CHAPTER V.

SOCIALISM IN ENGLAND.

POLITICAL equality then being established, and the people having power, all attention is now turned to the evils and wrongs of the social state. These are as old as man himself, and partly arise from his nature; we may doubt whether it is the design of Providence that human life should ever be delivered wholly from them. But this doubt should not prevent the most strenuous exertions to mitigate them, and having got thus far in our present stage of human progress, the new reformers step forward with plans for reconstructing society in such a manner as to secure competence to all, while allowing superfluity to none; all to have a good time, and none too good a time. Such plans have often been proposed in the world's history, from the age of Plato downwards. The evil is old, the remedy is old; what is new is the power resting in all the people, told by the head, to carry it out; or at least to try the experiment. Even they cannot make it succeed if it is contrary to the natural conditions of human life.

The Socialist party is stronger in England than in the United States, partly owing to the greater proportion of poor in the former country, and the wider chasm between the different classes of the people. There is also in England a small class of intellectual people with leisure, who have had no practical experience of politics, and whom a humane longing to mitigate the ills they see around them leads

to take the Socialist road. In the United States, politicians and reformers are distrusted, the leisured class is apart from public life, and the great middle class is busy and unimpressionable. As might be expected, the movement is more powerful in London than in other parts of England. In other centres, Birmingham especially, the old Trade Unionists appear to still hold their ground, and they favour Mr. Chamberlain's plans for helping the poor and the worker, which are opposed to Socialism in preserving individuality and seeking to increase and distribute wealth, not to abolish it.

When I told a political friend in England that I was going to see as much of the Socialists as I could, and in particular that I desired to ascertain what their precise objects were, he replied that I should be disappointed, as they would not tell me what they really intended to do. My experience, however, was just the opposite to this. I found, both in their published statements and also in conversation, the most explicit declarations of what their present objects were, and also what their ultimate aim was. I speak now of the direct Socialist party. Though much has been written upon the subject, yet, as I meet numbers of educated people who have only a confused idea as to what is held in theory and proposed in practice by that party, I will briefly state the result of my inquiry. Even Socialists own that the complete realisation of their creed is distant, but its influence largely affects the legislation. of the day. It thus becomes a matter of present importance to know what they propose to lead us to in the end.

They define their creed to be "The science of reconstructing society on an entirely new basis by substituting the principle of association for that of competition in every branch of human industry." They hold that the present constitution of society is hopelessly faulty-in leaving industry to be a matter of individual effort, and competition between man and man, and allowing as a necessary result from this com

petition the institution of private property, and the subjection of labour to wealth; wealth thus being enabled to grasp an undue share of production.

Their remedy is for the State to own the land and all the instruments of production and distribution, such as railroads, ships, mills; to employ every one, and distribute the results of the common industry equally among all. Thus there would be no more poverty and no more wealth; no slums and no mansions. Their ideal, when sketched out by fancy, is fairly represented in the popular Socialistic novels that have circulated throughout the world. In the "Manifesto of English Socialists," which was published by the Joint Committee of the Social Democratic Federation, the Fabian Society and the Hammersmith Socialist Society, they state their position thus:

It is, therefore, opportune to remind the public once more of what Socialism means to those who are working for the transformation of our present unsocialist state into a collectivist republic, and who are entirely free from the illusion that the amelioration or moralisation" of the conditions of capitalist private property can do away with the necessity for abolishing it. Even those readjustments of industry and administration, which are Socialist in form, will not be permanently useful unless the whole State is merged into an organized commonwealth. Municipalisation, for instance, can only be accepted as Socialism on the condition of its forming a part of national, and at last of international, Socialism, in which the workers of all nations, while adopting within the borders of their own countries those methods which are rendered necessary by their historic development, can federate upon a common basis of the collective ownership of the great means and instruments of the creation and distribution of wealth, and thus break down national animosities by the solidarity of human interest throughout the civilised world. On this point all Socialists agree. Our aim, one and all, is to obtain for the whole community complete ownership and control of the means of transport, the means of manufacture, the mines, and the land. Thus, we look to put an end for ever to the wage-system, to sweep away all distinctions of class, and eventually to establish national and international communism on a sound basis.

As to how they propose to get the land and the other factors of wealth: briefly, they propose to take them. Taxation is a ready means, and the authority of

G

even orthodox writers is invoked to prove that it may be properly used to accomplish other useful ends than merely supplying the financial needs of the State.

Many of the European Socialists have hitherto not adopted the idea of the equal reward of all under the new system, but have maintained that while the ownership of the means of production should be communal, the result should be apportioned among the workers in proportion to the value of their services. They would allow a man to keep what he earned, but not to bequeath it. The impossibility of practically carrying out this idea when you abolish the competitive system has become apparent, and in the introduction to the American edition of the "Fabian Essays" what appears now to be regarded as the true principle, is stated to be an equal provision for all. The alternative plan, it is laid down, would leave the individual, as now, to be well-todo or to want, according to his strength or weakness, and keep alive, although in much less glaring contrast, the economic distinctions of this day. "Nationalists, on the other hand, would absolutely abolish these distinctions, and the possibility of their again arising, by making an equal provision for the maintenance of all, an incident and an indefeasible condition of citizenship, without any regard whatever to the relative specific services of different citizens. The rendering of such services, on the other hand, instead of being left to the option of the citizen, with the alternative of starvation, would be required under an uniform law as a civic duty, precisely like other forms of taxation or military service, levied on the citizens for the furtherance of a commonweal in which each is to share equally. The law of service must be uniform, but the services rendered will vary greatly-with many entire exemptions-according to the abilities of the people. The inequality of contributions will in no way prejudice the invariable law of equal distribution of the resultant sum. It is confidently believed that all Socialists will ultimately be led by the logic of events to recognise, as many now do,

that the attitude of the Nationalists on this point is the only truly Socialistic one." So able a writer as Mr. Sidney Webb says:-"The Socialists would nationalize both rent and interest by the State becoming the sole landowner and capitalist. capitalist. . . . Such an arrangement would, however, leave untouched the third monopoly, the largest of them all, the monopoly of business ability. The more recent Socialists strike, therefore, at this monopoly also, by allotting to every worker an equal wage, whatever the nature of his work. This equality has an abstract justification, as the special ability or energy with which some persons are born, is an unearned increment due to the struggle for existence. upon their ancestors, and consequently having been produced by Society, is as much due to Society as the unearned increment' of rent." To this certainly it would come, whatever be the reasoning, were the system established.

While this is their ultimate object, they admit that it cannot be realized for generations, and meanwhile they urge forward all the social reforms that lead to it, and particularly the assumption by the Government, or by municipal bodies, of as much industrial work as possible. The more that is done by the State, and the more private enterprise is curtailed, the further they get upon their road. The more industry is brought under political control, the more property is taxed in any way or for any purpose, till it becomes useless to the holder; the more of public works the State can be got to undertake, the further advance is made towards the terminus they would arrive at. Anything that tends to break down the present social conditions is acceptable as paving the way for the new ones. An American Socialist told me that he supported the cause, though he believed that the ultimate prospect it held out was quite impracticable, simply because it was the best means for subverting the existing system. It is a feature in the situation that many who disclaim Socialism are at one with the Socialists in several prac