British Socialism Part 51

[1195] c.o.x, _Socialism_, p. 20.

[1196] Daw, _Socialism Unmasked_, p. 7.

CHAPTER x.x.xV

HOW THE PROGRESS OF SOCIALISM MAY BE CHECKED

What can be done to check the growth of Socialism? Some most interesting statistics supplied by the German Social-Democratic party will furnish the best reply to that question. An a.n.a.lysis of the electorate of Magdeburg and Bremen, two typical commercial and industrial towns, gave the following result:

COMPOSITION OF ELECTORATE

Magdeburg Bremen Numbers Per cent. Numbers Per cent.

1. Capitalists 4,491 = 8.08 5,085 = 8.34 2. High officials 559 = 1.06 197 = 0.32 3. Medium officials 2,304 = 4.35 615 = 1.01 4. Lower officials 4,364 = 7.75 3,567 = 5.85 5. Professional men 1,422 = 2.55 1,047 = 1.72 6. Newer middle-cla.s.s 3,924 = 7.06 4,882 = 8.01 7. Independent artisans 3,704 = 6.67 5,196 = 8.53 8. Bakers and grocers 932 = 1.57 1,124 = 1.84 9. Older middle-cla.s.s 2,787 = 5.01 4,074 = 6.68 10. Clerks and bookkeepers 3,121 = 5.62 5,247 = 8.61 11. Working men in State and munic.i.p.al employment 1,424 = 2.55 1,415 = 2.32 12. Working men in privateer employment 26,423 = 47.73 28,573 = 46.77 ------ ----- ------ ----- 55,563 = 100 60,962 = 100[1197]

Commenting upon the foregoing table, a German Socialist periodical wrote: "An a.n.a.lytical comparison of the electorate of Hamburg and Bremen reveals an extraordinary similarity in its social composition.

It shows that the workers form hardly a majority of the population.

They can be victorious only when they march hand in hand with professional men, the lower officials, and the newer middle-cla.s.s.

However, not all working men are Socialists. At the last election 3,000 working men in Magdeburg, and 2,500 working men in Bremen, voted against Social-Democracy. The patriotic anti-Socialist working-men's a.s.sociations are rapidly increasing their membership. A thousand workmen, one-third of the whole occupied at the Krupp-Gruson Works in Magdeburg, have joined the anti-Socialist working-men's a.s.sociations.

The 'working-men's a.s.sociations for fighting Social-Democracy' have grown in a surprising fashion."[1198]

The lower middle-cla.s.s forms the strongest bulwark against the progress of Socialism, and Socialists know it. The philosopher of British Socialism, for instance, wrote: "The proletariat proper, the cla.s.s which bears the future Socialist world in its womb, by no means at present everywhere outweighs, numerically, all other cla.s.ses. On the contrary, so far as I am aware, this is only the case in Great Britain and some of the North American States, and even in these countries the majority is not large. The bulk of the non-proletarian sections of the democracy are by no means proletarian or Social-Democratic, even in their instincts, let alone Socialistic in their convictions. The predominating, or at all events most influential, elements in the non-proletarian democracy are what, for brevity, I have rather loosely termed the clerk and the shopkeeping cla.s.s: in other words, they who are, or hope to become, small capitalists, the small middle-cla.s.s. This last section of the 'people'

or the democracy is, as such, the most formidable, because the most subtle, enemy with which the Socialist movement has to contend. The aim of the small capitalist, and of him who hopes to become one, is security and free play under the most advantageous conditions for his small capital to operate. On this account the little bourgeois, the small middle-cla.s.s in its various sections, is the great obstacle which will have to be suppressed before we can hope to see even the inauguration of a consciously Socialist policy. It must be destroyed or materially crippled as a cla.s.s before real progress can be made."[1199]

