COMMON
OBJECTIONS
) SOCIALISM
'SWERED
BY 1
R. B. suTFI.
One
Shilling
Net
p=<^
I'A
THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
Common ===^
Objections to Socialism
=^^=== Answered
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
A Man, A "W"oman, and A Dog.
Being the First Series of the Domestic
Adventures ot Jack's Wife. Price 6d.
net ; post free, "id.
" 'A Man, A Woman, A and Dog' is one of the most
amusing books that we have ever read. Mr. Robert B.
Suthers sees the absurd side of things \try keenly. The
humours of matrimony have never been better illustrated
than they have in this exceedingly clever book." —
The Westminster Review.
Jack's Wife.
Being the Second Series of the Domestic
Adventures. Price, cloth, 2/6 ; post
free, 2/9.
Mind Your Own Business :
The Case for Municipal Management.
Price 2/6 net ; post free, 2/9.
The Daily News says : " It is a masterly treatise. '
My Right to "Work:
Free Trade, Protection, or Socialism.
Cloth, i/- net ; post free, 1/2. Paper, 6d. ;
post free, 7^d.
Seventeen Shots at Socialism.
Price id. ; post free, ijd.
This is a condensation for popular propaganda pur-
poses of the .'\nswers to Common Objections contained
in this volume.
The Clarion Press, 44, Worship Street, London, E.C.
Common Objections
Socialism Answered
BY
R. B. SUTHERS,
T
London :
THE CLARION PRESS,
44, Worship Street, E.G.
1908.
""■■ iC;''f
To
A. M. THOMPSON.
CO
>-
CO
en
:i88558
CONTENTS,
PAGE.
That Socialism is not Needed i
That Socialism means " Dividing-up "
That Socialism would Yield only a Miserable Pittance per
Head
That Socialism is Based on the Fallacy that Labour is
the only Source of Wealth
That Socialism would mean Confiscation
That Socialism would Rob the Poor Man of his Savings
That Socialism would Ruin the Small Shopkeeper
That Socialism would Abolish Competition and so
Decrease Wealth
That the Prospect of Socialism would Drive Capital out
of the Country ...
That Socialism would Destroy Religion
That SociaUsm would Destroy the Incentive of Gain
That Socialism would be the most Odious Form of
Slavery ... ...
That Socialism would Involve an Army of Officials
That Socialism would be the Paradise of the Loafer
That Socialism would Destroy Home Life
That Socialists have no Cut and Dried Plan
That Socialism is an Attempt to Interfere with the " Sur
vival of the Fittest"
That Socialism is Impossible, Human Nature being what
it is 122
H
24
30
36
41
49
56
59
69
80
87
95
105
COMMON OBJECTIONS
TO SOCIALISM
ANSWERED.
That Socialism is not Needed, as all
Necessary Reforms can be Achieved
under the Present System.
Answer.
I shall put the answer to this objection in the
form of a number of questions dealing with the
social and economic effects of the present system.
WHAT WE EARN.
Do you know that the total annual income of the
population of the United Kingdom is estimated to
be i^ 1,750,000,000 (seventeen hundred and fifty
millions !) ?
Do you know how that income is divided ?
Do you know that 1,250,000 persons (say 250,000
men and their families) receive ;i^6oo,ooo,ooo (six
hundred millions), more than yi (one-third) of the
total income ?
Do you know that Mr. Balfour says that " Indi-
vidual energy can only be called forth by a system
based upon the fact that what a man earns he
possesses " ?
Do you think that the 250,000 who receive
;^600,000,000 EARN IT ?
b I
Do you know that 3,750,000 people (say 750>000
men and their families) receive ;^250,ooo,ooo (two
hundred and fifty millions), 1/7 (one-seventh) of the
total income ?
Do you know that these two classes, 5,000,000
people, receive ;^850 millions, nearly half the
national income ?
Do you think it a fair division to give half to
5,000,000 people, and half to 39,000,000 people?
Do you think the 5,000,000 earn all that half?
WHAT WE LEAVE AT DEATH.
Do you know that every year about 700,000 people
die in the United Kingdom ?
Do you know how much they are worth when they
die ?
Do you know that only about 80,000 leave pro-
perty worth taxing ?
Do you know that over 600,000 die leaving no-
thing but a few pounds or a few bits of furniture?
Do you know that in 1906-7 nearly all the pro-
perty left at death was Icift by only 21,000 persons
out of the 700,000 ?
Do you know that these 21,000 persons left ;£'28o
millions out of ^^299 millions?
Do you know that a mere handful of 4,172 per-
sons left i^2i8 millions out of the £2g(^ millions?
Four Thousand One Hundred and Seventy-
two.
Do you think they possessed those riches because
they had earned them ?
Do you know that Socialists say that the wealth
made by the workers (by brain and hand workers)
is not distributed justly ?
Do you know that Socialists want to establish a
just system?
Do you know that our opponents say just distribu-
tion would mean robbery and confiscation?
Do you know whether anyone is being robbed
to-day?
WHAT IDLENESS GETS.
Do you know that out of the total national income
2
of £\,7S'^ millions, we pay 650 millions, one-third,
in rent and interest ?
Do you know that those who receive that 650 mil-
lions do not earn it?
Do you know most of that 650 millions is taken
by the handful of people who leave the bulk of the
riches at death ?
Do you know that the middle and working classes
get very little of it ?
Do you think it right that those who earn it all
should receive only a mere fraction of it ?
Do you remember Mr. Balfour's words, as given
above ?
Do you know that Mr. Balfour and his Party
obstinately oppose every reform designed to estab-
lish the principle that " what a man earns he
possesses " ?
Do you know that the monstrously unjust division
of the national earnings causes intense suffering and
misery to millions, and that it endangers the very
existence of the nation ?
WHAT INDUSTRY GETS.
Do you know that only about 1,000,000 people
receive incomes of £\(iO, and over?
Do you know that 12,000,000 people are always on
" the verge of starvation " ?
Do you know that 20,000,000 are " very poor " ?
Do you know that only some 30,000 people
actually earn £\,ooo a year and over?
Do you know that our opponents say that Ability
receives the bulk of the wealth ?
Do you think there are only about 30,000 men and
women of Ability working in the country ?
Do you know that 39,000,000 people arc " poor " ?
Do you know that the 1,000,000 who pay income
tax receive nearly half the total national income ?
Do you know that the average wages of the better-
off " working classes " are only about ^^48 a year ?
Do you know that in London alone there are
1,000,000 (one million) persons whose family income
does not exceed a guinea a week ?
3
Do you know that the wages of agricultural
labourers average los. to 17s. a week?
Do you know a wise, economical, teetotal, non-
smoking, non-letter-writing, non-newspaper-buying,
non-holiday-making family of five cannot exist in
mere physical efficiency on less than 21s. 8d. a week?
Do you know that the proportion of deaths in
workhouses, hospitals, and asylums is rising?
Do you know that in London one person in three
dies in the workhouse, hospital, or asylum ?
Do you know that over 2,500,000 (two and a-half
millions) persons seek relief under the Poor Law
every year ?
Do you know that we pay ;^ 15,000,000 a year for
the maintenance of paupers ?
Do you know that charitable societies spend
;^io,ooo,ooo (ten millions) a year?
Do you know this is a Christian country ?
Do you know that one-tenth of the rent and
interest paid to those who do not earn it amounts
to ;^65,ooo,ooo (sixty-five millions) a year?
WHAT WOULD JESUS SAY?
Do you know that in London alone 120,000 chil-
dren go to school hungry ?
Do you know that every year 100,000 babies under
a year old are slaughtered by our unjust system ?
Do you know that there is a way to save them ?
Do you know that half the children of working
men die before the age of five years ?
Do you know that slums and overcrowding kill
millions of people prematurely ?
Do you know slum property is the best "paying"
house property ?
Do you think it pays the nation ?
Do you know that the average age of working men
is 20 years less than that of the rich ?
Do you know there are always from 500,000 to
1,000,000 unemployed ?
Do you know that 1,000,000 (one million) married
women have to work in factories and workshops ?
Do you know that the employment of married
women destroys home life?
Do you know that women at work cannot bring
up children properly ?
Do you know that women arc employed because
their labour is cheap?
THE REMEDY.
Do you know that a nation suffering from all
these terrible evils is in a very dangerous position ?
Do you know that they are due to our system of
land monopoly, and capital monopoly by the fciv,
and to the competition for existence ?
Do you know that with the brains and labour and
land and capital at our command, a decent living
could be obtained for all?
Do you know that Socialism is a scheme for
organising the brains and labour and land and
capital, so as to obtain. the best return possible in
health and wealth?
Do you know that the only people to " suffer " by
a change to Socialism v/ould be the few thousands
who now " own " the bulk of the wealth ?
Do you know that even they would be happier,
and healthier, and more useful under Socialism
than they are to-day ?
Do you think it right that a nation of 40,000,000
people should be bled to death by a few thousand ?
Do you knov/ that similar conditions have existed
for the last 100 years, and that Liberal and Tory
statesmicn can find no remedy ?
Do you not think a remedy is needed ?
Do you know what Socialism is ?
Do you know there is no other remedy for the
present evil conditions ?
Do you think you ought to find out vvhat it is
before you condemn it ?
That SociaHsm Means "Dividing Up."
Answer.
Socialism does not mean " dividing up." Social-
ism is the opposite of "dividing up." Socialism
means collective ownership.
Millions of people believe that Socialism means
" dividing up," and this belief is so deep-rooted that
it sometimes prevents those who hold it from giving
any further consideration to the arguments for
Socialism. That " settles it."
Socialism, they think, is impossible. Socialism,
they think, means " dividing up." Is " dividing up,"
then, impossible ?
No. Strange to say it is not " dividing up " that
these people think impossible. They believe it is
possible to " divide up." But a week after you have
" divided up," they say, things would be as unequal
as before. Some would have parted with their share
to others. Some would have wasted. Some would
have gambled. Some would have consumed extrava-
gantly. Therefore, Socialism is impossible, because
Socialism means " equality," or " dividing up "
equally; and equality is impossible.
At the back of the " dividing up " objection we
find, then, another obstacle in the way of Socialism,
the impossibility of equality.
Socialists are supposed by these objectors to be-
lieve in (i) "Dividing up"; (2) "Equality."
What is the Socialist answer ?
The Socialist answer is: (i) That Socialism does
not mean "Dividing up"; (2) that Socialism does
not mean " Equality."
As to " dividing up," no Socialist desires to
" divide up," because no Socialist believes it is pos-
sible to " divide up."
What do the objectors mean by " dividing up " ?
They seem to have the idea that Socialists want
6
first to " divide up " equally amongst the people all
the wealth of the country; secondly, to allow all
people to share equally ever afterwards in the new
wealth produced — that is, to receive equal wages.
Now, with regard to the " dividing up " of the
wealth already in existence, what do the objectors
really mean ?
As a matter of fact, they don't know clearly what
they mean. If they had thought the matter out they
would have seen the im.possibility of " dividing up"
the wealth of the country.
What is wealth ?
Is not land wealth ? Are not mines wealth ? Are
not buildings wealth ? Is not machinery wealth ?
Are not railways and tramways wealth ? Are not
docks, harbours, piers, factories, workshops, tele-
graph wires, and ships all wealth ?
The people who talk about " dividing up " can-
not surely imagine that Socialists wish to cut up the
railways into small pieces, to weigh out equal
quantities of coal, to measure out the water, to appor-
tion equally the bricks and stones in our buildings,
the pictures in our houses, the shirts in our shops, the
beer in our breweries, the bread in our bakeries, the
crockery in our cupboards, and all the millions of
material objects which are wealth !
Such " dividing up " needs only to be mentioned
to prove its impossibility. Wealth of this kind can-
not be " divided equally."
What, then, do these objectors mean by " dividing
up"- ,
Do they mean that Socialists want to " divide up "
the money in the country ?
That is very likely the idea that exists vaguely
in the minds of some of these people. Because there
is a widespread delusion that capital is money, and
that money (gold) can always be got in exchange
for other forms of capital.
For instance, it is believed that any man who owns
a coal mine or a piece of land can always exchange
it for money. As a rule, a man can do so. But it is
believed that if all men owned coal mines and land
7
they could all exchange them for money, which
doesn't follow.
There is very little gold, silver, and copper money
in the country : little over a hundred million
pounds. So that if all the money were " divided
up " equally we should get about £3 per head, and
that would not go far, would it? Even Socialists
would hardly be so foolish as to waste their time
agitating for a " dividing up " which only produced
£'3, per head !
But the other wealth of the country — the land,
iron, coal, stone, copper, railways, canals, buildings,
factories, houses, and so on — is worth ii^ 11,500 mil-
lions. This wealth, as I have pointed out, could
not be " divided up." That is, the much greater
part of the wealth of the country could not be dealt
with in the way Socialists are supposed to desire te
deal with it.
Even if we could " divide up " equally all the
land and the railways and the mines and the ma-
chinery and the factories and the houses and the
collars and ties and bonnets, it v/ould be impossible
for every one to sell his share to some one else for
money.
Why?
The total wealth of the country is valued at about
;^ 1 1,500 millions. Divided amongst 40,000,000
people, this would give to every person property
worth about ;^26o.
We have seen that all the money, if divided,
would only yield £'^ per head. How, then, could
anyone sell his share, worth £260, to someone else
when no one had more than £^ ?
It may be said that the people might barter their
shares of wealth without using money.
But does anyone suppose that a man with two
miles of railway lines could exchange it for a house,
or a man wiiose share consisted of a mile of canal
could swop it for a suit of clothes? Imagine John
Burns staggering about with a steam organ, trying
to induce Mr. Chamberlain to take it in exchange for
his store of fireworks ! We have only to put these
8
things down in cold print to show how ridiculous
is the idea that Socialists could dream of desiring
anything so comic. Socialists are very serious
people.
Again, an intelligent objector may say, " Of
course, it is all nonsense to talk about ' dividing up '
the capital of the country, but a Socialist Govern-
ment could issue shares in the capital of a country
just as a private company issues shares. Then, if
I had ;^26o worth of shares I could sell them tc
someone else, could I not ? "
And the answer is, " No." That is not the Social-
ist idea at all. When the Socialists suggest that
the whole people should own and manage the land
and capital of the country, they do not mean that
individual members of the nation should own parts
of the land and capital. They mean that the whole
people should own them.
For example : The nation, the whole people, now
owns some thousands of acres of land known as
the Crown lands. Does any single person hold
shares in that property ?
Not one. The whole nation owns the land and
m^anages the land.
The nation owns arsenals, docks, ships, post
offices. Do you know anyone who holds a share in
them that he can sell or give away ?
You don't, because there is no such person. But
every person shares in the national ownership of
these things.
In the same way many of our towns own property.
Newcastle, Nottingham, and Liverpool, for instance,
own a good deal of land. Has any person a share
in it which he can sell or on which he draws
dividends ?
Not one. The dividends or rents are drawn by
the corporation on behalf of the whole of the rate-
payers.
So when Socialists propose that the land or the
mines should be bought by the nation, they do not
propose that shares of an equal amount should be
issued to every person in the land, but that the
9
Government should own and manage these properties
on behalf of the whole people. |
When a municipality buys a gasworks, or a tram- J:
way, or a waterworks, they do not issue shares to >!•
every ratepayer. They manage the undertaking for .
the benefit of all the citizens. No citizen can sell
his " share "of the property. .-,
So if the railways belonged to all the people, to i
the nation, no single citizen could sell his " share " of f';i
the railways. ('■'
If I live in London I have a share in the public
parks, museums, water, gas, streets, and other institu-
tions owned and managed by the citizens. But who v
would give me a cent for all these benefits if I de-
sired to remove to the wilds of Cornwall ? No one.
Just as it is impossible to " divide up " and sell
my benefits of the common wealth of London, so it
would be impossible to " divide ujp " and sell my
share in the common wealth of the nation under
Socialism.
10
That Socialism is not worth having, as an
Equal Division of the National Income
would yield only a Miserable Pittance
of 2s. 2d. per head per day.
Answer.
Socialism does not mean "dividing up equally"
but if it did, 2s. 2d. per head per day would not be
a miserable pittance for the bulk of the population.
The dividmg up objector says it would be no use
dividing up, because a week later the old inequalities
would have returned. The Two and Twopenny
objectors (they are generally wealthy) say : " My
dear friends, how worthless as a cure for poverty
Socialism is will appear when I tell you that if the
whole national income were equally divided, it
would yield for every person a mere pittance of
23. 2d. a day."
Mr. Lowther used this Two and Twopenny argu-
ment. He said :
Perhaps it may surprise some of my friends —
and I am talking now to Socialists — to know that
an equal division of the national income amongst
the population — I am taking the latest figures of
the Royal Statistical Society— would yield to
every person a wretched 2s. 2d. a day ; and that
without any allowance for taxation for the upkeep
of the State.
What was Mr. Lowther's object in using that
argument ? Plainly to show the people that they
would be worse off under Socialism than they are
to-day.
Two and Two]:)ence per day, counting only six
days to the week, amounts to 13s. per week, or
i^33 1 6s. per year.
II
Do you know what the average wages of the best
■paid workers are ?
Forty-eight pounds a year. That is, nearly £i^
more than ^^33 i6s.
But how many working men and women are there
who get only ^^33 i6s. to-day?
i^,Iillions. And according to Mr. Lov/ther's own
figures, these millions would be no worse off under
an equal divisiorL They are getting miserable pit-
tances to-day. Millions earn less than ^^33 i6s. per
year.
But when Mr. Claude Lowther termed 2s. 2d. a
day a miserable pittance, he did not know he was
giving his argument away.
For observe, 2s. 2d. per day fer head means that a
man and wife would get 4s. 4d. per day, or 26s. per
week.
Two and twopence per head means that a man and
wife with one child would get 39s. a week.
Two and tv/opence per head means that a man and
wife with two children would get 52s. a week.
Two and twopence per head means that a man
and wife with three children would get 65s. a
week.
Two and twopence per head means that a man and
wife and four children would get 78s. a week.
I will stop there, and ask Mr. Claude Lowther
when he is going on to the platform to explain to
working men that 78s. a week for a family of six is a
fiitance?
I will go a little further with this Two and Two-
penny argument. There were at the 1901 census
over 16,000,000 people who were, or had been, married.
There were, at the same time, 21 Y^, millions under the
age of 20. Together, over 36 million people who
were probably living a family life. That is to say,
all these people would, with their " mere pittance,"
be able to live at a much higher standard of com-
fort than the bulk of them live in to-day.
Now, if we assume that the remaining six millions
were all living alone, an absurd assumption, we
should at the worst only have six million poor, and
12
not one of them would be receiving as little as mil-
lions are receiving to-day.
Now, what do you think of Mr. Lowther's Two
and Twopenny argument ?
To-day there are twelve millions on the verge of
starvation. There are twenty millions very poor.
Consisting largely of families who do not get per
head half the sum that Mr. Claude Lowther says is
a " wretched pittance." There are 1,000,000 people
in London alone who do not get more than a guinea
a week fer family.
Nay, more, there are 39,000,000 out of our popula-
tion of 44,000,000 who do not get that average
" wretched pittance " of 2s. 2d. per head per day,
nor anything like it.
Nearly half the total income is taken by 5,000,000
people. ' A little more than half is taken by
39,000,000. If the 39 millions received 2s. 2d. a day
per head, they would get ^^400 millions more than
they actually do.
It is plain, then, that the " wretched pittance" con-
dition of things would enable the bulk of the popu-
lation to live in that condition of comfort only
obtained by a few million people to-day. Instead
of a few rich, with the bulk poor, there would be a
few poor, with the bulk in moderate comfort. What
becomes, then, of Mr. Claude Lowther's haughty
sniff at the " miserable pittance " ? His sniff can
only be echoed by those who look down on 2s. 2d.
a day as a starvation wage, and the possible sniffers
are only 5,000,000 out of 44,000,000.
But, as I have already explained, Socialism docs
not mean dividing up equally.
Socialism does not hang on an equal division of
the national income. Under Socialism, Labour and
Ability would be rewarded as the whole people
deemed best for the nation.
13
That Socialism is Based on the Fallacy
that Labour is the only Source of
Wealth, whereas Wealth is mostly
Produced by Ability.
Answer.
Socialism is ^w^ based on the fallacy that
" Labour is the only source of wealth." The state-
ment is not a fallacy, it is a self-evident truth.
All wealth produced by man is produced by
Labour, and all Labour involves the use of brain
and muscle.
Some labour involves greater exertion from the
brain than from the muscles. Other labour requires
greater exertion from the muscles than from the
brain. But every person who works mas^ use his
brains and his muscles. It is all a matter of degree.
The term Labour is often applied to that kind of
labour involving more muscle than brain exertion.
Using the word in this narrow sense, uneducated
opponents rashly assert that under Socialism manual
labour would receive all the wealth, and Ability
nothing. This is a mistake.
Wealth is produced by labour, brain, and muscle.
All wealth, then, should belong to labour, brain, and
muscle. Do you not agree ?
Now, Socialists assert that, to-day, Ability and
Labour do noi receive the wealth produced. Social-
ists assert that Idleness receives at least 6s. 8d. in
the £ of all the wealth produced. And in support
of their statements they point to the facts that 12
millions are underfed, 20 millions are very poor, 39
out of 44 millions are poor, while only 5,000,000 are
well-to-do and rich.
What is the reply of our opponents ?
Mr. Claude Lowther, for instance, says that " nine
times out of ten Capital is the fruit of Ability."
14
We are also told that the manual labourers, the
" working class," receive more than their just share
of the national income, because they receive more
per head to-day than they received lOO years ago,
and all the increased wealth since then is due to
Ability.
And we are told that it would be foolish and
dangerous to attempt to give the poor more, because
we could only give them more at the expense of
Ability, and if we reduced the rewards of Ability,
the clever people would refuse to use their talents,
and the result would be a decrease in wealth, so
making the poor man's position still worse.
Let us examine these statements. It is asserted
that our increased wealth is due to Ability, chiefly
to the inventor. Let us admit that.
Does the inventor get the biggest rewards to-day ?
Does he ? Does the man of Ability ?
On the contrary, the person who gets the biggest
rewards is the idle Landlord or Capitalist, who never
produces anytJiing.
Who are these inventors who are receiving enor-
mous incomes from their patent rights ? Let us have
their names.
The Duke of Westminster we know. Did he ever
invent anything? Did he ever produce by his
Ability a hundred-thousandth part of the wealth he
takes from the workers every year for doing nothing?
Did the Duke of Bedford ? Or the Duke of Devon-
shire ? Or the Duke of Sutherland ?
We pay ;^2go millions a year in rent to people
who do absolutely nothing for that huge chunk out
of the national cake.
There is not a single inventor or genius in the
country, and never was one, who receives so high a
reward for his services as we pay to idle landlords
for no service at all. Nay, for being hindrances to
the production of wealth.
Here is the case of our opponents given away by
Mr. R. N. McDougall, secretary of the Liberty and
Property Defence League. In a letter on this ques-
tion he said :
15
These men, by their inventions and organising
skill, have produced the wonderful transformation
scene of modern industr}^. Some of them have
made fortunes, and others have died in poverty.
But their fortunes, however great in some in-
stances, constitute but a small fraction of the
wealth created for the communit}'. Almost any
one inventor who could be mentioned, sa}^, for
instance, the inventor of the safety bicycle, has
done more for the community than all the politi-
cians of all the parties put together.
Exactly. Sojne of them have made large fortunes.
Some of them have not. But the fortunes are a
" small fraction," says Mr. McDougall. Who, then,
gets the large fractions ?
Not the mass of the people, for they are in poverty.
I know where the large fractions are. In the pockets
of the few rich. There are only 250,000 persons with
incomes of ;;^700 a year and over.
One-half the land of the United Kingdom is
oivned by 2,^00 persons. Did they ijtvent the land ?
The Duke of Westminster is a landowner in
London. A short time ago, one of his leases fell in,
and the tenant, to obtain a renewal at a much higher
rent, had to pay a premium of ;i{^5o,ooo.
Fifty thousand pounds ! That was a gift to the
Duke of Westminster. For what ? For invention ?
For Ability ? No. For idleness.
Who has to earn that ^^50,000? It is earned by
the hand workers and the brain workers of London,
and it is paid to an idle man for doing nothing.
That is an example of the way land values, created
by the industry of the people, are annexed by idle
individuals under a system which we are told gives
the biggest rewards to Ability.
Let us, now, consider a few examples of the enor-
mous sums taken by idle capitalists.
Furness, Withy, and Company, the shippers, have
in the last six years received in dividends 75 per
cent, of their capital. They have wiped off goodwill
account. And workers, " worthy old salts," are so
16
poor they have to go round with the hat to Christian
dividend hunters for the means of living.
