Economists are not generally inclined to deny the evils in the existing economic order, but they believe that there is better prospect of improvement under this order than under social ism. They are social reformers, not socialists. They hold, first, that there is no law of evolu tion carrying us inevitably to socialism; sec ondly, that the prospects of social reform are sufficiently promising to warrant us in the maintenance of private property in the instru ments of production and private management of production; and, thirdly, that socialism carries with it dangers and disadvantages sufficiently grave to warrant us in opposing it until it is clearly seen that great improvements are not compatible with the present social order.
In its details the reasoning of economists against socialism is as varied as the reasoning of socialists in its support. To Narx's labor theory of value. economists oppose theories of value which differ in detail, but which agree in placing other forms of cost in coordination with labor in the determination of value. (See VALUE.) To the theory of class-eonsciousness and class-action on the part of wage-earners as the only means of reform, economists oppose what may he called a doctrine of social solidarity. They uniformly hold that all classes in society must work together for social improvement, and they do not believe that there is any such neces sary antagonism of interests among classes as this theory of elass-eonsciousness Modern economists recognize the evolutionary theory of society. and recently they have given generous recognition to Marx for his services in the formulation of this doctrine of evolution. Very few economists, however, hold that eco nomic causes alone underlie all social develop ment, and that the political and intellectual his tory of nations is a mere expression of a social organization resulting from the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange.
Socialism implies unified control of produc tion, and economists believe that the disad vantages of such control outweigh the advantages. Economic theory still rests upon the assumption that competition is a principle of progress. and that the advantages which it brings to a society far outweigh the disadvantages. Economists seek to point out means for the elevation of competition to higher planes and the removal of the evils which it carries with it, while retain ing the principle itself.
The difficulties in the way of the socialization of agriculture are emphasized in opposition to socialism. The economists claim that socialists
have pointed out no method whereby agriculture can be advantageously carried on, except by pri vate initiative and private effort. There can be little doubt that when agriculture is mentioned one of the weakest points in socialism is brought to our attention. Even should manufacturing industries, commerce, and transportation be car ried on as public enterprises, so long as agri culture remains private industry, based upon private property, society must still be something very different from socialism.
Two other points only in the arguments against socialism can be considered in this place. The first is the danger to liberty. It is main tained by defenders of our present economic so ciety that private property and private enter prise are necessary bulwarks of liberty, and that with these removed or impaired to the extent that they would be, even by the most conserva tive socialism. those having control of the agen cies of production would he given such vast power that liberty would be seriously threatened, and, indeed, overthrown by tyranny. A certain control of production would have to be exercised by individuals; and however these might be selected, they would have almost unlimited power in their hands over the destinies of other hu man beings. There seems to be strong ground for the belief that liberty is better protected in a society having the dualism which we know now, in accordance with which private property and private prodnction on the one hand, and public authority with limited public production on the other, are reciprocal checks and restraints.
Finally, it is urged that under socialism there would be revolutionary discontent. In a world like ours men must. necessarily be discontented with what they receive as an outcome of eco nomic production and with the treatment ac corded to them in the processes of economic production. At the present time this discon tent is directed toward a great many different persons and bodies. On the other hand, socialism means public ownership and public production, and those having control would be blamed for all mistakes and also for misfortunes, even pro vided we assume that they should do their best, and provided also that that best should be much better than anything we know at the present time. Government would be blamed, and this concentrated discontent, it is held, would be revo lutionary in character.