The social impulse has also affected Prot estanism in recent times. In Germany, the fanatical Hohenzollern court preacher, Stocker, organized what was called a Christian Social Workingmen's party, hut which was in reality more Anti-Semitic than either Chris tian or socialist. Friederich Naumann in the °nineties° also made an unsuccessful attempt to capture German Protestantism for a radical social reform policy. In France, the Protestants have been noted for their philanthropic organizations, but they have never been strong enough to create a powerful party of social reform. In England, the work of Maurice and Kingsley has been carried on by aggressive Anglicans, like Bishops West cott and Gore, who founded the Christian Socialist Union in 1889, and like John Neville Figgis, who formulated an elaborate theoretical justification of what might be called ecclesi astical syndicalism. In America Christian Socialism was founded in the late °eighties° by Josiah Strong, and Profs. Richard T. Ely and George D. Herron and received its most effect ive support from Prof. Walter Rauchcnbusch in his famous works, 'Christianity and the Social Crisis,' and 'Christianizing the Social Order) Other adherents to this point of view have been Professors Francis Peabody of Har vard, C. R. Henderson and Shailer Matthews of Chicago, Harry Ward of Boston, E. L. Earp of Drew and P. A. Parsons of Syracuse. The social point of view has attracted religious radicals as well as conservatives. Indeed, it is probable that the critical adherents to Chris tian doctrines are the most inclined to stress the social phases in Christianity, for with them the social and ethical elements are about all that remains to be saved and expanded.
8. The Newer Anarchism and the At tacks upon the Bourgeois National State.— Modern anarchism is a revolt against the op pressiveness of the agrarian or the capitalistic state. It is most significant that the two leading figures in the development of the modern anarchist movement have been Russians. At a time when modern industrialiim was creating new problems and bringing the necessity of modern democracy nearer to hand, the Russian autocracy tried to maintain a system of gov ernment as mediaeval and intolerant as at the time of Peter the Great. Michael Balcunin (1814-76) was the revolutionary propagandist of the two great leaders of modern anarchism. He paid little attention to the problem of the details of the future anarchist state, but re garded his chief task to be the spreading of the propaganda of hatred for the state and the organization of a movement committed to its destruction. To him the state appeared as the great and central engine of human oppression and its elimination seemed the one chief need of the time. Once the state was removed the task of the reconstruction of society on anarchistic principles could safely be left to the future generations. Hence, the work of Bakunin was chiefly the dissemination of the gospel of de struction, his views being most systematically expressed in his
the chief systematic and constructive writer on modern anarchism. According to him the ideal organization of society is the non-coercive com munity without private property and function ing perfectly through the operation of the principle of mutual aid or co-operation. To support his position he has not only made a theoretical defense of his system, but has also executed a thorough historical study of the im portance of the principle of mutual aid from the first animal societies to the present day and has brought forward a wealth of evidence to prove this the chief factor in social evolution, the happy operation of which was terminated by the rise of the modern dynastic and capital istic state, which has created most subsequent evils without in any way contributing to their effective removal. The communistic, co-opera tive and non-political group, then, is the goal of the philosophical anarchist. Human nature hav ing been perverted by political institutions, the removal of the latter will restore the pristine virtues of the race—a notion not far removed from the burden of Rousseau's famous second
The anarchistic views have also re ceived the support of such writers as the Rus sian, Leon Metchnikoff, and the Frenchmen, Elisee Reclus and Jean Grave. The economic program of the anarchists is not greatly differ ent from that of the socialists, as far as the in stitution of private property is concerned, but their political ideals are diametrically opposed: The socialist proposes a vast increase in state activity, while the anarchist desires the complete extinction of political authority and the substi tution of voluntary co-operation. The anarchists have erred in generalizing too much from Rus sian conditions, which have been incomparably worse than in the more democratic states of western Europe. Further, their movement is entirely unadapted to modern conditions. They are either antiquated or greatly ahead of their time. Voluntarily co-operation may have been possible in a small primitive group or it may be practicable in the far distant future when human nature shall have been perfected, but scarcely at the present time when imperfect humanity faces a complexity of problems of unprecedented volume and when the state is more than ever necessary. The anarchists have done good in showing how much oppression has resulted from autocratic states and in stressing the unexploited potentialities of co-operation, but the remedy would seem to lie in the im provement of the state through democracy and decentralization rather than in the extinction of political authority.