This huge profit remained after Labour and
Ability had been paid wages and salaries.
I have before me a list of twenty banks, whose last
dividends ranged from 1 1 to 20 per cent.
Let us look at the balance sheet of one. For 1906
(half-year) the London and South-Western Bank
made i,^ 13 2,000, and paid 16 per cent, per annum on
a paid-up capital of i^ 1,000,000. That is, in half
a year ;£^So,ooo was paid to idle shareholders;
i," 1 60,000 in the year.
What did Labour and Ability get ?
Enormous office rents, rates, taxes, general ex-
penses, and salaries came to ;^ 13 7,000. How much
of that went to Labour and Ability ? Suppose we
say two-thirds, about i^go,ooo. Now, mark, the total
profit for that half-year was ;^ 13 2,000.
So that the idle shareholders took a good deal
more than Labour and Ability together !
There are plenty of similar examples of the
" earning " capacity of Idleness. Is it not plain that
the contention that Ability takes the enormous
rewards is so much ignorance and bluff ? And what
are Christian gentlemen doing when they tell the
workers these fairy tales ?
We pay some Lj^^iO millions a year in interest, and
for that huge chunk out of the national cake no work
is done at all by those who receive it.
Rent and interest take ^^650 millions out of a
total income of i^ 1,800 millions, and almost the
whole of it is received by a few people, numbering
not more than i Yx millions out of a population of
44 millions !
Where does Ability come in ? I ask again.
Does Ability earn the enormous incomes to-day ?
We can get Ability of the highest class for ;^8oo
to i^ 5,000 a year.
Sir John Fisher, Chief of the Navy, gets ;£'2,ooo
a year. We pay the head of the Post Office, an
enormous organisation, i^ 1,750. We pay the chief
engineer of the Telegraphs i^ 1,200. We pay our
c 17
judges ;£"5,ooo. We pay the Prime Minister, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary for War,
i^5,ooo. We pay Mr. John Burns ;;^2,ooo a year. We
pay the permanent head of the Education Depart-
ment i^i,8oo a year. We pay the Town Clerk of
Manchester i^ 1,500 a year. We pay managers of
big gasworks and electrical works and tramways up
to i,'i,ooo or ;^i,5oo a year. We pay the best of
medical officers ;^ 1,000 a year. We can get, as I say,
any kind of talent for i,8oo to i^5,ooo a year, and
there is always plenty of it.
Our opponents say that Ability is rare. Genius is
rare. But Ability is plentiful. There are always
hosts of applicants for vacant posts, and there is
often great difficulty in deciding which is the best
man.
Very well. What do all the men of Ability
receive out of the total national income ? In a
country where Ability received the biggest rewards,
you would expect to find the bulk of the income
taken by Ability. Is it ?
If you consult the income tax returns, you will find
that there are about 30,000 men of Ability actually
at work and earning pS^ 1,000 a year and over.
Let us assume that there are 30,000, and let us
suppose they are all earning ^^5,000 a year, which
they are not.
Then 30,000 working men of Ability would take
;^I50 millions a year.
But I have shown that Rent and Interest take
£^^0 millions. What, then, becomes of the claim
that Ability takes the highest rewards?
Some bright genius may suggest that it is men of
genius who are receiving the enormous incomes from
rent and interest, from investments of their past
earnings.
He need only look down the lists of deaths of
wealthy people to find himself in a mare's nest. He
will discover brewers, landowners, stock-jobbers,
bankers, financiers, coal owners, but very few
inventors, or descendants of inventors.
And if all the " unearned " incomes ivere received
18
by idle men of Ability, our opponents would still
have to prove the justice and morality of paying idle
men of Ability more than men of Ability actually
working.
Again, in a country where Ability was highly
rewarded, you would expect to find laws and cus-
toms designed to encourage invention, would you
not ? Yes.
Well. What is the position with us ? I wish
I could quote the whole of Blatchford's pamphlet on
our patent laws. Therein it is demonstrated that
the laws and customs of this country might have
been specially designed to discomdige invention.
Of all forms of Ability, none has been so scurvily
treated as the inventor. As regards his rights, when
he could ^e^ them, he was only entitled to hold them
for fourteen years, when his patent lapsed. (The
law has been revised this year.)
Do the landlord's rights ever lapse ?
If land became public property after fourteen
years' ownership, where would be the rents now-
going into a few private pockets ?
In the public purse, paying all our taxes, and
leaving handsome balances for objects of national
wcl fare.
We pay tribute to landlords and capitalists for
ever and ever. We do not pay tribute to Watt,
Stephenson, Arkwright, Heilman, Palissy, Bell, and
hundreds of other inventors. Their genius has
become public property.
The inventor's rights and the rights of the
artistic genius have a very short life, f can buy the
works of Shakespeare, without paying a farthing
tribute. But if I want to buy a piece of land owned
in Shakespeare's time by the ancestors of one of our
dukes, I must pay his descendant an enormous fine.
These gentlemen who pretend to be so anxious
about Ability under Socialism ! They sneer at the
idea of a genius receiving the same reward as a
scavenger, but they have not a word to say against
an idle landowner receiving more than the greatest
genius that ever lived.
19
When did they ever propose to deal with the land-
owner as we treat the inventor ? Never !
Yet the inventor has not stopped inventing
altogether. Browbeaten, discouraged, and often
robbed, he still struggles on, striving to give birth
to the ideas which rise within his brain, as he always
will, under any conditions.
Now, let us consider Invention and Ability under
Socialism.
We are told that as everyone would receive equal
wages, there would be no incentive for the clever
man to use his talents.
First, as to the question of equal wages. This is
not the Socialist ideal. The Socialist ideal is,
" From each according to his Ability, to each accord-
ing to his needs," but I do not think any Socialist
expects that we shall arrive at that ideal state of
things in the iirst year of Socialism. It is an ideal.
And a noble and worthy ideal. But it is probably
a long way off. And all the present-day Socialist
cares about is -putting the -people on the right road.
Let us admit, then, that for a long time it will be
necessary to reward workers in proportion to their
services. Let us admit that men of talent will not
do their best unless they receive high rewards. Are
these admissions fatal to Socialism ?
By no means. Socialism's foundation principle is
the ownership of all the means of production by the
people and the distribution of the national income
in the best interests of the whole people.
It follows, then, that if at any time it is to the best
interests of the people to divide the national income
unequally, so it will be done. And the ivhole people
would decide the question.
It is clear that under such conditions the clever
man would be encouraged to use his talents, and
would be rewarded therefor.
To-day, the poor inventor has to go to a capitalist
to get his invention put on the market. Result :
very often he is tricked out of his reward. More-
over, inventors are discouraged in other ways. Read
Blatchford's pamphlet (but I am afraid it is out of
20
print) and you will find that for every invention
patented and secured here in the years 1890 to 1894,
the Americans secured and patented THIRTY-FOUR.
Why ?
For one thing, because they encourage inventors.
We, on the contrary, have a suspicion of anything
new-fangled. And the American patent laws are
sensible, while ours are, or were, not.
Now, under Socialism, the whole people would be
educated. They are not to-day. And an educated
people would naturally encourage brains. Conse-
quently they would make a point of providing
opportunities for inventive people to exercise their
talents. And they would reward them justly.
You may remember that part of the argument
I set out to destroy asserted that we could not
give manual labour any more without robbing
Ability,
But if we paid Ability all it gets now, and if the
national income did not increase at all, we could still
afford to pay manual labour a living wage. How ?
By stopping all payments for idleness.
And Socialism would set free powers and capaci-
ties which now are locked up by the evils of Com-
petition, Monopoly, and the resultant evils, Poverty,
Unemployment, Slums, and Child Slaughter.
Wealth would increase. We could afford to pay
all the men of Ability from ;£'i,ooo to ^^5,000 a year,
and I should like to ask what sort of a man or a
Christian he would be who would refuse to use his
talents because he could not get more than ;^5,ooo
a year.
Our friends the enemy suggest that Manual
Labour ought not to be paid more, because Manual
Labour's power of production is the same yesterday,
to-day, and for ever. They say the manual labourer
of to-day can produce no more than the manual
labourer of 100 years ago, without machinery. And
that machinery is due to Ability.
Well, I think I have shown pretty conclusively
that Ability does Jiot get all the difference between
the wealth produced by average manual labour and
21
the wealth produced by mannal labour helped by
Ability.
Do our opponents propose to give Ability all this
increase ? When ? I have never heard of a party
with this reform as their programme.
I should myself object as strongly to paying a
perpetual rent to the inventor of scissors, or any
machine, as I do to paying perpetual rents to idle
lancllorcis and capitalists.
Assume that all increase in wealth is due to In-
vention and Ability. As a human being, I have still
to say this to the inventor : "If your invention is
going to starve me, to starve my wife and children,
to doom me and them to a life of grinding toil and
monotony, to rob us of sunshine and air, and all that
makes life sweet and precious, I am not taking any.
I claim the right to refuse your invention. I would
rather dig roots and drink the rain of heaven than
submit to your terms. To hell with your invention ! "
What I mean is that we of the common herd, who
have no invention, have the right to make a bargain
with the inventor. The inventor ivitkout tuorkers is
helpless. Well, then, are we not entitled to fair
terms ?
John Stuart Mill said it was doubtful if all the
machines ever invented had lightened the day's toil
of a single worker. More fool the worker, say I. It
would be bad enough to make a bad bargain with
the inventor, but it is a thousand times worse to stand
by and allow idle landlords and capitalists to rob
both us and the inventor.
The graceful author of the annual circular of the
West Norfolk Farmers' Manure Company says that
" what land and labour can produce to-day is seen
in Zululand or Samoa^poverty, often starvation
and pestilence," and he says that " labour is no more
effective now than 10,000 years ago."
This intelligent writer, whose Ability is proved
by his comparison of the wages in 1688 with the
wages in igo8, without any reference to prices and
rents, and whose right to scoff at the accuracy of
" loud-mouthed demagogues " is proved by his asser-
22
tion that '' the average income of a working-class
family to-day is ;^8i ! " may be surprised to know
that m this country in 1495 " an artisan earned
nearly a bushel of wheat by a day's labour, and an
ordinary labourer three-quarters of a bushel."
There was not much machinery then, was there ?
Does an artisan earn a bushel of wheat, or its equiva-
lent, in one day now? Answer, Air. JFertiliser.
In that year " the peasant could provision his
family for a twelvemonth with three quarters of
wheat, three of malt, and two of oatmeal, by fifteen
weeks of ordinary work ; an artisan could achieve
the same result in ten weeks. Such wages were regu-
larly paid, more particularly in London." (See
Professor Thorold Rogers' Six Centuries of Work
and Wages^
There are millions to-day v»'ho cannot provision
their families in fifty weeks.
The British people live in the United Kingdom,
not in Samoa or Zululand. The British people are
British, not Samoan or Zulu, and I say the average
Britisher could get a decent living if all the inven-
tors and all the men of Ability were to quit the
country. What our ancestors did in 1495 we could
do to-day.
But we have not to deal with oppression by
inventors, but oppression by a system which allows
idleness and privilege and monopoly to strangle
the life-blood out of the people. Let us deal with
that. We can argue with the inventors when they
threaten to become tyrannous.
The question is not " Shall Ability be paid more
than Manual Labour? " but " Shall Idleness be paid
more than both?" The Socialist's answer is ' No.
Idleness shall be paid nothing." Is he right, or
wrong ?
23
^z^y^^
That Socialism would mean Confiscation,
Because Compensation is Impossible.
Answer,
Socialism would not mean Confiscation, but the
stoiDpage of Confiscation.
Opponents of Socialism often say, " How are
the land and industries to be nationalised ? Are
they to be paid for? If so, where is the money to
come from ? There is no money. The Socialists
cannot, therefore, pay compensation. Consequently
Socialism means Confiscation and Robbery."
Now, if you will read again the facts given in the
first chapter, you will see where the fallacy of this
argument lies.
The question is not " Do we propose to pay Com-
pensation ? " The question is " How long are we
going to allow the present Confiscation to continue ?
Flow do we propose to reduce the amount of Con-
fiscation until it is abolished ? "
These are very different questions. As Blatchfcrd
says, " Socialism is not a burglar. Socialism is the
policeman."
Robbery and Confiscation of the fruits of labour
are taking place to-day. And on a grand scale, too.
It is all perfectly legal. But is it moral ? That is
the whole point at issue.
You must either defend the present system, with
all its horrors, or you must admit that it is an unjust
system.
H you admit the necessity of reform, you admit
the justice of shopping the Confiscation.
How much Confiscation are you in favour of
stopping ?
Your Liberal and Tory statesmen would think
they deserved statues if they returned to the poor a
farthing in the £ \x\ z. century.
That will not do for the Socialist. The Socialist
24
demands that all confiscation must be stopped. All.
All. And he means all.
The present immoral system has allowed
5,000,000 PEOPLE TO ACCUMULATE i^ 1 0,900,000,000
while the rest of the population,
39,000,000, OWN ONLY ^^600,000,000.
These figures alone prove to an intelligent person
that the fruits of labour are not being received by
those who produce them.
The nidignation of opponents who talk of Social-
ism as " sheer robbery " is like the indignation of the
burglar who, when arrested for stealing a clock,
said, " Why, that was five years ago — and I've kept
it wound up."
We smile, but — we arrest the burglar.
Socialism is a theory of Society based on ju.stice
and the welfare of the whole people.
Very well. If all the people suddenly became
vividly conscious of the injustice and immorality of
the present system, and if they determined to adopt
Socialism (supposing it were possible) in the tick of
a clock, they, the " State," the whole people, would
take over all the land and capital, all the means of
production, and manage and distribute them in the
light of their higher moral ideas.
Would that be Confiscation ?
You may call it what you like. I contend that it
would involve a change to a higher moral condition
of society than exists to-day.
Socialism would Confiscate nothing but the unjust
privileges vi^hich enable the verj'' few to wrest the
fruits of labour from the many, to the injury of the
whole nation.
To prevent such Confiscation as goes on, Socialists
are convinced that it is necessary to adopt a system
of .State ownership and control of land and capital.
The people is supreme. The lav/s under which a
few rich prevent the nation from developing its
assets, its men and women and children, to the best
advantage, are laws which are tacitly upheld by the
25
people. But those laws can be amended or abolished.
New laws can be made — if the people will.
The late Lord Chief Justice Coleridge said : "The
particular rules by which the enjoyment of property
is regulated, differing in every country in the world,
must rest at last upon one and the same foundation
— the general advantage."
The general advantage. Very well. I claim
that Socialism would further " the general ad-
vantage."
" The life of the social organism must, as an end,
rank above the lives of its units," says Herbert
Spencer, and Socialists say that the life of our
nation is endangered by the immoral system of
to-day, which slaughters millions of children need-
lessly, compels millions of men and women to a
miserable existence, and produces a dangerous pro-
portion of unfit, who would, under Socialism, become
strong and healthy, and moral citizens ; the only
real wealth of a nation.
Consequently, we say it would be folly to refrain
from establishing a just and moral system of society
because it would involve interference with the habits
of a few units of rich men. There are only i % mil-
lion rich people out of 44,000,000. So that it is a
very small minority who would " suffer " by the
change. And they would benefit by living in a
society in which poverty, starvation, unemployment,
and all the consequent misery would not exist.
Everybody would benefit.
Now, no Socialist believes it to be possible to
establish the new system in a week. We must go
step by step. But we have a goal in view, and any
reform supported by Socialists must be a step
towards that goal. Socialism.
Very well. In taking these steps, in a condition
of transition from the present system to Socialism,
injustice would be done to certain individuals if
their capital and land were taken over without
" Compensation," while other individuals whose in-
dustries were not yet dealt with were allowed to
enjoy their old powers and privileges.
26
But our opponents say " Compensation " is
impossible.
I do not think " Comp:»ensation " is impossible.
That is to say, I believe it [wssible for the State to
act justly to its members. We are always tender
with vested interests. We would rather kill a thou-
sand babies than deprive a rich man of the motor
cars he buys with the rents he does not earn.
For the State to take a capitalist's or land-
lord's capital away and give him nothing in
return would manifestly be unjust. It is a question
for arbitration.
But to give, say, an owner of land ;£'i,ooo,ooo as
compensation for his land, and allow him to invest
that million in industry, would simply be changing
that landowner's unearned income from rent to
interest — both robbery of the workers.
Here are a few people legally robbing the com-
munity of 6s. 8d. in the £. The problem is not
" Shall the nation take the 6s. 8d. from them and
give them 6s. 8d. in return, but how shall the nation
get the 6s. 8d. without being unduly hard on the
more or less ignorant defendants whose depredations
have been winked at bv the community for so
long ? "
To adjust the treatment fairly to the various con-
ditions of the different defendants would require
great care, and one can only hint at what might be
done.
We could guarantee to pay all the rich people, to
them and to their heirs for, say, two generations,
incomes Vv'hich would not de[)rive them of a single
luxury to which they have been accustomed. (Poor
things !) If their land and capital were used by the
nation, we should at the end of that period be in a
position to double their allowance, or cut it off
altogether, as seemed best.
But it is not likely we shall proceed in that way.
We shall most probably begin by nationalising the
foundation industries of the nation, land, railways,
mines, insurance, banking, and so on.
We shall also put an increasing tax on incomes
27
received for idleness, on rent, and interest, and
monopoly.
By this means we shall accumulate national
capital for starting State industries, and so solve the
unemployed problem.
If we take over, say, the railways, we could give
the shareholders Government stock like Consols, in
return for their shares, and pay a fixed interest for
a certain number of years at any rate.
This interest would be paid out of the earnings of
the railways, as it is to-day, but it is probable that
under State management the railways would yield
higher profits, v/hich would go into the public
treasury. So with the banks and insurance com-
panies, the mines and other industries.
A Socialist Government would naturally not
desire to impoverish the poor man who happened to
be a little " capitalist." The Duke of Westminster
and John Smith might conceivably have, the first
one million and the second £20 in the same land
company.
Well, if the land company were nationalised and
the dividends were reduced to a fixed rate of
interest, it might hurt John Smith, while the Duke
of Westminster would not feel the reduction. Such
an injustice would be provided for. John Smith
might have his tobacco and food taxes and his rates
reduced, so that he would not lose on the whole.
The working man with £20 in the bank, or a
house of his own, need have no fear. His position
would certainly improve under these conditions. He
would for one thing be getting an old age pension,
which he could not buy for ;^ioo to-day, and he
would have regular employment, which would be
worth at least £20 a year to him.
And by the time the next steps come to be taken
you will be dead, and all your anxiety about your
savings will be as a tale that is told.
I wonder if any of you will feel sorry, when you
arrive in the next world, that you fought against
Socialism for fear of losing your savings ? O, my
Christian friends, ivhat an argument !
28
" I will say unto my soul, ' Soul, thou hast much
goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat,
drink, and be merry.' But God said unto him,
' Thou foolish one, this night is thy soul required of
thee ; and the things which thou hast prepared,
whose sliall they be ? ' "
Socialists would not be unjust or harsh. But they
would not forget, when dealing out Compensation,
the millions who have so long suffered from the Con-
fiscation of the present system, and it would always
be their aim to hasten the time when that Confisca-
tion should cease.
We see, then, that Compensation in our opponents'
sense is impossible, because it would be unjust; but
Compensation in our sense is possible, because it
would be just.
29
That Socialism Would Rob the Poor Man
of His Sa\ings.
A nsWer,
Socialism would rob no one. The poor man is
robbed of what should be his savings under the
present system. Socialism would stop that robbery.
This objection is one of the many which can be
refuted by confronting it with another objection.
We are told, on the one hand, that Socialism
would rob the rich in order to benefit the poor; on
the other hand, we are told that Socialism would
take everything from the poor.
flow could Socialism do both these things ? It
would do neither.
Here is the argument as used by Tom, Dick, and
Harry all over the country. In this case the speaker's
name was Claude — ^Mr. Claude Lowther :
But what about the savings of the poor? Your
Socialist orators keep a very discreet silence on
this point. But Socialism, with its terrible, im-
placable justice, can surely make no distinction,
and will confiscate the goods of rich and poor
alike. (Hear, hear.) Then what of the ten mil-
lion working people who have 150 million pounds
invested in the Post Office Savings Bank ?
What of the trade unions with their millions of
workmen's money invested in houses, in building
societies, in railway stocks, in land ? All will be
confiscated in a Socialist State; everything must
go. Why, Socialism means death to trade unions.
(Applause.) And that is not all. What of the
many rnillions of money invested in the penny
banks and in the trustee savings banks, I believe
to the amount of over 50 millions ? And I know
there are over 68 millions of working people's
money invested in joint stock companies and work-
30
men's insurance companies ! All must disappeai.
What of our shopkeepers? What of every man
who has invested his hard-earned savings — his
capital — in business ? All that has to go. Every-
thing has to go, from the palace of the King to
the poor man's homestead — and don't you make
any mistake. (Laughter and applause.)
Everything has to go ! But where to? The Tory
orator said " Socialism" will take it. Who or what
IS Socialism? By Socialism he meant a Socialist
State. What is a Socialist State? A Socialist
State means the Whole People.
A Socialist State, then, would take everything
from the people. That is to say, the Whole People
would take everything from the Whole People.
The Tory orator's object was to prove that the
poor man would be robbed of his £10 in the bank,
or his house. But if Socialism would also rob the
rich to benefit the poor, Socialism would have some-
thing to give the poor man Let us see how much.
The total wealth of the country is estimated to be
£\ 1,500 millions.
Divide ;6 11,500 millions amongst 44 million
people. There would be £2(^0 per head, or ;^ 1,300
worth of property for a family of five.
How many working men have i^ 1,300? How
many have 1,300 shillings? Very few.
The facts speak for themselves. Our opponents
never tell the whole story. \i they did, their
audiences would perceive that their arguments
destroy each other.
But Socialists do not want to " divide up." What,
then, would be the position of the working man with
i)20 in the bank, or a house of his own, if Socialism
were established ? *
Let us first consider the position of such a work-
ing man to-day. He has i^20 in the bank. He gets
los. per year interest on it. But any day he may
have to withdraw some or all of it on account of
sickness, death, or unemployment. How far will
£20 go ?
31
If his wages are 30s. a week, his ;!^20 would vanish
in less than three months if he were out of work.
Even if he is lucky enough to keep his savings intact
till old age, what use is i^20 ? Will it keep him out
of the workhouse ? For how long ?
Now, consider his position under Socialism. He
would have regular work, so long as he were able to
work, compensation in case of accident, and an old
age pension {a real one). His wages would be
higher, his house would be a house, his food would
be pure, his clothes would be of good quality, his
education and recreations would be of the best, his
health would be better, and he would have no
anxiety for his own or his children's future.
And his money in the bank would be safer than
ever.
So that if the "State" did steal his iJ'20, the
" State " would give him in return what he cannot
buy to-day for i^2,ooo.
The same arguments apply to the man with a
house. What does a man who owns a house gain by
it to-day ? And how many really " own " their
houses out of the ten millions mentioned by Mr.
Claude Lowther ? One million? No; nor a half;
nor a quarter. Why, if all the ^^400 millions of
working-class savings were invested in house pro-
perty, at a beggarly £200 per house, it would repre-
sent only two million paltry houses !
And how many working men who have a house
" of their own " are paying interest on mortgages ?
Thousands of those who buy houses through
building societies have to pay 50 per cent, more than
the value of the houses, because their enormous
savings are so large that they can only deposit a
portion of the price, and are compelled to borrow
the remainder, and pay interest on it.
It would pay every working man with a house to
have it " stolen " by the " State," and it would pay
the State to burn a good many of them to the
ground and build decent ones in their places.
A man buys a i^400 house through a building
society. Suppose he pays down one-quarter (iJ^ioo),
32
and borrows the remainder at 4 per cent. What does
his house cost him ?
If he repays in 20 years the house will cost him
So that in order to have £^400 he has to save
Now, under Socialism a man's savings would be
his own, just as now. But there would be no need to
buy a house, and part of what he paid in rent would
come back to him in the form of reduced taxes. So
that his savings could be much greater, and they
would cost him less. If he wanted i^400 he need
only save ;^40O, not £SS^-
There is the question of the funds of the trade
unions and building societies. Mr. Lowther says
all these will "go." Where will they "go" to?
Let us first find out how much these enormous
savings amount to.
Do the workers possess property or money of the
value of ;^ioo each? If they did, what a beggarly
sum !
