they further discourage marriage by entering among the arti cles of their religion a declaration of their belief that celibacy is more in accordance with the divine will than marriage. The Amana, another American community of German origin dating from the last century, discourages marriage among its members, and no man is permitted to marry under 24 years of age. Even the Perfectionists, who have a most extraordinary system of complex marriage, take many precautions against a super abundant population. The number of births is controlled by the heads of the society. The practical answer made by the communists to the population question, even in so wealthy a country as the United States, in which unoccupied fertile land can be easily and cheaply obtained, is that a strict limitation of numbers is absolutely essential to their social and industrial well-being. As a matter of fact the population of nearly all the
American communistic societies has not increased at all, but has greatly declined during the last 50 years. In 1823 the Shakers numbered 3,800; in 1S74 they were only 2,415. The Icarians, the only American community which makes marriage compulsory, have declined in 25 years from 1500 to 65.
It should not, however, be concluded from these facts that the general adoption of C. would tend to strengthen the prudential checks on population. We have seen that modern communists, when freed from the trammels of actual experience of the daily working of the system which they advocate, have vigorously denounced the theory and practice of Malthasianism. The American communists have declined in numbers partly in consequence of the adoption into the communities of celibacy as a religious principle. It is also impossible to avoid the conclusion that their numbers have fallen off partly in consequence of the unattractive conditions of communistic life. The young members of these societies not unfrequently leave their when they arrive at manhood or womanhood. The routine and absence of spontanicty of a communistic life is a weight to young and active minds that is not counterbalanced by a security from want, or a mere breat•and-butter prosperity. The number of marriages and births have been controlled in others of these societies in virtue. of the absolute despotism which is vested in the chiefs; individual liberty is entirely suspended; the smallest minutitn of the daily life of their members is regulated from headquarters. "A govern ment which decides at what hour its subjects shall go to bed at night and rise in the morning, which prescribes the color, shape, and material of the dresses worn; the time of meals, the quality and quantity of food, and the daily task apportioned to each mem ber; which enforces a rule that each of its subjects shall leave every morning a notice stating at what exact spot he or 81.9 will be found during each hour of the day; a gov ernment which can do all these things will find no great difficulty in controlling the number of marriages and births. The fundamental principle of communal life is the subordination of the individual's will to the general interest, or the general will. Prac tically this takes the shape of unquestioning obedience by the members towards the elders or chiefs of their society." If, however, C. were adopted throughout a whole nation, the minute despotism which now distinguishes the government of existing com munistic societies, and which furnish them with an effectual control over the growth of population, would cease to be possible; or if, indeed, it should ever become possible it would be through the careful supervision of individual liberty, and through the strenu ous encouragement of everything which tended to destroy self reliance on the part of the people, and to build up the absolute power of the state. A people who purchased material prosperity at the price of their liberty would strike a bad bargain, especially when it is remembered that the limitation of the number of marriages and births which is enforced by the central authorities in a communistic society can be effected by volun tary self-control in a society based on private property and competition. The difference, therefore, as far as the population question is concerned, between communistic and private property is whether the necessary restraint upon the possible number of births shall proceed from the direct intervention of the state, or whether it shall proceed from the combined motives of self-interest, self-control, and parental obligation on the part of the people themselves. It should be remembered that what communists profess to be able to do is to insure to every member of a communistic society au ample supply of the necessaries and conveniences of life. If the population question is pressing when the almshouse and charitable contributions are the only refuge of those who cannot maintain themselves, would it not become much more pressing if a man could obtain freely, and without fulfilling any disagreeable conditions, food, house, and clothing, for himself, and as many children as he chose to bring into existence ? It is this considera tion which has forced upon .the goverment of communistic societies the control of the marriages and births of their members. Wherever the of C. are adopted iu so very materially modified a form as they are in the English poor-law system, legisla tive control over population has been enforced. The regulation which separates hus band and wife in the workhouse is a practical recognition of the principle that where the state guarantees a maintenance it must, in self-protection, exercise control over the members of those dependent on it for support. Self-help brings with it self-control; state help makes state control indispensable. In the present economic condition of society the solution of the population question is not to be found in placing in the hands of the state, as C. has done, absolute control over domestic life. The solution of the problem must be sought in education, in an improved standard of comfort, and a deter mination on the part of the people not to sink below it, and in a reform of the poor laws and in systems of indoor and outdoor relief.