When we speak of the Constitution of the solar system, we mean by that term the attraction of the sun which so regulates the movements of the planets that this movement cannot be otherwise than what it is. When we in the same sense-the proper sense-speak of the Constitution of a country, we do not mean that piece of paper which is called a "Constitution," but the organic power that makes necessary the institutions which we find. It is therefore a fundamental mistake to think, that our country with her written "constitution" occupies a peculiar position.

Every country has and always had a constitution. A king with an army at his back is a large part of a constitution. The motto of Louis XIV: "L'etat c'est moi" ("I am the State") was as fully the constitution of France as any constitution she, or any country, ever had. The peculiarity of modern times consists simply in a piece of paper, simply in the giving written expression to the organic power. But if such a written" constitution" does not correctly respond to this organic power-as theconstitutions" of France during the Revolution did not, and as the "constitution" of the present German Empire does not-it is not worth the paper it is written on. If it, on the other hand, does so respond, it is like a swiftly flying buzzsaw-dangerous to go too near to.

The short history of our own country, even. bears us out in this view. Our present "constitution” is a very different one from what it was in 1850. The point of change was the period when people prated about "upholding the constitution." Whenever a "Constitution" needs being "upheld," it is going, or gone. During that period was promulgated the "Dred Scot" decision, which, undoubtedly, was a correct "constitutional" decision. Yet it was but an idle breath, or, if it had any effect, it was to make our people, (so approvingly styled" a law abiding people,") subvert the very constitution," that was the sanction of the decision.

What was the matter?

66

The organic power in the Nation was simply changing. Mark! it was the Abolition of Slavery which amended our “ con

stitution," emphatically not the amendments to the "constitutution" which abolished Slavery.

Is this Socialist view of the organic law of a country not far more philosophic than the vulgar one, held by our "statesmen" or even by such an eminent authority as Judge Story, who reduces the whole science of government to-a eulogy of the "Constitution?"

It remains true, reader! No army of lawyers, nor of soldiers, can uphold a "constitution," when the centre of gravity of Society has changed its position.

Socialists, then, have no thought whatever of "laying impious hands" on this glorious paper "constitution" of ours,

or of "giving" to, or imposing upon, our country a new frame of government of our own; just as little as we fancy, that we can change its economic conditions.

It is the Logic of Events that will accomplish both these changes.

But mark the radical difference between the economic and the political revolution.

The economic relations of the Cooperative Commonwealth will evolve out of our present industrial conditions, as we attempted to show in the preceding chapters. But the form of administration of that Commonwealth will not be an outgrowth of our present form of government.

It is true, that the political system we now are living under is an outgrowth of our colonial system, but the representative, parliamentary system (the only one with which our country in her short history has been familiar, and which at present prevails in a more or less developed form in all civilized countries except Russia) is not an outgrowth of the feudal system, prevailing during the Middle Ages, nor was the latter an outgrowth of the ancient forms of government.

For forms of government are nothing but forms. They are not the substance of society. They are only coats, that may, or may not, fit the backs. But they are not the backs; economic conditions are the backs. Or, to use the other appropriate figure: forms of governments are nothing but machinery, but economic conditions are the steam, without which the machinery

is useless.

It will be seen from this, that those are egregiously mistaken who charge Socialists with having a "faith in the sovereign power of political machinery." We believe, on the contrary, that forms of governments, in themselves, amount to nothing; that civil liberty, by itself, is hardly worth the trouble of agitation, that political freedom won, nothing may yet be won-but emptiness.

We believe, that economic and industrial relations are everything, wherefore also we devoted the first six chapters to them. Just as the steam-loom took the place of the handloom, and the steam-thrasher of the flail, when steam became the motive power instead of human muscles, or as the man must discard his boy's jacket, so we say the Cooperative Commonwealth will have as it grows into existence to relegate the whole machinery with which we are now familiar: President and Representatives and coordinate powers and statelines to the lumber-room of the past.

That is what this capitalist regime did as soon as it had grown up to manhood. It dispensed as fast as it could with every feature of the feudal system and substituted for it the system which allowed it to work to the best advantage, to-wit, the representative system.

If, therefore, we want to form any conception of the political or judicial administration of the Cooperative Commonwealth, we must imagine this present "constitution" of ours wiped out, first of all. Our inquirer and those opponents of Socialism who call attention to the incompatibility between it and our present frame of government, are therefore perfectly right: The United States would, in truth, become a bedlam at election times.

We hail it as a good sign, that an Amercan, lawyer like Stickney, and with him the whole new generation, is getting into the habit of questioning even "the wisdom of our forefathers."

Well, they were wise in their generation. They conformed to the organic power of their day. Let us and those who will come immediately after us be as wise in our and their genera

tions!

At any rate we cannot help ourselves. Democracy is what we are inevitably tending to, which will crush the Republican and "Democratic" parties as easily as if they were egg-shells.

And do not have any fear, that we shall then or ever be without a constitution. No, not for one moment. The new constitution will form itself as naturally as the ice forms upon the water, when the freezing point is reached.

But we must now know, not alone what "Democracy” is not, but what it is, and not so much, what the word means, but what the thing really is which we have in mind when we pronounce the word.

The word comes from the Greek word " "demos," which means "the people." That gives us, however, just as poor an idea of what "Democracy," is, as the information that "Evolution" is derived from a word that means to roll out" enables us to know what evolution is. That it is which has given us the definition found in dictionaries, that "Democracy" is "government by majorities," government by "counting of heads,” as Carlyle has it. But government of majorities may be just as "undemocratic" as the rule of any other class.

No, let us turn to the "back" which the "coat " is to fit. We saw that the Cooperative Commonwealth will incorporate the whole population into Society. It will destroy classes entirely. And with classes will go all "rule."

The "whole people" does not want, or need, any "government" at all. It simply wants administration-good administration.

That will be had by putting every one in the position for which he is best fitted, and making everyone aware of the fact That is what Democracy means; it means Administration by the Competent.

CHAPTER VIII.

ADMINISTRATION OF AFFAIRS

IN THE COOPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH.

"Our self-government is amateur-administration, government by amateurs."-Greg.

"The feeling of Equality is growing fast. It makes men chafe more and more under the personal power of individuals, on a political level with themselves. But they will submit willingly to power that comes from above and is impersonal." -Dr. Woolsey, Communism and Socialism.

"In your trades-societies you have acquired the instinct of trusting your leaders, of acting with decision, concentration and responsibility. *** The mass supplying breadth and energy of principle; your agents giving it concentration and unity. Let your watchword be: Confidence in tried leaders! Loyal cooperation each with all!""-Frederic Harrison, Order and Progress.

We have now two definitions of Democracy, * one negative, the other affirmative, which together complete our conception of a Socialist Administration: that of competent and qualified

* It is annoying, that when we in our country use the word "Democracy," we have to apologize for its debasement from being appropriated by that party of negations calling itself "the Democratic Party," whose only affirmative principle is the decrepit doctrine of " State-Rights."