But they don't. No, the savings of the working
class are much less. Here are some figures :
Deposits in P.O. Savings Bank ;^i4i,ooo,ooo
„ Trustee Savings Banks 52,000,000
Consols 15,000,000
Capital of Building Societies ... 47,000,000
Funds of Trade Unions, Co-
operative & Friendly Societies 72,000,000
Funds of Industrial Life Assur-
ance Societies 23,000,000
Total ;^3 50,000,000
Those figures are six or seven years old. Suppose
we add another ^^50 millions to cover the savings
since. That will make the total ;£'400 millions. But
if ten million workers had a wretched i^ioo each
the savings would amount to £1,000 millions. Two
and a-half times as much as the whole of the work-
ing classes own.
Now, every year it is estimated that out of the
d 33
total income of ;^ 1,750 millions received by the
whole population, ;^200 millions are " saved."
So that the working class, after years and years
and years of saving, possess only an amount equal
to two years' savings of the whole people !
What do the few rich own ?
The total accumulation of the whole people is
estimated at ii^i 1,500 millions.
The working class own ^^400 millions; the rest
own iJ"i 1,100 millions.
Thus, for every £4 saved by the working class,
the well-to-do and rich have saved £iii.
The workers number millions. The rich are few.
Mr. Chiozza Money, M.P., in the Daily Mail Year
Book, estimates that
5,000,000 people own ;^ i o,qoo,ooo,ooo
39,000,000 people own £600,000,000
Or, to put it another way :
39 poor and middle class own £1^ each
5 rich „ i;2,i8o „
Far from desiring to keep discreetly silent about
the savings of the working class, I should like the
facts shouted from the house-tops, and from Tory
and Liberal platforms. And, the facts about the
savings of the rich. It is the Tory and Liberal
orators who keep discreetly silent.
What they tell the working man is that the
" State " will confiscate or steal the £10 he has in
the bank, and the house he has bought with his
savings. They do not tell him the facts I have set
out above, which prove that the working man is now
being robbed yearly of m.ore than he can save in
a lifetime under the present system.
Now, what is done with the trade union and other
funds of the working classes to-day ? And what
would become of them under Socialism ?
To-day they are invested in Consols and various
industries. That is to say, these funds are to a very
great extent at the mercy of the capitalist class. So
34
long as the workers " keep their place," they are
permitted to invest their petty savings along with
the big capitalists, and the capitalists are wide
enough to know that when the workers have a
'■ stake " in the country they are not likely to become
too " uppish."
The working man with his trade union funds is
in the position of the sheep who " saved " its lambs
by leaving them in the care of the wolf. He
" saves " by handing over his funds to the capitalist,
who, in time of trades disputes, is his deadly
enemy.
The trade union and other funds of the workers
can nearly all be filched from them whenever the
capitalists like to put their heads together for the
purpose.
Under Socialism, the industries in which these
funds are invested would gradually be nationalised.
They would become State industries. But would
the workers suffer ? Would they lose anything ?
Not a cent.
The working man with ;£'20 is implored by the
millionaire to stand in with him to defeat the wicked
Socialist robbers. " They are after your ;^20," he
cries.
But when the working man understands that the
present immoral system enables the millionaire to
take 6s. 8d. in the £ of his earnings, and that under
an equitable system his ;!^20 might be multiplied
by ten, he may begin to suspect that the millionaire
is not the noble patriot he pretends to be.
And — when the working man understands that
Socialism will abolish unemployment, slums, over-
crowding, child slaughter and slavery, the degrada-
tion of women ; when he understands that Socialism
v/ill ensure work and hope and health and leisure
and education and recreation for all, then I think
he will conclude that he will risk losing his ;£'20 and
his house, and work for Socialism.
A good many of him are already doing so. It is
the trade unionist with savings and the man with a
house of his own who makes the keenest Socialist.
35
That Socialism Would Ruin the Small
Shopkeeper.
A nsWer.
The small shopkeeper is being ruined to-day.
Socialism would save him.
There are thousands of small capitalists in this
country — men who by individual initiative, self-
reliance, and industry have m.ade for themselves an
honourable position in our social organisation.
I allude, ladies and gentlemen, to the small shop-
keepers, a class whose usefulness to the community
is undeniable. How would these men fare if we
allowed the hideous miasma of Socialism to rear its
horrid tentacles in our midst ?
Ladies and gentlemen, they would be crushed out
of existence. Yes. The Socialists make no secret
of their intention to ruin this industrious, this self-
reliant, this noble body of men and women. Their
shops would be taken by the State, their capital
would be confiscated, and they and their families
would be cast upon the world amongst the flotsam
and jetsam of an effete civilisation, dependent for
existence upon the crust of charity or the degrading
doles of pauperism.
That is what the Tory and Liberal orators tell
you. Is that a true picture of the fate of the small
shopkeeper under Socialism ? On the contrary, it
is more like the condition of things existing to-day,
under Freedom, Competition, and devil take the
hindmost. Let us try a few facts.
In October, 1907, the London bakers, the small
shopkeepers, woke up one morning and found on
their doorsteps, along with the " Daily Exposure of
Socialism," a little Trust.
Such a little thing. A mere baby Trust And so
quiet. But oh, how those small capitalists jumped !
36
The price of bread had been rising. We were
told that the cause of the rise was the shortage of
wheat. Flour was dearer. So the small shopkeeper
had raised his price. The 4lb. loaf was sold for 6d.,
but even this price, it was said, did not cover the
advance in flour, and profits had almost disappeared.
On the top of these troubles arrived the baby
Trust.
What is a Trust ?
Although there are a tremendous number of small
bakers in London — little capitalists who employ a
few men and bake their own bread — there are a
growing number of wholesale bakers who supply
shopkeepers.
One of these large bakers is the V.V. Bread Com-
pany. Suddenly the V.V. developed into a baby
Trust.
The V.V. gave notice that in future they would
not supply agents, but would sell their breadstuffs
at their own depots.
They began by opening sixty shops.
And they sold the 41b. loaf at 5d. instead of 6d.
The small bakers v/ere furious. Why ? Why
should they be furious ?
Because they feared rum. They couldn't afford to
sell bread at 5d. Their profits were already cut
into at 6d. To sell at 5d. meant ruin.
But if the public can get a loaf for 5d., will they
pay 6d. ?
They will not. Consequently the 6d. shopkeeper
is doomed. He will be ruined.
By what ? By Socialism ?
No. By our glorious system of individual initia-
tive, freedom, self-reliance, liberty. By Competition.
By Monopoly.
By the Trust.
Who is trying to take the shops from the small
shopkeepers ? The Trust.
Who is robbing them of their capital ? The Trust.
Who will turn them into the streets to find a living
how they may ? The Trust.
To-day the Trusts are doing all the terrible things
37
;'i88558
to the small capitalist which the Tories and Liberals
tell them Socialism ivould do at some distant date.
But the small bakers will combine and fight the
Trust.
Will they beat the Trust ? Ah !
Of course, they may beat this little Trust. By
forming a Combine, another sort of Trust, they may
freeze the little baby to death.
But do they think they will always be able to keep
out the Trusts ? Cannot they see the writing on the
wall ?
The small baker employing two or three hands is
doomed. He has to go. Why ?
Because he is dear. Because he is inefficient. Be-
cause he is out of date.
The only question for the small baker is, " Am
I to be abolished by the Trust, or by Socialism ? "
Allow me to put the problem from the Socialist
point of view.
Here is a community in which bread is a necessary
of life. vSo much bread is required every day. The
question is how to provide the people with the best
possible bread in the most convenient and economical
way.
It is plain that in a large town it would be cheaper
and more efficient to have one or more central
bakeries, from which the bread could be delivered
by motor carts direct to customers, rather than to
have a number of small shops, with a little hand-
cart or slow horsed cart, each overlapping the district
of half-a-dozen others. Local depots might be
necessary, but they need not be so numerous nor so
large as under the wasteful system of to-day.
Bread could then be produced under decent con-
ditions. The v/orkers would be better paid, and
work in healthy surroundings. Bread would be
pure. The price would be the cost price. \i the
bakeries belonged to the people.
What is the alternative to Socialism ?
The present system being doomed, the only
alternative is the Trust.
Now, if the Trust were a moderately sensible
38
Trust, it would produce pure bread, in decent
bakeries. But — no Trust would pay its workers as
well as the community, and no Trust would sell
bread at cost price.
Under Socialism, the public would be sure of pui;e
bread at cost price, and the bread-makers would be
sure of fair wages and decent conditions.
Under the Trust — there would be huge profits for
the Trust. The bread might be jungle bread. The
workers and the public would be at the raerc> x)"! the
Trust.
Which is the better method — Socialism or
Mammon?
In any case, the small bak-e^- Wiil disappear. His
methods of making and distributing bread are
wasteful. If he is abolished by the Trust, what will
happen to him ?
Will the Trust buy him out ? No. The Trust will
freeze him out.
Will the Trust compensate him for the loss of his
busmess ? No. The Trust will rob him of his
business. This is a free country. The Trust will
only exercise " mitiative " in so doing.
Will the Trust find the starving shopkeepers work ?
Will It ?
Now compare the proposals of Socialists with the
actions of the Trust. Socialists propose that the
State should take over industries and organise them
for the benefit of the State. What is the State ?
The whole people. Not a governing clique. The
whole people.
We want bread. We can grow or buy wheat. We
can make flour. We can bake loaves. Is it not
insane, then, for thousands of people to be fighting
each other to the death as to who shall conduct this
simple business ? We have our own waterworks,
gasworks, and electricity works by the hundred.
Why, then, should we not organise this business of
making bread, and put an end for ever to the
degrading struggle for existence between rival
bakeries ? Would it be a denial of Christianity for
the nation to make its own bread ?
39
The same arguments apply to the provision of
Milk, Meat, Boots, Drapery, and other goods sup-
plied by small shopkeepers. Trusts are growing
daily. Boots, the Cash Chemist, Lipton, the Pro-
vision Merchant, the Home and Colonial, and many
ether big firms have hundreds of branches all over
the country. Then there are big stores who sell
" everything." The small shopkeeper finds it daily
mor« ^ difficult to protect his little capital and his
hard-eained income from the assaults of the Trusts.
The Trust, privately owned, is a terrible engine of
oppression. The chief industries in the United
States are ow^ed by a few big private Trusts. The
small capitalist has been ruthlessly wiped out by
the thousand.
The same thing will happen here, under Free
Trade, sooner or later. Under Tariff Reform, which
is Protection, Trusts flourish. Look at America and
Germany.
Let the small shopkeeper think.
The only Trust worth having is Socialism. Why ?
Because under Socialism the Land and Capital
would belong to ALL the people, not to a few
millionaires.
40
That Socialism would Abolish Competition,
and so Reduce the Amount of Wealth
Produced.
A nsWer.
Socialism would abolish Competition and so in-
crease the amount of wealth produced.
To-day we live under a system of Competition
and Monopoly, and we are told that if we abolish
Competition, and establish Socialism, the nation will
not produce sc much wealth.
Socialists, on the contrary, assert that Competition
and private Monopoly are bad for the nation, and
they further assert that under Socialism it would be
possible to increase largely the total national income.
Let us consider a few examples of the way Com-
petition and Monopoly injuriously affect the pro-
duction of wealth.
If you were told that the head of a large family
had a separate house for each member of the family,
a separate baker, a separate butcher, a separate milk-
man, a separate tailor, a separate bootmaker, a
separate draper, a separate doctor, a separate ceme-
tery, and so on, and if you were told that he acted
thus on the ground that Competition must be en-
couraged, you would say he was mad.
Well, we go about providing the nation with food
in little less absurd ways.
Milk, bread, and meat are foods used by the bulk
of the population. Forty-four million people require
so much bread, meat, and milk per day. How do
we set about providing the required amount ? How
would an educated, business-like, scientific man
tackle the problem ?
We have thousands of producers and distributors
of bread, milk, and meat, all working and competing
to supply the required quantities.
In one small street you may see more than a score
41
of separate bread, milk, and meat distributors, all
covering the same ground, all wasting rent, materials,
and labour, in the effort to obtain a meagre living.
The chaos in production is often as marked, but
in bread and meat the Trusts have already begun to
organise production.
Now, all this Competition involves Waste. Wicked
waste. It is just as foolish as dropping buckets into
empty v/ells, or digging holes and filling them up
again, and calling it " employment."
If a man requires only one loaf, it is plain that
if two bakers make a loaf for him, one will be
wasted. The materials and the labour of one baker
are throv/n away.
Again, a baker can make one loaf, and could make
two with a very little more time and labour. If
there are two customers, he could supply both. But
under our system, another baker sets up in business
to compete v/ith the old one for the new customer —
nay, for the first customer, too. Thus wasting rent,
materials, time, and labour.
As you walk along your streets count the boot
shops, the drapers, the tobacconists, the milk shops,
the bakers, the butchers — notice how close they are
together, observe how little difference there is
between many of the goods all sell, and then ask
yourself whether it would not be easy to organise
a system which would save a good deal of rent,
material, and labour, and do the work they are doing
under better conditions and at less cost.
This waste in production and distribution is
rampant under our present system. Let us take
another example, a large industry, our railway
system.
What, in an efficient nation, should be the work of
the railway system ? Evidently to convey passengers
and goods to their destinations in the quickest,
cheapest, and most comfortable and convenient v/ay.
Do our railways fulfil these requirements?
On the contrary, they are notoriously dear, dila-
tory, and inefficient.
Where they have a monopoly they treat passengers
42
worse than cattle, their fares are high, and there is
a never-ending chorus of complaints from traders
because of the high rates for carriage of goods.
Where they are in competition their recklessness
and extravagance are suicidal.
Let me give an example of the waste from Com-
petition.
M.r. W. J- Stevens, F.S.S., writing on British Rail-
way extravagance in the Financial Revieiu of Re-
views for December, 1907, says of the Great Western,
one of the best managed lines :
Capital expenditure has been largely directed to
shorten existing routes, and so capture traffic
belonging to other companies. . . . Most of these
lines not only do not open up any new courses of
traffic worth securing, but they duplicate existing
routes of the Great Western itself. This company
has not hesitated to incur many millions of capital
expenditure which have merely reduced the profit
derived from its existing lines, for the sake of
filching a part of the traffic already within the
legitim.ate sphere of a competitor.
A.nd Mr. Stevens reckons that this reckless com-
petition has, in the last ten years, wasted £1 V2 mil-
lions of the ordinary shareholders' capital, while the
m.arket value of their shares has depreciated £1$
millions.
The same kind of throat cutting has taken place
amongst London 'bus companies. The problem of
supplying 'bus traffic for London is quite sim.ple.
But what a chaos competition makes of it ! A score
of companies are scrambling for the traffic, with
the result that millions of capital are being wasted,
and the public is being badly served, thus wasting
their time and money too.
Consider coal. Coal is a necessary, and the quan-
tity required per family or factory per year a matter
easy of calculation. ' Scientifically organised, its
production and distribution would be as regular
and punctual and cheap as possible.
But under our system of monopoly and competi-
43
Hon the public is periodically robbed of scores of
millions of pounds by a little gang of coal owners,
who in this way " confiscate " the wealth which
would buy them out many times over. Terrible
suffering is caused to the poor, the prices of most
commodities are raised, the public is put to much
inconvenience by irregular supply, and all the time
the men who get the coal, the workers, are wretchedly
paid.
Waste, waste, waste is written all over our system.
All the workers now employed in useless competi-
tion might be producing wealth. Thus Socialism,
by abolishing competition, would increase the total
income. And Socialism, by abolishing private mono-
poly, would prevent the robbery of the public by
greedy dividend hunters.
You call Socialism robbery and confiscation ! Do
you know that every time you put is. down to buy
an article you are being robbed by Monopoly or
Competition of from 3d. to lod. ?
You want a pair of boots. You go into a bootshop
and you buy a pair of boots. But what do you fay
for?
Much beside boots. You pay for the labour
employed in producing the boots at that spot for
your convenience, but you also pay for the wasted
labour caused by Competition, for useless advertis-
ing, for useless travellers, for useless shop rents, and
fixtures, for useless employees, for unnecessary
factories and machinery. Ah ! The blessings of
Competition.
Coal can be bought at the pit bank at from 6s. to
I OS. a ton. When it arrives in London it is 30s. Who
gets the difference ?
Competition and Monopoly get most of it. Use-
less labour and legalised robbery. W aste.
You can travel from London to Lancashire by
five different routes, all running trains at the same
times. I live near a main line, and I cross the line
sometimes and watch the non-stop expresses rushing
past. What an entrancing sight, the mighty loco-
motive and the train of carriages ! I often wonder
44
if any people are in them. If so, they must be
under the seats. The blessings of Competition !
But all these competitors mean employment for
the workers ? Yes. Useless employment.
An intelligent trade union leader has actually
advised the railway men not to support Railway
Nationalisation because it would mean the employ-
ment of a smaller staff !
That is an admission that certain men are now
wasting their time. But they are being paid. Who
pays them ? The public.
It is plain, then, that the public could afford to
pay them for doing nothing, and reap all the other
advantages of nationalisation.
But under Socialism, these men would not be
thrown on the streets, as men are now when a Trust
or an amalgamation " reduces working expenses."
No. Socialism would organise work for all.
This brings me to another form of waste caused
by Competition. I mean the waste of the Un-
employed.
Do you know that from 2 to lo per cent, of our
best workers, the skilled trade unionists, are always
unemployed ?
Do you know that irregularity of employment,
and unemployment, and the suffering and anxiety
involved, cause deterioration in health and morals ?
Well, we have from a quarter of a million to a
million always unemployed. Suppose we say an
average of 500,000. And the cause of unemploy-
ment is Competition and Monopoly.
Now, under Socialism those people would have
regular employment. To-day we lose, besides the
wealth that might be produced by useless competi-
tors, the wealth that might be produced by this
immense army.
Under Socialism they would all be as healthy
and strong and capable as possible, and instead of
costing the rest of the nation immense sums in
charity, they would increase the national income by
at least £100 millions a year.
There is the Waste due to sickness and ill-health.
45
We have 12 millions on the verge of starvation.
These people cannot possibly do their best. They
are always belov^ par. We have twenty millions
very poor. Their surroundings, at home and at work,
are frequently vile. The result is loss of wealth by
the cost of ill-health, and by consequent loss of
productive power.
We pay many unnecessary millions for sickness
caused by slums, starvation, underfeeding, overwork,
and underpay.
Alany a middle-class, aye, and upper-class, family
have to mourn the loss of some dear one whose death
could be traced directly to slums, or low wages, or
overwork.
Think of the infectious diseases that are spread
amongst all classes by the poverty of the workers.
The middle classes and the upper classes do not
suffer so heavily as the working class, but nine-
tenths of what they do suffer in this way comes
direct from the poor, and is quite an unnecessary
evil. Poverty and ignorance, unemployment, slums —
all these are the blessings of Competition !
The foregoing examples of the evil effects of
Monopoly and Competition are the merest hints at
the vast amount of Waste caused by our present
system. But they may suggest to the reader to
observe for himself, and if he looks, and wherever
he looks, he will find ample proof of the truth of my
argument. And remember that this Waste costs yon
at least 25 per cent, of your wages. If you had to
pay a direct tax of 5s. in the £ you would howl.
Well, you are doing it noiv.
Production of the greatest possible amount of
v/ealth under private monopoly is impossible. The
Land monopoly and the practical monopoly of
Capital by a few thousand people are enormous
restrictions on productive power.
Not only is the system which gives 20,000 people
the bulk of the wealth in the country immoral, but
the use made by these people of their wealth is a
continual danger to the State.
They do not use their immense opportunities to
46
foster industries for the benefit of the people. They
go straight for higher dividends.
The rural people perish for want of land. The
great landlords shut up their property and build
high walls of protection round it. The rich owners
of town lands, who take enormous sums made by
the people, for doin^ nothing, do not allow this
wealth to return to the people in the form of new
industries, and extensions of old industries. Not
altogether. No. They export millions per year to
foreign countries.
Why ? Because they can make higher dividends
out of the badly -paid foreigner. They give work
to the foreigner in preference to the British. Many
of these are Tariff Reformers, who pretend to want
to protect the British workman against foreign com-
petition.
Do you know that nearly £i out of every £^
owned by the British people in the United Kingdom
is invested abroad ?
Is that patriotism, while we have half a million
unemployed, and 12 millions on the verge of
starvation ?
It is plain that the practical monopoly of land
and capital by the few prevents the production of
the greatest possible amount of wealth for home
consumption.
There are the various Trusts. There are many
Trusts in this country already. Under Protection
they will grow like mushrooms. Look at America
and Germany. What does the Trust do ?
It abolishes Competition. It dismisses useless
competitive employees. It reduces " working ex-
penses." For whose benefit ?
For the benefit of the shareholders in the
Trust.
Now read this gem from a speech of Mr. Claude
Lowther :
Mr. Bannington asks me what I would do with
Trusts. I want to clip the wings of Trusts, and
I would begin by smashing the biggest Trust, the
47
most gigantic monopoly that was ever conceived,
and that is a Socialist State. (Loud applause.)
Mr. Lowther wants to clip the wings of Trusts,
and he is in favour of Protection, under which Trusts
flourish exceedingly.
Now observe. Knowing the public dislike of
Trusts, Mr. Lowther calls a Socialist State the
biggest Trust of all, and, hey, presto ! loud applause.
His audience have evidently discovered a " master
mind."
But what a curious " master mind " it must be
that finds pleasure in obtaining applause by such
means. A Trust to-day consists of a few people,
who (if their wings require clipping) must be using
their power to make unfair profits out of the people.
But a Socialist State, or Trust, would consist of
the WHOLE PEOPLE. So that we have Mr. Lowther
denouncing the whole people for desiring to use their
labour and ability to produce the greatest amount
of wealth possible for distribution amongst them-
selves !
Mr. Lowther's suggestion was that a Monopoly
owned by the WHOLE PEOPLE is the same as a Mono-
poly owned by a few people. One would think that
a " master mind " knew the difference.
Under Socialism, Competition would be abolished.
Waste would be eliminated. Our captains of
industry, instead of using their Ability to discover
ways of cutting their competitors' throats, would use
their Ability in devising means of producing wealth
by the most economical methods. The saving would
be enormous, and the result would be an increased
productive power which would very soon enable us
to obtain double the wealth of to-day.
48
That the Prospect of Socialism would
drive Capital out of the Country.
Answer,
If you are so foolish as to allow yourselves to be
deluded by Socialist agitators, and if you become
so numerous that there is a prospect of your putting
Socialism into practice, wc shall very quickly bring
you back to a reasonable frame of mind. Wc shall
take our Capital abroad.
Ah ! Where would the misguided millions be
then ? Without Capital, and without the Ability to
create new Capital, the plight of the masses would
be a thousand times worse than it is to-day. The
streets would be flooded with a workless population,
who must very soon starve to death from lack of the
absolute necessaries of life !
Such is the terrible picture drawn by many
eloquent gentlemen, whose imagination is in inverse
ratio to their knowledge of the subject.
I can understand the average person, who has
never given a thought to the question, thinking it
possible for the capitalists to take all their Capital
abroad. Capital does go abroad. Everybody knows
that. Capital is always going abroad.
But when M.P.'s, bishops, and eminent financiers
who are supposed to possess abnormal Ability use
this argument, I am compelled to conclude either
that they are humorists or that their boasted Ability
is a myth.
Capital goes abroad in varying quantities every
year. But does all Capital go abroad ?
Evidently not. Then only some Capital goes
abroad.
Why only some? Why is not all Capital driven
abroad under the present system ?
I think everyone will agree that some Capital goes
e 49
abroad because the owners of the Capital want to
make dividends without working for them.
Some Capital goes abroad, then, because it fays
to invest it abroad.
But Capital is invested at home. Why ? Evidently
because it -pays to invest it at home.
Why, then, is not all Capital invested at home, of
all Capital invested abroad ?
Either it pays better to invest some Capital
abroad, or, there is no room for further investment
at home, and the surplus Capital is driven abroad.
Tlie present system, then, drives Capital abroad.
Our opponents, knowing that Capital goes abroad
in this way, argue that any amount of Capital could
be invested abroad, if the ov/ners wanted to send it;
that (xll the Capital could be sent abroad.
Is this inference sound ? Could all the owners of
Capital take their Capital abroad ?
First, let us inquire how and in what form Capital
goes abroad now. V/hen a man invests Capital
abroad, what actually takes place ?
Does he send money — golden sovereigns ?
This is impossible. British capitalists have invest-
ments abroad estimated at 2,000 millions. But all
the coin in the country am.ounts only to 130 millions,
and this does not decrease.
Capitalists do not send money abroad for invest-
ment. Money is not capital. Money is the tool used
for passing goods from hand to hand. In what
form, then, does Capital go abroad ?
In the form of goods, either raw materials or
manufactures.
