The Psychology of Socialism

Gustave Le Bon

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138537965
• eBook ISBN: 9781351475891
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Communism, Post-Communism & Socialism
• Index: Politics & International Relations

First published in 1899 during a period of crisis for French democracy, The Psychology of Socialism details Le Bon's view of socialism and radicalism primarily as religious movements. The emotionalism and hysteria of the period-especially as manifested during the Dreyfuss Affair-convinced Le Bon that most political controversy is based neither on reasoned deliberation nor rational interest, but on a psychology that partakes of contatgion andhysteria. Le Bon points to the irrationality of religion and uses the religiosity of socialism to debunk socialism as an irrational movement based on hatred and jealousy.

Book III
Socialism as Affected by Race

Chapter I
Socialism in Germany

I. The theoretical bases of Socialism in Germany:—The scientific forms of German Socialism—Difference between the fundamental principles of German and Latin Socialism—Latin rationalism, and the evolutionist conception of the world—Starting from different fundamental principles, German and Latin Socialism arrive at practically identical conclusions. 2. The modem evolution of Socialism in Germany:—The artificial means by which Germany has arrived at a Socialist concept identical with that of the Latin races—Transformations produced in the German mind by the universal military régime—The progressive absorption by the State in Germany—The present transformation of Socialism in Germany—The old theories abandoned—German Socialism tends to assume an anodyne form.

1. The Theoretical Bases of Socialism in Germany

IT is in Germany that Socialism has to-day made the greatest strides, above all among the middle and upper classes. The history of Socialism in Germany is altogether beyond the scope of this volume, and if I devote a few pages to it, I do so only because the evolution of Socialism in Germany might, at the first view, seem to contradict my theory of the strict relation which exists between the social conceptions of a nation and the mind of that nation. Between the minds of France and of Germany there are assuredly profound differences, and yet the Socialists of the two countries arrive at identical conceptions.

Before inquiring why the theorists of two so different races should arrive at conclusions so similar, let us first observe in what manner the German methods of reasoning differ from those of the Latin theorists.

The Germans, after having been for a long time inspired by French ideas, are now inspiring these ideas in their turn. Their provisional pontiff, for they change him often, is to-day Karl Marx. His task has principally consisted in attempting to give a scientific shape to very old and common ideas, borrowed, as a brilliant economist, M. Paul Deschanel, has very well shown, from French and English writers. This leaning towards a scientific spirit is a characteristic quality of the German Socialists, and entirely significant of the national mind. Far from regarding Socialism, as do their Latin equivalents, as an arbitrary organisation, able to establish and enforce itself here, there, and everywhere, they see in it only the inevitable development of economic evolution, and they profess an utter disdain of the geometrical constructions of our revolutionary rationalism. They teach that there are no more permanent economic laws than permanent natural laws, but only transitory forms. " Economic ideas are by no means logical ideas, but historical ideas." The value of social institutions is entirely relative, never absolute. Collectivism is a phase of evolution into which all societies, by the mere fact of modern economic evolution, must of necessity enter.

This evolutionist conception of the world is certainly as far removed as possible from the rationalism of the Latins, which, after the fashion of our fathers of the Revolution, wishes to destroy absolutely and absolutely to reconstruct society.

Although they have set out from different principles, in which may be found the fundamental characteristics of the two races, both German Socialists and Latin Socialists arrive exactly at the same conclusions—reconstruct society by making the State absorb it. The first desire to effect this reconstruction in the name of evolution, of which, they maintain, it is the consequence. The second wish to effect a demolition, in the name of reason. But the societies of the future appear to them in identical forms. Both profess the same hatred of private enterprise and capital, the same indifference towards liberty, the same craving for forming people into brigades, and for ruling them with an iron discipline. Both demand the destruction of the modern State; but both would reconstruct it, immediately, under another name, with an administration which would differ from the modern State only in its possession of more extensive powers.

2. The Modern Evolution of Socialism in Germany

State Socialism is, among the Latin peoples, as I shall presently show, a consequence of their past; of century on century of centralisation, and the progressive development of the central power. Among the Germans it is not precisely this; they have been led to a conception of the duty of the State identical with that entertained by the Latin peoples by certain artificial factors. With them, this conception is the result of the transformation of character and conditions of life which has been effected during a century by the extension of the universal military regime. This, by the more enlightened of the German writers, notably by Ziegler, has been perfectly recognised. The only means by which the mind, or at least the customs and the conduct of a nation, can be modified, is a rigid military discipline. It is the only means against which the individual is powerless to struggle. It makes him part of an hierarchy, and prohibits all sentiments of enterprise and independence. He may severely criticise its dogmas, but how can he dispute the orders of a chief who has the right of life and death over his subalterns, and can reply to the most humble observation by imprisonment?

