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

III. Socialism is Just

III. Socialism is Just.

Since it has been proved that Socialism would produce the greatest good for the greatest number, therefore Socialism is just, and its introduction is not only a right but a duty.

page 16
I have already stated on page 4 that I am in favour of obtaining the instruments of production by purchase. I now add the chief arguments of anti-compensationists, with my answer thereto :—
1.J. S. Mill. When this great genius wrote his Political Economy, be had not yet been converted to Socialism, and in this masterly work, in the chapter "Criticisms on Communism," he admits that most capital has been acquired, not by thrift, but by unjust conquests and unjust laws, the people having been deceived by the labour-robbers, who made those laws.
2.Bible. The prophet Samuel was enumerating to the people the evils that a king would inflict on them, and one of these evils was the theft of their land, i Samuel, viii., 14. "And he will take Your fields, Your vineyards, Your oliveyards, even the best of them, and he will give them to His servants." For those who believe that God really instructed Samuel to speak those words, it is conclusively proved that the land originally belonged to the people, and was stolen from them by the king for his courtiers.
3.William the Conqueror gave the land to the Barons to keep an army with, not for private pleasures. The Barons later on made use of their soldiers to fight one another, and to plunder and torture the peasants, instead of using the army only for the defence of the country. Things got so bad that the people took the army away from the Barons in the 14th century and paid a tax to keep the army. The Barons should have restored the lands, as they no longer had the expenses of the army. But they managed to keep the lands, raised rents ever since, and spent these rents on private pleasures, or bought other instruments of production with them, and made bad laws, by which they plundered more labour and capital. Big landowners have therefore no right to their incomes. Transmissions from father to son cannot change no right into a right. Even if you multiply zero ten times, you can never make one.
4.—There is, therefore, no injustice in restoring to the people that which has been stolen from them; and as all old or weak persons would get pensions under Socialism, no one would require compensation. The small owners would even get a larger pension than their savings were worth. Only the big owners would suffer loss, and with justice. How about the labour that they and their forefathers have robbed and squandered for thousands of years, besides that portion of it which they still retain. It is the masses who ought to get compensa- page 17 tion and not the classes! Do you wish to give Mr. Gould compensation for his £70,000,000?

Answer.—As regards justice, you are right; not so as regards expediency. If Socialists refuse compensation, the rich will employ newspapers, clergymen, agitators and bribery to delay Socialism, and they may even succeed in producing a civil war owing to the ignorance of so many workers. But if Socialists offer compensation, Socialism will be established much sooner. This and the avoidance of the losses and horrors of a civil war, more than counterbalance the cost of compensation.

Objection 1.—Whether Socialists teach compensation or not, the rich will never give up their unjust privileges without creating a revolution. Answer.—If they have three-quarters of the people on their side, then they will get up a riot, and send the army and police against the rioters; but if the three-quarters and more in Parliament are Socialists (and this can be done by practical teaching), then the army and police will be at the service of this majority, to put its laws into execution, and the rich will not risk a useless revolution.

Objection 2.—History proves that all important public liberties have been gained by the determination and revolution of the most plucky and energetic tenth of the population, the other ninetenths remaining apathetic, and only joining the revolutionists after the full success of the movement, in order to enjoy the new liberties. Therefore, you will never convert the majority of the population. Answer.—Such revolutions were good in the past, when there were no newspapers, and no electors organised; but now the situation is different, and you cannot establish any important reform unless it be supported by public opinion.

Suppose the above information about Mr. Gould's fortune to be correct (=£70,000,000) and I should not at all be astonished if it were; then Mr. Gould and his descendants, by spending £700 a year, could if fully compensated, live 100,000 years in idleness. That is indeed a great evil, and I am quite willing that compensation should only be given within reasonable limits, but I must say that even full compensation is not so great an evil as the delays, losses and horrors of a violent revolution. In any Case, full compensation is an insignificant evil next to a continuance of the present system. In fact, under Socialism Mr. Gould's descendants would receive no interest on their capital, as the nation would possess its own Capital, and would not require to borrow any. Therefore, by spending £700 a year, the £70,000,000 would be spent at the end of 100,000 years. But under Individualism, the £70,000,000 would produce interest, and therefore Mr. Gould's descendants might spend £70,000,000 a year or far more, instead of £700, and yet go on increasing their capital for millions of years, even if they lived in idleness all the time, supposing the page 18 world lasted so long. Of course, if they spent their capital in ruining small firms, the evil would be still greater. I know that Individualism is gradually destroying itself, and cannot exist many years longer, and I only make the above supposition, to show you the stupendous evils of Individualism.

You now see that if only just and practicable proposals are preached, the public will be converted to Socialism in a very few years, whereas if unjust and unpractical doctrines are not eschewed, this conversion will take much longer and perhaps be intercepted by long years of riots, revolutions, and military despotism, before the public becomes finally converted. Since big Capitalists are gradually ruining so many persons, and since all Individualist systems must destroy themselves in this way, it follows that some form of Socialism is the only system possible for the future, and that the final triumph of Socialism is certain; and the only question is: Is it better to effect the change speedily and comfortably, or through long years of troubles and bloodshed? This question ought to be carefully meditated, not only by the unpractical among the Socialists, but also by the rich, who instead of subscribing to the real economical education of the masses through good lectures and newspapers, only spend money on clubs and newspapers, which teach all kinds of sham remedies to the public. The numbers of the unemployed are consequently increasing day by day, and this evil will gradually swell into a terrible revolution, unless the real remedy, proposed by the practical Socialists, be adopted in time. The rich are very foolish, thus to try and resist evolution, which is millions of times more powerful than they. It would be distinctly in their interests, as they cannot prevent the reform, to effect it peaceably.

Objection. If it is just to take the instruments of production from their present owners by some purchase or pension scheme (because as national property they can produce far more wealth, education, health and happiness than as private property), ought not the increase of wealth due to machinery to go to the inventors, and not to the masses, as the unintelligent if left alone, could not have invented the machines? Answer.—From your last statement it by no means follows that this huge increase ought to go to the inventors, for if they were also placed alone, they could not produce the hundredth part of what they do, when aided by millions of manual labourers. Moreover, in the past, many scientific men have contributed indirectly to modern inventions; and as they are dead and cannot be paid, to whom ought their share of the wealth to go ?-To the whole nation, of course.

Besides what you have just read on the justice and practicability of Socialism, I think it useful to add in the following Appendix, a lew more objections and remarks, which have a direct or indirect bearing on the subject.