I. Socialism is Reasonable in Theory.

Evil A.—If a factory belongs to a private owner, and if by purchasing a newly-invented and more powerful machine he can get his work done with fewer hands, of course it will be to his interest to dismiss as many workers as possible, in order to save their salaries. Moreover, if he did not act thus, he would be ruined by his rivals. But if the factory belonged to a really Democratic State then the Government and Municipalities would shorten the hours of labour until all workers were employed. The prevention of incapacity and dishonesty in such a State will be treated later on. Anyhow, if we go on throwing men out of work by machinery, we shall soon have so many honest unemployed (besides the lazy ones) that no amount of relief will be adequate, and there will then be a terrible revolution, which could easily be avoided by adopting a sensible remedy in time. It is nonsense to say that the evil can be stopped by emigration, which can only remedy one tenth of the harm, and which, moreover, takes away the strongest tenth of the unemployed, and thus degenerates the physique of the nation. Thus Individualism (= private property in the instruments of production) whether Conservative, Liberal, or Radical, is the dissolution of Society and leads to revolution, whereas Socialism is the cohesion and Salvation of Society, and would prevent revolution if adopted in time by Parliament.

Evil B.—In agriculture, industry, and commerce, both wholesale and retail, the big capitalists can and do ruin the Smaller ones; that is an evident and well-known fact. But if these departments belonged to the nation, no manager could ruin his neighbour, and the production and selling could be carried on, on a far larger scale than at present, and thus secure to the public much greater cheapness than now, without ruining any one. Thus not only manual labourers would benefit by Socialism but also all small and middling capitalists; for it were far better for them to be managers, or even manual workers, with short hours and good pay, than to live in constant fear of being swallowed up by a greater capitalist.

Evil C.—We often produce more goods of one sort than we can sell (which over-production is attended with many painful consequences), because as soon as there is an increased demand for a particular article, every manufacturer produces as fast as he can, in order to secure for himself the utmost possible share of that increase, and, consequently of profits, to the exclusion of his rivals. But if the instruments of production were national property, then these managers would no longer have to try to ruin each other, and would therefore come to an understanding on the subject, and only produce the right quantity.

Evils D and E—Under-payment and waste of labour, page 4 with their material and moral consequences. If the instruments of production are private property, the manual workers and their managers, as such (i.e., as workers, not as owners); cannot be paid enough to buy in the shops, the goods which they have produced, less only the necessary expenses of repairs, transport, sale, &c. A. great portion of the produce goes to the owners of land, machinery, &c. Some of these owners make up to £500,000 a year, and more, chiefly by ruining smaller ones in an unequal struggle. Whenever these princes of finance want a manager to do the same work as they do, they can easily find one for £5,000 a year, or for less, and they don't pay him 100 years of salary for one year's work, which exorbitant salaries they often charge the public, not only for one year's work, but even for one year's idleness.

But if the instruments of production became national property, the workers, manual and intellectual, would no longer have to pay these cruelly exorbitant salaries (objections later on), but would receive the full value of their labour, and consequently, be able to buy in the shops that which they had produced, i.e., not only the same quantity of wealth as we manufacture at present, but even a far greater quantity, if we produced it. By constructing more machines (there is plenty of iron in the ground for that purpose), and by a superior organisation, whereby the present innumerable useless workers could do useful work, we could produce far more wealth, besides shortening the hours of labour, and there would be no difficulty in selling this wealth, provided we paid the people enough to buy it; and provided we produced according to the demand.^* Great moral and intellectual advantages would result from this immense increase of wealth and leisure, and they will be treated in the course of this letter.

