Thorstein Veblen
Review author of: 'A History of Socialism'. By THOMAS KIRKUP. London and 
Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1882. 12mo., pp, vii. + 301
The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Mar., 1893), pp. 300-302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[300] The volume is light, for so large a subject as the title describes, 
especially as a good portion - perhaps one third - of the book is taken up with 
the present and future of socialism rather than with what can properly be called 
history. It is valuable, not only for the concisely and lucidly written 
historical sketch of the socialist movement of the present century, but even 
more for the exposition and criticism of the doctrines as held by the advanced 
socialists of to-day. The standpoint of the author is that of a sympathetic 
critic and conservative advocate of socialism.
He does not find it necessary to go back of 1817 for the beginning of modern 
socialism, "the year when Owen laid his scheme for a socialistic community 
before the committee of the House of Commons on the poor law, the year also that 
the speculations of Saint-Simon definitely took a socialistic direction." And 
with good judgment he gives small space to the narrative of what preceded the 
revolution of 1848. The socialism with which he deals is the modern socialism in 
the strictest sense.
In his estimate of the relative importance of the leading socialistic writers 
the author is hardly at one with opinions currently held by hostile critics of 
socialism. He gives Marx distinctly the first, and a high rank "Marx was an 
independent thinker of great originality and force of character, who had made 
the economic development of Europe the study of a laborious lifetime, and who 
was in the habit, not of borrowing, but of strongly asserting the results of his 
own research and of impressing them upon other men" (p. 129). "In learning and 
philosophic power, Marx will compare favorably with Adam Smith" (p. 151). He 
denies Rodbertus the credit of in any special sense origination the modern, 
"scientific", socialistic body of doctrines, and urges (p. 129) that "it is an 
absurdity as well as an historical error to speak of Marx as having borrowed 
from Rodbertus"; and it must be admitted his main position here is true, though 
perhaps too broadly stated. He finds (p. 122) that Rodbertus's claim to stand as 
the representative of the ripest manifestation of socialistic thought - "the 
master-author of the socialist philosophy," as President E. Benj. Andrews puts 
it(1*) - is also vitiated by his narrow views of tile future of [301] the 
movement and his singularly impotent social ideal. Rodbertus's ideal of the 
socialist state was a monarchy constructed on the lines of narrowly Prussian 
tradition, as scheme which Mr. Kirkup finds intolerable as well as impossible. 
At the same time Rodbertus is accorded full credit for his amiable attitude and 
attractive writing, as well as for his incisive criticism of economic theory.
The author does the socialist writers a service in calling attention (p. 109-
110) to the "ignorance or confusion of language of controversialists who 
maintain that the object of socialism is to abolish capital." It is a service 
that has often been performed before, but also one of which there is a perennial 
need. The error in question is one that probably no socialist, anarchist or 
communist is guilty of, but of which perhaps no one who adheres to or advocates 
any of these isms has not been accused.
A service of a like candid and kindly nature is the fair and sympathetic 
statement of the anarchist position (p. 191-195).
Much less creditable is the author's acceptance of the socialist interpretation 
of Ricardo. He subscribes, more than once (p. 99, 119, 143-4, 147), to the 
correctness of their rendering of Ricardo's theory of value, as well as of his 
theory of wages; a slip which a careful reading of Ricardo should have sufficed 
to prevent.
In his analysis of motive forces and tendencies the author finds that socialism 
is "simply a movement for uniting labor and capital through the principle of 
association" (p. 230). The objective point of socialism, and the adequate remedy 
for the mischief of the capitalistic system, is to be found in the restoration 
of the masses of the people to a "participation in the ownership and control of 
land and capital ... through the principle of association." The term 
"association" is a little vague, though it may not be easy to find a more 
definite term that will serve the purpose. The method by which the principle is 
to find acceptance in practical life is also not clearly indicated; it would be 
asking to much at resent to require that it should, but it is disappointing to 
find that the author, while enumerating certain other factors that make in the 
same direction, and speaking with much hope of the prospect ahead, pins his 
faith to the cooperative movement as, in a special sense, the solvent of the 
difficulty.
The view is forcibly set forth in the concluding pages of the book that the 
whole trend of the modern industrial development is distinctly socialistic, and 
that socialism (collectivism) is but the logical outcome of the continued growth 
of democracy under modern conditions.
With due regard for the serious purpose of the book, and for ist many excellent 
features, it is to be said that it falls short of an exhaustive analysis of the 
social ills on which the socialist movements feeds, as well as of the full scope 
of the social changes that must be accomplished if the remedy for these ills is 
to be found in the direction of that movement.
T. B. VEBLEN.

NOTES
1) See Journal of Political Economy, No. 1, especially at p. 57.