Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

NORTHERN MAGAZINE.

No. IV.

JUNE, 1852.

SOCIALISM.

VOL. I.

In this age of revolutions, there are few things more remarkable than the different effects of the three French revolutions on England. That of 1789 excited so strong a reaction in England against revolutionary principles as to keep the anti-liberal party in power for a generation, and probably to retard the improvement of our institutions for many years. That of 1830, on the contrary, stimulated the reform agitation, and hastened the constitutional change of 1832. And, what was the most remarkable result of all, that of 1848, after a six weeks' panic, ended by the "demonstration" of the memorable 10th of April, produced no effect whatever on our internal politics.

And yet England appeared to many politicians peculiarly rich in the material of revolutions. The Conservative party pointed with apprehension to the vast masses of population assembled in the manufacturing cities, over whom the aristocracy and the Church had no power. The Liberal party were alarmed at the pauperised condition of the rural districts, the wide separation between the rich and the poor, and the uneducated state of a large proportion of the people. None of these causes of danger existed to so great an extent on the Continent. Yet the explosion came, convulsing France, Germany, and Italy, but leaving us untouched and we had the honour of affording an asylum to refugees of all ranks and parties, kings and sansculottes, priests and infidels, feudal lords and socialists.

A few months ago our enemies on the Continent raised a cry that we, too, were doomed to be destroyed by the disease of

revolution; that the Socialists, to whom we had unwisely afforded a refuge from their persecutors, had infected our working classes with their subversive principles; and that the strike of the amalgamated engineers was the first symptom of the evil.

It is scarcely necessary in this country to point out the utter falsity of such a statement. Trades unions are nothing new, and strikes were heard of long before 1848. The engineers' strike, lamentable as it was, both as a proof of want of confidence between the different classes of society, and as the cause of misery in thousands of families, afforded no proof of any revolutionary or socialist feeling among the workmen; but quite the contrary. We do not believe there was any instance in the speeches at their meetings-certainly none in their published documents

of a desire for violent changes in the State, or for confiscation of property. Many bitter words were said against their employers, and against the press, which they absurdly asserted to be in the pay of the employers-not a word against the Government.

It would have been very different had the law against combinations continued in force; for such a law would have identified the Government with the party of the employers. Had the strike been suppressed by the strong hand of the law, the men might have returned to their work many weeks earlier than they did; but such a result would have made them all revolutionists. would naturally have said—“ ()ur masters have got possession of the Government, and make laws to keep down wages; but we will seize on the Govern

They

ment at the first opportunity, and then we will make laws to raise wages."The Government, however, was impartial; and neither party wished it to be otherwise the workmen did not demand an Act of Parliament for the regulation of the trade, and employers did not ask for the re-enactment of the law against combinations.

ness.

Impartiality is the only safe position for a Government. Its first and simplest function is the prevention of wrong, by doing justice between man and man, and keeping foreign enemies at a distance. Other duties may be assumed by the State with benefit to the nation, such as the education of the people, and the care of the poor. But a Government increases its dangers instead of increasing its power that lets the hand of the central administration be oppressively felt in all private and local busiWhen it interferes with the free action of men, as by the passport system of the Continent; or takes on itself to decide what books are fit for the people to read, by a system of censorship; or attempts to direct the national industry into special channels, by fiscal arrangements; or interferes with the details of municipal affairs-it forfeits the lofty and secure position that ought to belong to a Government, as general dispenser of justice and redresser of grievances, and cannot avoid descending to the character of a partisan; concentrating also on itself all the unpopularity which, in a free and natural state of society as ours is in part—is expended on town councils, boards of guardians, and other local bodies.

This was the case with the Continental Governments, from 1815 to 1848. Their fault was governing too much, rather than governing badly. Their constant interference with personal liberty made them unpopular; their perpetual attempts to regulate private and local business caused that business to be worse done than it is in countries where action is free. But the worst class of evils was that produced on men's minds. "One of the most important problems," says Edmund Burke (we quote from memory), "is to decide where authority ends, and administration begins." When a Government steps beyond its original and natural position of dispenser of justice, no matter how well considered its actions may be, they have a tendency

to confirm the notion, which seems natural to the uneducated mind, that the duties of a Government include the regulation of all society, and its powers, the extinction of all suffering. The Continental Governments, from 1815 to 1848, by their system of regulating everything, did all in their power to promote these false notions; while, at the same time, the people felt that the Government, with all its vast parade of work for their benefit, did not make them prosperous or happy. But overgovernment is not an evil that tends to cure itself. A man whose health has been destroyed by medical quackery is more likely to seek for its restoration in a change of medicines than in nature's remedies-exercise, pure air, and wholesome food; and a nation, suffering under evils produced by over-government, is more likely to seek a remedy in a change of system than in a natural and healthful freedom. In such a state of society, men project changes in the Government; and some thinkers, more daring, and perhaps more logical, than the rest, dream of a total and sudden reconstruction of society. These last are the Socialists.