If British capitalists invest a million in Canadian
railways, that i^ 1,000,000 must leave the country,
sooner or later, in the form of goods.
Who makes the goods, or gets the raw materials
from the earth ?
Workers.
Then, in order to be able to send Capital abroad,
there must be v/orkers.
Then Capital cannot leave the country unless
the workers consent to use their energies in manu-
50
facturing, or in getting raw materials from the
land.
Now, if the bulk of the people were Socialists, and
a few capitalists wanted to " teach them a lesson " by
taking all their Capital abroad, how if the workers
refused to produce the goods for them to send
abroad ?
You must understand that Socialism cannot be
established, nor can steps to Socialism be taken,
unless the majority of the people are convinced of
the justice and necessity of such measures.
If, then, you imagine a time when capitalists are
all anxious to take their Capital from the country,
you must imagine that, at the same time, the bulk
of the population are Socialists. And if lessons
were being taught, I think the foolish capitalists
would receive a severe one.
The thoughtless person seems to think that capital-
ists can get up in the morning and decide to leave
the country with all their Capital by the evening.
It is not so easy.
Let us look a little further into the matter.
Capital goes abroad to-day because it fays to invest
abroad. No capitalist would send his Capital
abroad if he thought he would be more likely to
lose it than to keep it intact and make dividends.
Would he?
It follows, then, that no Capital can be invested
abroad unless the capitali.sts have confidence in the
success of the foreign enterprise.
Now, what breeds this confidence in the soundness
of a foreign investment ?
In the first place (suppose it is a foreign railway),
there must be a settled government in the foreign
country. There must be a popiulation to use the rail-
way. There must be trade and industry.
Again, the foreign country must have the Capital
in the form required by it. If the foreign country
requires Capital in the form of railways, it is no
use for the capitalist soap manufacturer in England
to send out machinery for soap making.
Suppose, nov/, the brewers in this country to
51
become fearful of Socialism. Suppose they decided
to take their Capital abroad. Where would they
go to ?
In the first place, they have to find a country which
wants Capital, and it must be a country where the
investment would be safe, and produce dividends.
Can these conditions be obtained in the tick of a
clock ?
But before they can send the Capital abroad they
must sell it to someone. Why ?
Because at present the capital of brewers consists
of buildings and machinery, and, largely, of mono-
poly rights.
Now, if no foreign country wanted breweries and
beer-making tools, the brewers would have to sell
these, and buy with the money the kind of Capital
the foreign country required.
Who would buy the breweries ?
Other capitalists ?
But we are assuming that the brewers are going
abroad because they fear Socialism. Other capital-
ists, then, would be afraid to buy the breweries.
The brewers could not sell, except at a heavy loss.
The breweries and the hotels would be worth next
to nothing. The Capital of the brewers (their build-
ings, and tools, and hotels, and public-houses) is
only valuable because the brewers have Government
licences to sell beer. Take away the licence from a
;^5,ooo hotel, and what is it worth ? Simply the
cost of the building.
The Capital the brewers would be able to take
away would not, then, be worth much. The losses
in realising would almost annihilate it.
So with most other Capital. The water pipes and
plant of the old London water companies were
worth comparatively little. But the people of
London had to pay nearly 40 millions to buy them
out ! Why ?
They zvere not faying for Capital. They were
faying the companies for their jnonofoly rights to
draw water rents from the water users.
If the water companies had taken their water
52
pipes and plant abroad, what use would they have
been? Of what value? They would have been
worth so much rubbish.
Capital is useless without workers to keep it in
repair and customers to buy their products.
I have assumed that the brewers would be able to
sell their Capital and to buy other Capital suitable
for a foreign country. But we are told that all the
capitalists would leave the country.
Now, it may be possible for some capitalists to
sell their Capital, and buy another kind suitable for
investment abroad, but all could not do it. Because,
if all Capitalists want to sell at once, there can be
no buyers.
It is easy enough to-day for one capitalist to take
his Capital abroad, just as it is easy for a few people
to draw their money from the banks in gold.
But if all the people wanted their money from
the banks in gold at once, the banks would break.
They haven't got gold. So if all the capitalists
wanted to take their Capital abroad at once, most of
the Capital would disappear. Its value would go
down enormously. The capitalists would be ruined.
They would be glad to take 5s. in the £ from the
wicked, confiscating Socialists, for their wealth.
As the capitalists would not be able to exchange
their Capital for goods suitable to invest abroad,
they would be compelled (if they still insisted on
going) to take their Capital in its present form.
For instance, the railway capitalists v/ould have to
tear up their rails, and pull down their stations, and
pack their rolling stock up for export abroad. The
coalowners would have to dig up all the coal in the
mines, and — but how could they get it to the ports
for shipment without railways ? The cotton manu-
facturers would have to break up their mills, and
take their machinery to pieces and pack it, and then
where would they be without railways ? And so on.
But suppose the railways were left to the last, and
all the other property, including the land and the
coal mines, were dumped on the quays of our ports.
What about shipping ?
53
We export now goods to the value of 400 millions
a year. The total wealth of the rich is estimated at
10,000 millions or so.
Well, 400 into 10,000 is 25. So that it would take
25 years to ship the wealth abroad !
And who would do the work ?
Again, to what country would the capitalists de-
part with their Capital ? To France, or Germany, or
the United States ? What ! Do you think the
capitalists of those countries would allow a horde of
competitors to step in and rob them of their trade ?
Would they go to Canada or Australia ?
Where are the customers ? Where are the workers
to man the factories and workshops ?
And what about Socialism in those countries ?
The poor capitalist can hardly turn anywhere with-
out jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire.
There is no escape from Socialism on this planet.
Would they go to Africa or China ? Imagine
Lord George Hamilton landing on the coast of
Africa with Liverpool Street Station ! Think of Lord
Avebury dumped into the Celestial Empire with a
Tramway and The Pleasures of Life in his pocket.
Conceive the joy of Sir Christopher Furness at his
escape from the wicked Socialists, to the wilds of
Siberia, with train loads of blast furnaces and the
Sermon on the Mount !
Isn't it a comic argument to issue from the mouths
of eminent financiers, captains of industry, M.P.'s,
and master minds ?
Capital, to be profitable, cannot go abroad except
in the form of goods required by those abroad.
Goods are made by workers, so that Capital could
not be sent abroad without the consent of the
workers. Again, Capital, to be profitable abroad,
must be in demand abroad, and secure; and demand
and security cannot be created at a moment's notice.
The threat, then, of the capitalists is so much
bluff and ignorance. I should think nothing would
contribute so effectually to the sudden (and cheap)
establishment of Socialism as a wholesale attempt
to take Capital abroad.
54
Before I conclude, I should like to say a few
words as to the way Capital is driven abroad by the
present system.
Of the total wealth of the whole kingdom, nearly
one-j&fth is invested abroad. About 2,000 millions
out of 11,500 millions Roughly, ,-^1 out of every
£S is invested abroad.
Why is so much invested abroad ? Is there no
need for investment at home ?
Have we enough houses, enough clothing, enough
of everything necessary to a healthy and decent
life?
On the contrary, we are sadly lacking even in the
necessaries of life. Why, then, does Capital go
abroad ?
I will tell you. Capital is invested abroad by rich
people because it pays. Why are they rich ? They
are rich because they receive a grossly unfair share
of the wealth produced.
Why do they not invest more at home ?
lliey do not invest more at home, because the
workers have not enough wages to buy more goods,
houses, food, coal, and clothing. Why have not the
workers enough wages to buy a proper quantity of
these goods ?
Because they are robbed by a system which gives
to a few idle people one-third of the income pro-
duced by the whole people.
Now, under Socialism, tlie weaUh would belong to
those who produced it, to the whole people, and no
sane people would export heaps of Capital abroad
when their own people lacked the necessaries of life.
Socialism, then, would not drive Capital abroad.
It would keep it at home.
55
That Socialism Would Destroy Religion.
A nsWer,
The assertion that Socialism would destroy
Religion is not true. And it is not true for this
reason : that no man, no body of men, no nation, no
human power whatever, can destroy Religion, so
long as the human race exists.
Those who ignorantly make this assertion do so
from various motives, but it is chiefly made in order
to evoke the indignation of the people, who are told
that Socialism would destroy their most cherished
possession.
A man's Religion is, or should be, very dear to
him. If, then, it were possible to destroy Religion,
it would only be natural for men to defend it with
all the passion and strength they could command.
But Religion cannot be destroyed.
What is Religion ? Is it one thing or more than
one?
We know, but some people always seem to forget,
that there are many religions. There is the Chris-
tian religion, commonly supposed to be the religion
of the people of this country.
There are the religions of Buddhism, Moham-
medanism, Shintoism, Confucianism, Taouism,
Hinduism. Then there are the countless religions
of the so-called savage peoples of Africa and Asia
and other countries. And besides the living reli-
gions, we know of many religions which have lived
for a time and now are dead.
There is not one religion only, but many. We
know, too, that religions rise, flourish for a time, and
then decay and die.
It is plain, then, that some power is already in
existence which destroys religions. Is that power
Socialism ?
It cannot be Socialism, for Socialism is a scheme
56
of society which, Mr. Balfour says, has never yet
been tried.
What, then, is that power ? The answer is,
Knowledge, progress in science. This is the great
destroyer of religions.
The religion of the savage who believes in a
number of gods is said to be a lower form of reli-
gion than the religion of a people who believe in
one god. The religion of the people whose only
gods are their ancestors is said to be a lower form
of religion than the religion of a people who believe
in a spiritual god of supreme power. Religion
frogresses.
If, now, it be asserted that Socialism would
destroy religions, it can only be asserted on the
ground that Socialism would increase Knowledge,
for it cannot be denied that it is Knowledge that
destroys some religions and causes new religions to
rise.
Is it, or is it not, a good thing to increase Know-
ledge ?
If it is not a good thing, we ought to discard all
modern religions and go back to the Fetish worship
of our savage ancestors.
If Knowledge is a good thing, and Socialism
would increase Knowledge, we ought to support
Socialism, though it destroy all the religions in
existence to-day.
But I said at first that it was impossible to destroy
Religion ! And since then I have said that religions
are destroyed, and that Knowledge destroys them.
What a contradiction !
But there is no contradiction, my friends. I have
said that Knowledge destroys religions, but not
that Knowledge destroys Religion.
What do I mean by that ? I mean that just as it
would be correct to say human races die, but the
human race never dies, so it is correct to say religions
die, but Religion never dies.
What is Religion ?
Leaving out of account the peoples who are said
to have no idea of Religion, we may say that all men
57
form some conception of the Powers or the Power
which brought them into being, and of their relation
to those Powers or that Power.
That is Religion. What men believe about the
Power that brought them into existence, and what
men believe are their relations to that Power.
Now, what can possibly prevent any man from
forming his own opinions about the Power which
brought him into existence, and about his relations
to that Power ? Nothing. Nothing on earth.
How does a man form his opinions on these
matters ? By thinking. With what does he think ?
With the brain ?
Then so long as a m.an has a brain he can think
about these matters. Not persecution, nor torture,
nor anything short of death can prevent a man from
holding what he believes to be the true Religion.
It is impossible, then, to destroy Religion, so long
as the human race exists, and the assertion that
Socialism would destroy Religion is pure ignorance.
58
That Socialism would Destroy the Incentive
of Gain.
Answer.
And a good thing, too.
Of all the arguments against Socialism, this is
the one you would least expect to find m the mouths
of the ministers of Christ. Yet it is the one that you
always find there.
They insist that it is impossible for man to work
without the incentive of gain. These disciples of
the poor and lowly Jesus, who, whenever He spoke
of riches, denounced them, and taught His fol-
lowers to find happiness in things not of this world,
cling to the incentive of gain as if it were the key to
the door of eternal bliss. Is it not strange ?
Did Christ approve of the incentive of gain ?
Tell me, are the actions which distinguish a man
as a good Christian actions done with the hope of
gain ?
You will answer. No.
Then, would it not be wise to multiply such
actions ?
The Christian Vv^ill say, the more Christlike actions
the better.
Then, if Socialism would destroy the incentive of
gain, Socialism would give more opportunities for
the other kind of action. How, then, can you oppose
Socialism on that ground ?
It seems to me that if you deny the possibility of
destroying the incentive of gain, you deny the pos-
sibility of Christianity. And you pray every day,
" Thy kingdom come." Do you pray for the
impossible y
Now, why do Christians fear the destruction of
this motive ?
In the first place, they say that as, under Social-
59
ism, " everything would be provided by the State,
there would be no incentive to work."
This argument is based on a misunderstanding.
By State, Socialists mean the Whole People. Thus,
if everything would be provided by the Whole
People, the Whole People could only provide every-
thing by working.
There would be the same incentive to work as now.
That otherwise the people would starve.
Next we are told that as " all would receive equal
wages, the people would be reduced to one dead
level. There would be no incentive for the clever
man to use his talents."
As regards equality of wages, I have dealt with
this objection in the article on Ability and Invention.
Socialism does not necessarily involve equal wages.
We could pay Ability and Invention as well, or
better, than they are paid to-day, under Socialism.
So long as it was necessary, we could retain the
incentive of gain.
So that this objection falls to the ground. If the
incentive of gain cannot be destroyed, if men must
be rewarded in proportion to their Ability, then
I maintain that Socialism would provide the best
system for attaining that object.
Under Socialism, we could not only give every-
one who possessed Ability a chance, we could
guarantee to everyone of Ability the just reward of
his services.
To-day, the Idle are allowed to rob both Labour
and Ability of the fruits of their industry.
But if, when Socialism were established, it did
tend to destroy the incentive of gain, would the
Christian try to keep that motive alive ?
I think that, in time, the incentive of gain might
be destroyed. You may consider the motive from
the Christian point of view, or from the point of
view of evolution. In either case, it seems to me,
you are bound to believe in the possibility of
abolishing it.
Many of our opponents have a low opinion of
human nature. They do not believe that man does
60
anything except from the desire of gain. For
example, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clifton,
Doctor Ilsley, said at Birmingham :
The chief motive power of self-betterment
being abolished, all would languish on the same
dull level, forming a. congregation of stunted
growth and dismal mediocrities, inhabiting a huge
monkery, from which the joys and hopes of
religion would be banished.
Are not those remarkable sentiments to issue from
the mouth of a Christian? By " self -betterment "
the Bishop means " money," and he says that with-
out this hope of " money," all would languish on
the same dull level. Genius might quite die out.
The Edisons and Armstrongs would disappear.
Were there any Edisons and Armstrongs in
Bethlehem ? Did Christ languish because He was
poor? Did Christian " self -betterment " then, or
ever, depend on the incentive of gain ? O, my good
Bishop, did you ever read the New Testament ?
It is perhaps too much to expect anyone to act
consistently on the principles of conduct laid down
by Christ. But most of our Christian opponents
deliberately adopt the principle of Mammon, the
incentive of gain, and call that Christianity.
Now, the facts of history and evolution are
dead against this low view of human nature.
Morality progresses, and morality varies in different
circumstances.
You do not expect to grow master minds, or moral
teachers, or men who lead average moral lives, in a
criminal slum. You do not expect your children to
grow up mannerly and virtuous without education.
You provide them, as far as possible, with good in-
fluences and examples.
You believe, then, that "conditions" are most
important in the development of conduct
Very well. I claim that Socialism would establish
the conditions under which the higher instincts and
motives would be fostered and encouraged to the
6i
utmost. Socialism would have as notable an effect
on the development of morality as steam has had
on the development of industry.
Consider how, to-day, under the most unfavour-
able circumstances, the higher motives insist on ex-
pressing themselves.
If the dominating motive of our people is the
incentive of gain, why are they so poor?
We have 39,000,000 poor people out of a popula-
tion of 44,000,000. Only a very few are very rich.
Only 5,000,000 are well-to-do.
Why, if avarice is the strongest motive in human
nature, are the bulk of our people so careless of their
rights ? Why do they submit to laws which rob
worker.s, average workers, men of ability, ajtd
geniuses, of so much of the wealth they produce, to
hand it over to the idle ?
The fact is, that only a few people are dominated
by this incentive of gain. The average man is not
greedy.
And if you think of it, this is a very wonderful
thing. For the strongest influences are at work in
our society to viake men greedy, and miserly, and
selfish.
The love of life is strong, is it not ? Stronger
than the desire of gain.
Well, life can only be maintained by a regular
and sufficient supply of food, clothing, fuel, and
shelter. Do our people obtain that sufficient supply ?
Millions of our people die in the workhouse. That
they will so end is a certainty. Yet their avarice, or
desire of gain, is so weak that they suffer these con-
ditions to exist for generations. They are content
to scrape along on a mere pittance.
Far from being dominated by the incentive of
gain, our people have not even a sufficiently strong
desire for life, and their desire for true self -better-
ment is often killed by their environment.
It is the fresejit system which destroys the
stimulus to improvement.
Competition breeds strife and distrust. We are
all compelled by the system to do unworthy acts
62
that revolt us, or go under. But Socialism would
abolish these conditions. Under Socialism there
would be no competition for the means of life, no
monopolists with drawn swords, preventing the
people from getting a living. We should, in work-
ing for ourselves, work for each other.
Again, think of the millions of actions done
to-day without hope of fee or reward. Think of the
thousands of people who are willing to give up
their time and energies and money for the public
welfare.
Think of the Mayors and Councillors of our
30,000 local authorities, of the members of education
committees, of Boards of Guardians, of hospital
managers and assistants. Think of the unpaid
magistrates, the M.P.'s, the peers, the volunteers, the
lifeboat men, the workers among the poor, the
numerous societies and organisations of all kinds.
All this voluntary work is done in a society which
is based on a system of Competition and devil take
the hindmost, a society where you must get on or
get out, a society whose dominant motive, we are
told, is the incentive of gain !
Very well, if with so many influences against un-
selfishness, we can make this magnificent show, how
much more unselfishness might be bred under
Socialism !
The man who to-day is compelled by the system
to be mean and grasping and " hard " in business,
and who can only become human when he leaves the
office or workshop, would under Socialism be able
to give free rein to his social instincts in all his
actions. In working for himself, he would be work-
ing for others, always.
We may even reach a time when it will be neces-
sary to restrain men from giving too much, instead
of taking too much.
Ah ! The poor Socialist dreamer, says the reader.
But soft you, my friend. Just read this :
The relation at present familiar to us will be
inverted; and instead of each maintaining his
63
own claims, others will maintain his claims for
him ; not, indeed, by active effort, but by passively
resisting any undue yielding up of them. There
is nothing in such behaviour which is not even
now to be traced in our daily experience as begin-
ning. In business transactions among honourable
men, there is usually a desire on either side that
the other shall treat himself fairly. In social inter-
course, too, the cases are common in which those
who would surrender their shares of pleasure are
not permitted by the rest to do so. Further
development of sympathy cannot but make this
mode of behaving increasingly general and in-
creasingly genuine.
There you have the same ideal put forward as
possible, nay, probable, of realisation, by the
greatest champion of Individualism you ever had,
Herbert Spencer.
The desire for true self -betterment is a worthy
desire, and one that a wise people would encourage.
Under Socialism that desire would have the largest
possible scope, but the self -betterment which consists
m getting money, or ease, or comfort, at the expense
of others, by means of power, or monopoly, or privi-
lege, would not be premitted.
Our good bishop, like many other unimaginative
opponents of Socialism, fears that genius would die
out. The master mind of Mr. Claude Lowther, too,
tells him that under Socialism " subtle and intel-
lectual achievements would be impossible." Why ?
It is a gross mistake to assume that the genius and
the inventor will not produce without the incentive
of gain. There died a few months ago in France
a veteran scientist. Professor Berthelot, who made
numerous inventions and discoveries of enormous
value. He never took out a single patent.
Luther Burbank, too, the American creator of new
plants and fruit trees, will not protect one of his
discoveries. He gives them to the world, a free gift.
If genius will do this to-day, why not under
Socialism ?
64
Numerous inventors and men of genius have lived
and died poor — and sometimes despised and rejected
of the people.
Milton received five pounds for " Paradise Lost,"
which took him five years to write. Chatterton died
of poverty. Burns died in poverty. Martin, the
painter, died of starvation. Wilkie got only ;^30
for his famous " Village Politicians." Heilman, the
inventor of the combing machine, died in poverty.
De Ouincey was poor. Goldsmith and Spenser were
poor. Babbage was poor. Bunyan was a tinker.
Tolstoy wrote his greatest works after giving up
his wealth. Christ was poor.
The incentive of gain !
The genius and the inventor must give forth the
ideas teeming in their brains, or perish in the at-
tempt, gain or no gain ; and it is a gross libel on
the memories of thousands of noble men and women
to assert that the incentive of gain was their domina-
ting motive.
The nineteenth century was the age of invention.
It is undoubtedly the fact that the inventors of that
century did more for the increase of wealth than
those of any other time. Did they all reap enormous
rewards by their genius ?
There was Richard Roberts, the inventor of the
self-acting mule, and many other ingenious improve-
ments in machinery. The self-acting mule had a
marvellous effect in augmenting the wealth of the
country. " But," said Dr. Smiles in his biography,
" many have profited by his inventions, without even
acknowledging the obligations which they owed to
him. They have used his brains and copied his
tools, and the ' sucked orange ' is all but forgotten.
There may have been a want of worldly wisdom on
his part, but it is lamentable to think that one of the
most prolific and useful inventors of his time should
in his old age be left to fight with poverty."
" Sucked orange ! " The history of inventors is
largely a history of " sucked oranges."
In 1829 James Beaumont Neilson patented the
Hot Blast, but in order to get it adopted he had to
/ 65
part with all but three-tenths of the royalties. The
capitalists took seven-tenths, more than twice as
much as the inventor.
This invention, in 1863, was saving Scotch iron-
founders alone over £"1,500,000 a year, in cost of
production; yet in 1839 there was a combination
of ironmasters who tried to wrest the patent from
Neilson, and spent ;£40,ooo in law costs in the
attempt. Happily, they failed.
Another example of the lack of that avarice
which would impel a man to grab all he could was
Henry Maudsley, whose invention of the Slide-rest
was said by James Nasmyth to have had as much
influence in extending the use of machinery as the
steam engine had in extending manufactures.
" He troubled himself very little about patenting
his inventions," said Dr. Smiles, " yet he had some-
times the annoyance of being threatened with actions
by persons who had patented the inventions which
he himself had made."
There was David Mushet, whose discovery of
Black Band ironstone in Scotland caused an extra-
ordinary expansion of the trade. He invented a
process of applying Neilson's Hot Blast to anthra-
cite coal, and at one works alone, this resulted in a
saving of ;^20,ooo a year. " Yet, strange to say,
Mr. Mushet himself never received any consideration
for his invention."
Strange to say ! It would be more strange if a
poor inventor ever did reap his just reward under
our present system. Always there are capitalists
on the watch, forced by the demons of competition
and greed to steal by any dirty trick the fruits of
another man's industry and Ability.
Earlier still there was Benjamin Huntsman, the
inventor of cast-steel, who, having taken out no
patent, was robbed of his secret by a rival, who
entered his workshop by a ruse. Before this the
trade had tried to kill Huntsman's business with
the help of Government, but had failed.
There was the villainous case of Henry Cort, who
died in poverty, after the trade had robbed him of
66
his rights by a mean trick. According to a com-
petent authority his improvements in iron manu-
facture " established a new era " ; and Smiles says
that " he laid the foundations of many gigantic
fortunes."
Who got them ?
It is not because genius receives the highest
rewards that it puts forth its fruit, for I have
already demonstrated that not genius, but idleness,
receives the biggest incomes in this country. And
a Socialist State could afford to reward genius and
invention better than they are rewarded to-day, if
it were necessary.
What are the conditions which produce intellectual
and clever men and women ?
Some of our opponents say that it would be
foolish to abolish poverty, because genius so often
springs from poverty !
Then, if Socialism " would reduce all to one dead
level of poverty," as we are told, Socialism would
produce more genius than ever !
Genius, we know, always tries to express itself,
under whatever conditions. There have been rich
geniuses, and geniuses bred in poverty. It would be
rash to conclude that either wealth or poverty was
the best soil for growing great minds.
Poverty has often killed genius. Wealth has
often proved helpful to inventive minds.
Would a rich man send his son to be brought up
in a garret by a pound a week family, in the hope
that poverty might make a genius of his child ?
No. Nor anyone else. The argument, then, that
poverty is necessary for the production of genius is
so much wind. No one believes it.
No one troubles about genius. It comes, or it
does not come. But where now poverty might stifle
genius in the bud. Socialism would give that bud a
chance to develop. We should gain so much. How
much should we lose ? Any ?
But genius is rare. What about Ability ? Well,
I think that under Socialism Ability would be much
more common than it is to-day.
