tion of the hiding-place is committed to a piece of parchment, which the possessor always carries on his person. Sometimes the wearer of one of these records is lost or devoured by tigers, and when this occurs his wealth is often never found again. 66 ELECTRIC COOKING.-The advent of electric cooking apparatus seems likely to evolve a highly scientific species of cook, with, we may be sure, highly up-to-date notions about the "living wage." Cookery," we are told by a daily contemporary in a description of the electric process, "is raised from the rule-ofthumb level to that of an exact science by the use of a graduated thermometer. For bread or puff pastry a temperature of 370° F. is required; for pork, veal, or ordinary pastry, 350°; for beef, 340°;" and so on. All this must mean a table of constants in the kitchen, with possible formule with different coefficients for jam tarts, mince pies, and Christmas puddings. Perhaps soms method of integrating the specific heats, latent heats, and density of the heterogeneous mass to be cooked will be found necessary before the tem. perature can be finally determined. will mean Royal Society Papers on the subject. Besides all this, the cooking appliances are depicted as being fitted with a whole bat tery of switches, various combinations of which, like the stops of an organ, will be necessary to produce various effects. ward," says our contemporary, in an account of the destructive distillation of a joint, "four of these switches are turned off, and the heat is applied from one side only." Just think of the high scientific knowledge required in order This "After. to be able to manipulate these cookery stops so as to produce any given thermal distribution on the three Cartesian axes of the kitchen oven!-Electrician. THE COMPREHENSION OF BUDDHISM.-What is Buddhism? Buddhism is the doctrine taught by Buddha Shakyamuni. The word "Buddha" is Sanscrit and the Japanese Satori, which means understanding. Indeed, it has three meanings-self comprehension, to let others comprehend, and perfect comprehension. Self-comprehension is to awaken one's self and to attain to the realm of truth by one's own effort. To let others comprehend means the work of transition-that is, to let others understand by one's own wisdom -that is humanity. When wisdom and humanity are developed thoroughly by one he may be called Buddha, or perfect comprehension. In Buddhism we have Buddha as our Saviour, the spirit incarnate of absolute selfsacrifice and divine compassion, and the embodiment of all that is pure and good. Buddha was a man as we are, but he, unlike us, knew the truth of the universe and cultivated the higher elements of his nature. Buddha was one who was developed from a lower being. So when we attain the ultimate point by gradual development there should be no place that is not lightened by the light of our mind, and we can save the world using our power freely. That being who has humanity and wisdom in perfection is Buddha. Brooklyn Times. WOMEN DOCTORS IN RUSSIA. -In all there are about seven hundred women doctors in Rus sia, and many of these occupy important positions in hospitals and workhouses, in educational establishments, in factories and works of various kinds, and in Government institu. tions, while others hold appointments in the service of municipal bodies. The remunera. tion for these different posts varies from about £200 downward. So far as private practice is concerned, there is one woman doctor who makes an income of £1800 per annum—a phenomenally good record. But the average in come of the woman medical practitioner in private practice is something under £300 a year. A CURIOUS RECOVERY.-Canon MacColl quotes, in the Spectator, a remarkable case related to him by a physician who had been a pupil of Sir Charles Bell, the eminent author of "The Bridgewater Treatise on the Hand.” Sir Charles used to tell the following story to his class A surgeon who went over the field of Waterloo after the battle found a man lying with his scalp cut off by a sabre stroke. He picked up the scalp, and finding the man breathing, though unconscious, he ordered him to be placed among the wounded, clapping at the same time the severed scalp on his head, in order that it might be buried with him, for he did not expect that the poor man would recover. The following day, however, he found the man conscious, and his scalp adhering to his head, but with the ends reversed; for the surgeon, thinking the man was dying, took no pains to fix the scalp properly. The man recovered, but had to wear his scalp the wrong end forward. I. FABIAN ECONOMICS. BY W. H. MALLOCK. WHAT DOES SOCIALISM MEAN? SOCIALISM is a word which is, by many people, used in senses so vague and so contradictory, as often to deprive it of all arguable meaning. Were the matter one of mere verbal propriety, everybody who is touched by a knowledge of social suffering, and desires to relieve it by organized action of any kind, would no doubt by the derivation of the word be equally justified in claiming for himself the name of Socialist. But it must be remembered that with precisely the same justification we might call a crow a blackbird, or a Newfoundland dog a water-wagtail. The practical meaning of a word is determined, not by its etymology, but its most definite and distinctive use; and the word NEW SERIES.-VOL. LIX., No. 4. Socialism, as everybody really knows, possesses a meaning more or less definitely fixed; and does not mean merely a desire to relieve social suffering, but a belief that social suffering is due to certain special causes, and a consequent desire to relieve it by special and peculiar methods. It is known, further, that these methods, whatever may be their details, would involve the destruction of institutions and principles which have hitherto been considered the foundations of all society and civilization; and in especial the institution, as it now exists, of private property. much about Socialism the general public knows, and so far as it goes this is all perfectly true; but the general public knows little more than this, and what it does not know it makes up for by guesses and assumptions, which are 28 So for the most part wrong. Such being the case, I shall endeavor in the clearest, the briefest, and the fairest way possible, to explain what Socialism is, as formulated by its