Socialism in its first phase was not neces sarily democratic. Owen and Saint-Simon both appealed to those now in control of political and economic power to take the leadership in re form. Philanthropy played a great role in so cialism in this stage. and it was hoped that socialispi would be introduced by the ruling classes. Saint-Simonians emphasized the natural inequality of men, and Saint-Simon appealed to royalty to assist in the noble work of social re form. lie had a place for the King in his so cialist State, and the King was to be called the 'first industrial of his kingdom.' Even Ferdi nand Lassalle was monarchically inclined.
Socialists take a view of the State which in some respects suggests the position of Herbert Spencer and other individualists. They hold that under socialism the functions of the State along many lines will be greatly diminished. Crime, they think, will very nearly disappear, and pauperism will entirely cease. Standing armies will be abolished and a popular militia substituted therefor. The functions of the law eou•ts will also disappear, they maintain, with the abolition of private property in the instru ments of production, which is the fruitful cause of litigation. The chief function of government will be found in the administration of indus tries. They have, therefore. a conception of the State so different from that of the present State that they dislike the expression 'the State.' and abhor 'State' socialism. The word 'official' is also objected to because it suggests present bu reaucratic governments. The attitude of the or thodox socialist toward the State finds clear expression iu the work of the German socialist August Behel, Die Frau wad der Sorialismus (27th ed., 1896).
During the evolution of socialist thought which has just been sketched anarchism has be come separated from socialism. (See ANARCII IsT.) Among early socialists there were varia tions of opinions concerning government, and some like William Godwin (q.v.) were in clined to take an attitude of radical antagonism to government as such. We thus find anarchistic tendencies in socialism along with tendencies of a very different and altogether antagonistic sort. The cleavage gradually became more pronounced. Pierre Joseph Proudhon (q.v.) is frequently spoken of as the founder of anarchism, and in him we find the doctrines of anarchy reaching such a development that probably more than any one else he is to be designated as the founder, although his views are not worked out so clearly and systematically as those of his followers. For the sake of convenience we may take Proud hon's book What is Property? and the date of its appearance, 1840, as the beginning of modern anarchism. The form of anarchism founded by Proudhon is that of complete individualism. This type of anarchism has had some develop ment in the United States under the leadership of Benjamin R. Tucker, who for some years edited an organ called Liberty.
The anarchists of whom we hear most are of quite a different stripe, and their anarchism is. by way of distinction. known as anarchist
communism. This school of anarchy was found ed by Mikhail Bakunin (q.v.), and may be re garded as an outgrowth of the International Workingmen's Association, to which Bakunin belonged. Bakunin and Marx for a time worked together: they both regarded themselves as so cialists, :Marx calling himself a communist, and Bakunin describing himself as a collectivist. So cialism and anarchism were not at first recog nized as antagonistic principles, but the differ ences between them developed continuously. The anarchist communists ln:ld to the doctrine of associated effort and considered themselves as true communists, and not as individualists. They are radically opposed to piddle authority and believe that with the abolition of the State men will spontaneously form eoliperative associations which will voluntarily form fed erations for mutual aid. Like the socialists, the anarchists advocate a eoi;perative common wealth, but they differ from the socialists with respect to the organization of that commonwealth, and more especially in the methods whereby it is to be reached. The ques tion of tactics has been largely instrumental in the growth of hostility between socialists and anarchists. Anarchists deny that the State rests upon any ethical foundation, and consequently there can be no wrong in opposing government and seeking its overthrow. Government to the anarchist means force and nothing more, and the question of resisting it is one of expediency only. If the anarchists believe that they have a su perior force, they must necessarily attempt to overthrow organized government. Socialists, on the other band, take no such attitude of antago nism toward the State, although they may think and do think that the socialist State will be something different from the present State. They hold, moreover, that changes must emue about by evolutionary processes, and are opposed to insurrectionary movements where other means are open. Marx and Engels condemned violent methods very early in their career, and as so cialists have taken a part in the work of govern ment in the various countries of the civilized world, they have increasingly favored the main tenance of law' and order, believing that their ends can he achieved by legal means, and that if revolution does take place it will be brought about, not by them, but by their opponents. Some Socialists think that the adherents of the present social order, when they see the coming triumph of socialism by legal means, will them selves inaugurate a revolution. but the more con servative hold that all classes will gradually adjust themselves to the changes leading to socialism. The socialist to-day is the strongest opponent of anarchism, It was the socialists, not the German Government, who really drove Johann Most (q.v.), one of the leaders of com munist anarchism, from Germany, and it is the German Social Democrats who practically ex tinguished anarchism in their country.