The French Revolution of 1848 bore liberty in its motto, but it was not made for the promotion of liberty. The Republicans, who governed the country despotically for some months, did not transfer power from the central government to the local bodies; did not abolish the passport system; and did nothing to promote freedom of commerce. They established freedom of the press, but this was a part of their political creed ; and they repealed some of the worst taxes, especially that on salt; but, unlike Sir Robert Peel, they did not make the reduction of taxation a means of increasing the revenue, and consequently left their successors no choice but to restore those taxes, or establish others equally oppressive. It was not to effect any national good, but merely to put a theory in practice, that the "moderate" Republicans overthrew the monarchy and the constitution. Their conduct is without excuse; for, in exposing their country to the frightful dangers of revolution, they could not reasonably hope to obtain any substantial benefit except what might have been procured by constitutional and parliamentary action. The revolution of 1848 can only be de

fended on the principles of Socialism; for a Socialist, in seeking his object the reconstruction of society-must necessarily regard all existing Governments, whether despotic or constitutional, as obstacles to be destroyed.

We do not speak of Germany, Italy, and Hungary, for their state at the beginning of 1848 was very different from that of France. Their struggle was for national existence and political freedom, rights which France had won long before.

The creed of the Socialists may be defined in the words of an American politician, who said that he would "take society to pieces and put it together again." They are not one sect, but many: they agree, however, in denouncing the existing state of society as rotten to the core, and incurable by anything short of a thorough reconstruction. They believe that the system under which every man finds his own work to be a complete and disastrous failure, and they wish for a system under which the work and the position of each man shall be fixed for him by the authorities. For the existing system of individual action, they would give us one of universal direction by Government. That which they denounce the most in the existing state is competition, to which they attribute all the evils which the working classes suffer; and they propose to substitute co-operation. Political economy is usually defined as the antithesis of Socialism, and is identified with the system of competition.

they cannot be set aside by the finest speeches about humanity or the rights of man. The Socialists, who attack the principle of free competition—a principle regarded as sound by all, or nearly all, who have studied political economy-ought to meet the men of science on their own ground, and show where their error lies. But this is what they are unable or unwilling to do. They point to the great amount of misery which exists in society, and call that, a proof of the mischief done by competition, without waiting to inquire whether competition has ever had fair play. Mr. Mayhew, for instance, in his really valuable articles on "Labour and the Poor," in the Morning Chronicle, brought to light many very deplorable facts concerning the condition of the working tailors in London; all of which he attributed to competition. But he did not mention that their misery began by a violation of the law of free competition; that is to say-by a strike for wages. It is the same in many cases on a larger scale; the misery which Socialists attribute to freedom of industry (for free competition is a necessary part of freedom of industry) can frequently be shown to result from the want of that freedom. The peasantry of England, for instance, are in many counties in a very degraded state; but wages there, for a long time, were not fixed by competition at all, but by the operation of the poor-law. The peasantry of Ireland have long been the most miserable in the world; but freedom of Political economy has been the ob- industry did not exist in a country ject of much ignorant vituperation from where the state of the law rendered it those who do not know what it means. impossible, in almost every case, for They seem to think it an art: it is a a farmer to acquire that permanent science. The notion held by some po- interest in the soil which is necespular declaimers on the subject appears sary before capital can be safely sunk to be that it is the art of accumulating in improvements. * There is much wealth in a country, regardless of the misery in the great cities of Enginterests of those who do not share in land and France; but perfect freethat wealth. Its real definition is the dom of industry does not exist in counscience of the production and distribution tries where the commerce that feeds of wealth, and the relation of wealth and pays the industry is subject to burto population. It consequently includes densome taxes. Perfect freedom of inall subjects connected with national dustry has never been fully tried any well-being, and the happiness of the where. The nearest approach to such many, as well as the wealth of the few. an experiment is in the United States Its conclusions are scientific-and it and our Colonies; and its success there is the property of scientific conclusions is very encouraging. Their prosperity to be true, whether you will or not cannot be altogether accounted for by

* See Hancock's "Impediments to the Prosperity of Ireland."

the reason usually given the cheapness of land.

Supposing the existing system of society abolished, what are we to have instead? The Socialists say that for competition we are to have co-operation. In this expression some confusion of ideas is betrayed. We have always had co-operation; hardly any mechanical trade can be carried on without the co-operation of many workmen. Cooperation and competition are not influences that exclude each other-they have always existed and will always exist in society together. Very erroneous notions seem to be afloat on the subject of competition. Some people, who are better acquainted with the literature than the life of the age, appear to think that every one in trade is always doing his best to ruin his rivals. There have, no doubt, been many instances of traders ruining their rivals by underselling, and many more of their being ruined in the attempt; but such disgraceful cases are the exception, not the rule. A moderate and healthy competition is almost universal; but the practice of selling at a losing price in order to ruin a rival is comparatively rare, and is utterly unknown in the most extensive trades. No cotton-spinner, for instance, could ever think of destroying all others in the same trade, and establishing a monopoly for himself; its vast extent would make such a design impossible.

