At the Pan-Anglican Congress, when the subject of "Socialism and Christianity" was under discussion, there came on the platform one Mr. J. M. Ludlow, who was described as "the last survivor of the Socialism of 1848." This he by no means is, but he belongs to a class of enthusiasts, who freely spent their money and gave their time to the propagation of what they believed would produce a New Moral World. Mr. Ludlow was one among the Christian Socialists, and he said that his venerated master was Professor Maurice, whose Socialism meant "the bringing of men together into one community and force." We do not pretend to understand the definition, which is about as vague and useless as it well could be, but we may admire the earnestness of the men of those days, who had such a touching faith in human nature, and who made so many sacrifices for their creed. Mr. Holyoake, in his "History of Co-operation, says that "50 years ago men had profound faith in the near advent of a new condition of society"— that is, certain men — and as these words were written more than 30 years ago, we see that a century has nearly elapsed since there was a social movement far stronger and far more influential than anything that we see at the present day. On the other hand, there have been great advances made by the workers in the way of organisation, at least in Great Britain, but not much in the direction which the Socialists advocated or desired, nor even in the direction of the kind of co-operation which was so enthusiastically fought for by the author of the history from which we have quoted, and from which we can gather so much minute information as to the men and women who so heartily fought in a cause which they believed was to regenerate the world. A Socialistic poet has told us that "great thoughts go down like stars sublime," for he, too, was conscious of failure, but we may conclude that they do not go down unless there is some inherent defect in them which prevents them growing with the years into a great structure which can withstand the shocks of time and chance. What is the defect in these Socialistic ideas which has prevented the hopes of those who fought for them being realised, being, in fact, as far as we can see, as far from becoming an industrial principle as they were a hundred, or even thousands of years ago, for they are about as old as society itself? This seems to be really the one useful inquiry in connection with this industrial problem. We have already seen that the assumption of an all-wise State, as in Plato's Republic," More's "Utopia," "The City of the Sun," and the dozen of imaginary Societies, is unwarranted, for no such community has ever existed, so long as the State reflects public opinion and current intelligence. The consequent assumption, common to all ideal Societies, that the people will do only what the State ordains, and will do it without coercion, is demonstrably equally fallacious, so that the actual foundation of all these beautiful ideals vanishes as soon as it is examined by the clear light of the actual facts, as disclosed by the experience of all the ages since the world began. Thus, we see at once why the high hopes of the 30's and 40's were never realised, why Robert Owen, and others with him, spent their fortunes in vain, even though they had the help of the Church and the countenance of Royalty. No doubt, much has been done in one way, but it is not in the way which those enthusiasts desired or expected.
It is of importance that we should get at the facts, because there is a revival of the former beliefs, and the same fallacies and delusions are current which misled our fathers and their fathers before them. We are, indeed, going over the old ground, and in the belief that we are making a new path of our own. If one can see where the error is, we may prevent another era of fruitless endeavour, to end, perhaps, in another period of Imperial tyranny, which seems to be the usual way in which a crumbling society is reconstituted. If we take Holyoake's definition of Co-operation, and no one will doubt his entire sympathy with, and devotion to, the workers, we shall see at once how many fallacies are even now current, and how hopeless are many of the things now sought. He defines Co-operation to be :—" The right of the worker to a share of the common gain, in the proportion to which he contributes to it in capital, labour, or trade —by hand or head and this is the only equality that is meant." This is, of course, not Socialism in many of its aspects, but it may be regarded as what is the aim of many who are dissatisfied with the existing labour conditions. It is the best endeavour to unite Capital and Labour for the general welfare. But, it presents an initial difficulty of a formidable, practically insurmountable, character. How are we to determine what each contributes by his hand or his head ? Holyoake was not so foolish as to tell us that all wealth is the product of labour, for he has said that ignorance is the one great cause of poverty and failure, so that here at once we find ourselves face to face with the fundamental question whether the man who finds the capital, the brains to conceive, and the capacity to carry out, is to receive no more than the man who mechanically feeds a machine which a genius has invented and a capitalist has had the means and the intellect to provide, and the courage to take all the risks of a new industry, and the chance of finding a market. The definition is, no doubt, a strictly correct one of the only possibly practicable form of Co-operation, but, being so, it carries with it conclusions altogether opposed to many that are now current, and which may be said to be at the base of most of the Labour agitations. What is more, this so-called "typical agitator" has to tell his disciples that they are mistaken in their belief that they would be better off if they did not work for the Capitalist. He tells them that if they acted for themselves alone, and worked for themselves alone, "they would be mere savages, without food, except what they could catch or fight for." From all this we can only reach the conclusion that Capital and Labour must work together, so that the sole question is, what should be their respective shares in the products of industry. The assertion that all is due to Labour is false on the face of it, as we have seen many times already, for without Capital and Brains there can be no great industry, and least of all under modern conditions. There is nothing to prevent Labour finding both the Capital and the Brains, if it is educated enough to do so, but it will not get the Brains for nothing, nor will it get the necessary ability unless it is prepared to pay for it. And, thus we see, after a survey of all that has been done and hoped during the last hundred years, that we come back to where we started. The workers must work out their problems for themselves, by learning to closely apply the means which they possess, and by cultivation of those qualities which are absolutely necessary to the success of all industrial enterprises. The State can only remove obstacles in the way.
Mercury (Hobart, Tas. ), 1908, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article12682302
No comments:
Post a Comment