most competent exponents; and having thus set before the reader its main and most essential elements, I shall fix his attention on those of them which differentiate it from other systems; and isolating them from the rest, I shall point out the fallacies which underlie them. We must begin by observing that Socialism, in a perfectly definite sense, has meant and may mean three different things, which are, however, by no means mutually exclusive-a conspiracy, a party, and a creed. But in this country, at all events, it does not mean a conspiracy; nor can it as yet be even regarded as a party. It is indeed struggling to form itself into a party; but it is doing this by ordinary constitutional means; and so far it is not peculiar, and calls for no comment. There is, in short, nothing peculiar about it except the creed to which, if ever it becomes a party, it will aim at giving effect. Socialism, therefore, as it now exists, may be defined as a body of economic and social doctrines, resulting in certain conclusions as to the future possibilities of society-possibilities which Socialists as a party will endeavor to make actual. It is therefore as a body of social and economic doctrines that we must consider it, if we would understand to any purpose its character and its prospects. First, however, let us ask this: How, or how far, can these distinctive doctrines be identified? For there are Socialists of various sects, just as there are Christians; and about certain points they rival Christians in their disagreement. This is true; but among the more thoughtful Socialists-those who, so to speak, have the intellectual charge of the movement-though disagreement about secondary points may grow, about certain primary points there is a growing clearness and agreement. It is to these last points that I propose now to confine myself; and in order to show the reader what they are, I shall make use of a volume which has been issued, with a similar purpose, by a society of English Socialists, who, whatever their 66 importance as a practical force may be, are the ablest, the clearest, and most practical exponents in this country of what Socialism really is. The society I allude to calls itself The Fabian Society"; and it must be known to the reader of The Fortnightly Review by a political manifesto lately published in these pages, even if it is known to him in no other way. Societies for propagating views are apt to seem ridiculous; it may therefore be not superfluous for me to say that the writers of the present volume-for it consists of essays by several writers are persons of high education, and trained powers of reasoning; that they are fully conversant with the orthodox theory of economics; that many of the orthodox doctrines form part of their own system, and have been adapted by them to new purposes in a most plausible and ingenious way; that many of their own views and arguments are highly suggestive and valuable; and that the principal writer, Mr. Sidney Webb, is a lecturer on Political Economy at the City of London College. This volume, then, which is called Fabian Essays in Socialism, may be taken as exhibiting Socialism in its most favorable and most reasonable aspect. To this volume we will now proceed to refer. Between some of the writers there are minor differences of opinion; and some of them on minor points are not quite consistent with themselves. But matters like these are trifles. In dealing with a book of this kind our object must be to criticise not the way in which a case is stated, but the case itself; and any chance defect in the mere statement of it we ought to remedy, rather than dwell upon, if we would criticise it to any advantage. What we want is to see how much truth certain men have got hold of; not to waste time in quarrelling over the manner in which they have managed to express it. II. SOCIALISM AS PRESENTED TO US BY ITS INTELLECTUAL LEADERS. Socialism, then, as these writers are careful to tell us, is " not a religion"it is par excellence "a property-form"; it is the scheme of an industrial sys tem for the supply of the material requisites of human social existence." Socialists see civilization in some ways steadily advancing. They see that in all civilized countries the aggregate income produced every year is constantly increasing far faster than the population produces it. And yet, in spite of this, they see poverty on all sides of them. The increasing wealth seems to accumulate in the hands of a limited class; while the great masses of the community are face to face with starvation; and are saved from it only by the sale of their labor and their liberty to others. And this condition of things, which would have been miserable enough at any time, is being rendered more intolerable by the education which makes men reflect upon it, and by a consciousness of political power which inspires them with hopes of changing it. Such is contemporary society as seen and depicted by the Socialists generally, and by the Fabian essayists in particular; and Socialism, as a reasoned system, consists, first, of an analysis of the causes of the condition of things; and, secondly, of doctrines as to the means by which it is to be revolutionized for the better. In their analysis of the causes of the existing social system, economic science owes a great debt to the Socialists. They have imported into it something which was before altogether wanting to it, namely, the historical and the comparative method. The older economists accepted the facts around them, as if they were part of the immutable order of nature. The Socialists have thrown a new light upon the problem, by giving prominence to the fact that such is not the case, and that certain of the most salient features of our present industrial system have only developed themselves fully during the past five generations, while a few centuries ago they were altogether absent. The chief of these new features are Capital, as we now know it, and the position of the ordinary laborer with regard to the conditions of his labor. In the Middle Ages, as the Socialist school has effectively pointed out, the position and occupation of the laborer were settled for him by birth and status. "Agricul 66 ture," as one of the Fabian essayists says, was organized in the feudal manor; . . . handicraft was ordered by the guilds of the towns; . . . every