Whilst many Socialists wish to destroy the lower middle-cla.s.s, others, especially the Fabians, endeavour to convert it to Socialism, and to set it on against the wealthy. They argue: "The commercial clerk with his reading, his writing, his arithmetic, and his shorthand is a proletarian, and a very miserable proletarian, only needing to be awakened from his poor little superst.i.tion of shabby gentility to take his vote from the Tories and hand it over to us. The small tradesmen and ratepayers who are now allying themselves with the Duke of Westminster in a desperate and unavailing struggle--against the rising rates entailed by the eight hours day and standard wages for all public servants, besides great extensions of corporate activity in providing accommodation and education at the public expense, must sooner or later see that their interest lies in making common cause with the workers to throw the burden of taxation directly on to unearned incomes."[1200] "It only needs one evening's intelligent discussion of this monstrous state of affairs to make a beginning of a really sensible and independent organisation of the middle cla.s.ses for their own defence and for their escape from between the two millstones of organised Labour and organised Plutocracy, which are at present grinding the last penny in the pound out of them."[1201] It is estimated that there are in England 500,000 clerks.[1202] With the object of permeating this large section of the middle cla.s.s with Socialism, a new monthly paper, the "Clerk," has recently been started under Fabian auspices.

Socialism is undermining the lower middle-cla.s.s, and it is unconsciously being a.s.sisted in this policy by short-sighted anti-capitalistic Parliamentary legislation, which, as usual, hits hardest the smaller capitalists. If Great Britain wishes to erect a dam against the rising tide of Socialism, she must strengthen the lower middle-cla.s.s in town and country by well-devised legislation, and she should before all re-create her peasantry. Great Britain should encourage the acc.u.mulation of small capitals by encouraging thrift. At present thrift is discouraged by the difficulty which small savers experience in obtaining satisfactory investments. The low interest of 2-3/4 per cent. paid by the British savings-banks--Continental savings-banks give 4 per cent.--is quite inadequate; and the British Company Laws are so bad and sound investments so scarce that the small investor who wants a higher return than 2-3/4 per cent. is almost certain to lose his money if he buys stocks or shares. Leasehold investments are very unsatisfactory, because the object bought automatically reverts to the landlord, and small freehold properties are as a rule un.o.btainable under the present system of land-holding.

Therefore the first and most important step to encourage thrift should be to enable the small saver to invest his savings profitably and securely in land and houses where it is under his own control.

Co-operation also should be encouraged. Co-operative banking, which is highly developed in Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, but almost unknown in Great Britain, would at the same time greatly benefit the small investor and the small _bona-fide_ borrower.

FOOTNOTES:

[1197] _Die Neue Gesellschaft_, September 1907, p. 325.

[1198] _Die Neue Gesellschaft_, September 1907, pp. 325, 326.

[1199] Bax, _Essays in Socialism_, pp. 40, 41.

[1200] Shaw, _The Fabian Society_, p. 26.

[1201] _New Age_, November 1907, p. 23.

[1202] _Clerk_, January 1908.

CHAPTER x.x.xVI

IS SOCIALISM POSSIBLE?--A GLANCE INTO THE SOCIALIST STATE OF THE FUTURE

The realisation of Socialism, the creation of a Socialistic commonwealth in which private property does not exist, seems impossible. Socialists entirely leave out of their calculations two elementary factors:

NATURE, AND HUMAN NATURE

A State devoid of private property is an unthinkable proposition.

Private property is not a fortuitous creation, but a natural growth.

It is founded not merely upon law, but upon immemorial custom which owes its rise to a fundamental human instinct, an instinct which has been a characteristic of the human race in all countries, and which is as old as humanity itself. The instinct of acquisition, of acc.u.mulation, and of property is common to all men from Central Africa to the poles. It is equally strongly developed in the most civilised nations and among savages.

