SOCIALISM AND STATE OFFICIALS

 TRINITY OF EVILS.

THE INEVITABLE RESULTS.

Socialists never tire of talking about the tyranny of private capitalists, but they would do well to consider another kind of tyranny that socialism would inevitably set up, namely, the tyranny of state officials. It is perfectly clear that under socialism the number of officials—Fourier, the French socialist, significantly calls them "Omniarchs"—would be vastly increased. For consider what socialism means. It proposes to take over all the instruments of production, distribution, and exchange. The socialist street-corner speaker repeats this with a glib tongue, but not one agitator in a hundred can have the remotest conception of what it means.
To mentally compass such a phrase as "all the means of production, etc.," one must stretch the imagination. It means the control of all commodities in every city, town, and village in the country; the management of all the land, industries, and commerce; the working of all the mines, railways, roads, and canals; the charge of all imports and exports and all mercantile shipping; the tremendous burden of all municipal and local government—water and gas and tramways and motor traffic and omnibuses; the postal, telegraphic, and telephonic administrations; with the police, the army, and the navy. Remembering what Herbert Spencer has said, that the "cardinal trait in all advancing organisation is the development of the regulative apparatus," we get some faint glimmering of the vast bureaucratic system socialism would create.

A TRINITY OF EVILS.

Now, what would be the condition of the people under such a system? Continental countries have developed it to a far greater extent than we have. Germany is burdened with a bureaucracy of about 3,000,000 state officials, and France, with a much smaller population, has about 1,000,000. But everyone knows that officialism on the Continent is a curse. Four evils have been found to grow up with it—it establishes tyranny; it is inefficient; it encourages waste; and it makes for mediocrity. Tyranny, mediocrity, inefficiency, these will be the inevitable results of a socialist regime. Can we contemplate a more terrible trinity of evils?
What reason have we to suppose that bureaucracy would work out any better in this country under socialism? None whatever. The probability is that it would be much worse, because the interests of the official under socialism would be larger, and would consolidate more. Marriage, caste, favouritism, official status, and at hundred other things would unite the officials placed in power so that their strength would become irresistible. To quote Herbert Spencer once more, "a comparatively small body of officials, coherent, having common interests, and acting under central authority, has an immense advantage over incoherent public, which has no settled policy, and can be brought to act unitedly only under strong provocation. Hence an organisation of officials, once passing a certain stage of growth, becomes less and less resistible; as we see in the bureaucracies of the Continent." "Man v. the State," page 29.)

NO CHANCE OF REDRESS.

Let us suppose the socialist state firmly established. You as a worker have been allotted a place (without power of choice) in the industrial ranks. The state has said, "Do this or starve." Now, suppose you have some legitimate cause for complaint; maybe, against your fore. man or against a certain decision of the authorities. What chance of redress would you have? What means of voicing your protest? " No trades unions would exist to fight your battle; no free public press would exist to ventilate your grievance. Even to-day we know something of the haughtiness and brutality of officials. At the last annual conference of the United Government Workers' Federation, Mr. Clarke (Woolwich workers) said, "The Government was supposed to be democratic, but in administration it was autocratic." Thus it is clear that even to-day officialism is too strong to be brought under subjection at the bidding of highly organised workers. What will happen when there are a hundred officials for every one saddled upon us now? Think what encouragement would be given to selfish and callous men by the consciousness that they had the full strength of the his state behind them.

THE TYRANNY OF THE STATE.

Take another case. Suppose you could not conscientiously support the Socialist Government on some given point. Suppose you felt it was your duty to protest or rebel. How would the Government treat your protest? Is it possible, is it likely, that the state would be tolerant to those who might undermine its authority? Mr. Robert Blatchford, the editor of the "Clarion," complains that the socialists have persecuted him even now. What would be his fate then? Let the socialists themselves reply. Professor Karl Pearson says, in "The Ethics of Freethought," that "socialists have to inculcate that spirit which would give offenders against the state short shrift and the nearest lamp-post," and Mr. Webb, in "Socialism, True and False," states. "To suppose that the industrial affairs of a complicated industrial state can be run without strict subordination and discipline, without obedience to orders, and without definite allowances for maintenance, is to dream, not of socialism, but of anarchism." This means, if it means anything, that under socialism iron discipline would be necessary. Mr. John Spargo, an American socialist, admits that "Socialism may involve a hierarchical Government," and Dr. A. Chaaeffle, in his "Impossibility of Social Democracy," says, "What is impossible for all time is an improved democratic and exchanging collective production without firm hands to govern it." Even the persuasive Mr. H. G. Wells, in "New Worlds for Old," goes so far as to say, "A socialism might exist conceivably tyrannised over by state officials," which might lead to "a state of affairs scarcely less detestable than our own."'

THE ALL-PERVADING OFFICIAL.

Not only so, but socialism would set up another inquisition. Not a compartment of life would be left private from the irritating scrutiny of state officials, eager and interested to report cases. Every action would be subject to an awful and intolerable system of espionage. Any idle rumour—true or false— any common tittle-tattle, would be sufficient to set these paid state inspectors upon the track of the supposed offender. Everybody knows that the official is nearly always officious and over-anxious to justify his position. Under socialism every official would be a kind of policeman with a strong interest to produce a certain number of charges. Can we conceive, not only the tyranny, but the intrigue, corruption, blackmailing, and other sinister practices this would set up? Can we conceive anything more obnoxious, anti-social, and un-English? Think of our people, with their inborn love of liberty, doomed to such slavery. An Englishman's house is said to be his castle; socialism would convert it into a prison cell, with a spy-hole in the wall and an inspector's eye fixed there. What a prospect!

STATE MANAGEMENT INEFFICIENT.

As for the wastefulness and inefficiency under socialism, this is well illustrated. in the history of nearly all Government and municipal administration. Men who drop upon soft places generally fall asleep. The more entrenched and secure they become in positions of privilege, the less vigilant and painstaking they become in the public interest. The vice in all departmentalism is "red tape." The managers "do not see their way" to make a change. Exactly. They are blind. The permanent officials loathe change—and permanent officials dominate the position.
Referring to the Board of Trade's reluctance to supersede gas for oil as a lighthouse illuminant. Professor Tyndall humorously said, "It would be easier to reach the limit of illumination in the official mind than to fix the limit possible to our lighthouses." Tyndall's sarcasm was fully deserved. Corporate bodies and bureaucracies are ever tempted to consider the interests of their class, and not the interests of the general community. Monopolies as a rule grow intensely selfish. In France, the state has a monopoly in the manufacture of tobacco and matches. The tobacco is unsmokable, and the matches give out more smell than light. Yet socialism is essentially a class movement, and socialists would convert the state into one vast monopoly.

Examiner (Launceston, Tas. : 1900 - 1954), Tuesday 25 April 1911, page 7