So long as it has not been universal, the military regime has constituted an admirable means of tyranny and conquest. It has been the strength of all the nations who have succeeded in developing it; none could have subsisted without it. But the present age has introduced universal military service. Instead of acting, as formerly, on a very small portion of the nation, it acts on the entire mind of the nation. One may study best its effects in countries where, as in Germany, it has reached its highest development. No discipline, not even of the convent, more completely sacrifices the individual to the community; none more nearly approaches the social type dreamed of by the Socialists. Prussian martinetry, in one century, has transformed Germany, and adapted her admirably to submit to State Socialism. I recommend those of our young professors who are in search of subjects a little less commonplace than those which too often content them to a study of the transformations effected, during the nineteenth century, in the social and political ideals of Germany, by the application of compulsory and universal military service.

Modern Germany, ruled by the Prussian monarchy, is not the product of the slow evolution of history; its present unity was effected only by force of arms, after the Prussian victories over France and Austria. A large number of small kingdoms, formerly very prosperous, were suddenly united by Prussia, under a power practically absolute. It established, on the ruins of local and provincial life, a powerful centralisation, recalling that in France under Louis Quatorze and Napoleon. Such regime of centralisation must infallibly produce, before long, the effects which it everywhere has produced; the destruction of local life, above all of intellectual life; the destruction of private enterprise; the progressive absorption of all functions by the State. History shows us that these great military monarchies prosper only when they have eminent men at their heads, and as these eminent men are rare they never prosper for very long.

The absorption of functions by the State has been the more easy in Germany, in that the Prussian monarchy, having acquired a great prestige by its successful wars, is able to exercise a power almost absolute, which is not the case in those countries whose Governments, destroyed by frequent revolutions, find many obstacles to the exercise of power. Germany to-day is the great centre of authoritativeness, and will not much longer be the home of any liberty whatever.

One readily understands how Socialism, which demands the wider and wider extension of the intervention of the State, should have found in Germany a soil excellently prepared. Its development could not have been displeasing to the government of a nation so hierarchical, so enregimented, as modern Germany. For a long time, accordingly, the Socialists were regarded with a very benevolent eye. They were protégés of Bismarck at first, and might have continued so, had they not finally become troublesome to the Government by a very maladroit opposition.

Since then they have not been considered; and as the German Empire is a military monarchy, very well able, despite its constitutional form, to become an absolute monarchy, the Socialists have been treated in an energetic and summary manner. In two years only, from 1894 to 1896, according to the Worwartz, the courts have inflicted on the Socialists, in press or political cases, penalties to the total sum of 226 years of imprisonment, and £112,000 in fines.

Whether it be that such radical proceedings have made the Socialists reflect, or simply that the gradual enslavement of the mind produced by a severe and universal military rule has made its imprint on the already very practical and highly disciplined mind of the German people, it is certain that to-day Socialism among the Germans is beginning to assume a very mild form. It is becoming opportunist, is establishing itself on an exclusively parliamentary footing, and renounces the immediate triumph of its principles.

The extinction of the capitalist classes and the suppression of monopoly no longer appears more than a theoretic ideal, whose realisation must be very distant. German Socialism teaches to-day that " as bourgeois society was not created in a day, it cannot be destroyed in a day." More and more it is tending towards union with the democratic movement in favour of the amelioration of the working classes, of which the most practical and surely the most useful result has been the development of co-operative associations of workmen.

I fear, therefore, that we must renounce the hope I have elsewhere expressed—the hope that the Germans might be the first to undergo the instructive experience of Socialism. Evidently they prefer to leave this task to the Latin races.

Moreover, it is not only in practice that the German Socialists are becoming more docile. Their theorists, formerly so absolute, so unbridled, are gradually abandoning the essential points of their doctrines. Collectivism itself, so powerful for so long, is now regarded as a somewhat frail and played-out Utopia, without real interest, though good enough perhaps for the thick-headed public. The German mind was undoubtedly too scientific and too practical not to see, finally, the singular poverty of the doctrine for which our French Socialists still preserve such a religious respect.

It is interesting to note the easy and rapid evolution of German Socialism, not only in the details of its theories, but in their most fundamental parts. For example: Schultze Delitsch, who at one time possessed much influence, used to attach a great importance to the cooperative movement, which he thought of value " to habituate the people to rely on their own initiative for the bettering of their condition." Lasalle and all his followers have always upheld, on the contrary, that " what the people required above all was a more extensive recourse to the assistance of the State."

The doctrine of Schultze Delitsch represents the very negation of Socialism, unless we give the word the very vague and very general sense of the amelioration of the conditions of existence of the greater number. This doctrine is by no means honoured in Germany to-day. The appeal to individual initiative, on the contrary, is a characteristic of the peoples we are now going to consider.

Chapter II
Socialism in England and America

1. The Anglo-Saxon conceptions of the State, and of education :—A nation is affected, not by the political system it may adopt, but by the conception it holds of the respective duties of the State and the individual—The Anglo-Saxon social ideal—This ideal remains the same under the most various political systems—The mental characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon—Differences between his private and collective morality —Solidarity and energy—Anglo-Saxon diplomatists—How the qualities of the race are preserved by education—Characteristics of the Anglo Saxon education—The results. 2. The social ideals of the Anglo-Saxon workers:—Education of the workers—How they become employers—Rarity of social failures—Why manual work is not despised among the Anglo-Saxons — Administrative capacities of the Anglo-Saxon workers—How acquired—Working men are often made justices of the peace in England—How the Anglo-Saxon worker defends his interests against his employer—Aversion of the English working man for State intervention—The American working man—Industry and private enterprise in America—Collectivism and anarchy in England and America—Their disciples are gathered only from inferior trades exercised by the less capable workers—The army of Socialists in the United States—It will be necessary to fight against it.