67
The competition for a living amongst men of
Ability becomes keener and keener. Doctors, lawyers,
schoolmasters, engineers, journalists, authors,
managers, singers, what a chorus of complaint arises
periodically abov.t the keen competition ? Is it not a
fact that salaries have gone down in recent years in
many walks, simply because of the growing number
of men of Ability? It is only your tip-top man,
your rara avis, who stands a chance in the scramble.
Under Socialism, when all were properly fed, and
housed, and educated, I think it is certain that we
should discover Ability among the poor, which is
now wasted. Even the inadequate school board
education of the last thirty years has made a
difference.
Doctors tell us that the child born in poverty is
as fine a child physically as the well born : at birth.
Deterioration is caused by bad surroundings. Now,
you cannot have a sound mind unless the body is
sound, and when the bodies of all were sound, their
minds would have full opportunity for development.
Professor Galton, in " Heredity and Genius," says
that " Civilisation is the necessary fruit of high
intelligence when found in a social animal, and
there is no plainer lesson to be read off the face of
Nature than that the result of the operation of her
laws is to evoke intelligence in connection with
Sociability. . . . Among intelligent animals, the
most social race is sure to prevail, other qualities
being equal."
Socialism would increase sociability and by so
doing would evoke the greatest possible amount of
intelligence.
68
That Socialism would be the Most Odious
Form of Slavery Ever Known.
A nsWer.
Socialism would be the mildest form of slavery
ever known.
" Britons never, NEVER, NEVER shall be slaves."'
That is a splendid chorus to a song, but it happens
to be nonsense. No Briton desires to live " on an
uninhabited island," and be monarch of all he sur-
veys. But only by living absolutely alone can a
man avoid slavery.
All society involves slavery. If two or more
people form a society they must agree to do some
things, and not to do others. In so far, then, they
are slaves to the agreement.
But no one would assert that because the members
of a society are "slaves" to an agvecment, soli-
tude would be a higher form of civilisation.
Society involves slavery, but there is slavery and
slavery.
Some of our opponents wax very eloquent about
the tyranny of Socialism, and they always assume
that we live in a state of Complete Freedom, with a
bio^ F, and that to attain Socialism we must give up
this priceless possession.
Have we got Freedom ? But that is not the ques-
tion. The question is, have we got the most freedom
possible? Does our system of society ensure the
greatest amount of Liberty to every member ? Or,
do the agreements of our society exact the same
slavery from every member ?
We must all pay away some individual freedom
if we belong to a Society, and in return we receive
Social freedom. Do we pay fairly, and do we
receive fairly, or are some overtaxed and underpaid,
and others undertaxed and overpaid ?
First let us ask, " What is a slave " ? I will take
69
Herbert Spencer's definition, and then inquire
whether there is any slavery in our present society,
and whether there would be more or less slavery
under Socialism.
Spencer says, " We primarily think of the slave as
one who is owned by another. To be more than
nominal, however, the ownership must be shown by
control of the slave's actions — a control which is
habitually for the benefit of the controller. That
which fundamentally distinguishes the slave is that
he labours under coercion to satisfy another's
desires."
Apply, now, that test to the present condition of
society. A slave is one who labours under coercion
to satisfy the desires of another. Are there any such
in our country ?
To live, it is necessary to work. All wealth comes
from the land. To be able to work, then, one must
have land to work on.
Now half the land in our country is owned by
2,500 persons, and the rest is owned in small quanti-
ties by another 1,000,000 or so. It is plain, then,
that the remainder of the population are at the
mercy of the landowners.
We have no right to live without the permission
of the Landlords.
Do the Landlords give us free access to the land ?
No. They permit some of us to have land. But
on what terms ?
They force us to pay rent. Out of our total
national income of 1,800 millions, we pay idle Land-
lords 290 millions. We have to pay or get out. Is
that freedom ?
But the Landlord has a twin-brother, the Capital-
ist or Employer, and to him. also, we are compelled
to pay tribute. Before any free-born Briton can
work, he must obtain the permission of an Employer,
and for that permission he must pay interest and
dividends.
We pay to Employers for permission to work 360
millions a year. Thus Landlords and Capitalists
together coerce us into parting with 650 millions,
70
more than one-third of our produce. We must pay.
Then to that extent we are slaves to a few members
of our society.
But the Landlords and Capitalists do not permit
all of us to work. There are always from 500,000
to 1,000,000 unemployed. These men are free —
free to starve. They are not slaves.
None of us, then, is free to live. We are coerced
by the whip of starvation into working for Em-
ployers and Landlords. Our actions are controlled
by them, and we work primarily for their benefit.
Wliom are you workmg for? is the question one
man asks of another. We work for Employers and
Landlords. The bulk of us, then, are slaves to these
two small classes. We cannot live without their
permission.
Now a man who may not live without the per-
mission of another cannot be said to enjoy a high
degree of Freedom. Can he ? And the class who
use their power to exact a heavy toll for that per-
mission, what are they ? Clearly tyrants.
We have to-day, then, slavery in a very bad form.
Would the conditions under Socialism be worse or
better?
In the first place, land and capital under Socialism
would belong to the State.
Who is the State ? You are the State. The whole
people is the State.
Then, instead of having to beg permission to live
from Landlords and permission to work from
Capitalists, you would nave the right to live and
work by virtue of being a member of the State.
That Would be a tremendous advance in Freedom,
would it not ?
Further, you would not have to pay a heavy tax
for that permission. The 650 millions now taken
by an idle class would belong to the whole people,
and would be available for distribution as the whole
people thought best.
Just imagine it. Certainty of work and wages !
Such conditions are unknown to the bulk of our
people. Even the most skilful workers are liable to
71
be dismissed on account of trade depressions,
changes of fashion, amalgamations, trusts, and other
evils of the present system of slavery.
Think of it ! No fear of the " sack " because
trade is slack ; no gnawing anxiety for the fate of
your wife and children; no dread of old age and
penury. Nine-tenths of the burdens which make
life for so many one long agony of apprehension
would be removed for ever. For the first time the
nation would really live.
Do you not think that would be a milder form of
slavery than the system you live under to-day ?
Our opponents say Socialism would be the most
odious form of slavery ever known. But how do
they go about to prove it ?
In this way. They take in the first place, One
Army of Officials, or Bureaucrats, whom they call
the State. Then they take a mob of people, whom
they call the Regulated Masses.
They make their Army of Officials out of wonder-
ful beings who are half genius and half idiot, and
they make their Regulated Masses out of human
jellyfish.
Then they set the waxworks in motion, and call
it Socialism. But let the proprietor of one of these
marionette shows describe the performance himself.
The following is from An Exposure of Socialism,
by Max Hirsch :
Moreover, this bureaucracy must also determine
the kind of labour which each person, man and
woman, shall perform ; must direct where this
labour is to be performed by each of them, as well
as the intensity with which each shall work. For
obviously the determination of the quantity of
each kind and of each quality of goods to be pro-
duced involves the power to shift labour from an
occupation in which it has become excessive, to
one in which there is insufficient labour. This is
again admitted by Socialists. August Bebel, the
great leader of the Socialist Party of Germany,
in " Woman," says : " If a superfluity of workers
72
occurs in one branch, and a deficiency in another,
it will be the duty of the executive to arrange
matters and readjust the inequality." This neces-
sary power to shift labour from one occupation
to another, however, involves the further power to
shift the labourers from place to place, to deter-
mine where they shall reside. For it will inevit-
ably happen that the new occupation to which they
are allotted can be carried on more conveniently,
or can only be carried on, in another place than
that where the worker resided so far. Nor is this
all. Young men and women entering upon their
industrial life cannot be allowed to choose the
kind of occupation which they desire to follow.
For, if they were allowed to do so, too many
would go into some occupations, and too few
would go into others. This tendency would be
enormously aggravated by the inevitable equality
of remuneration. The heavier and more disagree-
able tasks, bringing no greater reward than the
lighter and more agreeable ones, the latter would
inevitably become overcrowded. Therefore, the
young men and women entering upon the active
tasks of life would not, and could not, be allowed
to choose their own occupation. State officials
would choose for them and determine the v/hole
course of their life. The youth who aspires to
become a mathematician might be put to boot-
making ; one who aspires to be an engineer
might be put to raising cattle; and the girl
who desires to become a teacher might be
compelled to work in a jute factory. Natural
aptitudes could not be considered, even if they
vv'ere known to those who determine the selection.
But in most cases they cannot be known at the
comparatively early age of the aspirants, for
special aptitudes frequently, if not mostly, declare
themselves later in life. Being unknown, at the
time, to the workers themselves, they cannot be
known to the officials, and therefore cannot be con-
sidered. The intensity of the exertion of every
person must also be determined by these officials,
73
for as everyone receives equal reward, all would
necessarily be called upon to work with similar
intensity, otherwise those who naturally would
work more intensely than others would become dis-
satisfied, and would slacken their efforts. A dead
level of inefficiency would thus be reached, all
working at the stroke of the least efficient or most
lazy. In order to avoid this, the officials must
have power to punish the lazy, stupid, and in-
efficient, so as to stimulate their energies. What
can these powers be ? These men and women can-
not be ciischarged ; their remuneration cannot
be lowered. Therefore the only punishment pos-
sible is personal chastisement or imprisonment.
The knout and the jail, therefore, threaten every-
one who either is naturally slow or otherwise in-
efficient, or on whom these faults are fastened by
the ill-will of some official or officials.
There are pages of similar richness in this pam-
phlet, but the unhappy author is evidently quite un-
conscious that he possesses the rare gift of humour.
Just consider his arguments about the choice of
occupation.
Young men and women do not know what occupa-
tion they are fit for, says Mr. Hirsch. And the
State Officials cannot know, because natural apti-
tudes only show themxselves later. Then no one
knows what occupation young people are fit for.
So it is impossible to give them suitable occupation,
except by chance.
Well, what then ? Why, the Tyrannical State
Officials would choose occupations for them. There-
fore—therefore what ?
Heaven knows. The gifted author is clearly
anxious to prove that this would be Odious Slavery,
and that it would be a worse slavery than exists
to-day.
As if young persons were free to choose their
occupations to-day ! Are they free ?
Can the son of a labourer at i6s. a week choose
his occupation ? Can he choose to be a navvy, or a
74
mechanic, or a postman, or an engine-driver, or a
schoolmaster, or a doctor, or a lawyer — can he be
whatever he pleases ?
Everyone knows that no one is free to choose. In
the first place the poor man's son is shut out from
many professions. And of the poorly paid occupa-
tions, he is only free to choose that one where there
is a demand for his labour. All who work for em-
ployers are subject to the latter limitation.
A youth has to go to work. He must " do some-
thing " for a living. Then his " natural aptitudes,"
which appear " later " — how much chance do they
get under our present system? Very little.
Aptitudes are often smothered and hidden by the
necessity of earning a living somehow. Millions of
boys are ruined and wasted. Their youth is used up
by employers in search of cheap labour, who turn
them on the streets at manhood, if they want a man's
wages, because there are always more boys to be got.
Then we talk about the unemployable as wastrels.
Who made them into wastrels ?
Under Socialism, the choice of occupations would
be much v/ider and freer than to-day. Everyone
would be educated. Aptitudes which showed them-
selves early would be given free scope. Those with
no special aptitude would have to take their chance,
just as they have to-day.
But alil the young people would want to be
doctors, and teachers, and actors, and painters !
Would they ? Why ?
The suggestion is that they would want all the
pleasant occupations. But the manager of the
Genius-Idiots and the Jelly-fish forgot that there
will be no disgusting occupations under Socialism.
He forgot that under Socialism production would
be organised, and that the result would be to give
ample leisure to everyone for indulgence in what
" pleasant " occupation he preferred. So that the
competition for the " pleasanter " occupations in the
necessary work of the State would be less keen than
it is to-day.
Again, we are told that it would be a terrible
75
hardship for a citizen to be moved from one place to
another. Awful !
Where has the manager of the waxworks kept his
eyes? Are not millions of workers moved from
place to place every year ? A man has to live near
his work to-day, has he not ?
And who moves him ? The Army of Employers.
He has to follow the work, willing or not.
To-day m.oving is a hardship for thousands, and
entails heavy loss and suffering. Under Socialism,
moving would be a pleasant change. Instead of
dodging it, the people would be more likely to wel-
come a transfer.
Then there is the Knout. Isn't that a comic para-
graph ? Knout could be funnier.
Just imagine it. An Army of Officials, who have
such splendid Ability that they are competent to
organise the industry of a whole nation, are at the
same time such consummate idiots that they do not
know how to manage the people, except by using
the lash !
On the other hand, we have a people who are all
" equal," all well fed, and housed, all well educated,
but so weak and cowardly that they allow a parcel
of their " equals " to stand behind them, with Knouts
and whip them to work !
What is the use of arguing with the authors of
such crack-brained nightmares ?
^ Army of Officials ! Regulated Masses ! The
Knout ! Slavery ! What in God's name would the
British people, with red blood in their veins, be
doing when the Genius-Idiots were knotting their
lashes ? And how v/'ould they come to have lashes ?
And how did they become the Regulating Bureau-
cracy, with such tremendous pov/ers. Such pon-
derous twaddle.
I have never yet read one of these pictures of the
coming slavery in which the very evils rampant
to-day were not given as reasons for rejecting
Socialism.
Freedom to live, freedom to work, freedom of
movement, freedom of speech, religious freedom,
76
political freedom : do we enjoy to the full any one
of these?
Not one. Yet we are told that we do. I have
already shown how we are dependent on Landlords
and Employers for permission to live and work, and
what we pay for it. Growing out of these tyrannies
are other restrictions on our freedom.
What about our boasted freedom of contract ?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh made a "waxwork"
speech, and after asserting that poverty was neces-
sary to make people work, he went on, " under our
system of liberty and free exchange, the number of
those who need be in poverty was being reduced."
We pay Lord Balfour of Burleigh ;^ 1,200 a year
for doing nothing. He is only 54. And part of
that money comes out of the pockets of poor devils
who cannot afford to buy sufficient food. Then he
has the effrontery to get up in public and talk about
the necessity of poverty, and our system of liberty !
Where are liberty and free exchange ? They do
not exist. But poverty exists, and must exist, while we
pay idle people enormous sums for doing nothing.
There cannot be any freedom of contract between
a poor man and a Landlord and Employer. The
poor man must accept the terms of the Landlord and
Employer, or starve.
Have we freedom of expression ?
We are supposed to have, but if we have, why are
the poor afraid to speak their minds ? Why has
the Clarion received thousands of letters containing
sentences like this : " Please do not mention my
name. I should lose my employment if I avowed
my principles openly " ? Why, of 600 complaints
sent to lady factory inspectors, were only 153 signed
by the workers, and the rest sent anonymously, or
by public organisations ? Why are men and women
dismissed because of their political and religious
opinions ? Why is the CLARION circulation hindered,
and why are Clarion books boycotted by newsagents,
and booksellers, and " free " libraries ?
The answer is that these things happen because
we have not got freedom of expression.
77
We are told that the Press is free, and that
under Socialism there would be no means of
publishing opinions antagonistic to the Army of
officials.
But the Press is not free to-day. The Press con-
tains just what the proprietors care to print, and
being generally on the side of the Landlords and
Capitalists, the Press too often garbles and distorts
the views of their opponents.
If you want your views published to-day, you
have to pay for the publication. You are free to
do that, if it is safe.
Why should you not be free to do the same under
Socialism? Socialism will be what the people make
it. If the people love freedom, they will have free
institutions. If the people are jelly-fish, they will
have an Army of Officials with knouts behind their
backs.
Is there any reason why there should not be com-
plete freedom of expression under Socialism ? Sup-
pose the State, that is, the whole people, did own
all the printing machinery ? Is there any reason
why the law should not be that any person may have
his books or pamphlets printed and sent out for
sale, on payment of the usual costs ?
To-day the Government is compelled to coin the
gold of any person who takes it to the Mint. Why
should not the Government, or State, print on paper
as well as on gold ?
Again, have we religious freedom ?
No ; we have not complete religious freedom.
Thousands of people dare not express their beliefs
for fear of losing their work. A man who is dis-
missed, or ostracised, or boycotted by customers, or
liable to imprisonment, because of his religious
views, cannot be said to enjoy religious freedom.
Have we political freedom ?
No. We have not complete political freedom.
Millions of adults have no vote, while privileged
classes are allowed more than one vote. Many
people, too, dare not avow even their political
opinions. Many a man has been turned out of house
78
and home, or lost his work because he dared to think
differently from his landlord or employer.
Now nearly all of us suffer more or less from one
or other of these restrictions on our freedom, and it
out of the hatred of those restrictions that the desire
for Socialism has grown.
What do Socialists want ? What is their demand ?
For more freedom all the time. We want the free-
dom, the right, to live and work. We want full
political rights. We want complete freedom of ex-
pression. Wc want religious freedom.
We want these things, and we mean to have them.
But we cannot have them until we have persuaded
the bulk of the people to want them.
When that time arrives, we shall be a nation of
people all desiring a much wider freedom than we
possess to-day. And then — then, the waxwork
manufacturers tell us v/e shall immediately invent
the worst tyranny, the n-:ost odious form of slavery
that was ever known ! Could unreason further go ?
If Socialism is not the mildest form of slavery
ever known, it will not be Socialism.
79
That Socialism would involve an Army of
Officials who would Organise the Nation
for their Own Benefit, and Reduce the
ordinary Citizen to the position of a
Slave.
Answer.
Production under Socialism no more involves an
Army ot Officials than production under the Trust.
If the people were fools they would naturally be
imposed on by the knaves ; but that is their position
to-day, and it is the business of Socialism to make
the rule of the greedy and unscrupulous impossible.
I have already dealt with the question of Socialism
and slavery from a general point of view. The
present objection is aimed at the supposed necessity
of an Army of Officials to organise production under
Socialism.
This Army of Officials would, we are informed,
considerably reduce the productive power of the
nation. There would be more officials than pro-
ducers. Wealth would decrease.
But at the same time the Army of Officials would
grow and consolidate themselves, and, obtaining
supreme power, would enrich themselves at the
expense of the Regulated Masses.
It is also contended that under the present system
the production and distribution of wealth is efficient.
The desire of each person to gain a living by sup-
plying the needs of his fellows has evolved a won-
derful self-acting system which needs scarcely any
supervision.
Mr. Herbert Spencer said in his Plea for Liberty :
" The quantities of the numerous commodities re-
quired daily in each locality are adjusted without
any other agencies than the pursuit of profit." But
under Socialism, he said, " There must be a regula-
80
tive apparatus everywhere controlling all kinds of
production and distribution, and everywhere appor-
tioning the shares of product of each kind required
for each locality, each working establishment, each
individual. Under our existing voluntary co-opera-
tion, with its free contracts and its competition, pro-
duction and distribution need no official oversight."
Mr. Spencer was a great man, but he evidently did
not understand either the present system or
Socialism.
Mr. Spencer said that production and distribution
under the present system were efficient.
Is that true ? Are the quantities of commodities
required by the people produced ? Are the com-
modities produced distributed to the people who
need them ?
On the contrary, hundreds of thousands of men
and women who have a " desire " to supply their
needs cannot supply those needs because the wonder-
ful system of competition and private ownership
says, " No hands wanted."
We have from 500,000 to 1,000,000 unemployed
always. In "bad times" from 8 to 10 per cent, of
the aristocrats of labour cannot find work. They
have desires. They cannot satisfy them. Why ?
Because the system is a failure. It does not do what
its champions claim for it.
To talk of the beauties of our system of " volun-
tary co-operation and freedom of contract" to
people who cannot get work without the permission
of landowners and capitalists is mockery.
Besides the unemployed, there are the employed.
Do they voluntarily co-operate ? The truth is that
the bulk of our people must accept the terms of the
owning classes or starve. There are twelve millions
underfed. Why has the wonderful system not
" adjusted " the supply of commodities to their need
for a decent living ? There are 20 million very poor.
There are 39 million poor. What has this wonderful
system done for them ?
The system has ho[)elessly broken down. Com-
petition for a living inevitably involves the success
g 81
of the stronger and the more cunning, resulting in
monopoly and tyranny. The bulk of the people are
not supplied with sufficient commodities, a few get
vastly too many, and millions have to depend on
charity.
Mr. Spencer had a remarkable capacity for
being deluded by appearances. He stated that
under the present system production and distribu-
tion of wealth cost practically nothing for superin-
tendence.
" The quantities of the numerous commodities re-
quired daily in each locality," he said, " are adjusted
without any other agencies than the pursuit of
profit." Badly adjusted, yes.
The suggestion that this alleged absence of
superintendence costs nothing is absurd. There is
no Army of Officials. Perhaps not. But there is
the " pursuit of profit." Does that cost nothing ?
It is the pursuit of profit by competitive methods
that is at the root of all our poverty and unem-
ployment. If Socialism involved one official to
overlook every worker, it could not be more costly
than the belauded, self-acting chaos in which we
exist at present.
In the chapter on " The Waste of Competition "
I gave several examples of the way in which the pro-
duction of wealth is hampered and curtailed by
private monopoly and competition. Herbert Spencer
seems to have been entirely blind to these facts, and
in every line he wrote about Socialism he swallowed
his own principles of evolution.
In this very Flea for Liberty he said :
A cardinal trait in all advancing organisation
is the development of the regulative apparatus. If
the parts of the whole are to act together, there
must be appliances by which their actions are
directed ; and in proportion as the whole is large
and complex, and has many requirements to be
met by many agencies, the directive apparatus
must be extensive, elaborate, and powerful. That
it is thus with individual organisms needs no say-
82
ing; and that it must be thus with social organ-
isms is obvious.
And then he proceeds to admire a system which
is the outcome of the unregulated or half-regulated
activities of a mass of people fighting each other
for a living. After spending a lifetime in explain-
ing that progress consists of evolution from the un-
organised to the organised, after pleading passion-
ately for a system of education based on science, he
calmly kicks science out of doors when he comes to
deal with the practical work of finding the means
of complete living for an organised society !
To-day we have the knowledge, the power, and the
ability to produce enough wealth to nourish the
body politic in all its parts. But Mr. Spencer's
wonderful system results only in overfeeding a
small part and starving a much larger part. It is
as if he advised a man to let his instincts and pas-
sions run wild, trusting to each instinct's " pursuit
of its own profit " to produce a healthy organism.
Far from adjusting supply to demand, the present
system fails all along the line. There are periodical
bursts of good trade, followed by gluts and "over-
production," bad trade, and starvation ; and alv/ays,
even in good times, there are the unemployed.
What does this chaos cost ? Reckon up the value
of the wealth that might be created by the workers
now doing superfluous work (for instance, six milk-
sellers in one street, two railway companies com-
peting for traffic). Calculate the cost of Poor Law,
charity, hospitals, and asylums. Add the value of
the wealth that could be produced by the permanent
army of the unemployed. Do you not think there
would be a vast saving if brains were applied to the
organisation of a real system of co-operation — that
is. Socialism ?
But it would require an Army of Officials ! said
Spencer.
Imagine, again, the still more vast administra-
tion required for doing all that farmers, manufac-
turers, and merchants do ; having not only its
83
various orders of local superintendents, but its
sub-centres and chief centres needed for appor-
tioning the quantities of each thing everywhere
needed and the adjustment of them to the requi-
site times. Then add the staffs wanted for work-
ing mines, railways, roads, canals; the staffs re-
quired for conducting the importing and export-
ing businesses, and the administration of mercan-
tile shipping; the staffs required for supplying
towns not only with water and gas, but with loco-
motion by tramways, omnibuses, and other
vehicles, and for the distribution of power, elec-
tric and other. Join with these the existing postal
and telegraphic administrations ; and, finally, those
of the army and police, by which the dictates of
this immense, consolidated, regulative system are
to be everywhere enforced. Imagine all this, and
then ask what will be the position of the actual
workers !
To read that paragraph one would imagine that
all these things got themselves done under the pre-
sent system without " staffs." Who staffs the rail-
ways, and the gasworks, and the tramways now ?
There is a separate staff for every separate firm or
company, with the result that thousands of the em-
ployees and the directors are wasting their time,
not in production, but in preventing competitors
from selling their products.
There are 3,000 railway directors to-day. Does
anyone believe that if the railways were nationalised
we should require half that number of "officials"
to do the work better ?
If Mr. Spencer had paid a visit to a municipal
gasworks or tramway he would have saved himself
and his followers a good deal of ink and breath.
Are tHese departments overloaded with officials ?
Compare a municipal tramway with a private tram-
way or railway company and you will find that on the
whole the municipal institutions supply better and
cheaper services much more efficiently than the com-
petitive " pursuers of profit."