1.—Immense power of machinery.—In the protocol of tne last Berlin Labour Conference, there is a report by Delahaye, stating that the 188,000 workers in the factories of Europe and page 5 America are producing 530 times more cotton, than 188,000 workers could have produced before the invention of steam machinery, i.e., about as much in one day as could have been produced formerly by the same number of workers in a year and a half. On this, taking into account that everybody can't use machines, we can found the following argument :—

Before the invention of steam machinery, our forefathers, working about ten hours a day, used to produce not only enough to keep themselves, but also enough to supply the luxury of kings, nobles, and prelates. This proves that in six hours a day, without steam machinery, a man can produce enough to live on. Consequently, if the right number of people used our present powerful machinery, and if no waste or robbery of labour ensued, that amount could be produced in less than one hour; and if we worked four to six hours a day, each person would get far more wealth than our ancestors had.

2.—Useless workers, who could produce more wealth.—I will take a few cases out of thousands :—

(a)

A and B are two builders, living ten miles apart. A gets a job close to B's house, and B a job close to A's house. All the transport of their ladders and planks is Useless work, which, together with that of other builders, necessitates the construction of many useless carts. This reason applies to most merchants, canvassers and shopkeepers (not all of them) who cross each other in every town, and from one town and country to another uselessly. How many useless ships we have to build on this account !

(b)

A country requires industrial and agricultural produce, inland and foreign. Instead of consulting the statistics of consumption, and of writing a few letters to ask for the required number of tons, which would be sent to a central depót for distribution to the shops, we have thousands of merchants and brokers who each order many separate parcels, large and small, a small parcel requiring as much correspondence, book-keeping and drafts as a large one. Now, as we could, under Socialism, order a hundred big parcels at once, and thus issue one big draft instead of a thousand small ones, and do a hundred times less correspondence and book-keeping than these merchants, it follows that nearly all their work is useless, as well as that of their countless dependents, direct and indirect, viz., those who do the useless correspondence and book-keeping, who build the useless offices, who manufacture the useless office furniture and stationery, who construct and drive the useless carts for this furniture and for all these small parcels, who page 6 build the useless banks for those small drafts, who do more useless book-keeping there, who carry the useless business letters through the post, who act as useless porters, &c., &c. Socialism does not wish to abolish all these middlemen, but only the useless ones.

All these useless workers are obstacles to each other in every profession, and are gradually getting ruined, as fast as great operators ruin small ones (partly by using more powerful machines, partly by superior organisation, which enables the same quantity of work to be done with far fewer hands). Nearly all these ruined men, whether shopkeepers or others, cannot find employment anywhere, and are gradually swelling the ranks of the unemployed up to revolution point. But if the instruments of production became national property, these same men could be employed partly in producing more wealth, partly in reducing the hours of labour.

Before passing on to the practicability and justice of Socialism, let us consider a few of the principal objections against it, which will give you an idea of the futility of the rest. By applying to any educated Socialist, you can always get any other objections refuted. To be strictly logical, I ought to deal with some of these objections later on, but as I know from your letter, what is passing in your mind, I prefer to refute them at once.

Objection 1.—Suppose we produce far more wealth, and paid the masses enough to buy it, besides reducing the hours of labour, who guarantees that they would spend this leisure on healthy amusements and mental improvements? Wouldn't they rather spend their time and money in drink? Answer.—If we feed and educate the masses badly from childhood, and if we pay them so badly, that they can't go to theatres, concerts, picture galleries, and excursions; then, of course, they will take to drink; but if we educate them and day them properly, then they won't take to drink.

Confirmation.—Bring up the baby of a rich man in the slums, with bad food, bad air, bad education, six in one room. When this baby grows up to manhood, bring up his child (i.e., the grandson of the rich man), in the same disgusting way, and you will make an abject vagabond of him. On the other hand, bring up the son and grandson of a vagabond with good food, good teaching, good morality, and you will make a refined man of this grandson.

By good food, and by strengthening exercises for mind and body plus absence of monetary cares later on, not only can people become more learned and refined, but they can gradually acquire more health, physical strength, and morality. Hence a gradual prolongation of life, and a great diminution of illnesses, vices, and crimes. Therefore, it is a calumny to say that Socialism only produces greed after wealth. Talking of the moral influence of Socialism, here is a sample of the almost incredible extent to which real Socialists go, in the love of their neighbour. In Russia, girls of high nobilty have actually disguised themselves as poor workpeople, and worked fifteen hours a day in factories, with bad food and lodging, in order to teach Socialism to their poorer sisters, besides risking the horrors of Siberia if found out! ! I mention this, on the authority of Stepniak, the celebrated Russian Author.

