3. The Rise of Scientific The general science of society, or sociology, took its origin, as Professor Small has made clear, from the social conditions and reform programs of the first half of the 19th century, which called for some objective science capable of weighing the merits and detecting the defects in the many plans for social reform. Saint-Simon had recognized the need for such a science and it was founded by his disciple, Auguste Comte, and by Herbert Spencer, though there can be no doubt that the science would sooner or later have come into existence had these men never written. Since their day sociology has at tracted many students and many schools of sociologists have developed, each embodying some fertile method of approach to the diverse problems with which sociology must concern itself. Comte, Spencer, Giddings, Ward and Hobhouse have developed comprehensive systems of social philosophy; the methodology of the science has been perfected by such men as Le Play, Durkheim Small, Simmel and the statisticians, such as otietelet, Jevons, Galton, Pearson, Bowley, Mayo-Smith, Willcox, Chad dock, Hankins, Durand and others; the bio logical point of approach has been cultivated by the Organicists like Lilienfeld, Schaeffle, Worms and Roberty and by their more critical successors; psychological sociology has been advanced by Bagehot, Wallas, Trotter, TOnnies, Tarde, Durkheim, Le Bon, Sighele, Ross, Ellwood, Cooley and Sumner; the conflict be tween social groups and interests has been dealt with by Gumplowicz, Ratzenhofer, Oppen heimer, Small and Bentley; the historical mode of approach has attracted Thomas, Hobhouse, Giddings, Westermarck and Durkheim; the significance of geographical factors has been shown by Ratzel, Reclus, Brunhes and Semple; while close contact with social reform has been made by the scientific students of philanthropy like Webb, Devine and Taylor and a sound basis for social legislation has been formulated by Jethro Brown, Pound, Freund and Lindsay. The attitude of sociologists toward state activity has varied greatly. Comte believed in a thorough program of social reform, but Dar winian bioloey affected sociology much as New tonian mechanics had affected nolitical and economic thought for two centuries before. Sociologists of individualistic leanings, like Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner, interpreted the Darwinian doctrine to mean that social institutions, like the animal organ ism, evolved in a spontaneous and automatic manner and that human efforts could only be harmful — a view similar to that entertained by the Physiocrats toward interference with the °natural order" of physical and social phenomena. Others, particularly Profs. Lester F. Ward and Leonard T. Hobhouse, have con tended that, while the earliest stages of social evolution are spontaneous, there comes a time when social progress may be artificially con trolled and accelerated by the conscious direc tion of mankind. This dividing line will ap parently be reached when statesmen shall have evolved into sociologists. Most sociologists, following Jevons, have avoided dogmatism on this point and have shown that laissez-faire and state socialism are policies which may each have their virtues in proportion as they are adapted to a given society, but sociologists are more and more coming to leave the individualist point of view and to stand with Ward and Hobhouse in favoring extensive state activity. While it can scarcely be said that every sociolo gist is on that account a talented statesman, it is certain that no scientific program of social reform can be formulated independent of sociological investigations or divorced from sociological principles.
4. The Development of Mandan or °Scien tific)) The origins of the so-called °scientific" socialism are generally an:I correctly associated with the work of Karl Marx (1818 83) and Friedrich Engels (1820-95). As
Prof. Bertrand Russell has well said, "Socialism as a power in Europe may be said to begin with Marx. It is true that before his time there were Socialist theories, both in England and in France. It is also true that in France, during the Revolution of 1848, Socialism for a brief period acquired considerable influence in the State. But the Socialists who preceded Marx tended to indulge in Utopian dreams and failed to found any strong or stable political party. To Marx, in collaboration with Engels, are due both the formulation of a coherent body of Socialist doctrine, sufficiently true or plausible to dominate the minds of vast numbers of men and the formation of the International Socialist movement, which has continued to grow in all European countries throughout the last 50 years." It would probably be futile to attempt to indicate all the sources of Marx's views, for he read deeply in all the literature of his age and was in contact with most of the tendencies of his period, but a few of his more conspicu ous obligations may be set down. To Hegel he was indebted for his dialectical system and his faith in state activity; his materialistic philosophy of history he took from Feuerbach; the labor theory of value was derived from Ricardo and Rodbertus; the doctrine of surplus value was found by Marx in the writings of Thompson; the notion of a class conflict and of the necessity of a proletarian upheaval was found in the works of Louis Blanc, Proudhon and Weitling; while from Sismondi he re ceived his conviction that the capitalists would be weakened by the progressive concentration of wealth in the hands of a few men of great possessions. The 'Communist Manifesto,' a document drawn up by Marx and Engels for the German Communist League in Paris in January 1848, contained the essence of Marxian socialism. This begins with the economic in terpretation of history, the contention that the prevailing systems of the production and dis tribution of wealth determine the accompany-__ ina social and political institutions. Then comes the labor theory of value, the belief that labor produces all value. From this is derived the doctrine of surplus value by pointing to the difference between the total social income and that received by labor. This difference is the surplus value created by labor and out of which it is exploited by the capitalist. Hence there arises the notion of an inevitable and ir reconcilable struggle between the proletariat and the capitalists. This cannot but terminate in the overthrow of the latter, for they are being continually weakened by the steady con centration of wealth in the hands of their more powerful representatives, while the proletariat will become progressively stronger through party organization and the obtaining of the suf trage. When they shall have secured a ma jority in the law-making bodies of the several states the proletariat will rise up and expro priate their oppressors and institute the regime of social and economic democracy which Marx predicted but wisely refrained from describing in detail. These doctrines were elaborated with greater thoroughness and in more ponderous and obscure language in the work on 'Capital' begun by Marx and completed by Engels. The enduring theoretical contributions of Marx are his economic interpretation of history and his extremely effective criticism of the individual istic industrialism of the first half of the 19th century, the latter of which °cannot but stir into fury any passionate working-class reader, and into unbearable shame any possessor of capital in whom generosity and justice are not wholly extinct." Few if any of Marx's other major doctrines are now regarded as possessing sub stantial validity.