278

COMMUNISM:

A PAROCHIAL LECTURE.'

In this lecture on Communism I propose to give some brief illustration (1) of the ideal commonwealths of philosophers, (2) of guilds and trades' unions, (3) of the voluntary Socialism of the present century, and (4) of plans now put forward for the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes. It will be seen, therefore, that I use the word Communism in the wide sense in which it is current in the journalism of the day. According to its strictest definition, it means the possession of everything in common and of nothing in private ownership. But Communism of that absolute degree is entirely a matter of the logical imagination. If there is to be any practical discussion of possible—even of conceivably possible—Communism, we must consider it as a thing of degrees. The general principle running through all degrees of communism is this, that the property

1 Good Words, February, 1872.

of men living together in society should be regarded as belonging in some sense to the whole body. Then,' some one will say, 'we are all Communists.' So we are, of some degree or kind. It is an important fact, of which we must not lose sight, that the principle of Communism can hardly be stated in any general form which shall not demand universal acquiescence. Differences arise in considering how that principle should be carried into effect. The differences are endless. Questions of such difficulty present themselves in dealing with the subject of public claims and private rights, that

I

very much doubt whether any one here knows precisely where his Communism begins and where it ends.

There are those who think that there is ir reverence and danger in discussing these questions at all. They would have property treated with the respect due to a divine mystery, as a thing not to be approached even in thought without delicacy and caution. They speak often of the sacredness of private property. Now various objects have been sacred in various religions. But it is not the Christian religion that has ever consecrated private property. To a Christian trained in the authoritative writings of our faith the notion of treating pri

vate property as something sacred ought to seem utterly strange. The common interest is invariably exalted over the private in the Bible. The principle of private property receives contumelious rather than reverent handling in the New Testament. The common interest, on the other hand, is associated with all that we are taught to hallow most reverently and to seek most devotedly. It is enough for me to remind you of the history of the Day of Pentecost. The Christian Church, which began to exist on that day, finds in the events of it the germs and the laws of its whole subsequent existence. An impulse, we believe, then came fresh from heaven to create a brotherhood of those who had acknowledged Jesus as Lord. Three thousand souls were moved to repentance and faith.

And of these it is recorded, 'All that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.' This was Communism, almost of the absolute degree. The first impetuous fervour of Christian feeling gave its consecrating sanction, not to the principle of private ownership, but to the principle of surrendering private ownership for the sake of the common happiness.

Private ownership has its strength, not in religion or reflection, but in the spontaneous impulses of human nature. Put religion and reflection aside, and there is no fear of the principle of private property being called in question. A man naturally likes to have his own things, and to do what he likes with his own. He may go further, and like to have his neighbour's things also; and that inclination has sometimes been erroneously described as communistic. But it is not Communism if I take anything from anybody in order that I may appropriate it to myself. The thief, even more than the honest citizen, is a votary of the private-property principle. Religion and reflection, though they may recognise individual ownership as an indestructible condition of human life, and may see many advantages resulting from it, find that their work lies, not in asserting the principle or stimulating the instinct of such ownership, but rather in proclaiming an opposite principle, that of united interest, as higher and worthier, and as having a divine right to rule over the other.

It is true that the weaker may discern that it is to their personal advantage that many things should be possessed in common; and a great

deal of the actual Communism that has prevailed in social arrangements has been due to this perception. The weaker have held together, and by so doing have been able to procure arrangements favourable to their condition. But the same fact has induced thoughtful and benevolent persons, with no view to their own interest, to advocate the same policy. If you draw back in thought to a mental position from which you can contemplate society as it is, and speculate how it might be improved, the sufferings of the poor and the follies of the unthinking and unstable will be sure to engage your attention. You may think yourself incompetent to form any theory at all about the improvement of society. It is just possible you may persuade yourself that nothing better can be devised than the competitive struggle for existence in which the helpless go to the wall. But if you have imaginative enterprise enough to construct an ideal scheme of social constitution, your scheme will almost inevitably be more communistic than the existing arrangements of society. Thoughtful speculations about society may be said to incline all but universally towards a more developed Communism.

There are some famous examples of philoso