84
Do not half a dozen men own and control half the
industries of the United States? Do they find it
impossible to organise production and distribution
by means of superintendents of centres and sub-
centres and sub-subcentres ? What Mr. Spencer and
his followers say could not be done has been done
by the Trusts, but the Trusts are privately owned
and their advantages are largely neutralised by the
greed of the shareholders.
Under Socialism the whole people would be the
Trust. If the masses were asses they would probably
allow themselves to be ground down and despoiled
by the few. But that is the position of the people
to-day under Mr. Spencer's wonderful self-acting
system.
You cannot have Socialism without Socialists, and
if the people cannot rise to the demands which a
Socialist State would make on their intelligence for
its preservation, then Socialism is impossible. To
talk as though Socialism would bring slavery is
ridiculous. Slavery is here now. The Socialist
movement is a call to the people to throw off their
oppressors, to demand the opportunity for perform-
ing their duties as citizens, and to establish a just
and wise co-operative society in place of the present
chaotic, ill-regulated competitive scramble.
It is because we believe the people would prove
equal to the task that we are Socialists. We believe
in organisation, and we believe in regulation. But
that does not involve a belief in useless Armies of
Of^cials, either for production or management. An
alert, intelligent people would not tolerate and sup-
port the gangs of lazy parasites who prey on their
vitals to-ciay.
Mr. Spencer, as I said, was deluded by appear-
ances. The present system is called a free trade
system, so Mr. Spencer thought it was a system of
freedom. Because no man can be coerced bodily
into entering into a contract, Mr. Spencer imagined
that " free contract " existed, as if a starving man
and a property owner were equally " free." Because
in production by private persons there are few or
85
no State officials, he thought that method almost
costless, ignoring the immense expenditure and loss
caused by the " pursuit of profit."
To the real facts he was blind ; otherwise, on his
own general principles, he must have seen that
Socialism is an inevitable step forward in that kind
of organisation which denotes true progress.
86
That Socialism would be the Paradise of
the Loafer, because, Everything being
Provided by the State, there would be
No Incentive to Work.
A nsWer.
The Paradise of the Loafer is here now. Social-
ism would be the Paradise of the Worker.
It seems impossible for the average opponent of
Socialism to hold two ideas in his consciousness at
one time. He tells us, for instance, that Socialism
would mean a grinding tyranny. That under Social-
ism there would be no freedom. That every man
would be forced by State taskmasters to work. That
life under Socialism would be slavery.
In the next breath he asserts that Socialism would
encourage laziness. That only the few industrious
would work. " As the State would provide every-
thing, there would be no incentive to work." Social-
ism would be the paradise of the loafer.
It is plain that these two arguments are Kilkenny
cats. " Grinding tyranny of State taskmasters" and
" the paradise of the loafer " cannot possibly exist
together. They annihilate each other.
It is only necessary to rewrite that sentence about
" the State " providing everything to show the
absurdity of the latter argument.
" As the People would provide everything, there
would be no incentive for the People to work."
But, if the People provide everything, it follows
that there would be no food, clothing, fuel, or shelter
other than that provided by the people. I think
that is incontrovertible.
How could the People provide everything without
working ? The People must work or starve.
Now, one of the principles of Socialism is that
the wealth produced by the People should be dis-
87
tributed as the People think best. Do you think it
likely that an educated people would consider it
wise to encourage an army of spongers ? On what
grounds ?
We have the army of spongers to-day, my friends,
and our glorious system of Competition, Freedom,
Liberty, and Philanthropy fosters laziness as no
other system could. If you are looking for a para-
dise for loafers, you need not seek far. It is here,
to-day, at home.
According to the last census returns there were
663,656 adult males who described themselves as
of " no occupation." A large number of these are
rich or well-to-do loafers, who consume wealth, but
never produce any.
Then we have 100,000 able-bodied paupers on
hand pretty regularly, and we have the great army
of tramps and workshys. They don't cost us a tithe
of the sum we give the rich loafers, but they are a
heavy burden on the industrious.
Consider, first, the position of the rich loafer.
A man inherits wealth from his parents. This wealth
is invested in industry. That is to say, workers,
brain and hand, are employed in taking care of that
wealth. They " save" it for the rich loafer.
Not only do they " save " the inherited wealth.
They improve it. They increase it, and they hand
over the increase to the rich or well-to-do loafer.
It is easy to loaf to-day, if you are rich or well off.
And the rich loafer is not scorned. He is by some
people worshipped, because he can afford to loaf.
But is his position in society any different from
that of the tramp or the gutter cadger ?
The tramp or the cadger has no capital but his
wits. To get his living, then, he must work them,
and by cunning and fraud he is able to skim the
cream of the milk of human kindness, and live 'a
life that suits him, without contributing one iota to
the welfare of society.
Both the rich loafer and the poor loafer sponge
on the workers. Morally, there is not the slightest
difference between them. If there is, it is in favour
88
of the poor man, for the rich has had opportunities
of learning his duty to society not possessed by the
poor man.
To-day, then, we have an army of loafers, and
I assert that our system tends to encourage loafing,
and that our methods of dealing with the evil do
more harm than good.
In the first place, loafing by the rich is encouraged
by a false morality which considers a life of idle-
ness, or, as it is called, " independence," to be a mark
of superiority.
It is true that this point of view is not so almost
universal as it was. Not many hundred years ago,
our aristocrats used to look down with contempt on
people who could read and write. A century ago it
was considered a frightful crime for a nobleman to
enter into trade, or earn his living like an honourable
man. But those ideas are dying. It is a dwindling
class who admire a man who takes advantage of his
riches to live in idleness. Public opinion is becoming
less and less tolerant of the person whose sole claim
to the benefits of society consists in his power to take,
and give nothing in return. But there are still too
many rich loafers.
We breed this class by upholding an immoral
system, which enables a few to take an enormous
proportion of the national wealth for doing nothing,
and by following a false and unworthy ideal.
The poor loafer is also a product of the system.
We breed poor loafers by upholding an immoral
system under which v/ork is provided and wages are
fixed by a barbarous method of competition, result-
ing in starvation allowance for millions and chronic
unemployment for hundreds of thousands. At the
same time, we support unscientific, imm.oral methods
of charity and relief, which, instead of curing the
evils of the system, intensify them, and help to
increase the number of loafers.
The poor loafer can live in a Paradise of a kind
to-day. There never was a time when the path of
the cadger was beset with so many kind-hearted
fairies.
89
Sympathy, short-sighted sympathy, has grown
enormously during the last century. The bulk of
the public recognise that unemployment is not
always the punishment of idleness and incapacity
only. They have learned that the worthy may be
out of work. Consequently they open their hearts
and their pockets to the unfortunate.
" I never turn a beggar away," said an old lady
to me once. " You never know. You may be
refusing the Lord Himself."
This is the cadger's opportunity, and you often
hear people grumbling bitterly that they helped so-
and-so, and they found afterwards that he was an
idle good-for-nothing.
Then there are the thousands of charitable
societies, with their subscription lists. There is keen
competition amongst these for the spare cash of the
benevolent. They employ an army of people to
collect money, and to relieve the unfortunate.
Here, again, the workshy and the cadger find a
Tom Tiddler's ground. They " work " these charit-
able societies on a system, and do well out of them.
Can yo2L blame them?
I need not dwell on the univ^ersally acknowledged
fact that our Poor Relief system, by its inhuman
and cruel methods, also help materially to swell the
army of loafers.
The paradise of loafers is here.
Our opponents say that Socialism would encourage
loafing. I assert on the contrary that Socialism
would abolish loafing.
Loafing is a physical or mental disease. Under
Socialism we should try to cure the patients. To-day
we do our best to spread the disease.
Under Socialism there would be work for all, and
every healthy person would be expected to work.
Under Socialism it would be held disgraceful for
a healthy person to sponge on others for his living.
Public opinion would be so strong on this point that
exceptions would be as rare as murderers.
Again, our opponents suggest that the desire to
loaf is a dominant instinct. Why do not these
90
champions of Individualism read their Herbert
Spencer ?
Laziness is not a dominant instinct. On the con-
trary, the instinct of workmanship is much stronger.
In Comparative Psychology Professor Loeb writes :
Human happiness is based upon the possibility
of a natural and harmonious satisfaction of the
instincts. One of the most important of the
instincts is not usually recognised as such,
namely, the instinct of workmanship. Lawyers,
criminologists, and philosophers frequently
imagine that it is only want that makes men work.
This is an erroneous view. We are instinctively
forced to be active in the same way as ants or
bees. The instinct of workmanship would be the
greatest source of happiness if it were not for the
fact that our present social and economic organ-
isation allows only a few to satisfy this instinct.
Anyone who has studied a healthy child knows
that activity is a necessity of its being. He rnust
be doing something. He doesn't object to " dirty
work." He will dig drains, or make bricks, or sweep
the roads, and think it " fun."
Why does he stop thinking it fun?
Ah! If you can answer that question you will
be in a fair way for understanding the possibilities
of Socialism.
Work, under proper conditions, is a pleasure.
Your professional man says, " Eight hours a day !
Why, I work twelve."
Yes, and he enjoys it. But why does he enjoy it ?
Because he is adapted to the kind of work he is
doing, because he sees and possesses the results of
his labour, because he has health and hope.
Under our immoral system, millions are compelled
to toiU to physical and moral exhaustion. For them
there is no enjoyment in work. Work is a hateful
necessity. What wonder that many of them turn to
loafing ! It often pays as well, or better, than work.
The indignant, industrious citizen heaps scorn on
91
the wastrels. But v/hat is it these shirkers shirk ?
They refuse a job at snow shifting for 46. an hour.
The scoundrels !
Yes, these iveaklings, these ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-
educated spoils refuse a job which calls for robust-
ness, health, and energy. Would the professional
man accept it, if he were in their -place?
Ah ! It is easy to be virtuous on a thousand a
year, said Becky Sharp.
The wonder is not that we have so many, but that
we have not many more loafers. The influence of
the doctrine " buy in the cheapest market," the false
ideals of the rich, the pressure of toil and monotony,
and vile surroundings, all speak to the people with
one voice, and that voice says, " Get your living in
the cheapest market. Shirk, idle, sponge. If you
are industrious and careful, yoii will not reap the
rewards. See — the landlord and the profiit-rftonger,
hungering for the fruits of your labour. Take a
leaf out of their book. Prey on your fellows.
Shirk, idle, loaf, but don't work any more than you
can help." Isn't that so ?
Well, with all those influences against them, I say
it is marvellous to observe how the bulk of our
people do work. They must have a passion for toil.
Their instinct to work is evidently a bedrock instinct.
Our opponents need have no fear. It is not a para-
dise for loafers the people want, but a paradise for
workers. And Socialism would be that paradise.
How would Socialists abolish the loafer? Well,
they would begin by attacking the root of the disease.
They would first provide the healthy conditions
necessary to give the instinct of workmanship room
to grow. They would feed, and clothe, and exercise
the bodies of the patients, and provide suitable food
for their rainds. Do you think it a crazy scheme ?
Listen.
In Mr. Havelock Ellis' book on The Criminal is
described an experiment of the kind on certain
criminals in Elmira Penitentiary, New York.
Eleven dullards, between the ages of 19 and 29,
were selected for treatment by Dr. Wey. For one
92
or two years none of these men had made any pro-
gress. ' They had " criminal " faces, not one knew
a trade, all had obtained a precarious living as
comm.on labourers, ostlers, and street loafers.
Two or three of the men had committed serious
crimes. Most of them had always lived in a bad
environment, many of them had drunken parents,
one an insane and another an epileptic mother.
Their m.ental attainments were less than those of
a child of five. Of general information they had
none, except a knowledge of the things they liked
to eat and the work they preferred.
Well, these men were put on a special varied diet,
served at a common table instead of in the cells.
Three times a week they were bathed and massaged
by a professional trainer. After the bath the men
slept till dinner time.
Dinner over, they were put through two hours or
more of active physical exercise, recruit drill, and
dumbbells.
" At first they were an awkward squad, slow to
comprehend an order and deliberate in its execu-
tion. It was some weeks before they were able to
march in line and keep step."
This programme was carried out from June to
November, when the men were transferred to
various employments. What was the result of the
treatment ? Listen to the report :
The drill and discipline wrought an improve-
ment m their physical condition. The baths and
stimulants of the cutaneous systern brought the
skin to the highest degree of functional activity.
The daily drill and dumbbell exercises hardened
and developed muscles that previously were soft
and flabby, and the entire muscular system
acquired firmness and power. The setting up drill
improved the carriage and conferred a rapidity
of action not before indulged in. The aimless,
shuffling gait gave way to a carriage inspired by
elastic muscles and supple joints. The faces
parted with the dull and stolid look they had in
93
the beginning, assuming a more intelligent ex-
pression, while the eye gained a brightness and
clearness that before was conspicuous by its
absence. With physical culture and improvement
there came a mental awakening, a cerebral activity
never before manifested in their prison life.
A year later several of the men were released on
parole, and proved their ability to maintain them-
selves honestly, while two only, still in prison, were
not doing well.
Now, if these good results can be obtained from
such unpromising material, what success might not
be achieved with the less degenerate ?
You turn up your noses with scorn when you read
that a squad of the " Unemployed " have done a job
at four times the cost of ordinary labour. But what
sense is there in exfecting a ragged, half-starved
regiment of the less fit to produce as much as the
fit ? You must first make the unemployed fit. And
that will cost something.
All we want is the desire to abolish the disease.
We have knowledge of the proper remedy to apply ?
Don't you think you would be wise to help develop
that desire ?
Consider the loss to the State from these evils.
There is the loss of the wealth that might be created
by the rich loafers, and the loss of the wealth that
might be created by the poor loafers, and the loss of
the wealth that might be created by the army
employed in collecting and dispensing charity.
All these people are kept to-day by those who
work. Consequently, if the loafers were abolished,
we should save the large sums now spent in charity
and poor relief, and so enable the " miserable
pittance of 2s. 2d. a day " to be increased by another
penny.
Also, my Christian friends, there is the loss of
manhood, and womanhood, and childhood. Are
not these worth saving ?
94
That Socialism would Destroy Home Life.
A nstaer.
The present system destroys home life for mil-
lions of the population. Socialism would make
home life possible for all.
What is a home ? And what is home life ?
I suppose most people would answer that a home
is a house, and that to have home life it is first neces-
sary to have a house.
But what is a house ?
If you reply, "A house is a self-contained dwell-
ing," the question arises, " Is one room a self -con-
tamed dwelling because a family exists in it ? Is
one room a house ? "
Well, that definition would not satisfy a Socialist.
I should define a house for the purpose of home life
as a self-contained dwelling of such a size and ar-
rangement as to admit of a decent, orderly, and
comfortable life for the average family.
Does every family possess such a house now ?
On the contrary, the majority of our people, pro-
bably three-quarters, do not possess sufficient house
room.
It is part of the practical programme of Socialists
to destroy immediately at least a million " homes."
Why do we want to destroy those homes ? Is not
the desire a vicious and unholy outcome of sub-
versive principles ?
On the contrary, we assert that the desire to
destroy these homes is a sign of sound instinct, of
good citizenship, and a healthy patriotism.
We want to destroy these homes, and we want to
do it quick, because :
(i) They are rotten, insanitary, and inadequate.
(2) They breed disease and cause the early death
95
of millions who could be made into Imperial
assets.
(3) Because they are a menace to public health.
(4) Because the disease and poverty they cause
are a costly drain on the rates and private
charity.
(5) Because home life in them is impossible.
(6) Because even to think of them makes us sick
and sorry.
These jerry-built, insanitary homes are the pro-
duct of Competition, Landlordism, and Monoply.
We are told that this evil can be abolished under
the present system, and that there is no need for
Socialism. Are slums diminishing, then ? On the
contrary, page 12, Daily Mail Year Book, 1907, says :
The actual work of slum destruction is
wretchedly slow, and the process of new " slum
creation " alarmingly rapid. For every slum
dwelling destroyed annually there are at least 50
new houses built under such conditions of over-
crowding on land as must inevitably give trouble
to municipal authorities in the future.
There you have it admitted by a true blue Tory
organ which fights fiercely against all Socialistic
proposals for better housing, that under the present
conditions slum creation is permitted by the law. Is
actually increasing rapidly. What are our opponents
going to do about this ?
They are going to do nothing. They can do
nothing. The only way of reform is by taking stefs
to Socialism.
If the destruction of the home is one of the
Socialist proposals, as Tories and Liberals assert,
why is Housing Reform one of the first items in our
practical programme ?
Why are the most prominent agitators on munici-
pal councils for better housing the Socialists and
Labour men ?
Why were several of the standard books on the
condition of British homes written by a Socialist ?
96
This part of our opponents' case breaks down
badly.
Next, we are told that home life would be im-
possible, because all the mothers would be working
in the State factories !
What is home without a mother ?
The conventional pictures of this bedrock of
civilisation always show us the family seated round
the hearth. There is father, there is the grown-up
son, there is mother's " right hand," there are the
younger children, and there is mother : mother, the
presiding genius ; mother, the guardian angel ;
mother, not only mother to the children, but to
father, too. Mother, the symbol.
What a pretty picture ! But is it true ?
There are 1,000,000 married women at work in
factories and workshops to-day. There are 3 ^ mil-
lion unmarried females working for wages.
One million mothers go out daily to earn their
bread. What, then, becomes of the children ? And
the home life ?
Where married women are employed there is no
home life.
No home life. No home life for a million
families under this beautiful system of liberty, and
competition, and individual initiative ! No home
life to-day. Now.
How can Socialism destroy that which does not
exist ? Will the honourable and gallant Tories and
Liberals explain ?
Married women commonly have children. It is
supposed by the gentlemen who draw fancy pictures
of Hearth and Home that Mother rears her children,
feeds and tends them in infancy, teaches thern in
childhood, watches over them, and guards them right
up to manhood or womanhood.
Do the million women who work in the factories
and fields perform those functions for their chil-
dren? Listen to Miss Garnett, who gave evidence
before the Inter - Departmental Committee on
Physical Deterioration. She is speaking of the
Potteries.
h 97
The results are the children are born very
weakly, and, of course, they are improperly fed;
they are put out to be taken care of by incapable
people.
Of course. Of course, they are improperly fed.
Ah ! Where is the Daily Express?
The child cries for its mother.
It has no mother.
The Tory or Liberal employer has taken its
mother. The mother belongs to the employer.
The mother, to-day, under Freedom, Liberty, and
Competition, does not belong to the State. No. But
she belongs to the Employer.
Hundreds of thousands of v/omen and girls are
compelled to go to work, when they ought to be at
home, in order to bring up the family earnings to
living point. And what about the child ?
The mother looks for her child.
The child is not there.
It has been taken from her and fut in the hands
of strangers.
By whom?
By the State? No. By the system of Landlord-
ism, Competition, Liberty, Freedom, and Chris-
tianity, which the honourable and gallant Dukes are
going to defend with their blood.
The sanctity of the home !
A million mothers are torn from their children.
Who, then, " mothers " these children ? Let Miss
Garnett say :
Elderly and infirm people take charge of them.
We have one woman semi-paralysed who had four
children sitting round her on a stone floor.
These incapable women are paid so little that they
cannot feed the children properly. Do you know
what they do to stop their wailing ? They drug
them. Infant mortality is " abnormally high " in
the Potteries.
Not all the children die. Some of them live — girls,
for instance. The future mothers of happy " homes,"
98
There are 5 J/2 million unmarried females working
for wages. Girls in the Potteries go to work at 13.
How, then, do they learn the duties of motherhood ?
At school ? Yes, they learn " the theory " of hygiene,
for instance.
The practice must come afterwards !
The practice does not come afterwards, because
they have no home really to practise what they
learn in school as regards domestic subjects.
No Jioines, my lords and gentlemen.
But the pigsties m which these people live are
" private property." They belong to landlords.
Tory and Liberal landlords. Who are those land-
lords? Ask Miss Garnett :
I am afraid the local authorities (that is, indi-
vidual councillors) own most of the bad houses.
That is the secret of the evil. Tory and Liberal
landlords on the councils, Tory and Liberal land-
lords in Parliament, all leagued together to prevent
any improvement in the homes of the people.
Suppose all the women did work under Socialism.
They would, at least, have a " house " to return to
when the v/ork was done. Have they that now ?
You hardly ever find in the Potteries more than
two bedrooms, and sometimes you have eight
adults.
The Employers do not live in that kind of home.
These kind gentlemen, who " find work " for the
people.
Is it not true that the owners of factories live
somewhere outside in the country, and leave the
poor people to take care of themselves ?
Yes. And many of the big ones do not even
drive in : they leave it entirely to be managed by
others.
These conditions are not confined to the Potteries.
They are common all over the country, and there is
99
no need to go on piling up the damning evidence
against the present system. There is no need for
Socialistic exaggeration. The cold, true blue statis-
tics are quite enough. Millions of people have no
" home lire " to-day. Millions of children are robbed
of their mothers now.
Not by the State. Not by the wicked Socialists.
By the champions of private property and Competi-
tion— and Freedom.
The Inter-Departmental Committee told the last
Tory Government that " They would gladly see
married women's employment diminished, if not
altogether discontinued."
Did the Tory Government diminish it ?
They did nothing. They don't want to do any-
thing. They never will do anything. Nor will the
Liberals. It would be interfering with the " free-
dom " of getting cheap labour.
What is the Socialist policy ? Our policy is to
carry out the recommendation of the Committee as
soon as possible. Our policy is to take care of
Mother, knowing that by so doing the nation will be
able to take care of itself. Our policy is to provide
homes for all ; real homes. Our policy is to restore
the chilclren to their mothers. Our policy is to raise
these degraded people to manhood and womanhood,
and to save the children from their parents' terrible
fate. When are the defenders of the home going to
begin to help us ?
Socialism would, for the first time, make home life
possible for all. It would for the first time make
the Mothers of the nation free, and healthy, and
honoured, and happy. No nation with respect for
womanhood, and with knowledge and keen con-
sciousness of the importance of Motherhood, would
permit any woman to live the life now lived by mil-
lions. Yet these vile conditions have been known to
your Liberal and Tory statesmen for lOO years, and
they have done nothing to remove them.
The only remedy is Socialism.
But our opponents are fortunately not gifted with
effrontery only; they are occasionally amusing,
100
For instance, they go to the millions of people
who to-day are living in wretched, ugly, monotonous,
jerry-built hovels, called houses, and block dwell-
ings, and tenements, and they try to frighten these
people by telling them that under Socialism they
would all have to live in " Barracks." Barracks
owned by the " State," too.
Dreadful ! But is anybody disturbed by this
terrifying information ? Not a single soul.
Why ? Because a change to a well-built, roomy,
nicely-furnished " Barracks " would be a welcome
change for most of our people.
Our opponents are fond of that word " Barracks."
They use it with great scorn. They evidently think
of a " Barracks " as a sort of prison-workhouse.
Who flit the soldiers in Barracks?
If Barracks are not fit and proper places for
decent people to live in, then it must follow that our
Tory and Liberal opponents do not think soldiers
are decent people.
What should be done to these unpatriotic people
who thus insult the brave defenders of the country ?
Barracks ! What a horrible prospect !
Come with me into the West End of London, and
I will show you hundreds of " Barracks " inhabited
by the well-to-do and rich. They " choose " to live
in Barracks to-day, but they do not call them Bar-
racks ; they call them Mansions.
Call your Socialist Barracks Mansions, and what
becomes of this bogey objection ?
To-day, hundreds of thousands of people prefer
to live in Flats, Dwellings, and Mansions, rather
than in separate houses. Why should they not do
so under Socialism ?
" Oh, but Karl Marx said this, and Robert
Blatchford said the other, and you will have
to live in horrible barracks." Thus argue people
who pretend to be able " to think for them-
selves."
Robert Blatchford suggested in Merrie England
that it would be wise to " institute public dining
halls, public baths, public washhouses, on the best
lOI
plans, and so set free the hands of those slaves — our
English women."
Whereupon, ignorant opponents build up a
horrible picture of a "common kitchen in a barracks,"
with the food in a trough, and the people scram-
bling for their share: which they say has to be
under Socialism.
But these honest gentlemen omit to state that in
the same chapter of " Merrie England " Robert
Blatchford said, " I would have the towns rebuilt
with wide streets, with detached houses, with
gardens, and fountains, and avenues of trees."
Detached houses ! What are they for ? Plainly
for the people to live in. Nowhere has Robert
Blatchford suggested that the people should live
in Barracks.
And what is there objectionable in a common
dining-hall ? Dining in restaurants is becoming
more and more common to-day. Thousands of
people practically get all their meals in common
dining halls. Where does the horror come in ?