However, supposing that the instinct of acquisition, of acc.u.mulation, and of property, which is found not only among all races of mankind but even among the higher animals, could be overcome, would human nature allow of the creation of a co-operative commonwealth based on voluntary co-operation, not on compulsion? Could the brotherhood of man be made a reality, and would men co-operate without strife in that mutual friendship and good-fellowship which one finds but rarely, even among those who are connected by the closest ties of affection and blood relationship, unless self-interest acts as the determining factor? Did not Plato found his ideal commonwealth upon perfectly wise and virtuous men? "Does not Socialist society presuppose extraordinary human beings, real angels, as regards unselfishness and gentleness, joy of work and intelligence? Is not the Social Revolution, with the present brutal and egoistical race of men, bound to become the signal for desolating struggles for the booty or for general idleness in which it would go to ruin?"[1203]

"Who is more ready to tilt against society than the average Socialist?

And if the individuals in it are so deeply imbued with a double dose of original sin as not to be able to handle any part of distribution and exchange, it follows that you cannot trust the individual."[1204]

"In a social State you must consider two things--man and his surroundings. You often forget man, because you think it easier to alter his surroundings. The real question is: Can you produce men fit for the new social State?"[1205]

"Socialism postulates an intelligent democracy."[1206] "The proletariat will require high intelligence, strong discipline, perfect organisation of its great ma.s.ses. We may expect that it will only succeed when it will have developed these qualities in the highest degree."[1207] "Socialists demand a higher morality than any now to be found."[1208] "It is inc.u.mbent upon Socialism to recognise the existence of an intellectual motive, and it must place that motive above the economic, because without it the economic struggle would be devoid of any constructive value; it would be a mere tug-of-war; it would never bring us to Socialism. It would lead to a scramble for the spoils and mutual throat-cutting."[1209] "If 'each for all and all for each' be nothing more than a text for a banner or a motto for a wall; if its truth has not captured the hearts and minds of men and women in that new society, we shall be an official-ridden people with our eye on the best posts in the State for ourselves or our sons; and we shall be as pitiable in our spiritual deformity as we are in our economic bondage."[1210] "Socialism demands more than that we should merely import Socialistic inst.i.tutions into our midst. It insists on a moral regeneration of society of the most complete and searching kind in order to make a lasting foundation for the political and social changes we many of us long to see."[1211] "Convey it in what spirit we may, an appeal to cla.s.s interest is an appeal to personal interest.

Socialist propaganda carried on as a cla.s.s war suggests none of those ideals of moral citizenship with which Socialist literature abounds, 'each for all and all for each,' 'service to the community is the sole right of property' and so on. It is an appeal to individualism" [which seems to be a euphemism for envy and cupidity], "and results in getting men to accept Socialist formulae without becoming Socialists."[1212]

Unfortunately there is nothing ideal and elevating in the Socialist teachings, as the previous chapters show. Socialism appeals to all the pa.s.sions and to all the vices, such as hatred, jealousy, envy, cupidity. It encourages, or at least excuses, wastefulness, improvidence, profligacy, and drunkenness. Its aim is plunder.

The voluntary co-operation of all for the benefit of all presupposes the existence of wise, virtuous, and unselfish citizens. Do the people in England, or in any other country, possess these high qualities, or are these qualities likely to be created by the teachings of the Socialists? A distinguished Socialist despairingly exclaimed: "That spirit which animated the apostles, prophets, martyrs, is alive in j.a.pan to-day. Is it alive in us as a nation? If not, if we have replaced it to any extent by some selfish opposite, by any such diabolically careless sentiment as 'after me the deluge,'

then we as a nation have lost our soul, sold it for mere individual prosperity, sold it in some poor cases for not even that, for mere liquid refreshment, and we are on the down grade."[1213] Another Socialist wrote: "We are all of us great-great-grandchildren of the beasts. We carry the b.e.s.t.i.a.l attributes in our blood, some more, some less. Who amongst us is so pure and exalted that he has never been conscious of the b.e.s.t.i.a.l taint?"[1214] "Descendants of barbarians and beasts, we have not yet conquered the greed and folly of our b.e.s.t.i.a.l and barbarous inheritance. Our nature is an unweeded garden. Our hereditary soil is rank."[1215]