1. The Anglo-Saxon Conceptions of the State, and of Education

IT is above all in comparing the conceptions of the State held respectively by the English and the Latins that we perceive clearly that institutions are the outcome of race, and also to what an extent similar names may conceal profoundly dissimilar things. We may, as did Montesquieu, and many another, discourse upon the advantages, as far as we can perceive them, which a republic offers over a monarchy, or the reverse; but if, under such dissimilar systems, we find nations possessing identical social conceptions, and very similar institutions, we must conclude that these political systems, nominally so different, have no real influence over the minds of the nations they are supposed to rule.

I have already insisted on this absolutely fundamental thesis in my preceding volumes. In my volume on the psychologic laws of the evolution of nations I have shown, with regard to neighbouring peoples, the English of the United States and the Latins of the Spanish American republics, that their evolution has not been the same, although their political institutions are very similar, those of the latter being in general copied from those of the former. Yet, while the great Anglo-Saxon republic is in the heyday of prosperity, the Spanish-American republics, notwithstanding an admirable soil and inexhaustible natural wealth, are in the lowest slough of decadence. Without arts, without commerce, without industries, they have one and all fallen into decay, bankruptcy, and anarchy. They have had so very many men at the head of affairs that a few of them must have been capable; but none have been able to alter the course of their destinies.

The political system which a nation adopts is not a matter of great importance. This vain exterior costume is, like all costumes, without real influence on the mind of those it covers. The thing important to know, in order to comprehend the evolution of a nation, is the conception it holds of the respective duties of the State and the individual. The name, be it of monarchy or republic, inscribed on the pediment of the social edifice, has no virtue of itself.

What I am about to say concerning the conception of the State in England and America will justify the foregoing assertions. Having already presented, in the above-mentioned volume, the characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon mind, I shall confine myself at present to briefly summing them up.

Its most essential qualities may be stated in a few words—enterprise, energy, strength of will, and, above all, self-control; that is to say, that internal discipline which makes it needless for the individual to seek other guides than himself.

The social ideal of the Anglo-Saxons is very clearly defined, whether under the English monarchy or the republic of the United States. It consists in reducing the functions of the State to a minimum, and increasing the functions of the individual to a maximum, precisely the contrary of the Latin ideal. Railways, seaports, universities, schools, &c., are created solely by private enterprise, and the State—above all in America—has never any voice in such matters.

A fact that prevents other peoples from properly understanding the English character is that they forget to draw a very distinct line of demarcation between the individual conduct of the Englishman and his collective conduct. His individual morality is, as a general thing, very strict. The Englishman acting in the character of a private person is extremely conscientious, extremely honest, and respects his engagements in general; but English statesmen, acting in the name of the collective interests of England, are of quite another complexion. They are often completely without scruple. A man who should point out to an English minister an opportunity of enriching himself without danger by having an elderly millionaire lady strangled, might be sure of being immediately sent to prison; but let any adventurer, Dr. Jameson, for example, propose to an English statesman—I suppose to Mr. Chamberlain—that he should gather together a band of brigands; should invade, under arms, the ill-defended territory of a little republic in the south of Africa, massacre part of its inhabitants, take possession of the country, and thus augment the wealth of England—the adventurer is certain to receive a cordial welcome, and to see his proposition immediately accepted. If he succeeds, public opinion will be in his favour. It is by proceedings analogous to these that English statesmen have succeeded in conquering the greater number of the small kingdoms of India. It is true that other nations employ the same tactics in matters of colonisation; if they are more prominent in English affairs, it is that the English, being abler and more audacious, more often see their enterprises crowned with success. The wretched lucubrations which the makers of books call the laws of nations, international laws, &c., &c., merely represent a kind of code of theoretical politeness, fit only to distract the leisure of such elderly juriconsults as are too worn out to busy themselves in a useful occupation. In practice they mean precisely as much as do the formulae of protestation, consideration, and friendship at the end of diplomatic despatches.

The Englishman entertains, with regard to the individuals of his race—other races do not exist for him—sentiments of fellowship which no other peoples possess in the same degree. These sentiments amount to a community of thoughts; the Englis...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Introduction to the Transaction Edition
• Preface to the Third Edition
• Preface
• BOOK I THE SOCIALISTIC THEORIES AND THEIR DISCIPLES
• BOOK II SOCIALISM AS A BELIEF
• BOOK III SOCIALISM AS AFFECTED BY RACE
• BOOK IV THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ECONOMIC NECESSITIES AND THE ASPIRATIONS OF THE SOCIALISTS
• BOOK V THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE LAWS OF EVOLUTION, THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL, AND THE ASPIRATIONS OF THE SOCIALISTS
• BOOK VI THE DESTINIES OF SOCIALISM