Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 86

2. Socialism is possible in practice

2. Socialism is possible in practice.

In order to prove this, we have to consider two things:
1.What a really Socialistic Parliament could do.
2.How to get a really Socialistic Parliament.

1.—Practical Plan. It is impossible to foretell details, as they depend on future inventions, on the nature and amount of the opposition, and other contingent events. But the practicability of Socialism can nevertheless be demonstrated by the present practical working of huge institutions in commerce, industry, and agriculture, which are gradually ruining many smaller ones. These enterprises derive their capital either from a gigantic capitalist, or from a lot of shareholders, who know nothing about the business themselves, and who simply pay managers and clerks or manual workers to do the work for them. Now, whether there are 8,000 of these shareholders in a country or 80,000 or 8,000,000, that does not affect the question, which is : Can shareholders find managers to produce, transport, and sell wealth for them? Answer.—"Yes, as it is being done at present."

Moreover, if it is practical for these managers and their dependents, to conduct business, in a State of competition, with the risk of being ruined by the intrigues or inventions of their rivals, a fortiori would it be practical for such managers and dependents to conduct business, when this risk no longer existed, and when they had simply to produce a certain number of goods, according to the demand, and then to transport these goods to shops or stores for sale.

These managers and subordinates would have to be appointed by the Central Government and Local Municipalities, who would be composed of competent economists, business men, and manual workers, elected by the people, and punishable by law if dishonest, and their duty would be to organize production and distribution, and to give to all useful workers, manual and intellectual, the full produce of their labour, deducting only necessary expenses, instead of passing laws, which create an immense waste and robbery of labour.

In Reynolds's newspaper, Feb. 2, 1890, at the beginning of the article "Democratic World," there is a quotation from J. S. Mill, the greatest economist of all times. It runs thus :—

"Socialism by no means excludes private property of page 10 articles of consumption. The distinctive feature of Socialism is not that all things are in common, but that production is only carried on upon the common account, and that the instruments of production are held as common property. The practicability of Socialism admits then of no dispute."

How about the transition from the present system of Socialism? Many plans are possible. As a general rule, I should say: The State to obtain possession of the instruments of production by giving to the owners interest-bearing Bonds representing the value of their property, these Bonds to be gradually paid off by a sinking fund. After the State has thus acquired the instruments of production, let all shopkeepers and others who have been previously ruined or who are badly off, have the faculty of going into the fields and factories, there to reduce the hours of labour, and to produce more wealth, and be paid enough to buy it. This applies not only to capitalists and their dependents, who are ruined by bigger ones and by other causes, but also to men who are overcrowding all professions, manual and intellectual, and consequently cannot find paying work there, but who are honest and want to work. Many of the unemployed could also find work on railways, tramways and 'busses, and reduce the hours of work there.

Objection 1.—Does not the capitalist risk his capital, and deserve something for the risk? How then can the workers get all the produce? Answer.—This risk may be very great, as long as thousands of owners are trying to ruin each other; but as soon as these owners are bought out by the State, the risk becomes insignificant. Suppose a country loses one per cent., or a tenth per cent, of what it produces, by all sorts of accidents, that will not rum anybody. The people will simply consume a penny less ill each 20s., and the risk will be covered.

Objection 2.—Suppose 1,000 workmen produce cloth in a factory; I don't quite see how they can be paid enough to buy that cloth, as there are other expenses, which have to be deducted from the produce, such as constructing and repairing machines, transporting the cloth, building shops to sell the cloth, &c. Answer.Of course, all the workers who have done this and other useful work must be paid out of the produce just like the thousand workmen. Socialism does not say the contrary. Socialism simply prevents the real workers, as a body, from being deprived of half the produce Of their labour or more in order to raise ground rents, and in order to heap up millions for great capitalists. As to the total taken by the rich, see Fabian Tract, No. 5, entitled "Facts for Socialists," where this subject is exhaustively treated.

Objection 3.—Is it not a necessary consequence of Socialism that all salaries must be either equal, or according to needs, instead of according to work done? Answer.—Nothing of the sort. There are two kinds of Socialism: (1), Practical socialism, which is practical in the present state of human page 11 passions. (2), Ideal Socialism, which can only become practical if ever men become far more perfect.

Practical Socialism requires salaries according to work done-Ideal Socialism requires salaries either equal or according to needs.

Some Ideal Socialists say : If salaries are equal all round, then each one will follow the occupation for which he has most inclination, and not the occupation which pays best. Hence the work will be better done, and there will be more progress.

Other Ideal Socialists say : Society should be like a civilised family, in which each member takes the quantity of food he requires, and not the quantity he has produced. Thus, people ought not to be paid according to the value of their work, but according to their needs. Our system cannot work until selfishness is rooted out of man.