Here it is. " If a man wanted his wife to make a
cup of tea for him., he would not be able to get it."
Thus says Mr. Harold Cox, M.P. for Preston, one
of the greatest thinkers of the age. And this bril-
liant reasoner claims that his brains are " saturated "
with Socialist literature.
One fears it is something else.
To-day millions of workers are forced to live in
dreary hovels, and because they are " free " to move
from one hovel to another, the champions of Liberty
are satisfied.
But they must live in some jerry-built horror.
They are not free to live in a well-built, artistic,
comfortable Barracks, or Mansions, or detached
house.
Now, under Socialism there would be the v/idest
freedom in such matters. No sane person would
wish to lay down irksome rules for another. We
should be rich enough to have separate houses, or
Barracks, or Mansions, or whatever form of domi-
cile we desired.
102
If detached houses involved more work than Man-
sions, it would be for the people to decide whether
a detached house was worth the work. Is there any-
thing awful, or horrible, in the contemplation of
such conditions ?
The awful thing is that one should have to deal
with such piffling " arguments," and that they should
come from the mouths of men who are supposed to
be able to " think " for themselves.
Nov/, as to the work of women under Socialism.
We are told that there could be no home life,
because all the women would be doing " State "
work.
But what is meant by " State " work ? Four and
a-half million females go out to work to-day. Is
there any Party who proposes to abolish woman's
work ?
Not one. Neither Liberals nor Tories propose even
to abolish the employment of mothers in factories.
A woman would be doing "State" work when
rearing and tending her family ? Would she there-
fore be any more a " slave " than she is to-day ?
A woman working in a " State " factory, or office,
or shop would be doing " State " work. Would it
be as awful a slavery as it is to-day?
Not by miles. For to-day millions of women are
underpaid, and overworked, in insanitary, stinking
factories, which grind the life out of them. Under
Socialism there would be no factory or workshop
below the standard of Cadbury's or Rowntree's
Cocoa Works. It would be the difference between
heaven and hell.
There would be Jitore opportunities for home life.
We should not have women working in laundries for
1 6 hours a day, or women making heavy chains for
go hours a week, or women making shirts and sew-
mg buttons on cards, in dirty dens, for 5s. a week,
and the glory of free competition. We should be
such dreadful tyrants as to prevent that kind of
freedom.
Then the " State " would take the children ! How
could the people take the children from the people ?
103
The children would all be taken to State nurseries,
and be brought up by strangers ! Dreadful !
But who said they would be? A Socialist State
would be a democratic State and the laws would
be made by the people, men and women. Do you
think British fathers and mothers are going to
deprive themselves voluntarily of the joy and duty
of bringing up their own children?
That is what occurs to-day. But in what class?
Amongst the idle rich and the dissolute poor.
It is amusing to hear orators enlarging on the
delights of home life and the presence of children
in the home, when you know that they send their
own children to boarding schools, and never see them
for months together.
Hundreds of thousands of children dine in "com-
mon halls " at schools to-day. Are their parents
all criminals and slaves, because they send them to
be fed and taught by " strangers " ?
Children under Socialism would belong to their
parents more than they do to-day, but they would
also belong more to the State, that is the whole
people.
We should not allow any parents to u.se their chil-
dren as slaves to increase their own comfort, to the
detriment of the children. We should not allow
parents to neglect their children. We should not
allow parents to ill-treat their children in any way.
In short, wherever a child was short of full and
proper parental attention, the State, that is, the
people, would step in and supply the deficiency.
All these horrors and tyrannies that are prophesied
of the Socialist state exist to-day. Socialism would
abolish them.
You have women and mothers in factories, you
have child slaves, you have a plentiful lack of
houses. You have little home life, and it is getting
less.
The home will never exist for all until Socialism
is established.
104
That Socialism is an Impossible Dream
Because Socialists have no Cut-and-
Dried Plan.
Answer.
Only the ignorant would ask for a cut-and-dried
plan of a State that can only exist in its complete-
ness in the distant future.
Ladies and Gentlemen, — No one can deny that
we have in our midst a terrible amount of misery.
Millions of our population suffer from undeserved
and gnawing poverty, unemployment, and all their
attendant evils. The lot of many millions more is
one of continual anxiety, and even the most indus-
trious and sober working man can never be sure that
to-morrow the wolf will not be at his door. We all
know these things. We all deplore them. We are
all anxious to bring about reforms. But, ladies and
gentlemen, these problems must be tackled in a
judicious and statesmanlike manner. (Applause.)
Socialism — (groans) — Socialism is offered as a
panacea for all these evils. What is Socialism ?
I confess I do not know, although I have done my
very best to investigate the matter. Socialists draw
very pretty pictures of a future when the State will
provide everything for everybody, and there will
be no need for anyone to exert himself; but, when
you ask for a " cut-and-dried plan " of this wonder-
ful scheme, it cannot be found. Socialism, ladies
and gentlemen, is a dream. (Applause.)
Thus speak Tory or Liberal orators. These gentle-
men always cause me considerable amusement.
Their irritation at the absence of a " cut-and-dried
plan " is so evidently honest. They are " practical "
men. The Socialists have no " cut-and-dried " plan.
Therefore, the Socialists are mere dreamers.
Under Socialism, who would have the champagne ?
What would you do with your loafers ? Who would
own the motor cars ? What would the pay of a
105
muffin man be ? What colour should we paint the
pillar boxes ? What time would the four o'clock
express to Edinburgh start ? How much would
four ale cost? What would be done with my cocks
and hens ? Who would sit in the stalls, and who in
the pit ? These, ladies and gentlemen, are practical
questions. What is the answer of the Socialist ?
The Socialist answer is a rather tired smile.
Because, my practical friends, when you ask for a
" cut-and-dried " plan of a State under a system of
Socialism, you are asking for the impossible, and
the Socialist's smile is a tired smile because he
feels sad that you have not the common sense to
know that.
Why is it impossible to produce a cut-and-dried
plan ?
Simply because comprehensive prophecy of the
future is beyond human power.
You ask us for a cut-and-dried plan of a State
which can only be established step by step, a State
which can only exist in its complete form long after
we are all dead. You v/ant minute details of that
future. And you are scornful when you don't get
them !
Is there a man alive who can forecast all the
details of the events which will register themselves
in his own single consciousness to-morrow ?
Is there a man alive who will forecast with cori-
fidence the details of the career of one of his
children ?
Is there a business man alive who would stake his
life on the price of any commodity a month hence ?
Is there a politician who would dare to assert that
a certain Bill before Parliament will pass into law
in any given form ?
Is there a statesman v/ho would risk his reputation
on a prophecy of peace or war in Europe or Asia six
months from now ?
Well, Socialism, which is much further in the
future, can no more be described in detail than any
other thing that is hidden in the womb of time. To
ask for details is a mark of ignorance.
1 06
The broad principle on which the Socialist State
should be built up is plain and clear. Socialists
want the whole people to own and manage their
own country.
Given the basic principle, the details can be
worked out as circumstances require. It would be
a silly waste of tim.e for any Socialist to spend his
life in drawing up cut-and-dried plans of a distant
future.
For example, there is the food problem ? How
will England be fed fifty years from now? Does
anyone know ?
No one knows, and no one but a fool would draw
up " cut-and-dried plans " for feeding the popula-
tion fifty years hence. Hosts of unforeseeable
events are sure to occur, any one of which might be
sufficient to make the cut-and-dried plan so much
evidence of lunacy in its author.
If a Socialist Government were likely to be in
office next year, the broad outlines of our legislative
plans would be before the people.
But no party goes before the people with " cut-
and-dried plans." You never know what the Govern-
ment actually proposes to do until the opening of
Parliament . And then you don't get the details.
A Bill ivill be brought in. What the Bill con-
tains you learn when it is brought in. And when
passed as an Act of Parliament, it is nearly always
different from the first proposals.
Plans have to be altered as circumstances alter.
The object of the British Navy is to defend the
Empire from invasion. To achieve that object the
Navy is supposed to be kept up to a certain
standard, but the standard varies with circumstances.
So the object of Socialism is to build up a healthy
and prosperous people, and to achieve that object
we have first to get the principle of Socialism under-
stood, and its realisation in practice desired by the
people. Plans? We shall not be short of plans
when the time comes.
Even to-day, plenty of Socialistic plans for im-
mediate practical legislation have been published.
107
Old Age Pension Bills, Rig:ht to Work Bills,
Child Feeding Bills, Taxation Bills, Minimum Wage
Bills, and others may all be found in the literature
of Socialism.
Cut-and-dried plans ! Why, You, you con-
temptuous Tories, where are your cut-and-dried
plans? You are Tariff Reformers. You say that
without Tariff Reform social reform is impossible.
Where was your cut-and-dried plan oi Tariff
Reform ten years ago ? You never breathed the
word.
Where is your cut-and-dried plan of Tariff
Reform to-day? You expect to be in office in a year
or two. Your plans ought to be very dry. Where
are they ?
Why, you have none ! You ask the people to
" trust you." You ask for a " mandate " for Tariff
Reform — particulars when you are in power. Here
is a reform supposed to be close at hand, and you
have the effrontery to ask for details of Socialism,
whilst refusing to give details of your own reforms.
Cut-and-dried plans, indeed ! Read this, my Tory
friends, and then for ever hide your diminished
heads.
I may say, incidentally, that I am not going
to be bullied by our opponents into doing what
they never think of doing, which is to give an
account of the precise details of their procedure
some years ahead.
Who said that? Your great leader, Mr. Balfour.
He said that. Cut it out and dry it, and pin it in
your hat the next time you are going to speak on
Socialism.
Cut-and-dried plans ! Mr. Balfour is so uncertain
of the future that he is afraid of saying any night
when he goes to bed a Free Trader that he will not
be a Tariff Reformer when he wakes up ! Or vice,
versa.
Socialists have no cut-and-dried plans of the dis-
tant future, but some of our writers have spread their
1 08
wings in the illimitable atmosphere of imagination
and have journeyed to the visionary lands of the
ideal, and they nave come back and written down
their impressions. We call them Utopias. Plato,
Bacon, Bellamy, Blatchford, Wells, Morris, Gronlund,
and others have greatly dared in this way.
And what do the critics say of these ? They com-
plain that " one says one thing and one says
another ! "
God of brains, what else do they expect? Of
course one says one thing and one says another.
Does Mr. Chamberlain see eye to eye with Mr.
Balfour about Tariff Reform? Does Dr. Clifford
see eye to eye with the Archbishop of Canterbury in
religion ? Does Archie Maclaren see eye to eye with
Lord Hawke in matters of cricket strategy ? Do
any two people agree in all things ?
If you send two reporters to describe a public
meeting do they write exactly the same account ?
If you go to the theatre with a friend do you see
all the things he sees? If you take your child to
the circus do the jokes that tickle him tickle you ?
Is a thing impossible because people differ about
details ? Your wife likes red carpets and you like
blue. Is it, then, impossible to have carpets ? You
like beef ; I hate it : must one or both of us starve ?
One says one thing, one says another.
Of all the inept objections to Socialism !
Akin to it is the argument that if Karl Marx
believed this thing, then all other Socialists must
believe it. If Blatchford said so and so, every
Socialist in the land is bound by it. If Hyndman
repudiates Magna Charta, then all Socialists must
repudiate Magna Charta.
Father Adderley is a Christian and a Socialist,
Blatchford is a Humanist and a Socialist, Levi is
a Jew and a Socialist. One Socialist believes in
sending children to school ; another believes in home
training. One Socialist believes in military service
for all ; another will have none of it. One Socialist
believes in Free Trade; another believes in Pro-
tection. But they are all Socialists, and there is
109
not a Socialist in the land who considers himself
bound by a single opinion of any leader.
The essence of Socialism is individual freedom of
thought and expression. It is not Socialists who
want to coerce the people into certain beliefs. It is
our opponents. What we want is a thinking people,
not a flock of sheep.
There are no keener critics of Socialist leaders
than Socialists. If Blatchford, or Shaw, or Webb
says a thing, we do not adopt it because he says
it. We say, if Blatchford, or Shaw, or Webb says
a thing, it is worth considering. It is more likely
than not to be wise advice. But we don't swallow
views blindfold like the Churches and the Liberal
and Tory leaders expect their " followers " to do.
Our leaders or advisers have to make their recom-
mendations clear to the whole body of Socialists,
and they have to be backed by sound reasons, or
they are treated with no more respect than the worth-
less views of Tom, Dick, or Harry.
With all these different opinions, how is Socialism
to be established ? asks the bemucldled opponent.
Well, how are things done to-dav ? The present
Cabinet is composed of men who hold widely
opposed views on many questions of practical
politics. How do they compose their differences ?
They come to a compromise, or the majority carry
their views.
So with the views of the whole people. We take
a vote. We hold general elections, and the majority
carry out their policy, or try to do.
The methods in use for ascertaining the desires of
the people are very inadequate, and one of the first
things Socialists will have to do will be to reform
the machinery, so that the will of the people may be
registered clearly. To-day nobody knows what the
will of the people is on certain " burning questions,"
because there is no means of getting to know it.
What is done under Socialism will be decided by
the Whole People. Leaders and advisers may give
advice, but no one will be bound to take that advice
and vote for it. Everybody will be educated, and
IIO
Socialists have faith in the sound common sense of
an educated people.
It is because we distrust the prevalent system of
relying on clever leaders, who are subject to swelled
head, ambition, and other temptations, that we wish
to make every citizen capable of thinking and acting
for himself. Leaders then would take their proper
place. They would advise. The people would
follow the advice if they saw fit. To-day they have
practically no control over the leaders. They carry
the people in their pockets.
Ill
That Socialism is Impossible Because it is
an Attempt to Interfere with the Natural
Law of '* The Survival of the Fittest."
Answer,
Socialism could not interfere with a natural law,
but Socialism would change and improve the con-
ditions through which the natural law expresses
Itself.
How many people know what the phrase " survival
of the fittest " means ? How many people think they
know what it means ? How many people use the
phrase and build arguments on it without having a
glimmering of an idea of the meaning of the term ?
" Survival of the fittest." What a simple phrase !
But how fruitful of complicated and muddy reason-
ing. When the successful huckster wants to hocus
his conscience and blot out from his mind the
accusing shapes of the victims of his greed, he
murmurs, " Survival of the fittest." When the share-
holder in a plundering foreign expedition reads of
the massacre of the natives he sighs and says, " The
survival of the fittest." When a g;lib and ignorant
politician wishes to dismiss Socialism from the
universe, he makes an oratorical sweep with his arm
and observes, " Socialism is impossible. You can-
not ' go against ' the law of Nature, ' the survival of
the fittest.' "
Is " the survival of the fittest " a law of Nature ?
And, being a law of Nature, does it make Socialism
impossible ?
My answer to the first question would be " Yes."
To the second, " No." " The survival of the fittest "
is a law of Nature, but that law in no way makes
Socialism impossible.
What does " the survival of the fittest " mean ?
112
There is a struggle for existence amongst all
organic beings. As more individuals are born than
can possibly survive, there is competition for the
means of existence, and the weakest go to the wall.
That is the theory.
First of all, let us ask what this struggle for exist-
ence is. Who struggles with whom, or what ?
Take a species of animal, say the wolf. With
what do wolves struggle for existence ?
They have, as all living beings have, to struggle
with Nature. With their physical surroundings.
Even a solitary wolf cannot escape this struggle. If
there is no food within reach or the wolf the wolf
must die. Nature "survives." The wolf is not
" fit." It dies.
Then there are other enemies — other species of
living beings competing for the same food as the
wolf. There are enemies hunting the wolf. There is
Man. If the wolf is " fit " it survives the struggle —
for a time.
As a member of a pack the wolf will also have to
struggle with others of its own species. There will
be competition for the food killed. The fittest will
survive and produce offspring.
Take the case of a plant. You sow a few grains
of wheat in your garden. The seed germinates, the
plants grow. But there are weeds; there are birds.
And your wheat plants succumb in the struggle for
existence. They bear no seeds. They produce no
offspring. They die. They are not " fit ' to survive.
Two men are v/recked on a desert island. One
is big and strong and lazy. The other is little and
feeble, but industrious. The industrious man col-
lects shell-fish, devises snares for animals, builds a
hut with trees and stones. The lazy man does
nothing, but demands a share of the industrious
man's produce. They quarrel, and the industrious
man is killed. The lazy man survives. He is the
" fittest."
Now, would the farmer whose sheep had been
killed think the wolf the "fittest" to survive?
Would the gardener whose wheat crop had been
i 113
ruined think the weeds and birds the " fittest " to
survive ? Would public opinion think the lazy man
the " fittest " to survive ?
Everyone will answer, " No." But there are many
people who pretend to understand this law of
Nature who say that the unemployed are unem-
ployed because they are not " fit " for employment ;
that the poor are poor because they are not " fit "
enough to procure a living; that the 100,000 babies
slaughtered every year die because they are not
" fit " to survive ; and that we ought not to interfere
with this " law " of Nature.
How do these people go wrong ? Where is the
fallacy in their reasonmg ?
They go wrong just as they would go wrong if
they said the lazy man on the island was more " fit "
to live than the industrious one. They are right
from a " natural " point of view. They are wrong
from a human point of view.
The industrious man dies because the lazy man
is not civilised. He is a brute, a wolf.
Are wolves, then, more " fit " to survive than
human beings ?
All the misunderstanding arises from ignorance
of the correct meaning to be attached to the word
" fittest." In the phrase " survival of the fittest " the
word " fittest " does not mean " best " from a human
and civilised point of view. It means " fittest "
from a natural point of view.
Nature is not moral. Nature kills the prophet and
the moralist as ruthlessly as she slays the murderer
and the thief. An earthquake or a storm does not
discriminate between the man after God's own heart
and the vilest criminal. The criminal is often saved
and the good man taken. The criminal survives.
He is the " fittest."
Christ died. His executioners survived. Were
they more " fit " ?
Certainly. From the scientific, " natural law "
point of view Christ was no more " fit " to live than
the thieves by His side.
But from a human point of view you would say
114
that Christ was more " fit " to live than His execu-
tioners. In this case you would be using the word
■ fit " in quite another sense.
If it were true that all organic beings which sur-
vive were the " best " from the highest human point
of view, we should have to admit that all wild
animals, all disease germs, all diseased and criminal
people, are desirable survivals. These classes exist
in mimense numbers. Are they the " fittest " — that
is, the " best " ?
No. But they could not survive unless they were
" fit " to survive; because it is a law of Nature that
in the struggle for existence the •'Attest" shall survive !
How explain this seeming contradiction ? The
intelligent reader will already have divined that the
law of the survival of the fittest is a law relating to
certain " conditions."
The wolf survives because the conditions are
favourable. The v/heat succumbs because the con-
ditions are unfavourable. The industrious man dies
because industry is less useful than strength in the
given conditions.
But the farmers could defend their sheep and
exterminate the wolves. The gardener could sow
wheat in a field instead of a garden, and obtain a
crop. The feeble industrious man might have had
a pistol or appealed to the lazy man's sense of
honour, and so survived.
That is to say, " conditions " or circumstances
alter cases and affect the result of the working of
the law of the survival of the fittest.
A burglar struggles with a householder and kills
him. He survives. He is the " fittest " in those con-
ditions ! But the burglar is captured later by the
police, tried, and hanged. He succumbs in the
struggle for existence. He is 7tot the " fittest " in
these conditions.
Conditions are always changing. Every moment
the survivors in the struggle are different. But at
any given moment those who are alive are the
" fittest " to survive under the conditions existing at
that moment.
IIS
You have a healthy, upright, intelligent son. He
goes out for a row. A storm comes on, the boat is
capsized. Your son is drowned. He is not " fit " to
live. That is how the law of the survival of the
fittest works.
You have another son, healthy, upright, intelligent.
He is at work. Trade becomes slack. He is dis-
charged. He cannot get work. Enforced idleness
and lack of the usual sustenance undermine his
health. He grows dejected. When trade revives he
is not so fit. He loses " time." Misfortune dogs his
footsteps. He is out of work again and again. Ill-
health pursues him. He dies young. He is not
" fit " to survive.
Your rich neighbour has a son. He is strong,
healthy, but unintelligent. He has no "need" to
work. Bad times or good times, he always has
enough to live on. He travels; plays at literature
or painting; lounges through life and survives to
a good old age. He is " fit."
There are two boys in a criminal slum, both
equally low in physique and intelligence. A rich
man sends a subscription to Barnardo's to pay for
the saving of a waif. One boy is taken. He is
washed and clothed and fed and educated and
emigrated to Canada. He becomes a prosperous
farmer. He survives. He is one of the " fittest."
The other boy grows into a thief, spends his life
in and out of prison, and dies in poverty before he
reaches manhood. He is not " fit ' to survive.
Faced with concrete examples like this, no one
dares assert that the victims of the struggle were
not " humanly " fit to survive. Had circumstances
been favourable, the boy might have reached the
shore alive. Had circumstances been favourable,
the young man might have lived a long and healthy
life. Had circumstances been favourable the young
criminal might have developed into a prosperous
farmer, like his more fortunate companion.
Socialism would provide favourable circumstances
for all. • 1 r 1
I am not denying the law of the survival of the
ii6
fittest. The fittest do survive. But I deny that the
" fittest " are always the " best " worth preserving
from a human standpoint.
Who survives depends on the conditions in which
the struggle takes place. Can conditions be altered ?
At a theatre where the pitites are allowed to
struggle for admission the strongest and most
cowardly will get the front seats. They are the
" fittest " to survive. But at a theatre where the
pitites are compelled by the police to form in line in
order of their arrival, the fittest to survive will not
be the strongest, but those who get to the doors
earliest.
Altering the conditions changes the character of
the survivors.
At Huddersfield, in 1906, the infant death-rate
was 138 per 1,000. These 138 were not " fit." They
died. Alderman Broadbent instituted a scheme for
teaching mothers how to feed their babies. Twelve
months later the infant death-rate was 85. That is
to say, 53 more babies were " fit " than would have
been the case under the old system. Change of the
conditions affected the result of the working of the
law of the survival of the fittest.
It is needless to multiply instances. Everyone
knows that we can save life by altering conditions,
and that we can change character by altering con-
ditions. If it were not so, nine-tenths of our actions
would be idiotic.
How comes it, then, that people accuse Socialists
of wishing to " tamper " with a law of Nature ? We
are told that it is useless to try and help the unem-
ployed, to abolish the slums, to save the children.
The " fittest " survive. There must always be a
struggle, and the weakest must go to the wall !
I have already exposed the loose thinking which
uses the word " fittest " first in one sense, then in
another. But there is another common error. It is
assumed that because there is competition for the
means of existence between different members of
one species, there must always be competition
between man and man.
117
Wolves struggle with wolves as well as against all
other enemies. Man with man as well as with
Nature.
But these short-sighted people forget that every
man does not struggle with every other man even
now. Have they never heard of Co-operation ? Or
Society 1 What is Society ? What makes Society
|)ossible ?
Society is impossible without Co-operation. If
two or more people want to form a society and live
together, they must agree to do certain things and
not to do certain things.
Two men on an island could not live together if
one always attacked the other and tried to rob him
of his food or other possessions. They must recog-
nise each other's rights, and in so far the struggle
for existence would be modified.
Is, then, the law of Nature the law of the survival
of the fittest " tampered with " by Co-operation,
or Society ?
Not at all. The struggle for existence is still a
fact. Only, instead of the two men struggling with
Nature and with each other, they abolish the struggle
with each other and unite to struggle v/ith Nature.
The " conditions " of the struggle for existence are
changed.
Ignorant people assert that progress has been
caused by the weeding-out of the unfit, and they
say that Socialism, by abolishing the struggle for
existence, would prevent the weeding-out process
and so stop progress.
But the " unfit " (that is, undesirable) have sur-
vived. It is the unfit (the undesirable) we wish to
make " fit." They have not been weeded out. They
are very much alive. They survive. They are " fit "
to survive in the conditions existing.
Progress has not been caused by weeding out the
unfit, but by the partial restriction of the struggle
for existence between man and man.
Is not the history of progress the history of Co-
operation ? The development of the Social in-
stincts ? The evolution of Society ?
Ii8
Just so far as mankind have abolished the struggle
for existence between man and man, just so far have
they progressed. If man had always fought and
struggled with man, as the wild beasts fight and
struggle with each other, tliere never could have been
any progress.
All the laws on the statute book are evidence of
our power to modify the brute struggle for existence.
All our churches, schools, hospitals, asylums, re-
formatories, humanitarian societies, have been estab-
lished with the same object. All " interfere " with
or change the conditions of the natural law of the
struggle for existence.
But the struggle for existence still continues and
must continue. Socialism could not abolish it. But
Socialism could modify it still further.
