en the partisans and
the opponents of free-will.
The old metaphysics accorded to man (alone, a marvelous exception from
all the rest of the universe) an absolutely free will.
Modern physio-psychology absolutely denies every form of the free-will
dogma in the name of the laws of natural causality.
An intermediate position is occupied by those who, while recognizing
that the freedom of man's will is not absolute, hold that at least a
remnant of freedom must be conceded to the human will, because otherwise
there would no longer be any merit or any blameworthiness, any vice or
any virtue, etc.
I considered this question in my first work: _Teoria dell' imputabilita
e negazione del libero arbitrio_ (Florence, 1878, out of print), and in
the third chapter of my _Sociologie criminelle_, French trans., Paris,
1892.
I speak of it here only in order to show the analogy in the form of the
debate on the economico-social question, and therefore the possibility
of predicting a similar ultimate solution.
The true conservative, drawing his inspiration from the metaphysical
tradition, sticks to the old philosophical or economic ideas with all
their rigid absolutism; at least he is logical.
The determinist, in the name of science, upholds diametrically opposite
ideas, in the domain of psychology as well as in those of the economic
or juridical sciences.
The eclectic, in politics as in psychology, in political economy as in
law, is a conservative through and through, but he fondly hopes to
escape the difficulties of the conservative position by making a few
partial concessions to save appearances. But if the eclecticism is a
convenient and agreeable attitude for its champions, it is, like
hybridism, sterile, and neither life nor science owe anything to it.
Therefore, the socialists are logical when they contend that in the last
analysis there are only two political parties: the individualists
(conservatives [or Republicans], progressives [or Democrats] and
radicals [or Populists]) and the socialists.
X.
THE LAW OF APPARENT RETROGRESSION AND COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP.
Admitting, say our adversaries, that in demanding a social
transformation socialism is in apparent accord with the evolutionist
theory, it does not follow that its positive conclusions--notably the
substitution of social ownership for individual ownership--are justified
by that theory. Still further, they add, we maintain that those
conclusions a
|