The Socialists themselves acknowledge that Socialism presupposes a nation composed of ideal individuals, industrious, gentle, mutually helpful, unselfish, forbearing, and wise. They also acknowledge that men are the descendants of barbarians and beasts. Do Socialist agitators really believe that they can convert the descendants of barbarians and beasts into ideal beings by constantly preaching to them the gospel of hatred, envy, selfishness, self-indulgence, and plunder, and by even encouraging them to continue poisoning themselves and their descendants by over-indulgence in alcoholic drink?[1216]

Surely "the defective natures of citizens will show themselves in the bad acting of whatever social structure they are arranged into. There is no political alchemy by which you can get golden conduct out of leaden instincts."[1217]

It is clear to most thinking Socialists that human nature, as at present const.i.tuted, will make the realisation of Socialism impossible. How do Socialists, then, propose to meet the difficulty?

Very simply. By bold a.s.sertions and prophecies. That which all religions and all philosophers have been unable to accomplish during 3,000 years, Socialists will effect as by the touch of a magician's wand. "Socialism will change human nature. The opportunity makes the man. Socialism will take away the desire for acc.u.mulating riches.

Under such conditions the possession of riches will be a superfluous burden which no sane man will wish to bear."[1218] "As soon as high purpose, intense human attachments, are the springs of action and resolve, discipline will come into our movement to crush out base selfishness, vanity, and personal ambition,"[1219] This is very nice, but how are "high purpose" and "intense human attachment" to be made the "springs of action"? Unfortunately the writer keeps the secret to himself.

The philosopher of British Socialism states: "Socialism only calls for enlightened selfishness. But the fact that this selfishness is enlightened and recognises that it can serve itself by serving the common interest will completely change its character, so that it will cease to be the narrow selfishness of to-day, which so often defeats its own ends. Selfishness pa.s.sing through the refining fire of economic change ceases to be selfishness and becomes Socialism."[1220]

If selfishness ceases to be selfishness and becomes Socialism, then it changes merely its name, and Socialism and selfishness are identical, which is quite correct. Other Socialist leaders prophesy: "May we not a.s.sume that under these conditions a new type of mankind will evolve which will surpa.s.s the highest type which culture has produced up till now? An overman, if you please, not as an exception, but as the rule."[1221]

"Selfishness will become public spirit."[1222] "The desire to serve the common life, to advance its welfare, will be the highest ambition of the individual."[1223] "Just as the nightingale sings in the evening shades, or the lark trills in the summer sky, so man in natural surroundings" [does Socialism create "natural" surroundings or unnatural ones?] "will seek to gratify his higher nature. Socialism will create a condition of things favourable to the development of the higher type of individuality."[1224] "This is the religious aspect of labour. It is dignified, enn.o.bling. That is the divine ideal, the aspect concerning labour which G.o.d intended should be realised. Just think of it! The ordinary working man as divinely taught and inspired as the prophets and seers of old, and having the capacity to understand the sublimest truths and the profoundest philosophy concerning human life and the eternal destinies."[1225]

The statements given above, with their superlatives, their laboured philosophy, their lyrics, hysterics, and prophecies, are singularly unconvincing. The manner in which the simple question, "How do you propose to fit actual human nature into your scheme?" is answered by the Socialists, proves that they find that question unanswerable.

History teaches us that revolutions based on plunder, euphemistically called confiscation, expropriation, or socialisation, have indeed altered human nature, but they have altered it for the worse. All revolutions have hitherto caused a fearful depravation of manners and led to the most hideous crimes--and will a Socialistic revolution prove an exception? Why should it be an exception? Are its teachings such as make it seem likely that a Socialistic revolution will prove an exception? An attempt to establish the Socialist Commonwealth would undoubtedly lead, not to a revolution, but to a series of revolutions, to Anarchism and to civil war. The tragedy of the great French Revolution might be acted over again.

Now let us look into some practical questions which the Socialist State of the future will have to settle. Let us, for instance, inquire:

HOW WILL LABOUR BE REMUNERATED?