How ? By completely abolishing the brute
struggle for existence betiveen man and man.
Socialism would abolish competition for bread
between man and man. Just as to-day two or
twenty thousand people co-operate — that is, abolish
competition amongst themselves for some purpose — ■
so Socialism would effect the Co-operation of the
whole population. The struggle for existence with
Nature would still remain, but instead of being
hindered in that struggle by the present necessity
of fighting each other, we should all ivork to get her. ^
Here is another example of loose thinking on this
question. A short time ago the Rev. Lord William
Gascoyne Cecil said that " if the survival of the
fittest is the principle on which the world is to be
developed, then the ' bottom dog ' is being too well
treated. He ought to be shot. We ought to shoot
all persons in the casual wards, all in the lunatic
asylums, all ' out-of-works,' those who fail in
examinations — in fact, everybody except the success-
ful people."
It is plain that his lordship does not understand
the meaning of the law of " the survival of the
fittest." He says we ought to shoot the bottom dog.
On what grounds ? The bottom dog survives because
he is one of the " fittest " to survive. He is fulfilling
IIQ
the law of Nature by surviving. Under the fresent
conditions.
If all " unsuccessful " people were shot, the
" fittest " would survive, and the law of Nature
would again be fulfilled. Under those conditions.
But would you consider people who shot bottom
dogs " fittest " from a human standpoint ?
Why, in his lordship's opinion, is the bottom dog
not " fit " to survive ? Simply because he understood
the word " fittest " in the wrong sense. He attached
to it the meaning of " successful " from a worldly
point of view. But Nature knows nothing about
worldly success. Nature allows millions of bottom
dogs to " survive " because they are adapted to
certain conditions. They can exist in those condi-
tions. Nature asks, " Can you live in these con-
ditions ? " Not " Can you be ' successful ' ? "
His lordship cannot " go against " a law of
Nature. The world is being developed on the
principle of "the survival of the fittest," and if every
man and woman were as moral as Christ, the law of
the " survival of the fittest " would not be affected
one jot. The conditions of the struggle for existence
would be changed. That is all. But that " all "
would make a tremendous difference to human
Society.
So Socialism would change the conditions of the
struggle. Who are " the fittest to survive " from a
human point of view? That is the question. H we
want a society v/here the strong, cunning person of
low instincts, the worshipper of riches and power is
" fittest " to survive, we shall try to provide the
necessary conditions. But if we want a society where
the healthy, upright person, the lover of mankind and
all noble pursuits may be " fittest " to survive, we
shall endeavour to provide the conditions suitable
for that kind of person.
We know we can change conditions. But we can-
not tamper with the law of the " survival of the
fittest." The bottom dogs and the weedy survive
now because they are the " fittest " to survive.
Socialism would also enable them to survive, but
120
besides being the " fittest " they would also be the
" desirable," from the higher human point of view.
Socialism would raise the quality of the survivors.
Just as a gardener can improve the flowers which
grow in his garden by weeding and fertilising the
ground and protecting them from enemies, so could
we improve human flowers by providing the
right conditions. Socialism would provide those
conditions. ,
121
That Socialism is Impossible, Human Nature
Being What it Is.
A nsWer.
Socialism is possible because human nature is
what it is.
We meet the denial in two forms. On the one
hand we are told that Socialism is impossible
because the people are too good for Socialism. They
are so free and independent and happy that they
will never exchange the present-day heaven for the
grinding tyranny and dead level of Socialism.
On the other hand, we are told that Socialism is
impossible because the people are not good enough
for Socialism, and never can be. \yhen brought face
to face, these two arguments annihilate each other,
but it is not uncommon to hear them used by one
and the same master mind.
As regards the first argument, I think that has
already been adequately answered in the chapter on
" Socialism and Slavery." The bulk of the people
are no^ free and independent and happy.
Turn we now to the second one. The argument
usually takes this form : " You cannot alter human
nature."
It is first assumed that Socialism demands a popu-
lation of angels. Then it is asserted that we do not
know how to make angels. The conclusion follows
that Socialism is impossible.
The fallacy lies in the first assumption. Socialism
does not require a population of angels. Socialism
can be established by men and women. Therefore
Socialism is possible.
You cannot have an ideal State until you have
an ideal people, say our opponents.
And we might reply, with as much sense, You can-
not have an ideal people until you have an ideal
State.
122
This method of arguing gets us " no forrader."
It is arguing in a circle. By the State, Socialists
mean the Whole People. And of course it is true
that you cannot have an ideal people until you have
an ideal people.
Socialists have an ideal. And they have a
principle which, if acted upon, would, they think,
m time realise their ideal.
Many of our opponents admit that the ideal is. a
noble ideal. They look at the top of the hill and
they say, " It is beautiful, but it is impossible to get
there. We have no wings. Only angels are capable
of reaching that."
But Socialists do not propose to fly. They pro-
pose to climb.
The question is, " Do you zvani to reach the top ? "
So soon as you wani to reach the top, ypu will
begin to think of ways and means of mounting the
hill. If we all wanted to reach the top we should
all begin to climb. We should be on the way to
Socialism.
But, " You cannot alter human nature ! "
That is the most astounding error ever uttered.
The man who utters it does not believe the statement.
If there is one thing which we all believe it is that
human nature can be altered, has been altered, is
being altered, and will be altered.
What do people mean when they say human
nature cannot be altered? They appear to believe
that the characteristics of human nature are fixed,
and they tell us that human nature is " the same all
the world over."
That is another astounding error.
Human nature is not the same all the world over.
Human nature is not the same in any two people.
Human nature is not the same in the same man at
tv/enty and at fifty years of age.
As Blatchford says in Merrie England, human
nature " is a complex and an awful thing." Human
nature is as various as the shapes of clouds. Human
nature is as changeable as the sea. The one sure
thing about human nature is that it can be altered.
123
What is human nature ?
Let us compare average human nature in this
country with average human nature in other places
with regard to morals. Are they alike ?
The uncivilised Tongan may commit almost any
crime against man so long as he respects the gods.
Here a man may ignore the gods so long as he
refrains from injuring his fellow-man.
To honour father and mother is by us accounted
a duty. A Dakotan boy " at ten or twelve openly
rebels against all domestic rule, and does not hesi-
tate to strike his father ; the parent then goes off
rubbing his hurt and boasting to the neighbours of
the brave boy whom he has begotten ! " In East
Africa, says Burton, " when childhood is past, the
father and son become natural enemies, after the
manner of wild beasts."
A man who commits a murder in this country
stains his memory for ever, and at the same time
brings disgrace on his relations. Amongst the
Fijians, the Bushmen, the Ugandas, and the Pathans,
to kill a fellow-man is the most honourable action
one can perform.
In this country it is immoral to commit adultery.
Amongst many peoples unchastity amongst the
married is regarded with entire approbation.
" Thou shalt not steal " is supposed to be one of
our moral laws. Amongst numerous uncivilised
American, Asiatic, and African tribes the most
dexterous in theft are the most highly honoured.
We punish the perjurer and scorn the liar, but in
Blantyre, says Macdonald, " to be called a liar is
rather a compliment."
And so one might go on. Far from being " the
same all the world over," human nature differs in
different peoples as widely as the poles. The very
opposite of what is moral in one place is entirely
right in another.
One has only to look round in one's own neigh-
bourhood to discover infinite varieties of human
nature. Here is a Christian who believes, like a
Mahommedan, that it is immoral to drink alcohol.
124
There is a Christian who drinks " to the greater
glory of God." Here is an Infidel who believes it
immoral to kill and eat animals, or to hunt animals
for pleasure. There is a Christian who considers
both righteous. Here is a man who thinks it immoral
to strike a child. There is another who worships
the rod. Here is a man who thinks it moral to tell
"white" lies. There is a man who would not lie to
save his life. Here is a Christian who believes in
physical force. There is another who believes in
non-resistance.
Human nature the same ? What an extraordinary
delusion !
As great a delusion is the idea that human nature
cannot be altered.
The people who say " So long as human nature
is what it is " generally know little about human
nature. The only human nature they have studied
is the lower activities of that nature. They seem
to live in a petrified world, where what we call the
evil instincts are triumphant. They have never
travelled beyond the first chapter of Genesis. Man
fell and will fall for ever and ever. Amen.
It is useless to strive. Human nature cannot be
altered.
And yet they live in the twentieth century in
Great Britain, and Darwin can be bought for a
shilling !
When I meet this argument I am almost persuaded
to believe in the reincarnation theory. Surely those
who use it must have been on earth before.
Let us go back a few thousand years. Our pro-
genitor, the Ape-Man, is roaming the primaeval forest
at the head of his family group, consisting of his
wives and the young ape-children. The naturalist
of the period, had there been one, would have
observed that in these family groups there were
never any grown-up male offspring. So soon as the
ape-child arrived at the age when he might become
a possible rival to his father he was cast out of the
band to fend for himself. If fit, he survived, to
become the despot of a family of his own. If unfit,
125
he perished of hunger or in combat with his natural
enemies.
Now, imagine at some period the existence of an
ape-woman with rather more maternal love for her
offspring than usual. She dreads parting with her
male child, and, being inspired by this excess of
love, with more than usual courage she pleads with
her lord against the enforcement of the ape-youth's
expulsion from the band.
You can imagine that she used and would need all
the arguments and artifices she could command. If
he were a delicate ape-youth she might appeal to
the despot's feeling; if he were strong she would
have to invent a neiu idea. She would suggest the
idea of co-operation between males for the common
defence of a group.
Now, imagine our Tory-Liberal ape-man's reply :
" Tv/o males in one band ! Beautiful in theory ; but
while ape-man nature is what it is you never will
get two males to agree. To have an ideal group you
must hrst get ideal ape-men."
And so that first poor mother failed. But the
idea did not die. Later on another mother was suc-
cessful. An ape-man, one perhaps who felt his
vigour to be waning, dimly discerned the possible
advantages of having a young ape-man to help
in the protection of the group, and, stifling his
hereditary instincts, with a tremendous struggle,
yielded to the solicitation of his ape-wife.
But would the observant naturalist have noted
anything extraordinary in the general behaviour
of ape-men ? Would he have announced to the
world that ideal conditions existed in Ape-land ?
Would the ape-men them.selves think much of the
change after it was accomplished ?
It is very unlikely. Yet the change was tremen-
dous, and the effects far-reaching. Out of it grew
society, and morals, and law.
Let us now take a glimpse at primitive man. Able
to obtain but a scanty livelihood by means of the
poor tools and weapons at their command, the family
group would preserve a selfish isolation. Their
126
only thought would be how to procure enough
food for themselves, and they would never scruple
to rob another group by force or cunning, nor think
it wrong to do so.
Imagine, now, a number of groups who have
simultaneously discovered a tract of country teem-
ing with game, and settle down therein. Their
hereditary instincts impel them to rob each other
at every opportunity, with the result that the con-
stant wars leave them so little time for hunting that
their condition is as bad or worse than when they
roamed in less fruitful districts.
Then arises a thoughtful young man who sug-
gests that an agreement between the groups not to
steal each other's goods would be mutually bene-
ficial. Imagine the reply of the human-nature-can't-
be-altered fossil of that time. " Not steal from each
other? A beautiful plan in theory. But it is im-
possible. While human nature is what it is you will
never get groups not to steal from each other. To
abolish stealing you must hrst have honest
men."
Yet it was done. Stealing is not yet entirely
abolished, but the difference between those primitive
conditions and our conditions is immense. Millions
of people can walk abroad by day and night and a
very small percentage suffer from the survival of
that once dominant instinct.
Now take a big jump down the corridors of time.
A few hundred years ago exchange of goods was
made by means of metal coins. Paper money was
unknown. Commerce was hampered and much dis-
tress was caused for lack of an adequate medium
of exchange.
Then it occurred to some bright genius to suggest
the issue of paper money. " Paper ! " exclaimed the
barnacles. " A beautiful theory on paper. But it
wouldn't work. So long as human nature is what it
is men will demand solid coin in payment for goods.
To establish a paper currency you must first have
men with perfect confidence in each other's
integrity."
127
To-day 90 per cent, of our trade is done with
paper money.
One might fill a volume with similar illustrations.
In every sphere of life the croakers are always ready
with their wet blankets to quench the desire for
progress. Within the last hundred years especially
they have been confounded innumerable times, yet
the genus still persists, and will possibly live to rival
in antiquity that quaint animal the duck-bill.
Human nature can't be altered ? Can it not ?
What, then, is the meaning of your religions, and
your laws, and your schools, and your prisons and
reformatories, and your societies for this, that, and
the other ?
Why do you " train " your children ? Why do
you teach them morals ? Why do you surround
them with good influences ? Why do you keep
them from bad companions ? Why do you send
them to Sunday schools ? Why do you educate
them ?
Because you are certain that human nature can be
altered.
Why do you send criminals to prison ? To punish
them. Yes. And to reform them. You believe
human nature can be altered. Why do you sub-
scribe to the Salvation Army ? To reclaim the lost.
You believe human nature can be altered. Why
do you take the waifs and strays out of the slums
and send them to Barnardo's ? To make honest
men of them. You believe human nature can be
altered. Why do you send drunkards to inebriate
homes ? To make them sober. You believe human
nature can be altered.
Why do you reason with people, preach to people,
appeal to people, denounce people, praise people, and
blame people ?
Because you are certain human nature can be
altered.
If human nature cannot be altered, we are simply
mad to spend so large a part of our time and energy
as we do in these various activities. What is their
object ? To alter human nature. Everyone knows
128
it. Everyone believes we can alter human nature.
Everyone believes we do alter human nature.
And yet — when some solemn, pompous orator gets
on his legs and says, " Human nature cannot be
altered," there are people who cheer him !
This, too, is a proof that human nature can be and
has been altered. Our v/ild ancestors would have
heaved rocks at such a freak.
Having shown that human nature is not the same
all the world over, and that human nature can be
altered, let us ask if the change required to establish
Socialism is impossible of achievement.
How much alteration in human nature would
Socialism necessitate ? But that is not the question.
Socialism cannot be established suddenly. It must
come by degrees. We must take steps, and the real
question is, " How much alteration in human nature
is necessary to enable us to take the first steps
towards Socialism ? "
Any ?
\{ people are to be judged by their professions,
not much. For when you investigate the matter you
find that most people admit the evils we v/ant to
remedy. " We don't agree with your methods," they
say. " Socialism can only be established by angels."
Well, Vv'hat are our proposals ?
We want to feed the hungry children, to provide
work for all, to pay all justly. And we say that
only when the people own their own country can
they have full control over their lives and happiness,
and only then will they be able to ensure a decent
livelihood for all. We want Britain for the British.
To-day some hungry children are fed, some un-
employed are provided with work, some workers are
paid justly. But millions go hungry, and un-
employed, and unjustly rewarded. We want all to
receiv^e justice.
This can only be achieved by the organisation of
the people. Socialism is the science of society. To-
day lire is a chaotic scramble. Order is heaven's
first law. We want more order.
We want Co-operation. We say that the People,
k 129
the State, have as much right to stop competition for
bread as they have to stop a drunken nght in the
streets. That they have as much right to prevent
Capitalism from driving people to early graves as
they have to prohibit any other kind of murder.
We have Co-operation to-day amongst the
stronger. We have Trusts and Co-operative Socie-
ties. We say it is the duty of the State to establish
Co-operation amongst the weaker. To establish Co-
operation amongst the whole people.
Does that programme require an enormous change
in human nature ?
Not at all. Our practical immediately possible
proposals are simply extensions of methods already
in use.
Socialists want work for all, food for all, houses
for all, teaching for all. We want national rail-
ways, national mines, national banks, national in-
surance. We want municipal bread, and meat, and
milk, and houses, and land. We already have national
dockyards, national post offices, municipal water,
gas, electricity, and trams. Why should we stop
there ?
There are those who say that our methods are
too " material." That we trust too much to " environ-
ment." That society can only be improved when
the individuals become more moral.
We do trust environment. So does every sensible
person. What is environment ?
All your reformers trust environment. What does
the Salvation Army do with a drunkard ? Do they
leave him amongst his evil surroundings ? Do they
merely tell him to be sober ? Do they preach to him,
and trust to something inside him making him more
moral ?
Of course not. They take the drunkard to a home
in the country. They feed him well. They give him
fresh air and exercise. They surround him with
good influences. In short, tAey change his environ-
ment as completely as possible. And they talk to him,
and appeal to his conscience and his self-respect.
What are all your schools, and churches, and
130
societies, and libraries, and art galleries, and parks
but " environment " ? Would a man who says human
nature can't be altered send his child to a criminal
slum for a twelve-month and expect him to return
unsmirched ? Why not ? Because he believes such
an environment would be certain to have evil effects.
"If 'environment' were everything, all the well-
to-do ought to be most moral," say our opponents.
Well. Don't the bulk of the criminals, and the
drunkards, and the wastrels belong to the poor
class ? Isn't poverty more often the cause of drink
than drink the cause of poverty ? Isn't it the same
with crime ?
Everybody believes in the efficacy of good
material environment. Every sensible person chooses
a good material environment. But no person believes
that material environment is sufficient of itself to
produce moral men and women.
Well, Socialists want to give everyone a chance.
They want a good environment for all, material and
moral. We would even improve the environment of
the well-to-do.
To-day there are innumerable institutions for
altering human nature and reforming people. But
they are bound to fail because they neglect material
environment or m.oral environment or both. You
cannot grow angels in slums. You cannot grow
moral men and women in a system of Competition
and grab. We teach children to be good, and then
we turn them loose into a horrible immoral system,
which shouts at them all the time, " Do unto others
as you would be done by, and you will go under."
What can we expect of such contradictory methods ?
To put a man amidst a million temptations and
then tell him he deserves his punishment if he falls is
inhuman cruelty. It is not Socialists who expect
people to be angels. It is our opponents.
And we do not trust entirely to " material " things.
We believe as strenuously as any one of our oppo-
nents in the saving power of higher instincts and
emotions. In love, and self-sacrifice, and generosity,
and honour, and self-respect, and responsibility, and
freedom. But we know that these higher qualities
are often blighted or destroyed by evil material
environment, and we know that they flourish best in
the soil of health, and decency, and hope, and just
reward for industry, and it is the aim of Socialism
to provide that soil in such abundance that every
British child shall have room to root itself firmly
therein, that it may grow into manhood or woman-
hood, and bear those sweet blossoms of humanity
which gladden the hearts of gods and men.
k
Ths Utopia Pbkss. Worship Stri>€t. E.G.
ROBERT BLATCHFORD'S BOOKS.
THE SORCERY SHOP : An Impossible Romance. Price 2S. 6d.
net; post free, as. gd.
A fascinating forecast of Manchester under Socialism.
GOD AND MY NEIGHBOUR.— Price 2S. 6d. net; post free,
28. gd. Paper covers, 3d. ; post free, 4id.
This book has created more interest and controversy in the religious world
than any book published during the last ten years. The author considers it
still unanswered.
NOT GUILTY : A Defence of the Bottom Dog.— Cloth, 2s. 6d,
net ; post free, 2s. gd. Paper covers, 6d. ; post free, y^d.
DISMAL ENGLAND.— Cloth and gold, 2s. 6d. net; post free,
2S. gd.
The Home Secretary and Mr. Ritchie should arrange a loan of this work
from Sir John Gorst, who reads every thing and understands most that
he reads. // is an excellent disturber oj official complacency. — The Star.
A BOHEMIAN GIRL.— An Up-to-date Love Story. Cloth and
Gold, 28. 6d. net; post free, 2s. gd.
MY FAVOURITE BOOKS.— Price 2s. 6d. net; post free,
28. gd. With Portrait of the Author.
Instinct with generous and eloquent appreciation of what is brightest and
best in our literature, we have only to complain that there is so little of it
after all. Again we feel the spell of old times in the charmed garden ; the
breeze blows fresh, sweet is the odour of the roses, and we wander with our
guide wherever it pleases him to lead us. We can give the author no higher
praise. May his book prosper as it deserves. — The Christian Globe.
A BOOK ABOUT BOOKS.— Eleven more Literary Essays,
Price 28. 6d. net ; post free, as. gd.
JULIE : A Study of a Girl by a Man. — Nunquam's Story of
Slum Life. Price 2s. 6d. net ; post free, 2s. gd. Paper
covers, is. ; post free, is. 3d.
'• Julie," unlike " The Master Christian," is beautiful inside as well as out
Xunquam, like Corelli, has a mission to perform — to utilise romance as a
finger-post to indicate social wrongs ; but unlike Corelli, he succeeds in his
purpose. And why does he succeed where she fails ? Because he goes at his
task sympathetically, with a warm heart ; whereas she goes at it sourly, with
a pen dipped in gall. It is all a question of temperament. If you want an
object lesson in the effect which temperament has upon artistic achievement,
read "The Master Christian" and follow it up with "Julie." — Liverpool
Record.
THE BOUNDER : The Story of a Man by his Friend. Price
28. 6d. net ; post free, as. gd.
TALES FOR THE MARINES.— A New Book of Soldier
Stories. Price as. 6d. net; post free, 28. gd. Paper covers,
IS. net; post free, is. 3d.
This volume contains a batch of stories (" cuffers," we understand, is the
correct technical term) supposed to be told by soldiers in the barrack-room
after lights are out ; and capital stories they are. If we were to call them
" rattling " and also " ripping " we should not be saying a word too much.
For our own part we never want to see a better fight than that between the
bayonet and the sword in "The Mousetrap," or to read a sounder lecture on
social philosophy than that delivered by Sergeant Wren in " Dear Lady
Disdain." Mr. Blatchford knows the barrack-room from the inside, and
obviously from the inside has learned to love and to enjoy it. — Daily
Chionick.
YOU MUST READ
^^Merrie England/'
By ROBERT BLATCHFORD.
Paper Covers, 3d.j post free, 4^6*
This is a new edition ol the book which a dozen
years ago was bought by over 1,000,000 people
in the United Kingdom, and as many more
in America.
*' Britain for the
British,**
By ROBERT BLATCHFORD.
300,000 Sold-
This is a further exposition of Socialism.
Price: Cloth, 2/6; post free, 2/9.
Paper Covers, 3d.j post free, 4|d.
The Clarion Press, 44, Worship Street, London, E.C»
Pass On
Pamphlets.
Every Fortnight.
One Penny.
PASS ON PAMPHLETS arc designed to
enlighten the inquirer into Socialism. They will
inform you why Socialism is needed, what Socialism
is, and how Socialism may be attained. The date
of the first issue is September, 1908. Amongst the
early numbers are the following:
John Bull and Doctor Socialism.
John Bull and Doctor Free Trade.
John Bull and Doctor Protection.
Why Women Want Socialism.
Nationalisation of Inventions.
Stop the Strike.
ORDER FROM YOUR
NEWSAGENT.
READ and
PASS ON.
Have You
Heard of
THE CLARION?
The Clarion is a Socialist and Literary Journal edited by
Robert Blatchford. Perhaps you have heard of Robert
Blatchford. He is the author of two of the most widely
circulated books on Socialism ever written — " Merrie Eng-
land," of which over 1,000,000 copies were sold in the
United Kingdom alone, and " Britain for the British." of
which 250,000 have been sold. He has also written a
score of other books — soldier stories, novels, sketches ;
and two important works on Christianity and Morals, viz.,
" God and My Neighbour " and " Not Guilty." You may
have heard of the two latter. They have caused a great
commotion in religious circles.
Over twenty years ago Robert Blatchford's passionate
pleading of the cause of the poor brought his writings into
prominence in the North of England. Sixteen years ago,
1891, the Clarion was founded. A dozen years ago his
" Merrie England " was in every hand, and gave a tremen-
dous fillip to the cause of Socialism. To-day Socialism is in
everybody's mouth. It is discussed in Parliament, preached
and denounced from the pulpits, from thousands of plat-
forms, in newspapers, magazines, and books by the
million. Socialism is the question of the day and the
Clarion has, more than any other influence, made it the
question of the day.
What Is Socialism ?
Do you know what Socialism is ? If you do not, do
you not think is your duty to find out ? Before long you
will have to take sides. You must either be with us or
against us.
You may have heard Socialism denounced as immoral
or ridiculous, the dream of unpractical fools. Have you
investigated the question yourself. Do you think it fair to
swallow the verdict of interested opponents ?
Judge for Yourself.
Read the CLARION. One Penny Weekly.
Order from your Newsagent. Specimen Copy post free from
The Clarion Office, 44, Worship Street, London, E.C.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Los Angeles
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.
Form L9 — 15m-10,'48 (B1039)444
UNIVERSITY GFCAUFOtiNiA
AT
LOS ANGELES
l
iiilliili
3 1158 00748 76
UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
AA 000 388 702 3
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11