The attitude of socialism toward the family has varied, hut now it has become a definite one of neutrality. Early socialists were inclined to assume a general position of radicalism with respect to all institutions of society, seeing more quickly and easily the disadvantages of any present social arrangement than its advantages. Moreover, the early socialists found the family to be the basis of the economic society which they attacked. Marriage in its present form seemed to them to carry with it the oppression of woman. It cannot be said that socialism ever had a dis tinct doctrine of the family, but until recent years it was inclined to what would be termed at least lax notions of the marriage tie, holding that the bond of union between man and woman should be love alone, and that when love dis appeared, there disappeared with it the recipro cal obligations of marriage. Socialists of the present time do not see any reason why they should have a peculiar view of the family, and they are not in this particular distinguished from other people.
The attitude of socialism toward religion has undergone a similar change. The Church as one of the institutions of existing society long ap peared to the socialist to be a bulwark of op pression. Modern socialism, however, has sep arated the economic question from the religious question, and now everywhere regards religion as a 'private matter.' The position of socialists toward religion the world over is much like that which finds expression in the constitutional sys tem of the United States. Anything like a Church State, o• public support of religion, is de nounced, but it is not proposed to interfere with any individuals who may desire to maintain by their own voluntary contributions any church organization or religious sect.
Readers of current socialistic literature fre quently find a sharp distinction drawn between what is termed Utopian socialism and scientific socialism. Socialism before the ascendency of Marx was very largely Utopian in character. The early socialist looked upon society as an artificial product and thought it possible to de velop a scheme of society which, if introduced, would bring with it a real earthly paradise. It was thought That the very nature of man could be changed by a wisely deviled scheme of social ism. Owen's most fundamental social doctrine was that circumstances form the character of man, and that right circumstances would give us right-minded and right-acting human beings. In the latter part of the eighteenth century the idea of society as a growth with laws of its own had not been clearly grasped, and adherents of pri vate property, as well as communists, believed in the possibility of the most fundamental changes by means of a revolution which could take place over night. The result of this attitude was the
elaboration of all sorts of fantastic schemes. Owen planned his communistic villages of two or three thousand, but the highest develop ment of purely artificial plans is found in Fou rierism (q.v.), with its phalanxes and phalan stories. The modern socialist plumes himself upon his science, and has a lofty scorn for all Utopian socialism. He may admit that it had its historical meaning, and have a certain tolera tion for it as something belonging to the past, but when he meets it at the present time he views it with even more contempt than does the ordinary economist. The modern socialist studies the laws of society, and is a careful student of English blue books and the statistical publica tions of the United States Census Office. He despises sentimentalism and desires to replace appeals to philanthropy with historical re searches and carefully elaborated deductive rea soning.
An adequate treatment of the character of this alleged science which underlies socialism re quires at least a brief examination of the socio economic philosophy of Karl Marx, since it occupies a central position in the economics of socialism. The doctrines of Marx are still held in the main by the great body of socialists, and they underlie the platforms of socialist parties throughout the world. The variations in cialist doctrines appear as departures from Marx. Some of these variations are radical, but still they bear relation to Marx.
Marx opens his work on Capital with an ex planation of value. He finds that the element in economic goods which gives and measures value is labor. Labor has its exchange value, and this is governed by the cost of labor, and the cost of labor is determined by the subsistence of the laborer in accordance with his standard of life. The employer of labor pays in wages the cost of labor, but the laborer, according to Marx, produces more than this cost, and the difference between what the labo•er produces and the wages of labor he designates as surpins value. This surplus value Marx regards as the source of all rent, interest, and profits. All value, accord ing to the doctrines of Marx, is produced by labor and belongs to labor. Labor receiving, however, only subsistence wages, Marx holds that it is robbed of surplus value, which, through the processes of production and exchange, is trans ferred to the non-wage-earning classes. Marx maintains that it is only through socialism that labor can receive the full value which it pro duces, so that surplus value will disappear. This doctrine, while still accepted by perhaps the majority of socialists, is rejected by some, and generally receives less emphasis than formerly.