Objection 2.—If everybody is well educated, who'll do the dirty work? Answer.—The superior minds will do the work which requires great intelligence; the inferior minds, that which requires less intelligence. Example.—Suppose 100 vacancies occur in teaching, and 300 applications. The hundred best will be chosen as teachers, and the other 200 will have to seek work in other departments, according to their free choice, and they are sure to find some, as there will be as many berths as inhabitants. There will be no humiliation attached to manual labour, as the hours will be short, the pay good, and the workshops healthy. Moreover, people will have at least half the day for intellectual pursuits if they choose.

Objection 3.—How about the lazy? Answer.—They will be fined in proportion to their laziness. If they won't work at all, they'll get no pay and starve.

Objection 4.—Then how about the aged and infirm? Answer.—They'll get good pensions many times greater than our present wretched workhouse allowances.

Objection 5.—Won t Socialism destroy progress? Answer. Just the reverse. Owing to increased education and capital, there would be far more inventions than at present.

Objection 6.—Won't Socialism destroy liberty ? Answer.—No, it will give the people real liberty and real individualism instead of the present overwork, slavery, and anxious fear of ruin, which is not individualism at all, but rather Crocodilism.

Objection 7.—If the Government buys out all owners of instruments of production, by paying them interest and sinking fund during 20 or 30 years, how are we better off? Answer,—In two ways :—

(1).	Instead of paying big landlords and capitalists up to £500,000 a year and more, we can get managers to do page 8 the same work for far less, and we keep the difference to increase wages all round.
(2).	We can, moreover, organise labour in a more perfect way, and thus produce and sell far more wealth, besides shortening the hours of labour.

Objection 8.—How about authors, artists, &c.? Answer.—Several plans are possible. Mine is to leave the payment of them as it is now. Those who earn a good deal, may save or spend it, but they won't be able to exploit the labour of others with it. Those who cannot earn enough, will simply seek and find work in other professions.

Objection 9.—Then if these producers of intellectual wealth get paid, the producers of material wealth cannot get the equivalent of all they produce? Answer. The producers of material wealth will give a portion of what they have produced to those who produce intellectual wealth, in exchange for this intellectual wealth.

Objection 10.—Some railways only pay four and a half per cent, dividend; therefore the workers could only be four and a half per cent, better off, even if the shareholders made them a present of the rail way. Answer.—Nothing of the sort. Suppose a railway brings in £9 yearly for every £100 spent on it, and the shareholders take £4 10s., leaving £4 10s. for constructions, repairs, wages, &c., it follows that the workers lose much more than 50 per cent, of the produce, and not merely four and a half per cent, of it. Moreover, the owners of the land, on which the railway was constructed, had in many cases to be paid far more than the land was worth, otherwise they would have prevented the passing of the Bill through Parliament. This increases the loss both for labour and for the public. In many instances the land increased so much in value owing to the railway that the owners would have been richly compensated, even if they had been paid nothing for their land.

Then again, mines, tramways, and railways may go up to many times their value by overcharges on the public, without any increase in wages, but a stupendous increase in dividends or in the price of the stock, follows instead.

Objection 11.—Since interest is gradually decreasing, we have only to leave matters alone and they will right themselves. Answer. If interest decreases each year, it shows that more capital has been saved from the produce of labour, and is demanding interest from this produce, and therefore labour loses at least as much as before, if not far more.

Objection 12.—The rich man cannot eat beyond a certain quantity, and feeds a certain number of dependents with his wealth; therefore the masses would not be better off under Socialism. Answer, He keeps a lot of persons doing unproductive work, or producing articles of luxury for himself, instead of producing page 9 articles for themselves. All these dependents, direct and indirect, are in reality kept by the productive workers, and not by the rich.

Let us now pass on to the practicability and justice of Socialism.