Practical Socialism answers : Your reasoning is quite correct for perfect men, but not for imperfect ones. In every profession manual or intellectual, there are men who make immense efforts and immense progress, and who thus deliver always first-class quality of work. There are others who make neither efforts nor progress, and who always deliver an inferior quality of work. If you preach equal salaries, or salaries according to needs, that is tantamount to making the industrious pay for the lazy, and you will have the reputation of thieves and visionaries and never convert the majority of the people. But if you teach just and practical doctrines, almost every one will soon come over to you. Socialism does not consist in equal salaries, but in equality of opportunity to earn money or its equivalent; not in robbing the industrious in favour of the lazy, but in preventing each man from being robbed of his labour by a Capitalist or by any one else; not in a state of moral perfection, but in practical measures, which prevent imperfect men from injuring their neighbour.

know it is impossible ever to measure the exact value of a man's work under any system, socialistic or individualistic, but we can get far nearer to justice than under the present individualistic sytem, where some men get 100 years pay for one year's work, and others can't get even half the value of their work. We have simply to make a Parliamentary or Municipal tariff, based on the supply of the qualifications required, and this tariff, although to a certain extent arbitrary, would anyhow divide in the shape of wages, not only those huge incomes unjustly taken from labour by the rich, but also a far greater amount resulting from a far greater production.

The above reasoning by no means excludes the possibility of men becoming more perfect in course of time. In fact, if they were placed under a system of Practical Socialism, where they would not have to tell business lies, nor to try and ruin their neighbour in order to live, nor to think mainly of money, it is highly probable page 12 that they would gradually become more perfect, and eventually become fit for some form of Ideal Socialism Thus, ldeal Socialism can only exist after a previous and long period of Practical Socialism. Therefore Ideal Socialists are retarding the advent of their own system, by not preaching Practical Socialism in the present state of human passions.

You have asked me what is the difference between Socialism, Communism, Anarchism and Nihilism. Socialism has just been explained, here is the remainder:

Communism is the same as Ideal Socialism, except that it abolishes salaries altogether, each man entering a shop and taking what he requires without paying for it. Communism implies not only unselfish men, but also such an immense progress in machinery, that wealth would be as plentiful as the atmosphere, and measurements no longer needed.

Anarchism preaches the abolition of laws, government, and police. One example in thousands will demonstrate its impracticability. Two men love the same woman, who chooses one of them. The rejected lover assisted by a few friends, kidnaps and conceals the woman either with the help of a sleeping potion or in any other way. How can the accepted lover leave his business and run after his rival? He must have specialists organised for this. Therefore he must have a police force of some kind.

A learned anarchist once said to me : "Since history is a gradual curtailing of authority, the logical conclusion is, that at last there will be no more authority." Answer.—History is not a curtailing of authority, but only of the tyrannical portion thereof; therefore l cannot agree with your conclusion. Authority is necessary in order to protect the public against evildoers, and can be so organised as to render tyranny impossible.

Nihilism does not exist outside of Russia. It is composed partly of moderate Liberals, who simply require a constitution like that of England, partly of Socialists, Communists and Anarchists.

Objection 4.—Since there are differences among the Socialists, therefore they do not know what they want, and their doctrines are unpractical. Answer.—The differences among Socialists are not so great as those among individualists, who are divided into Conservatives, Liberals, Radicals, Monarchists, Republicans, etc. Therefore these differences among Socialists prove nothing against the value of their doctrines.

Objection 5.—Does not Socialism rest on a wrong basis, viz., Marx s theory of value? Answer.—Whether that theory be right or wrong, that does not affect Socialism, which can rest on other an indestructible bases, e.g., on the following one :—

If the instruments of production became national property, we could get rid of the evils A, B, C, D, E, and realize moreover immense advantages, material and moral.

page 13

Objection 6.—Socialism wants to destroy religion. Answer.—Nothing of the sort. Amongst Socialists, as among Individalists, you can have men of every religion and of no religion. Moral Socialism depends on the conscience of each person. Economical Socialism is simply a more perfect organization of the instruments of production, which produces far more wealth in less time, and although better education, health and morality will naturally result from this increased wealth and leisure, yet this kind of Socialism is purely economical in its nature, and no more attacks religion than arithmetic does.

Objection 7.—Most Socialists are Freethinkers. Answer.—Yes, because most Clergymen misrepresent Socialism to their congregations; but as soon as the Clergy cease these misrepresentations, which are based on ignorance or malice, there will be plenty of Christians and Jews among the Socialists, who in fact already number several Christian Clergymen. The Clergy by this hostility are losing many adherents, who reason thus: "Since Socialism preaches a far higher love of one's neighbour than my religion, therefore my religion is not divine." At the last German elections, the Catholic Centre lost 175,000 electors, who mostly became Socialists by such reasoning. Now, if the Clergy explained to their congregations that Christianity is not opposed to Socialism, they would lose no adherents on that score.

Objection 8. The Pope says that Socialism is wrong, and he is infallible. Answer.—The Pope is regarded by Roman Catholics as infallible in morals, but not in political economy. Example: If the Pope says that it is wrong to take the instruments of production without paying for them, his decision is held as infallible by Roman Catholics. But if the Pope says that the instruments of production, when bought by the nation, cannot be organised in a superior way, so as to produce more wealth in less time, then his opinion is not infallible for Roman Catholics.