Supposing it decided that the organization of labour, and the substitution of co-operation for competition-the usual phrases by which the Socialists describe their schemes-were to be carried out, what sort of a system should we have? It is probable that scarcely any two Socialist leaders would give the same answer to this question. We do not, however, mean this as an argument against Socialism. Taunts (they cannot be called arguments) of this sort have been used against political economy, and are equally applicable to almost every science; they generally come from men who cannot take a clear and wide view of any question, and laugh at those who can as "theorists" and visionaries. It must have been some one of that class who lately published the opinion, in France, that free trade is Socialism; a hopeless confusion of ideas; for free trade consists in the ab

sence of all control over legitimate industry, and Socialism means the direction of all industry by the law and the Government.

It is said that no one of a mechanical turn of mind grows up without dreaming of a perpetual motion; and we believe it to be equally true, that no one who has a disposition for political speculation attains to “years of discretion," without revolving some project of re-organizing society under a system of laws by which the collective strength of a people should be directed by its collective wisdom; which should extinguish misery, and pay wages to every man according to his deservings. Gradually, however, the thinker discovers that the improvement of society must be a slow and not a sudden work; that it must be in a great degree independent of the Government, because a Government will never be much wiser than the people; and that the interference of the State with private affairs generally does more harm than good. At the same time, he learns that society, which perhaps at first he thought was a chaos, has the power of organizing itself, and working spontaneously towards good results; and that the greatest good the State can do is in its merely negative function of removing all obstacles to that process, by doing justice and securing freedom.

The same fallacy-supposing that a Government can be wise enough to act as a father to the people-is implied in a great deal of the political and religious cant uttered by the military and ecclesiastical despots of the Continent; but with them it is hypocritical, while with the Socialists it is sincere. Of course a Government situated like ours in India forms an exception to what we have said about the incapacity of a Government to act as the leader of the people. But the very intellectual and moral difference between the rulers and the ruled in India must oppose formidable obstacles to the benevolent intentions of the rulers.

We have hitherto spoken of those Socialists whom we believe to be honest, though mistaken. But this is not the character of all. Many are factious and interested demagogues, who have no object but to sow dissension between the different classes of society, and speak of all those paying wages as sel

fish tyrants, who wring immense wealth out of the toil of the labourer. They talk of the tyranny of capital over labour, and say that if justice were done the profits of the employer would be divided among the workmen. This brings us to the part of our subject which bears the most directly on our present state.

Profits are nothing more than inter est on capital, together with remuneration for trouble and risk; or, rather, this is the level to which profits are always tending. Suppose, then, that a number of workmen were to associate together for the purpose of conducting some manufacture for the common benefit, sharing the profits among themselves; it would be necessary, before a shilling of profits could be divided, to pay for management; to pay the regular rate of interest on the money which they would have to borrow in order to purchase stock in trade; and, farther, to pay something more than the regular rate of interest, to compensate for the risk of such a loan. The principle, of course, would not be altered if they were able to advance money out of their savings to set the concern going; for then their earnings would in part be interest, or profits, and not wages. After all these deductions, nothing would be left the workman more than bare wages, except in the case of a manufacture which, from some temporary cause, might be unusually profitable. And if we suppose the person advancing the necessary funds to be also the manager working at a salary; his income would be called partly interest on capital and partly wages of superintendence, and the workmen's income would be called profit; but the amount of neither would greatly vary from what they receive under the present system, of the employer earning profits and paying wages while the remuneration of the workmen would be more fluctuating. In order to make such a system practicable, it would be necessary to pay the manager by a share of the profits, and to give him the power to engage and dismiss workmen; and even then it would be a much more unmanageable system than the present one. It would, however, have this important advan tage, that every workman would have

a much stronger stimulus to diligence and good conduct, knowing that his remuneration depended in part on his own exertions. And it seems probable that some modification of the system we have roughly sketched, retaining the essential, principle of paying wages by a share of the profits, may hereafter be extensively employed in those mechanical trades in which success depends chiefly on the excellence of the workmen. But the number of such trades is constantly diminishing, as mechanical operations are brought more and more under the factory system. Spinning and weaving have long been carried on in factories. Machinery is now being applied to brick-making, various kinds of carpentry, the manufacture of fire-arms, &c., and the tendency of "slide lathes," and other machines used in foundries, is to substtiute mechanism for skill. A greater amount of highly skilled labour is employed in manufactures than formerly; but the proportion of skilled to common labour is diminishing, with the progress of the factory system; and in that system the machinery, and the directing head of the employer, are everything, and the skill of the individual workman comparatively nothing. Those who attend machines are required to be steady, industrious, and well trained; but there is no room for the exercise of great skill. The factory system cheapens commodities, lightens and shortens work, and equalises the demand for labour; but, on the other hand, it tends to reduce all varieties of skill to a dead level.

Even if such an "organization of labour," as we have mentioned, is found on trial to be practicable, its pecuniary advantages to the working men will not be very great; but its moral and social advantages will be considerable, for it will give them more interest in their work, and elevate their position in society. It may be a failure ending in disappointment and loss to all concerned; but, at all events, it ought to receive a fair trial; and for this purpose nothing more is required than to confer a legal corporate existence on such associations of working men, by extending to them the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act.* Many of the working

* See the excellent article headed "Investments of the Working Classes," in the last number of the Edinburgh Review.

« НазадПродовжити »