man had his class, and every class its duties." That is to say, in one way or another, every man was, by the very constitution of society, assured of access to the means of providing for himself a suitable livelihood. This picture, though incomplete, contains much that is true and pertinent, and accepting it for the moment as the Socialists present it to us, let us see how to account for the change which society has undergone since. Many Socialistic agitators, of the more foolish and ignorant kind, have sought to explain all the evils which they denounce, by attributing them to the exceptional wickedness of the rich and the capitalistic classes. But the men to whom Socialism owes its existence as a reasoned system do nothing of this kind, except, perhaps, in momentary fits of temper. On the contrary, their entire method of dealing with the question puts on one side these crude and angry puerilities; and they see that even the worst of the evils which arouse their pity or their indignation, are due to the action of men who were neither better nor more wicked than their fellows, but who each pursued the course that seemed best to him, entirely unconscious of the changes he was instrumental in producing. In a word, the Socialists, in their explanation of economic changes, are sober and dispassionate Evolutionists. They are the very reverse of what many people take them to be. Thus, as one of the writers in the Fabian volume says, the old social order collapsed only because "it was burst by the growth of the social organism;" and "the main stroke in the industrial revolution was contributed," as Mr. Sidney Webb emphatically says, not by the designing policy of any individual capitalist, but by the inventions of men like "Newcomen, Watt, and Arkwright." And now comes the part of their creed which is important practically. Just as the existing social state has been evolved out of a state that was widely different from it, so out of it in turn will be evolved another equally differ ent. Just as the feudal system has passed away, so, by the same power, will pass the Capitalistic system; not because theoretically men consider it "immoral or absurd," but because it is being gradually" burst by the growth of the social organism." This transformation, the Socialists maintain, is in progress now around us, and has been in progress for the past sixty years. The very capitalists themselves, and politicians who hate the name of Socialism, are unconsciously working for it, and hastening it on. Indeed, all that the Socialists think it possible for themselves to do, is consciously to guide and accelerate a movement which would anyhow, sooner or later, accomplish itself without their aid. They are, let me repeat, Evolutionists, as distinct from revolutionists. Any violent revolution, supposing it to be successful, would, according to them, be only a sign, and not a cause, of progress. It would only be a chance turbulence on the surface of a great current. But the whole tenor of their teaching is that it would, as a fact, be not successful; that it would defeat its own object, and result in temporary retrogression. The Fabian essayists argue this point very acutely. Their ultimate aim is, as we shall see presently, the complete expropriation of what they call the possessing classes; but they realize that any violent or even sudden expropriation, would not only ruin the rich, but a good half of the entire community also. "The result," says the editor of the essays, "would considerably take its advocates aback. The streets would be filled with starving workers of all grades. . . . They would cry, Back with the good old times, when we received our wages, which were at least better than nothing.' In practical earnest," he proceeds, "the State has no right to take five farthings of capital from anybody, until it is able to invest them in productive enterprise." Therefore, the Socialists argue, the process of taking must be gradual, but none the less will it be sure, and each year its speed tends to accelerate. It has, in fact, begun already. It began years ago. It began with the establishment of the Income Tax. "Then," say the Fabian essay ists, "the thin end of the wedge went in. The Income Tax," they declare, "is simply a forcible transfer of rent, interest, and even rent of ability, from private holders to the State, without compensation ;" and, so far as the mere process of expropriation is concerned, the full development of Socialism will be merely the gradual extension of taxation of this kind. Expropriation, however, is merely a means to an end. The State would do no good by taking all this money and locking it up; and it would do only evil by scattering it as an indiscriminate largess. The sole object of taking it is to use it as Capital, with which to pay the wages of productive labor. But before the State can pay the wages of labor, it must first become master of the complicated organization of labor; and this it can do by degrees only. Consequently its spoliation of the private landowners and capitalists must take place by degrees also. Let us, for instance, take the case of the iron trade. The Socialists' programme is that the State, by means of income tax, shall ultimately take the entire profits of the iron-masters, and with these buy up their property; just as if one man has a glass of beer and twopence, and another man takes the twopence and buys the glass of beer with it. But it would be suicidal for the State thus to treat the iron-masters until, firstly, other industries had accommodated themselves to the change; and, secondly, till the State was in a position to manage the production of iron with at least as much skill and economy as the present generation of employers. The development of the State, however, as the general employer of labor has begun already, and daily goes on apace. The municipalization of tramways, gas-works and water-works are the most important recent examples, and the most significant; while the most important, as well as the oldest, is the Post Office. The State, then, has only to proceed on the course on which it has embarked already. From supplying towns with gas and water, it will go on to supply them with boots, with coats, with bread, butter, and so forth, until at last it has become the universal manufacturer, farmer, merchant, shopkeeper, |