Objection 9.—Socialism wants to abolish marriage. Answer.—No. Among Socialists, as among Individualists, some persons want to leave the marriage laws unchanged, and others want to reform them, because they think that by reforming them, many illnesses, vices, and crimes would almost entirely disappear. Let us suppose that the marriage reformers may at any future time become the majority, and extend the divorce laws to all couples who are seriously incompatible, and who (with the exception of a very few extra-perfect beings) are sure to fall into crime or vice, if not divorced. I say, let us suppose this. That does not in any way bind the non-reformers to divorce, if they think it a theological duty to remain united. Example : Most Protestants believe that divorce is right in certain cases; page 14 Roman Catholics, that divorce is always wrong. Roman Catholics therefore do not make use of our present divorce laws, and their conscience is in no way tyrannised, by them.

Having now seen what a Socialistic Parliament could do, let us next examine How to Get a Socialistic Parliament.

The most important thing is to teach the electors. No doubt, most of them, owing to centuries of misgovernment, are too ignorant to understand a serious debate, but at least one tenth of the population possesses the necessary intelligence. It is in the interests of this tenth, with very few exceptions, to be converted to Socialism, and if this conversion took place, then nearly the whole of the other nine-tenths would soon follow, as the educated would then say to the uneducated that Socialism is the only remedy, instead of saying to them, as they do now, that Socialism is nonsense, and that the remedy lies in Conservatism, Liberalism or Radicalism.

How then can this educated tenth be taught Socialism? Answer.—Lectures and Newspapers are powerful agents of conversion, but these agents would be far more effective, if they always began by explaining that they were based (1) on a serious scientific work, irrefutable in all its parts; (2) on a general pamphlet, of course far more complete and better composed than this letter, containing a thorough demonstration of the central principle of Socialism in a popularized form, so as to be easily understood by non-specialists, and referring the enquirer to several detailed pamphlets, in which each contested point would be threshed out at length, and irrefutably settled.* The English Socialists have already several excellent detailed pamphlets, such as the Railway pamphlet by Keddell, and "Facts for Socialists" by the Fabrian Society, but only some of the contested points have been treated in this conclusive manner. Moreover, I have not yet come across any general pamphlet which contains a complete list of all contested points, and of the works in which these points are properly demonstrated, besides eschewing all Unpractical doctrines, and being written with the particular kind of fact required to penetrate the prejudices of honest Individualists. Then again, several learned Socialists admit that page 15 the great work of Karl Marx contains errors on some points. These errors ought surely to be corrected, or the work re-composed, tor the public would be converted much faster, if we first established a complete polemical library both for specialists, and non-specialists, and then challenged our enemies publicly on that basis, in our lectures and newspapers. This Library ought to be so complete, that a busy or uneducated Socialist could say to his adversary : You deny this fact; read our pamphlet so and so, and you will be logically annihilated.

This Library would also be useful in defending our propagrandists before magistrates and employers. Anyhow, honest enquirers should not be left months and months wading through all sorts of pamphlets and newspapers, which either do not demonstrate the case at all, or only demonstrate a part of it, and often contain so much wild talk, as to make Socialism appear most unjust and unpractical. It took me months before I could realise what Socialism is.

If Socialists, Communists and Anarchists, cannot agree among themselves, let each school of thought publish its own pamphlets, but let these pamphlets demonstrate clearly that each particular system is both just and practical, and the people will then be able to choose which system they prefer. If the public are thus taught, and know that the only thing required of them, is to vote at the elections, they will be converted much faster, than if one asks them to undergo all the risks of a violent revolution or even of losing their employment in perpetual strikes. I have nothing to say against those strikes, which are necessary, nor against Trades Unions which are also very useful, but I say that by far the most important work, is to convince the honest and educated portion of the population, because they, by mere conversation with the uneducated, would speedily convert them.

Objection.—If a man at the elections, promises to make certain definite laws for the public good, and afterwards makes laws for his private interests, and against the public good, how can we stop that? Answer.—Don't leave him in Parliament several years; have him tried at once as a traitor, and punished by a magistrate, and send another man to Parliament in his place. Or else, have short Parliaments; be very prudent in selecting your Member, and don't send him to Parliament again, if he has once played you false. Let us now pass on to the justice of Socialism.

* I do not mean that Socialists are to explain how each detail will be solved in the future, for this explanation is impossible at present, as it depends on future inventions and other contingent events. Moreover, when a difficulty can be solved in many ways whichever way you arrange it, you alienate all those who prefer the other solutions, and it would be very bad policy to alienate people instead of bringing them together. Nor is this what I mean by the expression Socialists, and disputed by superficial Individualists, such as the following ones :—

1.Machinery does throw men out of employment.
2.The workers and their managers, as such, lose at least 50% of the produce of their labour, and not 5% only.
3.No Individualistic remedy can solve the social problem, etc.,