THE SOCIALISTIC IDEA OF "PERSONAL FREEDOM."

 [FOR THE TOCSIN.]

" 'English principles' mean a primary regard to the interests of property." Thus wrote Emerson in his ' English Traits,' and the remark holds equally good to-day. To us in Australia, and more especially to us who would lay the foundations or an Australian national life that will equal, if not eclipse, all that has been so far great in nationality, this remark of Emerson's should be suggestive of "Australian principles." What should our primary concern be? The interests of property ? No, certainly not. "Australian principles'' should mean a primary regard, not for the State, not for anything that is merely a means towards an end, but the welfare of the individual, which consists in the development of every faculty to the finest degree. And this can only be done by the socialisation, or communalisation, of material commodities, on which the development of the individual as an individual does not depend.

 Havelock Ellis has remarked on the tremendous waste of energy which results from the preparation of a thousand breakfasts when one would suffice. It is not a breakfast that helps the individual to develop. A breakfast merely keeps him alive. There is a vast difference between livelihood and life. The existence of the majority of the people is spent in struggling with the problem of livelihood, the problem of bread and butter; and it is only a Goethe, one man in a thousand, who, having the inclination, also has the opportunity of trying to find the perfect way, that is, to live life as finely and beautifully as possible. Perhaps, everyone will not have the same overmastering desire to live a Goethe life, but everyone should have the opportunity. It is this that lies behind Socialism, this idea of giving everyone an equal opportunity to live a perfect life, and all the much-abused, but wholly misunderstood, "domination of the Labour Party"  is but a means towards this great end.

 What does capitalism do for the living of the perfect life ? It acquiesces in free, compulsory and secular education and free libraries, and that is the most culture it will allow "the masses." Apart from that, it considers "the masses'' should be satisfied with their lot, for which they allege a divine sanction, when in truth the religion they nominally profess teaches just the reverse. And does the capitalist himself use his money to live the perfect life? Not he ! He spends the thousands which he has become possessed of in keeping race horses and yachts and courtesans. He does nothing for art, unless sometimes it is a freak of fashion to lionise some writer, painter, or musician, and then it is usually some posing mediocrity. Meanwhile the poet or inventor perishes, or else wears out his life as a miserable wage-earner, while his head is bursting with his great idea. The life of the average moneyed man or woman is spent in deadening every faculty of beauty and truth, in pursuing a glittering, aimless life, full of frivolity, superficiality, and inanity. The capitalist does not live life himself, and, as William Morris at the conclusion of his "News from Nowhere" says, he won't let other people live their lives either. Both the wage-lord and the wage-serf are deprived of real life under the capitalistic system, which is governed by " English Principles," which, as Emerson says, "mean a primary regard for the interests of property."

 Let us ask, What shall, "Australian principles " mean? And we make answer, the welfare of the individual and the maximum of personal freedom for everybody. The capitalistic apologist would have us believe that capitalism makes for greater personal freedom. In fact, a leaflet lately issued by the Victorian Employers' Federation talks of "the great Anglo-Saxon principle of personal freedom" as the " right to be as free in his work as in his religion." Now, in the first place, there is no such thing as freedom. It is an example of what is called medievalism, or absolutism, in thought to talk of "freedom" as if it were a self-existing entity. Freedom is as subject to relativity as anything else we can think of. And not only does this freedom vary with circumstances, but the word means different things when applied, first to work, and then to religion. Under the present state of affairs, the so-called freedom in work is not freedom at all. Work is the name we give to the process of having to subject the whole of our existence to some task or other, congenial or distasteful, merely to get in return the necessaries to live. Maxim Ghorki somewhere asks Why do we work? To get the necessaries to live. And why do we live? To be able to work. What's the good of that ? we all ask. No good at all. It is not life to be thus eternally going round in a circle and never getting anywhere, Yet it is for this that the capitalist, in a burst of altruism, beautiful to behold, would preserve the " personal freedom " of the worker or wage-earner. This is the doctrine of political individualism, which the capitalist, or his apologist, confuses so artlessly with personal individuality, or the right of the individual to work out his own destiny as well as he may. What has happened here, the logician will tell you, is an ambiguous using of terms. In one place the word "freedom" is used to refer to material things, to the securing of the necessaries of life, and in another place it means the development of a person's individuality, his mind, heart and soul. The material and spiritual aspects of life have been confused by these capitalistic apostles of "personal freedom."

 To allow the capitalist to be "unhampered by Legislative interference" will no doubt make for "personal freedom,'' but when the worker has got that particular brand of "personal freedom" he will be so free that he won't be able to call his soul his own. Mark those words: "To call his soul his own." They mean something, and that something is the Socialistic idea of personal freedom, an idea superior to the capitalistic idea, because it is purged of materialism, and reflects with the light of a higher conception of life. And if "Australian principles '' become synonymous with such a purified idea of " personal freedom," Australia will have taken a great step — a sort of giant's stride — forward.             LERLI.

Tocsin (Melbourne, Vic. ) 1903 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article201770378